101 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

I want too see two scales:
A respect scale
And and affection scale.
This would give four outcomes:

High both: The characther both loves (plantonic as unplatonic) your characther and would likely never betray you.

High affection/low respect: The characther likes you, both doesn't really thinks that you are a suitor leader. Might betray you in a misguided attempt to protect you.

low affaction /high respect. The characther and you doesn't get along, but the characther acknowlegde that you can lead, might betray you if they feel corned enough.

low both: The characther thinks you are an idiot and there is a high risk of them simply leaving the party in disgust.

Romance for the li is of course on the high affection scale.

[Master Shiori]

Melca36 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

I did like the Friendship/Rivalry thing. After all, you do sometimes get friends who you actually really don't like but still hang out with them. Humans are odd.

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.

Funny, but I know couples in real life who tend to argue quite often yet still pretty much love each other.

Rivalry wasn't about hating someone or being a jerk to them. It was about not sharing their views on certain things.

My mage Hawke didn't agree with Fenris' stance on mages. They argued about it every chance they got. Yet, my Hawke was always wiling to help Fenris against the thugs his former master sent after him, and they even shared dislike for slavers. Rivalry for them was all about agreeing to disagree, but that doesn't mean they couldn't work together.

Modifié par Master Shiori, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:48 .

[Maclimes]

esper wrote...

I want too see two scales:
A respect scale
And and affection scale.
This would give four outcomes:

High both: The characther both loves (plantonic as unplatonic) your characther and would likely never betray you.

High affection/low respect: The characther likes you, both doesn't really thinks that you are a suitor leader. Might betray you in a misguided attempt to protect you.

low affaction /high respect. The characther and you doesn't get along, but the characther acknowlegde that you can lead, might betray you if they feel corned enough.

low both: The characther thinks you are an idiot and there is a high risk of them simply leaving the party in disgust.

Romance for the li is of course on the high affection scale.

I had this same idea a while back. So, I support it whole-heartedly. 

[Palipride47]

Master Shiori wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

I did like the Friendship/Rivalry thing. After all, you do sometimes get friends who you actually really don't like but still hang out with them. Humans are odd.

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.

Funny, but I know couples in real life who tend to argue quite often yet still pretty much love each other.

Rivalry wasn't about hating someone or being a jerk to them. It was about not sharing their views on certain things.

My mage Hawke didn't agree with Fenris' stance on mages. They argued about it every chance they got. Yet, my Hawke was always wiling to help Fenris against the thugs his former master sent after him, and they even shared dislike for slavers. Rivalry for them was all about agreeing to disagree, but that doesn't mean they couldn't work together.

And THAT is why we need a Respect/Affection "double" scale.
A lot of people were confused about rivalry too.

Rivalry was supposed to mean you disagreed philosophically, but they respected you as a person.

However, when you were, frankly, an ass, in conversations with your companions, you earned rivalry points, hence the now-confusion. I could be militant pro-mage, but be nasty to specifically Anders, and the scale would just stay at 0. 

You can like people you diasgree with philosophically. You can hate people whose opinions you agree with. 

However, there have to be "points of no return." I would count helping slavers, making deals with demons and defiling ashes as "points of no return". 

[UrgentArchengel]

As long as I can be friendly with all my companions, I'll be a surly rogue....or whatever.

[Master Shiori]

Palipride47 wrote...

And THAT is why we need a Respect/Affection "double" scale.
A lot of people were confused about rivalry too.

Rivalry was supposed to mean you disagreed philosophically, but they respected you as a person.

However, when you were, frankly, an ass, in conversations with your companions, you earned rivalry points, hence the now-confusion. I could be militant pro-mage, but be nasty to specifically Anders, and the scale would just stay at 0. 

You can like people you diasgree with philosophically. You can hate people whose opinions you agree with. 

However, there have to be "points of no return." I would count helping slavers, making deals with demons and defiling ashes as "points of no return". 

Agreed.

The problem isn't that friendship/rivalry, as an idea, is bad, but rather that it wasn't implemented well. 

In the example I mentioned, I'd get rivalry points for disagreeing with Fenris on mages, but friendship points for agreeing that slavers and those who mistreat elves need to die. The result is that the relationship with Fenris could end up stuck in limbo (or the middle of the affection meter) and we'd never reach the "friends" status or unlock the romance option.

By comparison, the system in DA:O was extremely punishing since disagreeing with companions on pretty much anything would result in player being penalized and locked out of companion specific content. In short, if you want to explore the companion's story, you need to unconditionaly agree with everything they say.

[Palipride47]

Maclimes wrote...

esper wrote...

I want too see two scales:
A respect scale
And and affection scale.
This would give four outcomes:

High both: The characther both loves (plantonic as unplatonic) your characther and would likely never betray you.

High affection/low respect: The characther likes you, both doesn't really thinks that you are a suitor leader. Might betray you in a misguided attempt to protect you.

low affaction /high respect. The characther and you doesn't get along, but the characther acknowlegde that you can lead, might betray you if they feel corned enough.

low both: The characther thinks you are an idiot and there is a high risk of them simply leaving the party in disgust.

Romance for the li is of course on the high affection scale.

I had this same idea a while back. So, I support it whole-heartedly. 

Oh! That idea on the old thread was yours? 

Yeah, its awesome. One of the Bioware people (Allan, I think) said the devs were combing throung the "Top 5 Things You Want in DA3?" thread for fan suggestions, you should post it, and hope they read it. Or PM it. It was a fantastic idea, and not too hard to implement (I would think)

[SeptimusMagistos]

Master Shiori wrote...

My mage Hawke didn't agree with Fenris' stance on mages. They argued about it every chance they got. Yet, my Hawke was always wiling to help Fenris against the thugs his former master sent after him, and they even shared dislike for slavers. Rivalry for them was all about agreeing to disagree, but that doesn't mean they couldn't work together.

And you managed a rivalry with this? I'm pretty sure my Hawke did pretty much the same thing and he and Fenris just ended up with a confusing ambivalence.

[Maclimes]

Palipride47 wrote...

Oh! That idea on the old thread was yours? 

Yeah, its awesome. One of the Bioware people (Allan, I think) said the devs were combing throung the "Top 5 Things You Want in DA3?" thread for fan suggestions, you should post it, and hope they read it. Or PM it. It was a fantastic idea, and not too hard to implement (I would think)

Yeah, that was me. I'll elaborate here, since I don't remember where that old thread is.

********

Two Meter System:

Instead of a one-way bar like in DA:O, or the polarized bar like in DA2, I suggest we simply have two bars. Each would be on a scale of 0-100, and would start at around 30.

Bar One: Affection
Affection measures how much the companion likes you. Not whether or not they agree with your goals and philosophies, but how much they enjoy your company and care about you. 

Bar Two: Respect
Respect measures how much the companion agrees with your viewpoints, goals, and leadership. This does not necessarily mean they care about you, just that their goals align with yours.

********

Example in Action:
A mage is starving and penniless in the streets, hiding from the Templar. Anders is in your party. Your choices are, and their affect on Anders loyalty:
1. "Here, my friend. Take this money, and use it to get yourself to safety." (+Affection, + Respect)
2. "Alright you blasted beggar, take some money. But you are a sorry excuse for a mage, you bumbling fool." (-Affection, +Respect)
3. "I am so sorry. I sympathize with your plight, but I simply can't help you now." (+Affection, -Respect)
4. "Filthy mage! I'm turning you in to the Templar!" (-Affection, -Respect)

********

You can end up in one of four unique positions:

High Affection, High Respect: You both align in both personal and professional matters. Inseperable, best buds, always in agreement. Loving romance possible, likely to last a lifetime.

High Affection, Low Respect: You care about one another, and have fun together, but disagree on fundamental principals. "That guy's great, but man, don't get him started on politics. He turns into a jerk." Romance possible, in a rival-mance style. Likely to end badly as the important philosophical differences divide you.

Low Affection, High Respect: Like a tough sergeant. The companion respects your leadership, and would follow you into battle, but would love to just lay a punch across your smug face. No Romance.

Low Affection, Low Respect: Agree on nothing. Hate each other. Likely they will leave the party or just outright attack you. 

********

Anywho, that's the gist of my idea. If I may say so, I think it's a pretty great solution.

Modifié par Maclimes, 24 octobre 2012 - 09:03 .

[Palipride47]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Master Shiori wrote...

My mage Hawke didn't agree with Fenris' stance on mages. They argued about it every chance they got. Yet, my Hawke was always wiling to help Fenris against the thugs his former master sent after him, and they even shared dislike for slavers. Rivalry for them was all about agreeing to disagree, but that doesn't mean they couldn't work together.

And you managed a rivalry with this? I'm pretty sure my Hawke did pretty much the same thing and he and Fenris just ended up with a confusing ambivalence.

He meant conceptually, when someone was stating that rivalry romances were dumb. 
Yes, I tried being nice to Anders but thinking the Circle was fine, and I was still at 0 by Act 2, so I had to start being mean.

Edit: Worng gendered subject, sry Master Shiori! (I look at the icons and forget those aren't real people....)

Modifié par Palipride47, 24 octobre 2012 - 09:15 .

[Maclimes]

I'd like to point out that in my above suggestion, I don't actually like the term "Respect" for the second meter. It's what I first came up with off the top of my head, and I have been unable to come up with a more appropriate term. I don't feel that it exactly carries the full meaning of the meter, though. I toyed with "Loyalty", but not sure that's exactly right either.

[Palipride47]

Maclimes wrote...

I'd like to point out that in my above suggestion, I don't actually like the term "Respect" for the second meter. It's what I first came up with off the top of my head, and I have been unable to come up with a more appropriate term. I don't feel that it exactly carries the full meaning of the meter, though. I toyed with "Loyalty", but not sure that's exactly right either.

Fealty or fidelity, maybe? 

Or "allegiance" vs. "affection" (and alliteration has a ring that would help people remember things)

[Maclimes]

Palipride47 wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

I'd like to point out that in my above suggestion, I don't actually like the term "Respect" for the second meter. It's what I first came up with off the top of my head, and I have been unable to come up with a more appropriate term. I don't feel that it exactly carries the full meaning of the meter, though. I toyed with "Loyalty", but not sure that's exactly right either.

Fealty or fidelity, maybe? 

Or "allegiance" vs. "affection" (and alliteration has a ring that would help people remember things)

I like "Allegiance", but the similar visual appearance of the words may be confusing when seen at a glance, such as immediately after conversation. "Morrigan Affection +10" and "Morrigan Allegiance +10" are very much alike, visually speaking. Although I suppose for on-screen pop-ups, they could just use a little icon, like a heart for Affection and a shield for Allegiance. An increase would be a blue version of the icon (a blue heart), while a decrease would be a red version.

[Master Shiori]

Palipride47 wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Master Shiori wrote...

My mage Hawke didn't agree with Fenris' stance on mages. They argued about it every chance they got. Yet, my Hawke was always wiling to help Fenris against the thugs his former master sent after him, and they even shared dislike for slavers. Rivalry for them was all about agreeing to disagree, but that doesn't mean they couldn't work together.

And you managed a rivalry with this? I'm pretty sure my Hawke did pretty much the same thing and he and Fenris just ended up with a confusing ambivalence.

She meant conceptually, when someone was stating that rivalry romances were dumb. 
Yes, I tried being nice to Anders but thinking the Circle was fine, and I was still at 0 by Act 2, so I had to start being mean.

It's a "he" actually.

And yes, the problem you described is exactly the one i encountered, albeit with a different companion.

You couldn't, for example, support more freedom for mages, yet disagree with Anders because you find his methods too extreme. If you're pro mage you gain friendship. If you disagree with his methods you gain rivalry and he considers you pro templar. 

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

Maclimes wrote...

Yeah, that was me. I'll elaborate here, since I don't remember where that old thread is.

********

Two Meter System:

Instead of a one-way bar like in DA:O, or the polarized bar like in DA2, I suggest we simply have two bars. Each would be on a scale of 0-100, and would start at around 30.

Bar One: Affection
Affection measures how much the companion likes you. Not whether or not they agree with your goals and philosophies, but how much they enjoy your company and care about you. 

Bar Two: Respect
Respect measures how much the companion agrees with your viewpoints, goals, and leadership. This does not necessarily mean they care about you, just that their goals align with yours.

********

Example in Action:
A mage is starving and penniless in the streets, hiding from the Templar. Anders is in your party. Your choices are, and their affect on Anders loyalty:
1. "Here, my friend. Take this money, and use it to get yourself to safety." (+Affection, + Respect)
2. "Alright you blasted beggar, take some money. But you are a sorry excuse for a mage, you bumbling fool." (-Affection, +Respect)
3. "I am so sorry. I sympathize with your plight, but I simply can't help you now." (+Affection, -Respect)
4. "Filthy mage! I'm turning you in to the Templar!" (-Affection, -Respect)

********

You can end up in one of four unique positions:

High Affection, High Respect: You both align in both personal and professional matters. Inseperable, best buds, always in agreement. Loving romance possible, likely to last a lifetime.

High Affection, Low Respect: You care about one another, and have fun together, but disagree on fundamental principals. "That guy's great, but man, don't get him started on politics. He turns into a jerk." Romance possible, in a rival-mance style. Likely to end badly as the important philosophical differences divide you.

Low Affection, High Respect: Like a tough sergeant. The companion respects your leadership, and would follow you into battle, but would love to just lay a punch across your smug face. No Romance.

Low Affection, Low Respect: Agree on nothing. Hate each other. Likely they will leave the party or just outright attack you. 

********

Anywho, that's the gist of my idea. If I may say so, I think it's a pretty great solution.

This is a great idea. I like this alot.

[wright1978]

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Yeah, that was me. I'll elaborate here, since I don't remember where that old thread is.

********

Two Meter System:

Instead of a one-way bar like in DA:O, or the polarized bar like in DA2, I suggest we simply have two bars. Each would be on a scale of 0-100, and would start at around 30.

Bar One: Affection
Affection measures how much the companion likes you. Not whether or not they agree with your goals and philosophies, but how much they enjoy your company and care about you. 

Bar Two: Respect
Respect measures how much the companion agrees with your viewpoints, goals, and leadership. This does not necessarily mean they care about you, just that their goals align with yours.

********

Example in Action:
A mage is starving and penniless in the streets, hiding from the Templar. Anders is in your party. Your choices are, and their affect on Anders loyalty:
1. "Here, my friend. Take this money, and use it to get yourself to safety." (+Affection, + Respect)
2. "Alright you blasted beggar, take some money. But you are a sorry excuse for a mage, you bumbling fool." (-Affection, +Respect)
3. "I am so sorry. I sympathize with your plight, but I simply can't help you now." (+Affection, -Respect)
4. "Filthy mage! I'm turning you in to the Templar!" (-Affection, -Respect)

********

You can end up in one of four unique positions:

High Affection, High Respect: You both align in both personal and professional matters. Inseperable, best buds, always in agreement. Loving romance possible, likely to last a lifetime.

High Affection, Low Respect: You care about one another, and have fun together, but disagree on fundamental principals. "That guy's great, but man, don't get him started on politics. He turns into a jerk." Romance possible, in a rival-mance style. Likely to end badly as the important philosophical differences divide you.

Low Affection, High Respect: Like a tough sergeant. The companion respects your leadership, and would follow you into battle, but would love to just lay a punch across your smug face. No Romance.

Low Affection, Low Respect: Agree on nothing. Hate each other. Likely they will leave the party or just outright attack you. 

********

Anywho, that's the gist of my idea. If I may say so, I think it's a pretty great solution.

This is a great idea. I like this alot.

Agree wholeheartedly

[deuce985]

Maclimes wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

Oh! That idea on the old thread was yours? 

Yeah, its awesome. One of the Bioware people (Allan, I think) said the devs were combing throung the "Top 5 Things You Want in DA3?" thread for fan suggestions, you should post it, and hope they read it. Or PM it. It was a fantastic idea, and not too hard to implement (I would think)

Yeah, that was me. I'll elaborate here, since I don't remember where that old thread is.

********

Two Meter System:

Instead of a one-way bar like in DA:O, or the polarized bar like in DA2, I suggest we simply have two bars. Each would be on a scale of 0-100, and would start at around 30.

Bar One: Affection
Affection measures how much the companion likes you. Not whether or not they agree with your goals and philosophies, but how much they enjoy your company and care about you. 

Bar Two: Respect
Respect measures how much the companion agrees with your viewpoints, goals, and leadership. This does not necessarily mean they care about you, just that their goals align with yours.

********

Example in Action:
A mage is starving and penniless in the streets, hiding from the Templar. Anders is in your party. Your choices are, and their affect on Anders loyalty:
1. "Here, my friend. Take this money, and use it to get yourself to safety." (+Affection, + Respect)
2. "Alright you blasted beggar, take some money. But you are a sorry excuse for a mage, you bumbling fool." (-Affection, +Respect)
3. "I am so sorry. I sympathize with your plight, but I simply can't help you now." (+Affection, -Respect)
4. "Filthy mage! I'm turning you in to the Templar!" (-Affection, -Respect)

********

You can end up in one of four unique positions:

High Affection, High Respect: You both align in both personal and professional matters. Inseperable, best buds, always in agreement. Loving romance possible, likely to last a lifetime.

High Affection, Low Respect: You care about one another, and have fun together, but disagree on fundamental principals. "That guy's great, but man, don't get him started on politics. He turns into a jerk." Romance possible, in a rival-mance style. Likely to end badly as the important philosophical differences divide you.

Low Affection, High Respect: Like a tough sergeant. The companion respects your leadership, and would follow you into battle, but would love to just lay a punch across your smug face. No Romance.

Low Affection, Low Respect: Agree on nothing. Hate each other. Likely they will leave the party or just outright attack you. 

********

Anywho, that's the gist of my idea. If I may say so, I think it's a pretty great solution.

This is very similar to what I was thinking. I like this.

[Auintus]

Maclimes wrote...

Yeah, that was me. I'll elaborate here, since I don't remember where that old thread is.

********

Two Meter System:

Instead of a one-way bar like in DA:O, or the polarized bar like in DA2, I suggest we simply have two bars. Each would be on a scale of 0-100, and would start at around 30.

Bar One: Affection
Affection measures how much the companion likes you. Not whether or not they agree with your goals and philosophies, but how much they enjoy your company and care about you. 

Bar Two: Respect
Respect measures how much the companion agrees with your viewpoints, goals, and leadership. This does not necessarily mean they care about you, just that their goals align with yours.

********

Example in Action:
A mage is starving and penniless in the streets, hiding from the Templar. Anders is in your party. Your choices are, and their affect on Anders loyalty:
1. "Here, my friend. Take this money, and use it to get yourself to safety." (+Affection, + Respect)
2. "Alright you blasted beggar, take some money. But you are a sorry excuse for a mage, you bumbling fool." (-Affection, +Respect)
3. "I am so sorry. I sympathize with your plight, but I simply can't help you now." (+Affection, -Respect)
4. "Filthy mage! I'm turning you in to the Templar!" (-Affection, -Respect)

********

You can end up in one of four unique positions:

High Affection, High Respect: You both align in both personal and professional matters. Inseperable, best buds, always in agreement. Loving romance possible, likely to last a lifetime.

High Affection, Low Respect: You care about one another, and have fun together, but disagree on fundamental principals. "That guy's great, but man, don't get him started on politics. He turns into a jerk." Romance possible, in a rival-mance style. Likely to end badly as the important philosophical differences divide you.

Low Affection, High Respect: Like a tough sergeant. The companion respects your leadership, and would follow you into battle, but would love to just lay a punch across your smug face. No Romance.

Low Affection, Low Respect: Agree on nothing. Hate each other. Likely they will leave the party or just outright attack you. 

********

Anywho, that's the gist of my idea. If I may say so, I think it's a pretty great solution.

I think the names for the bars should probably be changed, but the idea needs to go straight to the devs.

[Wulfram]

Auintus wrote...

I think the names for the bars should probably be changed, but the idea needs to go straight to the devs.

That sort of idea has been proposed since before DA2 was released.  IIRC Mr Gaider has suggested that he doesn't think having two bars would work very well.

[Celtic Latino]

I vastly preferred DA2's idea of agreeing to disagree versus DAO's butt-kissing to experience any sort of thing, whether backstory, friendship or romance with them. DA2 lets you have the hate-mance, allows you to disagree yet work together. I also think it could use refining, but as is it was a pretty good system.

[Palipride47]

Wulfram wrote...

Auintus wrote...

I think the names for the bars should probably be changed, but the idea needs to go straight to the devs.

That sort of idea has been proposed since before DA2 was released.  IIRC Mr Gaider has suggested that he doesn't think having two bars would work very well.

Well, surely there are some techies who could tinker and come up with an algorithm (or some mathematical term, I'm a sociology person)

And are we really that, I guess, dumb? that we can't follow more than one bar?

[ledod]

I appreciated the friendship/rivalry system: it was in similar to origins, in that it augemented the context of  interpersonal relationships between party members. DA 2's system expanded upon the previous origins' mechanic, however, by rewarding both rivalry/friendship.

One point of contention, however, is the ability for doublespeak with the main player: one could befriend each party member by merely parroting his/her perspective. May our actions within the plot yield more significant impacts with each respective character.

[Wulfram]

Palipride47 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Auintus wrote...

I think the names for the bars should probably be changed, but the idea needs to go straight to the devs.

That sort of idea has been proposed since before DA2 was released.  IIRC Mr Gaider has suggested that he doesn't think having two bars would work very well.

Well, surely there are some techies who could tinker and come up with an algorithm (or some mathematical term, I'm a sociology person)

And are we really that, I guess, dumb? that we can't follow more than one bar?

Found the relevant quote

http://social.biowar...34&lf=8#5356506

David Gaider wrote...

Because as soon as you have more than one axis you start ending up with much more
complicated dialogue. We looked at this, but the truth of the matter is
doing that would have meant much less relevance for each axis as we
simply wouldn't have been able to use it in as many situations.

[LobselVith8]

Hervoyl wrote...

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.

I don't see why someone would fall for the embodiment of what they hate, though. Does it really make sense for Fenris to fall for Hawke if he advocates slavery, and has an elven slave?

[Palipride47]

Wulfram wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Auintus wrote...

I think the names for the bars should probably be changed, but the idea needs to go straight to the devs.

That sort of idea has been proposed since before DA2 was released.  IIRC Mr Gaider has suggested that he doesn't think having two bars would work very well.

Well, surely there are some techies who could tinker and come up with an algorithm (or some mathematical term, I'm a sociology person)

And are we really that, I guess, dumb? that we can't follow more than one bar?

Found the relevant quote

http://social.biowar...34&lf=8#5356506

David Gaider wrote...

Because as soon as you have more than one axis you start ending up with much more
complicated dialogue. We looked at this, but the truth of the matter is
doing that would have meant much less relevance for each axis as we
simply wouldn't have been able to use it in as many situations.

Ahh....ok.

Well, I at least hope they can remedy the "mixed message" syndrome that Friendship/Rivalry posed. I really liked that over approval in Origins (with some exceptions - like romancing Fenris when you love slavers)

Maybe make things like that act more like Merrill's carving tool give/ don't give quest, where if you were a friend, it flipped to 15% rivalry at the lowest.