Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

#ActualNorman Barrows

Posted 16 April 2013 - 06:05 PM

I'd recommend the group if that's feasible, only on the basis given our aversion to danger and even harming each other, you'd expect hostile behavior to flow around a leader. So it makes sense that if you can dissuade the leader, you can convert the group.

 

 

yes i was sort of thinking this too. that parlays are conducted between sides, not individual combatants.

 

"oh, by the way Joe, don't shoot the guy in the red shirt, we got a deal with him!"

 

implementation is a bit tricky. i have to switch all hostile targets to non hostile temporarily, then do a SIMs type conversation action between the player's character, and the hostile they select to talk to. then when that's done, do a fuzzy check on the relations, and then possibly switch all the hostiles back to attacking.

 

but when the player goes to parlay, how would they know the leader? give him a big hat or something? <g>


#1Norman Barrows

Posted 16 April 2013 - 05:05 PM

I'd recommend the group if that's feasible, only on the basis given our aversion to danger and even harming each other, you'd expect hostile behavior to flow around a leader. So it makes sense that if you can dissuade the leader, you can convert the group.

 

 

yes i was sort of thinking this too. that parlays are conducted between sides, not individual combatants.

 

"oh, by the way Joe, don't shoot the guy in the red shirt, we got a deal with him!"

 

implementation is a bit tricky. i have to switch all hostile targets to non hostile temporarily, then do a SIMs type conversation action between the player's character, and the hostile they select to talk to. then when that's done, do a fuzzy check on the relations, and then possibly switch all the hostiles back to attacking.

 

but when the layer goes to parlay, how would they know the leader? give him a big hat or something? <g>


PARTNERS