Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
It continues to amaze me how self-centered so many people can be. An option for increasing party size is exactly that: an option. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. All the talk of "challenge" is nonsense. Not everyone sees challenge in the same things. Far from making the game more challenging, a smaller party size only serves to take away a HUGE amount of enjoyment from the game for me. Going from 6 to 4 literally means a 33% reduction of fun and enjoyment for me.

I have usually disagreed with the OP, but on this issue I agree 100%.


So, if there was 12 slots your fun would increase with 100%?


Anyways, if they could scale encounters I would like more slots. In fact, if they could scale encounters I could then play with anything from 1 to 6 characters.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
I also like having many more possibilities to custom my team and more micromanagement in combats.
A team with 4 characters is very limited, 6 is better for me.

Of course, combats have to be balanced...
If you can choose to play from 1 to 4, why couldn't be possible to play from 1 to 6 ?

I really never understood why "new" RPG (>< oldschool RPG) this past 10 years nearly always choose to have less and less characters in player's team.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 13/03/20 03:36 PM.
Joined: Mar 2013
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Mar 2013
i wonder if solo is possible in BG3. basically in DOS2... it actually more satisfying to play with "fewer" party characters. lone wolf actually give one member more action points and it boils down towards jack of all trades master of all smile. i'm speaking of DOS2.. basically each character can be self sufficient. while you have more AP with 4 party characters.. but each are limited to 4 (with exception to some skills you can bring it to 6).

DOS2 have mobility skils, disable, nuke, teleport and escape mech. i'm not sure how self-sufficient BG3 characters will be in though and what D&D5 can contribute to it. basically someone pointed out 4 characters, combat is more rewarding compared to 6. i would say the less even better.. just 1-2. referring to DOS2 by the way. since emm... BG3 is a successor to DOS2 mechanics. right? wink

now the big bummer actually level 10 cap. for over 100 hour game? as i see it.. if those skills or abilities has the mechanics like in DOS2 i think the level isn't that important i guess.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Tuco Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
I don't want to derail the thread too much, but frankly I'm not even sure the 10 levels cap has to be considered set in stone.
By the time they are done adding content it's entirely possible they could have it raised to something like 12 (and yes, it would make a meaningful difference).

As a quick reminder BG1 capped at level 7. Then again I was honestly hoping for Larian to give us a far BIGGER game than the first BG with this one.

Last edited by Tuco; 13/03/20 05:25 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
I don't want to derail the thread too much, but frankly I'm not even sure the 10 levels cap has to be considered set in stone.
By the time they are done adding content it's entirely possible they could have it raised to something like 12 (and yes, it would make a meaningful difference).

As a quick reminder BG1 capped at level 7. Then again I was honestly hoping for Larian to give us a far BIGGER game than the first BG with this one.


And I don't want to derail this either, but I am interested in what makes a game "bigger". Or rather what each of us feels makes it bigger.

For a long time there was a focus on map size, which apparently was the cornerstone of how big a game was.
I personally feel this have gone out the window since Witcher 3 or so.

To some people it is amount of time it takes to complete a game. But you can add a huge amount if tediousness to a game to just stretch it out.
So I don't feel this really cover it either.

Is levels a factor?
Amount of items?
Quests/Missions?
Story?
Mini-games?
Multiplayer options?
PvP options?

What do you feel makes a game "bigger"?

Joined: Jan 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2020
The only justification Larian gave for 4 party size that makes sense was to prevent TB combat dragging on too much. As I dislike combat I can relate to that.

On the other hand, more characters may allow more non-combat skill and resolution options to the game, which might be a plus point.

Like every other aspect of the game, more player choice is desirable, but everything comes with a development cost. Maybe this is another option better suited to a mod.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Tuco Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by etonbears
The only justification Larian gave for 4 party size that makes sense was to prevent TB combat dragging on too much.

But as already pointed there have been plenty of other games that did six (or MORE) party members just fine.

Even specifically in the turn-based subgenre.
XCOM is broadly considered one of the most "fast paced" turn based tactical around and it goes with a six men squad.

Frankly, if the combat may turn into a "slog" is more up to the encounter design and how they'll manage and animate units, rather than a matter of having four party members.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by kanisatha

I have usually disagreed with the OP, but on this issue I agree 100%.

You... did?
About what? Because I can't really remember interacting with you and it's not like I talked about too many topics on this forum, to begin with.
Unless you are a big fan of randomized loot. In that case you are as good as DEAD to me.

Not in the sense of direct confrontation. smile Just that you're fan of BG3 as it currently stands (and also TB?) and I'm not.

Also, I hate randomized loot too. In fact for me there is such a thing as too much loot. I want magic items and other special items to be, well, special! And rare!

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Cirolle
Originally Posted by kanisatha
It continues to amaze me how self-centered so many people can be. An option for increasing party size is exactly that: an option. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. All the talk of "challenge" is nonsense. Not everyone sees challenge in the same things. Far from making the game more challenging, a smaller party size only serves to take away a HUGE amount of enjoyment from the game for me. Going from 6 to 4 literally means a 33% reduction of fun and enjoyment for me.

I have usually disagreed with the OP, but on this issue I agree 100%.


So, if there was 12 slots your fun would increase with 100%?


That's completely specious. The number 6 is being used by people, myself included, as a default number because that's what it was with both original games. It is perfectly reasonable to consider party size of 6 as a default size for a BG game.

Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
TL;DR: The possibility that Larian will increase the party size to six is next to zero, because the game is turn-based.

  • "Baldur's Gate 3" is a turn-based game, which means combat is slooooooooow. If the party size were increased, then encounters would need to be balanced out as well. I know some of you love slow and unrealistic combat, that emulates tabletop D&D instead of simulating real time combat as D&D itself actually does, but I think that temporally and drastically overemphasized combat encounters would be too much for even the most dedicated turn-based purist to swallow.
  • Larian obviously wants to release this game on console as well. Turn-based combat takes forever on a PC and would take even longer on a console. A larger party size would make Larian's turn-based CRPGs even more unpopular on console than they already are.
  • Gamers would have to spend even more time sorting their inventory, equipping their party, etc. Adding that onto the severe temporal increase of combat encounters would be like adding insult to injury.
  • Probably most importantly, "Baldur's Gate 3" is a D:OS 2 clone. Larian wants to play it safe while reskinning D:OS 2 and will change nearly next to nothing (other than rule set and setting, of course).

I know Baldur's Gate fans wanted a proper sequel and consequently also a party size of six, but sorry, you're not getting it.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by etonbears
The only justification Larian gave for 4 party size that makes sense was to prevent TB combat dragging on too much.


This does seem to be the only reason they have given, which I really don't agree with. When playing SP, you're controlling all of your characters, so there is no real down time except when waiting for AI to move (which do so rather quickly). For MP, more players could become an issue, but with the proposed inclusion of simultaneous turns (if I understand it correctly), a 6 person MP session will likely be even faster than a current 4 person MP session in DOS2. If the pacing is still too slow, a choice of less than 6 party members is still an option (which comes with increased difficulty, but that isn't necessarily bad either).

A consideration against a six person party is the possibility of needing to enlarge the environment to accommodate all the extra bodies, since it is possible that it can get a bit cluttered (but I have my doubts about this too). XP shouldn't be a problem right, since the total XP value of the mobs is divided among the party? If not (i.e. each character gets a set amount of XP for each mob killed), that would require some balancing to avoid leveling too rapidly.

Joined: Mar 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Archaven
the idea is to make the game simple and fun and ultimately appeal to casuals?

Originally Posted by Magister0
fuck casuals and fuck tablets

Let's move on from this particular rationale. Nothing good ever comes of blaming Teh Casuals, it always generates more heat than light.


i don't hate casuals, i just don't want all games and game design to cater to them. even more so in this case, keep rpgs deep and interesting.

Last edited by vometia; 14/03/20 02:37 AM. Reason: formatting
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Tuco Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
I'm afraid in the end being easier to map four characters on a controller is precisely why Larian may turn out to be so adamant about it.

About "turn based being slooow", I'll dismiss it as a bogus argument without any actual merit, because... Well, it doesn't have any.
As already pointed, the pacing of the combat depends on dozens of other variables far more than having six or four slots (i.e. how "snappy" and quick animations are, how long it takes for the AI to act, are the fights filled with hordes of trash mobs? Are mechanics like "swarms of weak enemies move concurrently" even in place? Can animations being skipped entirely if someone chooses to? etc, etc).

Also, If I have to be perfectly honest I'm not sure why in a thread about "let's make a good argument for" so many people are feeling this urge to tell everyone not why they don't like it, but "why Larian wouldn't do it".
It's not your job to worry about what Larian would or wouldn't do. Only to come up with arguments for or against it from your perspective.

For the record if this thread exists at all is precisely because both Swen on twitter some time ago and another Larian guy yesterday on reddit said explicitly that while this is what they are going for now, a 4-men party is NOT set in stone yet.

P.S. Gotta love the whole "You would hate a turn based system with six men" some people are attempting, by the way. No, I fucking wouldn't?
I said that I'm playing Pathfinder with the turn-based mod and loving [almost] every minute of it... And that's not even a game with encounters DESIGNED for the turn-based mode.

Last edited by Tuco; 13/03/20 07:43 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Tuco
For the record if this thread exists at all is precisely because both Swen on twitter some time ago and another Larian guy yesterday on reddit said explicitly that while this is what they are going for now, a 4-men party is NOT set in stone yet.

I admire your optimism.

Anyway, the combat system wasn't set in stone either, until we read the interview with Swen, where he admitted that they wanted to make a turn-based game since day one (but obviously just kept it a secret in an attempt to not upset the "stupid Baldur's Gate fans". stupid).

This is obviously already set in stone and it won't change, because 1.) "Baldur's Gate 3" is a D:OS clone and 2.) combat would drag on way too long, as turn-based combat is slower than your grandma. In Baldur's Gate you can mow down a swarm of Gibberlings in seconds, in a hypothetical turn-based mode it would probably take a few minutes - and you could even make a nice sandwich in the kitchen while waiting for the Gibberlings to finally end their turn.

Like I wrote, I admire your optimism, but you'd probably be better off just accepting that "BG3" will not have a party size of six.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Tuco
Gotta love the whole "You would hate a turn based system with six men" some people are attempting, by the way. No, I fucking wouldn't?
I said that I'm playing Pathfinder with the turn-based mod and loving [almost] every minute of it... And that's not even a game with encounters DESIGNED for the turn-based mode.

This right here says it all. And too from a TB fan and not someone like me who's a RTwP fan.

I would add the argument that parties of four can be ok in games that have a classless system, like the D:OS games and also the Dragon Age games. But in a system that not only has classes but where classes are a core feature of the game and include additional levels of detail such as subclasses and multiclassing, a party of four is extremely limiting. Most people will just end up using the same small subset of basic classes to make up their party of four, and never get to use any of the other more esoteric classes available in the game because there's no available spot in the party for them. This same issue also goes for companions. The more quirky and unusual companions will get no playtime because including them may make your party effectively a three-person party.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Tuco Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by dlux
Originally Posted by Tuco
For the record if this thread exists at all is precisely because both Swen on twitter some time ago and another Larian guy yesterday on reddit said explicitly that while this is what they are going for now, a 4-men party is NOT set in stone yet.

I admire your optimism.

I'm not optimist at all. I just think it's worth trying to argue for it because it would make the game better.
And because "Let's make an argument against it because the devs are PROBABLY against it anyway" is an incredibly dumb way to approach it, regardless.
I argue what's favorable to me, not to align my opinion with/against what Larian does as a ideological stance.

Realistically? I fully expect this to end like with the armor system, the botched progression system and the terrible itemization in DOS 2: with Swen sticking to his guns no matter what,, falling short of the design goal, making the game slightly worse for it, and MAYBE being willing to admit it was a mistake only one or two years later.

Last edited by Tuco; 13/03/20 08:03 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Jun 2019
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2019
I think they should balance the game with a 4 person party and offer a 5 person party with an automatic difficulty increase (something along the lines of Tactical in DOS2.)

And if the 5th slot doesn't validate some of their other concerns of going over 4, then they should consider a 6th slot for BG4.

Joined: Jan 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by etonbears
The only justification Larian gave for 4 party size that makes sense was to prevent TB combat dragging on too much.

But as already pointed there have been plenty of other games that did six (or MORE) party members just fine.

Even specifically in the turn-based subgenre.
XCOM is broadly considered one of the most "fast paced" turn based tactical around and it goes with a six men squad.

Frankly, if the combat may turn into a "slog" is more up to the encounter design and how they'll manage and animate units, rather than a matter of having four party members.


No doubt they could make the change if they want; and I'm more for a flexible system that has no actual limit or suggested party size - whatever feels comfortable to the player is best. But that comes at a cost.

I get the idea from their communication so far that DA:O may be their inspiration for party/camp behaviour, so maybe that is where the 4 limit comes from. In all honesty, I'm not sure it's possible to judge a preferred party size without actually playing EA for a while, but a wider choice is always preferable.

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
4 is perfect for a D&D party. One fighter class, one healer/buffer, one offensive caster and one utility character. And with multiclassing you can mix and match to really make the 4 suit your playstyle. In this case more does not equal better.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Tuco Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
4 is perfect for a D&D party. One fighter class, one healer/buffer, one offensive caster and one utility character. And with multiclassing you can mix and match to really make the 4 suit your playstyle. In this case more does not equal better.

I mean, you just repeated the same exact argument that people used to point why fours ISN'T perfect at all (in a videogame. Pen & Paper is another story): because once you have just four slots you are basically asked to either miss out a lot or to stick with these very standard roles, with "no room for maneuver"


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5