Party System

[TRX850]

 

ih hihih hih hihih hih.......Numbers ROOL!!

 

[SpaceHamsterBoo]

8-choose-5 = (8!3!)/5! = 8*7*6*3*2 = 2,016 possible party combinations. That should may for a little bit of replay value.

 

I think this is wrong.

 

If you are to chose 5 companions out of 8 companions, without assigning importance to the order in which they are chosen, then I believe you should use a combination C₅⁸ = 8!/[(8-5)! * 5!] = 8!!/(3! * 5!) = 1*2*3*4*5*6*7*8/(1*2*3*1*2*3*4*5) = 4*5*6*7*8/(1*2*3*4*5) = 6*7*8/(1*2*3) = 56

 

This is quite different, but still, playing the game 56 times is quite a feat!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this is how you're supposed to see the stats.

 

So there would be 56 possible parties of 6 people including the player character. If you want to add possibilities of soloing or using less party members, then I'll redo the stats a little later.

Edited February 12, 2013 by SpaceHamsterBoo

[Lephys]

^ I think maybe it was total combinations (as in only 2 people, 3 people, 4 people, 5 people, etc.)?

[SpaceHamsterBoo]

^ Then you'd have to do: C₁⁸ + C₂⁸ + C₃⁸ + C₄⁸ + C₅⁸ +1 = Total number of possible parties with 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 companions, plus the option of going solo which can also be interpreted as C₀⁸.

This would give : 8!/[(8-1)! *1!] + 8!/[(8-2)!*2!] + 8!/(5!*3!) + 8!/(4!*4!) + 8!/(3!*5!) + 1 = 8+28+56+70+56 +1 = 219 which is still far from 2 016!

 

I've just looked it up in my stats book this is how it should be computed. However, 219 possible party formations is still quite high and offers good replay value. Whether all possible party formations are interesting is another question and is most probably up to the player

Edited February 12, 2013 by SpaceHamsterBoo

[MuseBreaks]

As I wrote, I'd rather have just enough available party members to fill the party than dozens of applicants and an artificial mechanic that requires me to travel with all of them for a while. To take another Obsidian game: Elanee in NWN2 is the prime example of an NPC that follows you because the designers want you to tag her along, a creepy stalker who suddenly shows up and expects you to trust her. Later we meet Casavir, since he's the Fem-PC love interest we're forced to adventure with him and need to kick out one of our comrades. Why not use him as 5th party member like it was done with Shandra later?

 

If a NPC is required for a quest, give him his own party spot, don't expect me to kick out party members. A Yoshi-Imoen swap can't be done everytime a new NPC needs to be added to the party, and even that stunt didn't work for me the first time, as I took Jan instead of Yoshi.

I don't want a mechanic that would force you to travel with whom you don't want to, only one that would make the game realistic and ALLOW you that option: party members would die, leave for their own business, betray you, would get lost, would suggest to split up and etc. And etc. And etc.

 

If you don't want to take other available NPC's then you won't, the ones who only left you for a temporary time would come back later.

 

As for the Yoshi/Imogen sequence that could have been handled easy: if you don't take Yoshi, then 1/2 of your party members would go lost from you in spellhold, and then rejoin you later, and the exact time would depend on whether you take Imoen or not. If you take her then you would rejoin the lost members only near the end of the underdark, if you don't take her, you find them back very fast.

 

That kind of mechanism.

Edited February 12, 2013 by MuseBreaks

[IndiraLightfoot]

SpaceHamsterBoo: Thanks for keeping track of the exact number of possible NPC cominations!

 

Even after your calculations, there are still quite many options available, and that is what I liked about Rjshae's post, unforunately, there are no longer thousands of them.   

[JFSOCC]

it just doesn't work like that. Some party members you might choose over and over again, while others you would dismiss after the first time, and hope never to play them again. Say you've played with 5 members (other than your character) whom you all dislike, then you have 5 choices less. If you want to keep using, 3 out of those from the last play-through. you only have two spots for new members.

 

I don't believe replayability comes from party members. For me, a play-through which is very similar to another, isn't that exciting.

So how do you get a varied replayable game? By providing content which is mutually exclusive with other content. (like, say, there are 20 factions in the game and you can only play for 3 of them throughout it.)

But I Digress.

 

I do hope there's a way to enjoy all characters in a sigle play through, and I believe having a questline (not a single quest) associated with each of them is the way to go. This always makes it worthwhile to try them out. Just make sure you can reach your level cap without completing these, since some players would enjoy playing with a fully self-created party.

[rjshae]

 

8-choose-5 = (8!3!)/5! = 8*7*6*3*2 = 2,016 possible party combinations. That should may for a little bit of replay value.

 

I think this is wrong.

 

If you are to chose 5 companions out of 8 companions, without assigning importance to the order in which they are chosen, then I believe you should use a combination C₅⁸ = 8!/[(8-5)! * 5!] = 8!!/(3! * 5!) = 1*2*3*4*5*6*7*8/(1*2*3*1*2*3*4*5) = 4*5*6*7*8/(1*2*3*4*5) = 6*7*8/(1*2*3) = 56

 

This is quite different, but still, playing the game 56 times is quite a feat!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this is how you're supposed to see the stats.

 

So there would be 56 possible parties of 6 people including the player character. If you want to add possibilities of soloing or using less party members, then I'll redo the stats a little later.

 

You may be correct. My probability skills are thirty years old and pretty rusty.

[MuseBreaks]

it just doesn't work like that. Some party members you might choose over and over again, while others you would dismiss after the first time, and hope never to play them again. Say you've played with 5 members (other than your character) whom you all dislike, then you have 5 choices less. If you want to keep using, 3 out of those from the last play-through. you only have two spots for new members.

 

I don't believe replayability comes from party members. For me, a play-through which is very similar to another, isn't that exciting.

So how do you get a varied replayable game? By providing content which is mutually exclusive with other content. (like, say, there are 20 factions in the game and you can only play for 3 of them throughout it.)

But I Digress.

 

I do hope there's a way to enjoy all characters in a sigle play through, and I believe having a questline (not a single quest) associated with each of them is the way to go. This always makes it worthwhile to try them out. Just make sure you can reach your level cap without completing these, since some players would enjoy playing with a fully self-created party.

 

I think that replayability is very important, but I also want a very interesting plot that would involve the party members. You might think that a yoshimo-imoen sequence is boring after 1 play, and you may be right, but I prefer that, then having mute and anemic party members who follow you around all the time like puppies (untill you tell them go wait over there and be quite) and don't even have their own opinion, and that nothing nothing, ever happens to them: dying, betraying you, being kidnapped, getting lost and separated etc. 

 

I mean this IS an adventure. Things should always happen out of the blue and surprise you and work exactly the opposite way you planned and if the cost is replayability then so be it. I want to feel like I am on a REAL adventure, like I am reading a good book. That's how I felt playing BG2:SOA and it never stopped me from playing it over several times again. 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2013 by MuseBreaks

[JFSOCC]

 

 

it just doesn't work like that. Some party members you might choose over and over again, while others you would dismiss after the first time, and hope never to play them again. Say you've played with 5 members (other than your character) whom you all dislike, then you have 5 choices less. If you want to keep using, 3 out of those from the last play-through. you only have two spots for new members.

 

I don't believe replayability comes from party members. For me, a play-through which is very similar to another, isn't that exciting.

So how do you get a varied replayable game? By providing content which is mutually exclusive with other content. (like, say, there are 20 factions in the game and you can only play for 3 of them throughout it.)

But I Digress.

 

I do hope there's a way to enjoy all characters in a sigle play through, and I believe having a questline (not a single quest) associated with each of them is the way to go. This always makes it worthwhile to try them out. Just make sure you can reach your level cap without completing these, since some players would enjoy playing with a fully self-created party.

 

I think that replayability is very important, but I also want a very interesting plot that would involve the party members. You might think that a yoshimo-imoen sequence is boring after 1 play, and you may be right, but I prefer that, then having mute and anemic party members who follow you around all the time like puppies (untill you tell them go wait over there and be quite) and don't even have their own opinion, and that nothing nothing, ever happens to them: dying, betraying you, being kidnapped, getting lost and separated etc. 

 

I mean this IS an adventure. Things should always happen out of the blue and surprise you and work exactly the opposite way you planned and if the cost is replayability then so be it. I want to feel like I am on a REAL adventure, like I am reading a good book. That's how I felt playing BG2:SOA and it never stopped me from playing it over several times again.

 

 

right, because the replayability wasn't dependent on that. It was dependent on the varied quests and the different ways to deal with them.

[Tsuga C]

I do hope there's a way to enjoy all characters in a sigle play through,...

I most certainly hope that we cannot enjoy everything that every companion has to offer during a single playthough. If we were able to do so, then that implies that there's not going to be all that much substance to several of the companions, probably the last two or three to be encountered. How so? Although it'd be nice to meet all of them in Chapter 1 of the game, I'm sure that at least a couple of them won't be available until roughly the mid-point of the campaign. As we have less time with them, they're likely to have less content and interaction than the companion(s) who are available from the get-go.

 

Concerning replay value, regardless of the personalities and content associated with each companion, the very existance of at least one each of the Core Four classes ensures the player that they'll be able to cobble together a well-rounded party. This is key as it allows the player to choose to be any class desired without having to worry about getting stuck with a party that's too strong in one area and too weak in another. Sure, it's always possible to create whomever you need in the Hall of Adventurers, but those companions will be without dialogue or personalities, thus making them nothing more than useful automatons. I prefer companions who are much more lively than that.

[JFSOCC]

What makes you assume that? I take my time through a game. If I can enjoy all characters it only means I've taken the time to put all of them in my party at one point or another, quested with them, and perhaps helped them on their personal quest(line)

 

Perhaps I was unclear with my intent, it wasn't that I want to rush through all my characters in one short blow, but rather that I don't get limited in one game to just a few of the characters. I hope I can play all of them, if I spend time and effort on it.

[MuseBreaks]

 

I do hope there's a way to enjoy all characters in a sigle play through,...

I most certainly hope that we cannot enjoy everything that every companion has to offer during a single playthough. If we were able to do so, then that implies that there's not going to be all that much substance to several of the companions, probably the last two or three to be encountered. How so? Although it'd be nice to meet all of them in Chapter 1 of the game, I'm sure that at least a couple of them won't be available until roughly the mid-point of the campaign. As we have less time with them, they're likely to have less content and interaction than the companion(s) who are available from the get-go.

 

Concerning replay value, regardless of the personalities and content associated with each companion, the very existance of at least one each of the Core Four classes ensures the player that they'll be able to cobble together a well-rounded party. This is key as it allows the player to choose to be any class desired without having to worry about getting stuck with a party that's too strong in one area and too weak in another. Sure, it's always possible to create whomever you need in the Hall of Adventurers, but those companions will be without dialogue or personalities, thus making them nothing more than useful automatons. I prefer companions who are much more lively than that.

 

It would be a terrible mistake for the developers to make us be crucially dependent on a certain class. It is a very crucial point, cause we should not get stuck with somebody we do not want to only because of "well-rounding". The crucial elements of: tanking, healing, damage, rouge skills, should be evenly distributed among all classes and also special personal abilities and skills like first aid for example or door bashing etc.

 

That way, we can go around that problem of "classes". 

 

So yea, some of us want to be able to experience all companions (the ones we like that is) since the problem is exactly the artificial 6 members party lock.

 

Again I want to play the adventure and the plot and the story, less the "well-rounding" (even though that part is a lot of fun as well).

Edited February 12, 2013 by MuseBreaks

[MuseBreaks]

I really hope the developers would implement the separation sequence somehow. For example for who ever read the dragonlance books, the adventurers in the book get separated at 1 point into 2 group and each group experiences it's own journey for a while until they meet up again later (while some of them dream about the others). Maybe this kind of method could also be implemented somehow at 1 point in the game: and in it we (the player) could play the other group from time to time via "visions" about them. That could be an interesting sequence.

 

 

Anyhow I could think of many many more ways to make us experience a lot of party members and not just the core 5 we are locked to travel with in each given moment, and I believe the developers have enough time to think about such options and implement them themselves.

Edited February 12, 2013 by MuseBreaks

[Osvir]

I like to use Minsc+Dynaheir ideas:

Meeting Minsc in Nashkel with Dynaheir, to recruit them you have to play through a flashback how Minsc saved Dynaheir all by himself. Why? Because I find it an interesting story mechanic. What happened before the Companion joined the Party kind of.

Perhaps you can even dictate that course too, which forms the Companion in question just a tiny bit (I'm thinking something short and simple like the child episode in Fable 1).

But as I've said before, "is it desirable" to play a 5-10 minute "Flashback Quest" every time you recruit a Companion? Maybe there are a different dialogue choice, where you can tell Minsc:

[Minsc Dialogue Choices]:
1. Yes, tell me the story (Flashback, play as Minsc saving Dynaheir)
2. Yes, tell me the story (Text) - Loops back to [Minsc Dialogue Choices] when done.
3. Wanna just join now? (Recruit)

Do you have to unlock the 3rd option or would they just be recruitable right off the bat? I agree with the OP about the Party members having to leave for something, mysteriously after you camped one of the guys are gone. With a [Wilderness Lore] check you could perhaps even get some information in which direction the Companion went (and possibly even catch up with him/her).

EDIT: Maybe a [Flashback Quest] could determine if you would get a Corrupted Aloth or a Benevolent Aloth?
 

"hey you let's party together", "yea sure dude why not"

@OP: Depends on philosophy of life and cultural philosophy clash/sync~

1. I totally agree
2. Totally agree on dynamics as well, which is what I am trying to think concepts about above.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Osvir

[Tsuga C]

That way, we can go around that problem of "classes".

Classes are not a problem, they're a feature. If you disagree, then P:E might not be the game for you. It's already been stated that the various classes will not have their primary functions usurped by other classes (e.g. rogues will be the best lock pickers in the game). Others might be passable in the primary skill/feat of another class, but the class distinction exists for a reason and will be maintained.

[Tsuga C]

I hope I can play all of them, if I spend time and effort on it.

I'm sure you'll be able to do just that, but I wouldn't expect to experience all of their dialogue and banter if you're rotating them in and out of the party. Unavoidably, some of it will be missed when Companion X is warming a seat back in the Hall of Adventurers during Chapter 2 while you're adventuring with Companion Y in their stead.

[JFSOCC]

fair enough

[Tsuga C]

I've always preferred to assemble one party and stick with it for the duration if at all possible. That way I'm able to experience all of their dialogue, banter, and interactions with my character and with each other. Irrational though it might be, it somehow feels disloyal to rotate party members, too.

 

Additionally, it's an entertaining exercise to make a fixed party work on a tactical level in all situations. Sometimes "entertaining" degenerates into "frustrating" under certain conditions, but that mimics real life where you can't always switch co-workers when you're assigned to a project--gotta work with the tools you've been given.

[MuseBreaks]

 

That way, we can go around that problem of "classes".

Classes are not a problem, they're a feature. If you disagree, then P:E might not be the game for you. It's already been stated that the various classes will not have their primary functions usurped by other classes (e.g. rogues will be the best lock pickers in the game). Others might be passable in the primary skill/feat of another class, but the class distinction exists for a reason and will be maintained.

 

How I love all the "it's not the game for you" responses, like people feel it's their own baby. It's not. Trust me, I'm sure you're gonna dislike many features of this game as much as I will, and vice versa. That's how it works in a jolly little democracy and representative rule.  

 

Now second I would like to see where it was stated (or more accurately HOW it was stated), because even if the best lock picker is a thief, it shouldn't mean you MUST have a thief in order to finish the game, since other classes and abilities would have some kind of lock picking ability, enough to finish the game, which is MUCH MORE THEN FINE by me Especially if it means I could and would be forced to swap companions now and then (because my thief got sick of me, or had to go, or died, or got lost, or was kidnapped, or betrayed me or what ever else the developers want).

 

Since 1 of the the spiritual fathers of this game is BG2:SOA, then I'm sure we would experience some story and plot depth, beyond the make a party and stick with it all game and kick out people due to no room. Every party NPC should be available and important to the plot from the time we meet them, until the very end. I would like to know what happened to each of them in the epilogue (assuming I met them and traveled with them).

 

I do agree that if somebody wants to, then he should have the opportunity to travel with 1 full group (and "well-rounded")  but that should not come at a cost to the other players in this thread which support what I stated in some kind of fashion, 

Edited February 13, 2013 by MuseBreaks

[MuseBreaks]

And besides I don't understand your vigorous antagonism. In almost every adventure features that involve a group questing together: books, films etc., they usually get separated at some point until they meet again. It's part of the thrill and fun. It makes the plot more interesting. Some events should be beyond our will and control. It makes us care.

 

And yes, some of us prefer plot over class features. Or more accurately we don't see a reason to force us to take certain classes. Healing and lock picking should not be restricted to 1 class alone each. It has no value at all.

Edited February 13, 2013 by MuseBreaks

[Tsuga C]

Now second I would like to see where it was stated (or more accurately HOW it was stated), because even if the best lock picker is a thief, it shouldn't mean you MUST have a thief in order to finish the game,...

Look up "Fallacy of Extension". I am unaware of anything like that being said by either myself or someone from Obsidian. Here's what was said, "All classes start out with bonuses in the skills that their classes most commonly use, but players can choose to reinforce or play against that top. If you want to make a paladin who delights in picking locks, you can do that and get a lot of utility out of the skill -- though the character will never be quite as good as a rogue who specializes in it."

 

What this means is that there might be some doors, traps, chests, etc. that it takes a rogue to open or disarm. You might be able to use force or magic to overcome the challenge in question, but this may have undesirable consequences (e.g. destroying contents, alerting nearby opponents). If they were part of the main storyline, such obstacles wouldn't be game stoppers, but they might make things more difficult for those without a highly skilled rogue. If they occur in an optional sidequest, you just might need that high-skill rogue if you're a completionist who can't stand not being able to do all there is to do and loot all there is to loot.

 

And here's where it was mentioned.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Tsuga C

[MuseBreaks]

 

Now second I would like to see where it was stated (or more accurately HOW it was stated), because even if the best lock picker is a thief, it shouldn't mean you MUST have a thief in order to finish the game,...

Look up "Fallacy of Extension". I am unaware of anything like that being said by either myself or someone from Obsidian. Here's what was said, "All classes start out with bonuses in the skills that their classes most commonly use, but players can choose to reinforce or play against that top. If you want to make a paladin who delights in picking locks, you can do that and get a lot of utility out of the skill -- though the character will never be quite as good as a rogue who specializes in it."

 

What this means is that there might be some doors, traps, chests, etc. that it takes a rogue to open or disarm. You might be able to use force or magic to overcome the challenge in question, but this may have undesirable consequences (e.g. destroying contents, alerting nearby opponents). If they were part of the main storyline, such obstacles wouldn't be game stoppers, but they might make things more difficult for those without a highly skilled rogue. If they occur in an optional sidequest, you just might need that high-skill rogue if you're a completionist who can't stand not being able to do all there is to do and loot all there is to loot.

 

And here's where it was mentioned.

 

And here's the rest of the quote: 

 

"We hope that these approaches use the strengths of a "role-ready" class system while allowing players a large amount of helpful flexibility in how they develop characters over a (hopefully) long and fruitful adventuring career."

 

I don't mind that the rouge would be the best in his obvious skills, as long as it doesn't mean we MUST have a rouge in order to finish the game. 

 

Again it works quite well with what I suggested: That we would be able to travel for some time without a rouge, because that rouge is part of a realistic and interesting story line and he either had to leave us for a while for his own personal quest, fell into a ditch and we think he died, was kidnapped by the antagonist in a certain dungeon, really died and can't be raised (but later surprisingly comes back to help us) and etc. and etc. And while he is gone we found a new friend to travel with, and she is very nice and funny and becomes part of the group as well ! ^_^

 

Oh and when our beloved rouge comes back to us, we have a new spot ready because our party had to split up for some reason (because we decided to do that) so now our rouge can meet the new friend we found from before AND we have extra room for new friends we might have left somewhere.

 

Listen. Obviously this should mainly be implemented during the open parts of the campaign, and again only if the player wants to, since most group splitting and etc. should be decided by the player. If the player refuses to accept new members all the time and also refuses to split then the game mechanic would not force (or force less) separations.

 

But we most absolutely should not get stuck with the same people 24/7. In BG2:SOA the game expected you to take Yoshimo to spellhold and that he would be replaced by Imoen. NO MATTER HOW YOU PLAYED IT, and even if you didn't take him to spellhold, Yoshimo was a traitor and lost for ever.

 

These are the situations and events I am talking about and expecting to see in PE (including original solutions for the obvious: "what if you didn't take Yoshimo to spellhold" problem, preferably in the manner I suggested earlier), events that involve your party members and that are inevitable and unexpected (even if only temporary). Not more, not less, and from as many party members as possible: The more the better.    

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2013 by MuseBreaks

[Lephys]

Again it works quite well with what I suggested: That we would be able to travel for some time without a rouge, because that rouge is part of a realistic and interesting story line and he either had to leave us for a while for his own personal quest, fell into a ditch and we think he died, was kidnapped by the antagonist in a certain dungeon, really died and can't be raised (but later surprisingly comes back to help us) and etc. and etc.

 

Maybe that's when the players who just say "Well, my Rogue's the awesomest lockpicker, so I'll just have HIM/HER focus on lockpicking, u_u" are upset for putting all their skill points into one basket, and the people who say "Hmm, I might have my main character pick up some medium-level lockpicking, just in case" are overjoyed at being able to open a bunch of not-too-crazily-complex doors and chests throughout the "SURELY our Rogue is deadeded T______T" segment.

 

^_^

Edited February 14, 2013 by Lephys

[Xienzi]

This thread is getting pretty stupid, I think.