Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 24 of 27 1 2 22 23 24 25 26 27
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 174
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Sharp
I mean, I don't really think we are voting for anything here, since regardless of what we want they going to make their own decision :P

I would probably do something like this. Party XP is divided by 1+the total number of characters in the party. If there are 4 party members, its divided by 5, if there are 5 party members, its divided by 6. You get the idea. This creates a slightly more compact XP spread than if you were straight up dividing by the number of party members. A party of 1 would only earn 3.5 times as much XP as a party of 6. They would obviously balance the XP awarded around the party size they want (in this case, lets say 4), but in my opinion, figuring out how to divide it is the more important part.

Lol fair. But in an ideal world, Larian would tally the "votes" expressed in the forums/steam reviews/etc to determine how loved/hated any mechanic is.

Sure, figuring out how to divide exp is the most important. If you do it correctly, you don't need to make any other adjustments to preserve balance.

However, I think that your solution is worse than an unadjusted exp division where you simply divide by # of party members. Keep in mind that 5e levels are not linear. Each level requires more and more experience. I think that this already works to create the "more compact exp spread" that you want, and your solution would double this effect.

e.g., A party of 4 that just reached level 5 (6500 exp).
In a party of 2, each member would have 13000 exp, which is still level 5!
A solo player would have 26000 exp, which is only level 7. I'm skeptical that a single level 7 party member could take on a CR 5 encounter....

In your solution, each member in that party of 2 would have [6500*(4+1)/(2+1)] = 10800 exp, which is even further from level 6.
--a solo player would have 16250 exp, which is level 6. This person would get murdered by a CR 5 encounter.
Seems like ^ would unduly punish small parties.


I know the XP per level is not linear, but the power per level is not linear either. I personally (as someone who is playing the EA solo and will be playing the game solo on release), feel like the balance would be better if XP was not just divided by the party size, because to me it feels like you gain far more power per level than if you just did straight division. I mean, think about it from the perspective of a caster. How many goblins would it take to kill say a level 8 wizard? The moment the wizard throws fireball, most of the goblins will be dead.

I play small parties because I like managing less characters, not because I want an easier game and XP division in most games results in a much easier game when you play them with a smaller party.

Last edited by Sharp; 16/11/20 06:02 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 418
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by Sharp
I know the XP per level is not linear, but the power per level is not linear either. I personally (as someone who is playing the EA solo and will be playing the game solo on release), feel like the balance would be better if XP was not just divided by the party size, because to me it feels like you gain far more power per level than if you just did straight division. I mean, think about it from the perspective of a caster. How many goblins would it take to kill say a level 8 wizard? The moment the wizard throws fireball, most of the goblins will be dead.

I play small parties because I like managing less characters, not because I want an easier game and XP division in most games results in a much easier game when you play them with a smaller party.

I mean, the difference in levels between a party of 4 and a party of 2 is not going to be that much, 1 at most. I don't think there is much danger of a smaller party becoming too powerful.

It's unrealistic that you'd face any # of goblins as an 8th level wizard (XP equivalent to a 4th or 5th level party). A more apt comparison would be facing 2-3 minotaurs. Do you think a level 8 wizard could easily kill 2-3 minotaurs?

And sure, you might play small parties because you like managing less characters. But I'm arguing that the game might be impossible to play with this lessening of exp for small parties. I'm not arguing that solo players should have an easier time than party-of-4 players.

Now, encounter balance is difficult, so you might be right. This is something that only detailed encounter testing can reveal.

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 174
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by mrfuji3

I mean, the difference in levels between a party of 4 and a party of 2 is not going to be that much, 1 at most. I don't think there is much danger of a smaller party becoming too powerful.

It's unrealistic that you'd face any # of goblins as an 8th level wizard (XP equivalent to a 4th or 5th level party).


Well, if the XP during the EA was done off of a split instead of the way it is done now, you potentially would. Its possible to get to level 4 before the goblin camp already, quite easy in fact.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
A more apt comparison would be facing 2-3 minotaurs. Do you think a level 8 wizard could easily kill 2-3 minotaurs?

Yes, because I have no issues killing the 2 minotaurs in the Underdark at level 4 on a Wizard, Ranger or Warlock solo, without abusing stealth, during the EA as is.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3

And sure, you might play small parties because you like managing less characters. But I'm arguing that the game might be impossible to play with this lessening of exp for small parties. I'm not arguing that solo players should have an easier time than party-of-4 players.

Now, encounter balance is difficult, so you might be right. This is something that only detailed encounter testing can reveal.

I would be surprised if it is impossible, considering it would be awarding more XP than is currently awarded now and its already possible.

Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 418
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by Sharp
Well, if the XP during the EA was done off of a split instead of the way it is done now, you potentially would. Its possible to get to level 4 before the goblin camp already, quite easy in fact.

I do think that the XP gain needs to be reduced for the EA areas. Especially for the earlier levels. You can go from level 1 to 3 in like, what, an hour or two?
They'll definitely need to adjust exp if they don't want people to reach level 6-7 by the end of Act 1 (I'm assuming Moonrise Tower is technically in Act 1..?)

Originally Posted by Sharp

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
A more apt comparison would be facing 2-3 minotaurs. Do you think a level 8 wizard could easily kill 2-3 minotaurs?

Yes, because I have no issues killing the 2 minotaurs in the Underdark at level 4 on a Wizard, Ranger or Warlock solo, without abusing stealth, during the EA as is.

Hmm okay. I stand corrected. Ranger I can understand (animal companion?), but how do you do it as wizard/warlock? I'm curious. Kiting back using misty step and mirror image??

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 174
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Sharp
Well, if the XP during the EA was done off of a split instead of the way it is done now, you potentially would. Its possible to get to level 4 before the goblin camp already, quite easy in fact.

I do think that the XP gain needs to be reduced for the EA areas. Especially for the earlier levels. You can go from level 1 to 3 in like, what, an hour or two?
They'll definitely need to adjust exp if they don't want people to reach level 6-7 by the end of Act 1 (I'm assuming Moonrise Tower is technically in Act 1..?)

Originally Posted by Sharp

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
A more apt comparison would be facing 2-3 minotaurs. Do you think a level 8 wizard could easily kill 2-3 minotaurs?

Yes, because I have no issues killing the 2 minotaurs in the Underdark at level 4 on a Wizard, Ranger or Warlock solo, without abusing stealth, during the EA as is.

Hmm okay. I stand corrected. Ranger I can understand (animal companion?), but how do you do it as wizard/warlock? I'm curious. Kiting back using misty step and mirror image??


Yeah kiting with misty step then killing with Magic Missiles using the amulet for wizard. Warlock is a bit tougher, you need to break line of sight occasionally and it relies a lot more on EB spam.

Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 418
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by Sharp
Yeah kiting with misty step then killing with Magic Missiles using the amulet for wizard. Warlock is a bit tougher, you need to break line of sight occasionally and it relies a lot more on EB spam.

Hmmm I partly take back my concession of "standing corrected".

Your BG3 wizard is much more powerful than a typical 4th level wizard would be. 5e raw if you misty stepped away, you wouldn't be able to also cast Magic Missile. So this method depends on whether Larian will leave in the ability to cast a non-cantrip spell and a bonus action spell in the same turn. If they don't, you're restricted to casting firebolt, which would do much less damage.
The magic missile amulet is also OP.

Pretty sure the ranger's summons are also fairly OP in BG3's current state.

Warlock...I'll give that to you. Although "breaking line of sight" sounds suspiciously like abusing the enemy AI :P

#741759 05/12/20 12:07 AM
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 130
G
guy Offline
member
Offline
member
G
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 130
I've been thinking about this and chewing on it a bit, and....
Fights are going to get harder.

Action economy for 4 members is not going to keep up.

I mean, the minotaurs themselves, if you fight them legit... they wreck you.

But could a 6 man party take the minos?

It changes things, doesn't it? having those two extra rez bots?

Anyway. My final thought, after hitting 100 hours. 6 person is the way to go.

Maybe it will be added when more party members are available to choose from.

Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 14
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 14
I also wish for a bigger party but... I know Larian won't ever make it possible

Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 130
G
guy Offline
member
Offline
member
G
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 130
Who knows.

Not a deal breaker for me.

Jut feedback

Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 14
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 14
Oh yeah, BG games used to have 6 members parties and it was nice.
But it's not BG anymore it's using it's name and it's skin but it's a doppelganger

Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 130
G
guy Offline
member
Offline
member
G
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Sharp
Yeah kiting with misty step then killing with Magic Missiles using the amulet for wizard. Warlock is a bit tougher, you need to break line of sight occasionally and it relies a lot more on EB spam.

Hmmm I partly take back my concession of "standing corrected".

Your BG3 wizard is much more powerful than a typical 4th level wizard would be. 5e raw if you misty stepped away, you wouldn't be able to also cast Magic Missile. So this method depends on whether Larian will leave in the ability to cast a non-cantrip spell and a bonus action spell in the same turn. If they don't, you're restricted to casting firebolt, which would do much less damage.
The magic missile amulet is also OP.

Pretty sure the ranger's summons are also fairly OP in BG3's current state.

Warlock...I'll give that to you. Although "breaking line of sight" sounds suspiciously like abusing the enemy AI :P


The rangers summons seem OP first glance... they go well against gobs.
But in the underdark?
Not as much.

Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 69
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 69
None of the fights require 6 characters, 4 is fine. The issue is that every fight catches most people off guard and un prepared. Once you know what's up you handle them all just fine with 4.

Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 352
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 352
From my perspective, 4 would be an issue only if I liked more companions and couldn't take them with MC because of limited space. Fights are perfectly fine with the party of four.

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,077
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,077
The combat is boring, and having a bigger party will make it easier, and therefore quicker, to get through them. That's a huge plus.

Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 1,189
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 1,189
Originally Posted by kanisatha
The combat is boring, and having a bigger party will make it easier, and therefore quicker, to get through them. That's a huge plus.

That's sounds like a different problem altogether


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,035
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by kanisatha
The combat is boring, and having a bigger party will make it easier, and therefore quicker, to get through them. That's a huge plus.

That's sounds like a different problem altogether


Not really.
He's right... With more party members you deal more damages/turn so combats are faster and easier.
Combats would be way less boring with two more companions.

If.you want bigger encounter in a TB game, you have to play with more characters.
At the moment many combats are boring because it's too slow and because nothing happen except waiting.

And the difficulty of the game doesn't mean "more ennemies"... Solo bosses are usually harder than groups of trash mobs even if there are alone (because they have more HP, deal more damages, are harder to hit, have better spells or strategy,...)

Last edited by Maximuuus; 05/12/20 07:13 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 850
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 850
Right. Combat will probably be over quicker. But I just don't buy the long combat = bad combat. If we were to consistently apply the "more = longer = worse" we should eliminate summons, familiars, undead, etc. because those are drags on combat completion.

Said it before and I'll say it again -- you use different, more diverse and more interesting strategies with larger parties. More party members = more fun.

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,077
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Said it before and I'll say it again -- you use different, more diverse and more interesting strategies with larger parties. More party members = more fun.

I don't disagree with this even while still also holding to my point.

What I was ultimately getting at is that there's more than one reason why a bigger party is better.

Last edited by kanisatha; 06/12/20 03:32 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 850
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 850
Agreed. The reasons for a six member party are many. smile

(another topic but combat has gotten better since the correction of the cantrips. The DOS feeling is considerably lessened)

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,077
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Agreed. The reasons for a six member party are many. smile

(another topic but combat has gotten better since the correction of the cantrips. The DOS feeling is considerably lessened)

That is good news. Now they need to take a close look at environmental elemental interactions more broadly.

Page 24 of 27 1 2 22 23 24 25 26 27

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