If anything, it seems you are the one attempting to justify your own arguments, and you're making a number of assumptions to do so. You're assuming, for example, that BG3 will be exactly like DOS2, that party members will die at some point - among other items you mentioned. Though it is possible, and maybe probable, it is still an assumption. They certainly don't have to do it that way, and in my opinion they shouldn't if they don't want even more people griping about how this is a DOS3 and not BG3. You are also assuming that if they increase max party size to 6 that they have to then increase multiplayer max party size to 6. They COULD do a max party of 4 players with a max party of 6 or even 8 (2 to 4 NPC members). In fact, if they really wanted to make some people happy, they'd make it so you could play a party of 4 players with each player being able to control an origin character and allow up to 8 max party size with 2 characters per player
Anyway, my point is that there is legit reasons why some of us want a party of 6. It's not just, "I want a party of 6, so you people who want party of 4 just shut up." Again, party of 4 limits the game and locks out content and makes things less fun, especially since I've played the mod and enjoyed party of 6 so much more. It's like getting a taste of something good and having people tell me I can't continue to have it. Screw you because I only want my limited version.
But I'm asking for both, and that's why I said they COULD balance a party of 6 by making a 5e Core ruleset and allowing 4 custom characters to start, even in single-player mode. Then those who want to play party of 4 can do so on the janky homebrew ruleset and those who want to play hard core 5e AND party of 6 can do so. They wouldn't even have to add or remove more monsters. Then everybody is happy.
Fair enought, I'm not immune to personal bias either I guess. I have to make certain assumptions since Larian didn't confirm everything for obvious reasons ( work in progress). The assumptions about DOS:2 origin characters and how it will look in BG3 is indeed just that: an assumption. But" player will have to commit" said by Sven in early stages kinda supports this claim you can't say the opposite. In that light the part of " switching characters left and right to know their story" isn't exactly an issue since you most likely won't have the option to switch them. But assuming they don't die and stay alive somewhere in the world indeed what you said makes sense. Never denied that particular aspect.
Regarding increasing the party size without necessarily increasing the amount of players kinda solves the issue i highligthed above so fair enought on that. Good to know it's moddable cause it kinda gives me hopes. Like worst case in a couple months post release we can mod it ourselves if Larian doesn't commit to 6 man party.
Now I think it's important to clarify one thing: From the very start of this conversation I genually would prefer 6 characters too. Mostly cause the more the merrier and the party feels more alive( in my opinion). So we agree on that part which is nice. However arguments can be made in the opposite direction :
1)With the current movement system too much characters to manage can be a burden to some.
2)It can compromise replayability to some extent ( Depends on the max amount of characters in the entire game. In the end we have 0 idea how many there will be. Considering their origin stories seem VERY built up with their own cinematics etc we could make an assumption there won't be that many. In which case that issue applies).
3)More characters = different balance so while it doesn't have to lead to encounters re-design it will lead to more testing for Larian. They can't just release a 6 man party with an info" we didn't test it , don't use it". That's equivalent to making it moddable.
4)On the same side of more work all encounters teleporting your players or acting on your entire party would also need to be done twice: For a party of 4 and a party of 6. Not undoable obviously since it was modded in EA but still something to consider.
5)Regarding the last two points: Do we want to convince Larian to double down on something that theoratically isn't game defining(Theoratically as in for me and you it might be important not for others)? Well it's a hard sell.
Don't comment on the "arguments against" cause that's not my point. I don't think either of us wants to talk about why it doesn't make sense to have 6 characters.We both think it does. My point is rather there are implications to that and having it "half-assed" isn't really an option(Like in that case you can get the 6 man party mod and you will achieve a similar result). So should Larian work on it ? Well would be cool but we can't say it's superior or problem free. It comes with it's own issues to solve and adress.
AKA what is there to prove over 90 pages? We can't deny it has it's pros and cons. Some will matter to some others won't. It's not something tengible or easily explainable like the critic of "Advantage given on attacks from highground" which Larian listened to and patched out.
That's the only reason there's 90 pages about it. There's no middleground for taste. Larian taking under consideration everyone's taste? YES please. But for the love of god we agree on having a party of 6 and yet we can't agree on everything. So its there a better proof this is really a case of " taste" and not arguments and reasons due to the main impact being immersion (It's positive/negative influence on combat and how to adress this is probably the main thing there is to discuss but you already said about it more than I will ever know or test in EA so i can shut up on that subject) ?
HENCE WHY my first comment about proving me wrong 5 man party is the optimal solution. Voila. have a good day, I hope we agree to some extent.
Last edited by virion; 17/05/2208:21 AM.
Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.