101 réponses à ce sujet

[Auintus]

Amounting the complexities of human relationships to numbers has got to be a colossal pain. I'm sure they're doing their best.

hhh89 wrote...

I think that there should be two stats, one that checks the companion's relationship with the PC (friend, lover, stranger, etc.) and one that checks his approval on the PC's actions and ideals. As other said, it's possible to be friends with people which share opposite views from your own, as it's possiblle to hate someone who share your same ideals. The problem with DA2's system is that is put those two system together (DAO has the same problem, but the gift spam could make a companion your friend even if they have opposite views).
The double stat system is surely complex, but I think it's better than both DAO and DA2 system. I hope they'll implement this in DA3.

This has been mentioned before and I still think, properly implemented, it could be an excellent idea.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

Well David was correct in saying that a lot of people though rivalry meant "bad" or "hate" that is how I kinda saw it to begin with.

[Medhia Nox]

@DaringMoosejaw: What he means is - when Sten disagrees with you, you can have a dialogue option to Persuade him to your opinion. This results in a lesser disapproval or negates it altogether.

I loved the relevant gift options in Origins. They should bring that back. Morrigan's mirror... Zevrans boots - Alistair's mother's amulet. Etc. Though - of course - the Black Grimior was the most relevant and I'd like to see them all take that route.

Wynne's "quest" after confiding in you was also very strong I felt.

Liliana's song was really great - feaing the entire camp and how they were reacting. Good stuff.

===

I liked Origins better because it was less clear. You couldn't manipulate it as easily.

Sten was a GREAT example of this. Being nice to him generally made him dislike you.

I think the Friendship/Rivalry system would have been stronger if they weren't based on such obvious personal opinions - and more on "Compatibility"

====

In fact - Compatibility should factor into DA: 3

Often - I can have opposing viewpoints with a person and speak civilly - if I respect the person. I don't magically change my world view.

Human interactions are only initially based off of "Likes/Dislikes" - and those can be overcome if you both are compatible... and often "Opposites Attract".

Some NPCs should dislike mages - while others dislike the Chantry - and other's still aren't a fan of elves. And those could all be initial negatives.

But then - they could grow to like you despite that... but they still don't like "other" mages, Chantry, elves... etc.

Profession
Race (if it's a factor in the current game)
Attitude (Peaceful/Aggressive)
Morality (Altruistic/Amoral)
Etiquette (Gentile/Crude)
Philosophy (Stoic/Hedonistic)

Things like these should play into compatibility and each time you talk - these options should factor into altering your allies' opinion o f you.

If you approach things crudely - a swearing, disrespectful cur... eventually a "Gentile" NPC will like you less regardless if you agree or not.

====

So basically:

Gifts: Provide NPC side-quests
Conversations: Provide constant alteration of Compatibility.
Stances: Are hard coded bonuses/minuses that represent initial reactions.

I'd REALLY like the system to be impossible to manipulate through spamming a particular attitude or gift or action.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 24 octobre 2012 - 03:29 .

[LobselVith8]

Melca36 wrote...

Rivalry was stupid.  You do things your companion didn't like and they still want to romance you. Sorry but that didnt make sense.

I think thats the reason its being changed too.

Like Fenris falling for pro-slavery Hawke. Yeah, rivalry never made much sense to me for the romances.

[Raikas]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Rivalry was stupid.  You do things your companion didn't like and they still want to romance you. Sorry but that didnt make sense.

I think thats the reason its being changed too.

Like Fenris falling for pro-slavery Hawke. Yeah, rivalry never made much sense to me for the romances.

Eh, IRL people fall for the wrong person all the time.  It doesn't make sense, but that's reality - having that in the game was one of the good things about it, I thought.

Neither system was perfect, but DA2's had a lot more problems. As has already beeen mentioned, companions stick with you no matter what even when you act like a douche among them, and it punishes real roleplaying when you eel forced to make them either super happy or absolutely loath you.

That's not completely true - they may not turn on you like in Origins, but Isabela will leave your party at the end of the second act and not come back if you have only a mid-point friendship/rivalry score.

[Uccio]

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...

Well David was correct in saying that a lot of people though rivalry meant "bad" or "hate" that is how I kinda saw it to begin with.

Thats how most of the rivalry points were collected, by being a jerk/douche.


Origins approval was so superior.

Modifié par Ukki, 24 octobre 2012 - 04:56 .

[Auintus]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@DaringMoosejaw: What he means is - when Sten disagrees with you, you can have a dialogue option to Persuade him to your opinion. This results in a lesser disapproval or negates it altogether.

I loved the relevant gift options in Origins. They should bring that back. Morrigan's mirror... Zevrans boots - Alistair's mother's amulet. Etc. Though - of course - the Black Grimior was the most relevant and I'd like to see them all take that route.

Wynne's "quest" after confiding in you was also very strong I felt.

Liliana's song was really great - feaing the entire camp and how they were reacting. Good stuff.

===

I liked Origins better because it was less clear. You couldn't manipulate it as easily.

Sten was a GREAT example of this. Being nice to him generally made him dislike you.

I think the Friendship/Rivalry system would have been stronger if they weren't based on such obvious personal opinions - and more on "Compatibility"

====

In fact - Compatibility should factor into DA: 3

Often - I can have opposing viewpoints with a person and speak civilly - if I respect the person. I don't magically change my world view.

Human interactions are only initially based off of "Likes/Dislikes" - and those can be overcome if you both are compatible... and often "Opposites Attract".

Some NPCs should dislike mages - while others dislike the Chantry - and other's still aren't a fan of elves. And those could all be initial negatives.

But then - they could grow to like you despite that... but they still don't like "other" mages, Chantry, elves... etc.

Profession
Race (if it's a factor in the current game)
Attitude (Peaceful/Aggressive)
Morality (Altruistic/Amoral)
Etiquette (Gentile/Crude)
Philosophy (Stoic/Hedonistic)

Things like these should play into compatibility and each time you talk - these options should factor into altering your allies' opinion o f you.

If you approach things crudely - a swearing, disrespectful cur... eventually a "Gentile" NPC will like you less regardless if you agree or not.

====

So basically:

Gifts: Provide NPC side-quests
Conversations: Provide constant alteration of Compatibility.
Stances: Are hard coded bonuses/minuses that represent initial reactions.

I'd REALLY like the system to be impossible to manipulate through spamming a particular attitude or gift or action.

Probably too complex to be implemented properly, but I really like this idea. Probably the closest idea we've had to real-life interactions.

[Auintus]

Ukki wrote...

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...

Well David was correct in saying that a lot of people though rivalry meant "bad" or "hate" that is how I kinda saw it to begin with.

Thats how most of the rivalry points were collected, by being a jerk/douche.


Origins approval was so superior.

Actually, most random rivalry points were by being rude. Most significant rivalry points were by siding against their beliefs.(Not killing slavers at every chance, expressing belief that the Circle is functional, not following the strict rule of the law, not being a selfish profiteer. Points if you know who these are.)
I think they just need to be differenciated better. Being a jerk should affect a different score than siding against a personal belief.

[Henioo]

They should make something like the paragon/renegade meter off of ME3. Meaning, all interactions add to the overall pool, and the one of which there is more is the leading one.

[Vicious]

I hated the pander/gift crap of DA:O where it was either 'suck up to me or get stonewalled and never get more dialogue/miss storyline.'

DA2 was much more organic. You could shift character's opinions or find things about them that you wouldn't if you sucked up to them. The DA:O equivilant would be making Morrigan a little less selfish or Hardening Alistair/Leliana over time instead of a single conversation option completely altering their character.

Abandoning it and going back to the pander/gift crap is major fail.


You saw it all the time in DA:O. Morrigan romancing Wardens who were dudly do-rights that pulled kittens out of trees. Yes she disapproved of nearly everything to the point it became a meme but... SHOWER HER WITH GIFTS!

Ugh.

Modifié par Vicious, 24 octobre 2012 - 05:26 .

[Auintus]

Henioo wrote...

They should make something like the paragon/renegade meter off of ME3. Meaning, all interactions add to the overall pool, and the one of which there is more is the leading one.

So paragon/renegade replaces friendship/rivalry and "reputation" affects...what? Like DA:O's approval system, whether or not they'll continue talking?

[Henioo]

Auintus wrote...

Henioo wrote...

They should make something like the paragon/renegade meter off of ME3. Meaning, all interactions add to the overall pool, and the one of which there is more is the leading one.

So paragon/renegade replaces friendship/rivalry and "reputation" affects...what? Like DA:O's approval system, whether or not they'll continue talking?

The renegade/paragon I mentioned only due to them being in ME. I ain't saying there should be good/bad meter in DA3. I'm just saying that I liked that all of my decisions in ME3 were put together, unlike ME1 and ME2 - like you couldn't get everyone loyal if you weren't like 75% good or bad. The game forced you to do a certain kind of playthrough. That was no longer an issue with the meter in ME3.


Similar thing happened in DA2. I couldn't get certain characters to fully friend or rival without metagaming.

As per the whole reputation thing, we had that in Origins, innit? I think it's time for something new. Numercal indication is too videogamey, to quote this one guy.

[Medhia Nox]

@Vicious: While I agree with you - I bet if someone showered you with gifts you would be quite amenable to even their distasteful qualities. Humans are shallow like that.

Still - I don't advocate gifts as modifiers. I advocate personalized gifts for quests - that could bring modifiers and advance the rp. As I mentioned - the Black Grimior was excellent in this capacity.

[ScarMK]

Vicious wrote...

I hated the pander/gift crap of DA:O where it was either 'suck up to me or get stonewalled and never get more dialogue/miss storyline.'

DA2 was much more organic. You could shift character's opinions or find things about them that you wouldn't if you sucked up to them. The DA:O equivilant would be making Morrigan a little less selfish or Hardening Alistair/Leliana over time instead of a single conversation option completely altering their character.

Abandoning it and going back to the pander/gift crap is major fail.


You saw it all the time in DA:O. Morrigan romancing Wardens who were dudly do-rights that pulled kittens out of trees. Yes she disapproved of nearly everything to the point it became a meme but... SHOWER HER WITH GIFTS!

Ugh.

You aren't forced to give them the gifts, you can sell them you know.  I enjoyed "gift spam" as it allowed me to have any story extension that occured in my head outside of the game, to be reflected in game.  I want to pretend my character goes out to a tavern with some companions and my character would tease Alistair on his virginity and drunkenly as well as embarassingly hit on Leiliana, gifts allowed me to reflect that in game in terms of approval/disapproval.

[deuce985]

I actually liked some things about the Origin system. I'd like to see something like that improved.

They have their personalities, why should they agree with everything I do? I'd like to see more interactions from my companions when I make a decision. Let a slaver go do his thing? Bar slides dislike for Fenris. Deal with the slaver? Fenris moves to likes. Here is where I want it different - more variables based on the slider scale.

Say I get into another slaver confrontation deep in the game. I let him go again. At this point, Fenris gets really upset and just confronts me based on the point check. If he has too much dislike, he's going to let me know about it. At this point he can either leave the party or maybe challenge me. Now on the flip side, if I let the slaver go but the slider point check has him on the "like" side of things, he'll just give me his disapproval but will go along with it. Maybe because he still "trusts" me?

Too many situations in Origins felt linear. Sacred Ashes...Leliana will ALWAYS attack you regardless how much she likes you if you destroy them. By using what I propose above, it creates more random variables to more encounters. This keeps you on your toes and makes you really think about your decisions. Even if they become pissed, you still have opportunities to possibly talk them down. But if you continue to just do everything they dislike, they'll leave your party or challenge you.

That way the player will see many warnings letting them know you better stop pissing Fenris off. Some situations shouldn't be avoidable, like the Sacred Ashes. Why should my companions stand around and agree with 99% of my decisions? It makes them seem less human. This plays more into what I want in a Bioware game. More consequences for my decisions. You shouldn't be able to see everything coming and you should be thinking about your decisions harder and stop being selfish making them.

On the flip side, I could see this being a writing nightmare for Bioware. So I doubt we'll ever see it anyway. Probably why Origins only had a few points where you could kill those companions off and they seemed to completely ignore whether they liked you or not...

Modifié par deuce985, 24 octobre 2012 - 06:03 .

[Palipride47]

fixed post, new one later

Modifié par Palipride47, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:06 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

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.

Yeah, I think it just needed refinining, too, but sometimes in trying to refine something you find that it's easier to scrap it and build a different but better system in its place.

I expect that whatever they come up with will be similar enough to the friendship/rivalry that people who liked it won't be left out in the cold, just as friendship/rivalry was very similar to the companion favor system in Origins even though it also was something completely different.

[Palipride47]

I had a similar discussion with someone here http://social.biowar...ndex/14625439/3

What I said:

At least in DAO, when you said something nasty, or did something horrible (to them), it swung 180 in a bad way, like how you could be +100 with Leliana, but she STILL tries to kill you the minute you destroy the Ashes. That did happen with Merrill's aruli'hom (whatever, that carving thing) quest, and that was great. She should basically hate you after that, even with 85% Friendship......

But sleep with Anders, tell "you sucked in bed, get out of my face" and no rivalry points? No reaction at all?
If you do that with Alistair, he gets furious and resets to 0 

However:

I think the friend/rivalry system was great in that you could talk and act consistently, and companion attitudes would reflect how they thought, and you didn't need to reorganize your party because if you accept a kiss from a tavern girl for -3 and now you are at crisis point, Morrigan gets fed up and leaves and she has that "Curse of Mortality" spell you NEEEED.

I also didn't need to rearrange my party every time I wanted to make a desicion that they wouldn't like, or tell Wynne "The Circle rox!" and Morrigan "I hate it, every last bit of it" (closer to my true sentiment, but I wanna rival Wynne)

I think that Respect/Affection scale is a perfect "middle ground." Actions should affect how people see you, but so should how you treat them

People can like you/ hate your cause or hate you/ like your cause. Or just hate you . 

Modifié par Palipride47, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:17 .

[PsychoBlonde]

deuce985 wrote...

I actually liked some things about the Origin system. I'd like to see something like that improved.

I think they felt that it was too one-dimensional . . . in order to access the bonus mission that came with the companion, you HAD to make friends with them.  Some people were happy enough with ditching that companion and missing out, some weren't.

Personally, I think friend/rival the way it was implemented was also too one-dimensional.  The effects of which side you picked were cosmetic at best, and you could still get cut out of some content if you hovered around the middle.

Ideally I want to see a system where you get different  yet wesome content no matter which direction you go.  Maybe not HUGELY different to the point of it causing some kind of fractal branching plot nightmare for the devs, but different.

[Auintus]

Palipride47 wrote...

I think that Respect/Affection scale is a perfect "middle ground." Actions should affect how people see you, but so should how you treat them

People can like you/ hate your cause or hate you/ like your cause. Or just hate you . 

This, well mostly, covers it. We need an X/Y axis of approval of your character vs approval of your character's beliefs.

Also, I liked how Friendship and Rivalry offered differant stat boosts. Like Dak'kon from Planescape:Torment. It seems more appropriate than a single stat boost for high approval.

Modifié par Auintus, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:22 .

[Wulfram]

I don't see the virtue of having stat boosts for any sort of appoval rating.

[Eire Icon]

I'd like to see this brought back as well, I thought it worked well in DA2. I'd also like to see more changes in the main characters interactions with companions based on whether they are a friend or rival

[Uccio]

Henioo wrote...

They should make something like the paragon/renegade meter off of ME3. Meaning, all interactions add to the overall pool, and the one of which there is more is the leading one.

No more ME in DA thank you.

[Auintus]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't see the virtue of having stat boosts for any sort of appoval rating.

Why not?  It shows the reflection of their mental state. Approving of Merril's blood magic(friendship) gives her more mana per unit of health, while rivalry teaches her to survive on her own, improving damage resistance.
If done right, it makes sense.