BG1 original had no summon limit. Limit of 5 change hurt this game.

[Sephiroth]

This change only hurt players in playing the game how they want.

You could summon as many as you wanted. Which was perfect.
You should be able to play how you want.

An unlimited amount of summons without a cap hurt no one. Technically It still had a limit based on how many spells you have.

But no limit made the game more fun.

notice this: If another player does not want to use more summons then he does not have to he is able to make that choice. So he is not hurt by the change.

Yet nerfing the game in this way only hurt players who want to summon more and enjoy a real summoners experience.

BGEE seems to have made a ton of nerfs ..

FYI nerfs hurt players who enjoy the game. The game was originally loved and enjoyable for many reasons some of which you have ruined with nerfs to spells.

BG1 did not worry about to many summons.
The encounters would still be fun either way because the player ultimately decides how he wanted to play.

The player can always choose themselves to not use summons.

What does a nerf do? It simply takes away the players CHOICE. Which is takes away fun.

Ok now you can't summon more than 5...

[Pille]

I think this is more of a side effect of switching the game's engine to that of BG II than an active, intentional action of nerving. Yet I have to agree. It was much more fun to be able to summon an unlimited number of henchmen.

[Korhal]

Although I agree on the fun aspect, it does not really matter in the long run and was basically a way to simply cheese many of the fights, as the AI was incapable of targeting the player/summoner rather than a dozen of wolves or skeletons.

It does not change the game in its core concept and is rather a minor nuissance in the greater scheme of the overall gameplay from my pov.

[Wicket W. Warrick]

I actually think that the nerf was necessary, since multiple summoning was too strong and unbalanced the game, for how AI worked and for how many possibility you have for summoning. Still as it is, it is really overpowered, since summoning remains the strongest strategy in most of the fight, expecially toughest ones. You just need to get used to it (something like 2 minutes).

About the "choice" fact, it is a ridicolous point: this could be applied to every rule. Why don't give to MC unlimited number of all the spells of the game? Why don'tgive them to any NPC. It is up to the player to use them or not.
Balancing the game is a developper task, not of the player: the player should play the game as it is, not limiting himself in order to balance it. A bad balanced game is a bad game. Really, non sense.

[Lord Squirrel!]

What is your point? You do nothing here but complain about things you don't like about the EEs. You also completely ignore people who know what they are talking about and try to explain how the game engine works to you. The active development period of the official capacity for these games is quite obviously obviously long over by now, and your constant complaints are not going to have any affect on them. If you don't like the EEs this much, there is something you can do: Play the originals! You keep referencing that you have your 'Relic of Holies': the original CDs. Go use them and stop trying to change things so few people agree with you about. Failing that, learn to mod the game like I have and make your own changes to it. You could also ask for help on a modding forum; several exist and are active; such as the Gibberlings 3 forum. If you genuinely want to help things, that is the place to be.

...

The summoned creatures limit is quite easy to change, since the EE development team has externalized the behavior; without their efforts there would be no simple way to change the limit. Just edit the "SUMMLIMT.2DA" file using Near Infinity. To change the maximum total number of summons possible, just change the "NORMAL" row to the number you want. Put in something like 999. The CELESTIAL field is for special summons like Planetars and Devas, you can change that too if you want.

[Sephiroth]

@Squirrel I understand what I am talking about "hence the post" if that upsets you for some reason then I don't know why you came here.

I don't appreciate the false portrayal you have made though. If you are going to make such things you should at least be correct. You are not though. Follow my posts and you will see I have many positive conversations and yes also I bring up things that are complaints. With every right as well as this is called an Enhanced Edition yet I am finding spell after spell to be in a worse state than the original game. From ghoul touch, phantom blade, animate dead, to the summon limit. The list goes on.

Near infinity? If a player needs to download a 3rd party mod or software to edit the EE just to get it to be as good as the original. That would mean the EE was a failure as the original was better.


@stef

1. The original game did not have a balance problem with summons. There is no such things as too strong. You say its an easy way to overpower the ai? Yes thats good that is what made BG1 popular that is what made BG1 ... Baldurs Gate.

As an example : You know what else is strong the level 1 sleep spell. It puts more than half the enemies in BG1 to sleep we are talking Ogres,half ogres, phase/sword spiders, swarms of them to sleep in a state where you can just stand around hitting them until they die. The sleep spell is way more powerful than a higher summon limit.
Technically if someone summoned a bunch of monsters you could respond by putting them to sleep.. hence the sleep spell is much more powerful than unlimited summons.
Yet
I don't see you saying sleep needs to be nerfed though
Sleep is still working the way it was designed and that is a good thing.
The same should be for the summon limit.

2. Original developers already gave the players "many choices" for how they want to play. What I am saying here is what the original developers already created many years ago and I am saying that changing them in the way Beamdog did has only made this worse than the original BG.

3. A badly balanced game to one person is finely tuned game to another player.
This is subjective.
I think its perfectly fine as do many other players.
You know what is great about my way of looking at the situation compared to yours.

With your way of doing it I don't get to enjoy the game I don't get to summon as many minions as I want. So your idea hurts me directly right.

But my idea does not hurt you. Because if you think its over powered guess what you do not have to summon them or you can summon less if you want to. Thats all up to you.

So when looking at it logically one side of this conversation is the better choice.

Its the same choice the original developers made for the game.

[Wicket W. Warrick]

Originally posted by Sephiroth:

@stef

1. The original game did not have a balance problem with summons. There is no such things as too strong. You say its an easy way to overpower the ai? Yes thats good that is what made BG1 popular that is what made BG1 ... Baldurs Gate.

As an example : You know what else is strong the level 1 sleep spell. It puts more than half the enemies in BG1 to sleep we are talking Ogres,half ogres, phase/sword spiders, swarms of them to sleep in a state where you can just stand around hitting them until they die. The sleep spell is way more powerful than a higher summon limit.
Technically if someone summoned a bunch of monsters you could respond by putting them to sleep.. hence the sleep spell is much more powerful than unlimited summons.
Yet
I don't see you saying sleep needs to be nerfed though
Sleep is still working the way it was designed and that is a good thing.
The same should be for the summon limit.

2. Original developers already gave the players "many choices" for how they want to play. What I am saying here is what the original developers already created many years ago and I am saying that changing them in the way Beamdog did has only made this worse than the original BG.

3. A badly balanced game to one person is finely tuned game to another player.
This is subjective.
I think its perfectly fine as do many other players.
You know what is great about my way of looking at the situation compared to yours.

That's your idea, I respect it also if I disagree, but we can discuss about it.
I think sleep was well balanced , due to his leve limit and saving throw, while summon was overpowered. You could summon tons of strong allies and win only with those. Limiting the number, still consent to do multiple summoning during fight, but need a better strategy and somone dedicated. It gives game complexity, I prefer it. In the opposite case (in original game you could do 5 summon, in EE could do unlimited summon), what would you have said?

Originally posted by Sephiroth:

@stef
With your way of doing it I don't get to enjoy the game I don't get to summon as many minions as I want. So your idea hurts me directly right.

But my idea does not hurt you. Because if you think its over powered guess what you do not have to summon them or you can summon less if you want to. Thats all up to you.

So when looking at it logically one side of this conversation is the better choice.

Its the same choice the original developers made for the game.

Logically you lack any logic at all.
This has no sense and I won't discuss it further. If you take a game and modify it, than some change can be made, otherwie we continue play the originale game. If someone (the developper, the comunity, anyone)) decided that something is unbalanced, then they did well to balance it. You can disagree with the opinion, but you can't say that should be left because anyone could choose as he like. Who develop the game decide rules, who plays...plays and judge. So If you have arguments defending the original rule let's talk about them, but stop this non sense about choice, please.

[Lord Squirrel!]

Originally posted by Sephiroth:

@Squirrel I understand what I am talking about "hence the post" if that upsets you for some reason then I don't know why you came here.

I came here to correct you because you ARE wrong about many things, in spite of your assertions to the contrary. Unlike you, I know how to look things up in the game files and see EXACTLY what is going on. I have found tons of actual bugs with the game and contributed to their fixing in both an official capacity and unofficial capacity for years. Yet you completely ignore me when I correct you, claiming that having the original CDs (which I have SEVERAL complete sets of, mind you) makes you more correct than me for some reason.

Take the thing with the Phase Spiders. You say they never teleported to random party members in the original game and that the EE changed them to do this. This is completely untrue. I now show you the behavior script for the phase spider as it appeared in the original game (if you don't believe me go learn to look it up yourself; you will see that I am correct).

IF
See(NearestEnemyOf(Myself))
!Range(NearestEnemyOf(Myself),7)
THEN
RESPONSE #100
ForceSpell(NearestEnemyOf(Myself),PHASE_SPIDER_TELEPORT) // SPWI994.SPL (Dimension Door)
END

IF
See(NearestEnemyOf(Myself))
THEN
RESPONSE #10
ForceSpell(Player1,PHASE_SPIDER_TELEPORT) // SPWI994.SPL (Dimension Door)
RESPONSE #10
ForceSpell(Player2,PHASE_SPIDER_TELEPORT) // SPWI994.SPL (Dimension Door)
RESPONSE #10
ForceSpell(Player3,PHASE_SPIDER_TELEPORT) // SPWI994.SPL (Dimension Door)
RESPONSE #10
ForceSpell(Player4,PHASE_SPIDER_TELEPORT) // SPWI994.SPL (Dimension Door)
RESPONSE #10
ForceSpell(Player5,PHASE_SPIDER_TELEPORT) // SPWI994.SPL (Dimension Door)
RESPONSE #10
ForceSpell(Player6,PHASE_SPIDER_TELEPORT) // SPWI994.SPL (Dimension Door)
RESPONSE #100
AttackReevaluate(NearestEnemyOf(Myself),15)
END

I won't explain the whole thing (even though I could) because I have better things to do, but the second block (the text between the second "IF" and "END") basically says: "If the Phase Spider sees an enemy of itself, then it will randomly cast its teleport spell to teleport to one of the party members (that is "Player1" thru "Player6") with an equal chance and then reevaluate its position and attack its nearest enemy for 15 tics (a unit of time the game uses).

Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Near infinity? If a player needs to download a 3rd party mod or software to edit the EE just to get it to be as good as the original. That would mean the EE was a failure as the original was better.

The option to edit the EEs (and the originals, for that matter) is available to anyone who wants to download and use a 100% free program. As for your opinions regarding the existence of this program (which, by the way, predates the EEs) meaning that the EEs are a failure, I would say you are free to think this; but I am also free to think that such a statement is complete and utter nonsense. It is a modding tool for people who want to mod the game, which you apparently do. You don't have to mod the game, but that means living with the things you are complaining about. Conversely, you do not have to live with the things you are complaining about, but that means modding the game. There is nothing wrong with modding a game, a great many people either make or use mods for their games every day, hence the existence and popularity of such sites as Nexus. The fact that people mod games does not invalidate the games they mod.

[Wicket W. Warrick]

Originally posted by Lord Squirrel!:

Take the thing with the Phase Spiders.

Originally posted by Sephiroth:

From ghoul touch,

And what about ghoul touch, why don't we start another 100 post discussion about it? Let's talk about it.

[Lord Squirrel!]

Originally posted by stef.corsi:

And what about ghoul touch, why don't we start another 100 post discussion about it? Let's talk about it.

A lot of spell-created weapons had rather arbitrary attack bonuses in the originals. I would hazard a guess that the arbitrariness and inconsistency of these various bonuses was the main reason they were removed. Whether or not a bonus of some sort should have been there in the first place is another matter, but it is rather small potatoes, really... These things have very narrow reaching consequences and are very easily modded.

[Wicket W. Warrick]

Originally posted by Lord Squirrel!:

Originally posted by stef.corsi:

And what about ghoul touch, why don't we start another 100 post discussion about it? Let's talk about it.

A lot of spell-created weapons had rather arbitrary attack bonuses in the originals. I would hazard a guess that the arbitrariness and inconsistency of these various bonuses was the main reason they were removed. Whether or not a bonus of some sort should have been there in the first place is another matter, but it is rather small potatoes, really... These things have very narrow reaching consequences and are very easily modded.

I was joking...i wasn't really expecting an answer....

[mikey_205]

Mod the game to your taste. This is a consequence of using BG2 engine just like faster walk speeds or having sorcerers.

[Lord Squirrel!]

Originally posted by stef.corsi:

Originally posted by Lord Squirrel!:

A lot of spell-created weapons had rather arbitrary attack bonuses in the originals. I would hazard a guess that the arbitrariness and inconsistency of these various bonuses was the main reason they were removed. Whether or not a bonus of some sort should have been there in the first place is another matter, but it is rather small potatoes, really... These things have very narrow reaching consequences and are very easily modded.

I was joking...i wasn't really expecting an answer....

Oh, heh, sorry. XD

@sephinroth By the way, The original developers were far from infallible, as is apparent by the massive number of bugs the EEs have fixed, to say the least. Not everything was part of some great 'master plan of perfection' or whatever. The Beamdog developers were not perfect either, of course, but I do think the pedestal you put the original developers on is a bit unrealistic. I would also point out that some of the original developers were also Beamdog developers. Take Cameron Tofer for instance: Garrick's default portrait was drawn based on his face and Minsc was based on his P&P character; though I am sure these are the least of his contributions. He is now one of the main people in charge of Beamdog.

[Teratus]

Was fun being able to equip duel wizard rings and stuff too but a lot of those fun things in the original were pretty broken tbh.

I don't really find any of the enhanced edition nerfs to have a significant impact on the game being fun.

[Julius Borisov]

BG:EE uses the BG2 engine. So it was the original BioWare developers (btw, we have them in the team as well, Trent, our CEO, worked on BG1 and BG2) who changed the behavior. They had a few factors in mind, basically, summons were changed, and BG2 offered higher-level summons.

In the EEs, summons scale based on the level.

I guess the same argument could be made for every other change, e.g. classes, kits, etc. BG:EE is different from BG1, it's true, yeah. And certain things make the characters more powerful, certain things probably disable a few cheese options, like summoning 20 skeleton warriors to fight Sarevok.

[Sstavix]

I can see why they would change this for the EE, actually. Not only would unlimited summons be entirely over powered (imagine having a team of mages, each with a wand of monster summoning and each wand with 100 charges), it could potentially be a game-breaking incident. Too many creatures for the CPU to handle could cause the game - or even the system - to crash.

Amusingly enough, this can happen in the tabletop version as well. If the players summon too many creatures for the DM to keep track of, it could cause the DM to crash. This is usually detected by the sound of uncontrolled sobbing from behind the DM screen, accompanied by the DM having his (or her) face-down on the books. And don't get me started about the "chicken-infested" curse....