|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2023
|
It seems to be working for now, if you use an older version of the mod. But my main point is that something like this should be in the game, and not something that we have to add with a mod. I am using the latest version. My main point was what part of the mod do you say is not working. I use the recruit NPCs and increase the party size parts which work.
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2023
|
I couldn't start the game for a couple of days (I used the newest version of the mod). Then the creater of the mod, writes on Nexus that version 1.3.2.0 is not usable with the new patch, but that version 1.2.9.0 is. So I installed the earlier version and now it works (although I must say it is very unstable). https://www.nexusmods.com/baldursgate3/mods/1646?tab=filesIf the new version works for you, then cool, it's doesn't for a lot of other people as you can see in the bug reports: https://www.nexusmods.com/baldursgate3/mods/1646?tab=bugs
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2021
|
God I still feel so stupid every time I tell a companion to wait in camp. This is it. This is the whole reason there should never be hard party size limits. There is just no way to do it that doesn't shatter immersion. In every game that has one, from New Vegas to Mass Effect to Pillars of Eternity to Dragon Age, any game you can name, it's dumb and forced and makes the opposite of sense. "OK gang, we're going to go fight an entire ship full of geth, so we should probably all be going on this mission." "Not so fast, Shepard. You see, it just so happens that every single friend you have ever made in the entire galaxy has a peccadillo about traveling in groups larger than three. You know how some people don't like cilantro? It's like that. Every single one of us hates being in a group of more than three." If I never again hear a companion character say some variation of "it looks like you're already traveling with a lot of people" or "I just prefer a little less company on the road" or whatever, it'll be too soon. I can accept party size limits if they're tied to something the player can influence. As far as I know this was only done in Fallout 2 and no other game that comes to mind. Your party size limit was directly derived from your Charisma stat. Simple, elegant, makes perfect sense: it takes a charismatic person to keep a group of so many strong and often conflicting personalities together. They still had companions saying dumb lines like "you already have a full party," so that could have been improved on, but conceptually it's perfect. You could even iterate on it and have certain Charisma levels required for specific pairings or groupings to be together in a party. That would be difficult to do, because the number of companions can vary wildly. Choice and consequence. The best games incorporate choice and consequence even into the mechanical aspects, and party composition should be one of those aspects. It's not the developer's responsibility to balance a game around literally every possible choice you could make with your party composition. You could respec all your characters into clerics with the exact same healing spells and equip them all with armor and weaponry that they aren't proficient in; should the game be balanced around that? That's an extreme example, but I'm not just talking about out-of-universe, video-gamey considerations. I'm also talking about in-universe factors. If you're roleplaying as a character who did some light genocide in Act 1, then your character should have to live with the consequences! And not just the consequences of "I don't have this companion as an option," but the consequences of "my party will not be as large as it would have been had I not done this." If your character goes through life being a dick, they're going to have fewer friends, and maybe that's not a great idea in a world where hobgoblins and evil wizards are common problems. The greatest trick Starcraft ever pulled was indoctrinating gamers into an obsession with balance, this fervent and almost unshakeable conviction that players (in all genres and styles) should have distinct options, but all of them should be exactly as good or bad as the others. They shouldn't! That's the whole thing about choices, is they impact your life! We're roleplaying as characters who are living a life, right? Well in life you make choices and they materially affect the rest of your life and the world around you. They don't just make numbers on a character sheet go up or down, they don't make someone's approval score go up or down, they don't unlock the good ending or the bad ending. They meaningfully impact your life, including how much support you'll have when you go through hard times. The premise of RPGs that have parties is that you are explicitly gathering allies for a fight, or to help solve a problem, or so you can all help solve each other's mutual problems, or just that some of the people you meet like you and want to help you out. Every single one of those options implies that you are going to have an easier time of it if you try not to alienate people. If you want to roleplay as someone who alienates people, that's great, but you should absolutely have a harder time as a result. As for contriving a narrative reason to limit to 4, it had better be a VERY good reason, because if it's not leaving people in camp will still come across as narratively profoundly stupid. Indeed it is. And every time you come across lines like "it looks like your party is full at the moment" the profound stupidity is rubbed in again. But is this really a problem for Larian to solve? The lack of explanation for fixed party size is a problem for all CRPGs. Shouldn't some organisation come up with a solution that can be applied to all present and future fantasy RPGs? For SF RPGs the solution can always be that your planatary landing craft only has four seats, so that's covered. Of course it's a problem for Larian to solve. It's a problem for every developer who makes an RPG that has companions to solve. Come on, imagine if Larian (or any other developer) approached other problems that way, just doing the same obviously dumb things because fixing it isn't their problem. That's what Bethesda does, and no one should be emulating them. Also, there are easy solutions that take zero intellectual rigor: 1) No party size limit, balance the game for full parties and let players live with the consequences if they don't want a full party. 2) No party size limit, combat difficulty and skill check difficulty scale with party size. 3) Party size limit based in some way on Charisma or a similar stat. 4) Just don't have more companions than you want people to play with! If you really think good adventures only happen when you have a group of four people, then just don't have me meet more than four people! And don't tell me that limits player choice, because you're already limiting player choice by insisting that I only have three companions. I may have come back to this reply belated, but it's still worth quoting just to say "this person gets it."
|
|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Having played with party limits removed and with a regular limits I do think the 4 player limit is restrictive on content and 6 is more reasonable. I myself prefer 8-10 character parties but bringing every character seems over the top Ive done it with party limit be gone mod and honestly even on tactician you can end every encounter with 1 round of combat. While playing a normal game 4 is ok and it can be done on tactician i think a party of 6 wouldnt hurt the game that much a party of 8-10 is overkill on normal 8-10 would make tactician it basically makes the game feel like story more by adding 2 characters and thats fine. Higher difficulties with more items would be a great addition to the game. Also a mild adjustment to UI placement of Portraits for this.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2023
|
Well i would like to have at least 5 man Party i always endup killing the ones i dont need or leting they die becouse i dont have space for them in my party so i really dosent see a reason to bring all the origin companions for the entire game.. just for then to stay at my camp waiving around ? feels stupid. and the ones i dont need like a sad.. when the oportunit cames i kill then or let then get killed.. becouse i dont have space for then in my party so yu are useles besides the xp yu gave me in the begining of the game..hauhauha nowadys in my last Games i even Run with a Hirelings Party and only bring Shadowheart becouse i dont give a F for the rest besides her, Jaheira and Minsc. hauhauha
Last edited by Thorvic; 17/10/23 06:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: May 2023
|
I make a 4 member party 15 minutes out of the Nautiloid and stick with them, be these Origins or Hirelings. I tell the superfluous Origins "shoo!" I can't imagine a 6 member party, all getting in their way. At some point I was introduced to playing BG1/2 with a 4 member party and I've not looked back since.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2023
|
I mean people play BG1 and BG2 as solo mage - but personally I always had a six member party.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2023
|
Well i always thought that this game would have the same number as the BG1 and BG2 that was actually kinda unique for the time if im not Wrong.. after that people start to make this rule of 4 man party and yu start to see this in all games.. But i do understand why they did this way, the reality is that they want to extent the Gameplay time making yu trying out a Bunch of party compositions in differents gameplays like i did. I already beated the game 7 times by now. more then 500 hrs played.. already see a lot and geting bored. But 1 thing that already is in the Game that i think would not Brake the Game is increase the Party for at least 5 man Becouse this already Happens in Many times in the Game will not Say becouse spoilers.. but yu can at least 4 or 5 times during the game get a 5 man party for some especific quests.
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2023
|
After going back to BG1 its odd only having 3+ you in the party. BG1 you had 5+ you. Which was GREAT.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2023
|
Well theres the Mod to actually Remove Party Limit.. (i never Tried..) but Bunch of People use and says it works ok.. just some bugs here and There.. But i Advice that if yu really want to use this Mod to actually bring only 3 companions as origins the rest of the spots just give to Hirelings;; i bet this way nothing will broke or Bug like Banthers and stuff like that.. (and just to Be Safe Make a Lot of Saves Before quests.. if stuff go wrong just Remove the Rest of the party and make with 4) (i saw some reports that this mod bug Mayrinas and the Hag Quest when yu do with a Bunch of companions.)
Last edited by Thorvic; 29/10/23 04:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2023
|
I've been thinking about a larger party recently but only for their stories. I'm not sure I would want to shrug off every fight with a small army or have all the battles to be as long as they would with that many people if enemies adjusted to the size of the party.
I feel like an interesting way to do it would be two groups with a maximum size of three or four.
The other thing is I wouldn't mind the option of a large party, I think it could offer an epic playthrough, but only one, without much appetitie to play again soon because you've expereined the story with everyone you were even slightly interested in having with you.
If everyone was treated the way they treated the person least able to resist there would be universal prosperity and complete peace
#MMS
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2023
|
A party size of more than 4 trivializes all content in this game.
It's easily doable with 2. Given that all interactions are scripted I don't see the point.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2023
|
Yu are not wrong.. that is indeed true.. if yu have a Bigger Party even the Hard Mode of this Game will become a Walk in the Park. xD (and they would Decrease the amount of Game Time yu can Get too.. becouse if yu can bring all companions its useless playing a lot of times the game for most of casual Players.) But one Thing that i Didant Like its the Open Spaces yu get at your Camp when yu dont Bring all Origin companions.. i always felt this Weird as F. they Could do something about it.. and when yu Play as Tav yu are the Only One that dosent Have your Tend.. another weird thing.. so yu get to sleep in the floor the entire game.. great.haha
They will never increase the Party size in this Game untill they Gave us another Higher Difficult or something like a Hardcore mode.. when yu Die is Game Over. then a Bigger Party will have a Reason. (like in Table Top that yu can Have a 20 Party members but evrybody dies in the First battle.. yeah Table Top can be Brutal.haha)
Last edited by Thorvic; 05/11/23 02:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2023
|
One can still make take game adjust to a bigger party. But with 4 people it is sometimes hard to ccordinate the combinations in a way it makes not only sense class wise but story wise.
If you romance someone, of course, that person is your character's favorite in a way and hard to tell them No if they want to help for example.
In general 4 peeps is ok, as a base or your most played standard group combination. But sometimes i'd wish to have an option, that you can at least take one or two peeps more with you for certain companion quests or something.
So yeah, back to good old times of BG 1 and 2. I'm on the 6 member party camp.^^
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
A party size of more than 4 trivializes all content in this game.
It's easily doable with 2. Given that all interactions are scripted I don't see the point. Yu are not wrong.. that is indeed true.. if yu have a Bigger Party even the Hard Mode of this Game will become a Walk in the Park. xD With a bigger party option, nobody is forcing you to play with a bigger party. So every single thing you guys say here is irrelevant to this discussion. My single-player game is mine to play however I want, and if I want to "trivialize" my game or make it a "walk in the park," that is nobody else's business but my own.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2023
|
OK.. will never post anything again in Nothing yu created bro xD Peace and Good Luck! lol
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2015
|
Well i always thought that this game would have the same number as the BG1 and BG2 that was actually kinda unique for the time if im not Wrong.. after that people start to make this rule of 4 man party and yu start to see this in all games.. But i do understand why they did this way, the reality is that they want to extent the Gameplay time making yu trying out a Bunch of party compositions in differents gameplays like i did. I already beated the game 7 times by now. more then 500 hrs played.. already see a lot and geting bored. But 1 thing that already is in the Game that i think would not Brake the Game is increase the Party for at least 5 man Becouse this already Happens in Many times in the Game will not Say becouse spoilers.. but yu can at least 4 or 5 times during the game get a 5 man party for some especific quests. Man I remember Dungeon Siege 1, with 7 chars and a mule to carry all the loot. It was chaos XD I loved it, but nowadays I too prefer less characters, 4 or 6 is perfect. It is easier to focus on your characters. With more, same happens to me what happens to my long Civilization playthroughs, I get so many cities, I stop caring about developing them the right way, and just do random stuff. Same with leveling up 8 characters, at one point I can't be bothered and it becomes a chore.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
6 is in every way better, and Classic hehe.
Really though the reason I think 6 is best is because it would basically force the issue on addressing a lot of UI jank, which a party of only 4 allows to sort of gloss over right now. Things that are inefficient, and which could be much improved get sorta hidden and walled off that way as the jank is offloaded from Party management to Camp management. I'm not sure peeps are seeing what we give up in terms of party comp by narrowing it down to 4. It has knock on effects into the whole Kit out and divvying up the Monty Haul or setting up your hall of heroes for that run. I'd trade 6 active party members on the scene at all times for a dozen at camp any day of the week. The active party is where they should put the focus.
That sense of satisfaction for decking out your core players for a given run, that charm of reordering the portraits in the leadership rankings, choosing who goes where in a formation. I'm all for hugs and kisses, but give me 6 solid fist bumps and a hand on the shoulder and I can replay this thing forever and ever and it doesn't become boring.
Six Portraits! Six person party! Six core attributes in Dungeons & Dragons
Once you get to 6 many more things become possible. It will help them to fine tune the UI and the benefits to other aspects of the game will stack.
ps. also, and you'll have to forgive my now getting quasi-mystical about it, but the thread is 113 pages long so these are sorta the remaining arguments, but I'd suggest that the D6 is foundational to this game. To D&D I mean and to BG. Our trusty six-sided polyhedron, the elegance of the cube - 6 Faces.
Right now in BG3 party comp we are at our simplest entry level polyhedron, the basic pyramid. I want them to lvl it up from 4 to 6, because that's a huge power spike in party comps. To do it right give us a 6 person party to recall the D6 from among 20 potential companions to recall the D20. This is a useful analogy, I think? lol. Obviously you don't nix the D4, but you save that for the Tactician mode, toss it in then and scale things like that. Working sorta middle out instead to hit all the marks and work all the angles.
pps. oh and one last thought, but to me variety and replay in party comp and customization is the single most important thing in a BG game. It supersedes stuff like tactical challenge in any given battle, because it gives the player a reason to start another campaign. If you don't have that, then the fun battles don't really matter. You need a reason to run it again right? That comes from party comp and companion variety. Then instead of thinking about it like roles in combat, we think about it more like "who to take along this time" and "hmmm how kit 'em out?" like to be the best they can be, for each of the potential companions on offer. Like with all the loot and all the various options provided by the campaign. There are easily 20 would be companions in BG3, and if we got the pick 6 in dodgeball from that, the combos would be sufficiently various and distinct to keep it humming for a good long while. My hope would be that the Definitive Edition of the game allows us to recruit more companions into the fold and then expand the party to 6. Or at least for one of the game modes. Then I will feel like the EA feedback on this subject was definitively accounted for hehe.
Last edited by Black_Elk; 12/11/23 09:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2023
|
I'll add my support for the 6-member party.
1) It's tradition. Past Baldur's Gates allowed for a party up to 6, as does Dungeons and Dragons Online. Fewer party members allowed seems like an artificial reduction designed (I'm guessing) to improve the speed at which NPC actions are calculated, or reducing the amount of calculations overall. I don't know about anyone else, but combat often hangs on my (fairly new) system as the software calculates the next npc actions. Maybe the whole thing just crashes and burns with 6 (and their summoned elementals, etc.)
2) Each character has a side-story. Almost like an ME 2 Loyalty Mission. With twice as many companions as one has spaces in the party, the constant necessity of balancing the party for combat and balancing it for content becomes a little frustrating. With some quests, I find myself having to leave the FOB and return with different party members, and all this juggling of people starts to seem more like a staffing problem than an RPG. It would be really nice to fight Wyrm's Rock with Wyll and Karlach in my party, but as it stands with the Tavs I've played to date, that makes for a poor party.
3) So much of the fun character development is in the incidentals. The way Wyll makes random comments about Baldur's Gate while wandering around the city, or Karlach randomly runs into an old friend. Restricting the party to four members is asking players to miss out on too much of that. In which case, why spend all that amount of time writing and producing it? Sure, re-play factor and all. I'll replay BG3 to test out various builds and explore various decisions, but probably not to catch the little moments that really add to the game's RP appeal. The whole point is interacting with the story, much of which is driven by the characters. Why write a book one has to read five times to get to all the plot (especially when you've left out the ending)?
4) I just find the four-person party reinforces the "Tank, Damage Dealer, Healer, Thief" dynamic that reduces a complex set of explorable options to a well-known and predictable formula. Multi-classing helps with some, but not all, of this. I, for one, don't like Astarion. (OT: I think he's an offensively reductionist stereotype I've seen a thousand times before. Dorian from DAI. Frankenfurter from RHPS. in fact, I thought it was Tim Curry's voice at first), so I end up investing in rogue levels and him behind. I could drive a stake through his heart, I suppose, but it's unclear to me how that would affect Act 3. And since Act 3 is mostly at level cap, it's the story and the equipment (mostly the story) that drives everything at that point. (As an aside, isn't it strange that you can't multiclass in Explorer, but you can switch to Balanced, level up, multi-class, and then switch right back to Explorer if you want?) When there are only four people in a party, and you can't stand one of them, it's a lot more impactful than if you had four other companions you did like, rather than two.
5) Halsin's a dirty, dirty boy. Don't make me leave him behind.
"Often forcing his victims to eat their own lips, he was caught and imprisoned for tax evasion." -Yellowbeard.
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: May 2023
|
I am trying to get to Moonrise towers with a three-strong party.
Last edited by Buba68; 16/11/23 08:22 AM.
|
|
|
|
|