Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 41 of 53 1 2 39 40 41 42 43 52 53
Joined: Dec 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Dec 2020
Ah! Thanks for the directions.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by RBarbare
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I already tried the game with a party of 5 and 6 and it's way more fun.

OK, how? The only mod I see on Nexus requires save file editing... yuck.

With the nexus mod.
It's not so hard to install and you can copy your save first.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 27/01/21 04:47 PM.
Joined: Dec 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Dec 2020
+1 I like a lot of the gigantic combats in this game, but they'd be more fun and more balanced with 6 player turns a round than 4. The counterargument is that every combat would have to be beefed up for a 6 PC group, but I'm ok with that. I also think that it'd be more interesting to see the interplay between 6 characters, especially if we're still going to "lock in" our party after Act 1. If we're going to have "Lock in" and the "hireling Companions" that can be custom built (an idea they have acknowledged they're considering) I think we should definitely have at least 6, even if it's only in camp. I like the hireling idea so that I can fiddle with different party builds, but I'd hate to have to sacrifice Companion interactions.

And did I read somewhere that they're now actually considering this?

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Not sure what you read, but the last patch introduced a new system to "improve" the UI when you have more than 4 companions (improve or not, but it's different than before).

Does that mean they consider it ? I don't know, I haven't read anything official about it.

Their last word about the party size is still "mods".

Last edited by Maximuuus; 27/01/21 04:56 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by CopperCrate
+1 I like a lot of the gigantic combats in this game, but they'd be more fun and more balanced with 6 player turns a round than 4. The counterargument is that every combat would have to be beefed up for a 6 PC group, but I'm ok with that. I also think that it'd be more interesting to see the interplay between 6 characters, especially if we're still going to "lock in" our party after Act 1. If we're going to have "Lock in" and the "hireling Companions" that can be custom built (an idea they have acknowledged they're considering) I think we should definitely have at least 6, even if it's only in camp. I like the hireling idea so that I can fiddle with different party builds, but I'd hate to have to sacrifice Companion interactions.

And did I read somewhere that they're now actually considering this?

1.) They would not necessarily have to beef up encounters for a 6-PC group. Simply divide experience gotten between all PC participants, such that each member of a 6-person party would get less exp than each member of a 4-person party.
e.g., At the end of act 1, a party of 4 would be level 5 whereas a party of 6 would all be level 4.
It wouldn't automatically be perfectly balanced, but it'd be fairly close. This would also scale to smaller but higher-leveled parties.

2.) I also remember Larian saying they plan to implement hirelings (but still a party limit of 4).

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Yes please 6 man party so i can do combos!!!

Last edited by Lastman; 27/01/21 10:24 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
This is a common viewpoint that I definitely agree with, even just one more at 5 would help a lot in making this game feel like a Baldur's Gate Title (though for me 6 is ideal). Hopefully with patch 4 they test implement this or respond to the feedback about party size.

Joined: Aug 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Aug 2020
Hey, be nice to Sadurian! Offer cookies! Apparently someone IS reading...

In my defense of originally creating this thread, at the time, I can only recall seeing one other thread at that time after having read about half way through the entirety of all threads, which was somewhere between 7 to 13 pages in I believe, although my memory isn't the most fantastic, maybe that wasn't half way. Various boards seem to have their own special preferences for starting new threads and not necro raising old threads and some want folks to search and comment on old ones. Sometimes you never know until you see others scolding for doing whatever. Sometimes I think it's quite overbearing myself but then I'm not a board mod and maybe I'd be more rigid if I was, who knows. Anyway, the other one seems pretty pooped out and argument prone so I made another. Had I known there was one preference over another perhaps I'd have only posted in the other one. I don't recall seeing any rules or suggestion stickies noting a preference to not make additional threads if something has been mentioned previously.

Apparently this one as far as I believe Tuco or someone else said on a previous page has grown to be the largest. Perhaps folks will simply continue to focus on this one, which would be nice. And I'm sure as it sounds that would make mods happy as well if it stayed that way.

Sounds like maybe no one actually gets paid to moderate this board?!? Suppose I'd have never guessed if that be the case and would surely be a shame.

I'm not sure I know of any boards that have mods actively collecting topics into relegated "bins". That is supposed to be done by the users themselves into whatever categories are available to post in.

But anyway, glad someone IS listening at least, even if they only pop up to tell you they are apparently short on time... Not that keeping up with just the BG forums isn't likely a fairly monumental task to read all of daily. I'm sure it certainly could be depending on how many people and how much time are allotted to doing so.

Maybe you need a 6 person party too?

Couldn't help it... MUCH LOVE. smile

Hope I get to play the game with my lady before I kick the bucket...

Joined: Oct 2020
N
member
Offline
member
N
Joined: Oct 2020
+1 for 6 party slots. another long (13 page) thread about party size - lets hope larian considers the feedback here and in the other community spaces (like the 28 page merged party discussion mega thread also in this forum) concerning party size. imho, the direction that larian takes here has trickle down impact for alot of the games mechanics, so i hope we get some direction where they are leaning here.

admittedly im biased as pro-6 party slots, but itd almost be a deal breaker for me if we were limited to only 4 total party members.

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Sigil
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Sigil
I don't really get why people wants 6 player party its too crowded considerin how long the combats are as they re with 4 now, u ll need to add more monsters to balance but this will mean gale will surely die in 1st round laugh Jokes aside its not 2nd or 3rd edition anymore you dont need a rogue for traps or lockpick, basically anyclass can handle that, pick the lock with the correct background. You just need to perception check to see traps and shoot an arrow thats it.

You got tons of potions and scrolls dont even need a cleric just rest more..There will be some crafting included possibly in future aswell.

4player party is already too strong for hard diffuculty

you just need 1 tank 1 caster and 2 random classes, ofc in the end of the day we want to play with all the available classes but the playability..so to me

1 Fighter/ Ranger / Paladin / Barbarian
2 Cleric / Druid /
3 Wizard / Sorceror / Warlock

Thats all you need and +1 for spicing things up.

Last edited by TripleKill; 10/02/21 02:56 PM.
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by TripleKill
I don't really get why people wants 6 player party its too crowded considerin how long the combats are as they re with 4 now, u ll need to add more monsters to balance but this will mean gale will surely die in 1st round laugh Jokes aside its not 2nd or 3rd edition anymore you dont need a rogue for traps or lockpick, basically anyclass can handle that, pick the lock with the correct background. You just need to perception check to see traps and shoot an arrow thats it.

You got tons of potions and scrolls dont even need a cleric just rest more..There will be some crafting included possibly in future aswell.

4player party is already too strong for hard diffuculty

you just need 1 tank 1 caster and 2 random classes, ofc in the end of the day we want to play with all the available classes but the playability..so to me

1 Fighter/ Ranger / Paladin / Barbarian
2 Cleric / Druid /
3 Wizard / Sorceror / Warlock

Thats all you need and +1 for spicing things up.

That’s great for you but there are others who’d like more in their party. If it’s possible, why not?

You can always opt to run with just four. Heck, go solo for hard mode!

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Add more monster to balance what ? At the moment the difficulty of this game is a joke... what is there to balance ?

Why would they have to add more monsters ..?
Don't you ever have encountered a solo boss harder than a group of 6 ennemies in video games ?

Just add more powerfull monsters ? Give them additionnal damages ? Improve their AI ?
Or just do nothing so the game is gonna be a normal game mode for new players (and for everyone when they'll remove/rework all their free OP cheats... free advantages, free dipping, tons of potions and scrolls,...)

If 4 is too strong... Just increase the difficulty. The difficulty is the problem, not the party size.
It's totally stupid to restrein the party size to increase the difficulty...

Don't you ever play any harder games than BG3 in which the party size is 5 or 6 ?

Reducing the party size to increase the difficulty is something players can do in any case. The party size is not what define the difficulty of a game.

It's so boring to read everywhere again and again those same unthinked arguments.
Hope Larian won't follow the opinion of those that apparently never played any other video games than this one.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 10/02/21 04:23 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by TripleKill
I don't really get why people wants 6 player party its too crowded considerin how long the combats are as they re with 4 now, u ll need to add more monsters to balance but this will mean gale will surely die in 1st round
If they can greatly speed up the combats and fix the party AI to not run around like idiots, then idc if they add more people to the party. It would be a matter of choice to use more or less. Personally I am fine with the 4 and prefer solo since I can go and do other things in rl while waiting for my turn, if there were 6 party members right now it would be even more tedious. There would be some rebalancing needed with the larger party but I am not sure adding more monsters would fix anything.

Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Don't you ever play any harder games than BG3 in which the party size is 5 or 6 ?
Most games I have played have less than that and it works fine. DA series had 4 and ME series had 3 and they had different difficulty settings. Couldn't really get into the first BG games but having RTwP made it a lot better to have 6 party members. If those were TB I probably would have lasted only a few minutes trying to play with a full party. Hells, even my current DnD game has 2 players and 1 npc party member. Do you have any examples of TB games with 5 or 6? They are not what I usually play. I am curious how the combats are in them and if they go faster than here.

I would say maybe 5 people would be a fair compromise, but only if they speed up the enemy turns. Could even make party size yet another menu option, 4 as the standard and a toggle for maybe 6.

Joined: Feb 2021
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Zarna
Do you have any examples of TB games with 5 or 6? They are not what I usually play. I am curious how the combats are in them and if they go faster than here.

I would say maybe 5 people would be a fair compromise, but only if they speed up the enemy turns. Could even make party size yet another menu option, 4 as the standard and a toggle for maybe 6.

Pathfinder: Kingmaker was originally RTwP, but they recently added a turn-based mode derived (with permission) from a mod that added it. It goes relatively quickly, and keeps quite close to the tabletop Pathfinder rules (although flanking is severely simplified).

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by TripleKill
I don't really get why people wants 6 player party its too crowded considerin how long the combats are as they re with 4 now, u ll need to add more monsters to balance but this will mean gale will surely die in 1st round
If they can greatly speed up the combats and fix the party AI to not run around like idiots, then idc if they add more people to the party. It would be a matter of choice to use more or less. Personally I am fine with the 4 and prefer solo since I can go and do other things in rl while waiting for my turn, if there were 6 party members right now it would be even more tedious. There would be some rebalancing needed with the larger party but I am not sure adding more monsters would fix anything.

Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Don't you ever play any harder games than BG3 in which the party size is 5 or 6 ?
Most games I have played have less than that and it works fine. DA series had 4 and ME series had 3 and they had different difficulty settings. Couldn't really get into the first BG games but having RTwP made it a lot better to have 6 party members. If those were TB I probably would have lasted only a few minutes trying to play with a full party. Hells, even my current DnD game has 2 players and 1 npc party member. Do you have any examples of TB games with 5 or 6? They are not what I usually play. I am curious how the combats are in them and if they go faster than here.

I would say maybe 5 people would be a fair compromise, but only if they speed up the enemy turns. Could even make party size yet another menu option, 4 as the standard and a toggle for maybe 6.


Wasteland, Pathfinder (TB game mode), Pillars of Eternity (TB game mode), Temple of Elemental Evil, Xcom, The Banner Saga, Blackguards, ...

Combats aren't necessarily faster, it depends on many things... but they surely aren't easier.

You should try BG3 with a party of 6.
You'll probably notice that it's very too easy... But it's also more fun because 1) you're less passive 2) you kill your ennemies faster.

More companions = more action points = more gameplay
But more action points = easier game. If the game is too easy, increase the difficulty, certainly not the number of ennemies.

I'd rather play more and watch less during combats. At the moment we don't play enough and we just watch too much. That's a part of the slowness of combats.

According to me the exact same setting with a party of 5 could be fine. I tried it and if you don"t use all cheats Larian implemented, the difficulty looks "normal".

Last edited by Maximuuus; 10/02/21 10:09 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
I think I have access to a couple of those, will check them out at some point. Hopefully combats feel more fluid. Doubt I will bother trying the mod for 6 here unless they add a hard mode and better AI. Already had the snoozefest with stealth play. :P Perhaps they could add a menu option to skip watching enemy turns, maybe make it work like a fast forward button for people like me who are impatient. smile

Joined: May 2019
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by TripleKill
I don't really get why people wants 6 player party its too crowded considerin how long the combats are as they re with 4 now, u ll need to add more monsters to balance but this will mean gale will surely die in 1st round laugh Jokes aside its not 2nd or 3rd edition anymore you dont need a rogue for traps or lockpick, basically anyclass can handle that, pick the lock with the correct background. You just need to perception check to see traps and shoot an arrow thats it.
Perhaps because you and I play these kinds of games for very different reasons?

I don't play these games for their combat. Period. I tolerate the combat parts so that I can play the game for everything in it that is outside of combat. And the most important, interesting, and personally enjoyable parts of a game are developing and interacting with my party-members. As such, a party of six gives me significantly more pleasure from playing the game than a party of four. Yes, there is such a thing as a party that is too large to be reasonably managed. But that cutoff line is six, not four. Six is optimal, the perfect middle-point between what would be too big and what is too small.

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
@Maximuuus

I wouldn't use pathfinder or pillars as examples of good turn based combat at all. Those games are built for rtwp and it really shows when you switch modes. Many battles are a slog. I mean legitimate 1 hour slogs and not because of difficulty either. Ambushes, for example, in rtwp you can pause right away, but the same encounter in turn based has your whole party regardless of initiative lose a turn not counting the suprise turn so 2 turns gone.

Encounters need to be designed as a base from the get go for 6 and I don't think it is. Turning up the difficulty does not change design philosophy.

Wasteland is a good turn based combat example because it is designed for 6 man. Xcom as well I think. Its been awhile so I don't remember much about Xcom.

I have no problem with 4 or 6 man parties, but don't act like pathfinder or pillars are good turn based games. Most answers to problems with turn based combat in those games simply tell you to switch to rtwp which in it self a failure full stop. More on pathfinder of course. Pillars is more ai priority than anything and you cant switch in that. Ai simply focus the mc till dead regardless of team existence, position, or class.

If they do 6 man then it must be a base not add on or you will forever fight uphill.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
I never tried Pillars or Pathfinder in TB so I don't Say they're good TB games.

I personnaly just don't know, but I know that many players like those games in TB (Wrath of the Righteous is made with an official TB mode).

Last edited by Maximuuus; 11/02/21 04:33 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Universe
Yeah the paid beta is out right now. All I'm saying, in my opinion, turn based combat in those franchises are not good. The dev's already confirmed that Wrath of the Righteous is a rtwp first and foremost. Which is fair. All encounters are with rtwp in mind only.

Your other examples seem good to me though. At least the ones I've played. The panel next week should reveal some info. Maybe Larian will talk about party intricacy.

Page 41 of 53 1 2 39 40 41 42 43 52 53

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