Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 92 of 102 1 2 90 91 92 93 94 101 102
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
I've said it before and I'll say it again. They could keep everything the same and allow party of 6 with D&D 5e Core stats and rules and allow players to create up to 4 custom characters, and it would be balanced. I've tested via tabletop. The encounters would be challenging but not too difficult.

Party of 6 with gameplay as is? Easy mode.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Volsalex
So, the only additional work Larian would need to do in addition to already planned is change party number to 5 and implement "hard" difficulty for 5 party.
Well the point for most of us here is to avoid any additional work. laugh


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: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Well, to my way of playing a D&D game, based on party roles (which btw is one of the most attractive and awesome things about D&D for me: party-based game with party roles for each party member), the six-person party is what is ideal because I identify six core party roles in D&D: tank, targeted damage dealer, area damage dealer, controller, buffer, and healer.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
And, once again, we'll state: "Many of us want party of 6 even IF they balance the game around party of 4."

Again, "Party of 6 allows players to play party of 4 if they want. Won't hurt party of 4 players at all. But in reverse, limiting to party of 4 means us party of 6-ers CAN'T play as we want."

So please, Larian. Let us have the option without mods.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Party of 6 allows players to play party of 4 if they want. Won't hurt party of 4 players at all. But in reverse, limiting to party of 4 means us party of 6-ers CAN'T play as we want.
Yup.

Joined: Sep 2017
N
stranger
Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Sep 2017
Yes Please the option for a Party of 6!!!!

Joined: Oct 2020
L
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
L
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by virion
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by virion
Since this topic is already a 90 page shitstorm let's add a bit more to it. I think 5 member party size is the optimum. Prove me wrong over the next 90 pages. Have fun!
Um, when it comes to opinions, it's your job to prove yourself right, not someone else's job to prove you wrong. wink
Just kidding obviously. Never understood why some people on the forum are so determined 6 people in party is a determining factor for anything. I've read pages and pages of people trying to prove their point about it. The only one that actually makes sense is party compositions might be a tad more intereseting with 6 characters since you have more classes to mix together. But ...that's it. Everything else is really a matter of taste.

Is it? Maybe you missed ALL the reasons I've given previously as to why Party of 6 makes more sense for this game. It isn't just a matter of taste.

What about:

1. Party of 6 allows for Party of 4 actual Players in multiplayer mode and 2 origin characters, thus allowing people to play together and still have a couple of character slots so you can do origin character story missions/quests and so forth - allowing for origin character dialogues and so forth with a full party of 4 players.
2. Party of 6 allows for more party dialogues. I did the party of 6 mod where you tweak the max party size number. I hate mods, but I made an exception because I cared about this one so much. Turns out, your characters have a lot more dialogues and seem more like a cohesive party and unit when you have 1 Custom Character and the 5 origin characters all traveling together in one party at one time. Yes, they actually talk more when you have all of them together.
3. Party of 6 allows for less frustration in tougher combats. For example, if a duergar shoves Lae'zel 30+ feet into lava for a 1-Hit KO, you still have 5 other party members, meaning you aren't quite as hindered in the fight as you would be with only 3. Instead of losing 1/4th of your team in just one stupid move, you only lose 1/6th. Still a sucky thing, but you can live with it.
4. You can carry more with a party of 6, meaning you don't have to manage items as much, constantly shifting things around or sending one item at a time to camp because you just can't pick up that beloved spoon you spotted in the treasure chest in the basement of the toll house. When I was traveling with the party of 6, I could easily spread out the items and keep going without having to stop and manage them so much. (This one wasn't as big a deal for me, but it was still something.)
5. Party of 6 makes it so you don't have to constantly return to camp and switch out party members when wanting to do an origin character side quest like Lae'zel and Zorru or Wyll and Spike. You can keep all the current origin characters with you all the time and not have to worry about constantly switching them out.
6. It makes more sense that if you are going to go face a squad of gith who have a dragon, that you might bring everyone you have with you for the fight. Makes no sense to be "full up" with a party of 4 and then go to face some super tough enemies one-on-one. If I'm going to enter a phase spider matriarch's lair or face a horde of goblins, I might want to bring a bigger party.
7. Combat would be actually more balanced with a 5e ruleset if they implemented party of 6 instead of party of 4. EVERY combat currently is a Deadly encounter if they were to actually implement 5e rules and stats for monsters. 3 Imps against 2 Level 1 characters is insane. 3 Imps against 5 level 1 characters (4 custom and Lae'zel and/or Shadowheart) is not so insane. Same with 3 intellect devourers. Same with skeleton magic users. Same with actual bandits/mercenaries. Same with gnolls on the road. Same with 4 githyanki. Same with phase spiders.

I could go on and on and on and on, as I have in this thread, but I think that should be enough to show that it's more than taste. There are a LOT of gameplay elements that are currently hindered by a party size of 4. Again, party of 4 limits people who want a party of 6 while party of 6 does not hinder a party of 4.

So why?


I'm currently playing Divinity original sin 2 with a party size of 7 and another with 8 the only issue I have, is that the game was meant for 5 at max when it comes to UI compatibility. At least when playing with a controller, it works fine with a mouse and keyboard. So Baldur's gate 3 will definitely suffer the same issue. Which is why I'm saying it's better if it was a real option instead of a mod.

Fights are fun, the story feels extremely fresh and more indepth as everyone now interact in ways that wasn't there when there was just 4 of us. I'm playing on the hardest mode and don't have to cheese as much, there's no "abusing the system" needed, I can really enjoy the game without breaking immersion, I'm finally using weapons I'll never used and tbh, I probably can't go back to 4, because I play co op too, and it's fun asf.

There's no extreme Min and Maxing needed, I can casually enjoy the game.

Options is always great imo, the more freedom of choice the better.

I'm on one side of the map doing the Lizard's mission, my co op buddy has her own squad on the Blood island, we're both enjoying the story with no real limitations. Fights are fun and when we both fight together or separatly with our team it feels great. Because for once, the story doesn't revolve around me alone, like I'm some omnipotent being who have to deal with every single issue that comes up, whoever stumbles here or there first deals with this or that first it changes the story up, the game feels more alive, she has her own choices that I have no say in. Her party members don't even like me, and that's refreshing, because their loyalty lies with her. I bet you can't give another game that gives this kind of experience out there, or if there are games, it doesn't number more than fingers on our hand.

So imagine if Baldur's gate 3 allows more party members, a game that's suppose to be bigger than Div 2? It'll make it that much better tbh. People whining about difficulty act as if you can't up or lower it to suit yourself. It's literally a single player, co op game, it'll not affect anyone besides those playing together.

The funnest thing about games like Skyrim with mods is that, you're making your own game, the way you want with all sorts of options, the reason why today, it's still being enjoyed by people around the world is the freedom to choose and tinker.

Hell, even today they've finally made a multiplayer, co op mod for Skyrim, which took near 5 years to make. If it was offered already in the first place, modders wouldn't have to struggle.

So I don't see how adding more option is going to hurt the game and anyone besides these players who enjoys telling other people how to play.

These same players are probably the same folks saying they paid for college and people today should too, when stuff like taking college debt away comes up or making it free in general pops up. It's full of the "I don't get the option or don't want to use it so you shouldn't be able to" mentality.

"Oh you play with friends? Well I don't have friends, so that option should be limited because it makes us socially inept folks feel better when you guys can't enjoy the game to its maximum potential."

Kind of childish imo.

I'm currently playing these new dnd games I've never before and the only thing holding me back from buying Baldur's gate 3 is the inability to get more than 4 players, I'm playing part one rn and it's fun, in its own way. I got Pathfinder wrath of the fury too, bound to play that soon in a few months, so I'm not really strap for options when it comes to game tbvh. It's not like I'll miss out om Baldur's gate 3.

Because by the time it comes out, I bet there's already other gamss out to play.

Been waiting to test Ghost of Tsusiba or whatever too.

Last edited by Lenggao; 29/05/22 12:24 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Ok. So. Been thinking. Some have argued that party of 4 is standard party size for D&D. They say that the adventures are designed for 3-5 players, so 4 is perfect.

While reviewing some campaigns, I gave this additional thought. Larian is treating BG3 as literally if you create a character then you are 1 player, 1 PC. All other characters are actually NPCs you control unless you play with other players via multiplayer.

But here's my issue, then. Even D&D campaigns will increase your party size to 6 or more depending on the campaign and player choices with NPCs.

Example:. Party of 4 PCs in Descent into Avernus. Meets Reya. She joins the party. Now Party of 5. If you had 5 PCs, now party of 6.
Later. Going after the duke, you can gain a devil ally. You also have Lulu. That boosts party size to potentially 6 to 8.

See. I still have an issue with party of 4 because in most D&D sessions, even if you only have 3 or 4 players, the DM usually adds NPCs to the party to help.

In BG3, they're ALL NPCs you control.

Joined: Aug 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2021
I’m not sure I understand your issue. BG3 adds plenty of characters beyond the four PC party limit. You’ve got temporary companions in summon slots. Also, there’s Halsin, Volo and other camp dwellers who you can’t control. They are as close as the game has to DMPCs.

Do you wish the game added allies that followed you around in the world and participated in combat without player input? Or is your issue with the basic premice that DnD is balanced around 4 PC parties when source books keep adding to the party beyond that limit?


TRIBE!
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Flooter
I’m not sure I understand your issue. BG3 adds plenty of characters beyond the four PC party limit. You’ve got temporary companions in summon slots. Also, there’s Halsin, Volo and other camp dwellers who you can’t control. They are as close as the game has to DMPCs.

Do you wish the game added allies that followed you around in the world and participated in combat without player input? Or is your issue with the basic premice that DnD is balanced around 4 PC parties when source books keep adding to the party beyond that limit?

No. My point is that it has been argued that party of 4 limit is based on standard D&D 5e campaign builds. They are standardly designed for 3-5 players. But, my point - not issue, just making a point - is that in most campaigns the story gives PCs the ability to get more NPC companions that join your party. This means that, in truth, most encounters in said campaigns are designed with a larger overall party in mind.

In BG3, all the characters but the MC are NPCs. Thus, it is no different. We should be allowed to take all 5 of our NPCs with us when we adventure if we want. The argument that D&D campaigns are designed for party of 3-5 doesn't really hold water because in most campaigns parties increase with NPCs often to 6 or even up to 8 depending on number of players. And many DMs will hand out these extra NPCs for players to control during battles so that the DM isn't managing/ rolling as much.

So, again, I'd like to point out that when I play multiplayer with 4 players, at present, I can't add a single NPC origin character to my party except during the prologue. I'm full up. I'm stuck with just a party of 4 players. No NPCs allowed except the very temp ones like Sazza or Halsin. Nevermind that I have 5 to choose from. I'm stuck with just my 4 PCs.

Joined: Dec 2021
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Dec 2021
The main issue I see with increasing party to 4+ is that the game is not being built around it. Personally, I think party of 5 would be the best for me; 4 is playable but pretty limiting in choices, 5 is more flexible while 6 might be a little too many for me to manage.

So if there are 5-6 active party members that will definitely require a rebalance of enemy stats/numbers for a default difficulty level. And with increased enemy numbers maps can become pretty crowded leaving less space to manuever and maybe opening an issue of a party member being more likely to be alpha-striked (probably less relevant as party levels up?). So that might require map rework, and that I don't really see happening. Plus there's multiplayer aspect, and I think getting and commiting 5/6 people to play a long campaign (I'm assuming it will be around DoS2 length, so probably up to 100 hours?) can be harder.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Ruswarr
The main issue I see with increasing party to 4+ is that the game is not being built around it. Personally, I think party of 5 would be the best for me; 4 is playable but pretty limiting in choices, 5 is more flexible while 6 might be a little too many for me to manage.

So if there are 5-6 active party members that will definitely require a rebalance of enemy stats/numbers for a default difficulty level. And with increased enemy numbers maps can become pretty crowded leaving less space to manuever and maybe opening an issue of a party member being more likely to be alpha-striked (probably less relevant as party levels up?). So that might require map rework, and that I don't really see happening. Plus there's multiplayer aspect, and I think getting and commiting 5/6 people to play a long campaign (I'm assuming it will be around DoS2 length, so probably up to 100 hours?) can be harder.
This is exactly the claim that @GM4Him is refuting, by pointing out that there is no such thing as "standard party size" for a D&D game module because the exact same module can be played tabletop with party sizes ranging from as small as 4 to as large as 8.

Joined: Dec 2021
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Dec 2021
Originally Posted by kanisatha
This is exactly the claim that @GM4Him is refuting, by pointing out that there is no such thing as "standard party size" for a D&D game module because the exact same module can be played tabletop with party sizes ranging from as small as 4 to as large as 8.
Well, I did not look at the whole issue as a "standard party size in D&D". I'm actually pretty far from D&D (never even played BG1/2) and my knowledge is more about bits and pieces of lore rather than tabletop mechanics.

I don't see a module that can be readily adjusted to a varying number of players. What I see is that BG3 is being built with an exact party limit in mind - four, standard or not. No way around that. Any adjustments to party limit will require more work that just ramping enemy stats or numbers up if were're expecting some balance difficulty-wise. And would I like to see party size changed? Yes. Can I see it happening, even as option? Not really, outside of mods.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Ruswarr
The main issue I see with increasing party to 4+ is that the game is not being built around it.
Please define for me "not being build around it". O_o

Are you adressing problems with combat dificiulty?
> Allready talked about, as long as party of 6 is OPTIONAL (wich is what most people want here) its not a problem, bcs people who will want it will be notified that difficiulty of game will be affected ... and people who dont mind will not activate it ... sure there will be people who will activate it anyway and then complain that game seems too easy, but you cant save everyone, especialy not those who are swimming in acid and cry "it burns".

Are you adressing UI issues?
> Larian actualy (paraphrasing Swen himself) "count with the fact that 6member party mod WILL be present for many players and preparing all UI to be as possible to adjust to it as it can"

Are you adressing problems for some players to operate with more characters?
(I honeslty never understand this argument, its turn based, you allways use only 1 character at the time)
> Again not a problem ... if rule (as we ask) will be optional ... is party of 6 too much for you? Set party of 5. wink

Are you adressing anything else?
> Please tell me, those were meerely FRC ... frequently repeated complains smile laugh


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: Dec 2021
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Dec 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Please define for me "not being build around it". O_o

Simple as it is - it is the *intended* experience, crafted by the team. Larian chose this limit and the systems will be more or less revolving around it.

For example, GM4Him mentioned quite a lot that BG3 creatures don't follow "true" D&D stats, so it's reasonable to assume that Larian did not build their encounters around D&D challenge rating. Hence the most probable measuremnt - party size and expected levels of encounters. If we change party size then any kind of balance (which I think is in OK state currently, assuming it's the intended default difficulty) is thrown out of the window - 5-6ppl party will easily stomp through current content with much higher potential for removing enemies per turn or nuking high HP targets, and that also opens more class options which would provide more general flexibility for the party.

Can Larian make a setting for an optional 6ppl mode? Sure, and I'm pretty sure that's the easy part. Will it provide the intended experience that way? Nope, as the balance will swing heavily into players' favor, even if they were warned, and it's Larian who get blamed for an imbalanced mode even if it were players who asked for this. Then add difficulty settings and it's a whole another can of worms in regards to balance. Reception from players will vary a lot too and in case of further changes Larian might have a hard time finding what was truly overtuned or undertuned to fix.
I would also say there's a good probability of DOS2-like event that will "seal" the party composition at one point (I wouldn't want that but that's something I expect nontheless) and I'm not sure how the game will react if there are more people left. Will the possibility be accounted for or will some scripts just break, etc?

it's nice to hear that they are trying to adjust the UI for people who want bigger parties though. And if there's to be a "proper" 6ppl mode... it will require a lot of work, which I've already mentioned. Maybe it could happen after release if demand will be high enough?

And I'm not really complaining, I'm just saying why I think it's unreasonable to expect a 4+ party size from the game. I would like an officially supported bigger party too as I think 4-man is a little too rigid but I don't see it happening. So even if 6 ppl will be supported by the game from a techinical point, you would probably still need a mod for this rather than an official setting.

Last edited by Ruswarr; 16/06/22 06:05 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Simple as it is - it is the *intended* experience, crafted by the team. Larian chose this limit and the systems will be more or less revolving around it.
I see ...

Well, i dare to presume this isnt actualy a "problem" tho, is it?
Since as i said, that people ask for is option to enlarge the group size ... so as long as other people want to get "intended experience" all they need to do is dont flip that switch. laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
For example, GM4Him mentioned quite a lot that BG3 creatures don't follow "true" D&D stats
Yeah he does that a lot ...
I dunno how often you read this forum, but sooner or later you find out that many people around here have few topics they are REALLY interested in ... and some of them then waste no chance to mention it once again. smile

But still, its separated suggestion ... he only use it often as yet another reason for 6 member party, since as it seems he believe that those two suggestions works best together. smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
If we change party size then any kind of balance is thrown out of the window
Yes, this was allready mentioned countless of times ...
But most people who participated in this very topic agreed on that "at very least" they would settle with just option to enlarge your group, with NO futher ballance adjustments ... just note for players ... something like:
"WARNING: This game has ben prepared and intended for party of 4 ... if you check this window, your party size will be incerased to 5 / 6 ... please understand such change will affect your gameplay experience and difficiulty setting ... now, when we understand each other please feel free to play however you like."

And voila! Whoever pick the option takes responsibility for himself. smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
and that also opens more class options which would provide more general flexibility for the party.
Im confused now, that is bad thing? laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Can Larian make a setting for an optional 6ppl mode? Sure, and I'm pretty sure that's the easy part.
Will it provide the intended experience that way? Nope...
And the third imporant questions would be:
Who cares? laugh In my opinion the answer is: Not the people who will turn this option "on" even if this is what they will be warned about. laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
I would also say there's a good probability of DOS2-like event that will "seal" the party composition at one point (I wouldn't want that but that's something I expect nontheless) and I'm not sure how the game will react if there are more people left. Will the possibility be accounted for or will some scripts just break, etc?
Thats something we dont really know right now ... Larian do. smile

BUT!
It was allready confrimmed by Swen himself that there will be mercenaries in this game, to fill role of our potential companions in this adventure.
And since there is no mercenary so far in EA, one could presume that our party will "somehow" possibly change even futher in game.

My personal theory is:
That at the end of Act 1 ... we will (at least seemingly) resolve our problem with tadpole ...
Therefore our characters will have no reason to stick together any futher (after all Shadowheart herself told us that we "will go our separate ways of course")
And our character will have to decide wich Origin character s/he want to follow futher, since their personal story will become main drive of the story ... at least for start ... maybe after we get into Baldur's Gate we find out that our personal stories have to be once again put aside for something greater.

This theory have one big plot hole tho ... what if we will play as Origin character?
I cant quite imagine any of them would decide to ignore their own problem and follow someone else. laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
it's nice to hear that they are trying to adjust the UI for people who want bigger parties though.
Yup ... and since 6member party "mod" is allready there we know that all it require is change single number in the code.
So ... basicaly it would be nice if Larian would allow us to do this without any need to download and use any external applications. laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
And if there's to be a "proper" 6ppl mode... it will require a lot of work, which I've already mentioned. Maybe it could happen after release if demand will be high enough?
Yeah, that would require tremendous amount of work ...

Unless ... the person who would be using it would be using it as simply yet another part of settings. smile
You know ... hard ... but with party of 5 so not "as hard as it should be, but still harder than normal". laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
So even if 6 ppl will be supported by the game from a techinical point, you would probably still need a mod for this rather than an official setting.
And that is exactly what we are trying to change here. laugh


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: Dec 2021
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Dec 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Well, i dare to presume this isnt actualy a "problem" tho, is it?
The problem is that the moment this setting gets added by Larian - it's their responsibility to keep it functioning. In the end, what good would this setting do if due to some script interaction later in the game you can get your campaign stuck or, for example, lose story progress for two "additional" origin characters? Even if caring about balance is not an issue that adds additional work on bugfixing and testing if everything's working fine for, essentialy, two campaign modes.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
But still, its separated suggestion ... he only use it often as yet another reason for 6 member party, since as it seems he believe that those two suggestions works best together.
Tbh that's doesn't necessarily sound to me like it's BAD... but it's clearly not the approach Larian took and I think it's kiiinda too late to fully revert to tabletop stats at this point due to how much rebalacing that would require.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
es, this was allready mentioned countless of times ...
But most people who participated in this very topic agreed on that "at very least" they would settle with just option to enlarge your group, with NO futher ballance adjustments ... just note for players ... something like:
"WARNING: This game has ben prepared and intended for party of 4 ... if you check this window, your party size will be incerased to 5 / 6 ... please understand such change will affect your gameplay experience and difficiulty setting ... now, when we understand each other please feel free to play however you like."

And voila! Whoever pick the option takes responsibility for himself.
See the first part of my answer smile
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Im confused now, that is bad thing?
Not bad on its own - but it does throw balancing off even further. Not a problem if you don't care for balance ofc...
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
And the third imporant questions would be:
Who cares? laugh In my opinion the answer is: Not the people who will turn this option "on" even if this is what they will be warned about.
See the first part again. Yes, no care for intended experience again, but Larian cares (I hope so...) and having a single template would make it easier to work out the intended easier and harder difficulty settings rather than having to remember that "yes, we do totally have this imbalanced mode that still requires looking at". Having options is good but there's also a cost of implementing options.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
BUT!
It was allready confrimmed by Swen himself that there will be mercenaries in this game, to fill role of our potential companions in this adventure.
And since there is no mercenary so far in EA, one could presume that our party will "somehow" possibly change even futher in game.
Personally I'm not a big fan of mercenaries. Feels like you're throwing away a proper party member if you're using one unless merc would be an only option to fill a slot indeed.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Yup ... and since 6member party "mod" is allready there we know that all it require is change single number in the code.
So ... basicaly it would be nice if Larian would allow us to do this without any need to download and use any external applications.
Again, first part. Enabling 6-member party might require changing just a single number but there may be more issues down the line; even worse if they cannot be found during EA period simply because, well, we don't have the full game on our hands. Might be a game-breaking issue, might not be an issue at all.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Yeah, that would require tremendous amount of work ...

Unless ... the person who would be using it would be using it as simply yet another part of settings.
You know ... hard ... but with party of 5 so not "as hard as it should be, but still harder than normal".
Again, a single template would be easier to work with. Larian setting some foundanions for potential 6ppl party seems to be an afterthought (if a good one) so party size seems to be unlikely to be included as a part of difficulty setting.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Ruswarr
In the end, what good would this setting do if due to some script interaction later in the game you can get your campaign stuck or, for example, lose story progress for two "additional" origin characters?
Speaking for myself? Rest of the time. smile

So far there is single problem with 6member party "mod" ... and that is when you get on that boat in the Underdark ... your first 4 party members get on it, and last two die on the shore since game dont know what to do with them.
Of course, that is indeed bad experience ... but in the end its Larian who knows exactly where they are putting such limitations ...
And once again, all you really (and i mean really, we are talking here about bare necessities) need in such situation is yet another popup window warning player that while he choose to play with more party members, in this particular part it is cruicial to have only 4 ... so he should pick 2 and leave them behind for a while.

Still better experience than have 1/3 of your party killed bcs of inperfect mod. smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Tbh that's doesn't necessarily sound to me like it's BAD... but it's clearly not the approach Larian took and I think it's kiiinda too late to fully revert to tabletop stats at this point due to how much rebalacing that would require.
Yeah, no arguments from me. smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Not bad on its own - but it does throw balancing off even further. Not a problem if you don't care for balance ofc...
Dont care is a little strong wording ... i would say its lower on my priorities, compared to other things. wink

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Yes, no care for intended experience again, but Larian cares (I hope so...) and having a single template would make it easier to work out the intended easier and harder difficulty settings rather than having to remember that "yes, we do totally have this imbalanced mode that still requires looking at".
Well, we will do it anyway ... just this way, Larian could save us lots of frustration with investing little resources.

Every studio must ask the question eventualy if purity of original vision thei had for their product is more important for them than satisfaction of their customers. smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Having options is good but there's also a cost of implementing options.
Thats the best part ... as i said, we allready have the mod and it litteraly only changes single number in game files. smile
Add few "signs" or "system popup" ... and voila!
Cheapest possible implementation is live. laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Personally I'm not a big fan of mercenaries. Feels like you're throwing away a proper party member if you're using one unless merc would be an only option to fill a slot indeed.
Agreed ...
But in my Evil playthrough i quite often loose Wyll and Gale ... in such situations your party options gets quite ... well, lets say limited, without mercenaries. laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Might be a game-breaking issue, might not be an issue at all.
Exactly! smile
Thats the reason we are (or at least i am) adressing this to Larian ... who would know better than them? wink

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Again, a single template would be easier to work with. Larian setting some foundanions for potential 6ppl party seems to be an afterthought (if a good one)
I believe this was promissed even before EA even started.

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
so party size seems to be unlikely to be included as a part of difficulty setting.
Indeed ... but man can dream. :P
Its not like this forum would have many other interesting things to talk about, rather than our dreams and hopes ... especialy lately. laugh


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: Dec 2021
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Dec 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Speaking for myself? Rest of the time.
In that case you, however, would not get to the "end" of the product you've paid for. You may be fine with it but that's a good potential for backlash here as you, well, cannot finish a game you've paid for; don't know about possibility of legal action against Larian in that case but that's something to consider I think.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
So far there is single problem with 6member party "mod" ... and that is when you get on that boat in the Underdark ... your first 4 party members get on it, and last two die on the shore since game dont know what to do with them.
This is exactly what I worry about. It at the very least should not be a simple "change a number in a setting" change but it would require proper work and sweeping for bugs to be functional. If it already can kill 2 characters this way who knows what else can happen later and how many popus would be required (and would they even be a good solution, or a solution at all).
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Dont care is a little strong wording ... i would say its lower on my priorities, compared to other things.
I do think internal balance is something that's desperately needed, or at the very least balanced "normal" setting so you can work with it. A little offtopic but in fact it causes me a lot of struggle with PF WOTR currently.
I really want to finish it currently (dropped in Act 5 when I saw the crusade I'd have to deal with and grew tired of Lich a little) and I cannot bring myself to start a new campaign because I feel that it kinda locks you into BUFFfinder if you actually want your party to be efficient even on normal - but I also struggle with going story mode because of how combat-focused the game is and story mode absolutely kills impact of combat; and even with all these difficulty options WOTR presents I have zero clue how to balance things out; then there's the whole Crusade which is not a good game on top of "main" game. Why it's relevant to balance? Well, I think Owlcat balanced things pretty badly in general, focusing on a very specific approach which results in a swinging difficulty where options just make it flail wildly in different directions until some trial and error might give you the difficulty you want.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Well, we will do it anyway ... just this way, Larian could save us lots of frustration with investing little resources.

Every studio must ask the question eventualy if purity of original vision thei had for their product is more important for them than satisfaction of their customers.
The question is... can 6-party "issue" really be solved with little resources? Again, changing one number in party size already brings some unintended consequenses.
And if we're talking about vision and satisfaction of the customers... I think BG3 is in an insanely precarious position simply because it's called Baldur's Gate 3. There's weight of nostalgia, weight of the franchise name, weight of D&D edition, weight of DOS2, etc... I'm probably going to say a controversial opinion, but everyone expects something else from BG3 and it easily contradict others' expectations; since the release of EA I feel like all this collides into an enourmous ball of untempered expectations that cannot be satisfied no matter the effort Larian puts in the game - as someone who's essentialy an outsider to D&D and BG this is insane to watch. Some things should be worked out (example - relentless shoving, Wizards learning divine spells, reactions) but at this point I would rather see Larian iron out their vision during EA rather then trying to do the impossible.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Thats the best part ... as i said, we allready have the mod and it litteraly only changes single number in game files.
Add few "signs" or "system popup" ... and voila!
Cheapest possible implementation is live.
And again, then Larian actualy need to dedicate resoures to keep this implementation functional. There's no guarantee that it can jsut be solved with popups.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I believe this was promissed even before EA even started.
Curious. If so, I didn't know that.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Bottom line.

Party of 4 multiplayer = 0 party slots = Absolutely no ability to enjoy the full game because you can't do a single origin character quest because you can't include a single origin character in your party.

Party of 6 with 4 player max = 2 party slots so party of 4 multiplayer CAN enjoy the full game because you can do a origin character quest because you can include 2 origin characters in your party.

+ Less switching out party members
+ More character banter and interaction
+ Party can carry more so less hassle with item management (less running back to the merchant to sell)

And so much more

Page 92 of 102 1 2 90 91 92 93 94 101 102

Moderated by  Nicou 

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