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.