Only 4 Party members in a D&D CRPG is Disappointing

[Grimreaper]

i know that most 5E adventures are recommended for 2-5 player but that is for table top. in table top you pick one character for an adventure and depending on your group you might discuss party comp before making your characters and starting your game. but Baldur's gate is a CRPG. CRPGS are a little different they are typically played as single player game where you control all of the party members. 4 member party seems kind of limiting and stops a lot of different synergies you can do with a 6 party group. i dont know how many companions there will be at release but you might have to stick with companion you dont necessarily like because they are the only pick that make sense for a comp if you want to survive. i also dont know if they plan on adding all of the base 5E classes, if they are, a 4 person party makes is to where you will get to experience less of the classes. IIRC i think they said they were doing the same thing they did in DOS2 where you cant keep all the companions you meet. you will have to choose a certain 3 and the rest will be lost to you. i hope im misremembering but if i am not, i wish they would stop putting their divinity philosophies on Baldurs gate. BG ang BG 2 had 6 party member and it was a BIG reason why i loved them. i know there will probably be mods to allow six member parties, but i am scared that it may mess up story, dialogue and cut scene. it might also make the game too easy if it doesn't also somehow rebalance the combat for six party members. it would be nicer if it was in the core game but that is just wishful thinking. i get my 6 party member fix through games like Pathfinder. too bad the developer of that game is garbage and is nowhere near as transparent and responsive as Larian


Edit: took out the ill advise statement about needing certain classes in party comp

[desrtfox071]

Tinball の投稿を引用：

desrtfox071 の投稿を引用：

But all of that will, inevitably, lead to extra time for battles (on average).

If we are talking multi-player - I think people would love for 6, even if it meant longer times.

With fixes to the GUI, I think a single player could learn to whip through 6 players movement, action, bonus action without any lag. That's all there is when we break it down to minimum. I'm not counting reactions because we've seen very few implemented thus far.

4 players that's 12 decisions a round.
6 players that's 18 decisions per round.

I think someone that understands 5e, video games, using macros and hotkeys, can easily whip through a turn. Especially if you have two front line fighters that are just going to bash weapons. Or archers that are just going to fire. You are even bskipping bonus actions many times. Not every class or situation always allows for a usable bonus action. Though the Larian 5e allows for all classes to stealth. Which is awful if we are going to use the word 'balance.'

Now if Larian can't fix it's sluggish AI, or the 'making a decision' problem, that's on them and not really my fault.

Combat can be much faster in this game. I think I've notice a speed bump in how quickly the camera is moving in combat with patch 6. The FPS boost from DLSS has been nice as well.

With AI improvement, and the ye old 'git gud' at 5e, then I do not see a problem with slow combat as the result of using 6 players.

If you do not want 6 players, then just do not use it. They should balance it for a max size of 6 if that's what the people want.

First, I'm not saying that Larian can't do it. I'm not saying Larian shouldn't do it. I'm saying a larger party will take more time. That's a fact. Even for veterans, a 6 player team will take more time than a 4 player team. That's just reality.

Now, as to "who's fault is it". I don't think fault is even an important idea here. As for "if the people want it", the player base isn't monolithic, so just because you want it and some other posters want it, doesn't mean "the people" want it. Whatever that is supposed to mean anyway.

Regarding BG3, we know that D&D 5e itself is balanced around 3-5 players, so 4 seems fine. Personally, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to 6, but I don't necessarily think my opinion counts for anyone other than myself.


Based on this poll, it seems the responding community of pretty evenly divided on whether 4 is satisfactory or not (with a slight edge going to yes, it's acceptable):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgN2IAZi8Hho6X_7XpiW-0N_cUYEJvX8/view

[dolby]

desrtfox071 の投稿を引用：

Except it is about balance and opponent count and time.

So, yeah, sure you can add extra opponents to compensate for the extra players. Doing so inevitably makes each battle take longer.(And before someone jumps in claiming that 2 extra players is only 50% more player NPCs, and therefore shouldn't draw the combat out to twice as long, please remember that you also have to add 50% more opponents, or otherwise make the opponents 50% more difficult - roughly. The extra time is probably over 100% - meaning combat would likely be more than 2 times as long as it is now, on an average basis. (1.5^2=2.25))

WHAT balance there is no balance! That doesn't exists give me a name of one CRpg that's balanced LOL JUST ONE

Like talking to walls. IT"S NOT SLOWER! it's faster!! Because YOU CAN FOCUS FIRE you can actully do combos cosyou have 1 - 2 more concetration slots. With cap of 4 those are used on mandatory buffs.. Stop posting what you never tested.

Not to mention you can brake the cap of 4 aready so nothing you are saying holds any water whatsoever.

[desrtfox071]

dolby の投稿を引用：

desrtfox071 の投稿を引用：

Except it is about balance and opponent count and time.

So, yeah, sure you can add extra opponents to compensate for the extra players. Doing so inevitably makes each battle take longer.(And before someone jumps in claiming that 2 extra players is only 50% more player NPCs, and therefore shouldn't draw the combat out to twice as long, please remember that you also have to add 50% more opponents, or otherwise make the opponents 50% more difficult - roughly. The extra time is probably over 100% - meaning combat would likely be more than 2 times as long as it is now, on an average basis. (1.5^2=2.25))

WHAT balance there is no balance! That doesn't exists give me a name of one CRpg that's balanced LOL JUST ONE

Like talking to walls. IT"S NOT SLOWER! it's faster!! Because YOU CAN FOCUS FIRE you can actully do combos cosyou have 1 - 2 more concetration slots. With cap of 4 those are used on mandatory buffs.. Stop posting what you never tested.

Not to mention you can brake the cap of 4 aready so nothing you are saying holds any water whatsoever.

You don't actually expect a response to this do you? I mean please refer to my previous posts that actually include data and some logic. I don't generally respond to illogical rants.

Just to be clear though:

More player characters means more time (yes it does) (unless you just mean make the game easier, in which case there will be easier difficulties on launch - maybe one of those is right for you)
Balance isn't an all or nothing. Grow up.
D&D 5e is balanced around 3-5 players.

To me this seems like another "BG2 did it this way, so BG3 must as well or be declared heretical).

Also, the player base has responded to polls and in such polls, the 4 player cap seems deemed "acceptable".

If you wish to refute any of this, feel free, but don't expect a response to yelling or emotional, toddler like outbursts. Please provide some actual data.

[Dragon Master]

Tinball の投稿を引用：

desrtfox071 の投稿を引用：

First, I'm not saying that Larian can't do it. I'm not saying Larian shouldn't do it. I'm saying a larger party will take more time. That's a fact. Even for veterans, a 6 player team will take more time than a 4 player team. That's just reality.

Now, as to "who's fault is it". I don't think fault is even an important idea here. As for "if the people want it", the player base isn't monolithic, so just because you want it and some other poster's want it, doesn't mean "the people" want it. Whatever that is supposed to mean anyway.

Regarding BG3, we know that D&D 5e itself is balanced around 3-5 players, so 4 seems fine. Personally, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to 6, but I don't necessarily think my opinion counts for anyone other than myself.


Based on this poll, it seems the responding community of pretty evenly divided on whether 4 is satisfactory or not (with a slight edge going to yes, it's acceptable):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgN2IAZi8Hho6X_7XpiW-0N_cUYEJvX8/view

If the 'people want it' means if they are getting feedback that it's desirable, then they should do it. That's a sizable chunk of your market that would like 6 players. 48% or whatever it was. I forgot about that poll. They should do another seeing it's been a year.

But not enough of them were there in the survey to make 6-party members the most reasonable route for development.

Right now the people clammering for it, with the data that has been gathered thus far, can be called a vocal minority.

They're loud but there is not that many of them overall compared to the general player-base, which according to steamspy, is about 3-5 million copies purchased.

[desrtfox071]

Tinball の投稿を引用：

desrtfox071 の投稿を引用：

First, I'm not saying that Larian can't do it. I'm not saying Larian shouldn't do it. I'm saying a larger party will take more time. That's a fact. Even for veterans, a 6 player team will take more time than a 4 player team. That's just reality.

Now, as to "who's fault is it". I don't think fault is even an important idea here. As for "if the people want it", the player base isn't monolithic, so just because you want it and some other poster's want it, doesn't mean "the people" want it. Whatever that is supposed to mean anyway.

Regarding BG3, we know that D&D 5e itself is balanced around 3-5 players, so 4 seems fine. Personally, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to 6, but I don't necessarily think my opinion counts for anyone other than myself.


Based on this poll, it seems the responding community of pretty evenly divided on whether 4 is satisfactory or not (with a slight edge going to yes, it's acceptable):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgN2IAZi8Hho6X_7XpiW-0N_cUYEJvX8/view

If the 'people want it' means if they are getting feedback that it's desirable, then they should do it. That's a sizable chunk of your market that would like 6 players. 48% or whatever it was. I forgot about that poll. They should do another seeing it's been a year.

You wouldn't have to play with 6 players. If people are fine with 4, then roll with 4. Plus if you roll with less, your 4 players gain more XP. There would be a reward for playing 4.

Yes it would slow down combat slightly, and I bet that same percentage of people would not mind.

Is it a hill I'm willing to die on? Shall I stomp off and pout in the corner if they do not make it 6? No. I'll still play. Me and some of the curmudgeons would like a 6 player party is all.

I agree that it's a sizable chunk that answered "is 4 players acceptable" in the negative. I don't think that is necessary equivalent to all of them wanting 6 players. We also don't know how many of the responders who said "yes" would be unhappy with 6, especially if the game was balanced around 6.

Now, as for 4 vs 6 and balancing for both, it does mean that Larian would have to do a lot of extra work in order to balance both conditions. Again, I'm not saying they should or shouldn't only that there are costs involved.


I agree a new poll would be nice because these are out of date for sure by now, but it's the only data available that I'm aware of.


I also concur that I'm not interested in dying on a hill over the 4 or 6 player debate. Personally, I think either would be fine, and Larian seems to have chosen 4 for whatever reasons. I'm ok with that. I understand that not all players will be ok with that. Maybe there are those out there that think the game should be just for one player character, or 3 for all I know.

I strongly suspect that we will see mods allowing for 6 player parties. I'm pretty sure D:OS2 has such mods.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

The game doesn't need to be 'balanced' for six characters at all - just balance it for four and include the option of six for those who want it to be easier.

[desrtfox071]

pandariuskairos の投稿を引用：

The game doesn't need to be 'balanced' for six characters at all - just balance it for four and include the option of six for those who want it to be easier.

Which I think is a relatively easy compromise. We know there will be different difficulty levels, so giving the option for 6 is probably fine, though there may be story elements that would need to be adjusted. Of course, I think this will be inevitable through modding in any case (6 player option).

[dolby]

desrtfox071 の投稿を引用：

dolby の投稿を引用：

WHAT balance there is no balance! That doesn't exists give me a name of one CRpg that's balanced LOL JUST ONE

Like talking to walls. IT"S NOT SLOWER! it's faster!! Because YOU CAN FOCUS FIRE you can actully do combos cosyou have 1 - 2 more concetration slots. With cap of 4 those are used on mandatory buffs.. Stop posting what you never tested.

Not to mention you can brake the cap of 4 aready so nothing you are saying holds any water whatsoever.

You don't actually expect a response to this do you? I mean please refer to my previous posts that actually include data and some logic. I don't generally respond to illogical rants.

Just to be clear though:

More player characters means more time (yes it does) (unless you just mean make the game easier, in which case there will be easier difficulties on launch - maybe one of those is right for you)
Balance isn't an all or nothing. Grow up.
D&D 5e is balanced around 3-5 players.

To me this seems like another "BG2 did it this way, so BG3 must as well or be declared heretical).

Also, the player base has responded to polls and in such polls, the 4 player cap seems deemed "acceptable".

If you wish to refute any of this, feel free, but don't expect a response to yelling or emotional, toddler like outbursts. Please provide some actual data.

This is about you posting things that you never tested nothing else.
The only thing that would change for you and other 4 cap(fake one at that) advocates would be abit harder game and ONLY if they didn't make it as separate mode.
What do you even hope to gain by posting in this thread?
Balance ??? Again i want you to post one name of a balanced Crpg, please. Just one it shouldn't be that hard.

BG 3 is not DND 5e. BG 3 is DnD 5e adaptation, a Video game HUGE difference.
You can get the data yourself right now in game, like i already said go test it out.

Ffew people who keep post this Slower gameplay crap never tested it and i'm So jade by all the killjoys on this forum. NO ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ wonder crpgs are niche genre with communities like this.

Balance in singlerplayer game, please...you really gonna have to explain that to me.
Cos i have yet to see it. Even in Mutiplayer game it's an never ending process.
We could post videos of unbalanced things in this game all day long and we woundn't make a dent.
Thing is, that doesn't make the game any less good or fun!
Game is balanced when it's FUN and people like to play it...
The rest is just appropriate challenge for every single difficulty available and that's hard to come by as well. Be it in 1 man or 4 - 6 man games makes no diffrence.

Ow and the question in that poll is misleading IF you asked differently it would change. Acceptable, really? If you want acceptable game, fine. But i don't, i want and epic game.

[desrtfox071]

dolby の投稿を引用：

desrtfox071 の投稿を引用：

You don't actually expect a response to this do you? I mean please refer to my previous posts that actually include data and some logic. I don't generally respond to illogical rants.

Just to be clear though:

More player characters means more time (yes it does) (unless you just mean make the game easier, in which case there will be easier difficulties on launch - maybe one of those is right for you)
Balance isn't an all or nothing. Grow up.
D&D 5e is balanced around 3-5 players.

To me this seems like another "BG2 did it this way, so BG3 must as well or be declared heretical).

Also, the player base has responded to polls and in such polls, the 4 player cap seems deemed "acceptable".

If you wish to refute any of this, feel free, but don't expect a response to yelling or emotional, toddler like outbursts. Please provide some actual data.

This is about you posting things that you never tested nothing else.
The only thing that would change for you and other 4 cap(fake one at that) advocates would be abit harder game and ONLY if they didn't make it as separate mode.
What do you even hope to gain by posting in this thread?
Balance ??? Again i want you to post one name of a balanced Crpg, please. Just one it shouldn't be that hard.

BG 3 is not DND 5e. BG 3 is DnD 5e adaptation, a Video game HUGE difference.
You can get the data yourself right now in game, like i already said go test it out.

Ffew people who keep post this Slower gameplay crap never tested it and i'm So jade by all the killjoys on this forum. NO ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ wonder crpgs are niche genre with communities like this.

Balance in singlerplayer game, please...you really gonna have to explain that to me.
Cos i have yet to see it. Even in Mutiplayer game it's an never ending process.
We could post videos of unbalanced things in this game all day long and we woundn't make a dent.
Thing is, that doesn't make the game any less good or fun!
Game is balanced when it's FUN and people like to play it...
The rest is just appropriate challenge for every single difficulty available and that's hard to come by as well. Be it in 1 man or 4 - 6 man games makes no diffrence.

Ow and the question in that poll is misleading IF you asked differently it would change. Acceptable, really? If you want acceptable game, fine. But i don't, i want and epic game.

I acknowledge that you have an emotional response to this topic.

[dolby]

pandariuskairos の投稿を引用：

The game doesn't need to be 'balanced' for six characters at all - just balance it for four and include the option of six for those who want it to be easier.

I'm sure 5 woud be fine for most but yeah 6 could be a thing as well.

They could even make it a DLc even if it means we have to wait longer to play.

[dulany67]

Couch co-op is not going to work for consoles with 6 people. That is all.

(Though, I would prefer 6, or even 5)

[dulany67]

I also question what kind of headache it would be to have 6 players connected to one computer. You could limit the number of players to deal with system/connection issues, but of course then you would need encounters to scale.

[Mosey]

Look, if you want six players just install the mod that gives you six players. End of story.

I really don't see why this argument persists when the people clamoring for it already have the option to do what they want.

Larian is going to 'balance' around 'X' party size, and they have chosen 4 as the base number to balance for.

Six party members is a massive bump in group power in D&D, and it only gets worse the higher level the party achieves. This is a well known D&D thing, so it's surprising so many people don't know this.

Any GM worth their salt should be well aware of how difficult it is to provide meaningful challenge to larger party sizes. And a computer can't pull the same type of surprise challenges a table top GM can provide which exacerbates the problems inherent in the system.

This isn't 2nd edition D&D, where power scaling was far less of an issue for larger groups. Guess what edition previous BG games were based on? That's right, 2nd Edition.

[desrtfox071]

Tinball の投稿を引用：

Mosey の投稿を引用：

Any GM worth their salt should be well aware of how difficult it is to provide meaningful challenge to larger party sizes. And a computer can't pull the same type of surprise challenges a table top GM can provide which exacerbates the problems inherent in the system.

Any GM worth their salt should be able to run a 6 player table. A computer can absolutely pull surprise and challenges. I've seen it in many other cRPGs.

I disagree that it should be a mod. Let there be player agency when it comes to party size and control. I see no valid reason yet why it *has to be 4 players.

Or any other number, such as 6.

Except that is what the developers have settled on.

[Mosey]

Tinball の投稿を引用：

Any GM worth their salt should be able to run a 6 player table. A computer can absolutely pull surprise and challenges. I've seen it in many other cRPGs.

I disagree that it should be a mod. Let there be player agency when it comes to party size and control. I see no valid reason yet why it *has to be 4 players.

It's literally only a surprise if you only play a game once. After the first time, it's never a surprise again and players will build or plan around the 'surprise' which will just about always trivialize the encounter.

And yeah, a human GM can handle a six person party without too many issues precisely because they can pull tricks out of their hat to counter their group. A computer GM plans generic encounters that play the same every time. It's not even close to the same thing.

And if you 'disagree it should be a mod' that's unfortunate, since it's already a mod. And if the game supported six players, but someone wanted an 8 person party, they too would need to use a mod to support their choice with the same downsides you're looking at now.

Larian can't design a game with functionally unlimited party size. That's now how digital games work. Even an MMO has a maximum number of people that can enter an encounter, and personally I find things like a 40 man raid tedious but some people like that.

And just to be clear, if Larian had decided to make the maximum party size six I'd be saying the same thing about six players: It's how the game was intended to be played. Since it's set for 4 players, that is the size the game is intended to be played with. Exceeding that number will break the encounter design, full stop, and Larian isn't going to create ten different versions of every encounter for every party size people might prefer. It would easily quadruple the development time.