251 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

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?

Maybe its just the labeling it as "friendship" but that kind of confuses me- So essentially its not really friendship, just more like sharing the same philosophical views or being agreeable to them? Because certainly you can be "friends" with someone without having to agree with them on everything- or maybe agreeing on some things but not others.

Basically DA2's "friendship" path, say with Morrigan, would be if you agreed with her on her whole survival of the fittest mentality and made choices she agreed with= + friendship.

But if you made goody goody choices or told her stuff like how love is not a weakness, that might set you down the rival path, but maybe you get to a point where you can argue and convince her something like love isn't a weakness or something?

[Qset]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

hmm, ok, still not clear to me, so lets try an example and you can tell me if I am misunderstanding the whole change mind/important decision process wording you are using here. Myexample migth be bad by the way because I don't know teh DA frames of reference for companion quests etc so I'll have to fall back to DAO compansion quests.

I am half way through the "game" and well on a friendship path with a companion - we see agree on many things. The companion has an important decision to make in a personal quest. They come to me for advice, I give my advice and since we see eye to eye on many things its "friendship" path advice and it matches what they were considering anyway. What I think you are saying is that they would take this advice on board and most likely choose the friendship path for their important decision yes since my advice helped to reinforce their opinion?

So, to use your terms, I aren't really changing thier mind on anything since they were considering that course of action already since we agree on many things already and its likely we would agree on this as well?

So to fall back on DAO speak - Alistar's hardening - if there is a conversation with a companion like this in DA2 can I only convince them to "harden" if I am in a rivalry situation since given Alistar's normal mode would be not hardened (since on 1 diagloue option out of 4 is harden - pure guesswork on my part) then a rivalry position would allow me to put forward a counter argument?

These are imperfect examples feel free to add your own to help me understand here.

[Tribbleofdoom]

Lol. He spelled Avaline as "Adaline".

[LadyKarrakaz]

Mary Kirby wrote...

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.

I want to see this ingame

More seriously, interesting. I'm really looking forward to the interactions with the new companions. 

[David Gaider]

Mary Kirby wrote...
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.

In short, we don't have you making small changes to a companion. That would be difficult to track, and really that's just part of interacting with them normally-- it's plot. Remember that the relationship is an abstraction... we can't actually simulate the nuances of human interaction, but we can make it look like we are and at the same time provide some gameplay & story relevance for the decisions you're making.

Where we actually come to some kind of significant divergence relates to one big issue. And that's it.

[Snoteye]

Gouda is so overrated.

[Qset]

Mary Kirby wrote...

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.

perfect, many thanks, I understand now, ignore my later post

[nightcobra]

once again cheese saves the day

[jesuno]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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

Yes, when I first read about the friendship/rivalry system, Goose/Iceman was the first thing that came to mind. Then I roleplayed Maverick, dammit I told my wife I would stop...

@Mary

cheese seems to be a favorite pasttime of the DA writers, it sure comes up a lot.

[upsettingshorts]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

once again cheese saves the day

Behold! The power of cheese.

[Brockololly]

DA2 needs a Muenster Monster.

[bsbcaer]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

once again cheese saves the day

Behold! The power of cheese.

The political power of cheese: 

[Wulfram]

So there wouldn't be anything like the little conversation between Leliana and an Elf warden? Where she says some insensitive things, the warden goes "WTH?" and she goes "whoops, you're right"

[Mary Kirby]

Wulfram wrote...

So there wouldn't be anything like the little conversation between Leliana and an Elf warden? Where she says some insensitive things, the warden goes "WTH?" and she goes "whoops, you're right"

That can happen, but that's not a friendship/rivalry issue. That was one conversation. If elves had come up in multiple conversations with her, and you could alter how she'd talk about them by saying "WTH, Leliana?" then it might be tracked by friendship/rivalry.

[haand76]

This sounds ALOT better than the system that was used in DA:O.

[Wulfram]

That makes sense, thanks

[Marionetten]

haand76 wrote...

This sounds ALOT better than the system that was used in DA:O.

It's quite literally double the fun.

[mr_luga]

I dont know what sort of friendships you guys got, but with my friends we disagree on certain things that will forever remain, like, I hate cola, but my friend does not. I'm still great friends with the guy



I'm fine with friends disagreeing on certain things. As long as the smaller stuff dosnt drag down friendship alot. Becouse I know me and my friend, wont become less friends, becouse we got a diffrent view on what we drink

[Utoryo]

Mary Kirby wrote...

That can happen, but that's not a friendship/rivalry issue. That was one conversation. If elves had come up in multiple conversations with her, and you could alter how she'd talk about them by saying "WTH, Leliana?" then it might be tracked by friendship/rivalry.

Ah, so one key to understand the new system is to realise that relationship is now much more about the companion's core issues than about smaller things. That's a good thing I'd argue given how easy it was to achieve maximum friendship with most companions in DA:O even if you disagreed with them on their core issues.

But what about tone? Let's say you agreed with Morrigan on core issues, but were still unbelievably rude to her (for example because you didn't trust her intentions, RP-wise). Would that push you into neutral territory instead, or would it basically change nothing? And what if you disagreed with Leliana completely on the Maker, but you were incredibly kind to her and agreed that it would be a lot of fun to shop for shoes together - would that be a mitigating factor? I suppose the natural answer would be "that depends", but that also risks being a bit confusing because you know even less what to expect.

And either way, I agree with the others who said this sounds a lot better overall than even DA:O's system (and David even replied to my concern in a very reassuring way). So this is pretty exciting!

Modifié par Utoryo, 01 décembre 2010 - 06:43 .

[mokponobi]

This system sounds excellent. The clarity of explanations from David and Mary must be applauded.

[Neesee]

mokponobi wrote...

This system sounds excellent. The clarity of explanations from David and Mary must be applauded.

I liked the one talking about cheese.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Friendship/Rivalry in action. Now if only I didn't have to wait until March to do so.

[Nighteye2]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I can understand that argument, although going from 1 to 2 axis is not a tremendous change while it does add a lot of depth - the diminishing returns, in my opinion, start only when you try to do more than 2 axis.

I think that have 2 axis will also let more people experiment with rivalry - people like being liked, and so may neglect the rivalry paths if theyve become synonymous with not being liked. Giving like/dislike it's own seperate axis frees players to fully explore the other axis.

[Khayness]

Warrior from Orlais, and a dwarven king, should I read any further?

[David Gaider]

Nighteye2 wrote...
I can understand that argument, although going from 1 to 2 axis is not a tremendous change while it does add a lot of depth - the diminishing returns, in my opinion, start only when you try to do more than 2 axis.

I know you think that, and it sounds good in theory, but try plotting it out. You've just doubled the number of points we'd need to track... either that or halved the number of points along each axis where we can establish a difference for how far you've progressed along it.

Or doubled the number of variations we would need in dialogues to cover those points, not to mention doubled the points of failure where we would need to test to make sure that we're not presenting one effect where we would need to present another.

More realistic? Perhaps-- but once again this is an abstraction. We can theorize on the best way to numerically present a relationship like this, but unless it's something we can practically implement in a meaningful way it's completely useless.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 décembre 2010 - 07:15 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Mary Kirby wrote...

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.

Awesome explanation! Question: is it part of an evil plot of yours to use food in your examples as a way to torment us when we're hungry?

<--- Hasn't eaten breakfast yet.