Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 93 of 101 1 2 91 92 93 94 95 100 101
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Ruswarr
In that case you, however, would not get to the "end" of the product you've paid for.
How so?
I would get exactly the same product as i would get if this option would not be included ...
The only difference would be that i would have option to adjust one of most frequently asked feature right in the options, with clear warnings how it would affect my experience ...

This isnt case of "game cannot be completed" kind of bug ... since even if you would meet some issue, as we did at the boat, all that would happen to you would be redution of your party for a while to original (aka intended) size. laugh

As for the legal actions against Larian ... i believe that the best players could hope for is refund, wich would not be resolved with Larian, but with store they buyed this game from ... i mean i know many games that were released in much worse shape than "including mod that would potentialy cause some troubles" ...
Few examples:
- Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines
- Cyberpunk 2077
- Mass Effect: Andromeda
- Mass Effect (1) ... this game was so unstable on my PC so my record in playing without game crashing error was cca 40 minutes.
- And basicaly everything Bethesda released in last decade. laugh
Those are games that were for various reasons basicaly unlplayable in their "day one release" state ... and what happened? Few people get mad, some bad rewievs were written ... and everyone forgets about it in two weeks. laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
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).
Well as i often say, my kowledge of programming is not anyhow deep ... but i have fundamental basics. smile

So i can tell you im quite sure about this statement:
If the game runs smoothly and gives you zero errors with party of 4 ... and cause problems at the exactly same moment with party of 6 ... easiest solution, even tho certainly not any ellegant one, is to force players to reduce party size to 4 during this problematic part. laugh

As for how many popups would be required ... i dont know, since i dont have acess to whole game.
During whole EA its exactly 1 tho, that much we know. smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
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.
Yes ...
But i dont see any contradiction here ... i mean whole ballance, and normal, and other stuff would be created for regular game ... meaning party of 4.

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
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.
Well, party efficiency sound to me like argument for party of 6 ... rather than 4.

I mean, if you have only 4 places ... you really want to have Tank, Heal, Utilitiy Guy, and Damage Dealer ... and thats it.
You of course can easily mix this with pseudo-roles ... like Ranger, or Druid who can deal damage and help with at least "some" healing ... but still, having two open slots in your party gives you much more freedom ...
Especialy in game like BG-3 where the only companion that actualy can heal your party right now, is Shadowheart ... the only companion that can effectively Tank is either Lae'zel or once again Shadowheart, but sending her up front means potentialy loose concentration fast ... Astarion would be the only one who would fulfill the Utility role, IF Larian would give Expertise to Rogues ... and the rest are just Damage Dealers ...

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
The question is... can 6-party "issue" really be solved with little resources?
Yes, im sure of it. smile
I know warning popups are not ellegant solution, it can potentialy become quite anoying ... but i also know it would work. smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
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.
Agreed ...
But there are things Larian can affect, and things Larian cannot affect. smile

Exactly this you mentioned is something they simply cant resolve, there is no scenario where both factions will be satisfied ... fans of DnD or original BG series demand something that is in direct contradiction with things Larian and Divinity series fans demand ... in this case, Larian can only choose side, or try to please both at least a little bit and hope people will actualy focus on this game, rather than their own hopes and dreams.

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
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.
And that is up to them to decide. smile
Aswell as it is up to us to bring them feedback and suggestions ... as they litteraly requested. wink

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Curious. If so, I didn't know that.
Im not so sure either ... but i believe it was said in one of those pre-EA interwievs. smile
Can be misstaken tho.


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
How so?
I would get exactly the same product as i would get if this option would not be included ...
The only difference would be that i would have option to adjust one of most frequently asked feature right in the options, with clear warnings how it would affect my experience ...

This isnt case of "game cannot be completed" kind of bug ... since even if you would meet some issue, as we did at the boat, all that would happen to you would be redution of your party for a while to original (aka intended) size.
Warnings or not, you're pretty much asking for an effectively untested mode, and that' something I struggle to understand - you're willing to potentially trade your campaign's/game's stability (and others in fact', if somebody decides to play MP with 6ppl enabled) for 6ppl party? Because while there's nothing bricking the game curently doesn't mean it cannot appear down the line. All this doesn't sound like a fair trade to me. Sticking warnings in obvious or semi-obvious problematic points like boat sounds like bandaiding and just screams "unfinished content", like in various EAs; if an issue is found, at this point why not fix it rather than intentionally ignore if this mode is being worked on already? Outside of issues like "completely out of time to finish it before release".
I can understand wanting more than 4 people in party but I cannot understand your willingness to sacrifice for its sake. If I would want this mode I would at least want it fully functional (if imbalanced), playtested and as clear of bugs as possible.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
As for the legal actions against Larian ... i believe that the best players could hope for is refund, wich would not be resolved with Larian, but with store they buyed this game from ... i mean i know many games that were released in much worse shape than "including mod that would potentialy cause some troubles" ...Few examples:
- Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines
- Cyberpunk 2077
- Mass Effect: Andromeda
- Mass Effect (1) ... this game was so unstable on my PC so my record in playing without game crashing error was cca 40 minutes.
- And basicaly everything Bethesda released in last decade.
Those are games that were for various reasons basicaly unlplayable in their "day one release" state ... and what happened? Few people get mad, some bad rewievs were written ... and everyone forgets about it in two weeks.
"Legal trouble" was probably too much of a hot take from me tbh. I wouldn't say that everything went fine and dandy for these games though.
VtMB didn't make as much money as it was expected on release and picked up popularity much time after the release and, as I understand, was one of the contributing factors for Troika Games disbanding. It's the community support of the game that ended up keeping it afloat to my understanding.
Cyberpunk lost its intended multiplayer part and any planned major single player DLCs seem to be reduced/merged to one. Not a financial failure per se but it also clearly did not sell as much as intended while tanking CDPR's reputation and losing console sales after it was pulled from console stores.
MEA lost any planned DLC content and killed any plans for its sequel.
ME1... well, while you did not have a fun time with it it was clearly a success overall to spawn a franchise around it.
Can't say much for Bethesda games though, not a big follower.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Well, party efficiency sound to me like argument for party of 6 ... rather than 4.

I mean, if you have only 4 places ... you really want to have Tank, Heal, Utilitiy Guy, and Damage Dealer ... and thats it.
You of course can easily mix this with pseudo-roles ... like Ranger, or Druid who can deal damage and help with at least "some" healing ... but still, having two open slots in your party gives you much more freedom ...
Especialy in game like BG-3 where the only companion that actualy can heal your party right now, is Shadowheart ... the only companion that can effectively Tank is either Lae'zel or once again Shadowheart, but sending her up front means potentialy loose concentration fast ... Astarion would be the only one who would fulfill the Utility role, IF Larian would give Expertise to Rogues ... and the rest are just Damage Dealers ...
Yes, assigning clear roles will be easier with party of 6... but I think that as far as BG3 goes 4 still works fine. For example, I don't see a need for dedicated healer for a simple reason that said healer won't be able to outheal all incoming damage anyway (unless you LR after every encounter *cough*, just not enough spellslots otherwise most likely). The only hard-pressured slot I currently see is Gale due to him being the only full-on arcane caster (but I also can see that a 4-ppl without Gale still working out). For example, my party for my only proper full playthrough was Fiend Warlock Tav(EB spam, priority target nuker, party face, semi-frontliner), Shadowheart (buffer/emergency healer/ranged shooter/occasional nuker - kinda everything a bit), Thief Astarion (ranged DD/mobile frontliner as situation demanded) and Evocation (I think) Gale (wizard things - utility or damage as situation required)- not exactly what I think people would call an optimal composition but it worked pretty fine to me. I don't think that party roles are so strict in BG3 that you need to build your party like in a MMORPG.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Exactly this you mentioned is something they simply cant resolve, there is no scenario where both factions will be satisfied ... fans of DnD or original BG series demand something that is in direct contradiction with things Larian and Divinity series fans demand ... in this case, Larian can only choose side, or try to please both at least a little bit and hope people will actualy focus on this game, rather than their own hopes and dreams.
The thing is... I don't see *only* two "factions". It's more like a lot of sub-factions that can barely agree on some things, and every single one thinks they are in the right. Hence I would rather trust Larian based on what I see in EA (but not everything is perfect ofc) because at least they have more or less clear vision on what to do with, well, their game. And that's coming from someone who has quite a lot of grievances with DOS2.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Not sure why you're getting so upset. Well, it seems to me like you're getting upset. No one's all like, "I'm right and you're wrong." Shoot. Ragnarok's been one of the people out here who has argued both sides of the issue at various points.

It's all suggestions. I've played the game both ways: party of 4 and party of 6 via the Mod someone put out there that allows you to just tweak the max party size to 6 or even 8. Party of 6 worked just fine. I thought it had issues, but it was just my computer's dumb graphics card needing an update to its drivers.

The game is beautifully designed to work with party of 6, even expanding inventories out, allowing for more on the road dialogues where party members interact more frequently because they're all together. So Wyll and Lae'zel will have a convo while we're jogging about, and then a few minutes later Gale strikes up a convo with Lae'zel about the Astral Plane. Then Gale and Shadowheart have a convo, or Shadowheart and Astarion... It's like night and day between party of 4 and 6 when it comes to this. Party of 4... crickets. Party of 6, they TALK to each other.

And I really liked how I didn't have to switch people out - EVER, with my single MC and the 5 origins. I didn't have to switch in Lae'zel to talk to the tiefling guy or go to the gith patrol, or switch in Wyll with the windmill and spike and such... They were just all there, ready for whenever I ran into anything. We could carry a ton more items, so I didn't have to go to the vendor as much, and I didn't need to Long Rest hardly at all, thus making the story flow more smoothly instead of having burning buildings burn for days and rituals that never end even after a week.

And combat actually went a bit faster, in my opinion. Why? Because I got 6 turns instead of 4 per round. Sure, enemies were easier, but that's because they've nerfed them. Give imps and intellect devourers back their resistances, and make wood woads and mud mephits actually according to 5e stats, and tweak a few other encounters, and the game would be challenging and yet not as cruel at certain parts.

Take the gith patrol. No change needed on this one. They are brutal even against a party of 6. Phase Spider Matriarch? Definitely easier with party of 6, but she's still a beast.

Granted, if you already know what's coming and you know all the gimmicks, you don't need a party of 6. You can go around and beat the crap out of everything, but that's not the point.

The point is, party of 6 works. Even as is, it works just fine. They wouldn't really need to change a thing except to ALLOW players to add more people to their party. If I go up to Lae'zel after I already have a party of 4, and I ask her to join my party, let her. If you don't want her to join your party because 4 is your limit, just tell her to go to camp and wait there.

Everybody's then happy.

Joined: Dec 2021
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Dec 2021
Sorry if I'm giving the impression that I'm upset. I am not. Well, unless it's about overall expectations for BG3 in general I would say. Currently just struggling to comprehend the desire for party of 6 while disregarding any issues that might come with it.

And while I probably won't have time to make a 6-ppl playthrough to compare everything myself I cannot believe that ramping up party from 4 to 6 with current rules and no other adjustments changes very little in terms of combat. More carry capacity, more talk - no disagreement here, that is perfectly fine. But combat... Let's take the party I had for example - Warlock Tav, Shadowheart, Thief Astarion, Gale. Tends to fight at range but everyone outside of Gale can take a hit, although SH gets a staff later and becomes more of a backliner. Now add Laezel and Wyll - suddenly there's a pure frontliner and another Warlock that will most likely help keep enemies at range (unless he gets a more fitting subclass for his origin, then there's another frontliner). Balance immediately swings - now I suddenly have clearly dedicated frontline and clearly dedicated backline, so backline has much less worries about being hit while nothing changes for the enemies; that is already a much safer situation for the player. And the newcomers aren't just going to sit there - they are still adding to damage output of the party so it becomes much easier to pile up on enemies to remove them out of combat with lesser effort.While incoming damage remains teh same and can be managed much more efficiently. And that's not counting that level 5 will shake things even further eventually.

And while party of 4 is a more rigid composition every decision becomes much more important and more tactical. As I see it, party of 6 lessens the impact of a single character in current circumstancses as you get significantly more turns, more damage, more spellslots, etc.
Gith patrol? IIRC there are 4 or 5 of them so now they're outnumbered and much more vulnerable to being focused, although they still have high HP and damage on their side.
Bulette can probably die in one, max two turns.
Goblin camp - as it takes some turns for goblins to converge on the party it becomes much easier to remove them one by one and get yourself into a better defensible position.

Yes, it would be different if Larian used true D&D stats, maybe better and I would actually like to see it. But that's not the approach Larian chose and I'm looking from currently existing gameplay perspective - and I think outside of few issues, BG3 has a decetly balanced and healthy difficulty. I think it's a little too late for "true D&D mode rebalance" simply because that will requre fully rebalacing every existing encounter - not just ones we know, but everything we did not get to see yet, and that's unlikely to be just copying numbers from books. I can see this happening after release though - so, when Larian's resources can be fully dedicated to the rebalance.

And I'm only against "give us party of 6 just by changing a number in a setting" approach, hell ,even throw the balance out of window. Because we do not know how tangled BG3's code is. We do not know how event and quest triggers interact if there are more people in party than intended and how much it can affect down the line. We do not know how easy it is to find and fix potential issues stemming from increasing party size. Maybe it's super easy and barely affects anything. Maybe it's surprisingly rigid and needs more effort to work out. But we do not know, hence I think it's better to assume the worst (or at least the worse). Asking for 6ppl mode is fine. Asking for it to be improperly implemented via a simple but lazy, untested and potentially unstable solution? Not a fair trabe-off as I see it.
And I'm not a very fast at typing, so sorry if my answers might take too long to appear sometimes.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
But the've talked about adding difficulty settings even. So, why not have a difficulty setting that is recommended for party of 4 with current balance and difficulty setting for party of 6 with a different setting.

And if we don't know, why not ask for what we want and hope we get it?

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Warnings or not, you're pretty much asking for an effectively untested mode
On the contrary my friend. smile
One of main purposes of Early Acess is to test things after all. laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
you're willing to potentially trade your campaign's/game's stability (and others in fact', if somebody decides to play MP with 6ppl enabled) for 6ppl party?
Well ...
I would say that everyone is potentialy trading game stability for themselves, since nobody is forcing you to flip that switch ... so ... no, i dont trade others stability at all. smile

And i dont think i trade even my own ...
You know, when you look at that single problem we find out right now, when we use 6member party mod ... i would dare to say that problem that is there is that game have only 4 spawning points on the boat ... therefore (logicaly) once you have more than 4 party members, game dont know what to do with them, you dont "walk" on the boat ... you spawn there. smile
So thanks to existence of this mod, Larian claimed to count with, we find out the problem ... it would be resolved by simply adding two more spawning points, or adding message that would inform player to keep two persons behind. smile
And IF we would get this feature, that would help us revealing another problems that will be there after ... i mean, sure Larian totally can just say "you used mod, you broke your game, not our problem" and it would be perfectly fine ... or ... and there should be no surprise when i say this, they could potentialy take under concideration how easily they could fulfill one of th greatest wish of their comunity ... i mean come on, this topic have almost 100 pages, that alone should speak for itself.

You are talking about "some imaginary problem that may (or may not) occur" ... well, that is hard to argue against, quite honestly. laugh
Its as if someone as you "what would you do if something goes wrong" ... good question, its important to ask it in any case, sure ... but how can you answer it if you dont know what would go wrong, or in what situation? smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
All this doesn't sound like a fair trade to me.
I cant honestly imagine how would you like to make it fairer(?). laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Sticking warnings in obvious or semi-obvious problematic points like boat sounds like bandaiding and just screams "unfinished content"
I presume this is matter of attitude ...

To me it screams:
"Do you remember how we warned you that turning this option *ON* will cause problems, bcs (as we told you back then) the game is NOT created for this? And you decided to turn it *ON* anyway, while you agreed that you will be restricted? ... Well, this is it." laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
I can understand wanting more than 4 people in party but I cannot understand your willingness to sacrifice for its sake. If I would want this mode I would at least want it fully functional (if imbalanced), playtested and as clear of bugs as possible.
Well, it would certainly be preffered, yes ...
That is one of reasons we keep asking for it, the sooner we get it (if we get it) the more we will be able to test it and report bugs. smile

But if we dont get it, we will use the mod anyway ... and mods cause problems, bcs people who made them usualy dont know whole coding and may cause some colisions ... many of those would be prevented if the mod would create someone who knows whole coding ... aka Larian. smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
I wouldn't say that everything went fine and dandy for these games though.
I didnt mean it did ...
There was some problems, but through them ... those games become sucesfull. smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
VtMB didn't make as much money as it was expected on release and picked up popularity much time after the release and, as I understand, was one of the contributing factors for Troika Games disbanding. It's the community support of the game that ended up keeping it afloat to my understanding.
Basicaly yes ...
ActiVision forced Troika to release before the game was ready, there was massive cuts of content and not enough bug catching, you were not even able to finish the game in released state, since it crashed every single time in certain quest.
Also, Half Life were released in same week and that alone casted LOOOOONG shadow to basicaly everything else ... coincidence? I think not.
And you just cant left out that in those times game releases certainly didnt have as much attention as they have now ... smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Yes, assigning clear roles will be easier with party of 6... but I think that as far as BG3 goes 4 still works fine.
Exactly my point ...
You dont *need to* but it would certainly provide some benefits ... among many others, people who are perfectly fine with 4, would simply keep the switch turned off ... and they would be perfectly fine. smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
The thing is... I don't see *only* two "factions". It's more like a lot of sub-factions that can barely agree on some things, and every single one thinks they are in the right. Hence I would rather trust Larian based on what I see in EA (but not everything is perfect ofc) because at least they have more or less clear vision on what to do with, well, their game. And that's coming from someone who has quite a lot of grievances with DOS2.
Well, yeah ... they are more like the two major factions ...
Then there are DnD tabetop hardcore fans, DnD tabetop casuals, people who just likes RPG and didnt know BG, nor DoS before this (that would be me) ... and the best part is that those factions are not exclusive to each other. laugh

---

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Not sure why you're getting so upset.
Sometimes i wonder why you keep presuming everyone around you is angry ... force of habbit?

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Ragnarok's been one of the people out here who has argued both sides of the issue at various points.
Wrong ... as usualy. frown


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
Probably for the same reason people keep thinking I'm complaining about everything in this game instead of simply making suggestions and hoping Larian listens. Tone in email is hard to determine, and sometimes the way things are worded sounds angry when read. But whatever. Glad they're not upset.

As for you arguing both sides, my goodness. Do you want me to pour back through 93 pages to find the conversation where you were arguing with me about how party of 6 could unbalance gameplay or how we'll get more than 5 party members so arguments about bringing them all at one time are not valid? I can't even remember if there were more moments where you were arguing with me on this topic.

Amazing. It's like you can't help but argue with me even when I'm trying to establish you to another person as a person who is somewhat more unbiased.

Last edited by GM4Him; 18/06/22 11:20 AM.
Joined: Dec 2021
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Dec 2021
Originally Posted by GM4Him
But the've talked about adding difficulty settings even. So, why not have a difficulty setting that is recommended for party of 4 with current balance and difficulty setting for party of 6 with a different setting.

And if we don't know, why not ask for what we want and hope we get it?
I just find it unlikely to happen (at release at least I would say) precisely because it adds another component to balancing the difficulties (and therefore adds more work on top of exisiting balance) while the game is still in development and probably it was not something planned.
As for your question... That's on Larian I think. I don't think they've been too clear on what exactly they might be incorporating (to settle some debates) from the feedback and I can understand that, because you may say that you're implementing one thing but end up unable to do so. On the flip side I think it creates a situation when you might feel your feedback is useless, so I do feel they need to be more clear on what they might do and what they won't do just so there would be some clarity.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
On the contrary my friend.
One of main purposes of Early Acess is to test things after all.
The issue is that due to BG3 not being traditional Early Access there will be no means for players to playtest later stages of the game, and that's where most script issues will be much more likely to pop up me thinks. Especially if Larian by default enforces fixed 4-party setup at some point similary to DOS2.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Well ...
I would say that everyone is potentialy trading game stability for themselves, since nobody is forcing you to flip that switch ... so ... no, i dont trade others stability at all.
Except somebody will be happy to jump in for 6ppl party because they were excited to so it, thinks it's more fitting - just like you, someone who might not have followed the development... and are greeted by a warning that hey, it wasnt really tested and you might encounter issues. Not exactly something what a game should have on release, don't you think? Esp;ecially one that's probably going to be around 100h long. And people will be reasonably pissed at Larian for an incomplete feature. In that case it makes more sense to lay some foundations for modders to work later on rather diverting focus to a mode that was not a priority.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
You know, when you look at that single problem we find out right now, when we use 6member party mod ... i would dare to say that problem that is there is that game have only 4 spawning points on the boat ... therefore (logicaly) once you have more than 4 party members, game dont know what to do with them, you dont "walk" on the boat ... you spawn there.
So thanks to existence of this mod, Larian claimed to count with, we find out the problem ... it would be resolved by simply adding two more spawning points, or adding message that would inform player to keep two persons behind.
And IF we would get this feature, that would help us revealing another problems that will be there after ... i mean, sure Larian totally can just say "you used mod, you broke your game, not our problem" and it would be perfectly fine ... or ... and there should be no surprise when i say this, they could potentialy take under concideration how easily they could fulfill one of th greatest wish of their comunity ... i mean come on, this topic have almost 100 pages, that alone should speak for itself.
It will only help find issues similar to "the boat killing". As I said, it's unknown what other problems and bugs can stem from altering party size later; something I wouldn't call an imaginary issue bur rather "possible but very probable" issue. Only Larian know and as far as I know, they don't share much on this. I would be absolutely glad to be wrong if Larian actually delivers a functional 6-mode on release though.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I cant honestly imagine how would you like to make it fairer(?).
Make a properly worked on mode instead of bandaid solution? I don't really see a good middle option.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Well, it would certainly be preffered, yes ...
That is one of reasons we keep asking for it, the sooner we get it (if we get it) the more we will be able to test it and report bugs.

But if we dont get it, we will use the mod anyway ... and mods cause problems, bcs people who made them usualy dont know whole coding and may cause some colisions ... many of those would be prevented if the mod would create someone who knows whole coding ... aka Larian.
The issue is that Larian is the developer, not a modder. There are wages to pay, work to be done within some window because they can't be developing forever or run out of money so focuses and sacrifices are inevitable. Modders are usually not restricted by these constraints because they are not a company and installing a mod is always at your own risk by default. So modders can try and do things that the company might find unreasonable in certain circumstances precisely because they're a company. A modder is unlikely to be restricted by having to proft from his mod and can allow work at a slower pace.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Well, yeah ... they are more like the two major factions ...
Then there are DnD tabetop hardcore fans, DnD tabetop casuals, people who just likes RPG and didnt know BG, nor DoS before this (that would be me) ... and the best part is that those factions are not exclusive to each other.
From what I see a lot of RPG fans don't necesarily agree what substitiues a good RPG anyway. Take me for example - I value story over deep gameplay mechanics while I still don't want an RPG turning into a purely interactive story while some more old-school gamers would probably prefer much more mechanical depth. Then there's the whole RTWP vs TB, voiced vs silent protagonist, fully custom vs more defined protagonist, origin vs fully NPC companions, true to tabletop stats vs altered stats... the list goes on and on and all these vary from person to person. BG3 by virtue of being named BG3 managed to bring in pretty much every opinion and they're constantly clashing - here, on reddit, on Steam... And because the opinions can be so diverse even within a single group it's an impossible task for Larin to "properly" pick a side in this clashing... outside of their own, most likely.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Quote
I just find it unlikely to happen (at release at least I would say) precisely because it adds another component to balancing the difficulties (and therefore adds more work on top of exisiting balance) while the game is still in development and probably it was not something planned.
As for your question... That's on Larian I think. I don't think they've been too clear on what exactly they might be incorporating (to settle some debates) from the feedback and I can understand that, because you may say that you're implementing one thing but end up unable to do so. On the flip side I think it creates a situation when you might feel your feedback is useless, so I do feel they need to be more clear on what they might do and what they won't do just so there would be some clarity.

On this, we agree. I do feel like my feedback is useless. But I'm bored and still love the game, so I post still hoping maybe they are listening... Maybe...

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Oh I see. Ruswarr is the new chapter of "I'll throw at you guys every single rebuttal that has already been argued to hell and back for two years, in an attempt to make it sound like I'm making a compelling point".

"That would be untested" is one of the funniest ones, though. If only there was some type of environment where a lot of people would be able to test something that was yet to be finally released to the public.
We could call it "Anticipated Entry" or something like that.

Last edited by Tuco; 18/06/22 01:36 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Tuco
Oh I see. Ruswarr is the new chapter of "I'll throw at you guys every single rebuttal that has already been argued to hell and back for two years, in an attempt to make it sound like I'm making a compelling point".

"That would be untested" is one of the funniest ones, though. If only there was some type of environment where a lot of people would be able to test something that was yet to be finally released to the public.
We could call it "Anticipated Entry" or something like that.

Anticipated Entry... Lol... I literally laughed out loud on that one.

To add to this, we literally have tested it via the mod, so I don't understand that argument at all.

Yes. Combat is easier with party of 6. Doesn't make the game boring though. Quite the opposite. I enjoyed the game more with party of 6. Tried it multiple times with various party composition - meaning I even did it with party of 3 custom characters and 3 origin at a time.

No matter what way you slice it, I enjoyed the party of 6 more for all the reasons I stated.

You know what I find interesting? I haven't seen 1 person who is opposed to party of 6 actually try it to see if they'd like it. It amazes me how many people are against things without even trying them. They SAY it'll be so much worse, and are convinced of it, but they haven't even tried it to really know for sure.

Like genuine 5e rule set. So many are opposed to it, but how do you know it won't work or that you'll hate it if you've never even tried it?

Last edited by GM4Him; 18/06/22 01:51 PM.
Joined: Dec 2021
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Dec 2021
Originally Posted by Tuco
Oh I see. Ruswarr is the new chapter of "I'll throw at you guys every single rebuttal that has already been argued to hell and back for two years, in an attempt to make it sound like I'm making a compelling point".

"That would be untested" is one of the funniest ones, though. If only there was some type of environment where a lot of people would be able to test something that was yet to be finally released to the public.
We could call it "Anticipated Entry" or something like that.
When I refer to "untested" I mean it in a sense that only Act 1 will be tested by players. Not any content down the road until the release, and that's exactly where I expect many more issues to pop up. I can be wrong on this ofc but I do tend to expect worse rather than hope that no issues will pop up and if they do they'll be easy to fix.
I've burned too many times on hopeful thoughts I'd say.

Last edited by Ruswarr; 18/06/22 01:58 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
And that is why it is just a suggestion. Of course we must expect Larian to do what they think is best for their game. We may not like it, but at the end of the day, they're making it, not us.

But, we can still ask and hope for better, and the whole point of EA is to suggest what we think would be better. Right?

Joined: Dec 2021
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Dec 2021
The problem is that I think a lot of the suggestions start looking like demands (at least from my perspective) at this point, which is further worsened by Larian's relative silence and repetitiveness of said suggestions.
Like, "give us an option on these, on these, on these, on these"... except every option is still work that needs to be done to be implemented, and (hopefully) tested before being included in the next patch. It would be good if there would've been a clear understanding what can be expected to be implemented and what could not. It would've ofc caused backlash on "why things aren't done our way!!111" from some but at least there would be some clarity.

Last edited by Ruswarr; 18/06/22 03:07 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
There can be no doubt. EVERYONE would benefit from better communication on Larian's part.

I've said it numerous times before. If they said, "No. No party of 6. Period.". I'd give up on it. I'd let it go.

Same with EVERYTHING.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Do you want me to pour back through 93 pages to find the conversation
Yes.

---

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
The issue is that due to BG3 not being traditional Early Access there will be no means for players to playtest later stages of the game, and that's where most script issues will be much more likely to pop up me thinks.
Well, that would be issue ...
Presuming Larian are idiots who will use triggers, or mechanics they never ever used in EA and therefore are untested ...
Personaly i presume that they are not, so EA is their playground right now ... you know, you create some mechanic, need to see how it react on players, so you put it here on the playground so people test it ... then you see if it is safe to use or not. smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Especially if Larian by default enforces fixed 4-party setup at some point similary to DOS2.
Also true ... and also it would require Larian to be kinda idiots ...
I mean, dont get mad at me, but honestly who would "by default enforces fixed 4-party setup" in game that "is by default supposed to support 6-party mod" ? laugh

And before you say it ...
NO, that single case on the boat is not proof of otherwise, that is barely anything more than oversight ... you see your characters dont "walk on" the boat, they are spawnig there ... and quite logicaly Larian had no reason to create more than 4 spawning points ... that is why your characters die, bcs the game is told that who is not "on" the boat, fell down, and died. wink

But now, when we know it ... or ... as we ask ... if Larian would implement support for 6-party as default ... they would keep in mind more thoroughly, that the game need at all time have option to deal with two more party members, so they would (or could) add two more spawning points, and this particular problem would never happened again. smile

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Well ...
I would say that everyone is potentialy trading game stability for themselves, since nobody is forcing you to flip that switch ... so ... no, i dont trade others stability at all.
Except somebody will be happy to jump in for 6ppl party because they were excited to so it, thinks it's more fitting
This isnt really "except" scenario ...
Whoever will be happy to jump in, WILL see the warning ... and that person will have to decide for themselves if that is worth the cost or not ... so still, nobody is "tradint others stability" at all.
Every sentient being is deciding their own fate. wink

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
and are greeted by a warning that hey, it wasnt really tested and you might encounter issues. Not exactly something what a game should have on release, don't you think?
I get the feeling im starting to repeat myself ...
So, again, just as i said HERE ... THAT is the reason we are asking for this now ... so we can test it ... so it dont say something wasnt really tested. wink :P

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
And people will be reasonably pissed at Larian for an incomplete feature.
What exactly is supposed to be incomplete about it? laugh
The fact that it would lower your game dificiulty? That is not incomplete, that is by design.

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
In that case it makes more sense to lay some foundations for modders to work later on rather diverting focus to a mode that was not a priority.
Priorities are not our (and im sory, but that includes you) concern, that is on Larian to decide ...

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
It will only help find issues similar to "the boat killing".
Im affraid you are missing the point here ...
"Only the boat killing" ... means every single situation in game where our party is spawned ... so, basicaly any scenario you can imagine where we dont walk on our curent position but are starting there ... going to Jail would probably have same result, if our whole party would be arested at once.

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
As I said, it's unknown what other problems and bugs can stem from altering party size later; something I wouldn't call an imaginary issue bur rather "possible but very probable" issue. Only Larian know and as far as I know, they don't share much on this.
And as i said its impossible to react on "some issue" without litteraly any details, or at least hint ... so you say "they may occur" and i say "they may not" ...
And that is the best you can get from me on this ...

That and mentioning that (obviously) the more Larian would be aware of possibility for additional party members, the less it is probable that they will (or wont) add something, that (or absence of that) would cause problems.

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
The issue is that Larian is the developer, not a modder.
This isnt issue at all ... that is reason we are bringing it here. laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
There are wages to pay, work to be done within some window because they can't be developing forever or run out of money so focuses and sacrifices are inevitable. Modders are usually not restricted by these constraints because they are not a company and installing a mod is always at your own risk by default. So modders can try and do things that the company might find unreasonable in certain circumstances precisely because they're a company. A modder is unlikely to be restricted by having to proft from his mod and can allow work at a slower pace.
Oh come on, are you really trying to tell me that Larian is in so hard press they dont have time to add two spawning spots? laugh
Dont be ridiculous, thats not even work for an bussy afternoon ... that is something you can manage during a lunchbreak. laugh

Originally Posted by Ruswarr
From what I see a lot of RPG fans don't necesarily agree what substitiues a good RPG anyway.
That may have tomething to do with the fact that fans dont either ... there is lots of people with lots of taste, and everyone have their prefferences set different ...

In my humble opinion "good RPG" is that one, that manages to please most of those people. smile
Bcs there will allways be Dwarf Grumpy, who will complain about something wasnt "as they preffer" ... it is inevidable. smile


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
@Rag. No.

So not worth it.

Last edited by GM4Him; 19/06/22 11:08 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
[Linked Image from memegenerator.net]


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
Lol. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Besides, watching paint dry would be more productive and fun.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a wall. I can never win even when I'm right.

Last edited by GM4Him; 19/06/22 11:10 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
It was your suggestion, not mine. :P
I know it didnt happen, thats all i need. smile


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!”
Page 93 of 101 1 2 91 92 93 94 95 100 101

Moderated by  Nicou 

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