73 réponses à ce sujet

[MKDAWUSS]

simfamSP wrote...

Starsyn wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Diplomacy, Conquer, or Seduction. I like it! I would find it hilarious if you could seduce the leaders of a country or faction.

I want to see a Seduction check backfire just once.  That would make for a great laugh. 

My Lady Inquisitor! You're...you're...

I know <_<

Pregnant.

Excellent. This decides the Line of Succession for one generation.

[Hollingrand Red]

Does tactfully requesting the unconditional surrender of any opposing faction or civil population for the sake of mutual, but not equal, benefit count as diplomacy? I would like to think that I could be civilized and make an offer of peace and a box of assorted cookies in exchange for total submission.

Modifié par Hollingrand Red, 11 février 2014 - 05:02 .

[RobRam10]

Conquest!

[Shelondias]

I prefer diplomacy cause it makes for better allies when the guys who can't be reasoned with show up

[Chrom72]

Whatever benefits me in my mission (presumably closing the veil tears) the most. Preferably with mostly diplomacy, but when all else fails.....I used that philosophy with my favorite Warden playthrough in Origins and I rather enjoyed it.

[windsea]

the first two i will be diplomatic.
the third i will try to be but failed and then just end up conquering.
after that well then it will be melana for lin

not counting the dalish.

Modifié par windsea, 11 février 2014 - 07:27 .

[superdeathdealer14]

Screw diplomacy, all shall bend their knee to the Inquisition.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Screw that they will bow to their sensei (me) or they will die!

[DRTJR]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

Starsyn wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Diplomacy, Conquer, or Seduction. I like it! I would find it hilarious if you could seduce the leaders of a country or faction.

I want to see a Seduction check backfire just once.  That would make for a great laugh. 

My Lady Inquisitor! You're...you're...

I know <_<

Pregnant.

Always wanted to see a DA backalley abortion!

Wow... that went to a dark place quick.

Darkest Sketch! Darkest Sketch! Darkest Sketch!

[commander root657]

Well in situations like these, I think to myself; What would Tywin Lannister do?

[Trolldrool]

I'm an inquisitor. All morals are black and white. Grey areas don't exist where I walk. People will either find a way to be useful to me and my mission (thereby confessing their loyalty), or they will be a hindrance, delaying my quest to seal the tear in the Veil (thereby confessing their treachery).

Whether they are violent and oppose me with weapons or peaceful, but reluctant to share what precious resources could aid my war effort, they are potential obstacles.

And obstacles will be removed with fire. And blood. But mostly fire.

[-Skorpious-]

First, have they broken any laws or currently breaking them? If so, skip directly to conquest. If not, offer a simple, blunt proposal of diplomacy. Should that fail, an immediate conquest will follow (unless it is a poor village or town with nothing to offer without causing direct harm to its citizens, then they get a pass provided they obey the laws of the crown and respect the authority of the Inquisition).

[Zenbry]

I'll use diplomacy up to the point where the subordiants are seeing me as the power, and then the old leaders will learn what the word "defenestrate" means. Or I'll just steal the key to their treasury and buy their armies away from them. Whichever is faster.

[CELL55]

Diplomacy seems the clear choice, even on purely pragmatic grounds. Your allies won't immediately be looking to harm you and their forces won't be depleted from being conquered, so therefore your side will have more strength. Even an evil Inquisitor would have to be pretty petty/dumb not to try it.

[Star fury]

Biower seem to despise diplomacy cause it stops players from their beloved combat. i.e. Fallout had a diplomatic solution for almost all quests, but in last Bioware games you have to suffer boring, tedious combat, especially in DA2 but DAO had that too(dreaded Deep Roads).

[The Spirit of Dance]

First playthrough I'll conquer everything that doesn't have to do with dalish.

[Master Warder Z_]

supremebloodwolf wrote...

First playthrough I'll conquer everything that doesn't have to do with dalish.

But they need a good conqueroring more then most!

[Grieving Natashina]

Master Warder Z wrote...

supremebloodwolf wrote...

First playthrough I'll conquer everything that doesn't have to do with dalish.

But they need a good conqueroring more then most!

Not as much as the Divine does...

[windsea]

supremebloodwolf wrote...

First playthrough I'll conquer everything that doesn't have to do with dalish.

sounds like a plan.

[acid_rain82]

AutumnWitch wrote...

Sentinel358 wrote...

Depends if my enemies deserve the mercy of diplomacy

They aren't always your enemies per say, just a group of people with different views than those of the Inquisition. They might be people you actually like BUT they don't want to owe allegiance to your philosophy.

I support mages and will try to be diplomatic but magisters, blood mages and slave traders will get no mercy.

Modifié par acid_rain82, 13 février 2014 - 10:39 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Star fury wrote...

Biower seem to despise diplomacy cause it stops players from their beloved combat. i.e. Fallout had a diplomatic solution for almost all quests, but in last Bioware games you have to suffer boring, tedious combat, especially in DA2 but DAO had that too(dreaded Deep Roads).

Well, I mean... hwo does one be diplomatic with Dark Spawn, dark stalkers and Brontos?

Same for the Fade - how does one negotiate a truce with dream apparations?


Sometimes, there is just no avoiding large amounts of fighting. 

[Star fury]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, I mean... hwo does one be diplomatic with Dark Spawn, dark stalkers and Brontos?

Same for the Fade - how does one negotiate a truce with dream apparations?


Sometimes, there is just no avoiding large amounts of fighting. 

Not sure if serious. Making the Deep Roads and atrocious Fade shorter(much shorter) would've done the world of good to the game. Make less encounters "with Dark Spawn, dark stalkers and Brontos", make use of stealth etc. Is it mindblowing? Don't think so.

We had to confront millions of human enemies without a diplomatic/stealth solution in both DAO & DA2. Would you say that  nobody can "negotiate a truce with" bandits, templars, mages?

It's even worse in DA2.

"Hey, Grace! I saved you from templars, sure you remember me?"

"Nah, I will attack anyway because ???"

Modifié par Star fury, 13 février 2014 - 12:07 .

[Aremce]

CELL55 wrote...

Diplomacy seems the clear choice, even on purely pragmatic grounds. Your allies won't immediately be looking to harm you and their forces won't be depleted from being conquered, so therefore your side will have more strength. Even an evil Inquisitor would have to be pretty petty/dumb not to try it.

I agree to this.

While it will be fun to play a violent, battle-and-confrontation-loving kind of character once in a while, I will always prefer to play either the heroic or the neutral/pragmatic type of character. It would be really nice to have the option to play a morally darker character who is not just pointlessly cruel and violent, but cunning and silver-tongued - someone who would charm and manipulate people into doing whatever he/she wants. Because why attack someone who could be of use later? Why waste ressources we will need later on a battle that can be avoided? And why make more enemies when we can talk them into submission? It's at least worth a try.


Plus, I support every stealth or other battle-avoiding option. When they make sense, of course. But when they make sense, they add realism and more chances to define which kind of character you are playing.

[Fast Jimmy]

Star fury wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, I mean... hwo does one be diplomatic with Dark Spawn, dark stalkers and Brontos?

Same for the Fade - how does one negotiate a truce with dream apparations?


Sometimes, there is just no avoiding large amounts of fighting. 

Not sure if serious. Making the Deep Roads and atrocious Fade shorter(much shorter) would've done the world of good to the game. Make less encounters "with Dark Spawn, dark stalkers and Brontos", make use of stealth etc. Is it mindblowing? Don't think so.

We had to confront millions of human enemies without a diplomatic/stealth solution in both DAO & DA2. Would you say that  nobody can "negotiate a truce with" bandits, templars, mages?

It's even worse in DA2.

"Hey, Grace! I saved you from templars, sure you remember me?"

"Nah, I will attack anyway because ???"

The Deep Roads was really well done. It had a number of very different area types and loads of different enemy types (darkspawn, darkstalkers, brontos, giant spiders, demons, phantoms, golems, undead/skeletons) had a number of different ambient quests and puzzles to solve and introduced gobs of lore by having the character experience it, rather than be told it. In addition, the Deep Roads is meant to be a deep, cavernous, HUGE realm, that runs the entire length of Thedas (maybe beyond) and has tunnels that wind under and above themselves, such that it could be longer to walk than one side of the continent to the next above ground. This was captured by the level design, which made you think that you were moving and walking forever, and made returning to the surface LITERALLY feel like a breath of fresh air. 

The Fade was similar - you were trapped in a prison of your own mind. The level design here made it very confusing to move around, very hard to track where you were, very disorienting to escape. Sure, some of the puzzles were a little hard to navigate without a lot of backtracking and reading Codex entries, but that was part of the goal - make a world where the player had to THINK to escape, not just stab their way to freedom.

I agree that both of these areas could have used improvement, but I don't think cutting their length would have been the answer.

I do like non-combat skills (such as traps, sneaking, persuasion, etc.) but it is going to be impossible to create a party-based game where this can be used for every situation, like in DE:HR. And DA:I will have diplomatic solutions from what we have heard - I am especially interested in hearing more about the "Knowledge" areas for persuasion, such as knowledge of the Orlesian nobility let's you persuade them when someone without that knowledge would not be able to.

But it doesn't negate the fact that fighting will happen. You can't be diplomatic with a golem. And you can't sneak an entire party right past an enemy. I'd rather see sneaking used to scout ahead, place traps and do surprise attacks on enemies, giving you a huge ADVANTAGE in battle, but not as a means to side step it completely. And I'd like diplomatic skills allow you to negotiate better terms for outcomes at the sacrifice of either other equally-relevant non-combat skills or even combat effectiveness itself, not be an "instant-win" that gets you past every fight and that there would be no reason not to take in full force for every playthrough.