Utukka

Once more for those not paying attention... The issue being raised is that game difficulty in the first 1/2 or 2/3 is fine and then it falls off a cliff and the rest of the game becomes trivial. I was paying attention and indeed saw that part but my point is that it makes a big difference in difficulty if you are reloading your way through the game/have meta knowledge etc prior to that portion of the game. Not to mention if you have "ease of use" features on...the game is more trivial regardless of how "tuned" the game is. The context in how they are approaching the game and the settings beyond POTD that they have on makes a difference in how they will experience the difficulty.

Out of curiosity...are many of you playing with all of the other difficulty options in play? Such as...trial of iron, expert mode etc. Also..did you have any meta knowledge of the game prior to certain areas? Just started playing last night(computer broke back in January, just got my new one in( ). I have every possible difficulty option on for my first playthrough....been quite difficult so far. Lost 3 characters prior to even reaching the Gilded Vale lol. Just for the record, if you didn't start on the hardest possible settings with 0 metagame knowledge...you really missed out on a special experience(massive time sink). Wish there was some sort of graveyard to track all of the adventurers that are going to fall throughout this journey.

I don't think the beta was necessarily intended for casual gamers. I think this is more meant to test the complexity and general systems for those that will dive deep into the game. Easy can always be made easier by a plethora of ways. Not to say they don't want casual gamers feedback at this time...it's just that again...making a balanced *harder* game seems to be the priority in this because as I said earlier...they can always tone it down on lower difficulties quite easily. As you said, I also think that casual gamers will find the experience much less jarring once you play the beginning/tutorial areas. However...easy in this game still may end up being more difficult than what you'd expect compared to easy on games that are released nowadays. Think Nintendo/Sega level of "easy", not Xbox level.

You could always mod it in. Jokes aside, you are right, it was done for balance purposes. If I remember correctly, there is a post somewhere where they discussed the "degenerative" gameplay within BG regarding potential trap usage. Don't really care either way on the first part but I tend to lean towards more freedom so why not! Fully agree with the second portion.

Not if you play the game normally. You have to go out of your way to a degree to get that result. As for your "this game is to be played in a myriad ways", well, that's why they're adding modding support. A single developer studio could never hope to fill all the various demands and still release the game in an acceptable timeframe. Ya, you do have to go a bit out of the way but was still more than possible. Also...who knows what their intent was...maybe it saved them work from having to code in the option to form a party in single player mode. Who knows! Well yes, that's certainly the point of mods...but if you want to get technical here, I'd assume they are doing more work by putting in restrictions rather than just letting you add them freely(even if it's only a little in this case, I don't know the ins and outs of coding such things). The whole point of this discussion is just that if it's a good idea or not to limit the subjects of "party cost or not and when you can get a full party", doesn't matter if they are going to or not. Tis the point of the forums I would think. I however did expand the thought process to cover other elements of gameplay that are more of a Role play perspective rather than "sensical gameplay restrictions", such as not allowing unlimited gold.

I think either way you should be paying gold.. There is a huge advtange mechanically to building your own companions and making sure their stats and abilities compliement your current group.. In BG1 and 2 you kinda had to roll with what you got.. and sometimes their stats were kinda crappy in certain areas.. Oh Jan.. you suck so much turnip I disagree. This is a single player game that is meant to be played in 100000 different ways. In my opinion, when it comes to party formation, it should be open ended. All manner of play should be encouraged, if not directly supported by the games difficulty. I should be able to attempt a solo character play through, I should be able to run a 3 man party, I should be able to run 6 through, I should be able to pick the most powerful broken class/build to fill up 6 slots or I should be able to run through 6 of the weakest just to see if it can be done, and you shouldn't have to wait a ridiculous amount of time to be able to do so. It sounds like from the other thread that you will be able to do this reasonably fast....but it would be nice if they'd consider allowing it even sooner without having to resort to "mods" or "cheats". There's a big difference between allowing things such as unlimited gold, unlimted health potions, immediate access to powerful items compared to allowing you to freely set your party. I understand you can Mod or use a console cheat command if they have it...but it's very disappointing that they are actively discouraging what I feel is such a great component to replayability based upon the fact that others would "abuse it". I can even understand the idea that the difficulty pacing of the game isn't built for 6 members at "x" point of the game but I don't really see that as a problem...not everyone is going to run out and "party up to 6" if the option is available. RPGs are about experiencing the game in 100000 ways. I can only dream at this point of playing through as many times as I did on BG series. And by the way...in BG1 and BG2...you could create a 6 man party from the start of the game. You just had to host it via multiplayer, it wasn't directly obvious but the option was there. You could even "import" characters over and over to duplicate gear or "kamikaze" them as Sawyer mentioned as a possible issue of "free" adventurers. all i hear is "blah blah blah." feel free to mod in a cheat if you want. don't whine because the devs think that you need to build up to a full party adn that the story-mode does not work with a full-party. the BGs did not give you a full party at the start of the game and the diffciulty was balaned around that. this had nothing to do with "playing the game 10000 different ways." Glanced over the part where you can build a full party from the start in Baldurs Gate 1 and 2? They didn't give you a full party if you played via "single" player/waited for companions but they allowed you to run a game via multiplayer where you could make and control all 6 from the start of the game. By the way, the argument is more for limiting factors that in my opinion, don't need to be limited compared to other things. Obviously I'll mod in if I feel there is a need but as stated...who knows at this point. Perhaps my viewpoint is too warped by playing with increased difficulty mods in BG1/2. Gotta love the internet these days tho, discussing the topic is whining.

I think either way you should be paying gold.. There is a huge advtange mechanically to building your own companions and making sure their stats and abilities compliement your current group.. In BG1 and 2 you kinda had to roll with what you got.. and sometimes their stats were kinda crappy in certain areas.. Oh Jan.. you suck so much turnip I disagree. This is a single player game that is meant to be played in 100000 different ways. In my opinion, when it comes to party formation, it should be open ended. All manner of play should be encouraged, if not directly supported by the games difficulty. I should be able to attempt a solo character play through, I should be able to run a 3 man party, I should be able to run 6 through, I should be able to pick the most powerful broken class/build to fill up 6 slots or I should be able to run through 6 of the weakest just to see if it can be done, and you shouldn't have to wait a ridiculous amount of time to be able to do so. It sounds like from the other thread that you will be able to do this reasonably fast....but it would be nice if they'd consider allowing it even sooner without having to resort to "mods" or "cheats". There's a big difference between allowing things such as unlimited gold, unlimted health potions, immediate access to powerful items compared to allowing you to freely set your party. I understand you can Mod or use a console cheat command if they have it...but it's very disappointing that they are actively discouraging what I feel is such a great component to replayability based upon the fact that others would "abuse it". I can even understand the idea that the difficulty pacing of the game isn't built for 6 members at "x" point of the game but I don't really see that as a problem...not everyone is going to run out and "party up to 6" if the option is available. RPGs are about experiencing the game in 100000 ways. I can only dream at this point of playing through as many times as I did on BG series. And by the way...in BG1 and BG2...you could create a 6 man party from the start of the game. You just had to host it via multiplayer, it wasn't directly obvious but the option was there. You could even "import" characters over and over to duplicate gear or "kamikaze" them as Sawyer mentioned as a possible issue of "free" adventurers.

Really hard to do that. You need a number that's low enough to prevent kamikaze style playing, but not that low so people playing regularly end up with no recruits to replenish their potential loses(especially on high difficulties). I never understood why people care. I wouldn't play this way but I just don't see the rage that comes from players when they think that someone miles away who they will never see or talk to does such a thing. Limitations can be a good thing, such as in sports where it's competitive against each other, but this is a *little* different. I'd also think that most players willing to play in such a lame fashion are probably going to abuse or mod everything that they can to "destroy" the "experience". Do you really need to extend so much effort to control such players? I think it's because people assume that as long as the game allows you to do something then it follows that the game expects you to do so and thus from a design standpoint if you leave all these options wide open - it is assumed that you intentionally designed the game to played this way - thus as a designer you close as many loopholes in your design as possible to allow the final game to be played primarily in the manner you chose to design it to play. Which in my opinion, is a horrible way to make your design decisions, especially in a game that's meant to be ROLE PLAYED in a noncompetitive environment. I view that there's a difference between allowing you to "max out party size" vs allowing things such as unlimited gold upon a whim. Does that make sense? Games like Baldurs Gate were great because it had such freedom in party formation, I could run a solo group or 6 from the start or wait to gather up companions but the ultimate decision was in my hands. Hell, in BG, you could import characters in over and over and suicide them if you wanted...but I never once did. Freedom of choice works for some aspects of gameplay while it doesn't for others...I find it very unfortunate that games are leaning towards limiting EVERYTHING because of a few compulsive min/max powergamers/potential "degenerate" gameplay. Again...there are some things that *should* be limited...but I don't think it's the best decision in every instance. Agree or disagree the design decisions get to made by the designer and I for the most part am glad that's the case as I doubt I would enjoy any game in which the design was decided upon by game forum posts and polls Yes but that's the great part about forums, meant to discuss them.

Really hard to do that. You need a number that's low enough to prevent kamikaze style playing, but not that low so people playing regularly end up with no recruits to replenish their potential loses(especially on high difficulties). I never understood why people care. I wouldn't play this way but I just don't see the rage that comes from players when they think that someone miles away who they will never see or talk to does such a thing. Limitations can be a good thing, such as in sports where it's competitive against each other, but this is a *little* different. I'd also think that most players willing to play in such a lame fashion are probably going to abuse or mod everything that they can to "destroy" the "experience". Do you really need to extend so much effort to control such players? I think it's because people assume that as long as the game allows you to do something then it follows that the game expects you to do so and thus from a design standpoint if you leave all these options wide open - it is assumed that you intentionally designed the game to played this way - thus as a designer you close as many loopholes in your design as possible to allow the final game to be played primarily in the manner you chose to design it to play. Which in my opinion, is a horrible way to make your design decisions, especially in a game that's meant to be ROLE PLAYED in a noncompetitive environment. I view that there's a difference between allowing you to "max out party size" vs allowing things such as unlimited gold upon a whim. Does that make sense? Games like Baldurs Gate were great because it had such freedom in party formation, I could run a solo group or 6 from the start or wait to gather up companions but the ultimate decision was in my hands. Hell, in BG, you could import characters in over and over and suicide them if you wanted...but I never once did. Freedom of choice works for some aspects of gameplay while it doesn't for others...I find it very unfortunate that games are leaning towards limiting EVERYTHING because of a few compulsive min/max powergamers/potential "degenerate" gameplay. Again...there are some things that *should* be limited...but I don't think it's the best decision in every instance.

Really hard to do that. You need a number that's low enough to prevent kamikaze style playing, but not that low so people playing regularly end up with no recruits to replenish their potential loses(especially on high difficulties). I never understood why people care. I wouldn't play this way but I just don't see the rage that comes from players when they think that someone miles away who they will never see or talk to does such a thing. Limitations can be a good thing, such as in sports where it's competitive against each other, but this is a *little* different. I'd also think that most players willing to play in such a lame fashion are probably going to abuse or mod everything that they can to "destroy" the "experience". Do you really need to extend so much effort to control such players?

Again...why not make out of combat healing a trait that you have to invest in? Solves multiple problems. 1) extends adventure day 2) trade off between combat/utility vs healing 3) accessible to all classes on an equal level 4) flexible to fit all player skill levels 5) since its out of combat...doesn't negate stamina spells or take away from combat

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67960-adventurers-hall-questions-a-little-extra/ Read through. Has a bit more detail for ya on the matter.

Hmmm...I'd much rather a trait for "out of combat healing" that essentially allows any character to have access to healing that is outside of combat at the price of combat efficiency/other traits. Basically becomes a trade off that allows you to be less annoyed after a fight and allows you to use as much as you need based on your skill level, of course, at the cost of some combat efficiency or other potentially useful trait. Can call it "First Aid" or something along those lines.

Making them NOT cost money would give a bigger advantage to people who don't use the OEI-written companions, since you could make a six-character party in the first town. You could also freely use them as fodder with no consequence. The adventurers aren't going to be outrageously expensive to hire, but we do want there to be some cost to them. Thanks for responding! Good to know I can potentially get this style of play on-line quickly! Couple other questions - Comments if you have time. 1 - As someone else asked...can you stockpile created companions in your stronghold? If yes, can you use them to solve quests etc that were meant for "while you are away" quests at the stronghold. 2 - If yes to answer 1...can you keep all created companions + the written companions at the stronghold or is there a limit? If there's a limit, can it be expanded to fit everyone or is it a hard limit? 3 - I get the idea that you could use them as "fodder"/perhaps certain parts of the game would be easier if you could jump up to a party of 6...but is that really a problem? I guess in a RPG/single player game...I don't see the purpose of limiting something like this based upon a few players that would "abuse" such a system. 4 - This is a little more off topic...is XP gained a flat amount to each character or is it split amongst the group? XP seems like it's going to be an interesting "resource" in this game, especially with being able to "buy" a character at -1 level to your current.

Why not play around with allowing for a small increase to single target spell range? I imagine that could make it easily compete with duration and could open up even more ways to play.