15 réponses à ce sujet

[BubbleDncr]

 So I'm on my thrid playthrough of DA2, and by the end of Act 2, I've maxed out friendship or rivalry with all but one of my companions. And I found that I suddenly felt a little empty when I realised my companions no longer cared what I did. No more +5 friendship or +5 rivaly popping up after my conversations and quest related decisions, and I missed that. Does anyone else get that feeling?

What would people think of having a scale that never maxed out, but the bonuses just got better and better the higher and higher your friendship/rivalry was, like in Origins (except Origins stilll maxed out). Then for things like whether or not your companions stick with you at certain points of the game, they could just be based off the value your friendship/rivalry was at, rather than percentage.

So, for instance, you start out at a value of zero. You have to have Isabella at either 50 friend or rival by the end of act 2 for her to stay, and at 100 friend or rival, you unlock her bonus (the same system as it is now, but with values instead of percents). But, if you're one of those people who always has Isabella in your party, and either always does what she likes or hates, then at, say 150 friend/rival, her bonuses increase by 5% or something. And at 200, they increase once again. The intervals would depend on what was actually possible in the game, but that's the basic idea.

Or am I the only person who would like this? When I've brought up similar ideas in other threads, I tend to get that a lot of people like it when they max out because then they can stop metagaming.

[Knight of Dane]

Doubtful that you're the only one who wants that, but i'm not one of them.

[Heidenreich]

Yuck. I like that, at a certan point your friends (or rivals) know you well enough that they aren't suprised that you're doing something (siding with the mages, again, for example) that you typically would have previously done.

-I- think, that instead once they're maxed, and your Hawke does something "uncharacteristic" based on your previous choices, they'll act shocked. "Wait... what just happened? Hawke actually agreed to help the Templars voluntarily? I must be losing my mind."


It wouldn't be to difficult to implement, and would work very much like the "tone-of-voice" flag counter ;p That would make it feel like your friends know you pretty well, with out breaking the work/story of your "friend/rival" trusting you.

[Knight of Dane]

Isabela gets shocked when you give her to Arishok

[Wulfram]

It would be one thing if the way friendship and rivalry points are handed out was coherent. But for a lot of characters it's not, so it's a bad idea.

[LadyJaneGrey]

The main problem I have with how DA2's friend/rival system worked is the companion conversations seem more determined on the position of the bar than on what Hawke actually did during the interactions.  Examples:

Anders decides Hawke always supported him personally and the "mage cause" even though he saw her helping templars just as much as mages - and by that point in the game she thought he truly was crazy. 

Merrill is completely furious and devastated when Hawke denied her the tool, yet she bounces back to ask for her help in III and keeps the mirror, never acknowledging a Hawke that spent half the game yelling "BAD IDEA, BAD ROAD."

Sebastian tells Hawke "you taught me the end justifies the means" and marches off when Hawke...really hadn't done or said anything like that.

Granted, I never had all these problems in the same playthrough, but it's jarring to have the player's choices feel so ignored. 

[Gervaise]

The problem for for me was not that the bar did not keeping rising but that it locked and could never go down. Then making the loyalty of the companion dependent on whether you had achieved 100% in either direction. In Origins whilst the bar could max out at 100%, it was still possible for decisions that the companion did disapprove of to be reflected in a drop of points. Usually this wasn't too serious but if you made too many disapproved discisions it could effectively drop you to at least the point where loyalty was not guaranteed. Small disagreements would not affect overall loyalty.
As the above poster says, I found it ridiculous that just because I had maxed out friendship with Anders midway through Act 2, he still considered me his friend even though I was subsequently taking decisions that he would not have approved of and being offered dialogue options which no longer reflected my sentiments towards him. I, like many people, also find it annoying that just because you took balanced view on issues which sometimes favoured one companion's views, sometimes another, you could end up with a character abandoning you because you were too moderate, when they would still stay with you if you were totally opposed to their way of thinking. Some modifying of the system is really needed for DA3 but not along the lines of greater rewards for just being a "yes" or "no" person.

[BubbleDncr]

My idea was that it would never max out, and you could always gain rivalry points even if you got to over 100 friendship.

I figured if at a certain point, everyone got the award for befriending/rivaling their companion, then players who just wanted that would be satisfied, and as long as they played consistently, they wouldn't really lose it.

@ Heidenreich, I like you idea. Would it be too crazy too suggest that there could be decisions you make that are so shocking to your companion that it just switched you over to the opposite end of the spectrum? So, say the whole game you were anti-mage the entire game, and suddenly at the end sided with the mages, if you had Fenris at max friendhsip, he suddenly just switches to max rival?

[Alys555]

Personally I would hate it if the friendship and rivarly system would
become unending.

I  always try to make a certain companion either a
rival or friend for story reasons but also for combat purpose. This
results in me always having to think before going on a quest: "what will
I decide to do, who should I take with me to get the most
friendship/rivarly points out of that choice?" This get's a bit tiresome
after a while and I'm always relieved when my companions are maxxed out
so I can just focus on questing and make choices based on what I wanna
choose. Not what my companions want.

To be fair: this is my own choice, but if there were actual combat benefits to continue to build rivarly/friendship
I would probably feel inclined to play the "friendship/rivarly game"
more intensly to help me create a stronger team. And I already don't
really like the "friendship/rivarly game" much to begin with.

That's to say:
it would be more realistic if your companions would response to
a choice you make that, to them, seems out ot character. It would
definately make them seem more realistic and add an extra layer of realism to the world. It would be neat.

Modifié par Alys555, 27 septembre 2011 - 09:29 .

[LT123]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

The main problem I have with how DA2's friend/rival system worked is the companion conversations seem more determined on the position of the bar than on what Hawke actually did during the interactions.  Examples:

Anders decides Hawke always supported him personally and the "mage cause" even though he saw her helping templars just as much as mages - and by that point in the game she thought he truly was crazy. 

Merrill is completely furious and devastated when Hawke denied her the tool, yet she bounces back to ask for her help in III and keeps the mirror, never acknowledging a Hawke that spent half the game yelling "BAD IDEA, BAD ROAD."

Sebastian tells Hawke "you taught me the end justifies the means" and marches off when Hawke...really hadn't done or said anything like that.

Granted, I never had all these problems in the same playthrough, but it's jarring to have the player's choices feel so ignored. 

I think I actually said, "What?" out loud when that happened. I was trying to get you up out of the Chantry and off to take back Starkhaven, Choir Boy, so you would actually make a decision. I don't remember saying anything about the ends justifying the means.

Granted, he did end up marching off to do what Hawke had been bugging him to do since Act II. Too bad Hawke and company won't be in Kirkwall when he finally gets back.

Edit: On second thought, I think missed Seb's final QB because it's so hard to get rivalry points for him without kicking puppies and murdering people, so maybe Hawke says something about it there. Anybody?

Modifié par LT123, 27 septembre 2011 - 09:52 .

[LadyJaneGrey]

LT123 wrote...

I think I actually said, "What?" out loud when that happened. I was trying to get you up out of the Chantry and off to take back Starkhaven, Choir Boy, so you would actually make a decision. I don't remember saying anything about the ends justifying the means.

Granted, he did end up marching off to do what Hawke had been bugging him to do since Act II. Too bad Hawke and company won't be in Kirkwall when he finally gets back.

Edit: On second thought, I think missed Seb's final QB because it's so hard to get rivalry points for him without kicking puppies and murdering people, so maybe Hawke says something about it there. Anybody?

He still does it then too.  And Hawke has the option of telling him to stay in the chantry, go rule Starkhaven, or the neutral "we all serve the Maker in our own way."

Come on, dude, after all our careful tap dancing you still can't get it right?  :innocent:

[berelinde]

Actually, I rather prefer that companions max out on friendship or rivalry. Convenience aside, it's sort of true to life. If you've become close to someone, you come to anticipate their actions and either trust their judgment or realize that there is no way you will ever be able to do so.

Full friendship and Hawke does something that would increase friendship further? Well, that's just what one would expect, isn't it? After all, Hawke's a good friend for a reason.

Full friendship and Hawke does something that would increase rivalry otherwise? Ordinarily, this might be difficult to accept, but Hawke must have had very good reasons. Benefit of the doubt, etc.

Full rivalry and Hawke does something that would further increase rivalry? No surprises here.

Full rivalry and Hawke does something that would otherwise increase friendship? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[esper]

Heidenreich wrote...

Yuck. I like that, at a certan point your friends (or rivals) know you well enough that they aren't suprised that you're doing something (siding with the mages, again, for example) that you typically would have previously done.

-I- think, that instead once they're maxed, and your Hawke does something "uncharacteristic" based on your previous choices, they'll act shocked. "Wait... what just happened? Hawke actually agreed to help the Templars voluntarily? I must be losing my mind."


It wouldn't be to difficult to implement, and would work very much like the "tone-of-voice" flag counter ;p That would make it feel like your friends know you pretty well, with out breaking the work/story of your "friend/rival" trusting you.

This is a good and very funny idea, and it would make it feel like your choices matter. Of course if you keep making a choice repeately that is out of character for you the companion should shift completely to the other side.

I would like to have the da:a system back when we talk about approaval gain. Simply because it is implied that everyone chat alot. If everyone knew who I am sleeping with the next day, then how come nobody knows if I relisead a couple of mages unless they were there when I did it? I know such a system would make it harder to gain friendship and rivaly with certain characters, but I like a challenge-

[Gervaise]

Funnily enough Esper they had that system in Neverwinter Nights 2. You could leave a companion behind, thinking that it was a situation you didn't want them to know about because they would disapprove and then it still seemed to be recorded against you anyway. As you say, that actually made it more realistic because people would as like as not chat together during rest periods and someone would let something slip that you would rather they had not. Mind you it was hellish to keep track of and probably not all that popular.

[esper]

They had? I never noticed people gaining approval when I left them behind. Perhaps that was the problem. I da:a, the approval plus/minus came up each time which meant I was aware of it.

[Dave of Canada]

Don't feel sad at all, it means I can drag that companion everywhere without worrying he/she will spit in my face and be angry or that I won't have enough points to cap out one side.