Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 98 of 115 1 2 96 97 98 99 100 114 115
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
There could easily be an option in the Game Settings called Max Party Size, with initial value 4. You could increase it, up to the maximum size the engine can handle. If you increase it, the game could have a pop-up window saying "Hi there. The game is designed for parties of 4 adventurers. If you increase this number, the game will not react to that change. Notably, combat encounters will not scale accordingly, and will become less challenging. You could probably try to make them challenging again by using the difficulty settings. But that is not the experience we designed, and we recommend you keep Max Party Size at 4". The "Continue" button could read "I understand, but I'll increase this number anyway". The "Cancel" button could read "Oops. I'll stick to the default value". It would really cost Larian little work to implement that.]
This was allready suggested few dozen times. smile
Usualy as counterargument when someone claim that 6member party would require reballance whole game.

I also think this would be win-win for everyone. +1


Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
One possible reason behind their stance is the following.
I may have another: Responsibility

As someone who is using said mod quite often ... i have noticed several bugs ... to name 3 bigest:
1) Clipping issues
(my party members often stands inside each other) ... especially during conversations and curscenes.

2) Suden death
(game kills extra party members sometimes) ... my personal theory is that this happens when you dont have spawning points

3) Dialogue overwriting
(clmpanions who are on 5th or 6th slot didnt respond to my actions at all) ... for example when you rescue Sazza, Gale dont talk to you
This one gets super anoying ... but i was told (by Tuco i believe) that source of this problem can be something else ... sadly i dont remember what.

Same goes for custom party tho ... if you have 2 or more custom Tavs, they debate every event in game between each other ... effectively blocking out allmost all and every companion dialogue outside the camp.
Your followers dont even get get yellow ! and if you purposefully try to talk to then rather than other Tav, they instead start regular "you want something?" dialogue. frown

And of course it is possibke that it cause sone crashes aswell ... but in this stage its hard to tell.

Anyway:
If Larian would implement this option officialy this (and possibly other) isues would become their responsibility.
Their game would be without a debate broken ...
But as long as we are using mod, its our fault ...

Is that lazy?
Well ... i gues from certain point of view it can be seen that way.
But you cant argue it have some sense ... why would they invest time and resources to stabilize something they didnt even inted to exist in the first place.

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 21/10/22 06:45 AM.

I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. frown
Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are! frown
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by snowram
... and downloading a mod is an extremely low roadblock.
No it is not. For me, having to mod my game is an extremely high and aggravating roadblock.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by snowram
... and downloading a mod is an extremely low roadblock.
No it is not. For me, having to mod my game is an extremely high and aggravating roadblock.

Agreed.

There is a mod for DOS 2 that allows Party of 6 or greater. I was tempted to do it, but there are comments about how it only works up until a certain point. Then things get weird.

Besides this kind of glitch stuff with mods, I don't like them because I don't trust them. Anyone can create viruses and Trojans and slip them into a mod.

No thanks. I've done it only a few times and it makes me too nervous every time. I'd like full support from the dev please.

Joined: Sep 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2020
What if the reason is as simple as quality?

There wil be a total of...what, 7 companions? Fully voiced, animated companions. There has to be a limit to those, I get that.

And it would not be fun to get the same ones on every run. Nor it would be okay for us to run around with mute mercenaries adding absolutely nothing to the story.

Seems like a design choice made quite consciously and does not ruin anything as many here imply? The game is balanced around a group of 4 and adding more would not do the game any good mechanic-wise. Adding an option with a visible alert that it most probably brake the game seems fine, but then again no designer wants to listen to people whinine "but the option was there and it broke my game!" every day after launch, no matter how many times you ask if the player is sure he wants it.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
🙄

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Vitani
What if the reason is as simple as quality?
I see no conection ...
You presumed there will be 7 Origin characters ... okey, lets put questions about that number aside, and work with that.

So you created 7 Origin characters ...
And then allow to people only take 3 of them at once ...
Instead of 5 of them at once ...

How exactly does that affect quality? O_o

Originally Posted by Vitani
There has to be a limit to those, I get that.
I dont ... explain please. smile
I would even dare to say there is no need for limit at all.

Originally Posted by Vitani
And it would not be fun to get the same ones on every run.
Says who?

I mean, yeah im aware that people are often getting sick of our curent 5 companions ...
But keep in mind that we are talking here about cases where people have often thousand hours, out of 20h content. laugh

Also, please keep in mind that as stated countless times before, nobody forces anyone to expand party limit to 6 ...
Meaning if you wish to play with your 3 companions, while everyone else is sitting in camp poking fire with a stick and thinking about cloud shapes ... you can. laugh

Originally Posted by Vitani
Nor it would be okay for us to run around with mute mercenaries adding absolutely nothing to the story.
And yet that is something we have promised as far as i know. :P laugh

Originally Posted by Vitani
Seems like a design choice made quite consciously and does not ruin anything as many here imply?
Can you provide some examples? :P

Originally Posted by Vitani
The game is balanced around a group of 4 and adding more would not do the game any good mechanic-wise.
I have missed this. laugh

You are here for last two years, so i dare to presume you noticed that countless people countless times allready mentioned that, they dont give a shit about ballance, and would be perfectly okey with game being unchanged ... since that is kinda exactly what the mod gives us. laugh
So, we allready tryed it ... most of us at least ... and gues what? We love it! :P

In other words: Adding more go the game some good ... its fun. smile
Dont damn it till you try. :P

Originally Posted by Vitani
Adding an option with a visible alert that it most probably brake the game seems fine, but then again no designer wants to listen to people whinine "but the option was there and it broke my game!" every day after launch, no matter how many times you ask if the player is sure he wants it.
Thats cute ...
As if some designer theese days would even presume that there is some "nobody is whining" option present. laugh

Nah, we both know (or at least i sure do, and i totally believe that designers do aswell, especialy after 2years of EA) that you can only decide who will be whining and what about ... but its existence is inevidable. :P
Either you will have idiots whining about their own ignorance of clearly stated warning ...
Or you will have other people whining about missing most desired and demanded option since EA start ...

Choose wisely. wink


I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. frown
Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are! frown
Joined: Sep 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Vitani
What if the reason is as simple as quality?
I see no conection ...
You presumed there will be 7 Origin characters ... okey, lets put questions about that number aside, and work with that.

So you created 7 Origin characters ...
And then allow to people only take 3 of them at once ...
Instead of 5 of them at once ...

How exactly does that affect quality? O_o

The more companions you add the less quality they will have. There is a budget and time limit to everything. I prefer to have 7 fleshed out companions than 20 that are carbon copies of themselves. Even BG2 with all it's great companions had just stupid filler ones with absolutely no substance - just to fill out the need to have 5 or more good/neutral/evil aligned companions because of the 6-man parties. I would prefer BG3 not go this way.

Quote
Originally Posted by Vitani
There has to be a limit to those, I get that.
I dont ... explain please. smile
I would even dare to say there is no need for limit at all.

Limit to the number of companions we get. See explanation above.

Quote
Originally Posted by Vitani
And it would not be fun to get the same ones on every run.
Says who?

Roleplayers? I dunno, some companions won't mix well with all main characters I assume. Why would I drag an obviously evil character along when I play as a lawful good character?

Quote
I mean, yeah im aware that people are often getting sick of our curent 5 companions ...
But keep in mind that we are talking here about cases where people have often thousand hours, out of 20h content. laugh

And yet you would want to limit the replayability even further by not wanting to have to mix it up?

Quote
Also, please keep in mind that as stated countless times before, nobody forces anyone to expand party limit to 6 ...
Meaning if you wish to play with your 3 companions, while everyone else is sitting in camp poking fire with a stick and thinking about cloud shapes ... you can. laugh

No, because of game balance. If a game is designed for a party of 6 the encounters will become too hard with a party of 2-3.

Quote
Originally Posted by Vitani
Nor it would be okay for us to run around with mute mercenaries adding absolutely nothing to the story.
And yet that is something we have promised as far as i know. :P laugh

Didn't hear that, no idea why anyone would want to play a RP game with silent companions - unless they are undead minions. It's kind of like playing a shooter game with only one gun.

Quote
Originally Posted by Vitani
Seems like a design choice made quite consciously and does not ruin anything as many here imply?
Can you provide some examples? :P
Of what? The design choice? Play the game, it's right there.
Of people being overly dramatic? Won't go through this topic again, got enough whiplash for now, thanks.

Quote
Originally Posted by Vitani
The game is balanced around a group of 4 and adding more would not do the game any good mechanic-wise.
I have missed this. laugh

Missed what? The gameplay? confused

Quote
You are here for last two years, so i dare to presume you noticed that countless people countless times allready mentioned that, they dont give a shit about ballance, and would be perfectly okey with game being unchanged ... since that is kinda exactly what the mod gives us. laugh
So, we allready tryed it ... most of us at least ... and gues what? We love it! :P

In other words: Adding more go the game some good ... its fun. smile
Dont damn it till you try. :P

Sure, adding more is fine but not if there is not much more to add. Unless you have 5 friends to play with there is little to no way to fill that whole place up with 'matching' companions right now.

Quote
Originally Posted by Vitani
Adding an option with a visible alert that it most probably brake the game seems fine, but then again no designer wants to listen to people whinine "but the option was there and it broke my game!" every day after launch, no matter how many times you ask if the player is sure he wants it.
Thats cute ...
As if some designer theese days would even presume that there is some "nobody is whining" option present. laugh

Nah, we both know (or at least i sure do, and i totally believe that designers do aswell, especialy after 2years of EA) that you can only decide who will be whining and what about ... but its existence is inevidable. :P
Either you will have idiots whining about their own ignorance of clearly stated warning ...
Or you will have other people whining about missing most desired and demanded option since EA start ...

Choose wisely. wink

Don't fix what ain't broken.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Vitani
The more companions you add the less quality they will have.
Cute ...
Now where exactly is anyone except you talking about "more companions" ?

You know ... 3 out of 7 and 5 out of 7 ...
Are both working with exactly same amount of 7 companions. smile

And as i said, that amount of 7 companions, was your theory. wink :P

Originally Posted by Vitani
Even BG2 with all it's great companions had just stupid filler ones with absolutely no substance - just to fill out the need to have 5 or more good/neutral/evil aligned companions because of the 6-man parties.
I think we can say quite confidently, that Larian is doing things their way and dont look too much into "what was in BG2, or BG1" ...
Not exactly the best decision (acording to some people) ... true ... but at least we can presume that they will not repeat misstakes from the past. wink

Originally Posted by Vitani
I dunno, some companions won't mix well with all main characters I assume. Why would I drag an obviously evil character along when I play as a lawful good character?
There is as much reasons as there are players/characters who does that. laugh
Redemption, lack of anything better, personal sympaties beyond their alignment ... pick yours, or create new one ... any reason is as valid as any other. wink

But you are corect, they dont mix well ...
But the statement was:
Quote
And it would not be fun to get the same ones on every run.
And i disagree ...

Every story can potentialy be fun, even with same companions, especialy if you replay it ...
Bcs you allready know one version of it ... so every other run, you will likely change things, to keep it fresh.

Sure, you can say: "I allready had Lae'zel with me last run, lets pick Bert this time!" ... thats perfectly fine. smile
OR!
You can aswell say: "I allready had Lae'zel in party with Evil character last run, lets make Good one this time!" ... and maybe it surprise you, but it can be fun aswell, even tho you "get the same ones on every run." wink

Remember that this is not topic about "total amount of existing companions" ...
But about "amount of companions i can have with me in the field". smile

Originally Posted by Vitani
And yet you would want to limit the replayability even further by not wanting to have to mix it up?
There is no limitation ...

There would be limitation, if the game would be completely reworked for 6 member party, with no way back ... BUT! ... That is not what people were asking for. wink

Its true that if you have 7 non-repetitive variables and are picking 3 of them, you can potentialy create MUCH more permutations, than if you are picking 5 of them ... thats base math. smile
Question is tho, if you can still make enough of them ... my answer is: Yes, you certainly can. smile
And as mentioned abowe ... if your answer is no ... well, all you need to do is simply not turn this alternation on. laugh

So ... sory, but i dont see any limitation. smile
Only possibilities, and only for those who want them. wink

Originally Posted by Vitani
No, because of game balance. If a game is designed for a party of 6 the encounters will become too hard with a party of 2-3.
First of all ... i said 3 companions ... your character + 3 companions = party of 4 ... aka curent state. laugh

Second ... yes, if a game is designed ... wich it isnt, and as i said, nobody requested it to be designed that way, on the contrary people keep ensuring other people that they dont want any redesign, reballance, or any simmilar stuff ... so why are we even talking about it? laugh
There is one quote i remember, dunno where i readed it tho:
"If there is problem in alternative universe, its theirs ... not ours." wink

Originally Posted by Vitani
Didn't hear that, no idea why anyone would want to play a RP game with silent companions - unless they are undead minions. It's kind of like playing a shooter game with only one gun.
Dont know, dont care ... not my problem why peple do what people do. laugh

Swen specificaly said that BG-3 WILL include mercenary companions system, thats all i can say ...
Cant link you to original ... i mean i could, if i would really want to search for it ... but i dont, so its up to you i gues. laugh It was in one of early interviews tho. smile

Personaly i dont see problem in that ...
You want it > here it is.
You dont want it > just dont use it.
You can notice this phylosophy a lot in my posts. smile

Originally Posted by Vitani
people being overly dramatic
Good example, thank you. laugh

Originally Posted by Vitani
Missed what? The gameplay? confused
This ... "argument" ... for lack of better therm.
Long time no see. laugh

Originally Posted by Vitani
Sure, adding more is fine but not if there is not much more to add.
There is no adding discuised in this particular topic ...
As stated several times before, this is just a matter of selecting a larger sample from allready existing group. wink

Originally Posted by Vitani
Unless you have 5 friends to play with there is little to no way to fill that whole place up with 'matching' companions right now.
Once again you are talking about something entirely different. O_o

First of all 6 member party =/= 6 players party ... on mechanical level that is WHOLE different problem, wich was discarted long time ago in this topic as beautifull, but completely unrealistic dream ... especialy since Larian specificaly promised splitscreen gameplay.

Second dont get upset (or do, if you concider that adequate reaction) but since there are no companions beyond our curent band officialy anounced ... except Swens promise that "there will be more" ... you cant know this.
(Yes, i know there is datamined evidence ... but as everyone who ever present anything datamined should notice ... and to my knowledge they do ... NOTHING datamined should ever be taken as confrimmed, until developers say so.)

And last but certainly not least ... 'matching' is relative ... and certainly not universaly required. :P

Originally Posted by Vitani
Don't fix what ain't broken.
This isnt matter of fixing either ...
More like upgrading. :P

And being broken in this particular context, is relative at best. :P

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 24/10/22 06:22 PM.

I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. frown
Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are! frown
Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
4 forces you to pick all archetypes of characters and less experiment

Joined: Mar 2022
S
old hand
Offline
old hand
S
Joined: Mar 2022
Originally Posted by ThreeL
4 forces you to pick all archetypes of characters and less experiment
What archetypes? Do you mean something like, melee, ranged, tank and support?

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by snowram
Originally Posted by ThreeL
4 forces you to pick all archetypes of characters and less experiment
What archetypes? Do you mean something like, melee, ranged, tank and support?
More like melee / physical utility / support / magic. The "classic" party is fighter / rogue / cleric / wizard.
- Fighter for the frontline sturdiness, protecting the backline.
- Rogue for both single-target dps and for dealing with all the scouting/traps/lockpicking/sneaking.
- Cleric for support: healing, buffing, removing curses/etc.
- Wizard for ranged magic during combat (battlefield control and both single-target and AoE damage) as well as out-of-combat magical utility.

That said, 5e is pretty flexible with party compositions; most parties can work.
- Healing is basically useless in 5e, and WotC has done away with most permanent negative status effects, so the "need" for a cleric is much lessened. As long as you have Healing Word, you're fine.
- Certain backgrounds give proficiency in thieves tools and perception, enabling any class to do okay as a rogue-replacement.
- Skill bonuses and check DCs are lower in 5e, so it's not as important to have characters that uber-specialize in a few skills.
- Due to the Concentration restriction on so many powerful spells, casters---namely stacking pre-buffs for encounters---are weakened so you don't need a full caster.

Like, you probably don't want to go 4 barbarians, but 3 frontline fighter-types and a backline magic user would work perfectly fine in 5e.

Joined: Mar 2022
S
old hand
Offline
old hand
S
Joined: Mar 2022
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
-snip-
Fair. As you said, I think the 4 party limit still allows a fair amount of variety in that regard. Those different roles can be filled by quite a varied amount of classes, for exemple the wizard "archetype" can be filled by both the wizard, the sorcerer, the warlock or even the druid with the right build. At the same time, you can play the same druid as a defensive fighter if you want to. Builds can be flexible enough to not having to be limited to one cookie cutter composition every time.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
But you cant really argue that with additional party slot (or two of them) your options would be MUCH wider. smile
Can you? laugh


I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. frown
Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are! frown
Joined: Mar 2022
S
old hand
Offline
old hand
S
Joined: Mar 2022
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
But you cant really argue that with additional party slot (or two of them) your options would be MUCH wider. smile
Can you? laugh
I can't, but I would also argue that the size of the party isn't mandatory in adding variety to a CRPG. Heck, some people are very happy doing lone wolf builds on DoS2. Since there is no best in slot classes for each archetype, you are still able to mix an match the various classes within the party. I didn't have a moment where I told to myself "I feel limited by the interactions between my party members" since the canvas of different builds/specialization/classes is the perfect size to me.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by snowram
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
-snip-
Fair. As you said, I think the 4 party limit still allows a fair amount of variety in that regard. Those different roles can be filled by quite a varied amount of classes, for exemple the wizard "archetype" can be filled by both the wizard, the sorcerer, the warlock or even the druid with the right build. At the same time, you can play the same druid as a defensive fighter if you want to. Builds can be flexible enough to not having to be limited to one cookie cutter composition every time.
Sure, I agree with all of that.

Imo, a bigger problem is that a 4-player party restricts you to 3 companions. Given that BG3 is expected to be a 80+ (100+? 120+?) hour game, many people probably won't want, or don't have the time, to replay it. These players will miss out on a ton of content - party banter, companion quests, companion character development, etc. Assuming 10 total companions, and that some players will refuse to play with ~2-3 companions because of personal dislike, a party of 6 means that these players can experience almost all the companions they'd want to in a single playthrough.
Edit: this is an especially important argument if Larian kills off non-party companions after Act 1, rather then allowing them to chill in camp and be swapped throughout the campaign.

Also, there's the whole argument that larger parties allow for a wider range of combat tactics and character synergies, enabling cool combos.

Last edited by mrfuji3; 10/12/22 04:31 PM.
Joined: Oct 2021
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Oct 2021
I can't remember if I previously commented in this thread. But I'd argue for four character parties because:

1. I don't want to manage six characters gear, skills, etc. It can already get pretty tedious with just four party members.
2. Combat can already be way too slow with just a four character party given that the game is turn based.
3. I actually like the idea of playing through the game multiple times with a new party, but admit that this is a personal preference and may not be best for the game.
4. If they make certain encounters dramatically different depending what party members are with you - it will be cool to experience the unique interactions, combat encounters, etc. (Example: Lohse from D:OS2)

To mrfuji3's point though - unless you play the game several times, there is definitely a fair amount of content you will be missing out on.

Joined: Mar 2022
S
old hand
Offline
old hand
S
Joined: Mar 2022
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by snowram
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
-snip-
Fair. As you said, I think the 4 party limit still allows a fair amount of variety in that regard. Those different roles can be filled by quite a varied amount of classes, for exemple the wizard "archetype" can be filled by both the wizard, the sorcerer, the warlock or even the druid with the right build. At the same time, you can play the same druid as a defensive fighter if you want to. Builds can be flexible enough to not having to be limited to one cookie cutter composition every time.
Sure, I agree with all of that.

Imo, a bigger problem is that a 4-player party restricts you to 3 companions. Given that BG3 is expected to be a 80+ (100+? 120+?) hour game, many people probably won't want, or don't have the time, to replay it. These players will miss out on a ton of content - party banter, companion quests, companion character development, etc. Assuming 10 total companions, and that some players will refuse to play with ~2-3 companions because of personal dislike, a party of 6 means that these players can experience almost all the companions they'd want to in a single playthrough.
Edit: this is an especially important argument if Larian kills off non-party companions after Act 1, rather then allowing them to chill in camp and be swapped throughout the campaign.

Also, there's the whole argument that larger parties allow for a wider range of combat tactics and character synergies, enabling cool combos.
I wholly agree with the edit, adding a point of no return this early in the game is a dubious move at best considering the state of the game.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Well, obviously I strongly disagree. A party of four is extremely limiting for:
Having a well-balanced party where party roles (yes, those still exist and matter in 5e) are properly filled out
Having more intra-party interactions and banter
The joy and fun of managing two additional companions in terms of their character development and equipment
Make combat more interesting because I will have more to do during combat

For all these reasons, I will never play BG3 without a mod that increases party size to six. And I will even consider such a mod to be a required default for the game, so if the mod causes any problems or incompatibilities in the game I will blame Larian for them and consider any such issues to be Larian's fault and responsibility.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
It is highly doubtful that we will get party of 6. Even watching the new trailer, every time they show a party, it's 4. There is 0 indication that they have the option in their overall plan.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by GM4Him
It is highly doubtful that we will get party of 6. Even watching the new trailer, every time they show a party, it's 4. There is 0 indication that they have the option in their overall plan.
I agree, much like I agree that none of the things people in this forum have been passionate about revising in BG3 will ever even be discussed publicly by Larian let alone actually addressed.

Page 98 of 115 1 2 96 97 98 99 100 114 115

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