Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Party Size Discussion

Haha I won't shame you for this. I do enjoy spending a lot of time doing seemingly senseless/"useless" research or data analysis 😅 It can be just for fun / a personal interest.

Plus, I found yours above interesting.

It is founded.

You got time to write essays and get hurt, you got time to read back a few pages. Especially once you started doing math and calculations, it meant this got personal enough to you to bring that out as an argument.

My point is that, there's no need for people to just mod it in when it should just be an option you can choose already. The greatest games made are usually those that give player, the freedom of choice.

I'm not being snippy, I'm calling out the macho neckbeard behind their screens. That it's not as big of an issue as they make it seem.

So, unless you fit the shoes, I only sound snippy to you because it affects you directly, since you probably fit the neckbeard description.

Weather it's 2 members or 12.
It brings back the point that people are biased towards a four member party vs any other number because that's what they're comfortable with, because they were wired their whole lives to use that number.

That how other people play shouldn't affect you.

Difficulty is relative.
Because no shit, with more it's more simple. But the fixes is simple as well. You're acting as if that argument wasn't addressed already.

Plus, if it's too easy for you buddy, stick to a four member party. I never forced you to do more, common sense.

Ah, I see. Thank you brother.

I don't think anyone here is arguing than an option for party size is bad. Everyone would want a game that is perfectly tailored for every parameters under the sun. The thing is, balancing a game is an absolute nightmare (I know, I dabbled a bit in it on a personal project). It would require a monumental effort to offer a game that is an fun for parties of 4 or 6. Heck, even WotR, the most praised recent game with a 6 man party has its balance completely broken beyond redemption partly because of it. I can only see modders having enough time to take on this project, Larian has already reported the game multiple times and has most likely no interest in adding this feature.

Also happy 100th page!

I'm not even being rude, I'm just being blunt.
Big difference buddy.
If you tell me the sky is red during the daytime, I'm not going to play along and suck you off, I'll tell you how it is. So in this case, I'm talking to the folks using their lack of competence as an argument. No need to twist logic.
3 is fine but 5 is not? Makes no sense.
My point is, just because you can't do it, don't mean we can't too to them.

That's why you have the choice to choose easy mode.
Folks are too sensitive these days. Cancel culture got everyone soft as a marshmallow.

You proved my point exactly, that people have different preferences and the freedom to play how you want is how it should be. So if folks want to play with 2-18 members, it's on them.

No need to make judgment on how other play, yet the four is the ideal number folks seem to not recognize the meaning of that phrase.

Imagine if the cap was two members in a party and you have to mod to get four. All these other guys here that's been saying no to 6 would riot lol. I'm just speaking out for the other guys who seems to be outnumbered, if it's too blunt, it's on them to deal with it, freedom of speech my dude.

I meant snippy in the sense of being rude and bad-tempered, and I’m afraid calling folk macho neckbeards qualifies just as much, if not more than, the shade you cast about the capability and control-freakery of those who prefer that the game stays focused on a four-person party in your previous post. And even if the only people who found your manner a bit much were macho neckbeard, incompetent control freaks (nice attempt at a Catch 22 btw), you would still be being rude to call them out in that way. They have as much right to their preferences as anyone else, as long as they debate respectfully with others.

Btw, as long as you stick within forum rules you are of course also free to be as rude as you like, much as us macho neckbeard, incompetent, control-freak, sensitive marshmallows might prefer you weren’t. But, okay, if it’s upsetting to have your manner called snippy, we’ll agree on “blunt” instead.

Alright cool, you got me with the balancing vs time argument. I'm not even saying it needs to be in. But I'm agreeing with the folks that wants it as an option anyways because, why not? Just make it a clickable option in the option menu.

They chose that number to balance the game around it already.
Cool.

All I'm saying is that the game could worked with 5+ as you're technically already getting 5+ in quite a few fights already as well.
It goes back to the whole people should play how they want argument.

I'm not sure how hard it is to code in a script that have a few extra trash mob with the generic some some Archer and so on popping in during combat or tweaking exp and than some to compensate for those who want higher difficulty, but shouldn't that choice come with the difficulty setting already? Different settings down the line for different gameplay choices?

But I'm pretty sure it's a very possible thing to do, where you balance a game around a party of more than 4.

But that is all for now. I said my two cent. 😂

100 pages! Truly a GIFT we've been given.

You sound very mature. I got time to write essays and point out people acting ridiculous, yes. Hurt, not really, just annoyed at your tone. I do math because I like it, if you can fathom that. But the far easier option is that I can just mute you because you're clearly not adding anything to discussion, just insulting people and insisting on your position instead of stating a viable argument. Balancing is difficult and it matters, and the game is balanced around a minimum difficulty for 4-character parties. Maybe they'll change it. Who knows. Your every whim cannot be accommodated just because you want it to be that way. Just mod it how you like it. And maybe learn how to form a coherent argument? Y'know, without throwing out general insults, where anyone who calls you out for throwing out insults is suddenly the object of those insults?

Off-topic but...The flow of this conversation seems so odd...Am I the only one seeing this?
Why does it feel like Lenggao is responding to the next post (instead of any previous post)?
Most of the time, I don't even know who they are talking to 😶

Idk, I couldn't make sense of what they were trying to say anyway. Except for the general rudeness. Not my problem anymore as I don't see their posts.

But I have EVEN MORE arguments why increasing party size is a bad idea. To cover some previous arguments...
-The prior math argues that the game gets significantly easier the larger the party becomes and that game-balancing is a difficult and time/resource consuming task.
-You can mod the game to have as big a party as you want if it's really important to you. No need to ruin the main release with idiosyncratic demands.
-The AI is already very slow and turns take a long time. With more players and characters making decisions, the game becomes significantly longer, such that you spend less and less time playing the game and more time waiting for the AI to choose a target and setting up characters.

Next...
-Multiplayer requires decent connections. If anyone has ever played games in large lobbies, they know that the larger the lobby, the greater the likelihood of a single connection being slow, a single connection dropping, etc. And the longer you are going to have to wait in a turn-based game where you have to wait for everyone to make a turn. That is another item that would have to be resolved with a significantly larger multiplayer party size.

-The map is clearly very dense and not particularly large. With narrow pathways, it is next to impossible to adequately position in dense areas while keeping the same level of visual quality and organization. For people who like large parties, this is fine. For a general release with a broader population, it is not fine, and clarity is key in a strategy game.

-Larger parties means less strategic constraint, which defeats the purpose of having strategy in the game.

-Pathing is already difficult enough for a party, with characters falling into random lava spots and into pits when not making jumps. This problem will become more pronounce with larger parties.

-Should someone be REALLY bad at the game, a large party would be very time-consuming to resurrect. If they fall in a pit or lava, going to Withers for several characters and having multiple resurrection cinematics play is another thing that would have to be resolved. Should the whole resurrection system be overhauled?

-Larian has already demonstrated that every character has their own inventory, and inventory management is handled on a character-by-character basis. Loot distribution is one thing that needs to be resolved with larger parties, and inventory management would need a complete overhaul (I want this anyway, though).

-As people have likely already noticed, the camera for this game is much more zoomed in than the previous BG games. The previous games could easily accommodate a 6-person party all on the screen with plenty of room with its camera. This game would be challenged with its more zoomed in style. And the camera is also not fixed, and catches on features of the environment easily, a problem which will become more pronounced as party size increases.

-The Chain/Unchain system doesn't work well with larger and larger parties. Larian is adamant about keeping this feature and does not have click-and-drag to select characters, which is what allowed for easy party management in BG1+2.

-The aforementioned pathing, party management, strategy, and ease of combat problems brought on by larger parties would also combine to mostly break stealth, essentially forcing large parties into either resolving problems through combat or diplomacy.

-A random, entry-level consumer is likely going to fill up their party until they cannot fill it anymore. If the main release offers larger and larger parties as an option, it means that the average purchaser of BG3 is going to choose the worst way to experience the game by default. Therefore, it should not be in the main release to encourage the default effect of having casual consumers choose the most DEVELOPER-OPTIMIZED way of playing the game.

-The game releases in August. Why change such a major thing this late in the development cycle?

Want a larger party? Mod the game.

(On a previous page, Composer basically mentions what I am talking about above. A potential solution is allow a pre-game setting in the menu that says add 1-2 more party members, with a GIANT FUCKING WARNING that says, "WARNING, CONSUMER: YOU ARE RUINING THE INTENDED EXPERIENCE FOR THE GAME. ONLY SELECT IF THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO YOU IS HAVING A BIGGER PARTY." That might work. So either mods or a hidden setting in the "back" of the game's guts so the average consumer doesn't use it, only the people who REALLY REALLY REALLY want a bigger party but don't want to go through the trouble of modding. Ruin at your own peril, and all that jazz).

To respond to your arguments in order (they've been covered in the past 100 pages)
- A simple way to balance for large parties is to adjust exp gain for different party sizes using a single formula. Encounters don't need to be reworked if this is done.

- "You can mod the game" isn't a good argument. You could also mod the game to include the Monk class; should then Larian not include it? (Your claim that a 6-person party will ruin the game is a separate argument, addressed by all these other points)

- A larger party with the same # of enemies will result in a higher percentage of time spent playing vs watching the AI. If Larian continues to use horribly unoptimized AI, sure combat time might increase. But realistically the AI will improve by launch time.

- Practically no one is arguing for 6-players -> just a 6-person parties.

- Map: yes, positioning will be more difficult. That's fine though? It's a sacrifice you make for larger parties even in tabletop, and doesn't affect 4-person parties.

- Larger parties means more opportunities for synergy, and as the party is all lower-leveled, might actually require/enable more strategic thinking.

- Pathing is a problem, but Larian needs to fix this for a 4-person party anyway.

- People are advocating for the option of a 4-person party, so no one would need to use 6 characters.

- Inventory management is a problem, but Larian needs to fix this for a 4-person party anyway. It's already atrocious.

- It should be trivial to zoom out the camera more. I disagree that a 6-person party will mean the camera gets stuck on the environment more often, especially if it's more zoomed out.

- Stealth is already broken in BG3 given sight cones/abusing TB mode/double surprise round, etc. It's reasonable that all these things will still work in a 6-person party. An if Larian overhauls the stealth system, those benefits could easily apply to a 6-person party.

- Your penultimate point about "the average user is going to max their party size" is the one I agree most with. Thus, I'd want the toggle option for a 6-person party to be in game settings, possibly with a warning "intended experience is a 4 person party; toggle on at your own risk." (Edit: Just saw your new final paragraph, which is basically what I'm saying here)

-The game already somewhat allows >4 person parties when you get allies: start a multiplayer game with 4 players -> recruit Us and Laezel for 6. So it's already compatible with the game. Mainly remove instances where >4 player-parties automatically break the game.

First, thank you, Mrfuji, for engaging in good faith discussion. I understand you disagree with many of my points and I appreciate coherent arguments that do not include insults. I address your counters in order:

-If your solution is having a relatively weaker party when it is larger, there are still going to be issues, and the game still needs to be rebalanced in a variety of places. Playtesting is going to take a lot of time. There isn't much of a magic wand to know how competent a party must be relative to its size without a lot of testing and tweaking.

-I disagree with your position on modding. Monk is clearly in the pipeline, so it will be there, and was always planned for to begin with. On the other hand, the game was not always planned to have more than a party of 4, so those players who want to go beyond the initial vision of the developers can mod the game rather than more work being put into something which will be heavily imperfect by nature.

-There was a very small minority asking for it. It was addressed to that minority. But if you say so, I respect the idea that 4-players, 2 additional characters can be made reasonable.

-If you're cool with a clunky display, a clunky camera, clunky controls, and clunky positioning, more power to you, I guess. I just think the optimal experience wouldn't work that way. These maps are much more narrow per character than anything I've worked with in tabletop.

-If large parties=more synergy, and large parties means less min-maxing and more people having fun with random party builds, fine, I agree.

-Option, in the "back" of the settings in the opening menu is fine. Small change, not a lot of effort, time, or resources going into building around it. Fine. I'm okay with that.

-Larian can barely handle pathing and inventory for a 4-person party. I don't think it is going to get fixed at all anytime soon. I think they'll leave it as is. And it will only get worse with bigger parties.

-If you want more camera customization, then I am with you. We should have the option to go full old-school isometric, OR modern RPG over-the-shoulder.

-Stealth is broken with 4, and extra broken with 6. Look, if you want to play the game that way, go ahead.

-Average consumer is stupid. Average consumer goes with whatever the maximum default is. Average consumer (and gaming journalists) will go with the most convenient default route and ruin the game and give it a 0 on Metacritic. Don't laugh, IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Okay, then have that, with a toggle in the main menu and a warning. Have the developer's vision on one hand, and an easy-to-produce "do whatever you want" set of options in the settings. There's a lot of random bullshit you can put there that would satisfy everyone. Why not? If it's low-time, low-resource, and low-effort, and the average consumer has to really look to find it, add it in. There's no reason not to.

ACTUALLY, all the things that people have been demanding that would be easy to add in, but are not part of the developers' initial vision should be a hidden toggle in the main menu. Limiting camp supplies more, limiting resting more, modifying party size, muting companions (I saw it once), disabling barrels, removing height advantage/disadvantage, ALL OF IT WHICH IS EASY CAN GO BACK THERE. Fuck it, why not.

@Zerubbabel, I agree that optimization/pathing/inventory/camera/chain control are some of the bigger issues for 6-person parties. I don't trust Larian to properly address many of these issues, which is a large part of why I'd want a 6-person party to remain optional.

I still think that it wouldn't take too much time to balance the game for 6-person parties, especially since I'd prefer that the game is also re-balanced for smaller-than-4 parties. Like, I want a solo character to level up faster than a 4-person party (divide exp for an encounter between all participating party members). If this method is used, then extrapolating to 5 and 6 should be minimal extra work.
- For playtesting, the simplest *roughly balanced* method is to take the final boss fight that's balanced for a party of 4 adventurers at level N. Then, Larian performs that fight with a 6-person-party of level N-2, N-3, and maybe N-4. One of those options should provide a similarly balanced fight. Find out which one, then scale exp by the appropriate amount.

Most of the rest of the points rely on the 6-person party being optional. I 100% agree that, at this point in development, 4-person party should be the intended/default way to play.

I like options, but an important consideration is that the game will be balanced assuming a certain set of rules (possibly multiple sets for different difficulty levels). These base rules are important.
E.g., Larian basing the game around height advantage and/or surfaces would drastically change encounters, enemy AI, etc. People that wouldn't want to play with those settings would have a worse game experience by toggling them off. It's a balance between "What default setting makes a better game?", "What percentage of players want that option?", and "How much does that destroy our vision/how much work is it to implement that?"

Y'know, I just thought of this, but one way to solve the problem of rolls being too easy with larger parties is to just secretly load the die. Clearly there's a background probability calculator for the game and the dice are just cosmetic. Rig the die with larger parties so that the overall probabilities for a party of 6 are the same as a party of 4... by making the probability of failure slightly higher per each character. I should have thought of this earlier.

I will level with you, though: It is highly likely that the game will not ship with larger party options, but that there will be a highly endorsed, highly effective, easy to download mod in the Steam Workshop very early.

Because I'm responding to them in the order I've received them in. Our buddy here is online 24/7 so it looks like I'm skipping his arguments when in actually he's responding as soon as it comes up, as if my dude here works in this forum.

But I've said my two cent.

Another thing to note in response to mr I'm taking this passionately and personally, is that, no.

You actually spent more time playing vs waiting, because you have more action econ, and no shit the game was made to revolve around 4 players and it's expected to launch as a four player game, but 6 players should still be an option down the line, not as a mod.

So, the AI is actually not slower at all, it's the same, unless it's reflects to the user using it, than perhaps that's why yours is slower.

A lot of your arguments I can refute already from gameplay
alone, outside of doing math and making assumptions, have you actually played with more than 4+ party members? I've done both and there's no real difference mate. Not to mention a lot of them have been addressed already multiple times tbh.

Inventory management isn't an issue. Must be a you thing than. You got no time to manage inventories for 2 more mins yet you got time to write essays here and do math calculations about the probability of certain stuff happening as if it's a real argument, when people are already loading dices as an additional option to actually get more success.


So you're saying people actually enjoy missing out on content because rng says no.

Multiplayer can be optimized.

Multiplayer also becomes significantly funner when your friends and you can actually have their own team running around too.

Alot of the issues you bring up can be optimized.

Ngl, a lot of your arguments comes more from a what I want perspective than a I want to allow folks to play how they want perspective.

For example your map and strategy constraint argument basically reeks of it. You want it, so apparently it's the only way.

What if folks want to be able to more freely add to their game strategy without having to play the game 100 times to test out all the classes. It goes with your time argument, we're not trying to play 100 times, just one time to great effects since we have a life outside of this forum and game.

Pathing hasn't been an issue yet, at least not different to a four player member party. Don't see the issue.

Resurrection, inventory and camera are all pretty invalid arguments. Because again, it wasn't an issue, it's more or less the same as four players unless it's again, another you thing.

Unchaining isn't even bad, if it is, than you probably have a hard time flicking your finger to signal when driving.
Imagine going to the gym bro, lifting weights and playing sports is harder. Not really an issue, it's more or less the same as with 4 players.

Stealth is stealth, who even stealth with more than one or two members? I don't see the issue. You stealth to scout and get advantages, if you're trying to sneak through, obviously compare to 4 players buddy, it's no different. Those who sucks at it will get caught anyways.

In relation to your argument for a more challenging game, isn't that what you want? More challenge bringing over two more person over to the other side? Hypocritical to think you want a harder perspective check but an easiee stealth check.

And I'll not saying release it as a six player game, don't put words into my mouth buddy, I get you're emotional when it comes to me lol.
But, I did say it should be an option. Not a mod. Because that's like saying all these new classes that were added should've been mods.

Because it's all or less just features. Being able to have more friends join you or having more party members was a feature too. I don't see the difference.

Even Larian talked about adding sidekicks, that more or less brings the party count to 8 not counting summons. A lot of your arguments than becomes invalid again, like the map ones and the inventory management to cameras.

Because it's a planned feature.

And what's wrong with a new player filling their party up to max? If it's 6 or not, nothing tbh, it's still an option and if it's a toggable feature, how is it even an issue? Even if it's not, still not an issue.

Because as I said, I'm running an 8 man party rn and the only difference is that I'm ending combat sooner, yes sooner not longer because I'm playing more and spending less time looking at the AI move. Surprisingly enough huh? That's why I'm asking if you with all your time spent here, if you even tried wearing the other person's shoes.

And just like that too, buddy below you gave a good constructive argument, but what's the point? Notice buddy how you made his ego bigger by not being blunt with him. He didn't really even address your point or recognize them. Dude just slid passed them to assert his own even more lol. Like how he never really respond to any of my argument. He only heard what he wanted.

It goes back to my neckbeard comment. From his manner of speech alone, the air of "I'm superior in intelligence" "Just shut up and agree with me already because my opinion is the only right one", the more I read, the more I can basically copy and paste his comment onto reddit and we wouldn't even know the difference.

His arguments are stupid tbh.

A lot of what he's saying is, the game was made for 4 and should stay as 4. If Larian made it as 6, it would've worked too.
So obviously, it wouldn't be an issue to make it 6 down the lIne for those who wants 6.

I'm saying it for the old BG fans too, I'm not one of them, but I understand their point.

He said a small minority, bruh. This forum has over 300k people who came in it because this topic resonated with them, if even only 100k of those were the old BG players, that's not a small minority at all.

And again, yeah, it's not the average consumer buddy. It's the upcoming generation and era we live in.

Any issue you've basically came up tbh, was already going to happen without the mod anyways, camera issue? If every member summon something it would've been there anyways.

At least come up with a real issue that can't be fix with time tbh.

I like how the argument for 4 P vs 5+ P has gradually evolved from a it'll never happen because we don't want it to so we're going to say it's impossible, to a "Haha itbwas possible after all but there's no time left to do it" debate.

But whatever, my point stands.
If they wanted to add the option, 5+ party members wouldn't be an issue, because as it looks rn, it's not looking hard at all, it'll take more time, but out of respect for the OGs before us, it should be an option still.
They've already made quality of life options before in their previous games, not looking like Larian is too inept to listen too. So people are voicing their opinion on the matter because obviously Larian might listen.

Said my two cent for those who wanted it and I'm done.

A whole essay, but I'm just shitting anyways.

To the guy who took it a bit too personal. Relax buddy, I get this is probably the most excitement and more emotional inducing human interaction you had in a min, but I'm just stating what I see as it is.
Apologies if any grudges were made because of it. 🤣
All I'm saying is, I made a whole point and all you got from it was that the insults was aimed at you. So all I said is that, unless the shoes fit, it shouldn't have stung you. So adios 😂

Because at least one rational guy came and didn't get offended because he knew better. Than those sensitive softies who got offended. Apologies for speaking to you indirectly, directly.

Mute me or whatever, as long as it makes you feel better, idc tbh, I'm only on here once or twice a couple years.

Can you elaborate on your experience with balancing, snowram? Right now, if we want to preserve the "pace" of the game (not too many slow enemies with slow AI clogging up gametime), it seems the best way to transition from a 4-person party to a 6-person party is to:
Rig the die against the party by, say, 10-15%, AND
Multiply everyone's damage and health by around 2/3 (I'm getting this from 4 people/6 people), AND
Slightly increase enemy health and damage output.
Also rig the die against the party in multiple chance rolls in the world.
How does game balancing account for emergent factors or unforeseen outcomes beyond just mathematical effectiveness? I imagine if you have an 8-person party, you could likely chain-shove your way to some ridiculous outcomes.

Also @MrFuji,
I would support a means of reconciling difficulty and party size. If I recall correctly, DOS2 had 3-4 difficulty modes. Story, Normal, Tactician, and I think a 4th super-hard mode, but I may be misremembering. I imagine a 1 person party on normal could have the same difficulty as a 4 person party on tactician. Should story mode just have the option to have a party of 6 right out the gate? Also, assuming you've played the game with a large party mod (or was it snowram?), can you tell me if it affected story progression at all? Would Larian have to rework conversations/banter/dialogue/stories, especially in light of the "override" clause in companion story moments in DOS2?

I'd be fine with story mode having the option for a party of 6 right out of the gate, assuming the game is sufficiently functional using a 6-person party of course. It'd be more work to manage 6-person parties, but that should be offset by the reduced effort from playing on story mode. Also, you by definition get more story more easily with a 6-person party (dialogues, quests, etc), so it's definitely appropriate for story mode.

I haven't used such a mod, but I've heard that there are specific points in BG3 that don't work with 6-person parties. E.g., getting on the boat to Moonrise -> the game automatically kicks/kills your 5th & 6th (and more) party members. I've heard that the dialogue works well though; companions banter/etc appropriately.

I participated quite a bit in the development of a relatively popular Cube World clone. Balancing was already a hard process of trial and error, but accounting for party size was downright hellish. Numbers aren't growing linearly, they follow weird exponential functions where you have to consider dozens of variables. How much damage should both parties do and take, how many enemies should there be, how AoE, buffs, debuffs and crowd control interact with more enemies, how fight readability changes with more characters, how the environment fit for the number of characters... And considering we are talking about a CRPG there, I wouldn't risk my sanity.

The "override" problem is the sticking point for having a 6-person party in story mode. In DOS2, many companions have interweaving stories. Usually, one companion's story take priority over the other (outside of Act 1). Only that companion gets to "speak up," while the other companion with the equally relevant story gets sidelined. If the emphasis of story mode is on the story, I imagine the "override" problem needs to be resolved. I'd do it like DAO/ME, where all the companions speak it sequence, and everyone gets a say, with the antagonist responding to all of them, but I don't know if Larian would go for that because it might not work with BG3. I'd say if they can solve the override problem, make all companions equally engaged in the story, then a 6-person party is viable. The problem still exists for 4-persons, but not as much.

If dialogue works well, then that's one less thing to worry about. Similarly, I think the Moonrise problem is a quick fix. It sounds more like a bug than a fundamental problem.