Goblin Squad Member
|
I was thinking about what I was going to do in-game skill-tree-wise and so I was curious if I could get a few things explained.
I wish to play a diplomat-cum-vigilante type person. As such I would need something like the Skills social Traits of the charismatic Rogue but the Abilities and Fighting style of the dexterous Fighter (more or less) from the TT.
I was wondering if the Diplomacy/Diplomat "class" has its own tree (as it has been hinted at) or if it requires a certain other class (the Rogue)?
I'm curious what the skill tree breakdown is going to look like, and what attributes those will have. Also, in a game where meta-game/RP PC-interaction is the most important facet, what good does a "diplomat" have outside of the few interactions with the NPC factions? If I spec out as a diplomat what sort of bonuses will I get towards PCs? Am I just going to have to go fighter and buff up my IRL social interaction skills in place of a diplomat class?
I put this as its own thread as opposed to the Q&A blog because I'd like this answered now as it affects how people will play and can affect pre-EE diplomacy/interactions and whatnot. I also suspect it will create it's own chain of questioning.
Thanks devs!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We have lots of cool ideas for a social combat system, but it's pretty far down the priority list.
Very intrigued. This the kind of thing that needs to be mentioned for potentially building crowd-forging support and getting that priority boosted. We all know that physical violence needs to be in place for EE to start, but most games have all that physical violence stuff. Little touches like this will help the game stand out!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We have lots of cool ideas for a social combat system, but it's pretty far down the priority list.Very intrigued. This the kind of thing that needs to be mentioned for potentially building crowd-forging support and getting that priority boosted. We all know that physical violence needs to be in place for EE to start, but most games have all that physical violence stuff. Little touches like this will help the game stand out!
And worked into things like SAD which include a social (intimidate/diplomacy) aspect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being able to 'socially combat' your way out of a SAD engagement would be fascinating, though I do not know if our bandit types would be appreciating that system as it would be taking choice out of their hands. But then it boils down to the 'You get your fantasy of being able to cast a fireball or swing a great-sword with ease, but why can't I have the fantasy of possessing a tongue more silver than what I have in real life?'
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to 'socially combat' your way out of a SAD engagement would be fascinating, though I do not know if our bandit types would be appreciating that system as it would be taking choice out of their hands. But then it boils down to the 'You get your fantasy of being able to cast a fireball or swing a great-sword with ease, but why can't I have the fantasy of possessing a tongue more silver than what I have in real life?'
Games that try to implement "social combat" where players can be on the receiving end of it are usually not successful. It's a cool idea, but players, while accepting that they might not have physical choice all the time, tend to dislike being told what their character thinks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being able to 'socially combat' your way out of a SAD engagement would be fascinating, though I do not know if our bandit types would be appreciating that system as it would be taking choice out of their hands. But then it boils down to the 'You get your fantasy of being able to cast a fireball or swing a great-sword with ease, but why can't I have the fantasy of possessing a tongue more silver than what I have in real life?'Games that try to implement "social combat" where players can be on the receiving end of it are usually not successful. It's a cool idea, but players, while accepting that they might not have physical choice all the time, tend to dislike being told what their character thinks.
Which I completely understand and was part of the point being made. But on the other hand, if you pause to think about it... why do they accept being told how much damage they can take or that they cannot carry 400 lbs worth of gear in a single backpack?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which I completely understand and was part of the point being made. But on the other hand, if you pause to think about it... why do they accept being told how much damage they can take or that they cannot carry 400 lbs worth of gear in a single backpack?Being able to 'socially combat' your way out of a SAD engagement would be fascinating, though I do not know if our bandit types would be appreciating that system as it would be taking choice out of their hands. But then it boils down to the 'You get your fantasy of being able to cast a fireball or swing a great-sword with ease, but why can't I have the fantasy of possessing a tongue more silver than what I have in real life?'Games that try to implement "social combat" where players can be on the receiving end of it are usually not successful. It's a cool idea, but players, while accepting that they might not have physical choice all the time, tend to dislike being told what their character thinks.
I honestly don't know. I personally don't mind following along with an obvious trap if my character was convinced by dice rolls, but I've also played with people who will use meta-game knowledge to go to the opposite side of an island to steal a gem from a statue their character was completely unaware of.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am apposed to the system, Lifedragn, because the simple reason is that if a high enough "silvertongue" level gets you out of SADs, then everyone will take it. This would render Bandits rather useless, except as merc or for raiding PoIs....
I agree that people should be able to in an ideal world, but realisticly whether or not they should train it in game (RP/immersion being the reason to do so) they generally will.
Maybe the "silvertongue" tree reduces but doesn't eliminate the SAD offer? e.g SAD for 25%-75% Silvertongue for 5%-40%? I see that as fine. There is definite overlap, but that happens and is more than acceptable considering the margins later on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am apposed to the system, Lifedragn, because the simple reason is that if a high enough "silvertongue" level gets you out of SADs, then everyone will take it. This would render Bandits rather useless, except as merc or for raiding PoIs....
I agree that people should be able to in an ideal world, but realisticly whether or not they should train it in game (RP/immersion being the reason to do so) they generally will.
Maybe the "silvertongue" tree reduces but doesn't eliminate the SAD offer? e.g SAD for 25%-75% Silvertongue for 5%-40%? I see that as fine. There is definite overlap, but that happens and is more than acceptable considering the margins later on.
I would imagine they are always opposed systems. Taking social combat skills is only going to promise you victory if the bandits are not taking them - and any wise bandit should have intimidate going for them. I'd never take social skills if Victory still meant being less of a loser in the exchange but never a winner. I'd rather be killed on principle of not giving in to a SAD. I would even go so far as to use stealth ranges as a success ratio... such that someone with Max (social skill) against someone with No (opposed skill) are capped at a 90% chance of success, equal skills relate to about a 50/50 shot, and no skill against a trained bandit would end up with only a 10% chance. I'd even be willing to modify ranges in bandit's favor to be 75% - defender max trained, bandit untrained / 40% Resist - Equally trained / 5% resist defender untrained, bandit max trained.
And remember, every skill taken is another skill you are having to wait to train. And let's not forget, if the bandits don't like losing a social challenge, they can always opt for the Rep Hit and attack anyways.
At the moment I am not strongly advocating one way or another. I am merely going through the exercise of speaking to what I feel would be a worthwhile application of the skill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lifedragn
That is an excellent point. I had thought of it as social vs. SAD skill but if it is a social v social it certainly makes a lot of sense. But then we break into "which is better" argument and rock-paper-scissors setup where intimidate beat diplomacy beats bluff beats intimidate of some such, which I do not want but may be inevitable. Or it could be relegated into one generic social skill, which I wouldn't like.
Compromise/solution could be one generic skill with three trees, str/con based tree for a pseudo-intimidate, int-wis for a pseudo-diplomacy, dex/cha for a pseudo-bluff. That could work pretty aight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lifedragn
That is an excellent point. I had thought of it as social vs. SAD skill but if it is a social v social it certainly makes a lot of sense. But then we break into "which is better" argument and rock-paper-scissors setup where intimidate beat diplomacy beats bluff beats intimidate of some such, which I do not want but may be inevitable. Or it could be relegated into one generic social skill, which I wouldn't like.
Compromise/solution could be one generic skill with three trees, str/con based tree for a pseudo-intimidate, int-wis for a pseudo-diplomacy, dex/cha for a pseudo-bluff. That could work pretty aight.
Either your generic skill with specialty branches, or even Situational Application. Mark all skills equal, such that there is no rock-paper-scissors. Any skill is viable against any other, but the victor from the play-off winds up with more over-all influence.
M(erchant): You can't get away with this! A large patrol unit is right behind us, you'd best just flee before they catch you! [Bluff]
B(andit): Oh yeah, I think we can put you lot down and still have plenty of time to be on our way! [Intimidate]
(opposed rolls - M wins) B: But we're not much up for a fight today, so go ahead and be on your way before we change our minds! Gains whatever protection from accepting a SAD would give.
(opposed rolls - B wins) M: Don't hurt us! (Accept SAD:) Here, take what you asked for! (Refuse SAD: Demoralized debuff gives some mechanical disadvantage to the merchants - this is the risk of trying to engage in social combat. Refusal without trying social combat first would have given no debuff) B: Kill 'em all!