Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 23 of 70 1 2 21 22 23 24 25 69 70
Joined: Oct 2020
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm content with 4 companions, someone at Reddit summed it up nicely but judging by responses, this forum is filled with die hard fans of 6 members and no matter arguments everyone against them will hit a wall laugh so why bother. 4 that's the number and I hope it stays that way



Last edited by pincup; 14/10/20 03:50 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by zsuszi
If we got more companion later 4 is extremly few and lacking, especially if u make your own hero (and why the hell not) . Plus yes I not really bothered the updated DOS engine + combat, and to be honest I think its really fitting for BG3 and close to the tabletop type gameplay BUT with bigger party size would be mor BG for me too.


When they announce that Larian was making BG3 I just assumed that it would be a six player party since it was BG3 and not DOS3, been an old school player and growing up with the original BG games I was really against it been turn based instead of RTwP but have since come round to the idea and am willing to give it a fair chance, but for this to feel like BG over DOS you are absolutely right that 6 party members will go a long way.
Originally Posted by PumatsHole
-1

Adding a dissenting voice here. You do not "need" a mage / cleric / any one role in a game based on the 5e system. The difference between a party of 4 and party of 5 is massive and will trivialize most encounters in a way that cannot be fixed by simply adding more HP. A party of 6 in this game would be preposterous.

You can heal by eating food (let alone by resting essentially at any time for free), and the game is much more combat focused than a traditional session of D&D where skills and utility spells are not nearly as significant. There is much less need here for a balanced party that covers all possible bases than there is in D&D 5e, which is already very forgiving in terms of party composition needs.

Originally Posted by tieboyx
The tabletop recommends a party size of 4, and in the turn based system, trash encounters would become a slog if they were balanced for 6 players, since they would have to add more mobs in each encounter to compensate.


Are you absolutely against a six man party under all circumstances? I agree maybe four would be a good base the game to be built on but do you disagree with even just the option to increase the party size for those that want it?

And I don't think bringing up D&D in its TTRPG form is a good argument, their you have a flesh and blood DM that can tweak every aspect of the game on the fly to accommodate the party and even fudge his own dice roles behind the screen to make things easier or harder as needed, where as every encounter in a computer game will be pretty much set in stone where suboptimal party builds will either not be viable or require immense amounts of grinding to overcome the challenges, where the DM around the table can naturally and seemlessly taylor the difficulty to said suboptimal party build.
Originally Posted by YelloB
+1

I understand there are arguments for a 4 man party max, having to do with encounter length and people apparently having trouble keeping up with managing 6 characters and their abilities. At least some such arguments were being made when Pillars of Eternity wanted to cut down the party from 1 to 2. Also there is and argument for wanting to limit the tools a party has at their disposal to encourage creative solutions to problems and Larian seem to like that kind of thing. But the truth is this will lead to pretty much every party being the same utility based one with 1 healer 1 rogue and the other 2 switching depending on the PC class.

6 characters wont take away the utility party problem entirely. Even with Baldur's Gate 1&2 There is always high pressure to have at least the healer and rogue. But atleast 6 party members leaves some slack there to play with.

Now BG3 is obviously turn based which makes the encounter length problem more prominent than in the real time with pause titles. But I would rather leave this up to the player and perhaps inform the player that with a bigger party combats will likely take longer.

I disagree with the OP about just plonking in the option for 6 party members without any balance considerations. I'd actually prefer a tweakable difficulty with the option for the player to increase the amount of enemies in combat situations. Give the player some of the DM's balancing power so to speak. I recently played BG1 again and I was kinda sad that I could not simply increase enemy amounts and would have been forced to also give them more health. I wanted core rules but with a bit more enemies.

Ofcourse this also puts a bit more pressure for having more companions. BG1 had tons, and I'm still not sure I've ever met them all. BG1 companions were also super simple with just a few combat barks and no dialogue. So it is going to require way more resources from Larian to add a full fledged companion. Pros and cons.



Originally Posted by Zress
The thing with 4 characters is that you are kinda forced to take specific members. In my playthrough I feel forced to take Shadowheart, Astarion and Lae'zel because they add something I need like a frontliner and healer and a rogue that can lockpick and find traps. But I would really rather hang around with Wyll and Gale which are much more nice and friendly and interesting to me. But in a way I feel I can't because then combat and exploration will be really really hard.


Please don't mistake my OP, I would dearly love for a six player party game to be properly balanced, but I think that if the difficulty settings are varied and good enough Larian wont have to do to much them selves to balance it as it will be achievable in the difficulty settings, if you can increase enemy group sizes or have it so stronger or evolved forms or better classes of the same enemies appear there will be a lot we can do with game rules to balance a party of six our selves.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by pincup
I'm content with 4 companions, someone at Reddit summed it up nicely, though judging by responses there is lots of die hard fans of 6 members and no matter arguments everyone against them will hit a wall smile so why bother. 4 that's the number

Well, a GOOD argument for four would go a long way.
Too bad there can't be anything else than half-hearted bullshit arguments for it, because we aren't talking about guessing randomly and taking a stab in the dark, here.

People who want a six-men party already played games that had them, have solid reasons to think it's better than the alternative and have tested their expectations in reality over and over across the years.


So when the "modern game designer" who watched five episodes of Gamemaker's Toolkit on youtube comes in, winks at you and tell you knowingly "Trust me, you don't really want a party of six, that would mess up TEH PERFECT BALANCE" he can't really expect anything more than being welcomed with loud burps.

Last edited by Tuco; 14/10/20 03:51 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by pincup
I'm content with 4 companions, someone at Reddit summed it up nicely, though judging by responses there is lots of die hard fans of 6 members and no matter arguments everyone against them will hit a wall smile so why bother. 4 that's the number.


That's fun, I think the exact same about those saying that 4 is the number and that explain it with totally invalid arguments...

The only valuable argument I read for a strict limitation to 4 characters comes from players that really like limitations. They see it as a challenge because they have to choose "more wisely". Why not, I can hear that...

But everything else (probably 80%+) comes from totally invalid and thoughtless argument.
(More variety with 4, slower combats, everything has to be balance again... If only it was atm...)

Last edited by Maximuuus; 14/10/20 04:02 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by pincup
I'm content with 4 companions, someone at Reddit summed it up nicely, though judging by responses there is lots of die hard fans of 6 members and no matter arguments everyone against them will hit a wall smile so why bother. 4 that's the number



So when the "modern game designer" who watched five episodes of Gamemaker's Toolkit on youtube comes in, winks at you and tell you knowingly "Trust me, you don't really want a party of six, that would mess up TEH PERFECT BALANCE" he can't really expect anything more than being welcomed with loud burps.


Story balance / interaction.
It’s why I initially said 4 core plus extras up to 6. If you have a party of custom characters, less issue (and a whole other subject), but 6 origin characters all interacting the way I believe they are intended to, that potentially creates a workload headache Larian would prefer not to touch.

Again, you could limit it and say max 4 origin characters, though I hope for more work on customs so that they too have more interaction, or 2 mercs or whatever, but that’s the reason for 4 as I see it.

Larian know how to get 4 to work from experience, anything likely creates a timeline issue.

Just thinking out loud, I obviously don’t know either way, just trying to answer your question!

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Well playing Devil's advocate here but the only decent arguments to be made for only 4 imo:

- Less micromanagement.

- More replayability.

The first is solved by listening to the feedback the players are already giving to inventory and movement.
The second, well, there will be custom characters and it is a Role Playing Game after all.


Necromancy is just recycling...
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sir Sparhawk

Larian has already confirmed that the level cap is 10

already confirmed it is not 10

Last edited by arion; 14/10/20 04:05 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Oct 2020
I just love these arguments-4 person party was good enough in DOS, why change? Well maybe ask Larian to make another DOS game and leave Baldurs Gate to us ?

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Just reading through the suggestions pages for DOS 1 & 2. Interestingly, I'm struggling to find any requests there at all for increasing the party size. Almost as if it's not critical to the game's enjoyment level in this engine.

Joined: Oct 2020
F
stranger
Offline
stranger
F
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Roarro
I just love these arguments-4 person party was good enough in DOS, why change? Well maybe ask Larian to make another DOS game and leave Baldurs Gate to us ?


Originally Posted by jonn
Just reading through the suggestions pages for DOS 1 & 2. Interestingly, I'm struggling to find any requests there at all for increasing the party size. Almost as if it's not critical to the game's enjoyment level in this engine.


My 2 cents : it's not the same game, and not the same system.
In DOS and DOS2, classes are "fluid" : you can chose your skills the way you want.

Here, you have monolithic role for your companions, and monolithic needs (a frontliner, a rogue for traps and locks, a healer and a spellcaster, at the very least).
It's the reason why I feel, and I'm not alone, that a party of 4 is a little bit too restrictive here. With a party of 5, you have extra room in order to improvise and test some synergies.
A class like warlock (not really a frontliner, or a rogue, or a healer, and a limited spellcaster) can easily be included in a party of 5 ; it's harder to include a warlock in a party of 4.

Maybe this need will disappear with the possibility to multiclass?





Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
It's clear to me what's missing in these discussions is that four takes away from those who like six, but six does NOT take anything away from those who like four. They can still play their game with four (or less). As for game "balance," you just balance the game for whatever number you decide as the developer, and then have a warning with the toggle to increase party size that says: hey, doing this may make your combat unchallenging. Including choices so different players can play and enjoy their game as they want is NEVER a bad thing. Not ever.

Joined: Oct 2020
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by pincup
I'm content with 4 companions, someone at Reddit summed it up nicely, though judging by responses there is lots of die hard fans of 6 members and no matter arguments everyone against them will hit a wall smile so why bother. 4 that's the number

Well, a GOOD argument for four would go a long way.
Too bad there can't be anything else than half-hearted bullshit arguments for it, because we aren't talking about guessing randomly and taking a stab in the dark, here.

People who want a six-men party already played games that had them, have solid reasons to think it's better than the alternative and have tested their expectations in reality over and over across the years.


So when the "modern game designer" who watched five episodes of Gamemaker's Toolkit on youtube comes in, winks at you and tell you knowingly "Trust me, you don't really want a party of six, that would mess up TEH PERFECT BALANCE" he can't really expect anything more than being welcomed with loud burps.


I doubt that. I'm pretty sure some good arguments were already posted and similar to Reddit, those arguments were downvoted to oblivion smile . Personally, ,if 4 provides deep companion relationship, be it cutscenes with companions breaking in, rich dialogue options, etc. but 6 would not, then the choice is simple for me - 4.

And why 6 would not? running business revolves around money but everyone seems to forget about that, maybe you are just too young laugh
but again, 4 is just perfect for deep companion relationship

Last edited by pincup; 14/10/20 04:38 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Flashistatouille
Originally Posted by jonn
Just reading through the suggestions pages for DOS 1 & 2. Interestingly, I'm struggling to find any requests there at all for increasing the party size. Almost as if it's not critical to the game's enjoyment level in this engine.


My 2 cents : it's not the same game, and not the same system.
In DOS and DOS2, classes are "fluid" : you can chose your skills the way you want.


Also... D:OS2 had less companions. We don't know how many it's going to be in the final game, but it's at the very least 7. Not a huge difference at this minimum, but BG3 is supposed to have more companion interactions, so the combinations of companions will matter much more, and a bigger party size is going to enable us to see more of those. In terms of replayability... there's no need to artificially inflate it, the game is going to have insane replayability anyway.

Joined: Oct 2020
K
stranger
Offline
stranger
K
Joined: Oct 2020
I would completely agree with a 6-party member, or 5 party members.

IMHO it lets you to "bond" more with all companions it lets you more versatility (e.g a bard is generally a good 5th member of a party but almost never a pick for the 1-4 slot).


Joined: Oct 2020
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Oct 2020
you lot are just like children who were denied cookies and don't understand that everything revolves around MONEY smile

Last edited by pincup; 14/10/20 04:41 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by pincup


I doubt that. I'm pretty sure some good arguments were already posted and similar to Reddit, those arguments were downvoted to oblivion smile .

Reddit is reddit, but maybe they weren't so good to begin with.

Quote
Personally, ,if 4 provides deep companion relationship, be it cutscenes with companions breaking in, rich dialogue options, etc. but 6 would not, then the choice is simple for me - 4.

You are basically saying "If 4 was done well and 6 was garbage I would prefer 4".
Well, no shit.

Originally Posted by jonn
Just reading through the suggestions pages for DOS 1 & 2. Interestingly, I'm struggling to find any requests there at all for increasing the party size. Almost as if it's not critical to the game's enjoyment level in this engine.

It's almost like they were entirely different games based on different rules and skill systems.
I wasn't a fan of 4 in DOS 1 and 2 either, but they are VERY different mechanically.

Originally Posted by pincup


And why 6 would not? running business revolves around money but everyone seems to forget about that, maybe you are just too young laugh
but again, 4 is just perfect for deep companion relationship


I'm 42, I've been into this genre since I was 12 or so starting with series like the old Ultima games and I'm also starting to get the impression you are running your mouth for the sake of it at this point.
"Money" is not an argument for anything here. You are just trying to sound smug without any real understanding of what you are talking about.


Last edited by Tuco; 14/10/20 04:46 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Oct 2020
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco


I'm 42, I've been into this genre since I was 12 or so starting with series like the old Ultima games and I'm also starting to get the impression you are running your mouth for the sake of it at this point.
"Money" is not an argument for anything here. You are just trying to sound smug without any real understanding of what you are talking about.



I'm sorry but i'm not the emotional one in here and if you think that money is not a good argument then there is nothing else that I have to add smile on top of what I already wrote and you only proved my point


Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by pincup

I'm sorry but i'm not the emotional one in here and if you think that money is not a good argument then there is nothing else that I have to add smile on top of what I already wrote and you only proved my point


Let me reword my objection: "money" would be a compelling argument if you were making a meaningful point about it, stressing how one solution clearly leads to way more money than the other.

You weren't.
You made a clumsy attempt to sound insightful while spouting some random nonsense about "kids who don't understand money" while acting like a smug fool.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
+1


Not all who wander are lost, but all who are lost tend to wander
Joined: Oct 2020
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Oct 2020

if I remember correctly even the old bgs were a maximum of 4, but I could be wrong. Honestly with a group of 4 there is a lot more strategy and I personally like it. Six would be too much, they should increase the difficulty of the mobs and should increase the mobs to face.

Page 23 of 70 1 2 21 22 23 24 25 69 70

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