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
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.
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.
Right again ... and that is exactly what we would do, if Larian would include this option to EA.
So far so good ...
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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" ...
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.
I see litteraly no link to this topic. O_o
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
So Act 1 cannot be a true playground for testing every change because there's not full access to everything.
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.
The question is... how will the game proccess it, similary enough to the boat issue?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
That again only stresses that official 6-ppl party mode cannot be made haphazard no matter how many warnings you make.
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
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.
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.
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.
Same argument as abowe, same reaction as abowe ...
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".
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 ...
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.
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".
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.
Okey, lets say ... give me a single example.
(I know you cant, just for the record.)
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.
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?
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.
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".
Im willing to bet.
And that could simply be not a priority for them for many reasons.
Who is deciding what is priority now.