Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 69 of 74 1 2 67 68 69 70 71 73 74
Joined: Aug 2021
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Party of 6 does not always mean more ennemies. This is a wrong argument.

All else equal, if you allow parties of 6 right now, the game becomes much easier. You could balance this through split XP as mrfuji suggested, or by adding more enemies / stronger enemies.

Last edited by polliwagwhirl; 23/08/21 06:52 AM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by polliwagwhirl
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Party of 6 does not always mean more ennemies. This is a wrong argument.

All else equal, if you allow parties of 6 right now, the game becomes much easier. You could balance this through split XP as mrfuji suggested, or by adding more enemies / stronger enemies.

Yes, and there are other things you can do too to increase the difficulty of a game.
But you don't HAVE to add more ennemies.

Some battles in BG3 already have more ennemies than hack & slash games. It would be terrible to add even more goblins grin

Last edited by Maximuuus; 23/08/21 07:02 AM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by polliwagwhirl
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Party of 6 does not always mean more ennemies. This is a wrong argument.

All else equal, if you allow parties of 6 right now, the game becomes much easier. You could balance this through split XP as mrfuji suggested, or by adding more enemies / stronger enemies.
Which means that when you do all of the above in equal measure having “bigger fights” becomes hardly an actual issue.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Mar 2013
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Mar 2013
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by polliwagwhirl
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Party of 6 does not always mean more ennemies. This is a wrong argument.

All else equal, if you allow parties of 6 right now, the game becomes much easier. You could balance this through split XP as mrfuji suggested, or by adding more enemies / stronger enemies.

Yes, and there are other things you can do too to increase the difficulty of a game.
But you don't HAVE to add more ennemies.

Some battles in BG3 already have more ennemies than hack & slash games. It would be terrible to add even more goblins grin

if there are enough enemies, then it would mean placement & positioning, add variety to the encounter and stats changes. I'm not sure at the moment if Larian did any stats change to the bestiary. If they did, then i see no issue here if that's the case.

Joined: Oct 2020
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: Oct 2020
How is adding two more characters going to take them longer to make the game?

It's been done through mod already.

That's a pretty half ass excuse or counter argument tbh, no offense.

Logically, it makes no sense, since they're introducing more characters anyways, so that's basically an out of your "where the sun don't shine" answer tbh.

There's a whole list of reasons that goes on for so long, no one wants to write it all, about how just adding in one more character, not to mention 6 opens up so much more possibilities while you hardcore 4 player on a team people wouldn't even be affected much. Since you still get what you want, a 4 player team in a single or co op game.
But somehow that still affects your life enough to come up with the whole "it'll take longer to make a game, by adding something that's already planned to potentially be in the game already, but Larion is just debating if they want to or not take that path.

Following that logic I bet you guys get mad at people for playing a single player game a certain way that's not like yours too huh?

The difficulty argument is kinda invalid too, it's as if you're saying Larian would be half ass and not scale enemies accordingly.
The freedom of choice is always a good thing.
Some folks uses one character only, are you 4 player squad gon bash on them for playing with one character only?
Just let folks enjoy their game the way they want.
Heck if they have a 50 people on the team option, who cares bruh, let them.

It's like you're mad at me, because I shag my girl last night while you don't have one.
Me riding a car while you chose to walk.
I choose to hit the gym while you play video games.
How are you getting mad at folks for doing stuff that's not really affecting the choices you make?
How does it affect you at the end of the day?
It don't.

Are you going to pull my hands away from my girl as we walk because you have no one to hold yours? No, so why whine about people asking for more party members in a game that it makes sense to have a few more?

It's like you guys are stuck in this 4 player on a team loop mentality that's been the trend with games. You get offended at any mention of some different.
Or you probably don't have more than 4 friends or whatever.

Just let people get options man. Especially when the reasoning is valid enough vs "I don't like it because I've been playing 4 player teams my whole life" or "I'm too lazy to even play a game now that it has a function I won't use, so I'll whine about how hard it is to keep up with the game now that it has one more teammate on it."

Some folks man. 🤦🏻‍♂️
Closeminded ass community tbh.

Last edited by Lenggao; 30/08/21 11:53 AM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
It all seems to be about character management. 2 more characters makes the item management system even worse than it already is. It's a huge pain point now. Imagine 2 more on the team.

That said, you shouldn't base it on janky item management. Fix that and adding 2 more won't hurt the game.

Oh, and about balance. But balance can be adjusted easy enough. Use proper 5e stats for one, and if you need to, add more enemies. There you go. Now 6 party members works.

The pluses for 6 more than outweigh the minuses.

Joined: Mar 2013
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Mar 2013
i know larian love to promote their 4 person multiplayer game. but i hope they should really support those who like 6 party members single player games. i don't think it's a difficult thing to just allow 6 party character in single player and just fine tune those combat encounters. since larian games have limited encounters and no random ones, i don't think it's a difficult task for them to fine-tune. compared to pathfinder kingmaker which they have some sort of random endless dungeons, it can't be that a small indie company can do it but bg3 as AAA game could not?

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
4 party members is very restrictive for a D&D game where you recruit NPCs... it would be less of a problem if you made your own party.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Been playing Pathfinder: Kingmaker because, you know, people swear by Pathfinder.

I will say this, the game starts with a party of 4, and I felt the restriction of it. I created a Magus (fighter mage person), and I had a bard, barbarian and cleric. It was a difficult mix. Later, I was able to add a 5th party member, a fighter, and it became easier because I was rounding my team out better in terms of skills and abilities. It really helped the overall party dynamic.

Then, the game won me over. I was able to Hire Mercenary and create ANOTHER CUSTOM CHARACTER to make my 6th party member. OMG how I would love to have that functionality in BG3! We also desperately need to be able to add and remove party members that are custom characters so that if we're playing multiplayer, and 1 player decides to quit, we can continue with the story and just drop that character from the party.

6 party members really rounded my team out better.

You know, I suspect that if they did a 6 party member game, they wouldn't need to fudge the classes like they're doing with all the homebrew nonsense. Part of the issue with a 4 party team is you need everyone to have the ability to sneak, to heal, to fight, etc. or you struggle through the game because you don't have enough party member slots to add all the roles you need.

And if you play multiplayer party of 4, you have NO room to add any origin characters or anything. You are literally stuck with your party of 4 and that's it. You can't add anyone else.

And from what I've seen, it looks like early game designs gave people the ability to have up to 6 party members! So what the heck!

Joined: Dec 2020
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
I basically have two contingency plans in regards to team compositions with 4 character and 6 character teams.

4 characters:

- Archer Valor Bard
- Shadowheart/Cleric
- Paladin
- Gale/Wizard

Extremely rigid setup, covers all tactical bases while favoring magical utility at the same time. Replacing anyone leads to a major loss of utility for maybe more damage. I would not be surprised if most players had planned setups very similar to something like this as well.

6 characters:
- Archer Valor Bard
- Shadowheart/Cleric
- Paladin
- Gale/Wizard
- Ranger
- Wild card slot for whichever character interests me most

A balanced setup favoring ranged capabilities. The wild card would determine if the setup becomes more balanced (if I add another melee-focused character like Lae'zel), or even more skewed towards magic (like Halsin/Druid). If I wanted to, I could swap out the Ranger for even heavier magic or melee setups.

Upon further thought, with a 4 person party, I feel like having 3+ melee characters is just asking for trouble. But you can comfortably get away with doing that with a 6 person party, because you won't be losing far too much utility from doing such a thing.

It's worth noting that my current favored party setup in Pathfinder WotR consists of the following:

- Eldritch Archer (wizard/archer hybrid)
- Lann/Zen Archer (monk/archer hybrid)
- Arueshalae/Ranger
- Ember/Stigmatized Witch (bard/wizard hybrid with a focus on buffs and debuffs)
- Camellia/Shaman (druid-type class with a focus on buffs and debuffs)
- Seelah/Paladin

A lot of archers and mages. Despite the setup being imbalanced in theory, the characters are built in very specific ways to cover for tactical weaknesses, such as Lann and Camellia being able to function well on the front lines, along with four of the characters being capable of casting healing magic if needed (five if the main character is built in a specific way in regards to mythic powers).

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 11/09/21 08:38 AM.
Joined: Oct 2017
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
[snip]
- Minsc/Ranger
[snip]
wait what?


"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Joined: Dec 2020
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
wait what?

Datamines. Or well, whoever the ranger is at this point.

Joined: May 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: May 2021
Legitimate question. Does party make-up really matter in this game? It seems with all the bells and whistles added in (barrels, shoves), the ability for every class to heal others (by throwing potions), and the general lack of class restrictions on spells…is there really any value in trying to create a balanced party?

If not (ie, depending on final fame mechanics), I will likely just stack my party with the group whose side quests sound the most interesting.

Joined: Dec 2020
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
They’ve been slowly toning down the silliness, so yeah, it’ll matter. Eventually.

Joined: Oct 2017
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2017
Hopefully it won't be like Kingmaker where you can get anywhere with +50 attack bonus and/or 8 attacks per round critting on 15.

Would you rather have a game where any team comp can work, or a game where, without a balanced party, you're gonna go through hell unless you're playing Story mode?

Take Baldur's Gate 2, for example. I'm not sure about vanilla game, but with SCS and a couple other mods, it can get to the point where it's essentially required that you have at least one cleric and one mage. A cleric for specific protections against many negative effects. A mage for anti-magic attacks and countering enemy spellcasters. Some fights against liches, demi liches, vampires, illithids, demons, are probably unwinnable without clerics/mages. Some miniboss mages can wipe your party if you don't have a mage who can bring down their defenses (and in time).

I'm fine with such a "restriction", because my party can have 6 members, so even with a "required" cleric and a required mage, I still have 4 other slots and quite a lot of freedom for companion choices.

On the other hand, if your party can only have 4 party members, and you know that you're gonna need a cleric and a mage, that just doesn't leave you much of a choice, does it? You're going to need a rogue-ish character for the utilities, traps, and locks. And you're also going to need a frontliner who can keep enemies occupied. If you take into account the idea that maybe we won't even have a whole lot of companions to choose from, it's actually pretty depressing to think about. If you just tell me which class you're playing, I can pretty much tell which other companions your team consists of. And IF we also take into account that, some companions we like, and some we don't, then, what? Can I go make my custom party members now?

Is this game going to be so easy that even the most casual players who care nothing about party comp and such can still finish it comfortably, without having to lower the difficulty to Story mode?

Or is this game going to be like DOS2, in which you can respec your companions into anything? And the key to combat is always incapacitating enemies before they get to do anything, so you actually don't even need a tank, as long as you stack cc abilities and have ultra high initiative?

Last edited by Try2Handing; 11/09/21 04:29 PM.

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
Would you rather have a game where any team comp can work, or a game where, without a balanced party, you're gonna go through hell unless you're playing Story mode?
Playing with any team is already possible and I am sure it will stay that way, no matter if they add the extra party members for those of you who want them or leave it the way it is.

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
On the other hand, if your party can only have 4 party members, and you know that you're gonna need a cleric and a mage, that just doesn't leave you much of a choice, does it? You're going to need a rogue-ish character for the utilities, traps, and locks. And you're also going to need a frontliner who can keep enemies occupied. If you take into account the idea that maybe we won't even have a whole lot of companions to choose from, it's actually pretty depressing to think about. If you just tell me which class you're playing, I can pretty much tell which other companions your team consists of. And IF we also take into account that, some companions we like, and some we don't, then, what? Can I go make my custom party members now?

Is this game going to be so easy that even the most casual players who care nothing about party comp and such can still finish it comfortably, without having to lower the difficulty to Story mode?
You don't "need" anyone. This game can so far be soloed by any class. I can only speak for Ranger and partially for Wizard (stopped playing that character) but others here have done different classes. This will probably be done by someone on max difficulty a few days after the game is fully released. Don't need a cleric, just use healing potions. Don't need a rogue to pick locks, use the tools and I think Sleight of Hand affects it as well. Trap searching is Perception which anyone can easily have proficiency in. Definitely don't need a frontliner if you play cautiously or prefer an all ranged party. Don't need a mage either although they are possibly the most useful for all situations. There will be the custom option properly added later on to take care of the not liking certain characters issue, but you can do that now with the trick.

I think it is a good thing that many games have moved on from requiring a specific party makeup. Doesn't necessarily mean it is easier, using a non traditional party often means being creative and stubborn. "Casuals" will most likely be able to play on normal difficulty but I think we have different definitions of that word. Most "casuals" I know tend to play what they think they are supposed to play, meaning a traditional party setup and some of them don't bother with anything other than story mode.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
5e is already way more easy and tone down the need of a traditionnal party.

Everyone can use lockpicks. Most classes have spells or feature to heal. Most classes have a subclasses that can cast spells. Racial proficiency bonuses and/or feats allow you to custom your characters a lot,....

You don't need a healer, a tank, a wizard and a rogue. You can choose to create something else if you wish : you'll still have a lot of options for every character to become unique.

Classes remains unique but all of them have options to get more or less out of its primary goal... And that's really good.

But everyone should not always :

- be a healer/buffer (throw potion, potion as bonus action, scrolls for everyone)
- be a wizard (everyone can use every scrolls)
- be a rogue (hide as a bonus action)
- be powerfull in melee or with weapons (dipping, shoving as a bonus action, throwing,....)

That's how it works in BG3 because of the homebrew.
And that is not good at all in my opinion.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 12/09/21 07:28 AM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
5e is already way more easy and tone down the need of a traditionnal party.

Everyone can use lockpicks. Most classes have spells or feature to heal. Most classes have a subclasses that can cast spells. Racial proficiency bonuses and/or feats allow you to custom your characters a lot,....

You don't need a healer, a tank, a wizard and a rogue. You can choose to create something else if you wish : you'll still have a lot of options for every character to become unique.

Classes remains unique but all of them have options to get more or less out of its primary goal... And that's really good.

But everyone should not always :

- be a healer/buffer (throw potion, potion as bonus action, scrolls for everyone)
- be a wizard (everyone can use every scrolls)
- be a rogue (hide as a bonus action)
- be powerfull in melee or with weapons (dipping, shoving as a bonus action, throwing,....)

That's how it works in BG3 because of the homebrew.
And that is not good at all in my opinion.

100% agree

Joined: Oct 2021
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2021
The simple fact of games these days - Every Non-MMO but still Multiplayer game should have the option of 4, 6, or 8 players. Or more, depending on the type of game. But a game like this where you are bulding a party to play it should ALWAYS have the ability to add more RPCs dpending on the group of people that want to play together. My game group has 6 people in it, and we have to leave people out because of the stipidty of a 4 player system. NO GAME SHOULD HAVE ONLY 4 PLAYERS MAX. If the problem is connection speeds or resources for the game itself, then that should be on the user to make it right. If the problem is ease of completion, then it should be on the devloper to scale the difficulty to the number of RPCs. Limit the NPC slot list if you want, but the players should have a choice as to how many can play at a time.
It's that simple.
I don't care if the studio has a history of 4 player games.
I don't care if people are crying about length of battles or interations because of a larger party.
The number of people playing should be player controlled. Period.
I wish developers would get out of the past and realize this. There is no logical reason for only having a 4 player multiplayer game anymore.

Just my 2 cents
-Mookie

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by mookieb13
The simple fact of games these days - Every Non-MMO but still Multiplayer game should have the option of 4, 6, or 8 players. Or more, depending on the type of game. But a game like this where you are bulding a party to play it should ALWAYS have the ability to add more RPCs dpending on the group of people that want to play together. My game group has 6 people in it, and we have to leave people out because of the stipidty of a 4 player system. NO GAME SHOULD HAVE ONLY 4 PLAYERS MAX. If the problem is connection speeds or resources for the game itself, then that should be on the user to make it right. If the problem is ease of completion, then it should be on the devloper to scale the difficulty to the number of RPCs. Limit the NPC slot list if you want, but the players should have a choice as to how many can play at a time.
It's that simple.
I don't care if the studio has a history of 4 player games.
I don't care if people are crying about length of battles or interations because of a larger party.
The number of people playing should be player controlled. Period.
I wish developers would get out of the past and realize this. There is no logical reason for only having a 4 player multiplayer game anymore.

Just my 2 cents
-Mookie

Amen and amen!

Page 69 of 74 1 2 67 68 69 70 71 73 74

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