Originally Posted by nation
based on larian's responses concerning evil/neutral companions already in game and the discussion about 12 or 8 npc companions in total im getting more concerned about what impact this may have for other aspects of the game, mainly the 4v6 party debate and the incorporation of blank merc companions. I could see larian keeping the party size at 4 (not a fan of btw) bc there is a limited roster to work with (which may be even more limited post act 1 companion/map locks - also not a fan of) and just rely on modders to up it to a party of 6. like others have posted, one npc per class i would have assumed being the bg standard, and then taking into alignment, you have a minimum of 24 possible good v evil npcs but it seems that larian prefers their origin character approach and supplemental mercenaries to round out a party of 4. While i dont dislike the merc approach (pretty sure we havent seen this in game yet) i would likely have preferred if larian chose one or the other - all origin characters that are full fleshed out but limited in number or all merc companions that have some limited dialogue but are larger in number and more variety in class, race, alignment, etc.

Ideally we would have 24 fleshed out companions to be found throughout the game but I would rather see a mix of both this and mercenaries rather than just a load of soulless characters to fill a group.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
It's an interesting issue. Who gets to define what is a major criticism? What metric do we use to measure interest in an issue? I tend to see the evil path criticism as a niche one, you see it as central.

I think Vinke has been stressing evil from day one -- repeatedly asking EA players play evil, showcasing his ability to play evil, commenting on how many people play the evil path time and time again. And I think he is doing so because he knows without such encouragement most people will ignore the evil path. So where you see him addressing an issue that has come from the forums I see the continuation of a narrative that started before EA launched and the use of a forum topic as a pretext.

I truly think there are many more D&D ruleset threads, surface discontent threads and party size threads than 'evil playthrough' threads here, on reddit and on the beamdog and obsidian forums. I'd guesstimate the 'surface dissatisfaction' to 'evil path dissatisfaction' at a factor of 5 to 1?

It is a major issue to me simply because we were specifically asked to test it. I wouldn't have even thought to treat this as one otherwise, but I am glad they want this path to be considered since I tend to play neutral and sometimes evil in games and resent being railroaded into a good path always. If we were specifically asked to test how we felt with having a certain number of party members then this would be what I would have tested and treated as a major issue. (with this slow AI I find 4 to be tedious and dread how it would be with 6.) We are all going to have our preferences for a perfect game and everyone wants theirs to be the most important. It is up to them to figure out what they are best able to add/remove, modders will add the rest for people who want more specifics.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Bleeblegum

Also, there is a mod page up on Nexus mods that explains how to increase party capacity to 6 for those interested.


Sure. And it shows that the game is better with 6 party members. But the point that is that 'a mod will fix' it is not addressing the concern of those of us who believe that the game should come with native support.

It only shows the game is better with 6 for those that want that. Just like a mod that adds day/night cycle or any of the other "wants" listed on this forum would show the game is better with said mod to anyone who downloads it. Those who don't use the mod obviously would disagree.

Originally Posted by Uncle Lester

I also think most people realise there is no consensus. But since this forum is mostly feedback- and suggestion-oriented, that's what we provide. Each of us has an idea of what the game needs, and of course these ideas will often clash. But I believe a lot of good things can come out from these discussions and debates, even if no "consensus" is ever reached. In the end, this is not a democracy and Larian will do as Larian pleases. But what we can do is provide food for Larian's thought.

Agreed. I have hope that Larian can compromise and change things a lot better than certain developers of another game (FO76) where they listened to the people crying and screeching the loudest and ruined so much.