21 réponses à ce sujet

[TheJediSaint]

Good afternoon Bioware forums!  Let me start off by saying that I was not completely sure which thread this topic would be most appropriate in, but considering it would be hard to talk about Friendship/Rivarly without spoilers, I figured I would post it here just to be safe.

Anyway, to start off, I would first like to say that I loved the Friendship/Rivalry system in DA2.  It was a massive improvment over the approval system in the first game, allowing the player greater control over the nature of their relationships with their companions.  It essentially gave the players two diffent paths to explore with each companion.

Now with after reading a thread about companion armor, it got me thinking as to one way to improve upon the Friendship/Rivalry system, by having the Friendship/Rivalry score affect companion equipment.  Let's say for a companion at 0 Friendship/Rivalry, you have the default armor.  Now depending of whether the player increases Friendships or Rivalry, diffrent amor pieces or armor sets with seperate visual themes become unlocked.

As an example, let's imagine a generic warrior character (not Aveline, blank slate).  As friendship increase, the player unlocks armor for that character that reflect that characters wish to protect their buddy.  The armor has a rounder, more robust appearance and has stats that increase the character's survivablity.  With rivarly, on the other hand, the armor becomes lighter and more aggressive in apperance, with stats that improve damage outpit, to reflect the character's desire to one-up the Player Character.  I think story wise, this system would be a great way of SHOWING how players has affected the development of a companion character.

Now I am not a developer and therefore have no clue what it would take in terms of resources to implement this idea in future Dragon Age releases, it could very well be that Bioware would rather focus thier limited time and money on something that they deem to be more important, which I am fine with, Dragon Age is their baby after all.  However, as a fan, I hope to make a small contribution to the idea pile from which Bioware may draw upon.

Anyway, sorry for the long post.  This was just my humble suggestion, I freely invite any forumites to present their own ideas on how to make Bioware's inspired Friendship/Rivarly system better.

[Xilizhra]

I'd do it by making them all more like Sebastian's: Instead of it being about encouraging or discouraging the one path they're taking, make it encouraging one of two different paths they're potentially interested in.

Your idea is interesting as well, but it'd all need to be stuff added to the armor, not removed.

[Wulfram]

The main think they need to do is stop having Fenris try to kill you because you were opposed to slavery. Make the friendship/rivalry focus clearly on one issue, rather than a whole bunch of them.

[Sepewrath]

Wulfram wrote...

The main think they need to do is stop having Fenris try to kill you because you were opposed to slavery. Make the friendship/rivalry focus clearly on one issue, rather than a whole bunch of them.

People's relationships aren't defined by one thing, but instead several things. One can loom larger than the others, but it never comes down to a single subject.

I don't know about that armor stuff, I don't really need the visual cue, I like the way they handled it completely in dialogue. What I would change is the bonus, instead of just a stat bonus, I would have each side get its own unique tree of maybe 3 or 4 talents. A rival gets abilities catered to them, while a friend gets more party supporting talents.

Something else I would change, though I know its unfeasible, is you get points even if people aren't in the party. Its always takes some extra suspension of disbelief that Fenris doesn't know you just freed a thousand mages, just because he wasn't there. I know it wont happen, because people love their metagaming, but it would make your choices count even more among the people around you. Origins had one example of how to do it and how not to do it. Alistair's reaction to killing Connor or Isolde, the right way. Leliana confronting you after defiling the ashes, the wrong way.

[Out to Lunch]

Sepewrath wrote...

Something else I would change, though I know its unfeasible, is you get points even if people aren't in the party. Its always takes some extra suspension of disbelief that Fenris doesn't know you just freed a thousand mages, just because he wasn't there. I know it wont happen, because people love their metagaming, but it would make your choices count even more among the people around you. Origins had one example of how to do it and how not to do it. Alistair's reaction to killing Connor or Isolde, the right way. Leliana confronting you after defiling the ashes, the wrong way.

I liked when they did that in DA:A although it was a 'wut!?' moment the first time a message popped up saying "X" approves +5 and they weren't in my party at the time. I guess people didn't like it since they didn't continue using it. Shame. I preferred it because it allows for a more honest roleplay instead of doing things out of character just to get the desired friend/rival response.

[Wulfram]

Sepewrath wrote...

People's relationships aren't defined by one thing, but instead several things. One can loom larger than the others, but it never comes down to a single subject.

People don't respect each other less because they find a point of agreement.  Which is what happens now because of the muddled rivalry system.

[esper]

Out to Lunch wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

Something else I would change, though I know its unfeasible, is you get points even if people aren't in the party. Its always takes some extra suspension of disbelief that Fenris doesn't know you just freed a thousand mages, just because he wasn't there. I know it wont happen, because people love their metagaming, but it would make your choices count even more among the people around you. Origins had one example of how to do it and how not to do it. Alistair's reaction to killing Connor or Isolde, the right way. Leliana confronting you after defiling the ashes, the wrong way.

I liked when they did that in DA:A although it was a 'wut!?' moment the first time a message popped up saying "X" approves +5 and they weren't in my party at the time. I guess people didn't like it since they didn't continue using it. Shame. I preferred it because it allows for a more honest roleplay instead of doing things out of character just to get the desired friend/rival response.

I agree with that. It is heavily hinted that there is a lot of gossip in the group so I always found it very unlikely that Fenris wouldn't know that I supported mages x if I hadn't got him in the group. I know it makes metagaming harder, but I really think it is better that way.

[Macropodmum]

Maybe an option instead of just adding or removing rivalry points to members not in the group would be to have an optional conversation with a party member that wasn't present so that the player can include that rivalry/friendship if they wanted to

[MichaelFinnegan]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Anyway, to start off, I would first like to say that I loved the Friendship/Rivalry system in DA2.  It was a massive improvment over the approval system in the first game, allowing the player greater control over the nature of their relationships with their companions.  It essentially gave the players two diffent paths to explore with each companion.

Now with after reading a thread about companion armor, it got me thinking as to one way to improve upon the Friendship/Rivalry system, by having the Friendship/Rivalry score affect companion equipment.  Let's say for a companion at 0 Friendship/Rivalry, you have the default armor.  Now depending of whether the player increases Friendships or Rivalry, diffrent amor pieces or armor sets with seperate visual themes become unlocked.

As an example, let's imagine a generic warrior character (not Aveline, blank slate).  As friendship increase, the player unlocks armor for that character that reflect that characters wish to protect their buddy.  The armor has a rounder, more robust appearance and has stats that increase the character's survivablity.  With rivarly, on the other hand, the armor becomes lighter and more aggressive in apperance, with stats that improve damage outpit, to reflect the character's desire to one-up the Player Character.  I think story wise, this system would be a great way of SHOWING how players has affected the development of a companion character.

I'm of a very different view on this one. I think the less they show about the friendship/rivalry of a companion, the better. Meaning, no friendship/rivalry meters, no +10 approval or -30 approval. Whatever we get to know, we get to know by means of facial expressions, by means of body gestures, or the tone of voice. By means of words of approval or a kiss; or with something getting smashed against the wall or with a slap to the face. Or if the effect is big enough the companion just walks out. Who can predict such things? All calculations get pushed to under the hood arithmetic.

This is already there to an extent in the game, with non-companion NPCs. Choose the right dialogue options and Flemeth either gets enraged (somewhat) or a smile appears on her face. It is just not consistently applied, I think.

A numeric system is not how it works in real life, and that is why real-life experiences are so much more complex to gauge. Do I know whether my friend would bite a bullet for me? Heck I don't even know most of the time whether he/she is okay with buying me lunch.

And I find the current system a bit illogical. Companion armor changes color based on romance? Is it that the PC buys that armor for the companion? What is the rationale there? It would make more sense, I'd assume, for the PC to buy the armor and gift it to the companion to show affection - not for it to magically appear out of the blue after a romantic episode.

[andraip]

I would like to see my actions acknoledged by companions that aren't in my party, maybe through dialogue. As for the armor, I don't think so, I would prefer seeing different outfits from that I can chose with my companion will use.

[TobiTobsen]

Wulfram wrote...

The main think they need to do is stop having Fenris try to kill you because you were opposed to slavery. Make the friendship/rivalry focus clearly on one issue, rather than a whole bunch of them.

I support that. You just can't rival him, without supporting slavery, if you don't want to leave him at home in every mission that subject is brought up. Most of those quests are his personal quests anyway so you really can't stop having him in the middle of your friendship/rivalry bar.

Oh... and the other thing I have to complain about is the german localization of "rivalry" as "hostility". It gets kind of annoying that the game tells you that you're making an enemy, if the characters just behave like they diagree with you but respect you nonetheless.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 16 août 2011 - 11:21 .

[G00N3R7883]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Now with after reading a thread about companion armor, it got me thinking as to one way to improve upon the Friendship/Rivalry system, by having the Friendship/Rivalry score affect companion equipment.  Let's say for a companion at 0 Friendship/Rivalry, you have the default armor.  Now depending of whether the player increases Friendships or Rivalry, diffrent amor pieces or armor sets with seperate visual themes become unlocked.

Well thought out idea but ultimately it wouldn't really make sense to me.
"Avelline, I've just found a new piece of armour that has stats ten times better than your current armour. If you wear it, you will pretty much never die"
"Sorry Hawke I'm not your friend so I'll keep using my existing armour even though I know its crappy"

Sepewrath wrote...

Something else I would change, though I know its unfeasible, is you get points even if people aren't in the party. Its always takes some extra suspension of disbelief that Fenris doesn't know you just freed a thousand mages, just because he wasn't there. I know it wont happen, because people love their metagaming, but it would make your choices count even more among the people around you. Origins had one example of how to do it and how not to do it. Alistair's reaction to killing Connor or Isolde, the right way. Leliana confronting you after defiling the ashes, the wrong way.

Totally agree with this. Companions still gain experience when they're not in the party, so they should also have the positive or negative reactions. Maybe the system could at least be tweaked so that everyone reacts to major choices (killing/freeing mages etc) but only those in your party react to minor conversation things (like insulting an NPC).

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

I'm of a very different view on this one. I think the less they show about the friendship/rivalry of a companion, the better. Meaning, no friendship/rivalry meters, no +10 approval or -30 approval. Whatever we get to know, we get to know by means of facial expressions, by means of body gestures, or the tone of voice. By means of words of approval or a kiss; or with something getting smashed against the wall or with a slap to the face. Or if the effect is big enough the companion just walks out. Who can predict such things? All calculations get pushed to under the hood arithmetic.

I would support this, but don't hold out any hope for it. The theme going forward seems to be about making the game more "accessible", so don't expect any hidden stats.

Modifié par G00N3R7883, 16 août 2011 - 01:40 .

[TheJediSaint]

G00N3R7883 wrote...

Well thought out idea but ultimately it wouldn't really make sense to me.
"Avelline, I've just found a new piece of armour that has stats ten times better than your current armour. If you wear it, you will pretty much never die"
"Sorry Hawke I'm not your friend so I'll keep using my existing armour even though I know its crappy"

[

Actually, the meta-game idea that I had was that the companions were the one's choosing the new equipment based on thier opinion of the PC.  The Player's choice is just a matter of gameplay.

[miraclemight]

Wulfram wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

People's relationships aren't defined by one thing, but instead several things. One can loom larger than the others, but it never comes down to a single subject.

People don't respect each other less because they find a point of agreement.  Which is what happens now because of the muddled rivalry system.

Exactly. The greatest manifestation of this flaw is in Anders' friendship/rivalry relationship with Hawke. You might be pro-mage but not accepting of his naive action of merging with a spirit without knowing the consequences. What would happen in this situation? He wouldn't acknowledge it, because the friendship points keep overlapping the rivalry. The only way for achieving 100% rivalry in this example is metagaming.

Doesn't matter though. The end result would be the same mess anyway. He would start writing manifesto pages to try and convince your already pro-mage Hawke that she should side with the mages. As if it isn't bad enough, your Hawke would act like a pro-Templar citizen in the conversations as well...

To wrap up this post - Yes, I completely agree that some things in the current friendship/rivalry system must be changed.But it shouldn't affact companion armours. We already have passive ability bonuses for that.

Modifié par miraclemight, 16 août 2011 - 04:44 .

[Giltspur]

Well, time to say something utterly insane.

My complaint about the friendship/rivalry system is that it favors maxing friendship or rivalry.

What about in-between relationships?  Why should I have to find missions to max them in one direction or another?

I'd rather just react as feels appropriate and see the consequences of those actions--and I want it to be the case that being stuck in the middle isn't decidedly inferior to being at some extreme.

So that's my general reaction.

The other thing is that I felt the characters were already too narrow in their interests.  Fenris's pet issues are mages and slavery.  Anders mostly just cares about mages and their freedom.  I get that a character can be obsessive.  But even people that are obsessed have other interests.  I'd like for characters to have a range of issues that they care about and that you can agree with on some things and disagree with on others.

Take Morrigan in DAO.  She would have sucked if I had to play the meters game with her.

Only the strong survive.  Rival!
Sarcasm and Debauchery.  Friend!
Distrust of Authority Figures, Groupthink, Etc.  Friend!

Chuckling at Morrigan Disapproves -12 was kind of an important to that storyline to me.  I'm not sure I could have pulled it off in DA2.  And that's not a good sign for DA2.

The point is I don't want to always agree or disagree.  Because those are some boring, one-dimensional relationships.  What's cool?  Conflict.  Conflict comes not from being a friend or being a rival.  It comes from being a friendrival.

At any rate, my suggestion would be something like this

Fenris
Slaves F +++++++++++ R    Example: 70 F; -30 R = 40 F overall.
Mages F +++++++++++ R    Example: 30 F; -70 R = 40 R overall
Average Score F ++++++++ R  Example: 40 F; -40 R = whatever the range for neutral, 0 would clearly fall in it.
Total Relationship Score: (This is a total friendship and rival points earned across all meters.  So that's 70 +30 + 30 + 70 for 200 overall relationship score.)

So now you can decide if you want to trigger a general conversation or quest on 1) average score, which is kind of how DA2 is 2) total score which then plays out different based on if your average is friend, neutral or rival 3) a particular meter, so a mage-specific conversation might trigger when mage score gets triggered or perhaps the way fenris approaches a mage conversation that just triggers on its own will be affected by what your mage score is at that time.

And then you have cases like the ending.  Maybe if you're rivals on mages and friends on slaves, when you choose "mages are like slaves" Fenris respects you.  But if you're rivals on mages and slaves and you choose "Mages are slaves" Fenris points out that you never cared about slaves, are a hypocrite, is trying to manipulate him and that he's going to end you.

And you know to keep things simple I only have four meters up there.  But naturally I want like...a gazillion meters breaking down NPC's into numbers omnomnomnom meters mmmm.  But I'd like for all the meters to be hidden.  Because no one wants to see that crap.

Okay, okay, I know why people want to see meters.  It's because they don't trust Bioware.  They're afraid that they pick option 2b during love talk 12 with Silk Fox and the romance quietly ends without them knowing about it and, oh no, I'm checking gamefaqs hoping not to see the wrong spoilers to see if I have to reload an earlier save.  Yeah, yeah I know: there's an armband now.  And that's something.  But that's more of a crouching-tiger-hidden-romance-variable-damn-you-jaheira-love-talk-52-or-whatever-it-was issue and not a frienship/rivalry issue.  (For romances though, you should be able to save them by triggering arguments or icy stares that tell you something is amiss and in need of repair.)

[MichaelFinnegan]

G00N3R7883 wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

I'm of a very different view on this one. I think the less they show about the friendship/rivalry of a companion, the better. Meaning, no friendship/rivalry meters, no +10 approval or -30 approval. Whatever we get to know, we get to know by means of facial expressions, by means of body gestures, or the tone of voice. By means of words of approval or a kiss; or with something getting smashed against the wall or with a slap to the face. Or if the effect is big enough the companion just walks out. Who can predict such things? All calculations get pushed to under the hood arithmetic.

I would support this, but don't hold out any hope for it. The theme going forward seems to be about making the game more "accessible", so don't expect any hidden stats.

Yes, you could be right about making the game more "accessible." Although I'm not sure how true that actually is. Nevertheless, if accessibility is the only concern, then those meters and showing +/- approval could be made optional. But accessibility isn't the only concern. It is mostly about game development time. It is far less costly to implement a game that shows feedback in terms of numbers than one that uses cutscenes and more dialogue to show characters reacting as real life people might.

At least my hope at this time is some gaming company will eventually push the gaming barriers and implement it first time. Then the rest will be forced to do it, whether it increases their development time or not. Competition has a tendency of working wonders that way.

[Morroian]

TobiTobsen wrote...

I support that. You just can't rival him, without supporting slavery, if you don't want to leave him at home in every mission that subject is brought up. Most of those quests are his personal quests anyway so you really can't stop having him in the middle of your friendship/rivalry bar.

Anders has a similar problem. So when the game encourages the players to max one or the other it encourages metagaming.

[Sepewrath]

miraclemight wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

People's relationships aren't defined by one thing, but instead several things. One can loom larger than the others, but it never comes down to a single subject.

People don't respect each other less because they find a point of agreement.  Which is what happens now because of the muddled rivalry system.

Exactly. The greatest manifestation of this flaw is in Anders' friendship/rivalry relationship with Hawke. You might be pro-mage but not accepting of his naive action of merging with a spirit without knowing the consequences. What would happen in this situation? He wouldn't acknowledge it, because the friendship points keep overlapping the rivalry. The only way for achieving 100% rivalry in this example is metagaming.

Yeah but that's what I mean about some things being bigger than others. I can buy my friend lunch and pay his rent for him and he'll love me for it. Then if I dropkick his wife(lol) he would try and kill me and I couldn't tell him I paid his rent and expect him to stop. If you support Anders cause, that means a whole lot more him than if you like Justice. If your helping him free mages and plant bombs, I don't think he will make a big stink about you saying, you hate Justice.

[Quething]

Hidden meters is a horrible idea. This is a video game, mechanics need to be transparent. All you do when you hide them is annoy players by forcing them to look stuff up online while they're playing. Notice how successful the DA:O ability descriptions weren't, and how the mod that fixes that is one of the single most popular of any DA:O mod, and how BioWare went right back to explicit numbers and complete details in DA2?

As for the meters themselves, I've said this recently elsewhere but I still favor a two-axis system for the best balance of complexity of player experience and simplicity of implementation. Give us one axis that defines how much the character respects us (determined by our consistency of opinion, effectiveness of action, or whatever else that character values), and one axis that defines how much the character likes us (determined by whether our values line up with theirs).

Thus, you could have a Fenris who's very lukewarm on your like/dislike axis; you like mages and that bugs him, but you hate slavers and that pleases him. Meanwhile you're very high on his respect axis, because you don't bend to other people's opinions and consistently have his back when he needs you. Crisis points and whether he continues to be your ally would depend on whether you have his respect; romance options and the general tenor of dialog would depend on whether he likes or dislikes you.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Quething wrote...

Hidden meters is a horrible idea.

That's why I said hiding them or not could be an option - just because I know people have different opinions on stuff. And I said facial expressions, body gestrues, etc.could actually be used instead. They all give feedback to the player regarding emotional states of characters - but these meters give a rather one-dimentional, sort of infallible feedback, wherever they appear. A whole dimension of subtelty, deception, etc., and therefore I think potential in character development, is lost.

This is a video game,

But would you like to be reminded of it, while playing it? Experiencing frustration is one thing, and losing immersion is an entirely different thing.

mechanics need to be transparent.

Emotion, character, personality - these don't so easily fit into everyone's idea of someone's "mechanic." And besides what if some character didn't want to be transparent?

All you do when you hide them is annoy players by forcing them to look stuff up online while they're playing. Notice how successful the DA:O ability descriptions weren't, and how the mod that fixes that is one of the single most popular of any DA:O mod, and how BioWare went right back to explicit numbers and complete details in DA2?

What you're talking about though is related to combat. Combat seems to work very differently from how the story goes - the oft mentioned separation of gameplay and combat comes to mind. It need not, but some people demand precision. Let's say some spell says it works within a 15m radius, but how much is 15m within a monitor that measures 21" diagonally? And the difference in some difficulty levels is a matter of whether I get to fry only the enemies or my precious companions also - hence we have those circles around AoE spells - to facilitate combat, to alleviate frustration.

[Ferretinabun]

I quite like Quething's axis idea. The big problem I had with DA2's friendship meter is that there's simply no scope for a companion to dislike you. The equation of 'rival' with actions they disapprove of is an extremely awkward one. You spend the whole game being rude to someone and doing things they disapprove of, and you still end up earning their loyalty...?!

[Gervaise]

I’m glad someone brought this up. I find the meter annoying in that certain conversations (like questioning beliefs) only occur if you’ve reached a certain level on the scale. Since those conversations may increase or decrease your position on that scale, by missing them, you reinforce the middle of the road position. This means that at the end the companion may turn against you simply because you supported them in some areas and disagreed in others, even though on personal quests you were 100% loyal and supportive, whereas with another companion you were constantly rude and in disagreement and you can persuade them to remain loyal simply because they are maximised in rivalry.
 
Also, the fact that it fixes once it reaches the maximum in one direction or the other, doesn’t allow for relationship development. For example, I quickly reached friendship with Anders because initially I was very pro-mage freedom, then started to have second thoughts after some bad experiences, but was now receiving only friendship type dialogue. Having just managed a run through when I deliberately went for dialogue choices that would make him a rival, I received the sort of dialogue I would have liked for a friend – so when I have doubts about him raising a revolution, he promises to keep damage to innocents to a minimum. The fact that he goes back on this is immaterial – at that point it is appropriate to our relationship.
 
It would also be helpful to have the possibility of breaking off a relationship and returning to a former love, as you could in Origins. It seemed very contrived in DA2 as you go for 3 years with very little happening and then jump from sleeping together the first time to simultaneously moving in (for Anders and Merrill) and declaring love. Thereafter you are trapped in the relationship until the very end, even if you started to have serious doubts about your live-in partner. The alternative – sleeping with them and then instantly breaking it off, makes you totally shallow and heartless. What if you have doubts and think ditching Fenris for walking out on you was a bad idea?   Surely if he can ignore you for 3 years and be forgiven, he could do the same for you?  After all in overheard conversations he keeps insisting that it is over.  As for Sebastian, where did they get the idea that you should not so much as make even one flirtatious comment to another character the entire game for him to be interested? I can understand him objecting if you sleep with them. And finally, why is teaching someone to read, something that only a lover would do?