Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 26 of 101 1 2 24 25 26 27 28 100 101
Joined: Oct 2020
L
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
L
Joined: Oct 2020
Honestly something Larian should consider is that for Do2 I loved it and supported them without hesitation.

But for this game.
The lack of 6 party members is the deal breaker for me, I probably won't buy the game tbh.

Also to the 4 player people and complainers, you played a 6 man party you guys said earlier and there was no issue, no long battles, it stills requires strategies, it's just as fun if not more. So I don't see any valid arguments besides the whole 4 player has been the norm so breaking thay 4 player norm code for video game is taboo. It's kind of ridiculous how that logic is holding back the 6 men option so much.

If you're an adamant hardcore 4 member party lover. Just play with 4.
People play solo too. No one complains besides those who only think and care about themselves. It's like saying since you're playing your game a certain way. We all have to do it too, because you're special, it's a ridiculous notion.

A lot of valid points has been made for 6 men. While 4 men arguments have all been quite childish and selfish imo.
If not lacking in information.
You guys bring up points that has been rebutted by others and Sven himself sometimes mate.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Tomoya

If you play 3+ multiplayer and recruit the brain and Lae'zel.

Yeah, I've read something of that sort by Shabby.

I'd be interested to see how the CURRENT default UI behave in that case.
Do you have any screens?

there
[Linked Image]

Last edited by arion; 16/10/20 06:59 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Ukraine
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Ukraine
In the end, what do we have?
Better if we are given the opportunity to take 6 characters in the party, it will be good; but if we decide to take 4 (with a maximum of 6), then we should not be infringed and inconvenience in any way
In Dragon Age has 4 characters at the same time


Join the Minthara Baenre fan club

"If a country, choosing between war and shame, chooses shame, it gets both war and shame." - Winston Churchill .
#CloseTheSky
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by OneManArmy

In Dragon Age has 4 characters at the same time

so?

DAO has only 3 classes

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by arion
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Tomoya

If you play 3+ multiplayer and recruit the brain and Lae'zel.

Yeah, I've read something of that sort by Shabby.

I'd be interested to see how the CURRENT default UI behave in that case.
Do you have any screens?

there
[Linked Image]





OK so take that exact screen shot...

Now move the 6 party Character Portraits to the right side of the screen, with a vertical orientation.

Take the game management tabs (the ones currently under the minimap where they are almost too tiny to read), enlarge these and put them on the left side of the screen, again with a vertical orientation.

Now your UI looks roughly like the UI from the first 2 Baldur's Gate games, and players who are familiar with those games will instantly feel more at home.

This opens up the entire length of the screen at the bottom. This could be used to basically double size of the actions bar, the hotbar, and the opportunity bar. You'd also have room then for a dedicated Spell Casting Bar. Right now the Action bar, and hotbar are only 2 rows deep. They could easily be 3 rows deep.

The chat bar, seems to be a low priority in a game where everything is basically voice acted, but in the original games it was at the center of the screen, which gave a kind of primacy to text information being as central to the game as the combat buttons.

This game's UI just isn't taking advantage of the fact that all our monitors are now 16:9. There is plenty of real estate on the screen now for a BG UI organization to still leave a huge field of view, while preserving cohesion with the predecessors. In case anyone forgot, screen used to look like this in 1998...

[Linked Image]

Why do we need to ditch that general organization for the UI so completely?

You could preserve all the same basic functionality we have right now, just try to present it in a way that looks a little bit more like what remember from BG. More fidelity to the other Baldur's Gate games for the UI organization would really have an impact I think, and help to differentiate BG3 from your other DOS titles.



Last edited by Black_Elk; 16/10/20 08:36 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
That topic not about UI but original BG Ui is bad and outdated, I do not miss it at all.

Originally Posted by Black_Elk
and players who are familiar with those games will instantly feel more at home.

they feel more home when they will receive 2d game on infinity engine with the RTwP combat, based on 2e so on...there is no reason to try to please them, they will still be unhappy


Last edited by arion; 16/10/20 08:28 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sir Sparhawk
Good evening to all the staff currently working hard at Larian Studios.

I would like to take a few minutes of your time to talk about the current party size in game, my problems with it and also a possible solution for the future.

Note: this section got away from me and was far longer than expected. It is no essential and only helps to know my gaming history and mindset but can otherwise be skipped if you so choose.
But first I would like to give you a quick insight into my history and mindset in the hopes that it will give you a clearer idea of how I am approaching BG3.
I am 34 (born July of 1986) and I had lots of fun playing the original Baldur's Gate and to lesser extent Icewind Dale games as a child, I later played and absolutely adored Dragon Age: Origins, although coming to it with the mindset of it been the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate I wish to this day that it had a six man party, to me that is it's only real flaw.
When I first heard that BG3 was going to be a reality I was fairly excited, and then upon hearing that it was going to be made by Larian I was apprehensive and then like many others when the first gameplay was shown I didn't like what I saw thinking it looked to much like Divinity: Original Sin, and was pretty much ready to write the game off as not for me as it was too different from what I was familiar with from the original BG games.
My experience with the D:OS games has been one of mostly confusion and I will be the first to admit that I have not given them a proper chance despite having pretty much every Divinity game in my Steam library. I put my bad experience down to not understanding the mechanics and systems of the games and never properly learning them. However since the announcement of BG3 I have gotten into the Fire Emblem games so now I'm more amenable to the idea of BG3 being a turn based game and the more I think about it lately the more I think it might actually be a good thing (in BG & BG2I remember leaving my mages in the back not contributing in most fights to conserve their spell slots, something that doesn't seem to be an issue in your game). And keeping up with the progression and development and have been slowly coming around to your vision of the game, I have bought the game and created a character but that is as far as I have gotten so far so I can come and write this. Character creation was much more straight forward and easier dew to me been familiar with the systems and mechanics of previous D&D titles and I'm looking forward to getting to grips with the game going forward.
I hope that this has helped some of you understand me a little better.


Now for the reason for this post: I would like to advocate for an option to have a six man party.
When forming a party of adventurers in games like this I like a well rounded and balanced party as I would imagine a great many players do as well. You need someone to tank and keep the enemies in place, you need a rouge or thief for picking locks and traps, and for obvious reasons a healer, leaving one slot available which I will most often fill with a spell caster and as such my party composition tends to look very much the same for every playthrough. Increasing the party limit to six not only brings it in line with the original games it also allows the player much more freedom, flexibility and creativity when creating a balanced party. It is my firm belief that a six man party is far superior over a four man party and gives much greater player agency.
And what may at first seem like a contradiction to you I am nod advocating for it to be the default way to play, I understand that you have a vision for the game and I will not argue that you are wrong in it because that is not something I believe in. A four man party or a six man party as a matter of preference and therefore is always the right way to go from each individuals perspective. I know there must be a great many people like me who much prefer a six man party and I would like to offer a suggestion on how you could possibly make both groups of players happy.
For early access and your balancing process keep working on it from the four man party perspective, make the game you have envisioned and focus all of your time up to full release on making it as good as you can, use the early access period to gather the data you need to make the game the way you envision it, make four man the default way to play.
and then when you are ready for full release have an option that can be turned on at the start of a campaign that allows for a six man party, don't spend your time around balancing this option, and when selecting this you can even have a warning that say's the game is not balanced around this size of party so it will probably be easier than intended and as such not compatible with achievements, all I'd like to request for this mode is that dialog sequences and cutscenes account for the increased party size. While mods will probably bring this option to us in the future it would be nice to have an officially supported option to do this implemented by the development staff so we would not have to worry about it not working properly or not playing well with cutscenes and dialog sequences, what I'm advocating for is you to give players the option of party size even if it's not properly balanced to allow for more choice and creativity when choosing who to bring along and so we can have a closer experience to the original games.

I would like to thank anyone who has taken the time to read my long somewhat rambling post and I would encourage anyone who has thoughts on my ideas and suggestions to add to a discussion of why you agree or disagree with me, I will be posting this on the Larian forums, Steam forums and GOG forums to try and get as much impute from as many players as possible to give Larian as much information on this subject as we can, then maybe if enough people want something like this or something similar Larian might consider its implantation when they have finished balancing the game for the full release. Your time is valuable and I thank you all for sharing a little of it with me today.

Ive seen this thread for a while now and see it reached 16 pages 0o Figured id add my opinion on this as well.

I agree with the OP. Moslty not bothered by the 4 man party limit BUT adding it as an option would imo be a great move. People can still take 6 man parties if they want. More options for the player is never a bad thing.

Likewise I think its abit silly that people 'tag along' but can end up only sitting in the camp all game. Would make more sense if they did exactly what they said 'tag along'.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by arion
Originally Posted by Tuco


I'd be interested to see how the CURRENT default UI behave in that case.
Do you have any screens?

there
[Linked Image]


I meant more the internal panels (inventory, equipment and so on) rather than the basic UI, but still, thanks for the screen.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Tweaking the UI to accommodate for 6 characters is proably the least of the problems.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Peranor
Tweaking the UI to accommodate for 6 characters is proably the least of the problems.

Let's face it, there aren't really that many "problems" to begin with, in any scenario where Larian would actually want to give it a try.

Joined: Oct 2020
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Oct 2020
would very much like to have a party of 5 or 6. 4 is to anemic. Interactions between companions also should be less extreme particulalry at the start of the game when everyone obviously needs to work together.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by arion
That topic not about UI but original BG Ui is bad and outdated, I do not miss it at all.

Originally Posted by Black_Elk
and players who are familiar with those games will instantly feel more at home.

they feel more home when they will receive 2d game on infinity engine with the RTwP combat, based on 2e so on...there is no reason to try to please them, they will still be unhappy



Fair enough, though I find that attitude kinda demoralizing lol. It presents returning fans as hopeless curmudgeons who could never be satisfied so why bother, when clearly the functionality already exists and it probably isn't all that hard to implement a party of 6 into the design. I know it's likely meant hyperbolically but still, sort of a burn to lock the 6'ers out of the clubhouse hehe. I get it, but this isn't like an MMO where you need the whole player base to be on the same page for everything in order for it to work. This one has always been SP/Co-Op by design, so if we can make more people happy by providing more options that cater to their wishes what's the real harm? Like why leave that loot on the table when we're still in EA?

There are certain touchstones like the 6-man party that could be used to shore up support and help the ease of use for your returning players, especially when the designers choose to depart from the older games more dramatically in other areas. I only mentioned UI organization because, like party size, it seemed like a similarly low hanging fruit. Why not allow for UI elements to be moved around, like many games do, so that players can change it to suit their tastes? Then we could have a "Modern" UI by default, or a "Classic" alternative that could be quickly toggled from a settings tab. Same deal with party size 1-6, why not let the player make that determination, with difficulty settings to match? I feel like its presented as a zero sum thing when it really needn't be.

I keep trying to imagine if it had gone the other direction, and they went with a party of 8 instead of 4 if I'd still be in here arguing for 6? I suspect not, since in my view a larger party provides way more interest across pretty much every dimension of gameplay (and combat not least) for a game with this playstyle where one player is meant to control the entire party (or half the party I guess in the case of Co-Op).

6 is just better in my view, but clearly I'm a partisan. I'd prefer my side to win the debate hehe

Just for a counter point I feel like maybe I'd get more traction arguing why they should cap the party at 3 rather than 4 members. Just to show the opposing logic in starker relief. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons that might make sense to do this from the average PnP/5e session perspective. The party of 3 has always been more common in PnP than 4, and certainly more common than 6.

But that doesn't really apply to Baldur's Gate, cause BG wasn't like an average session. BG was like one of those epic campaigns, the truly legendary ones, that are hella hard to organize and maintain, just because of how challenging it is to get 6 people and a DM all together in one place and keep it going for months and months on end. On the computer everyone got a chance to experience something sort of like that, with the broad archs and long sweeps, like one imagines went down in basements in the late 70s, when Satan still ruled! lol

It just always stings a bit worse when it feels like something is being taken away. We fixate on it more, and maybe more than we should relative to like when we get a bonus. But that's the way my brain works. Wanting something 'back' is just a different feeling, and I think it would register as a fairly massive win for my contingent of the playerbase if EA feedback resulted in a return to 6. Peeps would say 'hey, looks like they really are taking our feedback to heart!'

But I'll tap out now. I think I've posted more than a few times in this here thread. Batons need passing and I'm zorsted from sleep deprivation playing this game haha.

Best,
Elk


Last edited by Black_Elk; 16/10/20 09:54 PM.
Joined: May 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: May 2020
I really hope the party size increases to 6. It's a Baldur's Gate game after all, and 4 is just a very tiny party. Especially since I like to experience all the companion's stories.

And now I'm seeing some insanity about locking the party after the first act? That's so crazy it almost sounds made-up. If they really are locking the party, then only a party of 4 is very sad, and makes playing an Origin almost mandatory to get a full story experience out of the game since custom PCs have no content.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Traycor
and makes playing an Origin almost mandatory to get a full story experience out of the game since custom PCs have no content.

People keep saying this but I honestly don't care that much about playing these origin stories.
HAving these characters in party and witnessing their questline? Great. Playing in their role? I don't care. I'd gladly give up on having all these "Origins" playable if it just meant having A LOT more companions.

Joined: May 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: May 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Traycor
and makes playing an Origin almost mandatory to get a full story experience out of the game since custom PCs have no content.

People keep saying this but I honestly don't care that much about playing these origin stories.
HAving these characters in party and witnessing their questline? Great. Playing in their role? I don't care. I'd gladly give up on having all these "Origins" playable if it just meant having A LOT more companions.

A party size of 4 means only 3 characters that have stories unless you play an Origin, then you get 4 characters with a story. That's 25% more story content on a playthrough.

The whole line about custom PCs making their own story is just PR speak, because you also do that same thing if you play an Origin. I'll likely play a custom PC 100% of the time, so being restricted to only 3 companions is very punishing for a story based game.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Traycor

The whole line about custom PCs making their own story is just PR speak
I know exactly what to expect.
I don't give a shit. i played DOS 2 both with custom characters and premade origins.
I never found it a big deal. A couple of sidequests are the main difference between the two, and you could get plenty of "customized reactions" based on your background tags etc.

People who claim the experience was massively different sound delusional to me.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Traycor
restricted to only 3 companions is very punishing for a story based game.


Someone needs to play Disco Elysium. The story was great and you only had 2 characters to play with. Trying to argue the benefits of a harem over monogamy is just silly. Just because a story isn't a six way gangbang doesn't mean it's less of a story.

Can we also drop the "just play with less characters" argument while we're at it? You're literally saying, "that's just your opinion man". You've given up the argument at that point - if you're going you're own way then you're throwing yourself off of the ship. You're not steering it.

-

I mean, with the fact that DOS had slower gameplay because you had a fatter "action economy wallet", I get what 6-party stans are on about. The pace of play with 4 characters is weirdly quick. D&D5 is designed to get turns done quickly.

That's why bonus actions have been abused by the designers - to give characters something to do on their turn.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
CMF Offline
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Oct 2020
A lot of the replies here are based on shorter/longer combat, convivence to the player, or being more aligned or not with table top gaming.

I am under the impression that the developers created a 4 man limitation to force choice on the players and make us have to decide what we are willing to lose.

Otherwise if the party size expands, we have TOO many tools available to us. If I have a character to excel at every skill available, I can just swap in and out to ensure highest chance of success at every social or combat encounter.

Choices like this are to encourage weakness and force limitations on players so that a challenge is presented and deliberate choices are made. It feels bad to have to give things up, but it is also good game design.

If a DM/GM gives everything to the players, there is no challenge and no sense of struggle to overcome which in turn becomes a sense of accomplishment.

Basically, if you let players be gods and perfect, the game is boring after a while. Limits create opportunity for variations and new experiences as you try new things for future playthroughs. Otherwise, why provide the illusion of choice if you let the players get everything, just get rid of dialog options and skill checks and make the game linear (I am sure you all don't want that).

Last edited by CMF; 17/10/20 01:01 AM.
Joined: May 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: May 2020
Originally Posted by CMF
A lot of the replies here are based on shorter/longer combat, convivence to the player, or being more aligned or not with table top gaming.

I am under the impression that the developers created a 4 man limitation to force choice on the players and make us have to decide what we are willing to lose.

Otherwise if the party size expands, we have TOO many tools available to us. If I have a character to excel at every skill available, I can just swap in and out to ensure highest chance of success at every social or combat encounter.

Choices like this are to encourage weakness and force limitations on players so that a challenge is presented and deliberate choices are made. It feels bad to have to give things up, but it is also good game design.

If a DM/GM gives everything to the players, there is no challenge and no sense of struggle to overcome which in turn becomes a sense of accomplishment.

Basically, if you let players be gods and perfect, the game is boring after a while. Limits create opportunity for variations and new experiences as you try new things for future playthroughs. Otherwise, why provide the illusion of choice if you let the players get everything, just get rid of dialog options and skill checks and make the game linear (I am sure you all don't want that).

I think party size was determined based off the old initiative system. If your whole team went at once and you had 6 players, you could destroy the opposition before they ever attacked. Now that each combatant rolls initiative, a part size of 6 should be fine.
Your other points are refuted by BG1 & 2. Those were great games.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
CMF Offline
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Traycor
Originally Posted by CMF
A lot of the replies here are based on shorter/longer combat, convivence to the player, or being more aligned or not with table top gaming.

I am under the impression that the developers created a 4 man limitation to force choice on the players and make us have to decide what we are willing to lose.

Otherwise if the party size expands, we have TOO many tools available to us. If I have a character to excel at every skill available, I can just swap in and out to ensure highest chance of success at every social or combat encounter.

Choices like this are to encourage weakness and force limitations on players so that a challenge is presented and deliberate choices are made. It feels bad to have to give things up, but it is also good game design.

If a DM/GM gives everything to the players, there is no challenge and no sense of struggle to overcome which in turn becomes a sense of accomplishment.

Basically, if you let players be gods and perfect, the game is boring after a while. Limits create opportunity for variations and new experiences as you try new things for future playthroughs. Otherwise, why provide the illusion of choice if you let the players get everything, just get rid of dialog options and skill checks and make the game linear (I am sure you all don't want that).

I think party size was determined based off the old initiative system. If your whole team went at once and you had 6 players, you could destroy the opposition before they ever attacked. Now that each combatant rolls initiative, a part size of 6 should be fine.
Your other points are refuted by BG1 & 2. Those were great games.



I made my comments from assessing the previous title, divinity original 2. Same party intro, make friends and then split the party with your select few occurred there.

Additionally I don't believe the existence of previous games "refute" the points. It is a game development decision. Give players everything, or give players nothing.

Both systems have been used in many games. I know JRPG games are very fond of grinding it out and getting every level, every class, every character, every item. Those games are largely popular in both western and eastern gaming communities.

I didn't sufficiently advocate for the limited acquisition model, by putting too much opinion on it and I too put that above one or the other. What I tried to do was bring insight on to "why" a decision was possibly made to limit size, beyond just initiative system or other limitations.

It is fine to disagree that a small party or a large party is better. It becomes a point of intent. Do they want to limit resources, or do they want to expand them?
To us the players, are we fine with limited resources or do we think expansion of resources is better? Balancing and addressing those concerns is good stewardship of a developer.

Last edited by CMF; 17/10/20 03:15 AM.
Page 26 of 101 1 2 24 25 26 27 28 100 101

Moderated by  Nicou 

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