Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Party Size Discussion

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Yes.

---

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.

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" ?

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.

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.

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.

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. :P

What exactly is supposed to be incomplete about it?
The fact that it would lower your game dificiulty? That is not incomplete, that is by design.

Priorities are not our (and im sory, but that includes you) concern, that is on Larian to decide ...

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.

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.

This isnt issue at all ... that is reason we are bringing it here.

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?
Dont be ridiculous, thats not even work for an bussy afternoon ... that is something you can manage during a lunchbreak.

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.
Bcs there will allways be Dwarf Grumpy, who will complain about something wasnt "as they preffer" ... it is inevidable.

@Rag. No.

So not worth it.

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.

It was your suggestion, not mine. :P
I know it didnt happen, thats all i need.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

You misunderstand me. Call it trigger, script, mechanic, whatever you like - it doesn't matter. Some part of code responsible for doing something in the game and what's important is how it interacts with everything else. You are adding code with expectation that it will do something specific, surely - and the next step is to CHECK if it's all working properly and if it's not - locate the source of the issue. Basic bugfixing, really. Now imagine how many moving parts (of various complexity) there will be in a game like BG3 and how hard it can be to locate the source of an issue - because it might not even be some mistake in the particular code you've integrated but rather unintended interaction with another part of the code (that you might've never worked on even). There's also a possibility that it cannot be reasonably fixed at all so you'll need to rework your code, which might lead to similar problem with others parts down the line, etc. There can be engine limitations - even if BG3 is developed on a new version of Divinity engine we don't know what limitations might carry over. It's probably not all so doom and gloom as I make it sound like but that's the rough idea.

And Larian expanded their ranks (for BG3, I presume) so there is ought to be some mismanagement and miscommunication (not out of ignorance and disconnect CDPR-style but out of lack of experience) betweeen teams because they are not accustomed to having that many people working simultaneously. Like the recent video about The Box - they clearly underestimated potential issues with it but it's also probably too late to rework it from zero even with hidnsight. You cannot add some code and expect it to be perfectly working alongside eveything the moment it's added - if it were, games and sotfware would probably take much less time and people to develop. That's why in the "option this, option that" thread you are being explained to that you cannot just throw an option in - all that is work and testing to be done to ensure it works properly and, most importantly, doesn't break anything already functioning somewhere.

So Act 1 cannot be a true playground for testing every change because there's not full access to everything.
My bad here. I meant to say that BG3 would lock the party composition similar to DOS2, and I would assume it would lock in both 4 and 6-ppl party. The question is... how will the game proccess it, similary enough to the boat issue? While it may let you proceed further with party members 5 and 6 it may also consider them not belongning to your party for some later interactions because it was not taught to recongnize past party member #4 in this event. So you might end up with some Origin character in your party... but you also encounter them as NPC or an enemy, and Hells know how that might impact Origin storyline progress (assuming you even still have the related quest and it was not disabled earlier) and how many script intercations and flags it would break because of it. And that's exactly why if Larian decides to implement 6-party mode it need to be thourough and not a lazily slapped solution, as you yourself say. The question is - can they fully dedicate to it before release? My assumption is "unlikely" (although, as you point it out, they keep it in mind) as we're still yet to see more basics like reaction rework, for example.
That would be true if BG3 was a single player game. It is fundamentally not. So it can break parties that were expecting to play together because not everyone may be willing to play a potentially unstable multiplayer mode. That again only stresses that official 6-ppl party mode cannot be made haphazard no matter how many warnings you make.
And I will repeat myself too that unless EA would include full game - there's no way for players to test the full extent of the mode. Act 1 will be tested to death while everything past it will be not.
Balance and difficulty have nothing to do with it (well... in my opinion they do but that's not a primary concern in this case). Again, it's stability and functionality (so every in-game interaction works as intended), especially past Act 1.
Yep. Yet pretty much nobody wants Larian to decide what's a priority and what should be worked on; a lot of suggestions are less suggestions and more like demands on "why X is not in game, give", "no Y - bad game", "give option A, and option B, and option C, and Z too". And, to be fair, if Larian were more clear on what they are planning to do and what they are not planning to do or give some sort of roadmap it would be much easier to understand their priorites; although I also understand why they do not do this - as not to give false hope if they fail to implement something they planned.
Solving "boat killing" would only give a solution to a set of similar issues. While it still should be solved, it will not give any insight on solving different issues that, as I like to stress, are more likely to appear past EA content.
Sorry to point it out, but now you're deciding what's a priority for Larian and how they should do their work Contradicting yourself here, no?
Yes, I would say that it's probably not that much of a work, although I would say it's probably a litle more than just "drop two spawning points and call it a day". And that could simply be not a priority for them for many reasons.

Exactly ... and as long as you will count with the option to have two more party members, you keep that in mind and include it to your expectations.

That is difference between moding, wich adds, changes, or erase things without knowledge of whole context ...
And developing, where you DO know the whole context, bcs you are creating it.

Right again ... and that is exactly what we would do, if Larian would include this option to EA.
So far so good ...

Well, not hard at all ...
You simply run your code, and the second it gives you an error ... thats where your source is.

Every even simple progam language can do debug, this really isnt rocket science.

No matter how many words you use to descibe it ... this is still "something may happen" ... as i said, the only possible way to react on this is "it may not".

Dont be so scared.
Great things were usualy invented by accident. :P

If there would be engine limitations, the mod would not work.
Thats how engine works ... you can play with 6 (even 8) party members, believe me i did ... so there quite clearly isnt litteraly any "engine limitation" ...


I see litteraly no link to this topic. O_o

Oh its certainly not too late ... it would cause some wasted money, time and resources, that much is sure ... but its still entirely possible.
But (at least as i understand the video) the Issue was here that this whole Box thing was Swens idea ... and he sticks to it, so he keep adding, and adding, and adding ... instead of stop and wonder if there isnt better way ... maybe he didnt see any, maybe he dont want to see any, we dont really know.

Also, the box problem have quite easy solution ... it was mentioned in topic about it.

Here is where you are wrong.
It purely depends on that code you are adding, and rest of the code you allready created ...

For example ...
If you created code, that will spawn 4 of your party members on the boat ... but now you can have 6 ...
You (as i mentioned earlier) simply add two more spawning points ...
You are using exactly the same working and tested piece of code as you are for first 4 members, nothing changes ... it works, people are happy.
But if you dont ...
And you demand your game to put your party on positions ... the game have no idea what to do, since, the code is only for 1, 2, 3, and 4 ... 5 and 6 have no place to spawn ...

If you need to think easier on this ...
You have 6 childern and 4 chairs ... what would you do?
The program cannot "create 2 more chairs" on its own ... so it kills remain childern.
- Now everyone is sitting and the code can continue.
Or the programmer can "prepare 6 chairs, instead of 4" ... that way
- you have 4 childern, everyone is sitting and the code can continue.
- you have 6 childern, everyone is sitting and the code can continue.
- you have 8 childern, two childern die, everyone is sitting and the code can continue.
Easy as that.

That topic is wrong on so many levels i dont even know where to start.
But if you read it, i mentioned some points there.

Sure there is ... that is its purpose.
Not story-wise obviously, but from mechanical perspective? It contains everything Larian need us to test, that is why we are here.

It doesnt really matter if they needs us to test it for ballance purposes, stability purposes, or just to find out how would we react on certain things, or how would we like it ... its still testing.

Basicaly any situation that would start by your WHOLE party being on place 1 ...
Then some cutscene happen ...
And your WHOLE party is on place 2 ...

Is the boat issue.

Yes, this is indeed potential danger ... of mod ...
Since it would take some time before moder, who have no internal insight to the code, will find out every single situation where alternation is needed.

Not if Larian (as we ask here) include this option.
The reason is simple ... in order to make something like this happened, you have to litteraly TELL the engine to only recognize party members 1,2,3,4 ... and nothing else.
So, logicaly ... if Larian would allow us to play with 6 ... why would they limit anything in their own code to only recognize 4? Thats madness.

This isnt really the question at all ...
Our job is to provide feedback, their job is to read it, think about it, and decide what to do with it ... and then do it.

What they can, want, or will dedicate to ... changes nothing about this.

No it cannot break parties ...
No it cannot make multiplayer unstable ...

And if you want to say it can, tell me how ... and i happily explain you why you are wrong.
(For the record ... yes, im aware you dont know how, i just want you to say it out loud ... sometimes it helps.)

Ehm ... what are you talking about right now? O_o

Since as far as i know, the only "warning" we were talking about was to tell people that battles are prepared for 4 members ... and therefore logicaly brings half more will make them conciderably easier. O_o

No matter how many times you repeat it, it dont become true ...

I can understand why do you think that ... but you are wrong.
Every mechanic they need to test is included to Act 1 ... why? BCS THEY FREAKING NEED TO TEST IT ... sheesh, logic.

Sure there is possibility that Larian will not include something ... and if they dont, it would be totally on them, full hate, fully deserved ... it would be a misstake, a stupid one on top ... and the only thing it would proove, would be the fact that they have no idea what for Early Acess is used ...
Wich, concidering that they have many experience with this, should not be the case.

Same argument as abowe, same reaction as abowe ...

Doesnt really matter tho.
The important part is that we should understand that it is not up to us to make the decision ... sure, i can write everything in between "please concider to include this feature" up to "hey assholes give me what i want or i refund!"

But no matter how i write it, no matter how strongly i will demand it ... can i do something more? No.
Its up to them ...

That is why arguments about what Larian should focus on, or should not focus on is completely irellevant here ... it doesnt matter if i concider your suggestion to be priority, or if you concider mine to be bullshit ... we can say it to each other tho, but it would no matter anyway.
What matter is what Swen and his team thinks about it ...

Agreed on both points.

BTW, that was also demanded ... and as you can see, it didnt mattered.
(Lets call it "a proof that it doesnt matter what we want, if Larian dont". )

Okey, lets say ... give me a single example.
(I know you cant, just for the record.)

Eh ... nope?
Im only providing educated guess on how much time such fix would take ...

Not even a single word about priorities. O_o
But now i wonder where did you get it from.

Im willing to bet.

Who is deciding what is priority now.

I tried to write a reply for some time but whaterer, screw that. Sorry Rag but I absolutely don't know how to get my point across.

I give up, consider yourself victorious.

All i asked for was an example ... that would be a good start. :-/

using solasta as my base experience, 5 would be having lots of fun and 6 fun + i can choose any class that i would least play. i mean druid is far underpowered compared to other classes for me. druids seems to have some interesting stuff like flaming blade? moonbeam? but as tank it's too weak. no metal armor or even shield.

Personally, I would like the option to create 6 custom party members. It would be nice to give us that option for those who wants it (dont want it? Dont use it! :P ). Im not asking to adjust or change the whole game, just give a warning that the game is intended for 4.

Mods? I know that theres mods for up to 8 party members but I dont think theres any that lets you have 6 custom party members yet. Anyways it would be nice to be able to do that without mods.

I would also be happy about a custom party of 5. That wouldn't be too much to ask, a very good compromise, so to speak, and for that number there are better formations.

EDIT: But to be honest. When you appreciate the Baldur's Gate series, you get one of its core elements par excellence, namely the possibility of a (custom) party size of 6. A party size of 4 = DOS & DOS ≠ Baldur's Gate. As simple as that.

I hope Larian has taken notes on how high amount of the players that want a 6 man party. Theres still time for them to develop such a feature as it is a simple thing to do.

+1