Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Keybinds: Send to Camp, Add to Wares

So for your first response, it comes down to the fact ignoring something isn't the same as it not being there. Materially the outcome might be the same but you know, mentally that it's different. That the world is full of levers left to be pushed. It ties into the second point you singled out. Before I get too deep into that I will admit that yes, it is just an argument I'm extrapolating from the complaints others have made. I'm not someone who really gets much out of challenging combat. Combat is mostly a thing I have to do to get to the next story stuff. But I understand that that's not true for everyone. In fact, I don't think I'm really equipped to make a deeper argument for this point because I don't feel it the way others here do.

As for my third and final point, see the first point I made in this post; ignoring something isn't the same as it not being there. The inclusion of all this stuff, whether someone uses it or not, breaks the trust of players with the world. It tells them that Larian doesn't care about creating a solid, believable world and it encourages players to just look at the world not as a breathing world to emotionally invest in, but as a bunch of stats and interactions to mess with. And once that happens, even modding them out doesn't really help, because the illusion's already been broken. I would argue that Larian never really tried to create that illusion in the first place. If someone repainted the walls of your house into a color you don't like, you can ignore it, and it wouldn't fundamentally change anything about your day to day life, but that doesn't make living with it any more pleasant. In this metaphor modding would be repainting the house, but in general I resent how much people lean on modding to fix stuff. Not everyone wants to go through the hassle of finding mods, installing them and then keeping them up to date every time a new patch comes along, or dealing with the potential bugs that mods can lead to. That goes doubly for learning how to mod from scratch themselves.

Fundamentally, I think where you're going wrong is trying to approach this from an angle of logical sense. This isn't, at its core, a logical issue, even though I do think some arguments have fair logic to them (you didn't really address what I said about all these exploits making the design feel careless, for instance. The issue is psychological, emotional. And those are just as valid here because BG3 isn't a purely logical enterprise. It's a game, a piece of art. And I believe that the only way to measure the success or failure of a piece of artis is in how well it rriggers the emotional reactions that the creators want. The emotional reactions that the game, its story and its mechanics inspire are fundamental parts of what will make the game good or not.

But if Larian would do exactly the same thing as that mod would ... it would be fixed? O_o

I mean ...
I can understand that its certainly easier to make someone fix things for you, than fixing them yourself ...
But if you feel like fix wont help, there is no way left, is it?

In general, I’m in favour of the game erring on the side of flexibility when there’s a valid QoL reason for including a feature to benefit some players, and it doesn’t affect gameplay unless someone chooses to use it. It’s at least possible to ignore the feature, whereas if it doesn’t exist then people who want it are stuffed, unless it’s possible to mod it back in.

Personally, I don’t need to see my party schlepping back to camp to dump heavy but valuable items or to rest, or trekking back to the nearest Netherese teleport circle. I am happy to head canon this, and unlike some folk who feel that fast forwarding through this stuff breaks immersion, for me it’s the opposite. If I’m having to do all the boring bits, then I become too aware that I’m just clicking a mouse and start thinking about all the other ways the game doesn’t show on screen the whole world or everything that happens.

I don’t often use Send to Camp, but I appreciate it saving me a few clicks to go back to camp when I do. Personally I wouldn’t mind if there were some places where we couldn’t jump back to camp, and in those cases I’d be okay with Send to Camp also being unavailable, but it’s not something that I’m fussed about.

+1
(at least send to camp)

I think it would be fixed because again, this is not a logical issue, it's an issue of emotion and perception. A mod you install yourself is just that, a modification to the existing game, something you change because you're unsatisfied with the game you got. Modding out the things here would be an act of dissatisfaction. Let's go back to the paint metaphor. It's like if you bought a house and the paint was chipped and bad in certain areas. You paint it over yourself but you have to buy the paint with your own money, spend your own time touching it up, it's frustrating, especially if you went in expecting a finished, painted house. And worse, the paint color you do get isn't quite right. It works, but it's just a little bit off (this part of the metaphor represents the fact mods will break with each new patch that comes out for the game). If you recieve a fully painted house, none of that will be an issue. But also, if you still recieve the shoddily painted house and the sellers come back and paint it up for you all good and proper, you still don't go through all the frustration you would have if you needed to go through and do it all yourself.

If Larian, the makers of the game and crafters of the world changed it, then people would take it, rightly or not, as them basically admitting they were wrong, and putting out a fixed-up version of the game. And that feeling of being told you're right is a hell of a drug, one that can smooth over a surpring amount. Because again, this isn't a problem of pure logic, it's a problem of emotion.



A realization I had about this is that for the tedious parts of a game to feel like they really add to immersion, then the tedium has to facilitate something engaging or satisfying. Item management in BG3 is unsatisfying all the way down. At its best it only manages to be functional. And it is rarely at its best. QoL features like sending to camp exist because devs want to direct players away from wasting time and attention from the parts of the game that are necessary evils but don't contribute to the fun of the game. So anything that minimizes item management is good on that front. Same with fast travel, as much as I hate that they don't make more than a token effort to tie the system into the world, I'm glad it's there because movement and traversal isn't actually part of the fun, nor is it actually engaging or interesting in its own right.

Agree!!! I love QoL enhancements so I don’t have to waste my time with the boring stuff!

This is quite one-sided view ...

While i agree that people around here who wanted the feature gone would indeed take it this way ...
Im quite sceptic that people who liked it, or used it regulary would feel the same ...
Speaking for myself, when Larian removed something i liked ... i never felt like they admited that they were wrong ... i felt like they just succumbed to pressure that was put on them. :-/

And while i have no doubt that person who hated said feature, no matter wich it was ... will feel it like a small victory for himself ... and i totally get that it would feel good ...
What bothers me is that those people selfishly (willingly or not) make someone else feels bad ... while from pure logical standpoint (and yes, i realize you said it dont apply here, but i still feel like it should at least take some concideration, if not apply at full extend), they both could have feel quite happy ...
Maybe, well almost certainly, not as happy as one of them would be if it will go his way, no matter wich one of them it would be ... but still, quite happy.

---

If i may use your metaphor, i dont think we should ask "Why my house isnt bright red, when i demanded it?" ... we should ask "Do i really need my house to be BRIGHT RED ... when i know it triggers my neighbour bull ... or will mild red, maybe slightly orange be acceptable?"
(And yes, i know bulls are colorblind, but you get it, no?)

The main problem i have with this metaphor is that we are not talking about single house that is whole yours ... we are talking here about huuuuuuuge tenement house, where millions of people lives ... and for some reason they have this odd tendency to keep talking others to how their respective apartments should lookalike.
I have my living room painted purple ... you have your living room painted green ...
I dont care about your living room collor ... and yet you demand that my living room have to be repainted to green, bcs you dislike purple ... :-/
Logic put aside as you said ... thats how it feels.

Now, i certainly can and do hope for that House owner (Larian in this case) will first do some research about what color living rooms in this house are, before they storm in painting everything green.

---

This is one of cases where i often mentions that best solution would be toggle in game settings.
It would be official ... it wouldnt require junky instalation of any mods ... it would give us both exactly what we want ...

I still dont see it as necesary in this particular case ... but IF there should be some change, this one seems most acceptable for everyone.

//Edit:
I will play a devils advocate for a second ...
And admit that fast forwarding, or send to camp actually is immersion breaking ... but only if used in tight spot.

Often mentioned is Goblin camp, once you kill Dror Ragzlin, all and every Goblin turn hostile.
Well, to be perfectly honest i find this situation to be immersion breaking itself ... bcs besides goblins in that particular room, and as long as none sound alarm ... i dont really feel like they have any way to know.
But puting that aside for a second ...

People often complained that in that particular moment, you should be driven in corner, have to think strategicaly about your resources ... that aply both on spellslots, or other class resources ... as to carry weight and encumberance.
Its true that it may seem little unimmersive that you simply click on "Emerald Grove" ad everything is resolved by covenient teleport around whole goblin army.
And it dont really matter if thing you are teleporting is your party, or some supervaluable or heavy item you dont really want to loose.

But yes, its still strongly situational.

Yeah, I'm aware it's a one-sided view. I meant that specifically the people who had problems with those mechanics would feel that way, of course there are people who like having the mechanics that would feel differently. Also, Idon't think they could both be happy here. I think there's a vast swathe of folks in the middle who don't care, and people on either side, and the folks who actively don't want it are at best just going to grudgingly deal with it, which is not the same as being happy or even content

In the end we're all just advocating for what we think will make a better game, hoping Larian listens to us. And in the end, people will be dissatisfied, others will be satisfied, but those states are mutually exclusive for a lot of people. Speaking for myself? I don't think there's much they can do to make me love the game or even think it's all that special, but I do think the changes I suggest will on the whole make for a better version of the game they're trying to make. I think the game they're trying to make and the game they actually want to make are two different things, but that's a tangent I don't want to go down.

---

I actually didn't know bulls were colorblind so I've learned something new, though I'm not sure what the bull is in this version of the metaphor, I will admit.

The thing is, your version of the metaphor is probably more accurate to what's happening, but the tweak I would make is that the walls already ARE the same color, ignoring the walls doesn't change that and nobody wants to have paid for the apartment only to then have to go to the time and effort of repainting it so that they don't have to deal with the walls in what they thought would be their dream apartment.

Stepping out of this metaphor, I continue to think the fundamental problem is the sheer volume of these mechanics that exist in the game. I think most people would be content with a few of them, but all together it creates an impression of chaotic carelessness that rubs folk the wrong way. I think toggleable options for the things it makes sense for would help because it would create more of a sense of intentionality, like Larian is thinking about what they're doing and not just leaving stuff in for the fun of it.

Indeed ...
That i can understand.

Then there are people who moved into green walls apartment (starting a new game, not knowing about the function) ... then find out there is purple collor aviable (discovering send to camp function) ... repainted their living room (using send to camp function) ... and now complainging that even if they paint it back (stop using the function) they will forewer know that purple collor is aviable in their basement, wich bothers them, so the purple collor have to be removed from the building by autorities.
And that is what i just cant relate to.
I think i can understand it from the point "i want it, but dont want to be bothered with it" ... but not relate.

Also there is even weirder group of people ... who repainted their living room to purple, but never actually bothered to repaint it back (aka are still using excessively this exploit) ... they are just sitting in their purple living room, complaining about how horrible paint it is and that they hate every aspect of it, while repainging walls over and over using the same can of purple paint for yet another, and yet another layer.
And that, if you excuse the language ... is pure madness.

I think the same. ^_^
To me it feels like with toggles Larian say "we realize that we have different audience groups, and we want to please as much of them as we can" ... rather than "this is perfect for group A, too bad groups B-Z".

Sure, I agree that if misused some QoL features can be immersion-breaking. But I’m happy to take responsibility as a player for only using convenience features when they make sense to me, or (I confess) sometimes when I’ve screwed up my resource management so badly that I’d have to reload if I didn’t.

I know we’ve trod this ground again and again on these forums, but for me while some games suit restrictive rules that it’s fun to push against and test the limits of, that’s not what I want from BG3 or what I think D&D more generally is about. I want it to be permissive, and give me flexibility to do anything reasonable, even if I can use the same features that would be reasonable in one situation to do something unreasonable in another. In BG3, for me that’s the lesser of two evils.

In TT of course a human DM would prevent taking the piss, but I think it would be unfeasible for Larian to have to imagine every situation and pre-rule on it without giving players the opportunity to explain their thinking. It does mean that in multiplayer, BG3 requires an agreement on what “exploits” will be permitted, and might require someone to take on a quasi-DM rule to arbitrate debates, and in single player folks can make up their own mind.

For me, the priority for Larian should be addressing other stuff, where there’s not a good reason for having the game act that way in any circumstance.

Yes, send to camp is useful and is hard to ignore (the game is balanced around its existence). But that is only because it is a fix for another problem: there is too much loot. All the stuff lying about is nice to keep everyone's inner hoarder satisfied, but it creates a lot of problems, some of which are serious immersion breakers. Like being able to carry an insane amount of stuff without any visual representation or in-world explanation. Another one is being able to instantaneously transfer matter to the camp (why not back?). In my opinion, send to camp is a nuisance to remedy another nuisance. I think the game would be much more immersive (and fun) if we had to choose what to carry and what to leave laying around. The nuisance of too much loot doesn't stop there, it also creates the problem of there being far too many containers (like everything, already discussed elsewhere). And perhaps the silly fixed camp can also be removed from the game if there is no longer a need for it to serve as a storage facility? I feel that some serious redesign is necessary to remove compound problems that are created by not making a somewhat consistent and believable world. For me, immersion = quality of life. Quantity of goods is not.

So how about just being able to acquire a bag of holding at some point? Wouldn't that amount to having our cake and eat it too?

Well that’s a whole other debate that again comes up again and again on these forums (see eg https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=843143).

Personally, I do think that improvements could be made to looting, but disagree that there’s too much loot overall (though I’d agree there are too many potions, for example) or that the game is balanced around sending to camp. I wouldn’t pick up everything not nailed down in real life, and don’t in BG3 either. Personally, I find it immersive that there’s more stuff in the world than just items obviously created for me as the player to use or interact with, and think the game is more fun and interesting from a resource management perspective if I don’t loot too much and, by and large, stick with what I can carry within my weight allowance.

If others prefer to loot absolutely everything, then that’s of course their choice, and I can see Send to Camp becomes more of a necessity. But I’d argue that once someone has decided to take that hoarder approach they’ve already decided realism isn’t a priority for them, and I wouldn’t expect Larian to make their unrealistic behaviour have realistic consequences if that would negatively impact other users who are using the QoL features more selectively.

My point exactly. ^_^

Oh i beg to differ.
Craziest games are most fun!

One time, when i played something you may call heavily homebrewed Sorcerer ... i accidentaly demolished few houses in the village we were trying to protect ... dark side was that one of our players was inside one of them.
(She lost an arm in that combat, but that was not my fault! Except that, she was mostly unharmed ... just unconcious.)

This is just matter of taste ...
Im sure rule-lawyers would get heartattack from that campaign, but i liked it.

---



Here is an idea: Maybe you are not supposed to "instantaneously transfer everything to the camp".

Its certainly one way to see it ...
In my opinion, send to camp was created to save player time and reduce tediousness, if said player feel personal atachments to certain piece of gear ... or item in general ... but forgets to stash it when they are in camp.

Personaly i only send magical items i dont curently use, but dont want to sell, bcs i may find some other item that would go well with it ... nice pieces of gear, that i just like (like Shadowheart starting armor, i dont really want to sell it, and i doubt she would allow it roleplaywise) ... or items that seems like being significant, but are not right now (Shar or Selune statues for example ... there is no reason to drag them around).
Without it i would need to go to camp, go to stash, stash item there, go back ... it would be anoying ... so i just click twice and voila! And it dont bother me at all, bcs i do that aproximately once per half/hour.

Sure, you can exploit to make it your infinite backpack ... but as you said, there is no way to get those items back and it dont really work well when used this way ...
Maybe that could proof its not its purpose? Just a thought.

Interesting idea ...
Here is another thought: Why not play it that way then?

Thrust me, you can ... i know, bcs i do.

It only feels like too much loot because inventory management is so tedious. The same way selling things is disincentivized by the amount of clicking you have to do. Grouping objects, selecting multiple items at once. I can think of a few things that might mitigate it.

I feel like this post from grysqrl should be printed, framed and hanged on every tester's wall, so that we won't have to hear the fucking terribad "If you don't like it don't use it" ever again.

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=825989#Post825989

Nope, won’t work I’m afraid! There are a number of points in that post I disagree with for reasons I’ve already given in this thread and others. I do think it’s right to identify the “winning is paramount” mentality as likely to lead to dissatisfaction with exploits, but as I’ve said, that’s not what I personally want from BG3, as for me roleplay and finding fun, different ways of doing things are the priorities. I’m not in favour of giving up my flexibility because some players will “misuse” it.

I will continue to think that in some cases the best way to balance player preferences will be to include options that some players want but others, who dislike them, can ignore. That, of course, only applies when the feature we’re being asked to ignore is something that does have a valid use case, and when the feature only impinges when actively engaged with. And when there’s not a better implementation of a feature that can satisfy both camps. And, of course, I do agree with grysqrl that play testing and providing feedback on potential exploits is important so Larian can make informed decisions about what to leave in, take out or tweak.

Personally, I think the only “terribad” argument would be one that lumped all “exploits” together and suggested either they all need to be removed or all should be ignored. I think it’s far more nuanced than that, and in practice I think so do most if not all other forum members, even if we disagree on the details.

Or you can stop using things you dont want to use ...
Or just dont pretend like those things are unavoidable ...
Or just stop complaining about them ...

You know, same result, less work.

Well, there isn't a single one I do, on the other hand.
Also, no one ever asked to "remove flexibility" from a game. The point is that parameters of said flexibility should be contained in a range that isn't harmful to the overall balance of the game.

Or you could stop advocating for terrible ideas and poor design decisions every other odd post.

Pretending a game isn't broken doesn't make it not broken.

Now you start getting it. ^_^

Step two is apply the same to yourself.
Good luck.

Indeed ...

But can the same be aplied in situation when brokenness itself is questionable?

Many people around here were sure that game is broken, bcs NPCs were randomly becoming hostile towards them ... a little later, they just find out that they were using Friends spell willy-nilly.

Is the game actually broken?
Or people just used feature inaproprietly and "broke" it themselves, while everything works exactly by design? :P