101 réponses à ce sujet

[DaringMoosejaw]

I, for one, am really hoping they bring back that friendship/rivalry dynamic from DA2. No matter whatever complaints one might have about that game, that's something that I (at least) feel was a very unique concept and really hope to see more of.

Points for approval - you see that just about everywhere, but the ability to essentially decide the tenor of your relationship with your companions by actually /disagreeing/ with them all the time and still getting its own unique, specific interactions and bonuses all the same as friendship without having to suck up to them was a wonderful idea in my opinion.

[Melca36]

Its already been said they would be doing something completely different because friendship/rivalry did not go how they wanted it.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Melca36 wrote...

Its already been said they would be doing something completely different because friendship/rivalry did not go how they wanted it.

That is regrettable, could you link me to that statement?

[Emzamination]

I want friendship/rivalry to make a comeback.I like being able to romance a companion who I may have a polar opposite view point with.

[Fredward]

Meh. I'm waaaaay more sad seeing the friendship/rivalry thing go than the races. It had SUCH promise. It just needed a little... refining.

[Scott Sion]

They're getting rid of it? I thought it worked rather well. How were they hoping it would work?

[SeptimusMagistos]

If they did bring back something similar to friendship/rivalry I hope they would decouple how you feel about a companion's worldview from how you feel about them as a person.

I wanted to do some rivalries in DA2, but it was basically impossible to manage unless I was willing to be a jerk to my companions on a personal level.

[Kidd]

I don't think I've actually seen the post where the lack of friend/rivalry is confirmed. This would be the first piece of news that I'm sad to hear about DA3 if it's true.

It needed some work, such as making rivalry green or yellow on the user interface instead of red (cause red has people instinctively thinking it's bad stuff), and perhaps for certain choices to function like the gifts did. You shouldn't get rivalry with Fenris for supporting slavers for instance imho. Fenris should just utterly despise you for it, hence move the meter closer to the middle - the polar opposite of the gifts that always push the meter closer to its currently heading extreme. His personal beef you can influence is about mages after all, I doubt a fully rivalled Fenris has grown to accept Hawke's love of slavers.

[Fredward]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

If they did bring back something similar to friendship/rivalry I hope they would decouple how you feel about a companion's worldview from how you feel about them as a person.

I wanted to do some rivalries in DA2, but it was basically impossible to manage unless I was willing to be a jerk to my companions on a personal level.

You could do the whole worldview/person split pretty well with Merrill. Fenris as well. Maybe Isabela but I never went rivalry with her. Aveline, Anders and even Carver you pretty much had to be a meany with though. Varric too.

[upsettingshorts]

Melca36 wrote...

Its already been said they would be doing something completely different because friendship/rivalry did not go how they wanted it.

Source?

[Wittand25]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Its already been said they would be doing something completely different because friendship/rivalry did not go how they wanted it.

That is regrettable, could you link me to that statement?

David Gaider wrote (roughly seven months ago)...
Yes, we've reached much the same conclusion. The system works pretty well, but breaks down when we tie it
to more than one issue... which you sort of have to, unless you intend for the character to have a single-note that they beat throughout the entire game. If the player feels differently about those issues, then you "hover" and the relationship goes nowhere.

While we've several options on how to deal with this, I'm open to thoughts on the subject. What I'm leaning towards is disassociating the progression of the relationship from the point values and instead letting the point
values determine the tone of that relationship-- and anything triggered by reaching a relationship stage being "extra", as it were.

And very likely the friendship/rivalry will go back to being "I like you"/"I don't like you" as in Origins. The DA2 version was more nuanced, but also more difficult for players to understand-- most of whom thought rivalry was a penalty of some kind anyhow (or this is my impression). While I would not want to go back to the Origins method of rivalry
equalling no interaction, I think having it be about the general attitude and not about how much you agree with their personal issue is a bit easier for folks to wrap their heads around.

Again, this is by no means final. Just where we're leaning. Before anyone asks, we're not at the point where I can lay out what the detailed plans are for changes-- as they don't exist at this point.

There are more posts by him, in the linked thread, clarifying  his stance on this issue.

Modifié par Wittand25, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:32 .

[Kerilus]

I do agree friendship/rivalry system is among the few things that are actually improvement from the traditional "like/dislike" system of approval in DA:O and their previous games, in which you simply have to kiss your companions' asses in order to fully experience their story/quests.
However, friendship/rivalry is not perfect either. Now you could be either nice or a complete **** to get two versions of the companions' story. It allows for more variety admittedly but still painfully polarized. At least throughout the early to mid game, I found my witty/neutral Hawke difficult to gain or lose the companions' favor, with Varric and Isabela being the exception.
So I'd suggest having the companion quests available to the player regardless of relation. Only have it affect the dialogue should be fine.

[Darkstorne]

I didn't like it, because it meant I HAD to always agree with a companion, or HAD to always be a dick to a companion. So if a character you usually agreed with suddenly said something you disagreed with, you had to agree anyway if you wanted to gain/keep the bonus.

Basically it punished you for role playing. Which is a dumb idea for a role playing game.

[upsettingshorts]

Doesn't sound like it's being removed, only being... redeployed.

[Andraste_Reborn]

Awwwww. Friendship/Rivalry was one of my favourite things about DA2, although there were places it needed tweaking. I'm glad that they're not going back to the DAO system, though.

[Emzamination]

Wittand25 wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Its already been said they would be doing something completely different because friendship/rivalry did not go how they wanted it.

That is regrettable, could you link me to that statement?

David Gaider wrote (roughly seven months ago)...
Yes, we've reached much the same conclusion. The system works pretty well, but breaks down when we tie it
to more than one issue... which you sort of have to, unless you intend for the character to have a single-note that they beat throughout the entire game. If the player feels differently about those issues, then you "hover" and the relationship goes nowhere.

While we've several options on how to deal with this, I'm open to thoughts on the subject. What I'm leaning towards is disassociating the progression of the relationship from the point values and instead letting the point
values determine the tone of that relationship-- and anything triggered by reaching a relationship stage being "extra", as it were.

And very likely the friendship/rivalry will go back to being "I like you"/"I don't like you" as in Origins. The DA2 version was more nuanced, but also more difficult for players to understand-- most of whom thought rivalry was a penalty of some kind anyhow (or this is my impression). While I would not want to go back to the Origins method of rivalry
equalling no interaction, I think having it be about the general attitude and not about how much you agree with their personal issue is a bit easier for folks to wrap their heads around.

Again, this is by no means final. Just where we're leaning. Before anyone asks, we're not at the point where I can lay out what the detailed plans are for changes-- as they don't exist at this point.

Sorry but having to pander to a companion's world views I don't share just to get combat bonuses, romance or keep them is not the way go.It sure as hell didn't work in DaO with useful companions such as wynne and leliana abandoning the pc at the first scent of corruption, so I'm not sure why its even being discussed at the bioware hq.

[thebigbad1013]

I certainly liked the friendship/rivalty system more than the system in Origins. In DA2 you didn't have to agree with everything you companions said just for fear that they would leave you if you didn't, which unfortunately was the case in Origins. I don't have a problem with them reworking the system a bit but I hope the end result is closer to the friendship/rivalty system of DA2 than to the Origins system.

[PaganPoetry]

I wish it was just like ME3's Paragon/Renegade system, where points for both were cumulative in deciding what you were, but were based on percentage. So if you want to be Cassandra's best friend, but disagree with her on some random topic, you don't digress, you just gain a couple percentage points in rivalry.

[Direwolf0294]

Emzamination wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Its already been said they would be doing something completely different because friendship/rivalry did not go how they wanted it.

That is regrettable, could you link me to that statement?

David Gaider wrote (roughly seven months ago)...
Yes, we've reached much the same conclusion. The system works pretty well, but breaks down when we tie it
to more than one issue... which you sort of have to, unless you intend for the character to have a single-note that they beat throughout the entire game. If the player feels differently about those issues, then you "hover" and the relationship goes nowhere.

While we've several options on how to deal with this, I'm open to thoughts on the subject. What I'm leaning towards is disassociating the progression of the relationship from the point values and instead letting the point
values determine the tone of that relationship-- and anything triggered by reaching a relationship stage being "extra", as it were.

And very likely the friendship/rivalry will go back to being "I like you"/"I don't like you" as in Origins. The DA2 version was more nuanced, but also more difficult for players to understand-- most of whom thought rivalry was a penalty of some kind anyhow (or this is my impression). While I would not want to go back to the Origins method of rivalry
equalling no interaction, I think having it be about the general attitude and not about how much you agree with their personal issue is a bit easier for folks to wrap their heads around.

Again, this is by no means final. Just where we're leaning. Before anyone asks, we're not at the point where I can lay out what the detailed plans are for changes-- as they don't exist at this point.

Sorry but having to pander to a companion's world views I don't share just to get combat bonuses, romance or keep them is not the way go.It sure as hell didn't work in DaO with useful companions such as wynne and leliana abandoning the pc at the first scent of corruption, so I'm not sure why its even being discussed at the bioware hq.

It sort of makes sense from a story perspective though. If you're being a jerk to someone and/or completely going against their views then why would they stick around and help you?

[Darkstorne]

PaganPoetry wrote...

I wish it was just like ME3's Paragon/Renegade system, where points for both were cumulative in deciding what you were, but were based on percentage. So if you want to be Cassandra's best friend, but disagree with her on some random topic, you don't digress, you just gain a couple percentage points in rivalry.

Yep, exactly. I shouldn't be worried about always having to agree or disagree with someone for bonus points. The friendship/rivalry system clashes with roleplaying. At least in Origins you could bump disposition back up when a character disapproved of something. In Origins you just have to play everyone and pander to their personalities.

I get what they going for, but it wasn't executed very well.

[Darkstorne]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Its already been said they would be doing something completely different because friendship/rivalry did not go how they wanted it.

That is regrettable, could you link me to that statement?

David Gaider wrote (roughly seven months ago)...
Yes, we've reached much the same conclusion. The system works pretty well, but breaks down when we tie it
to more than one issue... which you sort of have to, unless you intend for the character to have a single-note that they beat throughout the entire game. If the player feels differently about those issues, then you "hover" and the relationship goes nowhere.

While we've several options on how to deal with this, I'm open to thoughts on the subject. What I'm leaning towards is disassociating the progression of the relationship from the point values and instead letting the point
values determine the tone of that relationship-- and anything triggered by reaching a relationship stage being "extra", as it were.

And very likely the friendship/rivalry will go back to being "I like you"/"I don't like you" as in Origins. The DA2 version was more nuanced, but also more difficult for players to understand-- most of whom thought rivalry was a penalty of some kind anyhow (or this is my impression). While I would not want to go back to the Origins method of rivalry
equalling no interaction, I think having it be about the general attitude and not about how much you agree with their personal issue is a bit easier for folks to wrap their heads around.

Again, this is by no means final. Just where we're leaning. Before anyone asks, we're not at the point where I can lay out what the detailed plans are for changes-- as they don't exist at this point.

Sorry but having to pander to a companion's world views I don't share just to get combat bonuses, romance or keep them is not the way go.It sure as hell didn't work in DaO with useful companions such as wynne and leliana abandoning the pc at the first scent of corruption, so I'm not sure why its even being discussed at the bioware hq.

It sort of makes sense from a story perspective though. If you're being a jerk to someone and/or completely going against their views then why would they stick around and help you?

I much prefered that in Origins, that a character would leave if you angered them too much. But the friendship/rivalry system in DA2 didn't do that. For example, you could patronize and disagree with Aveline at every single opportunity in an attempt to get her rivalry bonus, and although she's only known you for a year (and maybe you worked as a smuggler for that year, which is something she would disapprove of) she'll still stand by your side regardless. It doesn't make sense.

Modifié par Darkstorne, 24 octobre 2012 - 08:07 .

[Iron_JG]

I tried to revive an old thread on this, to no avail. However, there was a really cool idea there:

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.

It'd be nice if Gaider would give us an update, if the last official commentary on F/R was seven months ago. If not an update, I'd love an example of how he imagines the point dissociation from relationship progression working. I'm not sure I understand. Let me try to apply the idea to Fenris. Under this concept, would Fenris' F/R score no long determine if he sided with or against you in Act III? If the strength of the relationship (as indicated by the score) doesn't matter, what tips his decision one way or another? The PC going through certain dialogues with him, or a certain number of dialogues?

Going back to Gaider's concern over "hovering," it seems that should be somewhat normal, right? People generally don't build strong, soulmate or mortal enemy relationships with everyone. In a story, that lowers the drama, sure, but it's still logical.

Perhaps the problem could be solved by measuring party members' relationships among several meters, rather than one, or two as Maclime suggested. Every party member could have a baseline "affection" type meter, which indicates whether personalities mesh or clash. Then major motivations could be distinct bars. Returning to Fenris, he could have protecting the innocent as a measure separate from punishing mages. Isabela, then, could have an affection meter, then a profit-seeking meter, then a protecting women meter, etc. It becomes complex quickly, but it offers a chance for, later in the game, more nuanced interactions. It would also even allow for personality or viewpoint shifts, as party members redefine themselves based on strong aspects of your relationship with them. Romance, I think, would still require high affection, but otherwise "rivalmancing" should still be possible. Isabela might fall for a charming hero despite him/her being completely altruistic, but I doubt an abusive, brutish swindler would turn her on.

The game could also use the number of gross, rather than net, relationship points to unlock stat bonuses. This would reward the player for interaction itself rather than the outcome, reducing the need or incentive to "game" party members for combat advantages.

[Darth Krytie]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Doesn't sound like it's being removed, only being... redeployed.

I hope so. I prefered DA2's system to DA:O.  I'm more hoping that you get "general" relationship points instead of F/R and then the way you interact dictates what sort of relationship you have. So, if you do x number of rival type things and only y amount of friendship things, you have a more combative relationship. Or if you do x amount of friendship things and only y amount of rival type. You have a more pleasant relationship. Regardless of which, you're still close enough for romance or bonuses.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Nizaris1 wrote...
In DA:O we have the option to reason with our friends using persuade options, there is no such thing in DA2

Eh, I'm not sure what you mean? The whole point of the rivalry is that it DOES let you disagree with them and some of them do change for it! A rivalry with Anders makes him much less sure of his actions at the end of the game, a rivalry with Isabella causes her to be less selfish.