65 réponses à ce sujet

[Ivory.]

Will it be like DA2 with the friends or rivals, or will it be something new? 

[The Elder King]

It'll be based on DAO's approval system, but different.

[Ivory.]

hhh89 wrote...

It'll be based on DAO's approval system, but different.

That's disappointing.

The Friendship/Rivalry system was probably the best thing about DA2 imo.

[Jigglypuff]

The friendship/rivalry was perfection.

[The Elder King]

 The F/R system was hardly perfect, as the approval  system wasn't. The best system, in my opinion, would be a system they present both the approval meter (to measure the level of affection between you and your companions) and the F/R meter (to measure how much you agree/disagree with your companion on their beliefs), but I guess a system like this is really complex to develop. 

[Jigglypuff]

hhh89 wrote...

 The F/R system was hardly perfect, as the approval  system wasn't. The best system, in my opinion, would be a system they present both the approval meter (to measure the level of affection between you and your companions) and the F/R meter (to measure how much you agree/disagree with your companion on their beliefs), but I guess a system like this is really complex to develop. 

That sounds really cool actually.

[Knight of Dane]

hhh89 wrote...

 The F/R system was hardly perfect, as the approval  system wasn't. The best system, in my opinion, would be a system they present both the approval meter (to measure the level of affection between you and your companions) and the F/R meter (to measure how much you agree/disagree with your companion on their beliefs), but I guess a system like this is really complex to develop. 

I don't think so, at least not when they have made both before anyway.

[Aremce]

Phoenixalex wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

 The F/R system was hardly perfect, as the approval  system wasn't. The best system, in my opinion, would be a system they present both the approval meter (to measure the level of affection between you and your companions) and the F/R meter (to measure how much you agree/disagree with your companion on their beliefs), but I guess a system like this is really complex to develop. 

That sounds really cool actually.

+ 1. This would be perfect.
One thing that bothers me a bit with Origins is how you have to just agree most of the time (or use spam gifts) to get companion quests and to keep the companions loyal. But it's also a little extreme how in DA2 you have to be either all agreeable again - or basically hate on everything a character does in order to get high rivalry.

[Angarma]

hhh89 wrote...

 The F/R system was hardly perfect, as the approval  system wasn't. The best system, in my opinion, would be a system they present both the approval meter (to measure the level of affection between you and your companions) and the F/R meter (to measure how much you agree/disagree with your companion on their beliefs), but I guess a system like this is really complex to develop. 

I'd add my weight to this, it sounds quite ideal.

[philippe willaume]

yes it would
I think it has been discussed about a years ago or so. from what i recall the main conter argument was that it is two counter to track instead of one.

phil

[Patchwork]

hhh89 wrote...

 The F/R system was hardly perfect, as the approval  system wasn't. The best system, in my opinion, would be a system they present both the approval meter (to measure the level of affection between you and your companions) and the F/R meter (to measure how much you agree/disagree with your companion on their beliefs), but I guess a system like this is really complex to develop. 

Sounds similair to ME3's Reputation + Paragon/Renegade system.

Modifié par Ser Bard, 14 février 2014 - 10:38 .

[9TailsFox]

reh123 wrote...

Phoenixalex wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

 The F/R system was hardly perfect, as the approval  system wasn't. The best system, in my opinion, would be a system they present both the approval meter (to measure the level of affection between you and your companions) and the F/R meter (to measure how much you agree/disagree with your companion on their beliefs), but I guess a system like this is really complex to develop. 

That sounds really cool actually.

+ 1. This would be perfect.
One thing that bothers me a bit with Origins is how you have to just agree most of the time (or use spam gifts) to get companion quests and to keep the companions loyal. But it's also a little extreme how in DA2 you have to be either all agreeable again - or basically hate on everything a character does in order to get high rivalry.

You don't have to agree at all. This is our problem we metagame so every companion like as. And if we see message approval -15 we instantly think we did something wrong then we not.

And approval system will be like DA:O.But not, you get more friendship points you get more dialog( well we most likely get this to). But As developers said dialog will be event driven, and i imegin it means somthing then you go to Redcliffe you have dialog with Alistair. And approval or disapproval affects tone of dialog.

[Naesaki]

Didn't they say its going to be alot more "organic" this time round? Like rather than giving 20 gifts or saying what they want to hear / the opposite just to get the friendship/rivalry you want, they'll react more to what you do instead?

[AlexJK]

9TailsFox wrote...

reh123 wrote...

One thing that bothers me a bit with Origins is how you have to just agree most of the time (or use spam gifts) to get companion quests and to keep the companions loyal. But it's also a little extreme how in DA2 you have to be either all agreeable again - or basically hate on everything a character does in order to get high rivalry.

You don't have to agree at all. This is our problem we metagame so every companion like as. And if we see message approval -15 we instantly think we did something wrong then we not.

The problem is that in Origins, approval was strictly positive (always made the companion better, granted access to more quests), and disapproval strictly negative (restricted dialogue and quest choices, granted lesser stat bonuses). And it wasn't really metagaming to know or act on that, since the game made it perfectly clear.

Friendship/Rivalry was theoretically better in that regard - neither was strictly negative, instead changing the nature of the dialogue, quests and relationships you could have with followers, without restricting access. But I seem to remember devs saying that everyone just saw friendship=good, rivalry=bad anyway, which meant it functioned basically the same as approval anyway.

Looking forward to what DAI brings, either way

[Fast Jimmy]

And approval system will be like DA:O.But not, you get more friendship points you get more dialog( well we most likely get this to). But As developers said dialog will be event driven, and i imegin it means somthing then you go to Redcliffe you have dialog with Alistair. And approval or disapproval affects tone of dialog.

This is not entirely accurate.

From what little we know, there will be approval, but it won't be what determines how many conversations you have. Companions who have a low approval will still talk to you and quests will present themselves; the difference will be that the companion will react differently. If you all are on bad terms, they may sneer or be dismissive of your help, while if you are friendly they will be more warm.

What I don't want to see is that if I have a dozen conversations with a companion but wind up gaining just as much disapproval as approval and have close to a neutral score, that the companion suddenly acts like we've barely talked before. Neutral approval =\\= never talked to. It just means the approval bar has not moved. I would really like the game to address that.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 février 2014 - 11:38 .

[Aremce]

AlexJK wrote...

9TailsFox wrote...

reh123 wrote...

One thing that bothers me a bit with Origins is how you have to just agree most of the time (or use spam gifts) to get companion quests and to keep the companions loyal. But it's also a little extreme how in DA2 you have to be either all agreeable again - or basically hate on everything a character does in order to get high rivalry.

You don't have to agree at all. This is our problem we metagame so every companion like as. And if we see message approval -15 we instantly think we did something wrong then we not.

The problem is that in Origins, approval was strictly positive (always made the companion better, granted access to more quests), and disapproval strictly negative (restricted dialogue and quest choices, granted lesser stat bonuses). And it wasn't really metagaming to know or act on that, since the game made it perfectly clear.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. You only get the best out of the party if you get the approval high, and you get punished for disagreeing with companions (if you don't compensate with gifts, that is). Friendship/rivalry was indeed better - but it still lacks something like "friends, who don't support you in any matter" or "rivals, who don't act like complete ****s everytime you open your mouth". I know that was possible to do, but only if you already reached the 100% ...
But anyway, I see why it is as it is (or was), and I will try to not complain whatever the solution in DA:I will be.

[Wulfram]

Some approval related comments from David Gaider in this thread

[Maiden Crowe]

Phoenixalex wrote...

The friendship/rivalry was perfection.

Personally I don't get what was so gread about the friendship/rivalry system, to me it seemed like a system that came about not so much in service to great game design but more but more as a way for the developers to implement an approval meter that doesn't allow you to ****** the few available party members off to the point where they leave and thus you are stuck without a person who fills the role they were supposed to fill. Usually when you take a dump on somebodies head you would expect them to at least start to question your leadership if they dont leave you entirely, not want to follow your lead more out of rivalry.

The only area where the friendship/rivalry meter even has any merit to it would be in sibling relationships however even then it doesn't make much sense, then again amongst Dragon Age fans making sense isnt a pre-requisite for being considered great, for example Loghain.

[Fast Jimmy]

The Friendship/Rivalry system is broken in the same way that the Dominant Tone/AGG/Sarc/Dip mechanic was broken.

It assumed you would go full tilt in one direction or another. And it provided a decent enough experience if you stayed on that one track. But if you tried to mix it up, and play a character that was a little more three-dimensional (someone who realizes Mages are treated badly, but realizes the Circle is still a useful institution to keeping the world safe, while also seeing the merits of Blood Magic I a. Controlled environment), the system failed miserably.

Also, the Rivalmances could be just flat insane. "I was a former slave... the way you helped out those slavers and violated the very principles on which I base my life HAS GOT ME SO HOT!" Fail. Fail, fail, fail.

I'm glad to see both Dominant Tone and Friendship/Rivalry mechanics not making a return. On paper, they were fine, but in execution, they were far too rigid.

[Lorien19]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Phoenixalex wrote...

The friendship/rivalry was perfection.

Personally I don't get what was so gread about the friendship/rivalry system, to me it seemed like a system that came about not so much in service to great game design but more but more as a way for the developers to implement an approval meter that doesn't allow you to ****** the few available party members off to the point where they leave and thus you are stuck without a person who fills the role they were supposed to fill. Usually when you take a dump on somebodies head you would expect them to at least start to question your leadership if they dont leave you entirely, not want to follow your lead more out of rivalry.

The only area where the friendship/rivalry meter even has any merit to it would be in sibling relationships however even then it doesn't make much sense, then again amongst Dragon Age fans making sense isnt a pre-requisite for being considered great, for example Loghain.

^ This! 

[KaiserShep]

Maiden Crowe wrote...
 Usually when you take a dump on somebodies head you would expect them to at least start to question your leadership if they dont leave you entirely, not want to follow your lead more out of rivalry.

I haven't explored the rivalry mechanics of DA2 much, but from what I understand a lot of it doesn't make a lot of sense. The whole rivalmance concept just seems weird, and strikes me as sending valentine gifts through someone's window tied to a brick, and hatef*cking.

[Wulfram]

I think rivalmances worked OK if you were doing "I disagree with you but still care about you", but in the absence of approval there was no way for the game to distinguish that from "I hate you and hold you in contempt."

For the friendship/rivalry system to work it really needed to be focused slowly on one issue. But that makes it inappropriate to be the main system for the game, because then what happens to all the other things that don't fit into that one issue?

Generally it seemed like the writers were left trying too often to put approval shaped pegs into friendship/rivalry shaped holes. So too often rivalry ended up just standing for disapproval, or, slightly better but still showing the weakness of the system, whichever side you were currently on was treated as approval.

What I think would have worked better would have been to have a standard approval as the main, visible system. And then Friendship/Rivalry as a supporting, not player visible, system that would for most characters probably only be affected by a couple of key events that really reflected that characters key issue. Though this probably risks ballooning amounts of dialogue.

Modifié par Wulfram, 14 février 2014 - 02:11 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

I think rivalmances worked OK if you were doing "I disagree with you but still care about you", but in the absence of approval there was no way for the game to distinguish that from "I hate you and hold you in contempt."

For the friendship/rivalry system to work it really needed to be focused slowly on one issue. But that makes it inappropriate to be the main system for the game, because then what happens to all the other things that don't fit into that one issue?

Generally it seemed like the writers were left trying too often to put approval shaped pegs into friendship/rivalry shaped holes. So too often rivalry ended up just standing for disapproval, or, slightly better but still showing the weakness of the system, whichever side you were currently on was treated as approval.

What I think would have worked better would have been to have a standard approval as the main, visible system. And then Friendship/Rivalry as a supporting, not player visible, system that would for most characters probably only be affected by a couple of key events that really reflected that characters key issue. Though this probably risks ballooning amounts of dialogue.

And I think that is the resistance to such an idea. I, honestly, think that would be the best model, but could lead to doubling all companion dialogue, which would be insane. 

[CybAnt1]

Dunno. It seems to me that the DA2 system came about because people were not liking the whole disapproval system of DAO, and the idea that if a companion's disapproval hit a certain level, they might leave the party. Or, at certain plot points, even turn on you, attack you, and become your enemy, as well.

I kind of like that, it was a staple of Bioware games in the past, it put a certain risk to doing certain things because while they might 'work' for your PC's interests, they could raise companion disapproval. And while approval sometimes gave them morale bonuses, disapproval caused morale (and effectiveness) to weaken. I liked it, but then I liked a lot of things in Origins. That's me, the hopelessly Nostalgiac, I just can't shake my love for things that felt like they were done right. 

Of course, there were plenty of ways to metagame it, spamming gifts meant you could basically do as much immoral stuff as you wanted to in front of Miss Goody-Goody, you would simply make sure Miss Goody-Goody wasn't in the party as you went to talk to the slavers about getting a piece of the action (I mean, their reactions were often fairly predictable), or, of course, you could just read the Prima Guide and know exactly how Miss Goody-Goody will react to each situation, and 'game' things to gain her approval.

And when all else failed, there was the console, too.

Never understood the whole rivalry system, especially how extremely high rivalry gave them bonuses ("I hate you! I hate everything you do! So now I will hit everything extra hard!"), or the rivalmances. IMHO, the rival system just let you ****** them off AND keep them in the party, the have your cake and eat it too everyone seemed to want (but I didn't particularly like). And like others were saying, once you started out pissing them off, you had to put some effort into maximally pissing them off to get 'payoff' -- which is, a bit, weird. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 14 février 2014 - 02:46 .

[Lvl20DM]

I'd personally like to see the mechanical benefits of approval removed - anything to dissuade metagaming. Essentially, I'm hoping that DAI's approval system is more about story than mechanics - if a character leaves or betrays (or stays) I want to feel like it's part of the story and not a punishment. Let's also hope that the game tries to at least have some characters always stay, so that you don't have issues where you have no rogues or mages.

As to DA2's system, I thought it worked for that game - Hawke was the main character but he didn't really feel like the "leader" of the companions. They had their own lives and teamed up with Hawke on occasion to solve problems around Kirkwall. I personally found the rivalry based romances more interesting, but I can see how some found them odd.