Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 24 of 95 1 2 22 23 24 25 26 94 95
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kondenado
a bard is generally a good 5th member of a party but almost never a pick for the 1-4 slot).


same as Monk, Ranger, Warlock

Joined: Oct 2020
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Oct 2020
In a perfect world, I don't have an issue with 6 player parties. They could have the game the game perfectly balanced for a lone wolf style playthrough, 4 players or 6 players.

In practice, that balance is hard.
In BG1, the XP cap was easily reached even with a 6 man party, so running with anything less was shooting yourself in the foot.
in BG2, as a party of 4 (not so much with 5), you would get HLAs much earlier and you would get much more. This made a 4 man party considerably more powerful
in DOS2, lone wolf is considered to be a lot more powerful than 4 man party.

There is also another knock on effect. If you allow 6 man parties there need to be more companions available. Would you rather have more companions which are more shallow or fewer companions with more backstory and quests? I suppose this is down to personal preference, but I would choose the latter. Replaying BG2, I hate how shallow most NPCs are. Minsc, while much beloved, does not even have a side quest. He only has a couple of funny lines in dialogue now and then.

You also need to consider that the devs don't have infinite time to work on the game. Would you rather have them spend that time balancing the game for different player counts? Or would you rather have them spend that time on more side quests or adding more replayability?

I also do not agree with all the reasons for introducing higher player counts:
  • Higher player counts is not a solution for the difficulty of combat - that needs to be tweaked by itself
  • Atomic party is not that needed anymore - anyone can do rogue skills, almost all classes have access to (utility) spells. The most needed role is probably a healer with how much dmg you take in combat, but in theory, short rests were added in 5e to reduce the need for healing


In the end, while I am not opposed to 6 player parties, but I don't think it adds much value either. I guess we will have to agree to disagree...




Joined: Oct 2020
H
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
H
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ghorunt
In a perfect world, I don't have an issue with 6 player parties. They could have the game the game perfectly balanced for a lone wolf style playthrough, 4 players or 6 players.

In practice, that balance is hard.
In BG1, the XP cap was easily reached even with a 6 man party, so running with anything less was shooting yourself in the foot.
in BG2, as a party of 4 (not so much with 5), you would get HLAs much earlier and you would get much more. This made a 4 man party considerably more powerful
in DOS2, lone wolf is considered to be a lot more powerful than 4 man party.

There is also another knock on effect. If you allow 6 man parties there need to be more companions available. Would you rather have more companions which are more shallow or fewer companions with more backstory and quests? I suppose this is down to personal preference, but I would choose the latter. Replaying BG2, I hate how shallow most NPCs are. Minsc, while much beloved, does not even have a side quest. He only has a couple of funny lines in dialogue now and then.

You also need to consider that the devs don't have infinite time to work on the game. Would you rather have them spend that time balancing the game for different player counts? Or would you rather have them spend that time on more side quests or adding more replayability?

I also do not agree with all the reasons for introducing higher player counts:
  • Higher player counts is not a solution for the difficulty of combat - that needs to be tweaked by itself
  • Atomic party is not that needed anymore - anyone can do rogue skills, almost all classes have access to (utility) spells. The most needed role is probably a healer with how much dmg you take in combat, but in theory, short rests were added in 5e to reduce the need for healing


In the end, while I am not opposed to 6 player parties, but I don't think it adds much value either. I guess we will have to agree to disagree...





Minsc is one of the most emblematic character ever in any RPG. He precisely show you that you don't need 10 sidequest to be unforgettable.You only need a few good lines and a hamster. I'd rather have 10 minsc that 2 boring character with sidequests.

Last edited by Hachina; 14/10/20 05:33 PM.

If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by AleXty

if I remember correctly even the old bgs were a maximum of 4

You don't.


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
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ultraulf
I personally really enjoy the party size, played through all of the early access and the difficulty seems just right.



I'm gald for you, you get to play your game how you like best, this thread isn't about taking that option away from you, it's about give people who like the six party member set up from the original BG games, How do you feel about the option to choose your party size be it 1, 4, 5 or 6 so everyone can play how they want?
Originally Posted by Tuco
Since I just mentioned it in my thread about party controls, I should probably give a quick reminder to anyone in favor of a six-members party:

don't overlook giving feedback on the issue of how the party is managed/moved around, because solving it is basically a pre-requirement to actually get the party expansion you want.
The chain/unchain system and its clumsy auto-follow work already poorly enough now. With six men in your party it would turn into an unmitigated disaster.



I'd be happy with selectable formations the same as in the old Infinity engine games, I think it worked really well in them and with a little tweaking could probably service this game quite nicely.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Yeah. six character party is the way to go. Or at least five if there needs to be some kind of compromise.
If people are afraid that six character setups would make the game too easy, then maybe party size could be tied to the difficulty setting before you start your adventure?

Last edited by Peranor; 14/10/20 07:23 PM.
Joined: Jun 2014
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by jonn

I'm only opposed to it until the devs come out and say that it is something they will be able to manage along with all the other improvements they want to make. Until then it is a possibility, no matter how much you shout, scoff and name-call, that this could use up resources that could be better used elsewhere. For me and many others the extra party size isn't that big of a deal.


I couldn't help but laugh at this. Literally earlier in this post I said this:
Originally Posted by RKane

Anyone who complains about 'balancing issues' when an idea is presented is a selfish moron. It's like the argument "It would take too much time to impliment" from people with no coding experience and surmounts to "I'm happy with it so why should I accomodate your idea".

You quite literally can't make any legitimate criticism other than the 2 most useless, unhelpful and innane responses.

1. Balance.
Unless it affects you, it shouldn't bother you.
It's perfectly reasonable to say "My only concern would be balance of 4 player games. I wouldn't play with 6" or something like that.
It's not okay to say "I oppose this idea and unless I get written proof from the devs that it won't detract from other things I wont change" is negative, argumentitive and arrogant. Like, who the hell do you think you are you spoiled brat?

2. Resources. Be it cost, time, or anything else.
Again, perfectly reasonable to say "I wouldn't use it therefore I'd rather the time was spent elsewhere"
But ultimately resources are not something for you to decide. It's the devs. And it relates to what I said about balance. They may or may not decide to do something based on how much work they have to get done. The devs will decide whether it's worth it based on that workload. They will decide whether something gets done based on resources, not you.

I'm not trying to pick a fight but these two responses are so commenly used to dismis valid feature requests / addons that would make others happy without affecting your gameplay. There is no reason for you to be opposed to the suggestion unless it affects your gameplay. Literally none. So stop picking a fight and talking crap about something you've already given your opinion on.

Last edited by RKane; 14/10/20 07:51 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Oregon, WA
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Oregon, WA
+1

I have to agree with the OP.

Having four in a DnD setting is very limiting and doesn't feel good. I would hope to be able to bring one or two additional classes that are not entirely combat optimized, but when you only have four slots its a tough ask.

If Larian is unwilling to do 6, I would at least like to see 5 implemented.

Last edited by Tomoya; 14/10/20 07:51 PM.

As a free action, can I regret my life choices
Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Playing Baldur's gate I always ran 6 in my party, needed someone to take abuse, learn scrolls, heal, melee damage, range, and general support. 2nd editions rules kinda demanded it if you didn't want to miss out.

All that said I would prefer NOT to have 6 members in the party because the forced diversity simply isn't there. I can have my wizard/cleric heal/ranged dps (still getting used to wizard being able to heal) if I need a tank fighter or cleric covers it, ranged physical dps can be covered by fighter, ranger, rogue. Lock picking and trap disarming can really go to anyone with a decent sex score so far so each character really brings with it a lot more value with it.

The other thing to consider is that the original games rewarded exp according to party size and 3 is kinda built in a milestone fashion.

Really at the end of the day you're only limited by your creativity. I've run comps with no healer just fine (especially with food all over the place and short rests)

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Smash Dently

Really at the end of the day you're only limited by your creativity. I've run comps with no healer just fine (especially with food all over the place and short rests)


But what if you want your healer, your tank, your caster DPS, your range DPS and more ?

"Because it works" is not a satisfying and valid answer to all those players that want more characters in their party...

The game itself limit my creativity...

Last edited by Maximuuus; 14/10/20 08:03 PM.
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Smash Dently
I can have my wizard/cleric heal/ranged dps (still getting used to wizard being able to heal)


Don't, it's not staying.

Joined: Apr 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Apr 2020
This is a computer game... not a table top one. An active party of four is plenty for a number of reasons of which combat is (my subjective opinion) the main reason. Alowances need to be made for the new medium. Besides, you can have all of them in the camp (Early Access game).

Larian created meaty characters, well written (imo). They've shown their personalities and some their secrets . All are difficult nuts to crack. Two more in the party won't add anything except slow down combat even more. Besides, I'm starting to hear banter between them ( recent patches added the banter?). Plus, one of the characters I swapped in is hitting on the girls. Amusing... my dialogue options need to be updated stat.. (lol).


S
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Sartoz
This is a computer game... not a table top one. An active party of four is plenty for a number of reasons

Well, you started making a right premise and used it to jump to the wrong conclusion.
The fact that is a computer game and not a live tabletop session is precisely why it shines the most if you add a larger party and cast of characters compared to the latter.


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
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Smash Dently
I can have my wizard/cleric heal/ranged dps (still getting used to wizard being able to heal)


Don't, it's not staying.

I can certainly live with this lol was gonna make me question ever rolling a different caster.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by RKane
Originally Posted by jonn

I'm only opposed to it until the devs come out and say that it is something they will be able to manage along with all the other improvements they want to make. Until then it is a possibility, no matter how much you shout, scoff and name-call, that this could use up resources that could be better used elsewhere. For me and many others the extra party size isn't that big of a deal.


I couldn't help but laugh at this. Literally earlier in this post I said this:
Originally Posted by RKane

Anyone who complains about 'balancing issues' when an idea is presented is a selfish moron. It's like the argument "It would take too much time to impliment" from people with no coding experience and surmounts to "I'm happy with it so why should I accomodate your idea".

You quite literally can't make any legitimate criticism other than the 2 most useless, unhelpful and innane responses.

1. Balance.
Unless it affects you, it shouldn't bother you.
It's perfectly reasonable to say "My only concern would be balance of 4 player games. I wouldn't play with 6" or something like that.
It's not okay to say "I oppose this idea and unless I get written proof from the devs that it won't detract from other things I wont change" is negative, argumentitive and arrogant. Like, who the hell do you think you are you spoiled brat?

2. Resources. Be it cost, time, or anything else.
Again, perfectly reasonable to say "I wouldn't use it therefore I'd rather the time was spent elsewhere"
But ultimately resources are not something for you to decide. It's the devs. And it relates to what I said about balance. They may or may not decide to do something based on how much work they have to get done. The devs will decide whether it's worth it based on that workload. They will decide whether something gets done based on resources, not you.

I'm not trying to pick a fight but these two responses are so commenly used to dismis valid feature requests / addons that would make others happy without affecting your gameplay. There is no reason for you to be opposed to the suggestion unless it affects your gameplay. Literally none. So stop picking a fight and talking crap about something you've already given your opinion on.


Listen, I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as you are. And nowhere am I claiming to be responsible for making a decision for the devs. I literally said it is for them to decide. My *opinion* is based on the fact that this game engine has been developed around 4 characters since way before BG3 was even an idea, and going back to the drawing board at this stage when it has taken them years just to get to this point (bearing in mind they have already delayed EA release by 6 months at this point) and still have so much to do yet, may not be entirely the best idea, no matter how many people are pissing their pants about it on the forum.

So scream at me all you like, but like I said, I will hold this opinion until the people that can actually answer (Larian) do so.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Not that I nitpick but i think BG3 idea was way before even 1 Divinity game. Engine is not a problem, its literally made to add things to it xD. Problem are players of DOS demanding another DOS game on DOS rules. Go ask Larian to made it then, what's stopping you ?

Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Smash Dently

Really at the end of the day you're only limited by your creativity. I've run comps with no healer just fine (especially with food all over the place and short rests)


But what if you want your healer, your tank, your caster DPS, your range DPS and more ?

"Because it works" is not a satisfying and valid answer to all those players that want more characters in their party...

The game itself limit my creativity...


Just because you are given a smaller canvas does not mean you can not paint the same picture. Besides let's say they jump us up to 6 and rebalance the whole game around 6 characters the same argument could be made "I'm being limited by only having 6 characters" lol not to mention the fact that if you scout ahead you can plan things out and trade characters if you think someone isn't going to bring what you need to the table. You can bring and entirely different comp to every individual fight and none of your characters fall behind.

Joined: Oct 2020
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Oct 2020
A party of up to six is the correct decision. Less than that and the game doesn't feel like Baldur's Gate. Solo the game, take only a few companions, or have a full party. That's how the original games worked. Leave it up to the individual and stop thinking that because a party size of four is enough for you that it is OK for everyone else.

And why are we pretending like the game is balanced as is in EA? Do people really think this is how the final game will be? That Larian won't change anything? That there won't be any difficulty sliders? That we can't opt into ways to make the game more or less challenging based on player preference? That's just crazy. It's also stupid to complain about how other people play the game not working with your play style or rudely pretending like you know the financials of these asks and that us peasants posting in the Suggestions & Feedback forum are too dumb to know what we want. Let people play the way they want. D&D is about giving people the power to create stories how they want. That's why the ruleset is so flexible and allows for homebrew (mods for tabletop).

Although if it ends up being that party is fixed after Act 1, then I'll really lose the desire to play this game. Party experimentation is KEY to Baldur's Gate. If you were stuck with the same party for the whole Bhaalspawn saga, then that would suck in a very major way and the pocket plane would be a very sad place.

Last edited by KingNothing69; 14/10/20 09:34 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KingNothing69
A party of up to six is the correct decision. Less than that and the game doesn't feel like Baldur's Gate. Solo the game, take only a few companions, or have a full party. That's how the original games worked. Leave it up to the individual and stop thinking that because a party size of four is enough for you that it is OK for everyone else.

And why are we pretending like the game is balanced as is in EA? Do people really think this is how the final game will be? That Larian won't change anything? That there won't be any difficulty sliders? That we can't opt into ways to make the game more or less challenging based on player preference? That's just crazy. It's also stupid to complain about how other people play the game not working with your play style or rudely pretending like you know the financials of these asks and that us peasants posting in the Suggestions & Feedback forum are too dumb to know what we want. Let people play the way they want. D&D is about giving people the power to create stories how they want. That's why the ruleset is so flexible and allows for homebrew (mods for tabletop).

Although if it ends up being that party is fixed after Act 1, then I'll really lose the desire to play this game. Party experimentation is KEY to Baldur's Gate. If you were stuck with the same party for the whole Bhaalspawn saga, then that would suck in a very major way and the pocket plane would be a very sad place.


I sincerely doubt Larian will lock us into a single party set up this go around. The relationships, the Camp, everyone staying equal level, it really doesn't lead me to believe we won't be able to change people out as long as we haven't run everyone else off with our decisions lol

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Ukraine
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Ukraine
Guys, come on. The battles are already too long, and the balance is more or less normal. 6 characters in the party are:
1.) will make the passage of fewer characters more difficult;
2.) Will force developers to make enemies stronger
3.) a series of fights will be too easy or too hard
4.) Will slow down the battles even more
5.) you will have to constantly resurrect party members

4 characters in the party are fine with me, IMHO


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
Page 24 of 95 1 2 22 23 24 25 26 94 95

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