test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Diplomacy... i think the Devs "did not get it". (constructive inside)

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
In the Interview that is just now on the frontpage (Jack Emmert On The Big Freaks),
he seemed rather confused what to do with Diplomacy to "make it FUN".

Like it was some sort of game mechanic like "Exploration Missions" go and make a "Diplomacy Missions" without shooting... but how to make that sh*t fun?

I catched something like "No other game ever made Diplomacy fun"....

uuuh? *thinks of Relief Effort-Missions*
OK he's got a point there!



I did not study what the Forums said about Diplomacy when people demanded it.
Just noticed everyone saying it was missing and it is not ok that we are the Federation of Mass Murder.


So please, explain in this Thread (in a constructive way please) how would you like to see Diplomacy in THIS GAME... how to implement it and how to make it something FUN.

I dont want anymore boring talking missions hitting F F F F F to get through them...
I dont want anymore Relief Efforts fails...

***

my take on Diplomacy is a basic mechanic in the Battles.
No extra Missions designed arround the core idea of Diplomacy.

Why do i have to kill every Ship & Crew that i fight?
Isn't it enough to disable them or make them surrender?

Worf: "They are firing Disruptors, Shields at 99.5%"
Picard: *sigh* "Hail them..."
Worf: *klick* *waits half a second* "No answer, Sir! They are firing again... Shields at 98%"
Picard: "...oh well, then let them have some Lightballs *yawn* Fire..... Fire.... Fire..."
Worf: *makes PEW PEW PEW sound* "their Shields and Weapons are disabled"
Picard: "yeah kk Hail them morons now..."
Worf: *klick* *waits 5 seconds* "On screen!"
Picard: "Surrender and beam over all your Loot... OR ELSE!!!"

Diplomacy = not to murder EVERYONE in the game....
for Klingons it's fine, they want their glorious Death, let them have it!
Jem'Hadar are mindless Soldiers following orders of their Gods, no surrender there either.

But Gorn? Orions? Romulans? Cardassians???.... i am pretty sure they would surrender at SOME point... at least SOME of them.



### constructive part here: ###

1: Hail Them Skill

- passive Captains Skill so that you dont have to press another button all the time.
"Hail them"-Skill has a low chance of the enemy Ship surrendering.
- Chance is increasing the more damage the enemy Ship has taken, meaning a ship with 10% hull is more likely to surrender then a ship with 50% Hull left.
- Klingons and Jem Hadar are immune to the Skill so they can "die with honor".
- Ships that have surrendered will launch Escape Pods (gfx is allready existing on Selfdestruct skill) and be lootable, they will not be targetable anymore for Players and start drifting on their heads so you can loot them later, once looted the ship disapears. (so that you dont have 1000 wrecks flying arround in fleet actions... poor FPS)


2: Surrender Skill (button, PvE and PvP)
- if you know you die you can hit a surrender skill
- Surrender makes you respawn just like when you explode, but without the upcomming severity of the announced Death Penalty (whatever that look like)
- Surrender has a HIGH chance to fail depending on Faction... Klingons, WILL KILL YOU! Romulans may let you live.

In PvP Hail Them-Skill and Surrender-Skill can be added together.


3: "Fake surrender"-Skill
- Same as Surrender only that you fake it and repair your Ship until you can attack again.
- makes any targets in the area immune to any further Surrender or Fake Surrender attempts.
...this also only makes sense if there is a good Death Penalty!


This was only for space so far... on Ground Missions you could just make Klingons throw away their weapons and run away like screaming girls... or something like that :D


***
You see, i dont want boring talking missions.
Well at least not as long as there are no Voiceovers and no multiple choice dialogues...
hitting FFFFF Text Boxes away only makes me go KHAAAAAAAAN!

Make it a part of the every day work like it should be, not just a special random mission type in Sectorblock XYZ that i can completely ignore.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Also I'd like to add that whatever system you come up with it NEEDS to work with a group. If your system involves the group leader talking to the enemy while the other four guys just hang around and twiddle their thumbs then it's not fun for them.

    Also a system where each captiain gets his own diplomacy minigame/convo tree/abstract diplomacy system doesn't work because one captain might want to beam down to a planet and help cure the spreading disease and another might want to torpedo it from orbit to stop it from spreading.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    aawww... you didnt even read the clearly as "constructive" marked part ... no cookie for you
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Also I'd like to add that whatever system you come up with it NEEDS to work with a group. If your system involves the group leader talking to the enemy while the other four guys just hang around and twiddle their thumbs then it's not fun for them.

    Also a system where each captiain gets his own diplomacy minigame/convo tree/abstract diplomacy system doesn't work because one captain might want to beam down to a planet and help cure the spreading disease and another might want to torpedo it from orbit to stop it from spreading.

    The mechanics of team play is why Diplomacy missions are taking so long to be inserted into the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    *sigh* my complete posting is about how i do NOT want boring "Diplomacy Missions" but suggest a fun way to implement Diplomacy in the general Mass Murder Gameplay.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Z3R0B4NG wrote: »
    aawww... you didnt even read the clearly as "constructive" marked part ... no cookie for you

    I was trying to be constructive, really. I am honestly totally blanking on how to make a multiplayer diplomacy system. Seriously I've been trying to figure out a way to do it for weeks, almost months. I have no idea how to do it. But if anybody comes up with ideas they really need to make sure that they work in multiplayer because a lot of people will say "well just do it like mass effect" or "just do it like oblivion" and neither of those systems work in a multiplayer setting.

    My only possibly solution would be that there is an integrated voting system in the party as to what to say to the other faction that you're talking to, and that the leader would have the tie breaking vote should it come to that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I think there are A LOT of things that the Devs, "Don't Get."
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    What it boils down to is getting two sides to compromise on a peaceful solution to a point of contention that has brought them to the brink of war. Maybe it's me, but I just don't see a way to make a fun game mechanic out of that.

    Take this this community as an example. We are so easily divided (polarized) over small things (laser colors and swimwear) that it will be an interesting and challenging endeavor for the DEVs. If they can pull off making diplomacy missions fun, well they will have gone where no MMO has gone before. I wish them all the very best on it though.

    My lame attempt at leaving something constructive is this. "The Undiscovered Country" would be my guess for a blue-print for these types of missions. Although Picard's Enterprise offers multitudes of different examples, there always seemed to me that some sort of action going on in the foreground with the diplomacy in the background of the main story plot. Key phrase "seemed to me." That's about all I got though.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Let me clearify... i dont say that i dont want "Diplomacy Missions" at all.

    Once they have Voiceovers and Multiple Choice dialouges like Mass Effect i am all for it.
    But *FFFFF Text Box Away* is not fun at all and i dont need Missions that evolve arround the one weakest component of the Game.


    What i want is a sense of Diplomacy in the general Gameplay.

    In the Battles... let me Surrender before i die (so the not yet implemented Death Penalty does not get me)
    Give me a chance to hail the enemy ship and make them Surrender before i kill another 500 People on that ship, only because their Captain is a TRIBBLE, which may save me 3 seconds of firing before it explodes and let me turn to the next Target.


    This can work aswell in PvP (Surrender might not be so good with Klingons in mind).

    But that is the general idea -> including diplomatic stuff in a fun way to the day to day gameplay without making it IN YOUR FACE *Diplomatic Mission* in Sectorblock XYZ right here... if you dont like Text Boxes go back to your Relief Effort.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I was trying to be constructive, really. I am honestly totally blanking on how to make a multiplayer diplomacy system. Seriously I've been trying to figure out a way to do it for weeks, almost months. I have no idea how to do it. But if anybody comes up with ideas they really need to make sure that they work in multiplayer because a lot of people will say "well just do it like mass effect" or "just do it like oblivion" and neither of those systems work in a multiplayer setting.

    My only possibly solution would be that there is an integrated voting system in the party as to what to say to the other faction that you're talking to, and that the leader would have the tie breaking vote should it come to that.

    There's no real reason why it should be that much different than a single player diplomacy system.

    Part of the issue here is that we're all commanders of our ships instead of one of us being the captain and the rest being senior officers. However, someone is the group leader.

    Add in an option like the loot system for the team settings for diplomacy. "Captain's Prerogative", "Briefing Room", "Round Robin", "Vote", etc. There could be a secondary selection similar to the rarity option for loot that is linked to Severity of the diplomatic choice.

    Captain's Prerogative would be the group leader picks all diplomacy choices on their own.

    Briefing Room could be done many ways, though I'm sure many would love actually having their captains meeting in a room and then when they've decided the group leader goes to a monitor on the wall to activate the agreed dialogue.

    Round Robin could let the various captains just take turns on diplomatic issues and making the decisions. (don't know if this one would be used much, just tossing it out there)

    Vote is fairly self-explanatory.

    Regardless of how they intend to do it, adding diplomacy is probably going to take a lot of work for them to do it right.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Z3R0B4NG wrote: »
    ...What i want is a sense of Diplomacy in the general Gameplay....
    I think you want something like this, but also in space combat, and not just on the ground. Well, I'd love that too. :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    The very first moment members were calling for "Diplomacy" missions, I knew it would be trouble, and STO's mechanics would probably not allow for it. (and feared the Dev's would waste time on it)

    Maybe in some cut-scene heavy, dialogue-driven storytelling RPG like a Bioware game, you can do real "diplomacy," but the best you could hope for within STO's setup would be token dialogue choices "live" or "die," "surrender" or "fight," then onto the usual combat. Still, at least that's something. (though really, such token diplomatic choices wouldn't change the outcome in the grand scheme of things; might avoid a battle here or there, and would function more as personal RP than any real, functional story-changing device -- but it would be quick and easy to do; just a few dialogue choices)


    IMO, they should spend their time making the combat more varied, keep setting it in Trek locales w/ Trek themes, and when necessary, fix/tweak certain "massacre" missions so they are not so non-Federation-like. (Ferengi bar space station mission that appalled so many -- just give all the patrons weapons -- problem fixed; you were defending yourself)


    Think of some of the more enjoyable storyline missions in STO. The combat there was fine, wasn't it? It wasn't "too much." If all (or even just most) of the combat was like that, no one would complain, and probably no one would be calling for "diplomacy" missions.

    If people still call for Diplomacy after more varied, interesting, meaningful storyline combat is added, then they're probably the types that would say Elite Force had too much shooting in it.


    :rolleyes:

    My real concern is, do you really think Cryptic can take the time and energy to work on real 'diplomacy' missions (from scratch) when there's so much more that needs addressed first, and which they can do with the pre-existing mechanics and setup?


    EDIT: Think also, of pretty much most science/exploration/diplomatic stories from Trek... most still had combat, or the threat of combat in them. This is a game, the main selling point is captaining a ship and battling in space (and ground - yuck).


    .
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Z3R0B4NG wrote: »
    Let me clearify... i dont say that i dont want "Diplomacy Missions" at all.

    Once they have Voiceovers and Multiple Choice dialouges like Mass Effect i am all for it.
    But *FFFFF Text Box Away* is not fun at all and i dont need Missions that evolve arround the one weakest component of the Game.


    What i want is a sense of Diplomacy in the general Gameplay.

    In the Battles... let me Surrender before i die (so the not yet implemented Death Penalty does not get me)
    Give me a chance to hail the enemy ship and make them Surrender before i kill another 500 People on that ship, only because their Captain is a TRIBBLE, which may save me 3 seconds of firing before it explodes and let me turn to the next Target.


    This can work aswell in PvP (Surrender might not be so good with Klingons in mind).

    But that is the general idea -> including diplomatic stuff in a fun way to the day to day gameplay without making it IN YOUR FACE *Diplomatic Mission* in Sectorblock XYZ right here... if you dont like Text Boxes go back to your Relief Effort.

    You're not being very diplomatic.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Here are a few ideas -

    Ground-
    Starfleet sends you to negotiate some sort of deal with a planet. You go and negotiate with them, perhaps they are hostile, you have options of being diplomatic and talking your way out, or if you *are* bloodthirsty, you can kill them/ what have you. Different bonuses and dialogue for either path.

    Space-
    You travel to a planet or encounter a ship of some sort. You have the option to hail, if they don't respond combat ensues. Hailing can be a skill as was mentioned before. The more damage you do the higher chance that they will answer your hails. Once they do, you are transported to the bridge, on the viewscreen you can see your adversary and discuss surrender, or again have the option to fire everything and kill them. Should they decide not to surrender the game loads the ship's stats prior to going to the bridge and you can destroy them. This allows options and bridge integration, without having to add bridge view combat etc.

    Exploration-
    Combination of the above two types, as well as another option:
    You travel to an unknown planet and attempt to communicate with them. Perhaps they require supplies or aid of some kind. You beam down and negotiate a deal with them. Perhaps it was a trap, and you can attempt to talk your way out, perhaps a third party interferes, etc. At any rate you then can return to sol/hail starfleet and report on your finds, then head to a nearby starbase to pick up supplies to bring to the planet, etc.

    For shipboard stuff, I think *all* diplomatic missions should transport you to your bridge for conversation. On ground you can just go to see the person, etc. I'll see about making a mock up image to demonstrate what I'm talking about.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    The Problem with multiple choice is that choices may carry over to the next Mission.

    So if Player One killed Bob the Bartender and Player Two did not.
    And in the next Mission you go to the same place and Bob either helps you or isn't there to help you.
    What will happen if Player One and Two are in a Team?

    Diplomacy with diffrent outcomes in Story Missions, not going to happen!


    Also People who call for "Diplomacy Missions" are realy just annoyed that the Federation have become mass murderers.
    Changing the overall feel of the game by introducing Surrender options, without destroying the enemy Ship would do a lot to get rid of this murder feeling.

    We are still at War here people, the real Diplomacy is done by the Heads of the Federation and Klingon Empires... not by us little Captains.
    What do you think will happen if you have done that Diplomacy Mission? Peace with the Klingons? No more PvP? LoL.
    The best we can do is to avoid killing every single Ship we see, but in this game i just dont have any choice but to kill everyone.

    No Phasers on Stun! No Surrender!
    Selfdestruct to damage the enemy is fine... but dont even think about saving your Crew before you go down fighting!

    Also with Death Penalty coming soon it might be a good idea to be able to Surrender, if you know you die, so that the Death Penalty will be lowered by 75%.


    That is all the Diplomacy i want.

    Oh... and it would be easy to implement... almost no work... 3 new Skills and one new animation.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Z3R0B4NG wrote: »
    The Problem with multiple choice is that choices may carry over to the next Mission.

    So if Player One killed Bob the Bartender and Player Two did not.
    And in the next Mission you go to the same place and Bob either helps you or isn't there to help you.
    What will happen if Player One and Two are in a Team?

    Diplomacy with diffrent outcomes in Story Missions, not going to happen!


    Also People who call for "Diplomacy Missions" are realy just annoyed that the Federation have become mass murderers.
    Changing the overall feel of the game by introducing Surrender options, without destroying the enemy Ship would do a lot to get rid of this murder feeling.

    We are still at War here people, the real Diplomacy is done by the Heads of the Federation and Klingon Empires... not by us little Captains.
    What do you think will happen if you have done that Diplomacy Mission? Peace with the Klingons? No more PvP? LoL.
    The best we can do is to avoid killing every single Ship we see, but in this game i just dont have any choice but to kill everyone.

    No Phasers on Stun! No Surrender!
    Selfdestruct to damage the enemy is fine... but dont even think about saving your Crew before you go down fighting!

    Also with Death Penalty coming soon it might be a good idea to be able to Surrender, if you know you die, so that the Death Penalty will be lowered by 75%.

    That is all the Diplomacy i want.

    Oh... and it would be easy to implement... almost no work... 3 new Skills and one new animation.

    I recognize stuff is limited, Multiple outcomes should be more for "exploration" or single story missions that do not carry over. Choices should be in all though. Look at suspect. Not every episode in Star Trek carried over into the next one.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    LordOfPit wrote: »
    I think you want something like this, but also in space combat, and not just on the ground. Well, I'd love that too. :D

    good read, but i think he asks for too much.
    All i ask is 3 skills resulting in one animation that can change the overall feel of the game.
    He asks for half the game beeing redone somehow.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Z3R0B4NG wrote: »
    The Problem with multiple choice is that choices may carry over to the next Mission.

    So if Player One killed Bob the Bartender and Player Two did not.
    And in the next Mission you go to the same place and Bob either helps you or isn't there to help you.
    What will happen if Player One and Two are in a Team?

    Diplomacy with diffrent outcomes in Story Missions, not going to happen!


    Also People who call for "Diplomacy Missions" are realy just annoyed that the Federation have become mass murderers.
    Changing the overall feel of the game by introducing Surrender options, without destroying the enemy Ship would do a lot to get rid of this murder feeling.

    We are still at War here people, the real Diplomacy is done by the Heads of the Federation and Klingon Empires... not by us little Captains.
    What do you think will happen if you have done that Diplomacy Mission? Peace with the Klingons? No more PvP? LoL.
    The best we can do is to avoid killing every single Ship we see, but in this game i just dont have any choice but to kill everyone.

    No Phasers on Stun! No Surrender!
    Selfdestruct to damage the enemy is fine... but dont even think about saving your Crew before you go down fighting!

    Also with Death Penalty coming soon it might be a good idea to be able to Surrender, if you know you die, so that the Death Penalty will be lowered by 75%.


    That is all the Diplomacy i want.

    Oh... and it would be easy to implement... almost no work... 3 new Skills and one new animation.

    I would imagine this would appease a lot really, but not every situation we go into is a war situation. Also, I might be the Captain of my ship, but I'm still an Admiral in rank and grade.

    Always bugs me in B'tran when I get authorized "weapons free". I know he's a higher Admiral, but he's still an Admiral...and since when am I *not* authorized weapons free? Seems like I'm never required to 'stand down'
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Z3R0B4NG wrote: »
    good read, but i think he asks for too much.
    All i ask is 3 skills resulting in one animation that can change the overall feel of the game.
    He asks for half the game being redone somehow.
    Essentially, since most of these games are script-driven rather than hard-coded, I think it'd be an awesome thing if Cryptic modified the game to first employ your approach, and gradually add things up to where the other thread strives to go. You know... boldly go where no MMO has gone before... literally? :D

    Just imagine an MMO that lets you "capture" the enemy instead of just killing it. Who knows, perhaps these "captured" enemies could then become triggers for even more content.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Many responses hit on why I actually like the fact Diplomacy wasn't in game at launch. Because if they screwed it up, then (at least to me) they would be in a worse position then just not having it. At least this way, they can implement it from the start to be what we want, without having to either Overhaul the system, or scrap it entirely. Doing either, could potentially TRIBBLE up many different things in the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    To me, adding Diplomacy would be just a matter of giving players choices.

    Instead of having only one outcome to every mission, make some missions with multiple outcomes depending on the choices you made. What if, in that mission for Section 31 (can't remember what it's called right now) you had a choice to call the Admiral out before you wiped out the entire base full of Romulans? You might be able to stop her from infiltrating the Romulan forces. You might be able to convince the Romulans through some diplomatic method to believe you when you tell them that there is an Undine trying to infiltrate their ranks. Skills like diplomacy, Intimidation, Interrogation and bartering could all be useful in such situations.

    A successful roll could mean that you convince them and they assist you in taking out the Undine threat. Failure could mean that they fire on you and you are forced to defend yourself anyway. That's all. It's not a matter of making completely new missions. It's a matter of making the missions that we have adjustable to the decisions of the captain in that situation.

    That's how I used to do it with the PnP games. I never used straight modules because that was so linear. It never gave the players the ability to make different choices and go in different directions. I used to write out completely alternate story lines that would come into play if and when a player decided to do something not covered by the module. I would do the same thing if I were developing an online game.

    Anyway that's my take on it.


    :cool:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Several different systems were suggested already.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    So far, alll of the thing suggested just make me want to yawn. I don't see anything suggested that will make STO more engaging or more fun. I am not suggesting it not be attempted. What I am suggesting is that the bar is already set pretty high for any sort of Diplomatic system to work within the context of STO....and none of the suggestion reach that bar in my opinion.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Gruug wrote: »
    So far, alll of the thing suggested just make me want to yawn.

    So far, all the pewpew just make me want to yawn.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Mr Emmert seem suprised and baffled by the Diplomacy demand from STO customers.
    His statement about no good diplomacy systems in other MMOs increased my concern.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Delazure wrote: »
    Several different systems were suggested already.

    The ME diplomacy / intimidation system I can see. The reputation? I don't know. The card game? I'd rather go with the diplomacy / intimidation system.

    No offense, but I can't see Sisko hailing a beaten up Cardassian Galor and inviting the captain over for a game of blackjack to see if his ship is spared or not.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Mr Emmert seem suprised and baffled by the Diplomacy demand from STO customers.
    His statement about no good diplomacy systems in under MMOs increased my concern.

    Indeed I think it explains a lot : Jack Emmert is in charge and finds diplomacy boring. Zinc is in charge and admitted that what he likes in STO is to blow up stuff with big torpedoes. No wonder this game turned into a shoot-them-up. A large number of players asked for more non combat before closed beta, during closed beta, during open beta, during head start and since launch and YET they had to make this survey to be sure. They obviously still can't believe it and frankly I'm sure they don't like it. And yes, it worries me too.

    Hey Cryptic, we are serious about it, this is not a practical joke : there are players who play your video game and who don't want to shoot at every pixel during hours. I know, it's outrageous, the government should probably put us in a cell, but until then we are your customers too. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    gx4th wrote: »
    No offense, but I can't see Sisko hailing a beaten up Cardassian Galor and inviting the captain over for a game of blackjack to see if his ship is spared or not.

    I don't either. As far as I know, no one asked for diplomacy to be possible all the time. There are many situations when diplomacy should not be applicable or even work. Maybe they can limit it to new exploration missions for instance.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I think Mr Emmert and Mr Zinc should start listening to some of the advice from Dev Mods on the forum.
    I noticed some of the Mods love Star Trek.
    I don't feel that love or understanding of the product from Mr Emmert or Mr Zinc that the Dev Mods show.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Delazure wrote: »
    I don't either. As far as I know, no one asked for diplomacy to be possible all the time. There are many situations when diplomacy should not be applicable or even work. Maybe they can limit it to new exploration missions for instance.

    The suggestion I liked was the mass effect style persuade / intimidate system. One side goes up while the other goes down. Persuade 5 ships of a certain race to leave the system? +5 persuade, -5 intimidate. So on, so forth.

    If persuade / intimidate doesn't work, no sway, at least you tried :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I think Mr Emmert and Mr Zinc should start listening to some of the advice from Dev Mods on the forum.
    I noticed some of the Mods love Star Trek.

    On the French forum, the players complain regularly about the pewpew overdose too and the mod told us that there are indeed pro-diplomacy devs and mods and said we should keep asking. Obviously, we're not alone but the big guys are really not excited about it. I think the best way to make diplomacy terrible is to let those who don't like it decide how it should work. Let those who like it design it, they'll probably do something better than the average FPS addict.
Sign In or Register to comment.