Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Low pool of EA testers worries me

That is not the problem friend, that is my point.
Exactly my point i would say.

You know if there would be several ... lets say dozen, exactly same answers that would appear simultaneously (instead usual quote and "+1" or "this", since then people dont express their own idea, but simply accept someone else) ...
I would agree that there is consensual idea of what Baldurs Gate actualy is.
But i honestly doubt that would ever happen. Exactly bcs as you say that is not question that can be answered in simple terms.

The point here was not to get the answer.
It was to show to those people who are simply complaining that this is "not enough BG" that "being BG" is not so simple to define, that their vision of "what it means to be BG" can easily be entirely different from what would others expect.

I never cared about where is comma placed ... mainly since my own english is poor, so i would probably not even notice it.

I quote, so people can clearly see to what im refering ...
Ofcourse i do know that some people mind it, but i dont see that as my problem ... i also mind if someone quote whole post and them refer to single sentence that is somewhere in middle on the end of his posts, just to then refer to something that was in the begining ... i find it incredibly messy to orient, but that is not reason for me to acuse him from purposely creating chaos so nobody can orient in his writing.
I can only wish more people stop presuming the worse (yes, refering to you too right now).

Nope, never did.

This sounds to me like something BG-3 is doing quite well ... isnt it? O_o
Sure, it allows us to ejoy the same adventure with 3 friends ... but that is just flaw of our time, world is more connected now and it would be shame to not allow such clearly offering option just bcs nostalgia from the times when internet connection was not so common.

You are talking here about limitations of that time ... but is that really relevant? There is allways some limitations.
I mean, There was times in history when there was no hardware at all ... just quill and paper, and people still created awesome stories we love and replay even today. Sure it was no "computer game" (shocking huh), but i believe you get what i mean.

I mean, sometimes the fact that you have limited resources is what is forcing you to give the best, so you will not have limited resources in the future.
In other words ... do you know this meme?


I dunno, i never played Baldur's Gate before, nor any other "big RPG games" like Neverwinter nights, from that time.
I mean i heared about them, when i get to games ... and i never heared anythng but praise (wich allways get me suspicious) but the graphic side of those games is too big obstacle for me to be interested ... and i dont have that "sweet nostalgia" that helps the others to get over that.

Just for the record i also never played any Larian game, for quite simmilar reasons.
So i dare to say that i get here as quite independent observer.

Also keep in mind how many "so good games as back then" is released from perspective of those older players who remembered that "good old days" ...
I mean sure, there is a lot of nostalgia, combined with selective memory to help them forget every frustrating part of old games ... but since we are comparing old and new game, we cannot afford to forget theese aspects.

Also when we concider how much resources Larian have ... we should keep in mind how much more resources Larian need ...
I mean, if Larian would have the same amount of money back in 90' they could produce all games that was released in whole decade. But that is no longer the case here, is it?

About computing power ...
I believe that is reason why Larian decided to create one big map, instead of lot small areas ... bcs computers simply can do that now.
Simmilar to first Fallout, compared to Fallout 3 ... back in Fallout times, computers was week and it was unimaginable that any could handle more than small hub with few enemies ... then technology get few generation futher, and sudently we have here open world game where everything seems to be happening at once.
Was it better? Was it worse? Nobody can really say bcs everyones preferences are different ... but it was "finaly possible".

Sure Larian didnt start off in a complete void ...
But you present that as pure positive ... i would dare to disagree here, from perspective of customer i rarely seen something being called "worthy sucessor" of anything including games, movies, and even books ... i dont say it never happens, im just pointing out that is much more rare ocasion that we would like to admit ... and the older the original is, the harder job people have ... since time is changing, expectations are incerasing, and lets be honest with each other for a second, many things that nobody was stoping around back in the old times, is no longer acceptable in our society.
But to put all that aside, if you are talking about the story ... that is something we would never be able to rate until full release, so im not even starting this.
If you would rate Alien 3 based on first 15 minutes, you would also probably dismis that as something that have nothing to do with Alien franchise ... and yet, from all its sequels it was closest to original movie we ever get.

I can respect this ...
Its nothing we can talk about tho, since there is no way to share feelings in whole scale ... also, as i stated abowe im unable to get it.

But this is something i can understand, and therefore accept.

And this is where we start rational thinking ...
Since this is perfect list of claims ... without any explanations and i would like to understand them.

Why are you discouraged from creating your own character? O_o
I mean, yes there is OPTION to play as origin ... but how exactly does it discourage you?
It seems similar to me to Barrels discusion we had in this forum, for some people just their very existence seem to diminish their effort in encounters no matter what, how, or why they do ... just bcs there exist easy alternative ... i cant simply understand this mindset sadly.
To me, i would be happy i managet to climb the wall and i would be laughting (inside, just to be clear) to people who used elevators nearby, bcs even tho they would have the same view from top of that mountain, they would never know the feeling i have right now ... i would never feel foolish for not joining them, bcs my point was to climb and therefore that is why i did it ...

Story isnt about your character?
Again, what makes you say that? Its your character who makes all the important decisions ... i mean, sure there is that incredibly anoying bug when NPC pick closest party member instead of talking to YOU (or at least i hope its concidered a bug, keeping in mind how often that was reported) ... but besides that? Even if you try to recruit anyone as one of your companions, they reject them saying they would rather talk with party leader.
But truth be told, i would also like to have my protagonist forced as main actor of conversations ... with option to call party members for ability checks preferably, to be completely honest. I dunno, but it just seems right to be to have option to say something like "Hey Gale, do you have any idea what this is?" when you are suppose to make Arcana check with your fighter that dumped intelligence for obvious reasons.

Compressed world ...
I agree on this, to make a little wider map with few more encounters would be appreciated by myself ...
Honestly i believe that this game would actualy mostly benefit from hub system ... that was used in the past (personaly i recall it mostly from Dragon Age: Origins) ... and i also believe it would not be so hard to implement it with little tweaks to what we do have right now.
The problem here is expectations from audience ... even tho i would appreciate it, and probably most of older players would too ... today standards calls that game that have a lot of loadings between scenes is concidered boring.
If you listen in public transport you can sometimes hear young people (kids mostly) complaining that their mobile game will "now just again loading half of the day" ... it allways makes me smile, since i remember the times when games actualy (not litteraly tho) was loading half day ... but they are playing again before you even finish that sentence ...
So i kinda understand Larian decided to go this way, it may not be the best ... i would rather call that lesser evil. O_o

About time ...
I believe that audience allready managed to express themselves quite clearly that they DO want some time flow in this game ... i would not give my had to fire for this (is that expresion in english?) but i believe Swen never told us that they will definietly not including day/night cycle (and if he did, i forgot) ...
On the other hand we were multiple times told that one of Early Acess aspects are placeholders, unfinihsed things and bugs ... and since one of last updates in cinematics was the fact that Nautiloid crash happened before daylight ... i would say that there is hope that this particular problem will change until game will be released.
Or at least that is what i hope for ... its not like time would be somehow extremely important for myself, more like pleasant addition.

And finaly dead world ...
I mean i cannot disagree here, as i stated in the past the whole world in this game is actualy paused until you and your group gets to the scene and start interacting.
I would not go so far to say that they dont have any own purposes, or that they dissapear after interacts with our party tho. O_o
Seems to me that every NPC have its purpose, sometimes is clear, somethimes its not ... yes, some do exist just to interact with us and their fate is sealed afterwards (Marina's brothers for example, wich i didnt manage to save, nor neunite with their sister, so far) ... but again, Early Acess, work in progress ... to add some short scene in Teahouse, if you manage to knock them out and save Marina withing single long rest, where they reunite should not be too hard to implement, or maybe they will reunite in futher parts of game.

I dunno ... just yesterday i started yet another gameplay ... and i must say i was litteraly shocked how fast combat before Grove Gate was (especialy compared to start of EA last year) ...
Also, feel free to corect me if im wrong ... but wasnt combat in BG-2 real time with pause? It sounds like logical outcome that when your group automaticly and simultaneously (even with your enemies) does something it would probably be faster than when you need to pick and do every step yourself and then wait for another character.
But that is hardly misstake of BG-3 ... that is just difference betwen used mechanics.

About tactics ...
Can you provide me few examples please? I would really love to hear those ... people keep talking about how older games had options to make "brilliant tactics" instead of "cheap cheese" ... but so far nobody was able to give me at least five examples. O_o I would really appreciate it.

I mean i dont even know what "cheeses" you are talking about here ...

I presume when you mentioned stealth, you are talking about that you are totally able to stealth after every single attack and enemies are not coming to actively search for you ... and i would agree that is certainly exploit ...
Or were you talking about the fact that you are totally able to work outside conversation, or even combat as long as you keep stealthing? Well ... i would not call that exploit, since you will sacrifice your first turn in order to get into better position, if you fail stealthing ... its gamble, usualy its worth the risk i give you that, but still ...

About high ground ...
I dont quite understand what is so cheesy about this, as far as i know in most situations its turned against you ... at least from the start of the combat.
Unless you specificaly and willingly do some precautions to either get it, or negate it ...
I mean i would not mind if High ground would get hard bonus instead of "advantage" ... but it seems totally logical to me that high ground give you some bonus.

Surface effect ...
I dont really know what exactly you mean here ...
And i was actualy pissed off yesterday that when i used my Witch Bolt on red caps in the swamp, the whole water didnt get electrocuted.

The things with exploits is that is most certainly not how game is suppose to be played ... and as it was mentioned in other topics, there was fair amount of possible exploits in older games too ... i believe one of mentioned i remember was puting lightning storm at the edge of fog of war? Or something simmilar ...
[sarcasm] How odd that nobody is criticising BG-2 for allowing such horrible, cheap and gamebreaking cheese mechanic. [/sarcasm]
Personaly i concider myself a big supporter of free will ... and if someone can ruin his game by using exploits, its his choice ... i shall not, and i will enjoy it ... thry that sometimes. :P

That may be source of the problem.
Since BG-3 seem to be lot closer to TT D&D ... than BG-2 ... but i believe it was even mentioned in that interview with WotC that this was one of their conditions when they allowed Larian to create this game in the first place.

(Did it used it corectly? It was my first snaping. :D)

This is what i was trying to say ... i expressed myself poorly.
The point i was trying to made was when you keep saying "this is bad" "this is bad" "this is bad" ... and expect Larian to keep offering another and another and another options, just so you reject them with the same sentence over and over and over ...
They will burn out eventualy (at least i would ... actualy i would not even pay attention for such feedback, but luckily im not Larian employee) ...

If you instead say "this is bad bcs *XY* and i believe it would be better if *XY*..."
They know where to aim, instead of keep shooting in darkness hoping they will hit the exact thing you had in mind.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see a good enough reason to replay until major content is added. Don't get me wrong, I VERY much like the changes introduced in patch 5 (combat is actually not garbage anymore, dice rolls are more bearable), but the game in its current state is not that repeatable or long - 1 good & 1 evil playthrough, maybe reload important/interesting conversations to see other choices, try all the romances (which you can easily do in those two playthroughs, maybe just one, LOL) and that's it - and I've done that in patch 2/3. I have tried the druid in patch 4 (including the grove conversations) for a few hours and then the combat system (+changes such as rescuing SH) in patch 5 for another few hours and I just do not feel compelled to play EA anymore until something big is added (mountain pass? level 5? origin chars, I guess, although I don't like the concept).

If I strongly believed this will turn out to be a game I'll absolutely love, I'd be reporting issues and replaying it again and again (kinda have spare time for that right now), but as it is (a decent game I will probably 'like', maybe even 'quite a bit'), I'll rather invest my time into games I haven't played at all yet and play BG3 once it's released (maybe one more EA playthrough when EA becomes (almost) content-complete).

Larian are not communicating anything back other than "we listen to feedback". If they would be explaining their design choices or goals better, especially when deviating from D&D rules, perhaps testers would feel more encouraged to play and give feedback.

Larian are also not saying what they especially want feedback on. Maybe your feedback concerns something they absolutely won't change, or something that has already been planned to change.They just said play the game and we will gather data. I don't trust their data analysis because players might not actually like the way they play, they could simply have no choice. E.g. combat still revolves entirely around high ground but that doesn't mean players "like" to play king of the hill or "hate" to use spells that give advantage. They are simply playing the way the game was set up.

And perhaps if they added the missing classes and races and some armor and customization options, and new companions, it would be more interesting to replay from a gameplay point of view. You can't keep replaying just for the same story.

I would dare to once again say that this is nonsence ...
I mean sure, there could be "some" players unable to think outside their box, so they adapt to system they hate instead of going around it ... teoreticaly, but i still have troubles imagine it. O_o

You used high ground as example ...
I would say that high ground specificly can be easily overcome ... by Arrows or roaring thunder, misty stepp and thunderwave, void bulbs (wich are surprisingly effective, when used on edge ... not even sure if there is a change to resist their pull), stealthing and shoving (wich have 100% chance for success), thorn Whip if you are Druid ... and i bet i forgot some options.
I mean, there is quite a lot options for us to use ... how is that possible that so many people believes that everyone choosed "do what i hate and complain on forum"?

We know for almost certain that they will not add all races into Early Acess, since Swen specificly told us that they wish to keep some as surprise for full release.
(I would dare to expect also that there is not much to test on them, so they are not quite interesting for Larian from EA perspective ... maybe except models, but as Larian showed us with elves, they will never update models anyway)

And this is something i disagree completely.
Since if there is anything that BG-3 is really strong (maybe even strongest of all games i played so far) its variablitily of the story. :P
Sure ... sometimes you have to act a little ilogicaly, so you get the right outcome (like me yesterday, when i was curious about what exactly will happen when i kill Goblin Leaders and save Tieflings ... but dont manage to save Halsin ... i had to attack him, bcs he would tear those poor goblins to shreds and they had litteraly no chance. :D) but there is so many options that i would bet (concidering that i have 460h played and im still finding tidbits i never seen before) that you didnt even see them all.
In other words, there is never "the same story" unless you make it same.

Actively working to deprive enemies of high ground when they have it because you feel you must in order to be effective IS being forced to work with the mechanic even if you hate the fact of it. By talking about all the things you could do, and suggesting that lots of people do them regardless of their feelings on the matter, you're proving the point that others are making, Rag.

If you're struggling to imagine that a large percentage of players will play the game, and want to do so effectively and without hampering their chances, and so make full use the over-bearing homebrew mechanics because they are the surest and most effective way to do things... even if they have a strong distaste or even dislike and disgust at the design... then I'd hazard to suggest that that is a failure of your imagination, and of your understanding of human beings in general. If you can't see that players are forced, by and large, to benefit from and be hampered by these mechanics, regardless of their feelings about the homebrew, simply while playing the game - even if they ignore it as a rule - well, few others are having trouble understanding that, so it sounds like the difficulty is on your end.

If you can't see that Larian taking from that play data and saying "We see that most people do try to get advantage from high ground when it's easily available, most of the time, and they also try to deprive enemies of high ground when they can do so: that must mean that people love using our high ground mechanic!", is a big problem for their reading of analytics, then again, the missing link of understanding is on your end. It is a problem, for several very pertinent reasons that have, at this stage, been explained, at length, many times on these very forums.

None of that has anything to do with data analyzing or thinking outside the box. You're just listing consequences of overpowering high ground i.e. what else became mandatory or overpowered with it. High ground and it's consequences IS the box in BG3.

And, respectfully, I think it's you who can't see outside your own bubble where you must relentlessly argue with everyone and everything.

I think this is the crux of the issue. There's nothing to playtest or give feedback on that hasn't been done so far. In one year Larian has added one class and not much else for EA players. I personally haven't touched it since the first patch or two since I can't be bothered to replay it again without any new content.

For myself and likely many others to even bother reloading the game, there needs to be some new companions and classes if nothing else. Of course more content to act 1 wouldn't be looked down upon if they decided to expand the area a little or add more quests.

I'm largely concerned with the fact that Larian appears to function within a bubble. Even in terms of act 1 with analytics and at some point a million different players, communication is incredibly poor, updates are scarce and interpretation of the data provided appears to be biased. Now imagine the final release when we've been unable to provide feedback on any of the other companions, classes or content the game has to offer. The rest of the content will be entirely produced within the vacuum that has become Larian's development team. I just hope that Baldur's Gate 3 Definitive Edition is a free upgrade.

Edit: To drive the point of the OP with the Steam charts. Less than 1 in 24 are still playing which means roughly 96% of players stopped playing compared to the initial release.

So you take it to THAT extreme ...
You know when i read all those crying post from all those people i allways thought that high ground bothered them bcs they was "forced to center whole combat around it" ...

Wich i understand as being unable to play properly without geting High Ground, since half of their attacks missed ... being unable to attack enemies who have high ground, again since half attacks missed ... and that they were frustrated that there is no effective way to defend yourself, while you are geting high ground too ...
You know, something that bothers you majority ... or preferably whole combat.

If i thought that all those complains about how is hight ground stupidly overpowered and how is game centralized around it was actualy complaining that you have to waste litteraly single action to throw Void Bulb ...
Well ...

I'm still playing the game since late August when I've got the time and mood. 29 hours in and still haven't finished everything, then again, I'm taking the scenic route and trying to explore everything before putting it away, then after some break I'll try it again with a new class. I'd reckon lots of people who already have the game are waiting for new content. The rest will only flock once some major promotion/event kicks in.

Calm down, Rag. That's a bit silly to disingenuously nag at others for crying at, well, anything. No need to be so antagonistic about it, if anything you're just as guilty of what you claim others to be guilty of. Focus on the subject, not the feeling. If you have a perspective on why something is perceived as a problem and have counter-thoughts to present, great! But keep it at that. There will always be some main elements that recur in discussions for any game, particularly in regards to feedback. If not high-ground, then something else. And there are good reasons for those opinions, whether you agree with them or not. Right now, it seems you want to shut down a differing opinion, because you disagree with it. That's not healthy for a feedback environment.



This is bad, Rag. Just bad. This is the kind of behavior you need to hard-stop with. No matter of context, if people don't like something, you have no position or right to claim that it's nonsense. There may come a day where you don't enjoy some part of a game, and you should be able to say "I don't like it", too. For example, in DOS2 it's a lot more effective running a party of the same damage type, to a point where once you learn that, playing a split party just feels bad because you know you're kneecapping yourself. Players may not like the feeling for that, as it "feels like" the game forces them to play a certain way, if they want to be optimal. So if you want a party with a tank, a healer, a rogue and a magic user, you're SOL in Dos2. (Of course you still -can-, but if this needs explaining at this point, then you're just not getting the point.)

This same thing goes for high-ground in BG3. I personally don't have any issue with it at all, but I do see why people wouldn't enjoy it. To flip it a little, if say Larian addressed the issues some people have with the perceived importance of high-ground, and found a viable solution to fix that problem, would it even matter to the way you prefer to play the game, or is it a win for everyone? I suspect you wouldn't even notice it. So why nitpick at legitimate feedback and issues others have. Just because you disagree, doesn't mean you have to try and "debunk" the value of which ever it is you disagree with. Lift people up, offer ideas, other perspectives. But don't shut others down. That's a job for moderation, and I am specifically addressing you right now. Take some time to reflect why.

There's a reason why the Pokemon games are turning away from forced random encounters too. I'm one of those that generally don't enjoy combat in games (it's complicated), particularly random encounters. I find them annoying, disruptive and doesn't add anything to the game but pointless grind to waste my time. Your argument could be translated to "Just buy lots of repel items and spend most of your game experience playing item menu simulator to activate a new repel every 40 seconds, duh." - Completely evading the point in the first place. A mechanic or design that someone express an opinion about, is not devalued by a solution to it. The fact that people don't enjoy highground isn't because of what they can or can't do to overcome it, but rather that the game feel bad; That they feel like they're playing bad or doing something wrong if they're not utilizing the most effective solutions at any given moment, further emphasized by enemy encounters often starting with advantage unless you have pre-existing knowledge of encounters ahead and can sneak/position yourself for it. There's valid arguments to be made of why that isn't always very good either. Anyway, I think you're completely missing the point, so stop trying to argue why oranges are good for you when everyone's talking about apples.

Does it? O_o
I dunno where it came from. (Seriously)

Also i kinda struggle right now with right form to state my opinion without including anyone else, since my opinion exists only as contradiction to theirs. :-/ Seems impossible.

I can see tho, why you seen my last post as "too much" ... i was ... i duno how to say it, the proper word seem to be "overwhelmed" but that dont sounds right ... the situation when i thought i finaly realised where lays the core of the problem after SO MUCH TIME in SO MANY different topics, it just feeled absurd ... and yes i admit it (and no, im not sory for it ... i feel that i should be, but im not) that core sounded incredibly ridiculous to me.
So yes i was mocking the idea, and i used my favourite scene from comic series instead of questioning their capability of understanding things (wich is obviously cool, since you dont coment on any of that at all) ... i thought it would be taken with more humor this way ... i see i was wrong, i try to remember that.

Im sory to say it, but you seem to be focusing on wrong part of the sentence ...
I never claimed that its nonsence that someone "like or dislike" something ... i also countless times stated here on forum (but i dont blame you for not remembering, there is lot of us around) that im all in for free will ... i would NEVER forbid anyone from disliking anything!!!
And it sadens me that you believed oterwise.

I claimed, that its nonsence that they have "no choice but do things they dislike" ... and i stand for that claim, since they do have alternatives (and i know since i use them, its not imaginative), they just dont want to use them and there is important difference.

Even if you read the rest of that quote, it seems quite obvious to me that i was only talking about options, never claiming that someone cannot dislike anything. :-/
Really have honestly zero idea where this came from. :-/

I totally understand that, but that is exactly core of the problem i was talking about.
This is not matter of "getting" or "not getting" some point ... i just have different opinion.

People wants to use the best of the best, i can respect that, even tho i thing its not healthy attitude (especialy seeing them specificly complaining about it) ... and therefore they feel like "game is forcing them" ... but that is not corect, they are forcing themselves ...
Especialy now, when there is no dificiulty and anything in EA is vincible(?) no matter how uneffective your party is (you can thrust me, my parties are deep below optimal, i often even forgets the buff and stuff and yet i usualy manage somehow to survive).

All im trying to say is basicaly:
Try to sacrifice 10% of your efectivity to take companion you want instead of comanion you get best results with ... and you find something incomparably more precious ... FUN!
Ben there, done that, yars ago. Just try it and you will see.

They dont even need to find any solution ... people suggested one that sounds really good ...
Just switch advantage with +1 to hit, or +10% for shooting range ... or both.

And yes, i would never mind it ... i even support that idea.
But that was not my point here as i stated abowe.

Im sory, but i dont understand you here ...
How can any discusion exist, if disagreeing is forbidden? O_o

I mean, i believe i stated abowe that i was actualy trying to offer perspectives ... clearly i could (should?) choose different form ... but, that sounds little like neverending story. :-/

Wasnt there some item that reduced chance for random encounter to zero permanently?
Or im i misstaken that with Final Fantasy 8 ? :-/ Not sure now ...
It certainly was in FF8 tho. O_o

I know it was not your point, you just made me thinking out loud.

You know this is catualy quite funny you mention it ...
You say that "they feel like they're playing bad or doing something wrong" ... yet you tell me that if im offering them alternatives since i "feel like they're playing bad or doing something wrong" ... im missing the point. O_O
Pardon my poor english ... but in such cases, when people really do feel that ... i would dare to argue that i hit straight to the point ...

I also dare to disagree with claiming that you need to have pre-existing knowledge ... it helps, sure ...
But the only place i can think about when you actualy use it, is Blighted Village, where there is passive perception check, and your party litteraly tells you that if you go through that gate, you go straight into ambush ...
Where else are mobs placed with High Ground, and you get there without knowing their locations?
- Maybe those looters before the crypt ... yes, if noboy is scouting ahead you get surprised ... if somebody IS, they get surprised ... i hope i dont need to say that i find scouting quite usefull, especialy in unknown teritory (yup, first gameplay included, maybe even mainly first gameplay).
- In whole goblin camp they are neutral ... so you can see them standing there before you attack.
- Gnolls are all attacking from the ground level (maybe except that one with bow, standing on the cliff, but he can also be seen).
- Githyanki are actualy even starting on low ground, or same level, if you run with whole party straight to their arms (wich i still concider to be bad idea, even for first gameplay, concidering what they do).

So again, i dont see here problem with system as it is ... i see here problem with state of minds of players. :-/
Nobody is checking for traps, and they they are angry that they get trapped ... is that fault of the trap? :-/

So ... what to say for the end.
I do actualy understand why people dont like "high ground" ... and no, i would really not mind if bonus from reaching it would be changed for anything else ... but i do like the idea so yes i would totally mind if bonus would be simply removed without any replacement.
Also i do understat what pisses people off (about high ground!) and no i never claimed that anyone could not express themselves, even if that could seem otherwise ... but i believe as long as people can repeat that "high ground is bad" i should be allowed to say "nope, high ground is fun".
Howgh.

It's not about efficiency. It's about how something feels for someone, and their feedback and opinion on it, and you having no reason to shoot them down, particularly as you evidently don't get it. Got nothing to do with numbers or success rates. But thank you for proving my point.

Really had fun reading that !
It's a very good summary of Rag's "discussions".

I admit, the way the highground mechanic works right now feels a bit gimmicky. I would leave the range extention, but remove the advantage/disadvantage. It would still make for a few encounters where it would matter, like archers on a castle wall who can hit the targets below, but can't be hit in turn. And it would remove the need for constant climbing and jumping during combat (which to me looks pretty silly).

I like misty stepping to high ground. It is fun having a spell like that to cast as a bonus action. They could make it a toggle in the difficulty settings so that people who don’t like going to high ground could turn bonuses from high ground off.

This honestly makes more sense to me.

Having played bannerlord where physics of various things like arrows are simulated pretty realistically in a battle, i had no trouble sniping any archers on a high ground if they dare to show their faces. There really is no advance or disadvantage at all if it comes to hit change. If anything firing from low ground made it much easier to judge where the arrow will meet their heads.

However on high ground you can indeed aim much further.

And why would you stop to misty step higher ?

A safer position ?
A better range ?
A better line of sight ?
Thunderwave/shove (...) the higher ennemy ?
Flee maybe ?

No more advantage for highground does not mean that verticality won't matter anymore in combats... It only mean that it won't change your attack rolls anymore...

The complain is that (such) bonuses/maluses to attack roll is too decisive and that playing with verticality should be a tactical choice rather than an easy win position - not that verticality should not matter anymore.

In other words: transforming overpowered tools to make combats a bit more subtel and to offer us more balanced tools rather than cheesy one.
This is also true i.e for dipping, shove, throw, hide and it was for healing food, barrelmancy, disengage as a bonus action and... backstab. Does anyone saw a complaint about backstab not being a thing anymore in patch 5...?

I hate highground advantage but I like to misty step higher too

One small thing to keep in mind is that the high ground is largely a buff to ranged characters, who have had their range nerfed rather badly in BG3. Taking that buff away without compensation would likely make them rather sub-par and overall liabilities in a party.

Bow ranges being too short is a separate problem. Having to seek high ground to have any range just further overpowers high ground, again.

It's ridiculous anyone can Dash to melee range of an archer or outside a bow's range from melee in a single turn (lol@Larian). Are we firing rubber arrows with sucker cups?