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.
Maybe that whole idea was wrong from the start ...
I was just thinking that if you cannot (feel free to read as dont want to) effectively split screen to more than 4 parts, it would make sence that is the number of players you want to allow ...
Then i was thinking that companions can also be part of the problem, since game is pretty much focused on them ... especialy in parts when they demand to be present for their quests ... wich is impossible, right now ... since you cant "let custom character in camp" ...
So i was thinking that 6 members party would solve this problem ... but then i can easily imagine people complaining about that someone having better game experience, since "they have companion, but i cant bcs of this stupid party limit". :-/
But now when i think about it, it was probably all wrong since when you have party limit of 4, and you play with 2 PC ... you get the same problem and nobody seem to care about it.
Anyway, it was just my reasoning ... i dont recall Larian ever explained why they decide to make party limit to 4 ...
As for having a companion for each player, they could allow eight characters, and have four screens for four players.
Exactly ...
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.
Really? O_o
I moded Skyrim as hells, and i still get achievments ... so i didnt know this.
Anyway, i would dare to say that there should be easyer way to get the same result ...
For example add condition "max 4 members party to get this achievment" seems suficient to me. O_o
They have enough, but "enough" doesn't mean "every".
Those are same words in this matter ...
As long as some option is missing, its not enough options. :-/ Seem to me like it follows from the definition.
"Enough" for you maybe ... certainly not for me.
The only developer that I know of that did something like that is Obsidian with Pillars of Eternity II.
Cant tell, didnt play ...
But doesnt Pathfinder have also both options? O_o
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.
In that case i stand corected, since my informations were wrong. :-/
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.
Honestly i would probably personaly never use it, since i love BG-3 as they are now (read as: turn based) ...
But dont get me wrong i would never mind "if" they do, if something makes someone happy without making someone else sad, i see no reason to avoid it ... i was just stating "why" i find it quite unprobable. :-/
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.
Maybe ... but it happens all the time.
As i mentioned previously in different topic, compare Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 ... entirely different game, and nobody seem to have problem with that anymore, Fallout is still quite sucesfull trademark.
Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age II. ... certainly not as drastical changes, i admit that much, but still lot of them ... yet studio seem to be happy about them, since they decided to follow its style in Inquisition instead of returning to Origins.
I mean sure, its better if the sucessor resemble the original game more rather than less ...
Personaly i find best trascendence between two games in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic I. & II. ... they simply take the exactly same system and add some depth to it ... in my opinion perfect job, but how often that happens?
Baldur's Gate is real-time with pause, Dark Alliance is action, Original Sin is turn-based, etc.
Yup it is ... until its not anymore.
That is the thing, people are arguing for last year around here.
For someone Baldur's Gate is real-time with pause ...
For another one Baldur's Gate is Bhaalspawn saga ...
For another one Baldur's Gate is lots and lots of companions ...
For another one Baldur's Gate is "no stupid Barrells" ... (yup i readed litteraly this somewhere)
etc. etc.
And then new studio comes, and its simply not anymore.
That is the same situation as there is with new Star Wars trilogy from Disney ...
Its different, i would never dare to say that is good ... but some people sees it as something good ... i see that statement itself as Heresy and those movies as perversation of every rule that universe had and i loved ...
But no matter my opinion, prefferences or amount of hate ... as much as it pains me to admit it, this indeed
is Star Wars now.
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.
That is the thing ... its known for a lot more than just that, and something simply have to be changed, added or removed ... otherwise it would be remaster instead of sequel.
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 is interesting ...
Now can you imagine that some archeologist will find ancient italian recipe for pizza and they will find out that their dough is actualy a lot closer to bread than to what we use for pizza now?
It would be interesting to watch how many people would be willing to accept that cheese, tomato sauce and pepperoni between two slices of bread ...
is actualy more pizza than actual pizza itself.
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.
Agreed.
But i might have interesting info for you ... since around half (maybe more like 3/4) there was someone (i would use the name, but i dont remember ... he had some dark man with red eyes as avatar tho, if i remember corectly) on this forum, who claimed that he is experienced and skilled moder ... and he said something about that if this game will not contain RTWP ... he and his few friends will create it.
That sounds like interesting challenge.
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.
Weighted Dice is actualy patch 4 feature, if remember that corectly ...
Nope, i was talking about reworked diceroll UI that allows you to specificly see and determine litteraly every bonus you have, or potentialy can have.
Sure it dont protect you from rolling "1" ....
And it certainly dont protect you from feeling frustrated about it. :-/
But that is just luck and RNG.
*I dare to snap the rest, since we seem to understand each other there*
Are you saying the controls would switch from keyboard to mouse because the camera was too far away?
Actualy the contrary ...
You see in Dragon Age: Inquisition (not sure about others Dragon Age titles tho) ... you have two regimes of control ...
- in one you use WASD to move your character, and that is automaticly choosen when you have camera zoomed close to your character ... wich makes the game especialy pleasant to play as regular RPG with third person perspective ...
- in second, you use WASD to move your camera itself, and your characters movement is controlled by clicking with mouse, just as it is in BG-3 ... wich meks the game especialy pleasant to play as semi-isometric tactical RPG ...
The problem starts, then you are in between those regimes ... that would mean, not close enough to expect moving your character by WASD, but also not far enough to move your camera.
That situation have only one result? Totall chaos and mess on battlefield.
Therefore i hope IF Larian will implement WASD controls to our characters, it will be determined by some toggle button indead of proximity of camera.
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 like the idea!
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.
Hey the more slots the better.
All i say is that i would like to see for Fight-oriented characters, to have something special that noone without specific training would have ... and in my mind, extra slot for weapons set would be perfect for that.
Since that way, while Wizard is perfectly able to equip a sword, and fight it effectively ... Fighter will allways be prepared for situations better, since he would still have shield prepared for use, and potentialy even mace ... simmilar to Wizzad having his advantage in magic combat, fighter would get his in meele. :P
