BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Barek (jerm) on May 15, 2013, 09:15:48 PM
-
Title: Public Debate
Summary: Swordfighters have Duels with which to dispatch their detractors. How about a Public Debate feature using the Oratory skill?
Details: Just as Duels have a place in medieval history, so too does public debate. From a code perspective, some of it could be nearly copy/pasted from Dueling, I imagine. The participants could pick how they'll go about 'attack' or 'defense' in the debate. Clearly one is unlikely to be killed or wounded in a debate, but it could certainly have an impact on someone's honour or prestige!
Benefits: Provides an alternative to dueling, giving players more options when it comes to their enemies and foes.
Possible Exploits: None spring to mind.
-
I think this will be an interesting option. However, this will make things too skill dependent.
Based on what I've seen, oratory skill is based on players not on characters. Only reason the oratory skill exists in the first place is to make the program understand how good characters are at talking as it can't distinguish good speakers from the bad ones through letters since it can't read letters.
-
I kinda like this idea in theory, but wonder how it might work in practice. Would it just be a 'satisfy your honour' kind of thing?
Might be more interesting to give it some teeth. Put honour/prestige at stake, or allow two priests to debate where the winner converts some locals.
-
I don't mean "Exchange letters between the characters".
There is an Oratory skill for each character, like jousting or leadership or swordsmanship. Diplomats (and courtiers?) use it. It would be largely skill dependent, in the same way that a Duel is skill dependent (I assume).
And yes, it should generally have teeth, and not just be some random thing.
Baron Sourface says that my idea/religion/whatever stinks, and so do I. Rather than challenging him to a duel, I challenge him to a public debate. If he accepts, we both get options regarding how we go about the thing. Maybe options that impact how much prestige/honour loss/gain is involved. "Go for blood, insult his heritage and family" would have more impact than "Keep it on topic, just debate the subject at hand".
-
Hmm. It is an interesting idea. But I wonder how this will work in practice.
It would be cool if others can be invited to this debate to give opinions on who won the public debate.
I mean it would be silly if it is just 1v1 and you have options like 'insult his family' and so on. How would the program decide the winner? Does insulting his family beat insulting his religion?
-
... exactly like a Duel.
The options that I suggested were off the top of my head. Food for thought, if you will.
I haven't dueled in ages, so I'm hazy on the mechanics, but IIRC, you and your adversary have to be in the same region, and someone issues a duel, and the other accepts [side note, there should be a small negative impact for refusing a duel - or debate]
Once both parties are involved, they each get options about how to fight. Aggressive, neutral, defensive, etc. I don't remember what they are, maybe its on the wiki.
Debate could work similarly. I pick a tone - aggressive, neutral, defensive, and can choose 'scope' or something similar. If I want to really stick it to him I'll throw out all kind of wild accusations and imply that he/she is a bastard. Or I'll pick the option to stay on topic and discuss the subject matter.
Then the system does some code magic, and picks a winner, throws in some flavor text based on both character's tone and scope, and hands out honour/prestige gain/loss. Finished.
-
Then what's the point of having the argument in the first place if we're just going to let the game decide...
-
While the feature sounds interesting, there aren't many mechanics to explore outside of personal honor and prestige- which should not be so easy to gain. Orators can already show their skills by competing to convert, or see who is more skilled in lauding/badmouthing realms. The only way for this to work much as a mechanic outside of H/P gain/loss is to put more on the line; such as the victor, in a priest debate, comes out with a slight gain in followers, and the loser suffers a dramatic loss in followers. For diplomats I suppose you would choose who to laud and badmouth when choosing your debate strategy, and reach similar outcomes in terms of sympathy as you would followers.
As you aren't really fighting, but really just arguing points, I don't honestly see how prestige or honor really tie into at all. Perhaps if you win debates often you might see more prestige, but I don't know about it..
This would be a ridiculous tool for saboteur priests to convert regions to another religion though.
-
Its'a duel with Oration instead of Swordsmanship. So that my character with high Oration can give his enemies a prestige/honor hit.
Completely different than writing letters. Yes - clever players can have clever characters who write letters.
Having two characters publicly debate each other using only their wits (er, Oration skill) is something else entirely.
-
A public debate is something that should happen using letters, not game mechanics. Otherwise you are just excluding others in a debate that they could possibly have a say in. I honestly this is one of those ideas that is a sign of feature creep. There is no need for it, and I don't really see how it adds to the gameplay beyond what arguing through letters does.
-
This has been requested and rejected before, and I believe the reasoning used then is sound, and still stands.
If you want to debate with someone, do it with letters. I don't believe there's significant medieval precedent for a "priest-off" to settle matters of honour.
-
Not a matter of honour, exactly, but Kublai Khan held a massive religious debate. Not really a close enough example, though, I suppose.
-
A debate without at least three deaths is a dull affair.
-
A shame. I really like this idea.