39 réponses à ce sujet

[EricHVela]

The Friendship/Rivalry method of achieving the same result seems easier to me than the Like(Love)/Hate method that can cause completely different things to happen.

I would still prefer a Like-Hate version (where you don't have to pre-emptively tell off a character, losing some "like" points and being uncharacteristic for a nice protagonist, just to avoid their romance track when they barely even approached the topic).

[Melca36]

I believe David Gaider said the Friendship/Rivalry did not work in DA2 the way they intended it to so I would expect something different.

I also don't expect it to be like Origins either.

[Beerfish]

I would like none of it. Just calculated in the back ground.

[burning salaradile]

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 a great idea, really, it is. It probably fixes most of the problems I had with DA2's rivalry system. (e.g. I wanted to be rivals with Fenris, but I didn't want to treat him like crap every time I talked to him just for the extra rivalry points)

[Aleya]

I'd like to keep the Friendship/Rivalry system, with the following additions: 

1. No more maxing out = locked. If I switch sides halfway through the game I want to hear about it.

2. No forcing me to bring companions along to gain points. Allow us to gain points through conversations, and maybe use a system that allows absentee companions to hear about the PC's actions and award points accordingly. Also give us enough philosophical conversation options to clearly establish agreement/disagreement with a companion that way. There were so many things I wanted to say to all the DA2 companions that the game simply didn't give me a chance to.

3. Implement some hard limits. Everyone has lines they won't cross. Fenris should not feel rivalry for a pro-slaver Hawke, he should want to kill him/her.

4. Allow companions to change their minds. Or grow up, whatever you want to call it. To continue using Fenris as an example: after 7+ years of fighting alongside a mage, he really should've learned a thing or twenty. And as a companion's personality changes so should the ways by which you gain their friendship/rivalry.

5. In keeping with 1 and 2; find some other way to determine the PC's access to personal quests. Maybe count the number of times we've interacted with a companion or done them significant favors. But keep it separate from friendship/rivalry score. This will allow us to be truthful in our interactions with companions without feeling like we might be shooting ourselves in the foot and losing access to major quests.

Modifié par Aleya, 26 septembre 2012 - 07:12 .

[Pallando]

I wonder if any dev has noticed this thread. They're quite active these days on the other topics...

Anyway, I agree with you on point 4 Aleya, if companions could evolve more noticeably at your contact, it would be nice...

[JellyBean28]

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.

That is a fantastic idea. Kudos to you, sir.
If something like that could be in DA3, I would loveee it.
I despised how I could walk all over my companion's hopes and dreams, be a total b**** to them, practically spit in their face, and they would still "respect" me.
But I did love "rivalmances"
Not to mention I would be overjoyed to see a "military general to his troops" type of relationship between some companions.

[Dubozz]

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.

bump for awesome idea

[Blackrising]

I think Maclimes' idea would be ideal. Two metres take everything into account.

But if I had to choose between Approval/Hate and Friendship/Rivalry, I'd have to go with DA:O style. It just didn't make sense to me that all DA 2 companions would stick around and help me even when I've been a total dick and put them down at every opportunity. There was never any danger.
In DA:O they left you if you pissed them off too much and that makes more sense. I wouldn't stick around either if someone kept being an ass. (Unless there was some outside factor, i.e. Morrigan having her own agenda)

[joshko]

More of DAO with a dash of DAII.
Depending on the specific philosophical conflict I think some party members should stay and have an agree to disagree attitude, or the enemy of my enemy is my friend attitude.
In this case I don't see why the NPC couldn't be an LI either.

But, if it's really big deal to NPC, or you do something that they really don't like, then they should storm off.

[joshko]

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.

+1 this idea

[Arppis]

Beerfish wrote...

I would like none of it. Just calculated in the back ground.

You know what? Best idea ever.

[Iron_JG]

I was curious about this subject, and rather than post a new topic, I'm bumping this. Maclime's idea is very cool, deserves more eyeballs. Also, can someone link Bioware's post-mortem on DA2's F/R system, if it's been made? Any idea what route is DA3 going?

My two cents: I'd like for companions' world views to be able to evolve over a playthrough. Being able to change/corrupt minds would make the F/R system really shine.

[Wintersbreath]

@Maclimes I love this idea!
@Yankee23 Perhaps an additional flag for "goal" alignment would be all Maclimes' idea needs to be awesome.
@Giltspur I also love this idea. It adds a complexity to character interaction that complex characters deserve.
@Aleya I completely agree!

Having only one meter has its weird moments. For one, it was particularly hard, if not impossible, to get Isabella to stay if my Hawke is sarcastic and "paragon".

Modifié par nyankuro, 26 août 2013 - 02:23 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

All I care about is that characters have their own motivations and will act on those motivations, and if it means leaving the party (or clashing with an opposing party member) so be it. It's a little silly how mantaining a party requires zero effort, especially in DA2.

Modifié par Sopa de Gato, 25 août 2013 - 01:57 .