Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 28 of 101 1 2 26 27 28 29 30 100 101
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by vyvexthorne
The only reason I'd want 6 companions is if I also get to create my own party. Right now I'm fine with four because I'm not keen on dealing with pre-made companions. While I like games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect, I don't necessarily enjoy all the companion interactions. Overly written companions control the narrative too much.. If I get to create my own party like in IWD then that's more fun for me because it's my own soap opera that I'm creating. I get to create the characters personalities and stories as I play the game. If it's someone elses characters then my brain goes all grumbly whenever they do something out of character for the character I'm trying to play them as.


It would be fun to create your whole party IWD style. With the risk of losing out on companion specific side quests and storylines though

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
I'll go ahead and add my +1 here.

I've always felt that 6 party members was the ideal DnD party in CRPGs... but if the devs feel like 6 is too many, I would be satisfied with 5.

Even having just 1 more party member would make a huge difference and would give a lot more freedom to players to play as they want rather than be forced to fill a certain roll in the party.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
stranger
Offline
stranger
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Another issue I have is that on Larians website, it says that once we pick a team, thats it, locked in after act 1. I'm against this.

I may be able to deal with 4 people if I didnt get locked into one party. I'd like to be able to swap, and have different teams for different situation.




Last edited by TheThankfulDeath; 19/10/20 09:06 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
L
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
L
Joined: Oct 2020
The point about mods, is that, if they want 4 players to just be a thing for them, they can mod it in so that what they want to restrict people to can be a thing for them.

Joined: Oct 2020
L
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
L
Joined: Oct 2020
They lock it in to force us to replay the game with other characters probably, because I can't see why, because that's what the reason for DoS was.

If the game will require locking people out of characters, I wouldn't mind it, but would it be as great of a game as we expected it to be if it needs to lock out companions so that their story can be used for another playthrough?

Joined: Oct 2020
N
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
N
Joined: Oct 2020
i am obviously in the minority here but i actually like smaller parties more.
my sweet spot is probably 3.
just wanted to add my opinion.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
"Don't worry, mods will fix it" has always been a bullshit "comfort argument", anyway.
1- There's no guarantee it will happen.
2- IF it happens not having full access to game code and dev tools limits strongly how well modders can make it work.
3- It's bound to be a sub-optimal, unpolished experience prone to bugs and UI limitations compared to something that a developer addresses dirctectly.

Also, for the people who were worrying about "having to redo everything from scratch", Swen has been on record openly stating that they already have the UI in place to scale up to six men, they just weren't confident on the idea to make it the default mode (never mentioned before because it's a video interview he made during a streaming that I never watched until few hours ago), so there's that too.
Let's hope this amount of feedback in favor of six will serve to give their "confidence" about this a boost.

And if anything, let 4-men party as the default for console players. AS people who never played a CRPG with a good control scheme, they may even be able to appreciate it the most.

I'd like add a forth point
4- It makes devs lazy, why add much requested features and fix bugs and balance the game when the can go "fuck it the modders will do our job for free?"
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
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


Great post thank you for the input, I agree that if the party size was 8 instead of 6 I probably would not complain, but that would mostly be because I would have the choice of how many people to take with me, and if I wanted to recreate a classic party setup I enjoyed in the original games I would not be forced to go up to 8 and could limit myself down, I think what a lot of the people who prefer 4 don't realise is we don't want to take away what they like and want we just want the option to have the same as them, a way to play the way we like and want.
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.

I will probably try out playing as Gale as he seems pretty cool but otherwise I will probably always play as a custom character because that's what Baldur's Gate and D&D is to me, it's about putting my own character in some amazing and fantastical land, it's about telling my own story and seeing how my character reacts and adapts to the world not trying role play as some pre-created character, they are fine as foils for my guy to react off of but they will never be a main focus and I agree more companions overall would be time better spent over making them all origin characters to play as. As it is I'm hoping for recruitable companions in acts 2 and 3 just how in the original games as you went around the world and found new locations you found new and different people who you could bring along, normally before I start a BG campaign I decide what type of character I want to roll then look up and research a little who I'd like to come along and only recruit them, so sometimes i can spend large portions of the game with only a few companions.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sir Sparhawk
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 expect there will be 12 origin characters at launch, one for each class, and then i would expect a few more that are only available in acts 2 and 3, like you if you are locked in after act 1 ends I won't be impressed
Originally Posted by Peranor
Originally Posted by arion
Originally Posted by Smash Dently
Besides let's say they jump us up to 6 and rebalance the whole game

lol this argue again
what game they need to rebalance?
there no balanced game, all we have is EA which not balanced at all
Originally Posted by nation
[quote=Peranor][quote=arion][quote=Smash Dently] Besides let's say they jump us up to 6 and rebalance the whole game

lol this argue again
what game they need to rebalance?
there no balanced game, all we have is EA which not balanced at all



Yeah, and even if it was. I don't think it would be terrible difficult to add some kind of dynamic balacing to the game that accomodate for your chosen party size. Maybe set it as a starting option when you start a new game. Choose between solo or 2-6 party members. And once the game is started the balance is set and you're locked to the maximum party size of your choise.

+1 i think this would be a really good idea too - something like a 'Behind the DM Screen' pre campaign/character creation screen where you would be able to designate a variety of options that would carry over into the full campaign, many of which could potentially speak to a variety of the discussions and alleviate some concerns on these forums and could be really helpful when setting up a mp campaign specifically.

things that you could possibly toggle that would impact the campaign's 'difficulty/balance', but im sure others here could add to this list
-stat allocation - roll, buy, array
-feat at first level (id argue this could really open up gameplay but could warrant an overall campaign challenge increase)
-classes/races/feats/spell filter etc (more mp oriented tho)
-party size 1-6, but could see why 1,2,4,6 may be more feasible to include and 'balance' at this point (id argue that players should always be able to have a max of 6 open party slots bc enables more player choice and allow players to decide themselves to go 4 or 6, etc.)
-use healing potion as a bonus action
-scale of surface effects
-show/hide dice rolls - im not sure its a good thing to know a dc of a skill check or see that you failed that perception roll, but that being said id rather the dc be set and apply my bonus to the die roll instead of reducing the dc as i think it currently works (id also think this systems presentation may need some tweaking - not a fan of jumping away from the dialogue to just fail a die roll)
-limit info that can be gained from 'examining' npcs and enemies, such as hp or ac
-party interaction during dialogue and trading/bartering (maybe more mp tho)
-more specific class tweaks as the 'dm' allows (ie swapping warlock spells, respecs, multi-class requirements)

i feel the above list (outside maybe the scale of the surface effects) are all common dnd 'house rules' topics you discuss around the table that could also really work to refine an bg3 campaign to fit each persons playstyle. obviously this is all just thoughts/theorycrafting suggestions but i think in particular the discussion regarding having 4v6 party slots and possible required balancing could find solutions for both perspectives with a toggable pre-campaign dynamic balance as mentioned above by peranor

also, maybe tangentially related, but i think balance should be focused around encounters not party size or level - i want to adapt to the challenges and world of bg3 not the opposite way around

I like his idea, and yours as well, more options is always a good thing.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
They can't have failed to notice by now that it will be a real sticking point for a lot people. This is already one of the longest threads in this feedback section, and its been brought up in many others.

I'm not terribly inspired by the idea that if the devs don't do it, then motivated modders will be able to solve everything. This doesn't strike me as a game that will be particularly easy to mod. NWN was basically a modders dream, but lack of party control, with henchmen instead of a full party kinda sank it, despite all the other innovative things that were done. It was a perennial disappointment there even with like 3 expansions and a sequel, that we never got a party control system there. And that one was by the same developer. Larian is so much closer, much much closer to the BG vibe than NWN ever was, but they are kinda shooting themselves in the foot by hamstringing us with a party limited to 4.

4 makes it feel like Valkyrie needs food!

6 is what we want lol






+1

Last edited by DistantStranger; 20/10/20 05:03 AM.
Joined: Sep 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2020
Folks keep saying that limiting it to 4 characters increases the replayability factor. However, there are some of us out here who have real life responsibilities that do not allow for massive replay time sink. Some weeks I'm lucky to get 5 to 10 hours of play time in - I want to maximize my time, experiencing a larger group of characters . I play many games, alternating which I am playing at any given time, depending on my mood, how much time I can devote that day, how many interruptions I can expect and so on. I see no reason I can't have the 6 character game I want, that would keep someone else from the 4 , 2 or 1 character game THEY want to play. That's the point of different difficulty levels, and the reward or lack thereof of splitting xp and loot among
a greater or fewer number of characters

Last edited by Anfindel; 20/10/20 07:30 AM. Reason: typo
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by TheThankfulDeath
Another issue I have is that on Larians website, it says that once we pick a team, thats it, locked in after act 1. I'm against this.

I may be able to deal with 4 people if I didnt get locked into one party. I'd like to be able to swap, and have different teams for different situation.




Indeed. If they do go through with the (terrible) idea to lock in the team after act 1, then the 4 people group limitation will be even worse.

Last edited by Peranor; 20/10/20 02:57 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Peranor
[quote=TheThankfulDeath]Another issue I have is that on Larians website, it says that once we pick a team, thats it, locked in after act 1. I'm against this.
Indeed. If they do go through with the idea to lock in the team after act 1, then the 4 people group limitation will be even worse.


Made the same argument in the past pages: it's a bad idea in general, but it becomes downright awful if you limit the party size to three companions.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Peranor
Originally Posted by TheThankfulDeath
Another issue I have is that on Larians website, it says that once we pick a team, thats it, locked in after act 1. I'm against this.

I may be able to deal with 4 people if I didnt get locked into one party. I'd like to be able to swap, and have different teams for different situation.




Indeed. If they do go through with the idea to lock in the team after act 1, then the 4 people group limitation will be even worse.



I agree, but I fear they won't budge on this because of a story reason that is already fixed smirk

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sigi98



I agree, but I fear they won't budge on this because of a story reason that is already fixed smirk



Yeah, that is what i'm afraid of as well. Doesn't mean I like it though smile

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Its been brought up before but just to highlight that when there is a party of 6 players you also get more opportunities to play different equipment or spell loadouts. I think it'd be particularly nice for spells and arcane casters esp since it makes preparing utility spells more viable. Right now they really need to focus on dmg but if you have like another wizard or bard in the group you can have one dude wrecking fire balls and another with like abjuration or going illusion style.

With 6 there is more room to redupilcate class but with a different focus, after the core 4 the fifth and sixth slot is where the party variety comes into play.

The prob with everyone can do everything, is that you have to long rest and change loadouts constantly if you want to try something off key. So instead you just go with whatever is most OP for that archetype.

In BG1 by the time you got to the Friendly Arm inn you had Charname, plus Imoen and Montaron/Xzar pairing. The Khalid and Jaheira pairing came soon as you got to the Inn. These were cool because they were already grouped together. So you had the Harpers or Zhents choice pretty early and a reason sometimes to see one chunked with amusing one liners from the other companion.

There was just way more gameplay nuance involved in selecting a party composition and who to ditch or switch. In the Beregost area you could pick up a Bard or another Fighter. There was a Ranger or Cleric just outside town. By the time you reached the mines you had already encountered like a dozen possible companions. That's the vibe that's missing right now for me with only 4.



Last edited by Black_Elk; 21/10/20 11:18 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Too be honest I don't see good reasons to change it now. From most players perspective party of 6 is old fashioned and mostly just matter of personal taste. From sales perspective Larian way of doing things works and most people agree with it.
Finally the most important from game design perspective everything is written, design (gameplay, multiplayer and so on), made and balance around party of 4. So chaining it now would created unnecessary chaos to please just the one group of people.

So making party of 6 a basic feature of the game? Big no. Making engine handle party of 6 so mods will allow it without any problems? Yes, go with it.

Joined: Oct 2020
N
member
Offline
member
N
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DZs7
Too be honest I don't see good reasons to change it now. From most players perspective party of 6 is old fashioned and mostly just matter of personal taste. From sales perspective Larian way of doing things works and most people agree with it.
Finally the most important from game design perspective everything is written, design, made and balance around party of 4. So chaining it now would created unnecessary chaos to please just the one group of people.

So making party of 6 a basic feature of the game? Big no. Making engine handle party of 6 so mods will allow it without any problems? Yes, go with it.
i agree with your thoughts that at this stage in the game it may be difficult to accomplish, particularly if larian has designed the game as you indicated above around a party of 4 (we sure this is the case?) - but respectfully i disagree and think that making 6 the party size should be the standard as it was the standard in the og bg games and this is supposed to be bg3 (altho reviewing some other posts i feel like some would prefer this as dos2: baldurs gate edition - i dont see enough significant enhancements/improvements to this game that would cause me to even call it dos3). also, please note that by making the standard be 6 slots still allows for players to have a 4 person party (or solo plays) so having a party of 6 isnt alienating a segment of the fan base whereas the reversal seems to be as a card carrying member of the pro6 party. and again, you say that the game is balanced around a party of 4, but larian themselves has said that you can recruit 'mercs' to round out a party and some have been able to get up to 6 in mp so does this argument really hold any weight?

i still struggle to see any concrete points as to why larian wouldnt want to bump the party size up to 6 other than
-resources/money (they just crushed their ea sales so i doubt that is the case - if anything it should show them the potential this game has and reinforce larians desire to work with the community to make the game even better than it is currently),
-timing (we are still a year out and this is the whole purpose of ea feedback, and larian has released multiple support patches post their dos1/2 launches so i suppose this could be done similarly, but i have my apprehensions),
-mods will do it (spending $60 on an ea game where one of the largest feedback points isnt being heard only so mods can support or what many consider fix a primary gameplay mechanic just doesnt sit well with me),
-balancing issues (which i dont think has a lot of weight given if you are lucky/save scum with die rolls you can bypass various encounters - i also dont think encounters [outside of random encounters/mobs, which is another game mechanic that larian seems to be moving away from relating to the og bg games] should scale either, as it detracts from a sense of character progression if the world levels with your party but thats a post for another thread)

i would just refer folks to the variety of valid and thought out posts that discusses the rationale and reasoning for having a party of 6 be the standard while still allowing for solo and party of four runs, and challenge ppl to give productive and constructive critiques, around both good and bad aspects of the game, instead of falling back on any of the above tired arguments against parties of 6 or saying that from a sales perspective that larians way of doing things works (debateable) and most ppl agree with it (again, debateable) as this just comes across as excuse making/fanboyism for larian and really isnt productive.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Oct 2020
@nation

Will expand my thinking. You assumption is that party of 6 should be standard, because of few reasons:

* Because previous games were like that. Indeed they were, but why we should we really stick with it? Both of this games are now archaic and are long closed story. I'm fan of both previous Baldur's Gate games, but being honest here. Without sentimental aspect Baldur's Gate 1 is just good game with average story and it didn't pass the test of time. Baldur's Gate 2 looks much better in this aspect, but still it's a relic of the past. I won't go with all this seems like Divinity 3/ Divinity: Baldur's Gate talk- not only, because it isn't related to the topic at all, but also if someone remembers how many placeholders from DoS1 were in the EA for DoS2 then there is just no point to speak about it at this stage of game/EA. So I don't really see why we should hold argument like this at all.

* Without party of 6 some players will be alienated. Yes, maybe- maybe not. However, same will happen if they will change it to party of 6. Some people would say that now it's too much of party management, too chaotic or something else. Also if they will change it once then another group will rise saying something like make it party of 8 or party of 10, because system/game/universe XYZ haves it that way. Yes your argument here is valid, but same goes for any other party size. Also like you said that party of 4 being way to go is debatable, well same goes for party of 6 being consider fix for primary gameplay mechanic- it's debatable. No matter what someone won't like the final outcome.

* Is game really made around party of 4? Yes and overall fight balance is lesser concern here. We talking about things like story, narration, dialogue system and other mayor mechanics and aspects of the game. This project is huge already which is reflected in pure numbers and statistics (at least compared to theirs previous game). In the end changing it would consume set amount of manpower to once again please just one group of people in the end.

Another things why should they stick with party of 4 is overall vision for the game. They had something in mind and it's one of the core/ground rules/aspects for game like this. It's kind of like asking devs of Pathfinder to make game around party of 4 for various valid reasons. Sometimes creators just must go with things that thought will be the best for theirs game.



Valid solution would be adding another play mode with party of 6 and maybe things like Active Pause mode in Enhanced Edition sometime after the premiere. This game really needs valid polish and improvements, so there is just no time and it's unnecessary to try please everyone with very personal taste based things now.


Joined: Oct 2020
N
member
Offline
member
N
Joined: Oct 2020
i appreciate the response my dude, and i do want to say that my earlier post didnt mean to single you out but instead to speak to some of the larger themes ive seen in ppls counterarguments to the base 6person party size (while still allowing for ppl to do solo and 4man runs using their 6 'party slots' - like how you can currently still do solo runs despite the 4party limit), so my apologies for that - but, respectfully i pretty much disagree or have issues with every position you made in your response lol
Originally Posted by DZs7
@nation

Will expand my thinking. You assumption is that party of 6 should be standard, because of few reasons:

* Because previous games were like that. Indeed they were, but why we should we really stick with it? Both of this games are now archaic and are long closed story. I'm fan of both previous Baldur's Gate games, but being honest here. Without sentimental aspect Baldur's Gate 1 is just good game with average story and it didn't pass the test of time. Baldur's Gate 2 looks much better in this aspect, but still it's a relic of the past. I won't go with all this seems like Divinity 3/ Divinity: Baldur's Gate talk- not only, because it isn't related to the topic at all, but also if someone remembers how many placeholders from DoS1 were in the EA for DoS2 then there is just no point to speak about it at this stage of game/EA. So I don't really see why we should hold argument like this at all.

* Without party of 6 some players will be alienated. Yes, maybe- maybe not. However, same will happen if they will change it to party of 6. Some people would say that now it's too much of party management, too chaotic or something else. Also if they will change it once then another group will rise saying something like make it party of 8 or party of 10, because system/game/universe XYZ haves it that way. Yes your argument here is valid, but same goes for any other party size. Also like you said that party of 4 being way to go is debatable, well same goes for party of 6 being consider fix for primary gameplay mechanic- it's debatable. No matter what someone won't like the final outcome.

* Is game really made around party of 4? Yes and overall fight balance is lesser concern here. We talking about things like story, narration, dialogue system and other mayor mechanics and aspects of the game. This project is huge already which is reflected in pure numbers and statistics (at least compared to theirs previous game). In the end changing it would consume set amount of manpower to once again please just one group of people in the end.

Another things why should they stick with party of 4 is overall vision for the game. They had something in mind and it's one of the core/ground rules/aspects for game like this. It's kind of like asking devs of Pathfinder to make game around party of 4 for various valid reasons. Sometimes creators just must go with things that thought will be the best for theirs game.



Valid solution would be adding another play mode with party of 6 and maybe things like Active Pause mode in Enhanced Edition sometime after the premiere. This game really needs valid polish and improvements, so there is just no time and it's unnecessary to try please everyone with very personal taste based things now.
this is all mainly related to the 6 v 4 person party debate:

-bc the previous bg games were like this - ya and this is supposed to be bg3, but i do agree that the bhaalspawn plot should be tossed

-bc the previous bg games are 'dated' and were just good or are currently looked at thru rose colored glasses - i just think this is plain false given that baldurs gate is credited with reviving the genre, has universal 4/5 or 9/10 star reviews, and is the standard which many like games are now compared to and from which many of the games since have drawn inspiration. bg was 'the' computer dnd game and was so good that now 20 years later they are still selling copies of the game (which as an aside speaks to the overall lack of 'new' or innovation in the gaming industry given all of the new definitive/enhanced/next gen rereleases of older games) and to be frank, i think the hype for this game had more to do with the title being bg3 than having larian as the developer. i understand that was adnd rules tho so i can be sympathetic to the issues in adapting 5e, but i didnt anticipate such a drastic departure in some aspects and could do with more 5e rules/mechanics in some of these areas (surfaces, food, elevation, etc.)

-i actually dont think theres enough innovation from dos2 in this game for it to get a new number, so i agree the dos3 talk is premature, but i think dos2: bg is valid given the merging of the game mechanics, origin v custom characters, shared limited party size, dos2 party and camera control, and dos2 like narrative weve got so far (ie shared plot/narrative with our companions with tadpoles in this instance, possible limited companion choice after the first act, act maps, even being a survivor on a beach) - but i agree also with what you said about this being ea so alot of things are subject to change so all we can really do is just theorycraft at this point

-without a party of 6 some players will be alienated - yes. thats it. you argue that the same will happen for ppl who prefer 4 over 6 - i agree that some ppl may, but i dont think this is correlated as you suggest. with having a party of 6, players can still opt in to just running a party with 4 members - you still have choice. by limiting party size to 4 you dont even have the option in the base game to have 6 companions. and if its too much party management, or chaotic, or 'something else' for a player, they can still opt to just run 4 and avoid such a hassle that 6 members may present.

-if they change it will ppl ask for them to increase it further? - maybe, thats true. i agree at some point that you would need to limit party size, but your rationale that xyz system or game has it doesnt carry much water if you ask me, as the xyz we should be caring about here is the og bg games (id like more allusions to the forgotten realms too just as an aside) which had up to 6members and shares the same name as this game. im actually having some difficulty thinking of any similar rpg game that has party dynamics that has 8-10 party members? any suggestions - being serious, actually sounds fun to play, lol

-i agree with your overall point that whats best for 4v6 is up for debate/interpretation/personal preference - but what i am arguing for and asking that larian implements is the option for you to still play with a party of 4 while allowing for a party of up to 6 so we both as players can win and enjoy the game, while those in the pro4 party seem to be advocating against players being able to have that option and thereby artificially limiting our choices/options. when framed this way, not considering costs/resources/etc. which is another facet of this question, i dont really think its up for debate. larian should implement up to 6 party members - can they and will they are two different questions.

-your next two points around if the game is really made around a party of 4 and their overall vision for the game - i think this is a larger discussion about what larians vision for the game was when they first began development to where it is now that they are receiving feedback from the community, so i guess my response to that is that i just disagree with what their vision for this game should be in regards to this specific party size topic as alot of other ppl have also voiced in the forum and this is purposefully the opportunity to give feedback in the hope that larian considers as they work to create the game? and i would say that the group of ppl in the pro6 or unaligned and dont care is the larger segment of the bg community and again this change wouldnt take away your ability to run4. regarding what the scope of such an overhaul may be in terms of resources, and larian isnt some small indie developer, idk if i have a lot of sympathy for that rationale, especially considering the numbers they just got from the ea. i am also skeptical about how 'difficult' implementing two additional characters to your party would be (frankly, i also think the game could do with more interparty interactions and companion input during dialogue encounters) or if it would really imbalance encounters (which is another topic) and again, it just comes off as empty rationalizing.

-i dont really care about the devs for pathfinder since we are talking dnd 5e here, but relating to creators sticking with their vision for a game thru to launch - for every one you can find im sure you could also find a multiple more that either made changes based on feedback and were better for it or didnt make changes and didnt make it. constructive feedback can only work to improve a game (or anything really) and saying things like 'sometimes creators just must go with things that thought will be the best for theirs game.' isnt in any way productive or meaningful feedback

-what you said about a valid solution being multiple game modes i agree with, and you also mention RTwP (which, lol oddly enough as someone who really enjoyed the og bg games im against as i think turnbased fits 5e and dnd better), but then you state that the game needs real polish and theres no time and its unnecessary to try to please everyone so lets wait and hope to get these in enhanced editions - i think that mentality sets such a low bar for larian and the expectations for what should be the re-invigoration of what has long been considered a flagship franchise in the genre, so i just dont prescribe to it.

to wrap, ill just say that i have been enjoying my experience playing this game in ea - for the most part it sounds like the majority of us all are, but i disagree with some of the changes in game design from the predecessors to larians iteration and havent really found any concrete or substantive reasoning as to why larians way of doing it is better

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DZs7
Too be honest I don't see good reasons to change it now. From most players perspective party of 6 is old fashioned and mostly just matter of personal taste. From sales perspective Larian way of doing things works and most people agree with it.
Finally the most important from game design perspective everything is written, design (gameplay, multiplayer and so on), made and balance around party of 4. So chaining it now would created unnecessary chaos to please just the one group of people.

So making party of 6 a basic feature of the game? Big no. Making engine handle party of 6 so mods will allow it without any problems? Yes, go with it.


From a sales perspective, OK I mean they already got my 70 some odd bucks. I'm sure they could cash out now, not change anything substantial out of EA feedback, "stay true to their vision" or "stick to their guns" or insert whatever euphemism we like for essentially ignoring the feedback, even after consideration. But it'd also make me a lot less inclined to buy an expansion or sequel if that was their approach.

Party of 6 isn't a complete deal breaker for me, though I really do think its better on the merits and not just purely based on my nostalgia for the archaic. 4 does not feel Epic enough for me, but perhaps if they listen to feedback in other substantive areas my disappointment about that can be allayed. I actually think it will be better for the points like narration, story, dialogue system and every other mechanic I can think of to have 6. Most issues I have with micromanagement currently have way more to do with UI organization and pathing fails, than the number of PCs I'm controlling in the party. Everyone is already following me to camp anyway, so I basically already do have a party of 6, at least for many of the narrative components, I just don't get to have them along for the ride when actually playing. It may be a matter of taste, but I'd much rather have 5 companions than 3, since I think it would be more engaging all around.

I bought this thing mainly because I wanted to support the franchise and have high hopes for BGIII. I fully expected the EA to be half baked, and this still feels very much like an incomplete game atm. I've enjoyed it, but its also missing many features that I would have expected and the lack of the 5th and 6th party slot is not the clunkiest of clunky things going on right now.

They need to work on stuff like camera control and party movement pathing, inventory and spell management, hotbars and general UI stuff too. Which all seems way more important to me than scaling the difficulty levels around a particular party size or balancing combats etc just yet. Balancing is a long haul. How much balancing are they going to be able do anyway if we are only testing a 3rd of the game in EA? I'd prefer 6, maybe I'm old fashioned though I don't know. I think this is low hanging fruit, and would likely please more people than it would annoy, but that's just my anecdotal sense of things. For everyone motivated enough to actually post on forums, leave a review, or join a discord to yammer away about stuff there are probably a couple dozen players who just go with what's given and wouldn't be chiming in. I don't have a sense of what most people want, but I know what matters to me. I think they'd be unlikely to get another 70 bucks out of me at this point. Especially if its just like thanks for the feedback and for helping us to find and crush all these bugs, but we're going to hard pass on making any major changes due to already sunk costs. If its take 'it or leave it', I'm already taken I guess, but it leaves a bit of a bitter taste, since I really do have high hopes for this one. Plus it just seems like not particularly complicated to pull off. It not like they have to rebuild it from the ground up to make this happen. If its already in the MP game it should be there in SP too.

Last edited by Black_Elk; 21/10/20 10:27 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Oct 2020
+1

Page 28 of 101 1 2 26 27 28 29 30 100 101

Moderated by  Nicou 

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