Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 76 of 102 1 2 74 75 76 77 78 101 102
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by GM4Him
BG3 is based on D&D 5e. Yes?
Yes ...
Now lets play a game ... its called search for difference:

"Based on rules" and "literal transcription of rules 1:1" wink

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Why is tabletop valid?
It is not ... and we were through this discusion countless times.
Do you use EXACTLY SAME set of rules as BG3? YOU DO NOT ... therefore, no matter how much simmilar your tabletop shits are they are not the same and therefore they are invalid.
Easy.

Its as if you ordered grilled Parmesan, and i give you Eidam (not sure if you have that one, but google if you dont) ... its both cheese, therefore it is "based on" the same basics, but ITS NOT THE SAME.
Its as if you ordered a House, and i give you Tent ... its both shelter against weather, therefore it is "based on" the same basics, but ITS NOT THE SAME.
Its as if you ordered a Dice, and i give you Electronic RNG machine ... its both used to generate random numbers, therefore it is "based on" the same basics, but ITS NOT THE SAME.

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 02/11/21 02:45 PM.

In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
I think your analogy is a bit off. Here's why:

If Larian said, "We're basing this game on DOS rules and gameplay," and I said, "But it's not following D&D tabletop rules," I'd totally agree with you.

However, Larian said, "This is a D&D 5e game with some homebrew because, ya know, tabletop doesn't perfectly align with video games."

So, by saying it is a D&D 5e game based on Tabletop D&D, it is perfectly reasonable to compare the video game to the Tabletop especially since I can see that evidence exists from the beginning that they did, in fact, base the game MORE on 5e originally. I can see clearly that all of the encounters were based on a party size of 5-6 BECAUSE when I tested it using TT, the encounters worked very well with standard 5e stats for monsters and XP split and a party of 5-6. None of these encounters work at all with a party size less than 5. NONE.

So, why do they work in BG3 right now? It's only because of severe nerfing. Period.

I just replayed the prologue. Imps award a whopping 10 XP per kill. They're supposed to give 200 XP each. Why are they so nerfed? Because if they actually offered 200 per we'd level up to level 2 after the first fight.

The point is that the whole game is fricked up because they didn't stick to a party size of 5-6 like they should have in order to make their encounters work. If they just went back to a party size of 5-6, they could go back to proper enemy stats and the game would be challenging, rewarding, and it would be perfect for us true D&D fans.

Now, while I understand that you don't give two craps about D&D, the game is based on D&D set in a D&D world, and by not sticking true to D&D at all, it is like some jerk author writing a Star Trek novel or script and making Klingons weak-willed pushovers who are peace loving and think everyone should just stop fighting and get along.

So, here's what's wrong with your cheese analogy. You keep saying that comparing BG3 to Tabletop D&D is like comparing two different things. You said they are like two different cheeses. They are both cheeses, but they are not the same cheese. That analogy would be like me comparing BG3 to DOS. They are both video games, but they have two totally different worlds and rulesets.

Comparing BG3 to Tabletop D&D is more like comparing regular swiss cheese with swiss cheese that someone melted and mixed a whole lot of peppers and spices in it. Both are swiss cheese, but the second one has had a bunch of impurities mixed into it which has made it now totally different than normal swiss. You can still call it swiss, but if you do you are going to get a lot of surprised faces when customers bite into the swiss mingled with peppers and stuff. They're definitely still in the same category, swiss, but now the swiss with stuff in it tastes so different from regular swiss that it is almost not even the same cheese anymore. It tastes completely different, and it will now make swiss lovers very unhappy.

So who is Larian's audience? Here, again, we come back to this question. If a person creates a story in the Star Wars universe, but they don't make their story appealing to Star Wars fans, what do you think is going to happen? Likewise, if a person creates a story in the Lord of the Rings world, but he doesn't appeal to Lord of the Rings fans, what do you think is going to happen?

Likewise, if Larian is truly creating a D&D game set in a D&D world, and they completely and totally disregard the D&D rules altogether, giving imps and intellect devourers completely different stats and abilities, and everything about the game is barely even D&D at all because they've nerfed everyone and everything so much, what do you think D&D fans are going to do?

They're going to compare the REAL D&D game with this so-called D&D game. They're going to naturally view it as a wannabe pretender to the genre, and naturally they are going to say, "This isn't a sequel to the original BG1 and 2. This is a fake." Just like a person who loves pure swiss will bite into a swiss with all sorts of junk in it and go, "What the heck is this? I ordered swiss, not this crap."

So, again, I say, "This game was built originally based on a party size of 5-6 from start to finish. It was built with multiplayer 4 players in mind with the ability to add 1 or 2 more characters so that encounters were balanced based on the original 5e rules and stats and XP rewards. Then, in order to make it work with only 1-4 characters in a party, they nerfed EVERYTHING about the game so that players wouldn't throw the game out the window yelling and screaming about how insanely difficult this game was."

All I'm asking is that they go back to where they started on this. Make the game party size 5-6, rebalance the encounters back to 5-6 party size as a DIFFICULTY setting that is Core D&D 5e rules and stats, then make how the game is currently a DIFFICULTY setting for all you who don't like true D&D and just want some nerfed version so you can play it with only 1-4 characters.

Last edited by GM4Him; 02/11/21 05:41 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by GM4Him
However, Larian said, "This is a D&D 5e game with some homebrew because, ya know, tabletop doesn't perfectly align with video games."
Wich part of your own words you dont understand?


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Here we are, arguing about something they probably won't change.

-_-

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by GM4Him
However, Larian said, "This is a D&D 5e game with some homebrew because, ya know, tabletop doesn't perfectly align with video games."
Wich part of your own words you dont understand?

Yes. But what about the cheese? Is it Swiss? Swiss plus plus? What if people who like Swiss wind up eating Swiss plus plus? Will they no longer eat the cheese if it is Swiss plus plus?

Swiss, by the way, has 6 holes. Swiss plus plus has four, and it doesn't smell like Swiss oh, look like Swiss, or taste like Swiss. It tastes like Gouda. I don't like Gouda.

Last edited by GM4Him; 02/11/21 10:58 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Imora DalSyn
Here we are, arguing about something they probably won't change.

-_-
Is that somehow bothering you? O_o


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
This is pure speculation and not revealed truth, so I wouldn't indulge that spin, but I think its very likely that you are correct - that someone with tabletop 5e experience was hired and brought in to write this campaign, or at least the initial draft version of it, with the nuts and bolts all pretty tight. Basically meaning that the major encounters were outlined assuming a standard 5e party size of 3-5 members, with monsters using standard stats, CR, the recommended XP progression etc. In other words, that the campaign was planned and created in PnP and then handed off.

I think it's also entirely possible that many of Larian's initial development staff had no substatial experience playing table top Dungeons and Dragons or even Baldurs Gate 1 or 2 when they landed this project. Perhaps they are people with Ragnarok's predisposition, and no particular attachment to D&D systems or to the earlier BG games in the series, beyond just a general interest in developing cool fantasy rpgs? Maybe several of them were simply too young to have had any direct experience of the original games, either as games or as a cultural phenomenon. So they just don't really care about that stuff as deeply and also don't see how much extra work they are actually creating for themselves by going off script there.

Lets just say for this thought experiment that they had a pretty dialed PnP campaign thrown into their laps and were then directed by their bosses to "make this work!" with the pre-existing game engine. I can easily imagine how something like that could happen. Also, because the existing game engine was not particularly well suited to handle D&D rules they started changing everything around immediately so it would at least begin to take shape. Mixing and matching, throwing out encounters, adding monsters or nerfing them -heavily tweaking and adapting everything to suit their existing systems, instead of first designing appropriate new systems that the original campaign draft assumed would be in place, before players were invited to play.

Maybe they released it a bit to soon into EA, probably as a cash grab, to sustain the project under heightened fears of the possible economic fallout of a world crushing pandemic in the offing. You know, to get at the money before everyone was broke and out of work and also while we were all still locked down at home and searching for things to do with our time. So this is why we ended up with a half baked potato.

If they pushed it out too quickly with underdeveloped systems - such that all the work of prebalancing encounters by the books got thrown out the window in the scramble to get something out the door that would be serviceable as a demo - now they are stuck in the position where half their playerbase thinks that what we're seeing is fully intentional. All part of the grand plan to make DOS2 Faerun, and that what we see now is somehow already balanced and tuned. While the other half thinks it's still a hot mess waiting to be untangled, once the real D&D systems are in place.

Right now players who have no real affinity for the D&D or BG part, but just want a shove-em around tb action game with a D&D story might think it's rad and 'don't mess with the winning formula.' Whereas people who wanted something more mechanically consistent with D&D this couldn't possibly be right, cause it doesn't behave like a proper campaign using the standard standards should play.

What they desperately need is a game mode called "Action" so they can do whatever the hell they want with it for their Divinity fans, and another game mode called "Classic" which tries to appeal to the people who came here expecting a more traditional D&D campaign and aims to do everything it can to put the first campaign draft into proper practice. Again all wildly speculative. Such a campaign might never have really existed beyond an outline, but I can see the logic and the circumstances that might have allowed such a situation to arise.

When the game comes out of EA and they've basically ignored the Classic audience to go with party of 4 and a paltry 8 companions. I'll know at that point that they've failed. Until then I have to keep arguing in favor of the disaffected cohort here who wants the game to work for >4 with the normal stat spreads and standard systems.

Also, 6!

grin

Last edited by Black_Elk; 03/11/21 09:27 AM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Looks like Swiss, smells like Swiss, tastes like Swiss. It must be Swiss.

BG1 = party of 6, D&D rules, D&D stats, D&D XP rewards
BG2 = party of 6, D&D rules, D&D stats, D&D XP rewards
BG3 = party of 4, D&D rules with many homebrew rules mixed in, severely nerfed D&D stats, severely nerfed XP rewards

If it's nerfed with 4, maybe, just maybe, it was meant for 6. Hmmm.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Imora DalSyn
Here we are, arguing about something they probably won't change.

-_-
Is that somehow bothering you? O_o

No, I just feel it's a futile argument. With how far in development the game probably is, there's not time to rebalance it.

My personal opinion is that I don't care, but turn based combat with a large amount of actors is annoying as balls. Do the Defenders Heart seige in WotR in turn based mode. You'll be there for over an hour. I'd prefer to not have that here, too, but if they do it, so be it.

If I find six to be cumbersome, I just won't play it at launch. And I find large party turn based play to be cumbersome.

Last edited by Imora DalSyn; 03/11/21 12:34 PM. Reason: Phone typonese
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Now see? That's why I was saying that the game is already balanced for a party of 6. They wouldn't have to rebalance anyting. They would just need to use proper stats for all monsters. The game is only balanced for a party of 4 currently because they severely nerfed all the monsters.

And now I have to ask, "Would it really make combat so much slower to add 2 more party members?

Let's take the goblin camp battle. There are like 20 enemies or so versus your 4. Now, if I had a party of 6, wouldn't it stand to reason that I would kill 20 enemies faster? I get 2 more attacks per turn at least. So if, with a party of 6, I get 6+ attacks against an ogre per turn if I gang up on it, wouldn't I kill it faster then if I only got 4 attacks?

And what is with so many people arguing that they have to rebalance the game? They have to do that anyway once the game is released and they lift the level cap. Even in the games current nerfed state, once they lift the level cap, your party should be at least level 5 if not 6 by the time you get to the Underdark unless you skip a lot of content.

So rebalancing is going to have to occur regardless or the last few sections of EA are going to be way too easy.

Last edited by GM4Him; 03/11/21 01:00 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
And now I have to ask, "Would it really make combat so much slower to add 2 more party members?
The way they muddle up things, yes it will. They will probably end up adding more health to enemies or adding more of them to each encounter if they change everything for 6 party members because they feel it is balanced for 4 currently and 6 would make it too easy. Adding enemies especially will make combat even worse than it already is for those of us who like stealth gameplay (or what passes for it here.) I have actually found solo play to feel "faster" in the goblin camp simply because I can go and do other things while the enemies take all day to do nothing on their turns. Having to sit and stare at the screen because my party has to take their turns already makes it tedious enough with 4.

If they were to keep things as they currently are and add an option for 6 party members then I don't care.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
I'd personally feel compelled to bring six.

I'm sure a lot of people would. Sure, folks like to undersize stuff, but to me it feels wrong and give an option, I'd feel compelled to do it as the balance would be around six.

And bringing six now as it is would make a lot of the harder fights easy.

I honestly don't expect them to change it. I hope they don't, but if they do, meh.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Imora DalSyn
I'd personally feel compelled to bring six.

I'm sure a lot of people would. Sure, folks like to undersize stuff, but to me it feels wrong and give an option, I'd feel compelled to do it as the balance would be around six.

And bringing six now as it is would make a lot of the harder fights easy.

I honestly don't expect them to change it. I hope they don't, but if they do, meh.
So you're saying that, if 6 was an option, you'd feel compelled to bring 6 people and either:
1.) Larian rebalances the game around 6 (possibly using split exp, possibly changing encounters) and thus your game balance would be fine, or
2.) Larian doesn't rebalance the game around 6, and thus playing with 6 would be too easy.
Is that right?

Obviously option #2 is bad, but are you also implying that option #1 is different/worse than currently being compelled to use a party-of-4? If so, how? Please assume that Larian will NOT balance for a party of 6 by adding more enemies (e.g., WotR Defender's Seige); basically everyone already agrees that's a bad idea so there's no point discussing it.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
And here again I think you're all missing the point that I've been trying to make. All they would literally have to do to balance this game currently for a party of six is to use proper D&D stats for all monsters. If they just used proper stats, the game is balanced for six. I've tested it. I know it works. It makes the game so much more fun.

And yes, the big battles take some time, but in tabletop session, it took less time with a party of six then it does in the video game right now with a party of four. Same enemies. Proper stats. The reason is that you have a bigger party that can do more damage per round.

You, the player, having more characters to control during combat speeds up combat. It also means that you have a far less probability of losing a fight and having to reload. Reloading a fight is far more time consuming and frustrating.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Imora DalSyn
With how far in development the game probably is, there's not time to rebalance it.
I see ...
Well, my personal feeling is that time is not the problem here, but i agree that game should not be rebalanced whole ...
That is why i (and few other people) supported the idea that Larian should simply allow us to add two more party members in settings, and warn us that this toggle will make game conciderably easier, and unballanced.

That way no additional balancing is needed (nor even desired sometimes ... since i actualy can imagine some people toggling this on just for Gith encounter) ...

And as i said countless times before ... everyone should be happy. ^_^


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Never gonna happen ..you can see the money that’s being spent - the huge amount of choice and branching paths. Adding 2 more is essentially 50% more time and cost if you want the same high standard of game we have.
Personally I prefer 4 but I understand that people love 6 man/woman parties but it simply ain’t gonna happen …maybe a modders thing someday but outside of that I’d be astounded - happy for those that want it- but astounded if it is put in ….
Unless the $$$$ make sense & the release date could wait lord knows how long.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
They STARTED with 6. It's been designed for 6. Early screenshots even prove it. They've even said they will do difficulty settings.

Ah geez. I quit. Whatever. We're all just saying the same gosh darn things over and over again. If Larian doesn't realize by now that they need to implement 6 as an option with true D&D stats...

Last edited by GM4Him; 04/11/21 11:32 AM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Zarna
The way they muddle up things, yes it will. They will probably end up adding more health to enemies or adding more of them to each encounter if they change everything for 6 party members because they feel it is balanced for 4 currently and 6 would make it too easy.
Originally Posted by Imora DalSyn
I'd personally feel compelled to bring six.

I'm sure a lot of people would. Sure, folks like to undersize stuff, but to me it feels wrong and give an option, I'd feel compelled to do it as the balance would be around six.

And bringing six now as it is would make a lot of the harder fights easy.
So then what happens when a player uses only a party of 1? That makes all the encounters too difficult and so Larian has to change the encounters to keep them from being too difficult, right?

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round.

That's all we're doing here.

Imma be Gale for a sec:

Fact 1: The game CAN have anywhere between 1 and 4 players in current state.

Fact 2: If it CAN have 4 players, and the game is balanced for 1, the game becomes instantly too easy for 4 players. Evidence? The prologue is INSANELY easy for 4 players. Even Zalk becomes amazingly easy to kill when you have Shadowheart pummeling him with Guiding Bolt and Lae'zel hacking him with a sword and Us raking him with claws and 4 PCs all pegging him with all their own abilities plus the mind flayer.

Fact 3: With a max of 4 party members, if you play multiplayer, you CANNOT and are RESTRICTED from adding any origin characters to your party. Therefore, you CANNOT and are RESTRICTED from having any origin character story line quests such as interrogating Zorru, having Lae'zel with you while speaking with the Gith Patrol, having Wyll with you while you are fighting goblins and interrogating them, having Shadowheart with you when you visit the statues of Selune, having Gale with you when you save Arabella so he can talk to you about some of his past, etc. etc. etc.

Fact 4: The game is currently NOT using proper D&D stats for most of its monsters. Many are nerfed to try to MAKE it balanced for 4. If they used a party of 6 as their standard balance, they would not need to nerf enemies or use these weird homebrew rules and such that they've been using.

Fact 5: The XP allowances wouldn't NEED to be nerfed if they used proper D&D XP rewards, a party of 6, and XP split. They'd still level up just as fast if they did these things. The only reason Imps now give only a whopping 10 XP is because they needed to severely nerf them in order to prevent players from leveling up to Level 3 before the prologue was over. Make the game based on a party of 6 from the beginning, and you wouldn't have to do this.

Conclusion: If everything about the game deviates from true D&D 5e simply because they need to do this in order to make it work with a party of 1-4, and if it would actually work perfectly based on true D&D 5e rules and stats if they made it a party of 6, why are they basing the entire balance of the game on a party of 1-4 max?

By only allowing a max of 4 characters in your party, they are especially severely limiting multiplayer mode, and they are having to completely nerf the system to make it work. Makes no sense.

You always start big and then adjust to small. You don't start small and try to adjust to big. If you do, things don't work well. Balance for 6 and then make it so that there are game adjustments to tweak stats and such for situations where players are using less than 6. Give players the ability for a maximum of 6 party members, especially for multiplayer, and then provide Difficulty settings so players can adjust down to 1-4 if that's their preference. Don't completely limit and hinder multiplayer so drastically and nerf stats so drastically and make the game a lot less fun for those who want to play with true D&D rules and a party of 6 ESPECIALLY when it is so obvious that the game COULD and SHOULD be based on a party of 6 using standard rules and stats.

If they created no other difficulty options, they should at least create this:

1. Core Rules and Stats Difficulty with Party of 6
2. Current Game Rules and Stats Difficulty with Party of 1-4.

Simple adjustment. You play with a party of 4 Difficult Setting, the stats and rules are exactly as Larian has created the game right now. If you play with a party of 6 Difficulty Setting (especially for those who play 4 player multiplayer), you get traditional D&D rules and stats.

Then, everybody on this thread should be happy. Should anyway.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Imora DalSyn
I'd personally feel compelled to bring six.

I'm sure a lot of people would. Sure, folks like to undersize stuff, but to me it feels wrong and give an option, I'd feel compelled to do it as the balance would be around six.

And bringing six now as it is would make a lot of the harder fights easy.

I honestly don't expect them to change it. I hope they don't, but if they do, meh.
So you're saying that, if 6 was an option, you'd feel compelled to bring 6 people and either:
1.) Larian rebalances the game around 6 (possibly using split exp, possibly changing encounters) and thus your game balance would be fine, or
2.) Larian doesn't rebalance the game around 6, and thus playing with 6 would be too easy.
Is that right?

Obviously option #2 is bad, but are you also implying that option #1 is different/worse than currently being compelled to use a party-of-4? If so, how? Please assume that Larian will NOT balance for a party of 6 by adding more enemies (e.g., WotR Defender's Seige); basically everyone already agrees that's a bad idea so there's no point discussing it.


Adding enemies would just drag out combat in a turn based game. I mentioned an example earlier. They'd have to increase HP a bunch.

If they don't rebalance, 6 will make it too easy. If 6 is optional ill feel compelled to bring them along anyway because "it's obviously intended this way, otherwise they wouldn't have made it this way.". As I'm sure you know, bringing 4 now is optional, as all of EA has been solo cleared, and that's not something I'd do, because it's not intended, just possible.

If that makes sense.

Page 76 of 102 1 2 74 75 76 77 78 101 102

Moderated by  Nicou 

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