What did you like better?
The DA:O version of approval, where the Companoins just liked/loved or hated you more and more, you could romance them only if they liked you or they could even leave your party, if you managed to ****** them off very hard or the DA2 version, where they still respected you and aided you even on the rivarly path, you could romance them as a rival too and you got bonuses for reaching the maximum on the "approval bar"? I really liked the DA2 system and I'd like to keep it for DA3.
What do you think it will look like in DA3, will it change, how?
Is there something you would change? - No bonuses for the max, loosing/gaining approval even if the Companoin is not present, loosign points even if you have already reached the maximum, something else?
Approval X friendship/rivalry in DA3?
Débuté par
Anny78
, sept. 21 2012 03:33
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 03:40
Potato Cat
-
- Members
- 7 784 messages
I kinda want both. Think about it, realistically, Leliana would not still like you all that much after you destroyed the ashes would she? Not even a begrudging respect. There needs to be a system where we aren't just Yes Men for our companions and can have the begrudging respect that worked so well with Fenris, (imo), but they can still not like us.
#3
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 03:42
Dubozz
-
- Members
- 1 866 messages
How about good old "Morrigan disapproves" method? Or even better, KOTOR2 style . Friendship/Rivalry feels all the same to me. Nothin changing. I see no diffirence. And you know what? I like to be approved by the character i like myself.
Modifié par Dubozz, 21 septembre 2012 - 03:51 .
#4
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 03:42
horacethegrey
-
- Members
- 855 messages
I liked the frienship/rivalry system. It allows my PC to converse with companions I don't necessarily agree with. Unlike approval, where if you don't butter them up they absolutely refuse to talk with you.
#5
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 03:43
snackrat
-
- Members
- 2 577 messages
Approval/Rivalry is, I think, a better system. However, Friendship/Rivalry was supposed to represent respect, and it seems odd that the more you pissed off a character the more they respected you. Using them two of them together would be ideal - Frienship/Rivalry referring to whether you help/hunder them (since that was mostly how it was used anyway) and approval showing how much what you say/do shows conviction, strength, or whatever that character considers worth of respect.
Since it is supposed to mark 'respect', it would be cool if they worked on an inverted triangle system. Bottom point = no respect, top-left = high respect and friendship, top-right=high respect and rivalry. As you earned respect you'd climb UP (and did something dishonourable climb DOWN) but rivalry and friendship would only move you side to side. It removes the idea of 'rivalry' as an inherently bad thing and also enables for having high respect for the PC without necessarily knowing them cut-and-dried.
Be too awkward to implement though.
Since it is supposed to mark 'respect', it would be cool if they worked on an inverted triangle system. Bottom point = no respect, top-left = high respect and friendship, top-right=high respect and rivalry. As you earned respect you'd climb UP (and did something dishonourable climb DOWN) but rivalry and friendship would only move you side to side. It removes the idea of 'rivalry' as an inherently bad thing and also enables for having high respect for the PC without necessarily knowing them cut-and-dried.
Be too awkward to implement though.
Modifié par Karsciyin, 21 septembre 2012 - 03:45 .
#6
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 03:43
Arppis
-
- Members
- 12 750 messages
Rivaly/Friendship.
Even when Approves and dissaproves was more realistic, it made me want to get that approval. I didn't want the squadmates to leave all the sudent of or something. Rivaly and Friendship just felt better and I didn't feel like the game was somekinda pleasing simulator.
Even when Approves and dissaproves was more realistic, it made me want to get that approval. I didn't want the squadmates to leave all the sudent of or something. Rivaly and Friendship just felt better and I didn't feel like the game was somekinda pleasing simulator.
#7
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 03:43
Sylvanpyxie
-
- Members
- 1 036 messages
I like the concept of Friendship and Rivalry, but it was implemented poorly in Dragon Age 2.
If it was refined, altered to take into account not only your Friendship and Rivalry scale but also your particular dialogue choices, and there were consequences for certain choices you make through-out the game, then it could be a truly awesome system.
The bog standard affection system from Origins just irritated me, if the player had little idea of the content within the game there was actually the risk of skipping certain interactions with the companions. It's a *very* poor system.
If it was refined, altered to take into account not only your Friendship and Rivalry scale but also your particular dialogue choices, and there were consequences for certain choices you make through-out the game, then it could be a truly awesome system.
The bog standard affection system from Origins just irritated me, if the player had little idea of the content within the game there was actually the risk of skipping certain interactions with the companions. It's a *very* poor system.
Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 21 septembre 2012 - 03:45 .
#8
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 03:43
ScarMK
-
- Members
- 820 messages
horacethegrey wrote...
I liked the frienship/rivalry system. It allows my PC to converse with companions I don't necessarily agree with. Unlike approval, where if you don't butter them up they absolutely refuse to talk with you.
Would you like to talk about your personal self to someone you dislike and who probably wouldn't give a damn in the first place?
#9
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 03:51
Maclimes
-
- Members
- 2 495 messages
I still think there should be two meters, instead of one.
Meter One: Respect. This is gained through action and statement. This meter corresponds with how well your goals line up with your companion's goals. For example, freeing a mage would gain Respect with Anders, but lose it with Fenris.
Meter Two: Affection. This is gained through gifts, dialogue, and tone. It corresponds with how much the companion likes you, irrelevant of your goals and opinions. For example, telling that same mage, "Just get the hell out of here before I change my mind and beat you with your own staff" would lose Affection with Anders, but gain it with Fenris.
Anders approved of the action, but doesn't actually like you. Fenris likes your attitude and demeanor, but doesn't approve of your actions.
*******
Here's the possible extreme results:
High Affection, High Respect: Your goals and moods align. Best friends. Romance possible, culminating in long-time love and happiness.
High Affection, Low Respect: He really likes you, but disagrees with your actions. "Rivalmance" style romance possible, but would likely end poorly as you disagree on important matters. (Sex is better, though)
Low Affection, High Respect: He likes the way you get things done, but hates you as a person. No romance option. (Think a military general to his troops. They would follow him to hell and back, but hate his guts).
Low Affection, Low Respect: No common ground. No romance. Likely to leave party or attack you.
*********
Anywho, that's my spitball idea. Hope you like it.
Meter One: Respect. This is gained through action and statement. This meter corresponds with how well your goals line up with your companion's goals. For example, freeing a mage would gain Respect with Anders, but lose it with Fenris.
Meter Two: Affection. This is gained through gifts, dialogue, and tone. It corresponds with how much the companion likes you, irrelevant of your goals and opinions. For example, telling that same mage, "Just get the hell out of here before I change my mind and beat you with your own staff" would lose Affection with Anders, but gain it with Fenris.
Anders approved of the action, but doesn't actually like you. Fenris likes your attitude and demeanor, but doesn't approve of your actions.
*******
Here's the possible extreme results:
High Affection, High Respect: Your goals and moods align. Best friends. Romance possible, culminating in long-time love and happiness.
High Affection, Low Respect: He really likes you, but disagrees with your actions. "Rivalmance" style romance possible, but would likely end poorly as you disagree on important matters. (Sex is better, though)
Low Affection, High Respect: He likes the way you get things done, but hates you as a person. No romance option. (Think a military general to his troops. They would follow him to hell and back, but hate his guts).
Low Affection, Low Respect: No common ground. No romance. Likely to leave party or attack you.
*********
Anywho, that's my spitball idea. Hope you like it.
Modifié par Maclimes, 21 septembre 2012 - 03:51 .
#10
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 03:54
Dubozz
-
- Members
- 1 866 messages
Maclimes wrote...
I still think there should be two meters, instead of one.
Meter One: Respect. This is gained through action and statement. This meter corresponds with how well your goals line up with your companion's goals. For example, freeing a mage would gain Respect with Anders, but lose it with Fenris.
Meter Two: Affection. This is gained through gifts, dialogue, and tone. It corresponds with how much the companion likes you, irrelevant of your goals and opinions. For example, telling that same mage, "Just get the hell out of here before I change my mind and beat you with your own staff" would lose Affection with Anders, but gain it with Fenris.
Anders approved of the action, but doesn't actually like you. Fenris likes your attitude and demeanor, but doesn't approve of your actions.
*******
Here's the possible extreme results:
High Affection, High Respect: Your goals and moods align. Best friends. Romance possible, culminating in long-time love and happiness.
High Affection, Low Respect: He really likes you, but disagrees with your actions. "Rivalmance" style romance possible, but would likely end poorly as you disagree on important matters. (Sex is better, though)
Low Affection, High Respect: He likes the way you get things done, but hates you as a person. No romance option. (Think a military general to his troops. They would follow him to hell and back, but hate his guts).
Low Affection, Low Respect: No common ground. No romance. Likely to leave party or attack you.
*********
Anywho, that's my spitball idea. Hope you like it.
Great idea, thanks man. Much better than current F/R system in my opinion.
Modifié par Dubozz, 21 septembre 2012 - 04:37 .
#11
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 03:59
horacethegrey
-
- Members
- 855 messages
Who said anything about personal stuff? I'd just like to continue conversing with an Companion despite our opposing viewpoints. Having them clam up just seems like a waste.ScarMK wrote...
horacethegrey wrote...
I liked the frienship/rivalry system. It allows my PC to converse with companions I don't necessarily agree with. Unlike approval, where if you don't butter them up they absolutely refuse to talk with you.
Would you like to talk about your personal self to someone you dislike and who probably wouldn't give a damn in the first place?
Maclimes wrote...
Anywho, that's my spitball idea. Hope you like it.
Wow. That's pretty awesome dude. I like your idea.
#12
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 04:08
Maclimes
-
- Members
- 2 495 messages
Hey, thanks. Glad you guys liked my idea. It came up in a similar thread a few days ago. No idea if the devs have seen it, though. Hopefully they'll see this one.
#13
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 04:09
schalafi
-
- Members
- 1 167 messages
If you played the game more than once you learned which dialogues gained respect, and which ones gained rivalry, and so there were no surprises, or situations where an npc would leave you , (or have a romance with you.) Sometimes the Heart symbol gave less approval than following a different dialogue path, and in most cases you didn't say what you thought you would anyway.
I think the paraphrasing should be eliminated, and dialogue should be just what the wheel shows, without any confusing symbols. If you don't like someone, be able to say so, and if you wanted a romance, be able to start one.
I think the paraphrasing should be eliminated, and dialogue should be just what the wheel shows, without any confusing symbols. If you don't like someone, be able to say so, and if you wanted a romance, be able to start one.
Modifié par schalafi, 21 septembre 2012 - 04:09 .
#14
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 05:53
Yankee23
-
- Members
- 1 807 messages
Maclimes wrote...
I still think there should be two meters, instead of one.
Meter One: Respect. This is gained through action and statement. This meter corresponds with how well your goals line up with your companion's goals. For example, freeing a mage would gain Respect with Anders, but lose it with Fenris.
Meter Two: Affection. This is gained through gifts, dialogue, and tone. It corresponds with how much the companion likes you, irrelevant of your goals and opinions. For example, telling that same mage, "Just get the hell out of here before I change my mind and beat you with your own staff" would lose Affection with Anders, but gain it with Fenris.
Anders approved of the action, but doesn't actually like you. Fenris likes your attitude and demeanor, but doesn't approve of your actions.
*******
Here's the possible extreme results:
High Affection, High Respect: Your goals and moods align. Best friends. Romance possible, culminating in long-time love and happiness.
High Affection, Low Respect: He really likes you, but disagrees with your actions. "Rivalmance" style romance possible, but would likely end poorly as you disagree on important matters. (Sex is better, though)
Low Affection, High Respect: He likes the way you get things done, but hates you as a person. No romance option. (Think a military general to his troops. They would follow him to hell and back, but hate his guts).
Low Affection, Low Respect: No common ground. No romance. Likely to leave party or attack you.
*********
Anywho, that's my spitball idea. Hope you like it.
I really like this idea. I enjoyed the friendship/rivalry system in DA2 but felt that it was missing the "hate" path like we had in Origins, rivaly =/= hate, imo. Not all of the compaions should like and/or respect the pc all of the time.
The only thing I would change in your idea would be to add a High Affection, High Respect path where the person still disagrees with your goals. It is possible to have high affection for someone, respect their goals and how they choose to go about achieving them while at the same time disagreeing. I think this is what the rivaly path in DA2 accomplished. I never felt that any of the compaions I rivaled had low respect for my PC, nor that it would end badly. But perhaps I'm just putting too much meaning on your choice of the word "respect."
#15
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 06:10
Giltspur
-
- Members
- 1 117 messages
I think the design of approval meters should be roughly as detailed as the completed human genome. Some people on these forums apparently think game design needs to be elegant. Some think they have wisdom. They defy me! 
Which did I like better (DAO or DA2's system)? It depends.
To a certain extent, these relationships with these e-characters are partially in the gamer's head. And DAO's style kind of suited that. For example, I imagined my Warden as "rivalmancing" Morrigan even though there was no rivalry meter in the game. As it turns out, you could annoy Morrigan quite a lot and disagree with her fairly constantly on some topics and still have high approval with her without much in the way of gift-giving. But let's say it didn't work out as well. You could still have the 'rivalmance" in your head facilitated by saying whatever you want and steer the game to the conclusion you want by the the gift-giving bonuses. What a Morrigan rivalmance work as well in DA2's system? It may not. DA2's system kind of feels to straightforward. Like rawr I disagree on everything! Or yay we always agree. I know there are opportunities, particularly with Anders, to disagree on a lot and still, say, have a really high frienship. But could I really replicate all I liked about the Morrigan romance in DAO in DA2? I'm skeptical.
But despite that, I still felt DA2's stuff sometimes played out better on the screen even if the overall experience wasn't good. What that tells me is that DA2's system is missing something, isn't really a step back despite it perhaps not being suited to my favorite example romance and can be improved upon as a system. Ultimately, I'd like for these games to reward complicated relationships where you agree on some things and disagree on others and experiences the consequences of that in interesting ways. I'd like to be challenged by these NPC's and think about issues the game raises so that the interactive experiences feels worthwhile.
Which did I like better (DAO or DA2's system)? It depends.
To a certain extent, these relationships with these e-characters are partially in the gamer's head. And DAO's style kind of suited that. For example, I imagined my Warden as "rivalmancing" Morrigan even though there was no rivalry meter in the game. As it turns out, you could annoy Morrigan quite a lot and disagree with her fairly constantly on some topics and still have high approval with her without much in the way of gift-giving. But let's say it didn't work out as well. You could still have the 'rivalmance" in your head facilitated by saying whatever you want and steer the game to the conclusion you want by the the gift-giving bonuses. What a Morrigan rivalmance work as well in DA2's system? It may not. DA2's system kind of feels to straightforward. Like rawr I disagree on everything! Or yay we always agree. I know there are opportunities, particularly with Anders, to disagree on a lot and still, say, have a really high frienship. But could I really replicate all I liked about the Morrigan romance in DAO in DA2? I'm skeptical.
But despite that, I still felt DA2's stuff sometimes played out better on the screen even if the overall experience wasn't good. What that tells me is that DA2's system is missing something, isn't really a step back despite it perhaps not being suited to my favorite example romance and can be improved upon as a system. Ultimately, I'd like for these games to reward complicated relationships where you agree on some things and disagree on others and experiences the consequences of that in interesting ways. I'd like to be challenged by these NPC's and think about issues the game raises so that the interactive experiences feels worthwhile.
Modifié par Giltspur, 21 septembre 2012 - 06:17 .
#16
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 06:16
Elanor
-
- Members
- 1 029 messages
I like how this was handle in Da2. Maybe it wasn't perfect but better than Da:o where you can't even disagree with someone because he leaves.
#17
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 06:29
Parmida
-
- Members
- 1 592 messages
Maclimes wrote...
I still think there should be two meters, instead of one.
Meter One: Respect. This is gained through action and statement. This meter corresponds with how well your goals line up with your companion's goals. For example, freeing a mage would gain Respect with Anders, but lose it with Fenris.
Meter Two: Affection. This is gained through gifts, dialogue, and tone. It corresponds with how much the companion likes you, irrelevant of your goals and opinions. For example, telling that same mage, "Just get the hell out of here before I change my mind and beat you with your own staff" would lose Affection with Anders, but gain it with Fenris.
Anders approved of the action, but doesn't actually like you. Fenris likes your attitude and demeanor, but doesn't approve of your actions.
*******
Here's the possible extreme results:
High Affection, High Respect: Your goals and moods align. Best friends. Romance possible, culminating in long-time love and happiness.
High Affection, Low Respect: He really likes you, but disagrees with your actions. "Rivalmance" style romance possible, but would likely end poorly as you disagree on important matters. (Sex is better, though)
Low Affection, High Respect: He likes the way you get things done, but hates you as a person. No romance option. (Think a military general to his troops. They would follow him to hell and back, but hate his guts).
Low Affection, Low Respect: No common ground. No romance. Likely to leave party or attack you.
*********
Anywho, that's my spitball idea. Hope you like it.
THIS IS GREAT! ^
This would be a vast upgrade in approval system and it would make total sense!
#18
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 06:36
Maclimes
-
- Members
- 2 495 messages
Yankee23 wrote...
But perhaps I'm just putting too much meaning on your choice of the word "respect."
That's what happening here. Maybe "Respect" is not the right word.
What I'm trying to convey is "How much do our goals line up?". I'm not sure how you would phrase that in one word. Maybe someone knows a better choice of words there?
#19
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 06:45
MillKill
-
- Members
- 316 messages
Friendship/Rivalry is better. It allowed consistent roleplaying throughout the game. In Origins, I'd would have to say to Morrigan that being an **** is the best way to live your life, but then say how much I care about others around Wynne. It also meant that I could never actually use Morrigan in combat for good-oriented characters because she's disapprove of everything I did. The Rivalry system allows my devoutly religious, pro-templar Hawke to use Anders as a healer and still roleplay consistently.
The friendship/rivalry system might have been the best thing about DA2. I'd be fine if they kept it largely unchanged.
The friendship/rivalry system might have been the best thing about DA2. I'd be fine if they kept it largely unchanged.
#20
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 06:49
Giltspur
-
- Members
- 1 117 messages
This attempt at iterating on DA2's system seems cool to me. I'm curious if there's something wrong with this approach.
Total Relationship Points: Friendship + Rivalry
Overall Friendship/Rivalry: Friendship - Rivalry for all issues.
Issue 1: Friendship - Rivalry on Issue 1.
Issue 2: Friendship - Rivalry on Issue 2.
Issue Misc: Friendship - Rivalry on all Issues that aren't Issues 1 or 2.
Example:
Fenris
Total: 75 Friendship + 100 Rivalry = 175 Total Relationship Points
Overall Friendship/Rivalry: (50 + 0 + 25) - (75 + 0 + 25) = -25. Thus, 25 Rivalry.
Issue 1 (Mages): I disagreed with Fenris consisently about mages and got 75 Rivalry points and 0 Friendship points.
Issue 2 (Slaves): I agreed with Fenris consistently about slaves and got 50 Friendship points and 0 Rivalry Points.
Issue Misc: I got 25 Friendship and 25 Rivalry because sometimes he liked what he said and other times didn't.
So, the companion side quest triggers are based on total friendship points. Rivalry and Frienship aren't competing here. It's the time spent with the companion (and thus earning total relationship points) that triggers these quests. The tone of the quest however is affected by the overall Friendship/Rivalry meter. This means the game doesn't just "reward" extremes. You can agree/disagree and still trigger the side quests just by sticking it out with your companion. Middle road relationships are good too.
Why have the issue meters? For interesting reactive dialogue. Fenris has a number to draw on if you're talking about Mages. Or, what if you try to tell Fenris that mages are similar to slaves. If you rival him on mages and friend him on slaves, maybe, he respects that opinion. But if you rival him on both mages and slaves he calls you a hypocrite or accuses you of toying with him or adopting an argument just because it's convenient at the time. I think perhaps these issues meters should be hidden.
So, the total meter keeps us from getting "stuck in the middle" of a meter with a character and is what triggers the major companion quests. The overall meter can affect tone and give us some of those relationship branches DA2 had. The issue meters give us something to pull from for reactive dialogue based on past decisions.
EDIT: Adding Morrigan/DAO section.
Now what about DAO? Can it pass the Morrigan test?
Total
Total: (15 + 60 + 75) Friendship + (55 + 10 + 12) Rivalry = 227 Total Relationship Points
Overall Friendship/Rivalry: (15 + 60 + 75) - (55 + 10 + 12) = 73. Thus, 73 Friendship.
Issue 1 (Only the Strong Survive): I consistently denied Morrigan's requests to leave babies unattended in the forest to fend for themselves. I got 55 Rivalry and 15 Friendship.
Issue 2 (Morrigan's Independence): I generally supported Morrigan's personal autonomy. When people accused her of being a snake, I defended her. I got 60 Frienship and 10 Rivalry.
Issue Misc: I got 75 Friendship and 12 Rivalry because mostly she liked my sarcasm and mock bossiness that didn't usually cross any lines but got really annoyed at me the time I called her tawdry. It was only a joke, Morrigan.
So a "rivalmance" doesn't just have to be rivalry at the Friendship/Rivalry meter. You can let Issue 1 be a source of contention in the relationship and decide what conditions allow you to "soften" (or "harden" or agree to disagree) the character. Perhaps you can "soften" her by rivaling on Issue 1 and friending on Issue 2. But if you friend on both, maybe she thinks she's found a coeval or perfect match. Then again in the friend on 1 and friend on 2, maybe she feels you're so much like her she's comfortable betraying you (as perhaps she doesn't trust herself and that extends to a lack of trust for you).
Total Relationship Points: Friendship + Rivalry
Overall Friendship/Rivalry: Friendship - Rivalry for all issues.
Issue 1: Friendship - Rivalry on Issue 1.
Issue 2: Friendship - Rivalry on Issue 2.
Issue Misc: Friendship - Rivalry on all Issues that aren't Issues 1 or 2.
Example:
Fenris
Total: 75 Friendship + 100 Rivalry = 175 Total Relationship Points
Overall Friendship/Rivalry: (50 + 0 + 25) - (75 + 0 + 25) = -25. Thus, 25 Rivalry.
Issue 1 (Mages): I disagreed with Fenris consisently about mages and got 75 Rivalry points and 0 Friendship points.
Issue 2 (Slaves): I agreed with Fenris consistently about slaves and got 50 Friendship points and 0 Rivalry Points.
Issue Misc: I got 25 Friendship and 25 Rivalry because sometimes he liked what he said and other times didn't.
So, the companion side quest triggers are based on total friendship points. Rivalry and Frienship aren't competing here. It's the time spent with the companion (and thus earning total relationship points) that triggers these quests. The tone of the quest however is affected by the overall Friendship/Rivalry meter. This means the game doesn't just "reward" extremes. You can agree/disagree and still trigger the side quests just by sticking it out with your companion. Middle road relationships are good too.
Why have the issue meters? For interesting reactive dialogue. Fenris has a number to draw on if you're talking about Mages. Or, what if you try to tell Fenris that mages are similar to slaves. If you rival him on mages and friend him on slaves, maybe, he respects that opinion. But if you rival him on both mages and slaves he calls you a hypocrite or accuses you of toying with him or adopting an argument just because it's convenient at the time. I think perhaps these issues meters should be hidden.
So, the total meter keeps us from getting "stuck in the middle" of a meter with a character and is what triggers the major companion quests. The overall meter can affect tone and give us some of those relationship branches DA2 had. The issue meters give us something to pull from for reactive dialogue based on past decisions.
EDIT: Adding Morrigan/DAO section.
Now what about DAO? Can it pass the Morrigan test?
Total
Total: (15 + 60 + 75) Friendship + (55 + 10 + 12) Rivalry = 227 Total Relationship Points
Overall Friendship/Rivalry: (15 + 60 + 75) - (55 + 10 + 12) = 73. Thus, 73 Friendship.
Issue 1 (Only the Strong Survive): I consistently denied Morrigan's requests to leave babies unattended in the forest to fend for themselves. I got 55 Rivalry and 15 Friendship.
Issue 2 (Morrigan's Independence): I generally supported Morrigan's personal autonomy. When people accused her of being a snake, I defended her. I got 60 Frienship and 10 Rivalry.
Issue Misc: I got 75 Friendship and 12 Rivalry because mostly she liked my sarcasm and mock bossiness that didn't usually cross any lines but got really annoyed at me the time I called her tawdry. It was only a joke, Morrigan.
So a "rivalmance" doesn't just have to be rivalry at the Friendship/Rivalry meter. You can let Issue 1 be a source of contention in the relationship and decide what conditions allow you to "soften" (or "harden" or agree to disagree) the character. Perhaps you can "soften" her by rivaling on Issue 1 and friending on Issue 2. But if you friend on both, maybe she thinks she's found a coeval or perfect match. Then again in the friend on 1 and friend on 2, maybe she feels you're so much like her she's comfortable betraying you (as perhaps she doesn't trust herself and that extends to a lack of trust for you).
Modifié par Giltspur, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:33 .
#21
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 07:23
Anny78
-
- Members
- 200 messages
@ Giltspur
I like your idea very much! This would (at least for me) greatly improve the the game/the role playing. In my first pt of DA2 I was inevitably stuck in the middle of the meter by Merrill and Isabella, just because I RPed a very helpful and goodhearted person, but hated blood magic and didn't want to sleep with Izzy.
I like your idea very much! This would (at least for me) greatly improve the the game/the role playing. In my first pt of DA2 I was inevitably stuck in the middle of the meter by Merrill and Isabella, just because I RPed a very helpful and goodhearted person, but hated blood magic and didn't want to sleep with Izzy.
#22
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 07:52
Yankee23
-
- Members
- 1 807 messages
Maclimes wrote...
Yankee23 wrote...
But perhaps I'm just putting too much meaning on your choice of the word "respect."
That's what happening here. Maybe "Respect" is not the right word.
What I'm trying to convey is "How much do our goals line up?". I'm not sure how you would phrase that in one word. Maybe someone knows a better choice of words there?
Semantics aside, I'd be all for the the different paths you laid out.
Anny78 wrote...
@ Giltspur
I like your idea very much! This would (at least for me) greatly improve the the game/the role playing. In my first pt of DA2 I was inevitably stuck in the middle of the meter by Merrill and Isabella, just because I RPed a very helpful and goodhearted person, but hated blood magic and didn't want to sleep with Izzy.
I had the same "middle of the road" issue with Izzy and Sebastian until I figured out which quests I needed to bring them along on to get the friendship/rivaly point opportunities. However, I don't really have an issue with not getting the compainion quests because of a "neutral" relationship. If there is no strong relationship one way or the other it makes sense that they don't ask for help.
#23
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 07:57
Bigdoser
-
- Members
- 2 575 messages
Bioware Listen to this person.Maclimes wrote...
I still think there should be two meters, instead of one.
Meter One: Respect. This is gained through action and statement. This meter corresponds with how well your goals line up with your companion's goals. For example, freeing a mage would gain Respect with Anders, but lose it with Fenris.
Meter Two: Affection. This is gained through gifts, dialogue, and tone. It corresponds with how much the companion likes you, irrelevant of your goals and opinions. For example, telling that same mage, "Just get the hell out of here before I change my mind and beat you with your own staff" would lose Affection with Anders, but gain it with Fenris.
Anders approved of the action, but doesn't actually like you. Fenris likes your attitude and demeanor, but doesn't approve of your actions.
*******
Here's the possible extreme results:
High Affection, High Respect: Your goals and moods align. Best friends. Romance possible, culminating in long-time love and happiness.
High Affection, Low Respect: He really likes you, but disagrees with your actions. "Rivalmance" style romance possible, but would likely end poorly as you disagree on important matters. (Sex is better, though)
Low Affection, High Respect: He likes the way you get things done, but hates you as a person. No romance option. (Think a military general to his troops. They would follow him to hell and back, but hate his guts).
Low Affection, Low Respect: No common ground. No romance. Likely to leave party or attack you.
*********
Anywho, that's my spitball idea. Hope you like it.
#24
Posté 21 septembre 2012 - 08:06
wright1978
-
- Members
- 8 116 messages
If it is a pure choice between the 2 systems clearly friendship-rivalry wins for me. I love having that rivalry with Carver in DA2.
Ideally i'd hope for a tweak. The idea of two bars above, (reputation and affection) could be an development.
Ideally i'd hope for a tweak. The idea of two bars above, (reputation and affection) could be an development.
#25
Posté 26 septembre 2012 - 04:47
Pallando
-
- Members
- 195 messages
Nice idea Maclimes !
I was just thinking about that earlier and I think I agree.
"Respect" and "affection" (or maybe just "approval" and "affection") might be a good way to represent things.
What I liked in DA was that there was no right or wrong, no "renegade" nor "paragon", no "light side", no "dark side".
Just "approval" from a bunch of people, who value some things more than others (mages' liberties, protecting the children, seeking power, ...). Because as Giltspur pointed out, if you really want to roleplay, you sometimes don't want to totally agree or disagree with someone (like Fenris, with whom my character agrees on slavery but not on magic).
And when bonuses depend on approval, you lose a bit of roleplay I think, trying to please a character to get his bonus. And planning your quests depending on what they'll think more than on what you'll face...
What I'd like to see more is "approval" as an incomplete referential of your character's ethic. Whatever you do would affect every member of your party, not just the ones present (because why would they ignore it ?). There might be some coefficient though depending on the situation, because some have more impact when you see them, others can't be understood unless witnessed first hand...
And you wouldn't be able to change that with gifts: "Yeah, I killed an innocent, but hey ! Here ! Take those shoes !".
Thus, you could then say: "I'm 0.8 x Lelianna - 0.2 x Morrigan + 0.6 x Oghren. And you ?"
Or "0.5 x Fenris + 0.8 x Anders - 0.2 x Merril". (Against slavery, for magic but against blood magic...)
And on top of that "Affection" would depend on your capacity to be friendly to others. Some might expect straight talks (Sten), others would want shoes and flowers...
And as Maclimes said, both scales would affect your relationships. Disagreeing with a very good friend could lead to an argument (like Sam and Frodo). Whereas someone who disagrees with you but doesn't like you would do nothing (mercenary style, even though it could lead to betrayal in the end...).
I was just thinking about that earlier and I think I agree.
"Respect" and "affection" (or maybe just "approval" and "affection") might be a good way to represent things.
What I liked in DA was that there was no right or wrong, no "renegade" nor "paragon", no "light side", no "dark side".
Just "approval" from a bunch of people, who value some things more than others (mages' liberties, protecting the children, seeking power, ...). Because as Giltspur pointed out, if you really want to roleplay, you sometimes don't want to totally agree or disagree with someone (like Fenris, with whom my character agrees on slavery but not on magic).
And when bonuses depend on approval, you lose a bit of roleplay I think, trying to please a character to get his bonus. And planning your quests depending on what they'll think more than on what you'll face...
What I'd like to see more is "approval" as an incomplete referential of your character's ethic. Whatever you do would affect every member of your party, not just the ones present (because why would they ignore it ?). There might be some coefficient though depending on the situation, because some have more impact when you see them, others can't be understood unless witnessed first hand...
And you wouldn't be able to change that with gifts: "Yeah, I killed an innocent, but hey ! Here ! Take those shoes !".
Thus, you could then say: "I'm 0.8 x Lelianna - 0.2 x Morrigan + 0.6 x Oghren. And you ?"
Or "0.5 x Fenris + 0.8 x Anders - 0.2 x Merril". (Against slavery, for magic but against blood magic...)
And on top of that "Affection" would depend on your capacity to be friendly to others. Some might expect straight talks (Sten), others would want shoes and flowers...
And as Maclimes said, both scales would affect your relationships. Disagreeing with a very good friend could lead to an argument (like Sam and Frodo). Whereas someone who disagrees with you but doesn't like you would do nothing (mercenary style, even though it could lead to betrayal in the end...).
Modifié par Pallando, 26 septembre 2012 - 04:50 .
