Lephys

? If your character fires an arrow, it strikes an enemy and ceases its journey, OR it fails to strike an enemy and continues on until it strikes something. That already happens even without getting to magical stuff. The only difference between an arrow and a radiating AOE spell is that an arrow only travels in a specific direction, whilst the spell travels in all directions. It would be like firing a whole bunch of arrows at once, in every direction possible (with the arrows expanding as they spread, so as to never leave a gap). I didn't think the suggestion would require any out-of-the-ordinary physics complexity.

What kind of area are you expecting to be trying to keep an eye on? An MC Escher labyrinth? "What if your guy needed to be 7 feet to the left, and facing east, instead of 5 feet to the right and facing west?" If you're keeping an eye out for a fleeing assassin, he's either going to come from here and run through the room/corridor to there, or he's gonna come from there and run through to here. And it's not like you're going to miss the guy because of the room placement. Unless, of course, you leave things up to manual placement and botch it. But, it's not like the assassin fleeing through the area is just a scripted thing. If he comes through any area where you've placed a watcher, combat ensues and you employ whatever tactics you'd like to stop him. If he takes a route you don't have people on (regardless of whether or not they're manually placed or script-choice-placed, your party can only cover so much space), then you're never even going to get to do anything about him. If I say "Hmm, we should really probably watch those stairs, in case he comes that way," I don't see how I benefit from having to manually set a person up such that they can definitely see those stairs, but also remain hidden. If you're so certain you're going to get it right with your manual placement, then what benefit do you gain from manual placement? "Well I'm definitely not going to screw it up. Jeez, it's such a simple task, u_u... But, man, I want to have to use the right tactics to make sure my character can see the stairs but is also hidden from view of the other entrances to that space!" Seems a bit silly to me. *shrug* The keywords there being "strategic/tactical decisions." What's the strategic decision here? "I can only post people at SO many locations to watch for the assassin, so where do I place them and where do I not?". What's not a strategic decision here? "Which of the 50 different individual 5-inch spots do I position my character upon so that he can watch the entrances to this room?". The only dynamic there is "Did you place this person where they could actually witness an assassin flee through this space, AND where they are out-of-view of such a person, or did you not?" Why should you be able to stand 4 inches too far to the left of a marble column, so that your elbow can just be seen by a person entering the room? If your watching an entrance, but also hiding from view from that entrance's direction, should you also be in full manual control of active peeking around corners and columns, and be required to time such a thing? Maybe if you do it at the wrong time, the assassin spots you and just runs off before you even ever see him. That'd be a fun mechanic. Strategic decisions, FTW! 8D You also have a limited number of placement options. You can place a watcher on what turns out to be the assassin's path, or you can place a watcher on what turns out to not-be the assassin's path. The assassin only has a finite number of path options. I don't know how to make it much clearer. Strategy/tactics depends upon dynamically affected factors. That's why it happens in combat. In combat, what you do affects what your foes do, and vice versa. You can't strategically happen to be standing in a room that an assassin runs through, or tactically cast Protection From Missiles before walking into a courtyard. You're arguing for tactics against no opposing factors. Is anything ever going to prevent you from standing in a room and watching the entrances to that room, or from casting a spell before then engaging in a conversation during which you know you'll need the spell active? Nope. A true assassin probably doesn't go aiming at people's bulky mass of robes and not wondering why their so bulky. Also, I take it anyone who's ever hunted with a crossbow (or just a bow, even), since they lacked a sniper rifle, simply aimed for the deer's general center of mass, and just HOPED they hit it somewhere that prevented it from running 3 miles before dying where they couldn't find it, or just living because they just hit its muscle? Are we now assuming that this assassin, trying to kill someone in a courtyard, must reside within the tallest tower of the nearest neighboring city, rather than within about 50 yards of the target? That's not even counting the possibility that he could use a Bolt of True Striking or something. But, you're right. He'd probably just poison a bolt, and fire away. Better yet, he'd probably just toss a big poison gas bomb into the courtyard, and hope that everyone breathes it in. That's why he's the highly sought after assassin. Maybe he'd even use a big stick of dynamite. There's no chance of an antidote for explosion sickness. Your options for how to handle a problem/quest are already limited, prior to the coding of the game. Want to get into that building? You can either go through the window, or the door, or the chimney. You can't just opt to phase through the wall. In the event that an understandably scripted scenario is underway (like an elaborate dialogue-with-a-guy-while-an-assassination-attempt-occurs, 8D), I don't see a reason not to incorporate an already-limited list of options into that same scripted event, as well. If you fail to even see what I'm saying after all that, then it's because you're choosing not to.

For what it's worth, my only legitimate beef with it is the very idea of implementing an unlimited limit. Without specifically coding the game to only restore your hitpoints and spells and such upon manually resting, you would either never regain such things (which is pretty preposterous), or you'd automatically regain such things, with the exception of active combat (since automatically regaining all your hitpoints and spells as you're actively using them would, in turn, completely contradict the limits imposed by finite amounts of hitpoints and spells). So, coming in and saying "Okay, you're going to have to actively choose when to regain all your stuff, but you can always do that as soon as combat's over" is just plain silly. The design decision, itself, is extremely irrational. I don't care how anyone plays their game, after the game's designed intelligently. What if, at Level 1, 5 seconds into the game, you had an option of teleporting to the last boss and killing it? I wouldn't be upset that I just personally didn't want to do such a thing, and that I think other people should only be able to do what I want to do. I would be upset because that's an absurd design decision that defeats the entire purpose of an RPG's very nature, and is a waste of time and sense to implement. It may seem silly to some, but I couldn't really complain about an "automatically regenerate to full health/spells/etc. when outside of combat" option, be it attached to an easy difficult or whatever. But, it irks me to no end that regaining such things be limited to resting, which is then unlimited.

I'm merely asking, here, since I'm no expert and am actually quite curious, but... isn't asymmetrical armor a real thing? I'm not sure what purpose it would serve, exactly, but aren't there actually lighter versions of armor/fighting in which it you don't have armor (or as much) on one shoulder/arm while you do on the other? And/or, one pauldron has a large deflection ridge for ultra-protection, while the other simply protects your shoulder? Maybe it was so that one side of you could properly use a shield (which needs less range of motion for defense, maybe), while the other arm/side can enjoy more freedom from less-bulky armor to provide a greater range of weapon-arm motion? That's all speculation, which is why I'm asking. 8P

Alas, my point surfaces. Time-sensitivity is fine, until your characters' very existence and breath-taking is time-sensitive, so that the game becomes much like a race. Which it shouldn't resemble. Situational time-sensitivity? Awesome possum. "The sun just moved 20-degrees across the sky, and now 73 situations across the world have changed"? Overboard.

I thought someone from the dev team had jumped into that update thread (with that godlike concept art in it) and confirmed that estocs were a weapon they're putting into the game. Alas... I have failed to locate such a post. T_T

Movement isn't very fun, either. But it's pretty exciting when it allows you to discover a hidden cave, or to tactically line up that lightning bolt so that it tears through about 7 enemies instead of only hitting one from where your character was previously standing.

Splendid idea! ^_^

I do not understand. Are you suggesting it should be impossible to stealth your way to close-range with Mages? Under what circumstances, exactly? I am confuzzled.

I've got it! "Eternit-E: Eon The End" (I'm going for this year's Worst Joke Ever award.)

I think it's the idea that every living soul is perfectly reasonable, and that, with enough effort, you can actually produce ideas, aesthetics and decisions that everyone will be happy with. Except, then you just go on to alienate one group in favor of another, but you pretend you didn't alienate anyone while you do it, 8P. "Lots of people think the idea of fictitious magic is satanic and evil? Well, we'll just remove magic from the game, and pretend that makes everyone happy, 8D!"

In the Guild Wars lore, Humans aren't even native to the world of Tyria. They were brought there by their gods, or something like that, well after other races had already been around. In Guild Wars 2, the remnants of the entire Human race are banded together in a single city, and that's about all the control they have in the entire world. Just thought it was kind of interesting, amid the whole "Humans are always the center of everything" bit. 8P

The exact same thing can be simple for the character, and complex for the player. So... yes. It's an awful lot of detail that the character already knows, to first relay to the player, THEN have the player process it, decide what to have the character do, THEN send it straight back to the character. That's why things are handled by Perception checks and such. Your character knows better than you do the details of his surroundings. So, while your plan might be "hide up here where you could see someone coming but couldn't be seen yourself," you might attempt to do that with manual positioning, but fail, simply because TO YOU it appears that your character is in a good hiding position in the room, while your character actually knows, from his own perspective, that someone coming from such-and-such direction would easily spot him. I'm not saying "You should never ever have to position your characters for strategic purposes." Only that there are certain details in certain circumstances that should simply be left up to your character. Who do you send up there? You get to pick that. There's absolutely no difference between "Mandwin... you go up on the balcony and remain hidden, and keep an eye out for the assassin," and manually selecting Mandwin and moving him up onto the balcony, except for my aforementioned potential for the player's failure to find a suitable hiding spot upstairs, even though Mandwin has a skill of 100 in Being Stealthy and Architecture Lore and Ambush Strategy. You could pop up a crash course for ambush strategy, there, in the game, for the player to learn all about it. OR you could trust that your character can find a good spot to set up to simply watch an area. Should he attack immediately if he sees? You get to control that. Once the assassin's first shot goes down, consider things in your full control. I'd imagine that, so long as you can see where the assassin is, combat is initiated. Maybe you get the choice, at the moment of spotting, to either call out for help ("I've got him! He's up here!") or just-plain attack. If you call out for help, you can still attack, but you give away your position. However, the rest of your party can now reinforce you. If you attack, they don't know where you are, but you have the advantage of surprise. Hell, you could even come up with some kind of signal. How would you do THAT if you didn't plan it? "I'll make this particular bird call, and the rest of my party will just MAGICALLY know that it's me telling them that I see the assassin, even though we didn't plan any of this, because the magical floating player in the sky just DECIDED that we all know it! 8D." So, THAT'S a decision best left to the player, since it's not a given. "Do I stand in a really good hiding spot so the fleeing assassin won't see me but I can see him if he comes this way, or do I stand in a stupid hiding spot where I'll be seen and won't be able to keep an eye on much?" IS a given. There's no need for the player to manually bungle the set up of an ambush by professional soldier/mercenary/"adventurer" types. Also, without the ability to manually set everyone up wherever you so please, you can't play through the section, find out where the assassin actually turns out to be, then re-load your game from before, position EVERYONE in a big cluster around the corner from where the assassin's going to enter the scene, and have them all "coincidentally" dogpile him when he rounds the corner. Nor can you plan to catch the guy, and just have everyone stand around in the courtyard with their weapons ready, in plain sight. Your team would wonder "Umm... isn't he going to see us? Maybe we should... I dunno... go hide or something?" With purely manual control, they would just do it. Oh, yeah... 'cause the assassin's just gonna make an abstracted combat standard attack against Lord Blargle's breastplate with his crossbow bolt, rather than putting one straight in his neck or eye-socket that kills him within seconds no matter how good his AC is. Besides, the assassin can SEE heavy armor. Don't you think he'd react to that? He can't SEE a protection from missiles spell, so he wouldn't be alerted to your knowledge of his plan. Plus, what the hell does scripting have to do with the game performing an armor check? You think it can't perform a check on your armor rating during a dialogue or scripted event? What do you think "talking to a guy in a courtyard and waiting on an unseen assassin" is? Active combat? It is, itself, a scripted event. There are only so many ways this thing can go down. You either warn everyone ahead of time and call off the meeting, or you don't. If you don't, but you know about the assassin, then you plan to catch him with the element of surprise. If you plan to catch him with the element of surprise, then you either care about stopping the bolt (without alerting him to your presence), or you simply intend to use Lord Blargle as bait and don't care whether or not he lives or dies, as long as you can find the source of the bolt. Etc. And yes, your team is going to want to plan this. They don't just follow you around like servants and stare at their feet. When you say "There's an assassin that wants to kill Lord Blargle," they're going to have feelings regarding what to do about that. They're going to want to know what the plan is. It's not friggin' Ocean's 11. It's nowhere NEAR that elaborate. It's called "don't just arbitrarily do things and hope they produce a coherent result." So, yes, if your team says "Well, we've gotta stop the assassin!", and you say "You're right. Mandwin, you run over there and stare at a wall! Vellis, you run to town and buy me some eggs! The rest of us will knit sweaters!," they're going to call BS. So, yes, completely manual positioning/preparation is feasible as long as it remains within the feasibility threshold of what people understand the general plan to be. So, why not limit your choices, and still provide choices? What good is including the entire non-feasible part of the choice spectrum? Does that make the game better? Watching my characters agree with and carry out ridiculous and silly commands and strategies? In active combat, you're given FULL control over your entire party, so as to facilitate the best timing and execution of active, adaptive tactics to the current dynamic situation that is combat. A side-effect is that you can, essentially, override any and all effective actions/behaviors of your characters, as you could simply be perpetually "waiting to time an attack." So, I can't really say "combat shouldn't let you fight poorly!". However, you can only fight so poorly. You can't literally hurl your characters onto enemy weapons. You can simply not active-combat the enemies and therefore succumb to incoming damage. There's absolutely no need to have that level of control in static situations outside of active combat. It does no good. That's why Search checks don't generally rely upon the manual facing of your character, but rather the area around them. It's understood that, even if you, the player, don't know specifically where to make that character focus to find hidden things, that character understands which directions in which to look and what parts of walls and such to investigate, within the searched area. Just as "someone should probably watch each of the exits to this building" would be understood when coming up with a "let's catch this assassin" strategy. You keep saying "that's limiting" as if it's purely a bad thing. Finite hitpoints are limiting, and yet we embrace them. Character progression is limiting. Having my party member object to my random killing of innocents is limiting. Dialogue trees are limiting. What if I want to tell the person they have nice boots? That's not in there. Limitation is to be moderated, not eradicated. And I don't see how limited versus unlimited people-placements in a "we're just trying to make sure someone doesn't escape this area without us seeing them" situation is in any way preposterous or bad. Also, if you don't like the example we're rolling with right now, because you think it's a bad one or something, then, by all means, feel free to propose a different one. But, it was simply an example to illustrate my ideas, not the other way around. I feel a little silly having to defend my ideas against things not specified in my original example. Obviously, a courtyard assassination could be implemented in OODLES of different ways. But, I'm not talking about all the possible ways in which to implement a courtyard assassination scenario. I'm talking about how it might be nice to handle a specific implementation of such a scenario. If you'd like to talk about all the possibilities of implementing that scenario, that's totally fine. I'd love to do that. But, separate from my "it seems like this might be a good way to handle this particular implementation" segment, please.

^ Agreed, Fearabbit. I didn't mean that we need literally a UI toggle for 4 different states of aggression/weapon interaction. I basically just meant that, if I have a toggle button for "sheath/unsheathe," I don't want the game to say "Well, if you want to threaten people, then obviously you'll just unsheathe your weapons." I don't want to be in that boarded-up tavern, with orcs outside attacking the village, and unsheathe my weapons, only for the game to say "Ahh, CLEARLY you are threatening the people in the room! They shall react as if you just shouted 'TIME TO DIE, FOOLS!'" I want to see dialogues in which the situation calls for our characters to have arrows nocked and weapons ready, but not for the purposes of threatening the person(s) they're speaking to. And I want the ability to do things like unsheathe my weapons in combat, or place my hand upon my weapon grip, without the game saying "YOU OBVIOUSLY INTEND TO KILL PEOPLE RIGHT NOW and can't POSSIBLY be simply being cautious!". That isn't to say that there can't be some super edgy person who freaks out when you, as they see it, "go for your weapons." I just don't want a limited gameplay mechanic to go making decisions for me that I didn't know I was making.

I'd just like to re-pitch my Drag-And-Draw movement command-issuing idea here. It would be extremely simple, as far as control/UI goes. Perhaps a modifier key, like ALT, or whatever you want to bind it to, OR just a simple "dragging a held click initiates this," if nothing else in the game's controls requires you to click and drag. AND, it could work straight into the waypoint system. Set a waypoint, then draw a specific path around a tree, then set another waypoint. The paths will always connect between waypoints, etc. Want your character to keep right of this tree, then left of that boulder, then hug the cliff face for 20 feet, then flank an enemy? Just click-and-drag a line around the tree, then around the boulder, and over to the cliff, let go (setting a waypoint at the end of that precise path), then just shift-click (or whatever adds waypoints) 20 feet down along the cliff face, creating a waypoint there and automatically connecting it with the previous waypoint with a straight line, then click-drag to draw a path around the desired target to the desired point for the desired angle of approach. It just seems like limiting movements to straight lines is a bit primitive in the year 2013. *Shrug* And, sure, the ability to draw a specific path through that corridor of traps only saves you like 5 seconds of trouble as opposed to trying to use straight-line waypoints only, but just imagine how many times, total, you'll be issuing precise movement commands throughout the entire game. That all adds up. I know this was used for the pathing of walls and roads in Black And White 2, and I've seen it used for movement in several flash games, so I don't suspect it's crazily difficult to implement.

I understand. I think it's pretty good that they did do it that way, though. It's more like showing off your fighting prowess, then promising that betting on you will be backed by your all being given in the next fight. Obsidian basically said "I promise that, if we get this much money, we're going to put in a soundtrack." So, putting money in for a soundtrack, at that point, is an investment in what you perceive as Obsidian's skill and style at soundtrack production. It's when they say things like "Guys, we really inteded to make this soundtrack like 15 songs, but now it's only gonna be 10, sadly," and people freak out, that my brain hurts. But, I don't really foresee anything from a stretch goal being PULLED from the game. However, I could see something being proposed, along the lines of the Endless Dungeon having fewer floors than stated, simply because they've had a design epiphany regarding the way in which they can design each floor to make it that much better per floor. If they were to pitch something very particular and well-laid-out like that, I wouldn't just immediately say "WAIT A MINUTE! YOU SAID IT WOULD BE 15 FLOORS, NOT 10!" and refuse to listen to their proposal. Basically, I don't think anyone said "Hmm... I couldn't care less that there's an Endless Dungeon, but MAN THAT 15TH FLOOR OF THAT DUNGEON I DON'T CARE ABOUT LOOKS REALLY GREAT! *pledge*". The most important part of a stretch goal is the very idea behind that stretch goal. The details might undergo reasonable changes. There's a certain amount of unpredictability that goes on in game development, and it would be folly to hold to extremely specific expectations from the start, with no consideration for reasonable adaptations as the project goes. That's all I'm getting at. Granted, the developer really shouldn't make a promise they can't keep. As in, don't promise a whole additional race, then later say "Oh, we're actually not gonna get to do that race." Or don't promise 1000 different pieces of equipment if you can only do like 700. You give people a good idea of the kind of equipment variance and plentifulness you're going for, then you promise to allocate a certain amount of funding specifically to that if you generate enough investment/backing. Again, now they've invested in YOU, and not a number of weapons.

- Freaks the hell out if you steal its Precious...

Haha. What can I say? It takes a while. 8P It wasn't so much my disbelief that a random dude was immune to fire for no reason (even though that IS ridiculous), but more that the game said "Oh, you want more difficulty? Half your abilities just went from some % effectiveness to ZERO % EFFECTIVENESS! MUAHAHAHA!" Not to mention that you never seemed to have enough mana (or stuff was on cooldowns) to actually BE a Mage, which is one of my biggest pet peeves in almost any RPG. "It's understood that, even at Level 1, you've been studying magic for like... 10 years straight now, and magic is pretty much 'your thing,' since you're a Wizard and all. So, guess what? You have enough magical power to cast TWO SPELLS per day! 8D! Isn't that great?! And I know you suck at physical combat, since you focus on magic 24/7, but you're going to have to rely on that until you can manage to regain enough mana/spell-ammo to cast some more spells." Imagine if, as a Warrior, the game was like "I know you don't really have any spells, but you can only swing your weapon like 3 times a day, to start with. All the rest of the time, you'll just hafta rely on Magic until your weapon-swinging fatigue goes away." I'm not the master of all video games or anything, but my Mage in Dragon Age (1 AND 2) felt like a complete pansy in those games. For every 5 spells I could cast, the rest of my party had accomplished about 3 times what my array of spells had done. All the rest of the time was spent running around, playing keep away with your hitpoints, and trying to recharge enough to cast something else or drink a potion again. It happens in a lot of games, but I think it was far worse in Dragon Age, because of many other factors in those games.

^ Yup. It's not about the dynamicism of the actual, physical journey, as much as it is about the Variance Spectrum. How the world and story are affected as you go, even if you're going the same places. ("Variance Spectrum" trademark pending... ... ... not really. )

I don't believe so, no. It'll probably be in a weekly update, so I'd just make sure to check up on those every week. If you do that, I don't think you'll miss any news about the backer site. 8P Also, HOW DARE YOU BUMP THIS THREAD?! Apologize to it, RIGHT this minute! u_u

I think it's mainly about simple reactivity. The possibility that your efforts and advice could cause a character to reconsider something. It's not about making people change. It's about people already being in flux, processing and considering oodles of factors to make them the way they are at present, and about your main character (the player) being allowed to be yet another factor in all that. Simplest example I can think of: One of your characters realllly doesn't like godlike. Bad experience with them when they were young, bad experiences since, etc. They've decided godlike are pretty much trouble and can't be good people. But your main character is a godlike, and extenuating circumstances have partied the two of you up (they don't literally LOATHE godlike and try to murder them on sight. They just try to avoid them, under normal circumstances, and don't really seek to give them a chance or trust/make friends with them.). So, over the course of your travels, based solely on your actions, they realize "Hey, this person's a godlike, and he's not just going around screwing everyone over or causing everyone trouble. And he's actually helped me a great deal, and accomplished some amazing things so far. Maybe I just got really unlucky with my interactions with godlike all my life." So, now, your actions and interactions with this character, as a godlike, have influenced the character's viewpoint on godlike. He's now open to the idea that godlike CAN be pretty okay and even splendid folk, whereas before he was closed to that idea. It's not because you said "Hey, man, godlike can be pretty okay and even splendid folk, and you should totally think about that" in a dialogue with him, and waved your jedi-mindtrick hand, and he went "You know what? You're right! Since you told me that, now I'm going to think that. Especially since your Influence skill was so high! 8D" Heh. But, yeah. The difference being that, if your main character is NOT a godlike, you probably don't have much of a way to influence THAT aspect of that character to a very great degree. So, they may go the whole game distrustful of godlike, and that may affect various choices of theirs throughout the game. Influence is not the same thing as persuasion. A lantern in the dark influences my decision of whether or not to perform a detailed search of the room. In darkness, I'm not really going to consider collecting detailed visual information about things. But, now that there's light, it's not such a stupid idea. But the lantern doesn't MAKE or COERCE me to have any interest in searching the room. It just changes the factor set that I consider to make the decision. If I find searching rooms utterly boring and horrible, then the appearance of light still isn't going to have me searching the room. It simply wasn't a great enough factor to change the outcome of my decision-making process.

^ That, too. Then you could level their town, or poison their water supply, and make them "honorary non-living."

I would actually go so far as to say, give us a believable space ninja. Not for Project Eternity of course since PE has nothing to do with space. (I think). Haha. My problem with Kai Leng had nothing to do with him being a space ninja. He would've fit in perfectly in the Shadowrun universe, as a Street Samurai. 8P My problem with Kai Leng is that he was all "I'm literally the best person operative in the universe, because of my own awesomeness and skill. Oh no, you've partially killed me! GUNSHIP! COVER ME WHILE I USE A BUNCH OF TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME FOR FREE (and which I had absolutely no part in developing or implementing) TO ESSENTIALLY REGENERATE MYSELF BACK TO MAXIMUM EFFECTIVENESS! ZOMG, YOU GUYS! Did you see how badly I kicked your arses, solely on my own, without the help of a huge effing gunship or a bunch of technology that could make a kitten badass? LOLZ!" How's about no characters like that. No calm, collected, precision badasses with narcissistic tendencies who rely on literally everything that isn't of their own making. A narcissist who's so obsessed with being the best that he trains as hard as he can for 10 hours a day and can break into a castle with a toothpick? Sure. But not one with literally a cyborg body who constantly runs away and has gunships and oodles of no-name soldiers cover his cowardice, all the while thinking he's the ultimate badass.

^ Go ahead and make it "Scroll Calibur" and you can get Bethesda in on the fun, 8D

The whole racial prejudices thing (for example, among other prejudices) could also affect reputation scores and changes, amongst whole factions as well as on an individual basis. Perhaps a small village who "hates" elves, having all their arses saved by an elf, on multiple occasions, makes a few individuals shatter that prejudice. You know, "Elves are supposed to be bad... but this guy has done more for us than almost anyone else I've ever known, including all the people who are allegedly better than elves." And their prejudice kind of "unravels," so to speak, so you get a particularly large reputation gain with them (they now feel that they need to make up for all the spite they held for you before). Just one example. I don't think all prejudices should be able to be broken, or that everyone should just like you a lot more when you help them while they hate you, or that the player's only options should be "Help them despite their hating you."