Even if that's true, I don't see how it would affect multiplayer.
They could just limit local co-op to four players, and if they have online multiplayer, they could increase the limit.
If they have to leave it at four players for some technical reason, they could just use AI for the other characters or limit the party to four characters in multiplayer.
Singleplayer wouldn't have any significant problems with more party members aside from balance, which could be solved through difficulty increases.
And here is where the problem stands ...
As it seems (since i dont know about any Official statement) Larian wants to have exactly same game for Single and Multiplayer ... as someone mentioned in other topic ... (only paraphrasing here) "So you can play your single player, and when your friend join you, he would simply get one companion and play with you" ...
That would mean that any number of characters that is not divinable by 4 would be problem. :-/
So our options would be either 4 ... or 8, where every player have exactly single companion (and summons ofc.)
If you look at it from the other site, the number 3 would be actualy much better ... if you allow only 3 players per multiplayer, there is allways at least single companion (so, you dont block out their quests, when they demand to be present by being unable to send PC into camp)
Single player - 5 companions ... (6 members party)
2 Players - 2 companions each ... (6 members party)
3 Players - 1 companion each ... (6 members party)
Sadly, screen split to 3 parts would probably look really odd, so this isnt happening either.
What i dont actualy understand is, since Swen himself told us that they do understand that most people would like to have 6 members party, and that they will keep their UI as friendly to such mod as possible ...
Why not simply allowit from the start. o_O
I'm not seeing a problem, but I've never played multiplayer in Baldur's Gate III.
If a friend joins, and you have four characters, you're controlling three characters, right?
So, if three friends join, and you have six characters, you're still controlling three characters.
As for having a companion for each player, they could allow eight characters, and have four screens for four players.
About the last part, it actually makes sense that they would do that.
Modding disables achievements, so it would probably be easier for them to have the mods disable the achievements than it would be to add an option for more party members that would also disable achievements.
It only highlights certain things.
Items aren't highlighted.
Sounds to me like a bug, it most certainly do highlight items to me. O_o
That's possible.
Let me tell you a secret, Larian ... there is never enough options in character creation.
Other games like Dragon Age: Inquisition, Skyrim and Fallout 4 have enough options.
No ... they dont.
And you know how you can tell that? There are litteraly hunderts of mods, adding additional options.
If you wanted to say that they have "more" options, then i would agree with you ...
But there is never enough.
For example, wich body tatoo was your favorite in those games? :P
Im actualy quite struggling with facial tatoo options in BG-3, there is nothing that would seem to be fiting to wood elf in my opinion. :-/ Something simple, remotely reminding me veins or branches ... something simmilar to what Halsin have.
They have enough, but "enough" doesn't mean "every".
As for tattoos, I almost never use them, but there probably aren't enough options for them in Baldur's Gate III.
That's true, but I don't see why they couldn't add the option for real-time with pause later on.
Well i never said they "couldn't" ... more like i would not bet my money on it.
Larian have zero (or at least none that i know about) experience with real time with pause, on the other hand they are very experienced in turn based combat ... and as i mentioned previously, that is one of reason they were allowed to do this game in the first place.
Also ... it was never advertised as anything else than turn based, so ... take it from the other side: Why would they?
Yeah, it's very unlikely.
The only developer that I know of that did something like that is Obsidian with Pillars of Eternity II.
About Larian having zero experience with real-time with pause, the Divine Divinity and Beyond Divinity games have real-time with pause, if I remember correctly.
I'm not sure if the people who worked on the combat systems for those games are working on Baldur's Gate III however.
For why they would or should add that option, it would be to appease the people who like Baldur's Gate I&II but were alienated when Larian made a new Pool of Radiance game (gameplay-wise) and called it Baldur's Gate III.
It doesn't make much sense for Baldur's Gate III to not have that, at least as an option, since Baldur's Gate is basically a real-time spin-off of Dungeons & Dragons, rather than a direct adaptation.
*was ... not is.
And i believe that is all that needs to be said on this matter.
Life is change, only time will tell if that change was for good.
When a series is known and liked for something, it isn't supposed to be drastically changed (outside of spin-offs), especially if it's changed into being basically the same as a very different series, because then it loses the value that it had from being what it was.
Baldur's Gate is real-time with pause, Dark Alliance is action, Original Sin is turn-based, etc.
There have been a lot of turn-based video game adaptations of Dungeons & Dragons, Pool of Radiance being the series with gameplay similar to Baldur's Gate III, yet they chose the series that was known and liked for having real-time with pause and made a main game in it that is turn-based, instead of making a new Pool of Radiance or a spin-off of Baldur's Gate.
I mean, someone could take two slices of bread, put cheese, tomato sauce and pepperoni between the slices of bread and call the resulting dish a pizza, but obviously, while it might be good and has similar ingredients, it isn't
actually a pizza.
That said, I'm fine with Baldur's Gate III not having real-time with pause, since the turn-based combat system is good.
Though it would be better if they added it.
Is there some option for the dice that I'm not seeing?
Either that, or i dont catch at all what were you talking about.
All that I see is "Weighted Dice", and it's always been on, but I still get a lot of "1"s.
I never know which party member is the closest, and it's even worse when I'm not expecting an NPC or event to automatically activate.
I'd think that with my character being in front, he'd almost always be the closest to an NPC, but the game seems to not care.
That is the thing ...
When you are in combat, it takes few seconds until things settle down and NPC starts a conversation, sometimes its so fast so you dont even get to cast "help" to your dying partner ... sometimes it takes so long, so your party member have enough time to get to you and take the conversation himself ... in the past i remember that game sometimes take "curently controlled character", meaning the one who give the last stike, but i believe that is no longer the case.
All i can suggest is to keep your party "ungrouped" while fighting ... and keep close to the one who you wish to talk with.
Works for me.
That might work for combat.
Couldn't they add some that are relevant to the areas in the first act?
Dunno ... maybe they are too lazy to sort them, since so far we dont even have whole Act 1 in Early Acess.
And maybe there are also some spoiler to so far unrevealed, or unimplemented stuff ... and they want to keep their hands free in case there would be cuts in the end of development.
That's disappointing.
I finished that game and its expansion, but I've forgotten a lot about it, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Do you mean that you want it to remember what party members you had when you went to camp and keep them selected when you leave, so you don't have to re-select your party members every time you enter camp?
If so, I agree that it should keep them selected.
Having to select the same party members every time would be monotonous, and removing the selected party members in the menu should be easy enough for it to not make sense to clear the selections each time.
Yup ... both with party and prepared spells ...
It would be unnecesary tedious to keep clicking the same spells and companions every single f***ing time you leave your camp after rest. -_-
Just give there some button, or popup message "would you like to change your party, or prepared spells?" with option "nah, im good" (with "dont show this message again" toggle).
And i will be happy.
I hope that's what they do.
The "Don't show this message again" option should only appear once and then be in the options menu as something such as "Party Selection Confirmation" however, since it might be too easy to choose that when leaving camp if it always appears.
And followers are jumping around like some bunch of frogs that just tryed speed for the first time. :-/
That should certainly be adjusted aswell.
I actually like that they jump so often since that is usually faster...except for when they try to quickly go to the controlled character and jump off of a building or something similar...
Not exactly what im talking about ... its more like when you are standing on some stairs, or hill, or other uneven terrain ... you switch your character, and sudently they start to jump around, since your character is now higher than they was. -_-
Oh, okay.
I think that I know what you mean now.
That sounds like it might help if it's not the same as clicking on their portraits, but even so, I usually don't notice that one of my party members isn't following until I'm quite far away, and sometimes it's when I've used a ladder (or several) or jumped across somewhere, so I'd still like to have a way to call or teleport them to the currently selected character.
Makes sence, since that is what bugs them there.
Someone around here just recently noticed that companions tend to stuck mostly when more than single action is required from them ... while they are suppose to jump to you, its okey ... while they are suppose to climb the ladder, its okey ... but once you reach the ladder before they make their jump, or other way around, they stuck.
They often climb back up or down a ladder and then stop moving, even if I only move a few steps away from the ladder.
Yeah, it was pretty good in the console versions of similar games and far less irritating than relying on the game to try to find a path or figure out where you wanted to go.
Depends on situation i gues ... i just recently played Dragon Age: Inquisition ... and there is nothing more enraging for me than when i want to move that stupid camera and my character is running there like crazy bunny, since i didnt "distance the camera enough" so the control switch. -_-
So ... this might end pretty messed up. :-/
Are you saying the controls would switch from keyboard to mouse because the camera was too far away?
Oh! You meaned like having it permanently on belt ... that changes things.
I thought you want regular lantern that you can lift in your hands, but it would for some unknown reason sheats to belt slot.
Yes, it would make more sence this way.
Yeah, the lantern would be on the belt, which is more convenient than holding it or a torch, and that's why I thought that the belt slot made sense.
However, the extra slot that you mentioned would be better since people shouldn't have only a belt or a lantern, as the lantern could likely be attached to the belt.
There might be balance problems, but it could be balanced by requiring oil for the lanterns (hopefully they would have it last for a while or have longer-lasting oil and more efficient lantern variants...), and torches would still be useful because they cause fire damage and can always be lit again, unlike lanterns which are only worn (though ideally, when thrown, weak variants should be destroyed and cause fire effects as well) and lose fire until they get more oil.
I didn't think of adding an extra slot for misc. tools.
That would probably be better.
Another weapon slot might be good as well.
Actualy i was thinking about some extra gear slot for quite some time to be honest ...
And i would mostly love it if we would be able to stuff there litteraly anything we desire.
Your bard wants to have Lute there > no problem ...
Your non-darkvision character wants to have there source of light? > no problem
Your fighter wants to have spare weapon there? > no problem
Personaly i kinda like the idea of Paladin, or Fighter who have two sets of weapons (2H / 1H + Sheild ... or Piercing / Bludgeoning) prepared for imediate use ...
Much more than curent system, where you have to drag everything from your inventory and equip it during combat.
I think that it makes sense to have the lute, lantern, etc. there, but the spare weapons should have their own slots.
I'd like to be able to equip a sword, a spear, a bow and a pistol (which I hope will be in the game) at the same time.
