Replace them with a Persuade option, ala KotOR. Only one skill you have to upgrade, no specific amount of paragon or renegade required. Best of all, it doesn't open up more options as you upgrade it; it works based on a percentile.
They should bring back the mass effect 1 dialogue skill investment in mass effect 3. Or get rid of the Good bad aspect all together. There should also be more dialogue variety.
Débuté par
revengeance
, nov. 25 2010 08:31
Retour en haut
#127
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 06:40
Xerxes52
-
- Members
- 3 144 messages
I would be fine with a "Persuasion" skill (and you have the choice to Charm or Intimidate).
Or they could roll it into your class skill (replacing the negotiation bonus).
Or they could roll it into your class skill (replacing the negotiation bonus).
#128
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:20
revengeance
-
- Members
- 180 messages
Aidoru Kami wrote...
Replace them with a Persuade option, ala KotOR. Only one skill you have to upgrade, no specific amount of paragon or renegade required. Best of all, it doesn't open up more options as you upgrade it; it works based on a percentile.
I like it! now were getting somewhere!
#129
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:21
revengeance
-
- Members
- 180 messages
'Xerxes52 wrote...
I would be fine with a "Persuasion" skill (and you have the choice to Charm or Intimidate).
Or they could roll it into your class skill (replacing the negotiation bonus).
Also a good idea, see! i just feel it could be so easily improved and would be far more enjoyable.
#130
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:25
revengeance
-
- Members
- 180 messages
Bennyjammin79 wrote...
Would a good solution be to bring back weapon skills and dialogue skills but also keep the current system that ME2 has?
Players could continue to do research and upgrade their weapons, armor, renegade/paragon and powers like it is done in ME2 but also put points towards the weapon, ability or dialogue option of their choosing.
This way those people who wanted to just beef up their combat skills could do so and their renegade/paragon scores would progress like ME2.
On the flip side of that coin, people who wanted to ramp their convo skills can do that and their offensive abilities would progress ala ME2.
I'm not saying bring back first aid, hacking, decryption, medicine and having to put x amount of points into skill a in order to unlock skill b. I don't want my accuracy to be affected like ME1. None of that. Just class specific weapons, powers and charm/intimidate in conjunction with the leveling up system in ME2.
Not bad but i feel there should be ton's of variety in convo's multiple choices atleast 3 of each kind pure evil, nuetral evil, chaotic evil kind of like in Icewind dale for personality choices.
See this would all just be fixed if they used my investment skill and allowed us to max everything through multiple play through's. But if not that then maybe the system from Kotor? there are so many options.
#131
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:27
TheButterflyEffect
-
- Members
- 1 407 messages
I agree. There's a lot of awesome stuff from ME1 that they did not include in ME2. And for absolutely NO reason. And I want it back.
#132
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:39
revengeance
-
- Members
- 180 messages
TheButterflyEffect wrote...
I agree. There's a lot of awesome stuff from ME1 that they did not include in ME2. And for absolutely NO reason. And I want it back.
I could not have said it..any..better myself.
#133
Guest_Bennyjammin79_*
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:46
Guest_Bennyjammin79_*
Guest_Bennyjammin79_*
-
- Guests
revengeance wrote...
Bennyjammin79 wrote...
Would a good solution be to bring back weapon skills and dialogue skills but also keep the current system that ME2 has?
Players could continue to do research and upgrade their weapons, armor, renegade/paragon and powers like it is done in ME2 but also put points towards the weapon, ability or dialogue option of their choosing.
This way those people who wanted to just beef up their combat skills could do so and their renegade/paragon scores would progress like ME2.
On the flip side of that coin, people who wanted to ramp their convo skills can do that and their offensive abilities would progress ala ME2.
I'm not saying bring back first aid, hacking, decryption, medicine and having to put x amount of points into skill a in order to unlock skill b. I don't want my accuracy to be affected like ME1. None of that. Just class specific weapons, powers and charm/intimidate in conjunction with the leveling up system in ME2.
Not bad but i feel there should be ton's of variety in convo's multiple choices atleast 3 of each kind pure evil, nuetral evil, chaotic evil kind of like in Icewind dale for personality choices.
See this would all just be fixed if they used my investment skill and allowed us to max everything through multiple play through's. But if not that then maybe the system from Kotor? there are so many options.
The only problem with being able to max everything through multiple playthough's is that not everybody is going to want to have to play the game 2 or 3 times just to get to be able to play the way they want to.
A single Persuasion skill bar in the player stats screen would be sufficient, although seperate Charm and Intimidate allows the player to feel more like they're creating a unique character. I would be fine with this however.
You're right, there really are so many ways to approach this. I'd like to see one where everybody wins.
Modifié par Bennyjammin79, 18 décembre 2010 - 07:49 .
#134
Guest_Mezzil_*
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 08:21
Guest_Mezzil_*
Guest_Mezzil_*
-
- Guests
Most people play the game once. So for most people, ME1 did the charm/intimidate the same as ME2. As you go more points into paragon/renegade, you unlocked more ranks of charmintimidate points. ME2 justs automatically gives you the charm/intimidate points as you gain paragon/renegade.
Actually ME1 was worst in ways. Since you can do quests in any order, you could hit get a charm option that required a higher charm level than the amount of ranks that you unlocked.
Actually ME1 was worst in ways. Since you can do quests in any order, you could hit get a charm option that required a higher charm level than the amount of ranks that you unlocked.
#135
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 11:06
Lumikki
-
- Members
- 4 239 messages
I disagree with OP.
I would like more that as many there is right side dialog role choises, there should be as many role dialog consequence possiblities. Meaning game learns players role, from right dialogs choises as what kind of role player is playing and offers best possible scene based that.
I don't like this out of role bypass all diaglog consequence with persuation option. That's what persuation skill does, it allows player to get positive result from npcs, by bending the will of npcs to player will in 100% guarantee positive result.
Example npc sees the reason of action in scene or npc bend to players will because afraid of player or because npc likes the player character. Scene can't show these emotions without having multible option and some simple persuation skill can't do it. If it allows just multible options based one persuation skill, then player characters can go out of they roles as ability do what ever they want, when they want, even if it's totally agaist they characters role as they abilities.
Why this way? Because there is limited amount of scenes developers can create in situations, so at least there should be some differences how stuff can happen. Also because right side of dialogs is what really defines the role possibilities, so why not allow them also define the scene choises.
So, my suggestion would work like this:
Example three different dialog choises as role in right side of dialogs.
You meet npcs and open dialog.
This npcs has only 2 scene in it's dialogs, meaning one of the dialog choise has no scene as positive result, because this npcs can't be bend with that kind of role. But it has two positive scene roles. How ever is player able to use both choises or just one or none, is depending what it players role too. Meaning how much that kind of role choises player has made in past of these two choises. If player has made enough choises, then if player choose "this" role as continue it, it can lead the positive scene of that role. How ever, if player is out of role, the game deside that player can't get this scene because out of role, but provides normal right side dialogs without the scene.
So, base idea is that player has possibility get scenes, but not with every npcs. Also players can miss scenes by choosing out of role actions as what player has done past, even if there was scene. How ever, if all fits and go well, player get scene what fits the players role well. How hard it's to get scenes out of npcs? Some are very easy and some hard, depending npcs behavior role.
Does this lead situation where there is just as many roles as there is right side choises? Yes, but that doesn't mean mixing example two roles doesn't offer same amount of scenes too, than playing just one choise role. If developers does it right, it should reward all roles egual ways, but with diffrent scenes. Also because roles are affected by npcs too, the result can change based roles. Example some roles can fail with some npcs, while be success with other one. Meaning the role has also consequences.
I would like more that as many there is right side dialog role choises, there should be as many role dialog consequence possiblities. Meaning game learns players role, from right dialogs choises as what kind of role player is playing and offers best possible scene based that.
I don't like this out of role bypass all diaglog consequence with persuation option. That's what persuation skill does, it allows player to get positive result from npcs, by bending the will of npcs to player will in 100% guarantee positive result.
Example npc sees the reason of action in scene or npc bend to players will because afraid of player or because npc likes the player character. Scene can't show these emotions without having multible option and some simple persuation skill can't do it. If it allows just multible options based one persuation skill, then player characters can go out of they roles as ability do what ever they want, when they want, even if it's totally agaist they characters role as they abilities.
Why this way? Because there is limited amount of scenes developers can create in situations, so at least there should be some differences how stuff can happen. Also because right side of dialogs is what really defines the role possibilities, so why not allow them also define the scene choises.
So, my suggestion would work like this:
Example three different dialog choises as role in right side of dialogs.
You meet npcs and open dialog.
This npcs has only 2 scene in it's dialogs, meaning one of the dialog choise has no scene as positive result, because this npcs can't be bend with that kind of role. But it has two positive scene roles. How ever is player able to use both choises or just one or none, is depending what it players role too. Meaning how much that kind of role choises player has made in past of these two choises. If player has made enough choises, then if player choose "this" role as continue it, it can lead the positive scene of that role. How ever, if player is out of role, the game deside that player can't get this scene because out of role, but provides normal right side dialogs without the scene.
So, base idea is that player has possibility get scenes, but not with every npcs. Also players can miss scenes by choosing out of role actions as what player has done past, even if there was scene. How ever, if all fits and go well, player get scene what fits the players role well. How hard it's to get scenes out of npcs? Some are very easy and some hard, depending npcs behavior role.
Does this lead situation where there is just as many roles as there is right side choises? Yes, but that doesn't mean mixing example two roles doesn't offer same amount of scenes too, than playing just one choise role. If developers does it right, it should reward all roles egual ways, but with diffrent scenes. Also because roles are affected by npcs too, the result can change based roles. Example some roles can fail with some npcs, while be success with other one. Meaning the role has also consequences.
Modifié par Lumikki, 18 décembre 2010 - 11:50 .
#136
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 02:31
Homey C-Dawg
-
- Members
- 7 498 messages
I'll voice my agreement with OP. I would like paragon/renegade to be at the expense of skill points with a much larger skill point pool to draw from like ME1. Some people are trained to be better talkers than fighters and vise-versa. I like Shepard to be proficient at both but only master of one. Like, "dialog build" Shepard would have massive skill points invested in both persuasion talents. He/she would have less evolved combat powers, but full access to both paragon and renegade dialogs. Strait paragon or renegade builds would not have to invest as much in dialog obviously.
I think the ability to make Shepard seem bi-polar (if the player wants to) is necessary to play a properly skilled negotiator Shepard, who can turn the "saint" and "sinner" dialog on and off like a drill sergeant.
Just my opinion of course.
I think the ability to make Shepard seem bi-polar (if the player wants to) is necessary to play a properly skilled negotiator Shepard, who can turn the "saint" and "sinner" dialog on and off like a drill sergeant.
Just my opinion of course.
#138
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 02:48
Valmarn
-
- Members
- 558 messages
FuturePasTimeCE wrote...
yes, makes better sense... because one specific in-fighting conflict during the game is impossible to resolve if you don't have a certain amount of paragon points from taking interruption actions (most of them being renegade options, of common sense aka fun)...
i agree with the OP...
in fact they should separate the dialogue skill from the paragon/renegade points... dialogue only affects whether or not you may get extra renegade or paragon points, but not needing those points for certain dialogue options though...
If you're talking about the conflict that I think you are, that is not true. The conflict can be resolved by rallying the crowd.
#139
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:42
revengeance
-
- Members
- 180 messages
Homey C-Dawg wrote...
I'll voice my agreement with OP. I would like paragon/renegade to be at the expense of skill points with a much larger skill point pool to draw from like ME1. Some people are trained to be better talkers than fighters and vise-versa. I like Shepard to be proficient at both but only master of one. Like, "dialog build" Shepard would have massive skill points invested in both persuasion talents. He/she would have less evolved combat powers, but full access to both paragon and renegade dialogs. Strait paragon or renegade builds would not have to invest as much in dialog obviously.
I think the ability to make Shepard seem bi-polar (if the player wants to) is necessary to play a properly skilled negotiator Shepard, who can turn the "saint" and "sinner" dialog on and off like a drill sergeant.
Just my opinion of course.
Exactly!!!!
#140
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:43
revengeance
-
- Members
- 180 messages
uzivatel wrote...
Keep the ME2 system.
I disagree, it need's many improvements. Three general dialogue choices suck.
#141
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:48
revengeance
-
- Members
- 180 messages
The arguement is not only to change the mass effect 2 system. I feel that there should be at least three sub-choices for each moral path. Let me give you an example.
Pure good
Neutral good
Chaotic good
And so on so forth for nuetrality and evil. This is for most general dialogue.
````````````````````````````
I also stand by the Diplomat compared to Soldier arguement. Social speaking, manipulation, and persuation are as much a skill as fighting is.
`````````````````````````````
Pure good
Neutral good
Chaotic good
And so on so forth for nuetrality and evil. This is for most general dialogue.
````````````````````````````
I also stand by the Diplomat compared to Soldier arguement. Social speaking, manipulation, and persuation are as much a skill as fighting is.
`````````````````````````````
#142
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:51
Zurcior
-
- Members
- 273 messages
No. I don't want to have to do two playthroughs of one of my Sheps just to get the options I want.
#143
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 08:43
revengeance
-
- Members
- 180 messages
Zurcior wrote...
No. I don't want to have to do two playthroughs of one of my Sheps just to get the options I want.
Good because you can't. And in my solution you would not have to, it would be for people who just want to max out certain skills etc but would not make it so in one playthough you could not achieve the goals you wanted.
#144
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 09:19
Ahglock
-
- Members
- 3 660 messages
I'd rather success in a conversation happen due to information gathering before and during the conversation. Using the information so you say the right things gets you points to victory, saying the wrong thing and you lose points. Have X number of points and you can trigger special conversation options.
#145
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 09:51
Ponchoe
-
- Members
- 25 messages
Disagree. I'd prefer it if we just had options to pick from and remove the good/bad system all together.
#146
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 10:01
uzivatel
-
- Members
- 2 770 messages
It does not need any changes, it works just fine.revengeance wrote...
I disagree, it need's many improvements. Three general dialogue choices suck.uzivatel wrote...
Keep the ME2 system.
Sure, there may be room for improvement, but IMO they should just stick with the ME2 system for ME3.
Alpha Protocol seems to be doing mighty fine with three general dialogue choices.
#147
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 10:33
revengeance
-
- Members
- 180 messages
Ahglock wrote...
I'd rather success in a conversation happen due to information gathering before and during the conversation. Using the information so you say the right things gets you points to victory, saying the wrong thing and you lose points. Have X number of points and you can trigger special conversation options.
See now that is an excellent idea.
#148
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 10:34
revengeance
-
- Members
- 180 messages
Ponchoe wrote...
Disagree. I'd prefer it if we just had options to pick from and remove the good/bad system all together.
I agree that would also be excellent.
