SanguineAngel

Hi guys, sorry to go of the rails a bit here but please correct me if I am wrong. I was under the impression that Sawyer had previously stated that there would be a companion for every class and that adding a new class added a new companion by default. Is that not still the case?

Heck I'd love it if you could find plausible clues that aren't designed so that a child of 4 wouldn't have to think about where to go next. Clues & evidence that actually require you to think about them, work them out and maybe even are often fiendishly cryptic would be nice. Especially for side quest/story lines

Stop right there, that is bull spread by Hollywood! No knight had to be lifted onto horseback and could run and move fine (it was the heat that was the problem, plate is actually quite light for armour). The only person who had to be lifted onto his horse was a french king who was lifted because he was too FAT! Please, before you lecture go and do some actual research first, most of what you learn from RPGs and films is actually complete bull (don't get me started on studded leather). Hey that's quite cool. So, please do get started on studded leather - sounds interesting!?

Yes. Which is why I propose the balancing situation - remember that you're proposing that you allow characters to become extremely powerful in order to allow soloing. My thought is that you don't need to do that

I would tackle it very differently. I would scale encounters based on party size or calculated combat strength. (this can obviously been altered using the difficulty options that have already been discussed in the official updates). Additionally, I would want to encourage a solo player to tray and think their way out of overwhelming situations. I mean, if you've chosen to go it alone you have to expect to be weaker and so be forced to avoid some situations. There would be an overlapping balance between these two solutions See, I've never been one for dev ex machina where you save the player from their pride/stupidity by decreasing encounters based on party size and things like that. I mean, except in instances where someone specifically is hiring mercenaries to kill your party, why would those who oppose you alter in force depending on how many people you had? That would also mean nerfing the rival NPC's stats for no reason. It's like that flaw in oblivion where you can go anywhere you want since the world levels up right along side you. It's more just a design principle of mine though... It's more a case of scaling the game to fit the capabilities of the player party to a reasonable degree. In the context of the game, the player won't know what they're facing until they face it, so it's academic whether the mob they face might have been larger if there were more in the party, the player or player character doesn't have that knowledge. Encounters would still be bound to certain levels of difficulty (such as level) Remember there's a similar mechanic in ToEE that Sawyer discussed where difficulty level determined the number of enemies the player faced. Then there's the mode where you can face ALL the enemies in an encounter collectively (easy, medium & hard combined)... It's not to say that I would want to see the game be the same difficulty for 1 as for 6 but it is a way of balancing it to produce a reasonable challenge. This wouldn't suddenly mean the world levels up with you and you couldn't now mysteriously face anyone any time.

I would tackle it very differently. I would scale encounters based on party size or calculated combat strength. (this can obviously been altered using the difficulty options that have already been discussed in the official updates). Additionally, I would want to encourage a solo player to tray and think their way out of overwhelming situations. I mean, if you've chosen to go it alone you have to expect to be weaker and so be forced to avoid some situations. There would be an overlapping balance between these two solutions

Much like the IE games, there's room for many "temporary" companions - that's already been confirmed. In the instances you are talking about it shouldn't really have been a problem in the first place. I can't recall if this happened but it would have been a simple matter to add an option to help those characters without adopting them into your party. At which point, they could have joined your party as temporary characters, duration dictated by the quest.

Hah, one of my favourite moments in BG1 was when Khalid picked a fight with someone - I cannot remember who (possibly Xan?). They'd been bickering on and off for a week or two in-game time and suddenly Khalid drew his sword and attacked. Khalid actually died. That was an interesting playthrough! I had to get rid of Jahira too!

You have said everything I came here to say.

Same here. I'm not asking for similar system, but I think allowing you to choose your party depending on current situation without fear of losing anyone would be great. I hated system in Baldur's Gate where dismissed company just left never to be seen again. Wouldn't it make more sense if they went back home (or nearest tavern if that's more their style :D) and could be re-recruited from there at any point of the game. Oh no, not for me. Whilst I think the party hub in both ME and DA:O were actually handled quite well as spaces they just felt a little bit gamey on the whole, if you get my drift. Like everyone is just standing around awaiting your convenience? With these two games in particular I didn't mind it so much - as they were a part of your travelling "camp" the implication and effect was not that all the characters you met were always a part of your party, with selected teams tackling each scenario. In ME in particular that context felt appropriate However, by and large, with a large 6 person party game like this, I would rather my companions be the whole party. I also want them to feel valuable, rather than slots to chop and choose, and to feel like choosing to take someone on board or keep those I'm with is a real decision with weight. I loved "bumping" into people in BG and then they would be on their way, it felt like they had their own thing going on. Having said that, I would probably welcome a second chance with characters. but I'd like it to be an organic experience with the same weightiness. Rather than just going back to where I know this supposedly epic character is just hanging around, pining, waiting for me to just ask them to tag along.

I think the old IE games of old struck a perfect balance. Hearing the first line of important dialogue added character but didn't limit the conversation in any way. I'm sure someone already mentioned this.

This dungeon is not about the keeping, but the adventuring. It's a Durlag's Tower; a place filled with death-traps and cunning that only the best and the boldest adventurers will survive! In other words, in RPG terms, it's bliss! Although it was REALLY frustrating that you couldn't even enter your supposed base

I am with you there. And I like your specific example. However, as Althernai points out - having a lot of outcomes reducing stats could cause significant balance issues. There are a few things that occur to me here: 1) The outcome of quests fundamentally changing your character is fantastic - it draws you, makes you feel affected by your choices or external influences on your character and even a negative change develops your character. 2) To counter those balance issues of doing it too often, I'd say you could more frequently have a positive and negative impact - receiving a significant bonus to one skill or stat whilst receiving a knockback elsewhere. Having said that, even solving balance issues, you'd want to limit the occurrence of such events purely so that they do not lose narrative impact. 3) Beyond these large stat changing effects, your point has a wider relevance to the morality question that has been raised on this board already numerous times previously. People by and large seem to be crying out for more moral ambiguity, which is great. Leading on from this, there shouldn't be a "correct choice", simply the choice you make. Therefore, rewards, loot & consequences shouldn't be weighted in any particular area. Certainly, some rewards might be better than others for specific instances but on the whole, you should be punished for playing a selfish character any more than playing a selfless character, although the nature of your rewards may lean in a direction more than another, encouraging & helping you to maintain your role. Likewise, this would mean that if you change your character (selfish changes heart and becomes selfless) then you are rewarded appropriately and your character develops in that direction. Hrm, I would disagree with you that consequences need be clearly spelled out. Although it looks like you understand why already. I'd say that instead consequences must always make logical sense, so that we can be satisfied as an audience and as a player with our decision. Just some thoughts. In case it didn't make much sense: I think that moral choices should be subtle and the consequence unpredictable. They should reward you appropriately for your choices throughout the game, so that as you progress, your character reflects the choices you have made and encourages you to "stay in character".

So I just came in here to squee a little bit. I hope it makes it to at least $2.2m! I'm all for the $2m goal of player abode but I'm far more interested in even more companions! So deliciously close

As long as I don't have to suffer another tedious prologue/tutorial combo