203 réponses à ce sujet

[Godeskian]

wizardryforever wrote...Neutrals can solve the situation, they just can't have their cake and eat it too. 

The question becomes, why not. After all, Paragons and Renegades can have their cake and eat it too, why make an exception for neutrality.

[Tony Gunslinger]

I think a lot of you are blowing this out of proportion. A full-on paragon or renegade character should have benefits over characters who are in-between. The ability to charm/intimidate is a luxury that you work for, not a standard option whenever you feel like it. Is it really fair that a Shepard who did a few bad things can C/I Miranda and Jack the same way as a Shepard who worked hard to be a consistent leader? IRL, is it fair that a co-worker of yours get the same bonus as you even though you know he slacked off more than you did?

If you like to be a hero but think it's funny to shoot an injured merc or let a Batarian die to grab his loot, then you don't deserve to be a hero. Similarily, if you like to be a badass and yet you want everyone to like you, you're not much of a badass. Long story short, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

ME2 is about a suicide mission, you are recruting people who may die. To have everyone survive is suicide mission is extraordinary, to have a few of your squadmates die is the norm. The morality system plays a big part on who live and who dies, you're complaining that on one hand you can game it for the max result, yet on the other hand, you don't like the choices you make when you're gaming the system.

If you know that there is a Miranda/Jack crisis, what was your reason that kept you from doing it so late in the game in the first place? Because you think Jack is a useless member and you don't need her upgrades that much, therefore other loyaly missions were more important? That's not role-playing, that's power-gaming. If you wanted to make it a "canon" experience, then do the loyaty missions the moment they pop up.

Furthermore, the morailty system is a lot more flexible than you think. Moments like joking during Samara's mission gives you a measely +2 renegade, and those instances are not going ruin a generally high paragon. On NG+ went renegae on Zaeed's mission, Jacob's mission, headbutted Uvek, destroyed the heretics, and still managed to save everyone.

The legitimate complains I have are post-suicide mission and that screws up the DLCs.

[wizardryforever]

There has to be some benefit to playing an extremophile, whether a goody-two shoes or a jerkass.  It's about realism, I think.  Think about it, if someone who has a reputation for being ruthless or mean, or just a general jerk tried to persuade you of the error of your ways using compassion and appeal to emotion, would you listen?  Likewise, if someone with a reputation for being a kind-hearted, forgiving, overall naive person tried to intimidate you with threats of bodily harm or with taunts, would it work?  That's what they're going for, I think.  If a person is neither, then they are not particularly good at doing either charming or intimidating, and thus can't do it if the target would only be swayed by someone extreme.

I don't think a skillpoint system would be better, really.  The way things are your actions determine who your character is, and thus how you roleplay shapes your character.  With arbitrary skill point distribution, it gives you a free pass to ignore the choices your character has made up to that point, ignore what made them who they are.  This is counter to role-playing IMO.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 08 octobre 2010 - 10:33 .

[Lumikki]

Not much to say. OP is one of those who expect they allways have that 100% change to get what they want. Meaning players who can't handle negative outcome by they past choises.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 octobre 2010 - 10:34 .

[Godeskian]

False dichotomy Wizardryforever, it presumes that the only two effective modes to lead are by being a ruthless meanie, or kind hearted hero. Speaking as both a manager of people and someone who has spent much of my life studying leadership, I garantuee you that is not always, or even often the case.

Someone who has the flexibility to approach a situation from whatever angle is most advantageous at that time will in the long run almost always have an advantage over someone who can only do things one way. A person who can be a hard-ass when needed, and a compassionate understanding man when needed, and a friend when needed, and a boss when needed, is far more useful than someone who can only be one thing because not everyone reacts to the same pressures.

[GuardianAngel470]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

I think a lot of you are blowing this out of proportion. A full-on paragon or renegade character should have benefits over characters who are in-between. The ability to charm/intimidate is a luxury that you work for, not a standard option whenever you feel like it. Is it really fair that a Shepard who did a few bad things can C/I Miranda and Jack the same way as a Shepard who worked hard to be a consistent leader? IRL, is it fair that a co-worker of yours get the same bonus as you even though you know he slacked off more than you did?

If you like to be a hero but think it's funny to shoot an injured merc or let a Batarian die to grab his loot, then you don't deserve to be a hero. Similarily, if you like to be a badass and yet you want everyone to like you, you're not much of a badass. Long story short, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

ME2 is about a suicide mission, you are recruting people who may die. To have everyone survive is suicide mission is extraordinary, to have a few of your squadmates die is the norm. The morality system plays a big part on who live and who dies, you're complaining that on one hand you can game it for the max result, yet on the other hand, you don't like the choices you make when you're gaming the system.

If you know that there is a Miranda/Jack crisis, what was your reason that kept you from doing it so late in the game in the first place? Because you think Jack is a useless member and you don't need her upgrades that much, therefore other loyaly missions were more important? That's not role-playing, that's power-gaming. If you wanted to make it a "canon" experience, then do the loyaty missions the moment they pop up.

Furthermore, the morailty system is a lot more flexible than you think. Moments like joking during Samara's mission gives you a measely +2 renegade, and those instances are not going ruin a generally high paragon. On NG+ went renegae on Zaeed's mission, Jacob's mission, headbutted Uvek, destroyed the heretics, and still managed to save everyone.

The legitimate complains I have are post-suicide mission and that screws up the DLCs.

No, but it is fair for a shep who has a 90% paragon bar and 60% renegade bar, who has worked for those stats, to actually be able to use them.

And you must not have read the OP. My complaint isn't about the squad conflicts so much as it is about the stupid system that Bioware chose to us. They don't register the number of points you have for paragon/renegade checks, they register how may you could have but don't. They use a percentage system that is never explained and that I have to come to the forums to learn about.  The paragon and renegade bars are meaningless, as stated by the devs. 

The fact that so many guides and walkthroughs detail that you need better than 90% paragon to pass the Jack/Miranda fight is proof of how stupid the system is because they are wrong.  I had 90% paragon and 60% renegade when I did the Tela Vasir confrontion in LotSB but neither option could be used.

[Markinator_123]

It is shame that Bioware rewarded one-dimensional Shepards (Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid Shepards). Shepard should be a flexible individual who react to situations on a case-by-case basis. The fact that a complete naive-goodie-shoes or complete jerkface leads to the best persuasion options upsets me.

[GuardianAngel470]

Godeskian wrote...

False dichotomy Wizardryforever, it presumes that the only two effective modes to lead are by being a ruthless meanie, or kind hearted hero. Speaking as both a manager of people and someone who has spent much of my life studying leadership, I garantuee you that is not always, or even often the case.
Someone who has the flexibility to approach a situation from whatever angle is most advantageous at that time will in the long run almost always have an advantage over someone who can only do things one way. A person who can be a hard-ass when needed, and a compassionate understanding man when needed, and a friend when needed, and a boss when needed, is far more useful than someone who can only be one thing because not everyone reacts to the same pressures.

I agree. Name for me an effective military sergeant that is either/or.

[wizardryforever]

wizardryforever wrote...

There has to be some benefit to playing an extremophile, whether a goody-two shoes or a jerkass.  It's about realism, I think.  Think about it, if someone who has a reputation for being ruthless or mean, or just a general jerk tried to persuade you of the error of your ways using compassion and appeal to emotion, would you listen?  Likewise, if someone with a reputation for being a kind-hearted, forgiving, overall naive person tried to intimidate you with threats of bodily harm or with taunts, would it work?  That's what they're going for, I think.  If a person is neither, then they are not particularly good at doing either charming or intimidating, and thus can't do it if the target would only be swayed by someone extreme.

I don't think a skillpoint system would be better, really.  The way things are your actions determine who your character is, and thus how you roleplay shapes your character.  With arbitrary skill point distribution, it gives you a free pass to ignore the choices your character has made up to that point, ignore what made them who they are.  This is counter to role-playing IMO.

This is the core of my argument Godeskian.  Of course neutral characters can try it, and even be successful if the target is receptive to you.  But intelligent people, people with strong personalities, or people who are experiencing strong emotions will be harder to influence that way unless your actions in the past lend credence to your attempt.  It wouldn't be hard to charm or intimidate a random person or merchant into liking you, but it would be to convince someone that their entire outlook on life is flawed, or that they have more to fear from you than their scary employers.

[GuardianAngel470]

Lumikki wrote...

Not much to say. OP is one of those who expect they allways have that 100% change to get what they want. Meaning players who can't handle negative outcome by they past choises.

So you agree with using a percentage system to base paragon and renegade checks on? You agree that it is a good idea to use a system that is never explained to the player and displaying misleading info like the morality bars? You think that instead of basing charm and intimidate on practice a player has with either you should make it based on how much practice the player doesn't have?

[Godeskian]

wizardryforever wrote...
This is the core of my argument Godeskian. Of course neutral characters can try it, and even be successful if the target is receptive to you. But intelligent people, people with strong personalities, or people who are experiencing strong emotions will be harder to influence that way unless your actions in the past lend credence to your attempt. It wouldn't be hard to charm or intimidate a random person or merchant into liking you, but it would be to convince someone that their entire outlook on life is flawed, or that they have more to fear from you than their scary employers.

Being neutral in this context is not the same as being a wimp without a strong personality. Being neutral in this context is someone capable of being either a renegade or a paragon as the situation demands, like leaders in the real world have to be. Flexibility, rather than rigidness in outlook.

The best leaders in the real world are simply NOT one trick ponies, the way a paragon/renegade is forced to be if they want maximum success.

As GuardianAngel said, name me a drill sergeant who doesn't understand this.

Modifié par Godeskian, 08 octobre 2010 - 10:54 .

[GuardianAngel470]

wizardryforever wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

There has to be some benefit to playing an extremophile, whether a goody-two shoes or a jerkass.  It's about realism, I think.  Think about it, if someone who has a reputation for being ruthless or mean, or just a general jerk tried to persuade you of the error of your ways using compassion and appeal to emotion, would you listen?  Likewise, if someone with a reputation for being a kind-hearted, forgiving, overall naive person tried to intimidate you with threats of bodily harm or with taunts, would it work?  That's what they're going for, I think.  If a person is neither, then they are not particularly good at doing either charming or intimidating, and thus can't do it if the target would only be swayed by someone extreme.

I don't think a skillpoint system would be better, really.  The way things are your actions determine who your character is, and thus how you roleplay shapes your character.  With arbitrary skill point distribution, it gives you a free pass to ignore the choices your character has made up to that point, ignore what made them who they are.  This is counter to role-playing IMO.

This is the core of my argument Godeskian.  Of course neutral characters can try it, and even be successful if the target is receptive to you.  But intelligent people, people with strong personalities, or people who are experiencing strong emotions will be harder to influence that way unless your actions in the past lend credence to your attempt.  It wouldn't be hard to charm or intimidate a random person or merchant into liking you, but it would be to convince someone that their entire outlook on life is flawed, or that they have more to fear from you than their scary employers.

You are still ignoring the OP. This isn't about how much practice a player has with charming and intimidating. This isn't about how strongly they believe one way or the other. this is about how the system DOESNT work that way. It DOESN'T register how much practice you have, it registers something completely different and completely artificial.  In real life there is no percentage for how many times you were nice or mean compared to how many times you could have been nice or mean, there is practice. There is your core personality, how much conviction you have for one or the other and how much practice you have at making it convincing. The ME2 morality system DOESN'T work that way.

[GuardianAngel470]

Markinator_123 wrote...

It is shame that Bioware rewarded one-dimensional Shepards (Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid Shepards). Shepard should be a flexible individual who react to situations on a case-by-case basis. The fact that a complete naive-goodie-shoes or complete jerkface leads to the best persuasion options upsets me.

Honestly, if this game were realistic, Neutrals would be the best option as not everyone can be persuaded. Sometimes you need to intimidate people that won't accept logic. Sometimes people can't be intimidated and need to be persuaded to do the right thing.  Not only does this system make the player one sided, it makes everyone one sided.  But that isn't the point of this thread.

This thread is about the percentage system, not Paragon vs Neutral vs Renegade.

[Godeskian]

Point taken GuardianAngel. I shall restrict my comments vis-a-vis alignments to other threads.

[Saibh]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Not much to say. OP is one of those who expect they allways have that 100% change to get what they want. Meaning players who can't handle negative outcome by they past choises.

So you agree with using a percentage system to base paragon and renegade checks on? You agree that it is a good idea to use a system that is never explained to the player and displaying misleading info like the morality bars? You think that instead of basing charm and intimidate on practice a player has with either you should make it based on how much practice the player doesn't have?

I  understand the thought process--it's silly for someone as experienced as Shepard to somehow "earn" persuasion. As if it's really a talent to master. Sure, you can get better at it, but you should already be pretty damn Persuasive--when compared to combat skills, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to use experience to level of C/I. How does bashing merc heads in teach you how to talk people down from killing hostages? "I've seen two dozen more bashed-in merc heads than yesterday, and that two dozen taught me that you don't want a bashed-in head"?

The idea is that Shepard early on is equally as likely as to convince someone as later. Especially since so many missions are available right away--if you happen to choose a mission that involves an important C/I scenario in the beginning that they decided should be difficult, you're screwed. It happened in ME1 several times--specific instances with Jeong or Anoleis require a very high C/I score that you might not have in the beginning of the game. This method means you don't have to save these missions for later out of fear of missing out on a C/I opportunity.

However, the flipside is the problems you presented. Whichever method you prefer is up to you.

Modifié par Saibh, 08 octobre 2010 - 11:08 .

[wizardryforever]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

There has to be some benefit to playing an extremophile, whether a goody-two shoes or a jerkass.  It's about realism, I think.  Think about it, if someone who has a reputation for being ruthless or mean, or just a general jerk tried to persuade you of the error of your ways using compassion and appeal to emotion, would you listen?  Likewise, if someone with a reputation for being a kind-hearted, forgiving, overall naive person tried to intimidate you with threats of bodily harm or with taunts, would it work?  That's what they're going for, I think.  If a person is neither, then they are not particularly good at doing either charming or intimidating, and thus can't do it if the target would only be swayed by someone extreme.

I don't think a skillpoint system would be better, really.  The way things are your actions determine who your character is, and thus how you roleplay shapes your character.  With arbitrary skill point distribution, it gives you a free pass to ignore the choices your character has made up to that point, ignore what made them who they are.  This is counter to role-playing IMO.

This is the core of my argument Godeskian.  Of course neutral characters can try it, and even be successful if the target is receptive to you.  But intelligent people, people with strong personalities, or people who are experiencing strong emotions will be harder to influence that way unless your actions in the past lend credence to your attempt.  It wouldn't be hard to charm or intimidate a random person or merchant into liking you, but it would be to convince someone that their entire outlook on life is flawed, or that they have more to fear from you than their scary employers.

You are still ignoring the OP. This isn't about how much practice a player has with charming and intimidating. This isn't about how strongly they believe one way or the other. this is about how the system DOESNT work that way. It DOESN'T register how much practice you have, it registers something completely different and completely artificial.  In real life there is no percentage for how many times you were nice or mean compared to how many times you could have been nice or mean, there is practice. There is your core personality, how much conviction you have for one or the other and how much practice you have at making it convincing. The ME2 morality system DOESN'T work that way.

Personality, conviction and practice are intricately tied to one's past actions.  It changes how you act, how you look at life, and how people see you.  This is represented by paragon/renegade in the game, and while it is abstract, it works in context.  As for everyone saying that world leaders have to be both, they have extensive practice at being wishy-washy and getting their point across to others.  And as for drill sergeants, I don't have any real life experience with them, but I have to say that dealing with subordinates is different than dealing with people who are only with you for a specific mission, who don't directly answer to you.  I think we can agree that the system is imperfect, but I don't really know if going to a skill point system would be better, and potentially worse.

[Godeskian]

I like ME1's skill point system because it allowed me to play a more nuanced character. A character who was 90% paragon, but still occasionally shot people because it needed doing. I don't feel like I can play that kind of character with ME2's system, and still achieve the end-game results I want.

[GuardianAngel470]

wizardryforever wrote...

Personality, conviction and practice are intricately tied to one's past actions.  It changes how you act, how you look at life, and how people see you.  This is represented by paragon/renegade in the game, and while it is abstract, it works in context.  As for everyone saying that world leaders have to be both, they have extensive practice at being wishy-washy and getting their point across to others.  And as for drill sergeants, I don't have any real life experience with them, but I have to say that dealing with subordinates is different than dealing with people who are only with you for a specific mission, who don't directly answer to you.  I think we can agree that the system is imperfect, but I don't really know if going to a skill point system would be better, and potentially worse.

Wizardyforever, I agree with you about the relevance of practice, but what I am trying to tell you is that that isn't how it works in ME2. You can have enormous amounts of practice with being paragon as well as being renegade and still fail because it isn't based on paragon/renegade point count, a direct measure of practice, it is based on the percentage of paragon/renegade points you have in relation to what you could have. This means that you could need 200 paragon points to resolve a dispute at the beginning of the game and have 600 paragon points later in the game and fail the same dispute.

I am trying to say the the coded system in place in ME2 does not care how much practice you have, it only cares how much practice you could have.

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 08 octobre 2010 - 11:20 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Godeskian wrote...

I like ME1's skill point system because it allowed me to play a more nuanced character. A character who was 90% paragon, but still occasionally shot people because it needed doing. I don't feel like I can play that kind of character with ME2's system, and still achieve the end-game results I want.

I agree. However, the concept that a practiced shepard should be more effective than an inexperienced shepard is valid.

A good compromise would be what I suggested in a thread I linked to earlier in this thread. Have it be based on skill points but have a Paragon/Renegade modifier that is based on the difference between the two moralities.  It could also be based on the number of points in the two moralities and have the gulf between modifiers be larger.

Either way, this system needs to go.

[Lumikki]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Not much to say. OP is one of those who expect they allways have that 100% change to get what they want. Meaning players who can't handle negative outcome by they past choises.

So you agree with using a percentage system to base paragon and renegade checks on? You agree that it is a good idea to use a system that is never explained to the player and displaying misleading info like the morality bars? You think that instead of basing charm and intimidate on practice a player has with either you should make it based on how much practice the player doesn't have?

Yes, because it's not about you practice some skill what magicaly change other npcs options. You can practice diplomacy and intimidation, but in the end, you can't have 100% guaranteed result. That's what ME1 system has, 100% postive result allways. Meaning players don't have to much think choises they make as it's not determining the end result, just how many point did you put in some skill.

In ME2 it's more like you build reputation what those npcs have heard and that affects they options when they are forced face you as talking. Meaning what you have done past has affect what you can do for others. If you have mix reputation, it's not as effective than have just one kind. You are famous about you cruelty and it will affect as like fear to npcs who you meet.

That's why I asked to hide the system, because the result of choise should come choises what you do, not by looking numbers or putting point to some skill to have 100% guaranteed result. Player should know they own reputation by choises made, not looking bars and numbers.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 octobre 2010 - 11:38 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

No, but it is fair for a shep who has a 90% paragon bar and 60% renegade bar, who has worked for those stats, to actually be able to use them.

And you must not have read the OP. My complaint isn't about the squad conflicts so much as it is about the stupid system that Bioware chose to us. They don't register the number of points you have for paragon/renegade checks, they register how may you could have but don't. They use a percentage system that is never explained and that I have to come to the forums to learn about.  The paragon and renegade bars are meaningless, as stated by the devs. 

The fact that so many guides and walkthroughs detail that you need better than 90% paragon to pass the Jack/Miranda fight is proof of how stupid the system is because they are wrong.  I had 90% paragon and 60% renegade when I did the Tela Vasir confrontion in LotSB but neither option could be used.

Absolutely, the morality bar is useles and unclear, those are legitamite issues. But people are blowing this out of proportion and saying the system is broken, which it is not. Unclear =/= broken, and honestly, it's both sides' fault. You thought it worked like ME1, and that a 90% bar was going to unlock charm options, which is BW's fault. But based on the system now, a 90/60 Shepard is a character that did quite a few naughty things, and isn't an exceptional leader of either type, those are your decisions that will carry consequences even if you didn't know how the system worked. Remember you have to be exceptional to pull of exceptional moments. In real life, people don't like each other, you are working with a total jerk, your boss is stupid, it takes exceptional effort to make your company the next Microsoft. You are assembling a motley crew, it takes an execeptional leader to make them win the superbowl. Almost exceptional doesn't count. Miranda and Jack are two exceptionally stuborn people, so you need to be exceptional.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 08 octobre 2010 - 11:43 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Lumikki wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Not much to say. OP is one of those who expect they allways have that 100% change to get what they want. Meaning players who can't handle negative outcome by they past choises.

So you agree with using a percentage system to base paragon and renegade checks on? You agree that it is a good idea to use a system that is never explained to the player and displaying misleading info like the morality bars? You think that instead of basing charm and intimidate on practice a player has with either you should make it based on how much practice the player doesn't have?

Yes, because it's not about you practice some skill what magicaly change other npcs options. You can practice diplomacy and intimidation, but in the end, you can't have 100% guaranteed result. That's what ME1 system has, 100% postive result allways.

In ME2 it's more like you build reputation what those npcs have heard and that affects they options when they are forced face you as talking. Meaning what you have done past has affect what you can do for others. If you have mix reputation, it's not as effective than have just one kind. You are famous about you cruelty and it will affect as like fear to npcs who you meet.

That's why I asked to hide the system, because the result of choise should come choises what you do, not by looking numbers. Player should know they own reputation by choises made, not looking bars and numbers.

But having mixed reputation is both the most realistic and actually, contrary to what you believe, the most beneficial.  If everyone knows that you are as likely to shoot them as heal them, then you are in the best position to persuade. this establishes that depending on how they behave they might receive free credits or they might receive a bullet between the eyes.  This would make them especially receptive to persuasion while still leaving the option of intimidation open.

If everyone knows that you are a pansy and won't be willing to use force, people who live in the Terminus systems won't respect you and as such won't be susceptible to persuasion. They'll know you won't shoot them and they'll just wait you out.

On the flip side, if everyone knows you are a complete jerk and will likely hit them for no real reason, they won't be as likely to listen to anything you have to say, renegade or not. They'll just turn tail and run.

The extremes are the least effective in the real world, with intimidation being slightly more useful than persuasion. A paragade or Renegon is the most effective negotiator because they can be tough and also grant concessions and be convincing on both fronts.

Failing a complete ditching of paragon and renegade, my suggestion balances reputation with customization.

[GuardianAngel470]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

No, but it is fair for a shep who has a 90% paragon bar and 60% renegade bar, who has worked for those stats, to actually be able to use them.

And you must not have read the OP. My complaint isn't about the squad conflicts so much as it is about the stupid system that Bioware chose to us. They don't register the number of points you have for paragon/renegade checks, they register how may you could have but don't. They use a percentage system that is never explained and that I have to come to the forums to learn about.  The paragon and renegade bars are meaningless, as stated by the devs. 

The fact that so many guides and walkthroughs detail that you need better than 90% paragon to pass the Jack/Miranda fight is proof of how stupid the system is because they are wrong.  I had 90% paragon and 60% renegade when I did the Tela Vasir confrontion in LotSB but neither option could be used.

Absolutely, the morality bar is useles and unclear, those are legitamite issues. But people are blowing this out of proportion and saying the system is broken, which it is not. Unclear =/= broken, and honestly, it's both sides' fault. You thought it worked like ME1, and that a 90% bar was going to unlock charm options, which is BW's fault. But based on the system now, a 90/60 Shepard is a character that did quite a few naughty things, and isn't an exceptional leader of either type, those are your decisions that will carry consequences even if you didn't know how the system worked. Remember you have to be exceptional to pull of exceptional moments. In real life, people don't like each other, you are working with a total jerk, your boss is stupid, it takes exceptional effort to make your company the next Microsoft. You are assembling a motley crew, it takes an execeptional leader to make them win the superbowl. Almost exceptional doesn't count. Miranda and Jack are two exceptionally stuborn people, so you need to be exceptional.

But I solved both character confrontations just fine. I was exceptional in the previously most trying circumstances. I had full loyalty across the board when I went into the suicide mission.

[Lumikki]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Failing a complete ditching of paragon and renegade, my suggestion balances reputation with customization.

Sorry, but I just disagree with you view of point as looking situations.

[Tony Gunslinger]

I just want to add that the morality bars are actually really incorrect. Information design-wise, it's misrepresentative of how the system works. If the morality checks are based on percentages, then it should function like a pie chart, with percentage of paragon on one side and percentage of renegade on the other. For example, If you scored 20 out of 50 possible paragon points, then the paragon bar should be 40% filled. Right now, they behave culmatively, and this makes you assume that you are striving for a cap or a limit of some sort.

I think what BW intended was for you to look at both bars, add up the total paragon and renegade points in your head, and see the difference between the red and blue to quess how you're doing. HOWEVER, it does not 1) record neutral or missed outcomes, and 2) not all encounters contain both renegade and paragon outcomes, so it leaves a lot of guesswork on your part. So in case of GuardianAngel's 90/60, his Shepard is actually roughly 70-75% paragon, not including missed opportunities and neutral decisions, which may make his score even lower. In practice, this is pretty confusing, inaccurate, and it doesn't help you gauge when critical I/C checks are passed.

That said, this has nothing do to with rewarding flip-flopping Shepards. The current system is effective and fair to reward consistent paragon and renegade Shepards, and should NOT reward a 75% paragon Shepard with the best cake in the house.

Edit: It may be BW's intent to keep it mysterious this way, by giving you "raw data" instead of doing the work for you. It's not that dissimilar to tuning cars in sim racing games, where you actually have to do the hard work of interpreting raw data by tweaking separate variables like sway bars, damping, spring tension, instead of having everything calculated for you in a slider that's says "handling".

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 09 octobre 2010 - 01:53 .