Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

I am very disappointed to hear the party will be reduced to five.


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#41
Tigranes

Tigranes

    Obsidian VIP

  • Members
  • 10090 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

" For me there are four mandatory positions in a party: Two melee specialists, a priest and a wizard."

 

This is a good example - a lot of people who think this is going to be a Big Deal, they have a very specific setup that they always want to do every time they play the game. Some of them even think that if they can't have their roles exactly down to their template then something is going to be 'broken' about the game because you can't have a healer or you can't have a second melee specialist or whatever.

 

People, if you really want to always take the same 4 dudes every playthrough, that's your freedom, but the game can't always cater to your whims and that doesn't mean it's broken. Just like the people who want there to be no reactivity in a game because they only play once and they don't want to miss out on anything. Or like the people who wish there were less companions so that you don't have to leave anybody behind. In all of cases, do whatever you want, it's your game - but it should be obvious that there's a grey line somewhere between "major damage to tactical complexity for many players" and "but I always take Eder and stuff and now I can't have exactly what I want for my very particular tastes about my party".


Edited by Tigranes, 12 March 2017 - 10:13 PM.

  • Bill Gates' Son, eselle28, illathid and 12 others like this

#42
Grimo88

Grimo88

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 79 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

The two main reasons I am very, very dissapointed about this party size reduction are:

Firstly It will weaken the ability of the party to control the battlefield by making it that much more difficult to prevent enemies infiltrating your lines. Not as much a Tyranny but obviously in that direction, and the factors that made Tyranny's combat lacklustre in comparisson to PoE will therfore adversly affect Deadfire.

If you cannot control the battle field (or mostly, even often, can't) then each character must per force be able to survive in direct contact with the enemy. This is Tyranny's "Stand & Deliver" problem: in the end every character must be built to withstand damage and simply dish out damage faster than they take it. You just stand where you can attack the most enemies at once and deliver as much damage as you can. There is little tactical interst and finesse in this. It gets boring and repetative quickly.

You also have the "Lantry problem". In Tyranny, certainly on PotD, in the early game when you recruit him enemies relentlessly target Lantry and he dies quickly and often. There is no reliable way to protect him tacticaly so the answer is give him the heaviest armour you can lay your hands on. It slows his casting but heavy armour makes him harder to kill and reduces his priority for the enemy AI. It works but it is boring and is not how I expect my RPGs to work.

Secondly it will severely limit options in party makeup. For me there are four mandatory positions in a party: Two melee specialists, a priest and a wizard. I know some people play replacing a priest with a druid and palladin, make tanky wizards and chanters, use cipher plus druid to cover wizard role etc, but I'm a boring conservative when it comes to this and I like to play traditional roles. I am not interested in multi-classing for example (although I know a lot of people are). I play PotD so two specialist melee (fighter/monk/palladic/barbarian) is a bare minimum and I always play with three in practice becasue I don't build tanky/melee casters.

In PoE this left two slots available for two of ranger, druid, chanter, rogue and cipher. Two out of five is not too bad. In Deadfire this is threatened to be reduced to one. I am very unhappy I will only be able to play one of those classes per playthrough (yes, I always take the same party through a game, I don't swap characters around).

What makes this worse is that my party has already been fixed in stone for my first Deafire game. We have Eder, Pallegina and Aloth comming with us and I have always played with them in my party anyway so they are mandatory picks. I am just finshing up my WM2 PotD run whichh will probably be my finakl Deafire save and I am a druid this time (thank God, otherwise unless I was a priest one of the main companions would have to go) so the only question is who is Durance's replacement is in Deadfire? That's literally all I have to look forward to in terms of new characters.

So why? With all these downsides to it and probably a lot more besides, what on earth are the upsides? I can't think of single upside, not one.
 

How many times does this need to be discussed. Josh said that the decision was not made lightly, and that the whole game is balanced around 5 members now for a multitude of reasons. He said is feedback during beta is overwhelmingly negative, it can change. End of discussion. Don't like it, don't back it, or, wait for beta and make your argument then. 


  • JerekKruger and draego like this

#43
ianzentris

ianzentris

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

fmpov: it will be balanced to 5, point. 



#44
Duskshift

Duskshift

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Which doesn't mean that i can't lobby for 6 party members per addon/mod - which does make the reasons of why people prefer certain party sizes valid/relevant. (Altho yes, it is starting to get old...)

I will give the 5 party member setup the benefit of a doubt. But I also know that i am biased enough towards 6 character party, so that i will probably not enjoy it as much. That is just the way it is for me and many other people => more good experiences with a 6 character setup rather than 5 or 4.

Sure - a wait and see attitude much be better, but so far i have *not* been sold the idea.


Edited by Duskshift, 13 March 2017 - 02:17 AM.


#45
Katarack21

Katarack21

    Chief Eldritch Abomination of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1942 posts
  • Steam:Katarack21
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

The two main reasons I am very, very dissapointed about this party size reduction are:

Firstly It will weaken the ability of the party to control the battlefield by making it that much more difficult to prevent enemies infiltrating your lines. Not as much a Tyranny but obviously in that direction, and the factors that made Tyranny's combat lacklustre in comparisson to PoE will therfore adversly affect Deadfire.

If you cannot control the battle field (or mostly, even often, can't) then each character must per force be able to survive in direct contact with the enemy. This is Tyranny's "Stand & Deliver" problem: in the end every character must be built to withstand damage and simply dish out damage faster than they take it. You just stand where you can attack the most enemies at once and deliver as much damage as you can. There is little tactical interst and finesse in this. It gets boring and repetative quickly.

You also have the "Lantry problem". In Tyranny, certainly on PotD, in the early game when you recruit him enemies relentlessly target Lantry and he dies quickly and often. There is no reliable way to protect him tacticaly so the answer is give him the heaviest armour you can lay your hands on. It slows his casting but heavy armour makes him harder to kill and reduces his priority for the enemy AI. It works but it is boring and is not how I expect my RPGs to work.

Secondly it will severely limit options in party makeup. For me there are four mandatory positions in a party: Two melee specialists, a priest and a wizard. I know some people play replacing a priest with a druid and palladin, make tanky wizards and chanters, use cipher plus druid to cover wizard role etc, but I'm a boring conservative when it comes to this and I like to play traditional roles. I am not interested in multi-classing for example (although I know a lot of people are). I play PotD so two specialist melee (fighter/monk/palladic/barbarian) is a bare minimum and I always play with three in practice becasue I don't build tanky/melee casters.

In PoE this left two slots available for two of ranger, druid, chanter, rogue and cipher. Two out of five is not too bad. In Deadfire this is threatened to be reduced to one. I am very unhappy I will only be able to play one of those classes per playthrough (yes, I always take the same party through a game, I don't swap characters around).

What makes this worse is that my party has already been fixed in stone for my first Deafire game. We have Eder, Pallegina and Aloth comming with us and I have always played with them in my party anyway so they are mandatory picks. I am just finshing up my WM2 PotD run whichh will probably be my finakl Deafire save and I am a druid this time (thank God, otherwise unless I was a priest one of the main companions would have to go) so the only question is who is Durance's replacement is in Deadfire? That's literally all I have to look forward to in terms of new characters.

So why? With all these downsides to it and probably a lot more besides, what on earth are the upsides? I can't think of single upside, not one.
 

How many times does this need to be discussed. Josh said that the decision was not made lightly, and that the whole game is balanced around 5 members now for a multitude of reasons. He said is feedback during beta is overwhelmingly negative, it can change. End of discussion. Don't like it, don't back it, or, wait for beta and make your argument then. 

 

Them: "If everybody hates it, we'll change it."

Players: "If you hate it, shut up and deal!"



#46
Sedrefilos

Sedrefilos

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1093 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

"If players during beta don't like it, we change it".

Has anyone of the complainers played the beta yet? Yes? Upload a video in youtube if you're so kind; I'd like to see how the game looks! :)


Edited by Sedrefilos, 13 March 2017 - 08:43 AM.

  • illathid likes this

#47
Duskshift

Duskshift

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 24 posts

"If players during beta don't like it, we change it".

Has anyone of the complainers played the beta yet? Yes? Upload a video in youtube if you're so kind; I'd like to see how the game looks! :)

how do you know that it is so much better and people (or i you if will) will like it then ? I'm sure you havn't played it either ;) ... same logic....


Edited by Duskshift, 13 March 2017 - 11:41 AM.


#48
JerekKruger

JerekKruger

    (11) Wizard

  • Members
  • 1613 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

how do you know that it is so much better and people (or i you if will) will like it then ? I'm sure you havn't played it either ;) ... same logic....

 

I can't speak for Sedrefilos, but for me it's not that I'm arguing that the change is for the better but rather that the arguments predicting that it will be terrible are premature and, in many cases, alarmist. I'm actually fairly neutral on the change, but I trust that the devs have thought it through and I'd rather they don't make rushed changes based on these arguments.


  • illathid likes this

#49
Katarack21

Katarack21

    Chief Eldritch Abomination of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1942 posts
  • Steam:Katarack21
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

"If players during beta don't like it, we change it".

Has anyone of the complainers played the beta yet? Yes? Upload a video in youtube if you're so kind; I'd like to see how the game looks! :)

Them: "If everybody who plays it hates it, we'll change it."

Players: "If you hate it, shut up. It's what the developers chose, so don't buy this one if you don't support everything the developers chose."



#50
Tigranes

Tigranes

    Obsidian VIP

  • Members
  • 10090 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

More imaginary boo-hoo self-victimisation.

 

You're absolutely free to complain loudly that you don't like it. We're absolutely free to express our opinion that this is all much ado about nothing.  


  • Bill Gates' Son, Hertzila, Heijoushin and 1 other like this

#51
Katarack21

Katarack21

    Chief Eldritch Abomination of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1942 posts
  • Steam:Katarack21
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

More imaginary boo-hoo self-victimisation.

 

You're absolutely free to complain loudly that you don't like it. We're absolutely free to express our opinion that this is all much ado about nothing.  

Yes. The thing is, when you actually tell other people to stop complaining because you personally disagree with their opinion, that's when you're a controlling jerk who needs to shut up and let other people discuss their opinions. When you tell other people to shut up and stop complaining, and they call you out on it, you don't get to act like the victim whose being bullied by those mean complainers.


  • gogocactus likes this

#52
Vaeliorin

Vaeliorin

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 545 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Personally, I'd rather have 4 or 6, but that's just because I have a thing about even numbers.



#53
Sedrefilos

Sedrefilos

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1093 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

There is no basis to either agree or disagree with 5 member party at the moment. We just have to wait and see, THEN talk about it. It's not like they're re-publishing Pillars 1 with shorter party limit. They're designing the whole game around it. If nostalgia is the problem, it's understandable but unreasonable at the same time. If gameplay is the problem... well we don't know how it'll play so I believe it isn't the real problem (of complainers) at the moment. It's either nostalgia or some personal fetish with 6-member parties. 


  • eselle28, Hertzila, illathid and 2 others like this

#54
Slapstick87

Slapstick87

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 94 posts

This is the only part about Pillars 2 I'm quite decidedly not looking forward to. I already think it's hard to figure out how to make room in my party for "extra" characters that I want to include. If they had said "Guess what guys, 7 PARTY MEMBERS!!" I would've been overjoyed! Right now I'm trying to get through a game without a priest and proper tank so I can finally find room for what I perceive as non-essential characters for once.

 

2 tank/melee, 1 priest, 1 wizard is pretty much mandatory IMO. Sure you can hybridize the roles, but it's still hard to fit more than a single character rotation into a party setup with the player character filing one new role so you can try out one new character. The restrictions on party composition doesn't change, but whether or not you can include extra characters just for fluff and giggles is seriously reduced.



#55
Hertzila

Hertzila

    Infiltrator of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 77 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

 

More imaginary boo-hoo self-victimisation.

 

You're absolutely free to complain loudly that you don't like it. We're absolutely free to express our opinion that this is all much ado about nothing.  

Yes. The thing is, when you actually tell other people to stop complaining because you personally disagree with their opinion, that's when you're a controlling jerk who needs to shut up and let other people discuss their opinions. When you tell other people to shut up and stop complaining, and they call you out on it, you don't get to act like the victim whose being bullied by those mean complainers.

 

 

And in turn, we can immediately tell you to stop assuming that we're acting like victims rather than just annoyed at the tone of you guys. The victimization is happening strictly on one side and it certainly isn't us. Stop projecting on to us. The fact that we are telling you that your worries are unfounded doesn't somehow mean we are controlling jerks. We are simply telling you that this discussion is ultimately pointless and the burden of proof is on you.

And a-round and a-round we go, until one side decides to either stop responding (which the other side will immediately view as a win by surrender, of course) or something to actually talk about shows up. It's a grand old time, isn't it. (We need a smiley that's a mirrored version of the  :banghead:  so that we can have two guys hitting the same wall.)

 

 

More on-topic: I'm sad to see a reduction in party size since it means there is a bigger chance of missing great party banter and interesting companion comments. However, I understand that they would prefer to scale back the party to make combat more manageable, so it isn't a big issue. A sad but logical solution for better encounters.


  • JerekKruger and Baltic like this

#56
Regggler

Regggler

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 110 posts
  • Location:Sigil
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

I understand the desire for the "standard party" archetype and the restrictions it suffers due to a reduced party size. Usually I do want a fighter, mage, rogue, cleric party. In Pillars 1, however, I mostly chose the companions I found most fun / interesting at that moment. Admittedly, I always included at least one tank, but I often omitted the priest or wizard, and I hardly ever used a rogue. This did change my approach to encounters a bit, but it was quite fun to try different things, and it worked reasonably well. Admittedly, I only played on hard. I guess it would be different on PotD.

 

So all in all, I trust the reduced party size will be fine. Personally, I'd like a party size equal to the number of available companions, but I'm aware that this probably can't be done in an IE-like game in a manner that's fun to play and still gives each character their deserved spotlight.



#57
Grotesque

Grotesque

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 273 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
The real problem is not the 5 party members but the inability of Obsidian to properly balance encounters and make them interesting enough to make the game challenging and not a borefest like in Pillars of Eternity in which the player was constantly overleveld and combat trivial. Potd difficulty is the only dif level which makes the game mechanics shine

These should be the real concerns - encounter design and proper xp balance

5 party members would imply fewer encounters per battle but stronger with more abilities
The casters not to be overrun should make melee disangegement way more punishing than it is now in poe
  • molotov. likes this

#58
Sedrefilos

Sedrefilos

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1093 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I never have enough party space for all companions so I swap them from time to time. Where am I going? Who do I need atm? Is this a place some companion has a quest? Who do I feel I enjoy most right now? Stuff like that. I don't care about party archetypes and the best of all... NEITHER DOES THE GAME. If it was WoW we're talking about, then yes, you can't go adventuring without a tank, a healer and 3 dps because the game is DESIGNED AROUND THAT. Pillar's isn't. It's just personal fetishes about 6-member parties and archetype lineouts.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying the games is goind to be better with 5. I don't know it yet but I don't believe the party size per se makes for good or bad gameplay rather the encounter and location design. So it's an issue I need to actually play and find out. And its game mechanic so I believe the issue is objective than subjective (like if we were talking about graphics style or weapons design or music score).


  • illathid, Regggler and JerekKruger like this

#59
Grotesque

Grotesque

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 273 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

I never have enough party space for all companions so I swap them from time to time. Where am I going? Who do I need atm? Is this a place some companion has a quest? Who do I feel I enjoy most right now? Stuff like that. I don't care about party archetypes and the best of all... NEITHER DOES THE GAME. If it was WoW we're talking about, then yes, you can't go adventuring without a tank, a healer and 3 dps because the game is DESIGNED AROUND THAT. Pillar's isn't. It's just personal fetishes about 6-member parties and archetype lineouts.
 
.


In other words, the game is designed to be crap. And the game is crap on story mode and normal and hard difficulty.

And poe plays exactly like an mmo . The first poe review on rpgcodex clearly states why is that.


For someone that likes a challenge from poe, party composition is important. Not some fetishes like you smugly state.
  • molotov. likes this

#60
JerekKruger

JerekKruger

    (11) Wizard

  • Members
  • 1613 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

like you smugly state.

 

This actually made me laugh.


  • aluminiumtrioxid and illathid like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users