26 réponses à ce sujet

[d4eaming]

In DA2, there were a couple of opportunities to use an intimdate option. Angry Hawke could convince the port master's assistant to provide needed information by threatening him. If you were a diplomatic or sarcastic Hawke, you could still TRY, even though you'd fail- I like having the option. In Neverwinter Nights, I recall a few charisma checks, but if I remember rightly, they only showed up as an option if you actually had high enough charisma to pass the check (it has been about 7 years since I played those games, so my memory could be off). I've played about 1/3 of Mass Effect 1, and there are pursuade and intimidate options (divided into paragon/renegade, and each requiring points in the requisite skills), but if your skill wasn't high enough, it was greyed out.

I like having the options, such as in DA2. In MA, I find it endlessly frustrating to see the option there but be unable to select it because my skill isn't high enough. Why can't I at least try to intimidate someone and get laughed at, instead of not even having the option?

In DAI, I hope they stick with the DA2 method, and perhaps a little touch of NWN. Additional options due to tone, and options that will only pass due to a certain necessary personality would be fun, and I think more dynamic.

My diplomatic Hawke looks kinda silly trying to intimidate someone, and my aggressive Hawke isn't convincing when he tries to pursuade; maybe even a slightly different tone could work here in the spoken lines, but I imagine that would just add to the cost and therefore not be worth it. Overall, I'd like to see more of these instances where I can try, and fail, than having the option greyed out (ME), or having the option vanish entirely (NWN).

[thats1evildude]

Diplomatic Hawke did get some options to use diplomacy and common sense.

Sarcastic Hawke seems to have gotten the short stick, as there are much fewer opportunities to use his/her quick wit to lie to foes.

Generally, I liked the system. The Coercion system in DAO was a bit broken. And by broken, I mean in the "didn't work as intended" sense.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 07 décembre 2012 - 06:45 .

[In Exile]

I hate Coercion with a passion. It's just an "I win" button. I would like persuasion to be more of active element of picking dialogue choices. DA2 was a kind of pathetic step in this direction since your personality had an impact on whether you got an "I win" button, but it would have been nice if all of that dependent on the individual conversation itself with the personality allowing you to take certain shortcuts [or fail miserably, like if aggressive hawke bumblingly tries to be diplomatic!]

[Xewaka]

Deus Ex Human Revolution did it right.

[Swagger7]

I like the idea of being able to try to intimidate or persuade and potentially failing or succeeding based on certain stats. I wish there were three different potential results: success, failure, and epic failure. For an example, let's look at intimidate:

Success is self explanatory.

Failure means they aren't intimidated, but are still open to other means of persuasion.

Epic Failure means they find your intimidation so pathetic that they immediately try to squash you like a bug and combat begins.

For persuasion:

Success is again self-explanatory.

Failure means you can still bribe the person or do a quest for them to get what you want.

Epic Failure means bribes triple as a result of your bad bartering skill.

I'm fine with either bringing back the coercion skill or using other stats instead. The intimidate score could be the result of Strength + Willpower, while the persuade score is the result of Cunning + Willpower. (This also goes with my idea of making other stats more useful, so you don't just spam points into two stats per class.)

Alternatively, you could break it down by class:

Warriors use Strength to intimidate and Cunning to persuade, thus they tend to be much better at intimidation.

Rogues also use Strength to intimidate and Cunning to persuade, thus they tend to be much better at persuasion.

Mages could use Magic (the attribute) to intimidate, signifying that their ability to threaten comes from their magical powers. Perhaps there could be a penalty when using this on other practitioners of magic, or on templars? Their persuasion skill could be derived from Cunning + 1/3 of Willpower, since stubbornness is often helpful in negotiations after all. (This formula is to ensure that a mage built mainly for combat still has better persuasion than a warrior similarly built, but less than a rogue similarly built.) Blood Mages would have an additional option that uses blood magic to manipulate someone, like the apostate from the Blooming Rose. That could be based off of something like this: 1/2(Magic + Willpower), with the fraction increased by certain perks in the blood magic skill tree. This would allow an experienced blood mage to be by far the best at manipulating others, as it should be.

[burning salaradile]

Swagger7 wrote...

I like the idea of being able to try to intimidate or persuade and potentially failing or succeeding based on certain stats. I wish there were three different potential results: success, failure, and epic failure. For an example, let's look at intimidate:

Success is self explanatory.

Failure means they aren't intimidated, but are still open to other means of persuasion.

Epic Failure means they find your intimidation so pathetic that they immediately try to squash you like a bug and combat begins.

For persuasion:

Success is again self-explanatory.

Failure means you can still bribe the person or do a quest for them to get what you want.

Epic Failure means bribes triple as a result of your bad bartering skill.

I'm fine with either bringing back the coercion skill or using other stats instead. The intimidate score could be the result of Strength + Willpower, while the persuade score is the result of Cunning + Willpower. (This also goes with my idea of making other stats more useful, so you don't just spam points into two stats per class.)

Alternatively, you could break it down by class:

Warriors use Strength to intimidate and Cunning to persuade, thus they tend to be much better at intimidation.

Rogues also use Strength to intimidate and Cunning to persuade, thus they tend to be much better at persuasion.

Mages could use Magic (the attribute) to intimidate, signifying that their ability to threaten comes from their magical powers. Perhaps there could be a penalty when using this on other practitioners of magic, or on templars? Their persuasion skill could be derived from Cunning + 1/3 of Willpower, since stubbornness is often helpful in negotiations after all. (This formula is to ensure that a mage built mainly for combat still has better persuasion than a warrior similarly built, but less than a rogue similarly built.) Blood Mages would have an additional option that uses blood magic to manipulate someone, like the apostate from the Blooming Rose. That could be based off of something like this: 1/2(Magic + Willpower), with the fraction increased by certain perks in the blood magic skill tree. This would allow an experienced blood mage to be by far the best at manipulating others, as it should be.

I like this idea, but would like to suggest that there are no random rolls with persuasion. If you can reload for a different result, I feel like it would somewhat defeat the purpose.

[toto2300]

Swagger7 wrote...

I like the idea of being able to try to intimidate or persuade and potentially failing or succeeding based on certain stats. I wish there were three different potential results: success, failure, and epic failure. For an example, let's look at intimidate:

Success is self explanatory.

Failure means they aren't intimidated, but are still open to other means of persuasion.

Epic Failure means they find your intimidation so pathetic that they immediately try to squash you like a bug and combat begins.

For persuasion:

Success is again self-explanatory.

Failure means you can still bribe the person or do a quest for them to get what you want.

Epic Failure means bribes triple as a result of your bad bartering skill.

I'm fine with either bringing back the coercion skill or using other stats instead. The intimidate score could be the result of Strength + Willpower, while the persuade score is the result of Cunning + Willpower. (This also goes with my idea of making other stats more useful, so you don't just spam points into two stats per class.)

Alternatively, you could break it down by class:

Warriors use Strength to intimidate and Cunning to persuade, thus they tend to be much better at intimidation.

Rogues also use Strength to intimidate and Cunning to persuade, thus they tend to be much better at persuasion.

Mages could use Magic (the attribute) to intimidate, signifying that their ability to threaten comes from their magical powers. Perhaps there could be a penalty when using this on other practitioners of magic, or on templars? Their persuasion skill could be derived from Cunning + 1/3 of Willpower, since stubbornness is often helpful in negotiations after all. (This formula is to ensure that a mage built mainly for combat still has better persuasion than a warrior similarly built, but less than a rogue similarly built.) Blood Mages would have an additional option that uses blood magic to manipulate someone, like the apostate from the Blooming Rose. That could be based off of something like this: 1/2(Magic + Willpower), with the fraction increased by certain perks in the blood magic skill tree. This would allow an experienced blood mage to be by far the best at manipulating others, as it should be.

That sounds like a pretty good system. I just want to see them keep both Persuade and Intimidation in. When you're playing a strong character with short patience it makes sense that they'd be able to intimidate weaker people into giving up. Then you can be strong and impatient without being evil and killing everybody.

[Swagger7]

burning salaradile wrote...

I like this idea, but would like to suggest that there are no random rolls with persuasion. If you can reload for a different result, I feel like it would somewhat defeat the purpose.

I never intended for them to be random rolls.  I just figured that individual NPCs would have two scores: one for intimidate and one for persuade.  If your score is higher, you succeed.  If it isn't, then you fail. 

By the way, the NPCs' scores could be raised or lowered according to the difficulty level, so that in hard difficulties you might have to make more of a commitment to raising your persuade or intimidate score if you want to use these options.

[Swagger7]

toto2300 wrote...

That sounds like a pretty good system. I just want to see them keep both Persuade and Intimidation in. When you're playing a strong character with short patience it makes sense that they'd be able to intimidate weaker people into giving up. Then you can be strong and impatient without being evil and killing everybody.

Why thank you! 

I agree that the main thing is that persuasion and intimidate remain.  If it's a system similar to mine then yay.  If not, I'll still be happy.

[Pedrak]

I like Swagger's idea quite a bit.

[Kidd]

Reloading should not be encouraged by the game system itself, methinks. Failing a check due to a die roll or the fact you've not raised a skill enough both lead to a reload being a good idea (unless the failed attempt simply puts you back to the original wheel whereby the persuasion option you tried is removed, but that sounds like a heck of a lot more work than simply not presenting the option in the first place).

Moreover, having three kinds of dialogue abilities in DA2 is better than DAO's two. Would love for there to be even more, however!

[Swagger7]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Reloading should not be encouraged by the game system itself, methinks. Failing a check due to a die roll or the fact you've not raised a skill enough both lead to a reload being a good idea (unless the failed attempt simply puts you back to the original wheel whereby the persuasion option you tried is removed, but that sounds like a heck of a lot more work than simply not presenting the option in the first place).

Moreover, having three kinds of dialogue abilities in DA2 is better than DAO's two. Would love for there to be even more, however!

Meh, if you don't want to reload, don't reload.  If other people want to reload, let them.

[d4eaming]

I also rather like the idea you presented. I am building Shepard to use both persuade and intimidate, based on a variety of situations presented. Sometimes he's a hardass for the greater good, but with individual people who are mostly innocent, he's much kinder and gentler. I played the same in DA2 for the most part, but it didn't seem to provide quite the same amount of options for it. (I don't agree with Hawke sounding bipolar for reacting differently depending on the person or faction he talked to- most people do that to some degree.)

[Todd23]

I always thought cunning (bravery) would have made more sense for intimidation.

[Pelle6666]

DA2's dialog system was a joke. Just a bad cover of the one in Mass Effect. If they want to improve it they need to bring in some renegade/paragon options and interrupt options as well or as you say, persuade/intimidate options.

[Swagger7]

d4eaming wrote...

I also rather like the idea you presented. I am building Shepard to use both persuade and intimidate, based on a variety of situations presented. Sometimes he's a hardass for the greater good, but with individual people who are mostly innocent, he's much kinder and gentler. I played the same in DA2 for the most part, but it didn't seem to provide quite the same amount of options for it. (I don't agree with Hawke sounding bipolar for reacting differently depending on the person or faction he talked to- most people do that to some degree.)

I was trying to do something like that in DA2, but the autodialogue messed up my system.  I was trying to make a Xenophobic Hawke who was close to his family and other Fereldens, but hated Kirkwallers because of what he had to go through to see his family safely inside the city.

[Swagger7]

Todd23 wrote...

I always thought cunning (bravery) would have made more sense for intimidation.

Not really.  While cunnng could certainly help, no amount of it could make a small weakling intimidating.  Which is more frightening?:  A barking aggressive Chihuahua, or a Bull Mastiff that growls just a little?

Modifié par Swagger7, 13 décembre 2012 - 01:12 .

[Auintus]

Swagger7 wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

I always thought cunning (bravery) would have made more sense for intimidation.

Not really.  While cunnng could certainly help, no amount of it could make a smallweakling intimidating.  Which is more frightening?:  A barking aggressive Chihuahua, or a Bull Mastiff that growls just a little?

Mastiff. I know from experience.

I liked the system the way it was in DAO. It made sense that way and could be utilized without changing your character's personality.

[BubbleDncr]

I liked the way it was in DA:O, but admit it could use some work. It was definitely unfairly skewed towards allowing rogue to persuade through almost anything, warriors to intimidate through most everything, and mages to not be able to talk their way out of fights unless they put points into non-primary stats.

Which, realistically kind of makes sense, except it would also make sense for mages to intimidate people based off their magic score.

[Todd23]

Swagger7 wrote...

d4eaming wrote...

I also rather like the idea you presented. I am building Shepard to use both persuade and intimidate, based on a variety of situations presented. Sometimes he's a hardass for the greater good, but with individual people who are mostly innocent, he's much kinder and gentler. I played the same in DA2 for the most part, but it didn't seem to provide quite the same amount of options for it. (I don't agree with Hawke sounding bipolar for reacting differently depending on the person or faction he talked to- most people do that to some degree.)

I was trying to do something like that in DA2, but the autodialogue messed up my system.  I was trying to make a Xenophobic Hawke who was close to his family and other Fereldens, but hated Kirkwallers because of what he had to go through to see his family safely inside the city.

That's what I hate about autodialogue.  Hawke can't seem to grasp the concept that maybe you should change your tone depending on the situation.  My first profile I chose serious when I was braking up my siblings to get them to run.  And then when Wesly needed to be put down I was a total dick about it.

[Todd23]

Swagger7 wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

I always thought cunning (bravery) would have made more sense for intimidation.

Not really.  While cunnng could certainly help, no amount of it could make a small weakling intimidating.  Which is more frightening?:  A barking aggressive Chihuahua, or a Bull Mastiff that growls just a little?

Considdering Dwarves are tough, and elves are somewhat scary to humans, I don't think size would decide how intimidating you are in Thedas.

[Swagger7]

Todd23 wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

I always thought cunning (bravery) would have made more sense for intimidation.

Not really.  While cunnng could certainly help, no amount of it could make a small weakling intimidating.  Which is more frightening?:  A barking aggressive Chihuahua, or a Bull Mastiff that growls just a little?

Considdering Dwarves are tough, and elves are somewhat scary to humans, I don't think size would decide how intimidating you are in Thedas.

Yeah, but dwarves are scarry because they are strong, (Strength stat) and I dont recall any incident that showed a widespread fear of elves.  Besides, elves can be strong as well.

[Shadow Fox]

Swagger7 wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

I always thought cunning (bravery) would have made more sense for intimidation.

Not really.  While cunnng could certainly help, no amount of it could make a small weakling intimidating.  Which is more frightening?:  A barking aggressive Chihuahua, or a Bull Mastiff that growls just a little?

Considdering Dwarves are tough, and elves are somewhat scary to humans, I don't think size would decide how intimidating you are in Thedas.

Yeah, but dwarves are scarry because they are strong, (Strength stat) and I dont recall any incident that showed a widespread fear of elves.  Besides, elves can be strong as well.

Well Dalish are thought of as heretical savages.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 14 décembre 2012 - 02:54 .

[Swagger7]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

I always thought cunning (bravery) would have made more sense for intimidation.

Not really.  While cunnng could certainly help, no amount of it could make a small weakling intimidating.  Which is more frightening?:  A barking aggressive Chihuahua, or a Bull Mastiff that growls just a little?

Considdering Dwarves are tough, and elves are somewhat scary to humans, I don't think size would decide how intimidating you are in Thedas.

Yeah, but dwarves are scarry because they are strong, (Strength stat) and I dont recall any incident that showed a widespread fear of elves.  Besides, elves can be strong as well.

Well Dalish are thought of as heretical savages.

1) Hatred does not necessarily require fear.

2) When the Dalish are feared it generally seems to be because they can put an arrow into you from a tree without you knowing they're there.  This doesn't translate into being able to intimidate someone face-to-face.

3) I never said elves were necessarily not intimidating, but if they are intimidating it would be because they posessed the necessary apparent strength to make them look dangerous.