251 réponses à ce sujet

[David Gaider]

Utoryo wrote...
In the example with Sten, if you were on the rivalry path and you told him that you genuinely changed your mind and he's right about it, would we gain a lot of friendship points so that you're not stuck at neutral even if your character has genuinely changed his mind? It's one thing to be schizophrenic, it's quite another to actually change your mind, something which should logically be valued greatly in any friendship. Is this possible?

Not all friendship/rivalry changes are equal-- just as not all approval changes in DAO were equal. Some things are going to cause big shifts, and just as in DAO sometimes you will have the opportunity to explain your reasoning further and either intensify or ameliorate those shifts somewhat.

[upsettingshorts]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Why have them on the same scale at all? Wouldn't it be better to have seperate indicators for friendship and rivalry? One for how much they like you and one for how much they seek to compete or cooperate with you. You can do much more with 2 indicators.

Because it's a scale of relative disagreement.  Imagine a solution of salt and water.  If you keep adding salt and keep adding water, the ratio stays the same.  It won't allow you to "change" the nature of the solution, it would simply be semantics at that point as to which way of displaying  the information is better.  Even if you suddenly dropped more salt into the solution after having added a bunch of both, it's still going to be only +5 Salty. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 05:36 .

[Gegenlicht]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because it's a scale of relative disagreement.  Imagine a solution of salt and water.  If you keep adding salt and keep adding water, the ratio stays the same.  It won't allow you to "change" the nature of the solution, it would simply be semantics at that point as to which way of displaying  the information is better.  Even if you suddenly dropped more salt into the solution after having added a bunch of both, it's still going to be only +5 Salty. 

But you end up with MORE sal****er.

Quantity has a quality all its own or however Stalin put that.

Bigger friendship, just not more extreme.

[upsettingshorts]

Gegenlicht wrote...

Quantity has a quality all its own or however Stalin put that.

Only if quantity is measured by the game, with resulting consequences.  It seems like only ratios are as the system is intended to support extremes.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 05:40 .

[David Gaider]

Nighteye2 wrote...
Why have them on the same scale at all? Wouldn't it be better to have seperate indicators for friendship and rivalry? One for how much they like you and one for how much they seek to compete or cooperate with you. You can do much more with 2 indicators.

Because as soon as you have more than one axis you start ending up with much more complicated dialogue. We looked at this, but the truth of the matter is doing that would have meant much less relevance for each axis as we simply wouldn't have been able to use it in as many situations.

[Sheryl Chee]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

+5 Salty. 

This amuses me more than it should.

"Morrigan gains +5 to Saltiness."

[Giggles_Manically]

David Gaider wrote...

Utoryo wrote...
In the example with Sten, if you were on the rivalry path and you told him that you genuinely changed your mind and he's right about it, would we gain a lot of friendship points so that you're not stuck at neutral even if your character has genuinely changed his mind? It's one thing to be schizophrenic, it's quite another to actually change your mind, something which should logically be valued greatly in any friendship. Is this possible?

Not all friendship/rivalry changes are equal-- just as not all approval changes in DAO were equal. Some things are going to cause big shifts, and just as in DAO sometimes you will have the opportunity to explain your reasoning further and either intensify or ameliorate those shifts somewhat.

Will companions still have points where they cant accept why you decide to do?
Like Wynne at the ashes or Alistair if you spare Loghain?

[Gegenlicht]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The way I understand it, the relationship is still meaningful, it just isn't extreme in one way or another.  Given that you can still do personal quests and as far as I understand still undertake romances, what is lost? 

That's what I mean when I say the system sounds reactive, not directive.

I think I worded things better in my post right after the one you're quoting. If choices leave you at around the neutral point, there'll be no in-game acknowledgement of me even having made an effort to deepen a friendship. That'd simply be a shame.

Without knowing specific examples, or how each opportunity to gain Friend or Rivalry points - we can't actually predict with any accuracy if this is genuinely going to be an issue.  Right now Mr. Gaider is saying that we'd basically have to be schizophrenic for this to happen.  The way I read that is we're not going to be gaining points one way or the other wily nily, or at least not as often and as easily as we would in DA:O.  If the points of contention are made more significant, we're less likely to flip flop on our interpretation of the situation as either we (as players) or our characters (in roleplaying) won't be having a minor disagreement that is the result of some nuanced interpretation.  As long as the big decisions result in big swings one way or the other, I don't see how it couldn't work that way.

If it's really just the big decisions, then yes, it's a non-issue as there's more story-relevant things factoring into them than whether a companion likes my Hawke. No arguments there. On the other hand, I hope there's more to influencing our compatriots simply because, at least for those characters I end up liking, I really like seeing my interaction with them having an impact of any sort.

[Qset]

David Gaider wrote...

You'll note something important there-- "rivalry" may indeed be "we disagree, but for really good reasons". As I've mentioned elsewhere, rivalry is the only path where you can lead a follower to eventually change... not completely, that would be unrealistic, but perhaps change their mind about something very important.

David, firstly, thank you for coming on and explaining this new system to us. It does sound very promising, richer than DAO and also adds a lot fo replay value. I can see others are asking many of the questions I have already. One question I wanetd to ask was in response to the above point you made.

If I understand your above correctly, then we need to pursue the rivalry path to be able to change a companions mind on something, I guess to use a DAO example, something like hardening Alistar during his personal quest or persuading him on the DR or kingship. Is this correct? We cannot influence our companions from a friendship side? Even if it is on a different subject?

I guess I am struggling to se why we can only influence from a rivalry standpoint, can you explain the reasoning here for me a bit more please - maybe I am being a bit thick

[jesuno]

After a rivalry hits the climax (fight, sex, whatever) does it switch to friendship, or does it stay as a rivalry? (ie, does the one upmanship end and everything is cool, or do we still butt heads, just there is a level of respect now)

[Piecake]

Gegenlicht wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because it's a scale of relative disagreement.  Imagine a solution of salt and water.  If you keep adding salt and keep adding water, the ratio stays the same.  It won't allow you to "change" the nature of the solution, it would simply be semantics at that point as to which way of displaying  the information is better.  Even if you suddenly dropped more salt into the solution after having added a bunch of both, it's still going to be only +5 Salty. 

But you end up with MORE sal****er.

Quantity has a quality all its own or however Stalin put that.

Bigger friendship, just not more extreme.

I think that would be a neat idea.  If your companion is stuck in the companion stage (im not calling it neutral!) the more you fight with him/talk with him, even if it doesnt progress to friendship/rivalry, it could lead to new dialogue choices/different ways of saying things because you built up more of a repore, trust/respect, etc than the companion that you dont use and never talk to.

Im not sure if that is actually feasable though

[CarlSpackler]

David Gaider wrote...

Utoryo wrote...
In the example with Sten, if you were on the rivalry path and you told him that you genuinely changed your mind and he's right about it, would we gain a lot of friendship points so that you're not stuck at neutral even if your character has genuinely changed his mind? It's one thing to be schizophrenic, it's quite another to actually change your mind, something which should logically be valued greatly in any friendship. Is this possible?

Not all friendship/rivalry changes are equal-- just as not all approval changes in DAO were equal. Some things are going to cause big shifts, and just as in DAO sometimes you will have the opportunity to explain your reasoning further and either intensify or ameliorate those shifts somewhat.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this aspect is perhaps the announced feature I am most looking forward to in DA2.  DAO was outstanding fun, but it was certainly frustrating how obstinante Morrigan was or how unyielding Sten could be with only the gift system to overcome these issues.

[David Gaider]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
Will companions still have points where they cant accept why you decide to do?
Like Wynne at the ashes or Alistair if you spare Loghain?

Possibly, yes.

[Gegenlicht]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Gegenlicht wrote...

Quantity has a quality all its own or however Stalin put that.

Only if quantity is measured by the game, with resulting consequences.  It seems like only ratios are as the system is intended to support extremes.

Exactly. Which is also exactly my issue with the system.

Again, better than DA:O.

But not immune to improvement.


Why didn't I **** about this in DA:O? Cause it was a simple metric without much depth behind it. Now they've gone and actually added a ton of depth, but IMO forgot something. And that is a shame to me.

[upsettingshorts]

Doesn't your conclusion assume a Mass Effect 2 type scenario where they stop talking to you or give a canned, repetitious response if you haven't progressed to an extreme?

What if there's simply a non-extreme dialogue path that recognizes a non-extreme relationship?

[Gegenlicht]

Also, I can't believe the forum's censoring mechanic.



Sal****er, seriously? That's hilarious. Insane, but hilarious.

[David Gaider]

Qset wrote...
If I understand your above correctly, then we need to pursue the rivalry path to be able to change a companions mind on something, I guess to use a DAO example, something like hardening Alistar during his personal quest or persuading him on the DR or kingship. Is this correct? We cannot influence our companions from a friendship side? Even if it is on a different subject?

I guess I am struggling to se why we can only influence from a rivalry standpoint, can you explain the reasoning here for me a bit more please - maybe I am being a bit thick

Friendship means you already agree with your companion on the subject. Why would you change their mind on something you agree with?

We're not talking about "change" being something new that comes up out of the blue, or being able to change their mind about anything. Here we're talking about possibly changing their mind on something fundamental which is central to the character's plot throughout the game. If you are on the friendship path they might still come to you for advice/help and such... but you're not going to be changing their mind on anything.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 décembre 2010 - 05:53 .

[David Gaider]

jesuno wrote...
After a rivalry hits the climax (fight, sex, whatever) does it switch to friendship, or does it stay as a rivalry? (ie, does the one upmanship end and everything is cool, or do we still butt heads, just there is a level of respect now)

If you reach the climax of either path (ho ho ho) then it stays there permanently and doesn't change any longer. "Max rivalry" and "max friendship" are essentially their own states.

[Gegenlicht]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Doesn't your conclusion assume a Mass Effect 2 type scenario where they stop talking to you or give a canned, repetitious response if you haven't progressed to an extreme?
What if there's simply a non-extreme dialogue path that recognizes a non-extreme relationship?

Like I said before, I at least assume that the basic dialogue will remain the same whether you simply never bothered with a character or managed to somehow keep them at neutral in spite of investing time and effort into cultivating your friendship. Because supposedly the game recognizes neutral, friendly, rival, maybe with progressing stages to the latter two. In that scheme, neutral will be neutral, barring flags that govern people talking about stuff you've been through together.

[Wulfram]

David Gaider wrote...

Friendship means you already agree with your companion on the subject. Why would you change their mind on something you agree with?

What if you agree about most things, but disagree about this?  Or does it only track views on one issue per character?

Modifié par Wulfram, 01 décembre 2010 - 05:56 .

[bsbcaer]

In my humble opinion, this is one aspect that should be part of the marketing campaign

[jesuno]

David Gaider wrote...

jesuno wrote...
After a rivalry hits the climax (fight, sex, whatever) does it switch to friendship, or does it stay as a rivalry? (ie, does the one upmanship end and everything is cool, or do we still butt heads, just there is a level of respect now)

If you reach the climax of either path (ho ho ho) then it stays there permanently and doesn't change any longer. "Max rivalry" and "max friendship" are essentially their own states.

Good, I want Iceman to stay Iceman. I'll fight with him, but I'm not sharing a beer with him when it is over. And he will NEVER replace Goose! Sorry, got carried away...

[upsettingshorts]

jesuno wrote...
Good, I want Iceman to stay Iceman. I'll fight with him, but I'm not sharing a beer with him when it is over. And he will NEVER replace Goose! Sorry, got carried away...

Iceman didn't replace Goose.  Merlin did!
"You're gonna do what?!"

/from Merlin's perspective, Maverick replaced Cougar

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 06:02 .

[ErichHartmann]

bsbcaer wrote...

In my humble opinion, this is one aspect that should be part of the marketing campaign

The catch phrase should be right out of Gaider's own mouth.  "Reach the climax (ho ho ho)."

[Mary Kirby]

Wulfram wrote...

What if you agree about most things, but disagree about this?  Or does it only track views on one issue per character?

Here, I'll attempt to explain with one of my Totally Improbable Examples ™:

One of your companions is Phil the Dairy Farmer. He feels that cheese is the single most important thing in Thedas.

When he tends to bring this up, you can say things like, "Phil, there are things in life more important than cheese." or, "Gouda saved my life once! I am totally with you on the cheese issue!"

Picking the first one increases rivalry a small amount. Picking the second increases friendship.

Then, you get to Phil's follower plot, in which you have to choose between saving a dairy that is on fire before it burns to the ground, or saving a puppy, or maybe just going out for a beer. Saving the dairy gets you a large friendship increase. Letting it burn gets you a large rivalry increase.

Eventually, as you do and say things that are anti-cheese, Phil blows up at you. There's a big argument where he accuses you of hating all that is good in the world and having no priorities. But then one of Phil's loved ones is killed by a Gorgonzola, and now he realizes that he's been wrong all along.

Or...

Eventually, as you do and say things that are pro-cheese, Phil decides you are long lost soulmates. Then one of Phil's loved ones is attacked by a Gorgonzola, but you successfully fend it off, and Phil decides to become the Cheese Avenger, Champion of Dairy Goodness everywhere.