Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'party size'.
Found 3 results
Greedings, i was thinking of some kind of active party (combat, 5 members) and non-active party (conversations, reactivity, banter, no size limit) system. Maybe attaching companion's content (dialogues, banters, etc) to invisible objects? if that makes sense I make just one complete play through, so the companions i dont bring are just lost forever, and i noticed recently that there are a fair amount of people who see this (i saw some similar suggestions somewhere) or other consequences of the party limitation as a problem, so i decided to try and suggest this. Some thoughs on this: -People who don't replay multiple times or are just interested on interactions and banter can experience the companions they want, all of them (companions, sidekicks, imaginarly developed hirelings). -People don't have to change party members giving one companion to get another, maybe the content missed of one companion if you want 6 is not a big deal (and note that the medium player will just not change party members) but there are 11 NPCs (in the base game) and hirelings. -Would help people give a chance to companiona that they dont like or just are not in their favorites at the start. -People can bring companions that they want to bring because of the story, but wouldn't for combat related reasons. -People can choose the active party members(companion, sidekick, hireling) they really want for combat. -Invisible companions can reduce inmersion, but i think its worth for the adventages, and if you dont think about it, it won't be a problem. -At first though may look like it reduce replayability, but most people play the game just ones, among the people who replay the game multiple times little will make multiple complete playthroughs, and among those, they will not make the same choices, leading to different reactivity from companions, so unless the only variant on different playtrhoughs on the actual system is the party composition (and the main reason to do this would be the companions), the implementation of non-active party members results just in more content and freedom on the way people want to play. -In any case, people can decide who are the members of the non-active party. I wanted to give me a voice on what is a huge problem for me and what better than the official forums. I know this wont be a very accepted idea on these forums, but i made a poll anyway. Live long and prosper, and my apologies for my bad english.
Hello Project Eternity, As this game is being designed to echo classics like Baldur's Gate, it should be safe to speculate about ways to make those games better - thereby making Project Eternity better, should these improvements be realized in game. Something that always bothered me in the Baldur's Gate series was the highly restrictive party size. But, not in the way you may be thinking. Six adventurers (five companions and the protagonist) is perfect for your standard party. Six gives room for ample banter, mixing and matching of abilities, and tactical combat. But, how about when you and your five friends come upon one additional person in the depths of a dungeon. This person cannot escape without you. In Baldur's Gate, you had to say, "sorry, I just can't take you along right now," or "Sure, but current companion, please stay here." I hated this. A few examples of this include Xan, in the Nashkell Mines, and Yeslick in the Cloakwood Mines. Xan is left to be eaten by Kobolds and Yeslick will undoubtedly be drowned, if you do not take them along. I would actually leave one of my companions outside of the mines, pick up Xan or Yeslick, drop them off somewhere, and then retrieve my initially dropped companion. Yikes, way too much work. Here is what I propose: Make the six party limitation a soft cap, as opposed to a hard one. In the case of Xan or Yeslick, allow the party size to expand to 6+1 for the duration of that quest. Upon escaping from the mines, just to continue with those examples, have dialogue initiate forcing you to make a decision regarding who you will keep. If there is no specific quest related to the NPC, incorporate a +1 that is time based. Maybe, one 30 minutes, real life time – before a triggered dialogue begins. This would give players a chance to see the new person’s skills, learn a bit more about them, and then decide if they would fit into the party. As it stands, one would need to have played through the game beforehand or have read an NPC summary to know if the character would be a good fit. To prevent system abuse, I might have the soft cap restricted to +1 (so no parties of +2, +3, +4, if coordinated to take on a challenging boss, for example). The flexibility to temporarily take on an additional companion would provide more realistic resolutions for scenarios like I outlined above (with Xan and Yeslick) and would give players the chance to test drive a new companion prior to having them join up. Please let me know if you agree or disagree! I would love to hear some feedback on this idea.
Heya! :3 I have a plea! A simple plea! X3 Higher complexity = more replayability. Please add more races, classes, and recruitable player characters. Eight companions is such a small number. *makes a puppy dog face* Can ya double it? Please? Pretty please? n_n' If you ever return to the cold north, I will even give you hugs! n.n I love Planescape, but as a wonderful, amazing story to read rather than as a game to replay often. I would much rather a game more similar to Baldur's Gate, which had 25 companions in BG1 and 17 in BG2 (and character interaction in BG2!). Yes, it's more work, but it was well worth it. :3 Character creation, party creation... more choices for substituting one character for another character who plays the same or similar party role. For example, Anomen's constant hitting on my female PCs and his general whininess = I can choose Viconia or Aerie instead for a party cleric. In contrast, being stuck with, say, Tomi Undergallows because he's the only thief in the game (not that I have anything against lit'le Tomi!) is not great. (Yes, NWN only had non-controllable recruitables and 1 PC, so it's not the best example as it's not a party-based game. Cut me a little slack here, eh?) And battles with large numbers of combatants - the Yaga-Shura bridge fight! Goblins at the docks! Mercenaries! Assassins! ****y adventurers! Bar fights! Tribes! Hunters! Or simply an ambush by bandits, or a crazed necromancer and several types of skeletons, or ugly yippy little dog-like creatures that never ever ever run out of bloody fire arrows and keep appearing around each corner and don't let up and won't let me leave - argh! ~_~ ... ... OK I'm good o_o' (I bet kobalds smell too. I insult their mothers.) Let me be clear... I donated $20US to Project Eternity, which is less than I paid for either of Planescape, Baldur's Gate, or Knights of the Old Republic! So if you end up creating a game with combat similar to Planescape (limited companion selection) or to Knights of the Old Republic (limited party size, small battles), I'll play through the game a few times and be happy. Then I'll go back to Baldur's Gate, or Wizardry, or Gold Box, or Natuk, or something older but with fun story and combat. But if you create a game with layers upon layers of complexity for characters and combat, I will play through the game several times and be a very very happy gamer! And as much as I dislike purchasable downloadable content (the game should be sold completel - and missing chararacters doesn't sound very complete, huh?), I would totally purchase extra character and class packs. (although if I had to do that, you would get less hugs from me. ) Even if you decide not to up the character limit at release... just the promise of more characters in an expansion pack would make me happier. As a final note, I do know that you can create a system of branching classes to increase party and battle complexity. Maybe at level 10 a monk class can choose to become defense focused and learn healing or offence focused and learn flaming first (or whatever) followed by another set or two of class branching, but that usually does not result in a huge increase in party options/roles. The monk would normally remain in the frontline fighter role, while the only changes are its secondary supporting roles of, say, healing or element-capable (fire) attacks. Soo... yeah, please consider adding in many more companions. ^__^ If you don't, I still love what you've set out to do, and I'm sure I'll love what you'll have made. Also please add a player tiefling-like race with cutsey ears and cutsey tails and sharp knives. cat attack nya! n.n