Adventurers Hall Questions + a little extra

[Valorian]

 

4. The more characters you have in your party, the less XP you gain, but it's a marginal difference (5% per character).

 

 

Rather marginal indeed. 

Assuming all classes/characters are more or less equally useful, removing one party member makes the party weaker by 1/6. So I believe that 1/6 of 100% would be more appropriate; ~15% bonus xp per empty party slot.

15% is not even close to the split-XP method in IE games, but has some impact, unlike 5%.

[Elerond]

 

 

4. The more characters you have in your party, the less XP you gain, but it's a marginal difference (5% per character).

 

 

Rather marginal indeed. 

Assuming all classes/characters are more or less equally useful, removing one party member makes the party weaker by 1/6. So I believe that 1/6 of 100% would be more appropriate; ~15% bonus xp per empty party slot.

15% is not even close to the split-XP method in IE games, but has some impact, unlike 5%.

 

 

We probably should also take account also factor that character's that aren't in your party earn experience by doing activities in your stronghold, that benefit you (at least I think this is the case), unlike in IE games where characters that weren't in your party didn't earn experience and couldn't do anything that benefits you. 

[ddillon]

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.

That seems a flimsy excuse. The number of adventurers could be limited by level or by AH innkeepers spoken with if pacing is really a significant issue. Or you could widen this gap:

 

4. The more characters you have in your party, the less XP you gain, but it's a marginal difference (5% per character).

to 15% or more as Valorian suggests in order to even things out. Like in the IE games, ya know?

 

You could also freely use them as fodder with no consequence.

And? Why does it matter to anyone else if someone wants to play that way? Is stopping "cheaters" in a single-player game really worth preventing Utukka, IndiraLightfoot, Remmirath, myself, and others from playing in ways we enjoy?

[Ink Blot]

4. The more characters you have in your party, the less XP you gain, but it's a marginal difference (5% per character).

 

Can you expand on this a bit? I'm not sure I'm understanding. If you have a party of 6, that means 5 extra characters. At a 5% hit per character, that translates to a 25% hit to XP. That doesn't seem 'marginal' to me. Am I misunderstanding?

[ddillon]

Can you expand on this a bit? I'm not sure I'm understanding. If you have a party of 6, that means 5 extra characters. At a 5% hit per character, that translates to a 25% hit to XP. That doesn't seem 'marginal' to me. Am I misunderstanding?

I assumed he meant that every character in a party would receive the same amount of XP as a lone PC, but at the reduced rate.

 

That might not be marginal, but it's still more XP per character than in the IE games iirc. It's been a while since I last played one, but I remember XP being very noticeably split between party members. This balanced different party sizes: Larger parties have the advantage of numbers but level up slowly, while smaller parties level up much faster.

 

This is why I made the quip: "Like in the IE games, ya know?" It seems like they're trying to fix something that wasn't broken.

[Silent Winter]

^ given 100 xp, each character now gets 75 xp if there's a full group,

as opposed to each character getting 100/6=16xp

 

Is that right?

 

Seems a little too generous to me.  But I guess it depends on how everything is balanced.

Will make solo-games more tricky I imagine.

[ddillon]

@Silent Winter: Yeah, that's how I read it, and why I endorsed Valorian's suggestion of increasing the percentage difference. But we might have misunderstood what Sawyer meant.

[Valorian]

It's 5% bonus xp per person missing.

6 people = 100 xp

5 people = 105 xp

 

[ddillon]

@Valorian: Is the XP split among party members, or does each party member get that amount?

 

If it's split, then why is a penalty needed? Larger parties would level slower than smaller parties by default without the penalty.

Edited September 21, 2014 by ddillon

[Valorian]

It's not split. In case a) it's 100 xp per person and in b) 105.

[ddillon]

@Valorian:

 

Okay, that's more-or-less what I had assumed, tho I phrased it in the reverse: a 5% XP penalty per party member after the player character.  So the balancing effect of split XP in the IE games could be emulated (somewhat at least) by simply increasing the percentage difference as you suggested, right?

 

---

 

This issue vexes me.  It should be simple:  Backers want to be able to create custom parties as promised in the stretch goal.  Shockingly, we don't want to be penalized for doing so.  Who would have thought, right?

 

PC: "I'm looking for an old friend."

 

Innkeeper: "Tell me 'bout this friend of yours and I'll tell ya if they've been around..."

 

Is that too much to ask?  It's a simple variation of what's already present:

 

PC: "I'd like to hire an adventurer."

 

Innkeeper: "Got a few 'round here looking for work. Tell me what you're looking for and I'll hunt 'em down."

 

Hells, have both and let the player decide whether to hire a mercenary or find an old friend.  Dialogue isn't voiced, so why not?

 

If party size really must be limited for part of the game (if the XP balancing mentioned above is insufficient), how about limiting per level or per inn or whatever?  After reaching the limit for a particular level/inn/location/chapter/whatever, the innkeeper could say:

 

"No, no one 'round here like that."

 

until the next whatever is reached.  Still not a perfect solution, but it'd be better than having to waste valuable in-game resources to be able to play with a custom party.

[Guest 4ward]

yes, i guess the game could have also compared your party size with your current progress/level. If at the start you’re allowed e.g. 2 in your group you could get the companion but wouldn’t be allowed to also get an adventurer. Or you’d choose the adventurer but if you tried to take the companion outside the inn you could initiate dialogue but there would be no option to take him into the party, if you tried to initiate dialogue again with him it would read ‘(…) appears to be busy (maybe you should talk to him later)’. Once you do quests and are allowed for 3 in your group you could return and take him or create a second adventurer instead.

[Valorian]

 

@Valorian:

 

Okay, that's more-or-less what I had assumed, tho I phrased it in the reverse: a 5% XP penalty per party member after the player character.  So the balancing effect of split XP in the IE games could be emulated (somewhat at least) by simply increasing the percentage difference as you suggested, right?

 

 

 

Yes, it could be somewhat emulated, though 15% bonus is still a small amount in comparison to split XP:

 

5%:  6 people - 1000 xp   vs    solo - 1250 xp

 

15%: 6 people - 1000 xp   vs   solo - 1750 xp

 

split:  6 people - 1000 xp   vs   solo -  6000 xp

[Lychnidos]

How much experience you get solo compared to full party doesn't really matter that much since the game will have a level cap.

[Valorian]

Reaching higher levels sooner makes obstacles easier to overcome.

[Larkaloke]

 

Is the hard limit of eight total adventurers per game a true limit on the number created, or can one somehow delete previously created adventurers in that game after they have died in order to hire more? I am guessing the former from the phrasing, but would appreciate clarification nonetheless.

 

The limit is on eight active adventurers in a game.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying!

 

And? Why does it matter to anyone else if someone wants to play that way? Is stopping "cheaters" in a single-player game really worth preventing Utukka, IndiraLightfoot, Remmirath, myself, and others from playing in ways we enjoy?

If I understand correctly what is meant by "active", it won't actually be a problem for the way that I play (although clearly, I cannot speak for the others mentioned). So long as I can have five adventurers beyond the main character active and in the party at the same time, and may create more upon their deaths to replace them, I'm good. I'd be happier without the hiring fee, but it bothers me but very slightly; I can always write it off as some other associated cost if I don't want the new adventurer to have been, in character, hired.

 

I do, however, agree with you in that I don't care at all how anybody else wants to play in a single player game, and am not sure why one would. I suppose that there are some people who compulsively exploit any and all potential loopholes they find but would much rather not even have been able to do so, but I would think and hope that they are rather distinctly in the minority. Most people will simply not use a feature if they prefer to challenge themselves more or if they don't like it, and won't exploit a known loophole unless they actively want to do so.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Remmirath

[tobajas89]

How much experience you get solo compared to full party doesn't really matter that much since the game will have a level cap.

 

All the old IE games had XP caps aswell so I dont know what you mean by this?

[Labadal]

How much experience you get solo compared to full party doesn't really matter that much since the game will have a level cap.

It matters. For each character you add to the party, you get 5% less exp.

[Randomthom]

Side note; I'd love to see the option for the "old friend" at the adventurer's hall that you don't have to pay for but you also get no choice in their customisation and get an entirely randomly generated character. You could limit it to just one per playthrough so you can't still max out your party size too early.

[His Dudeness]

I've searched on the internet and the forums for an answer, but didn't find anything 'bout my question.

So here it is :

 

Is the a time limit on quests, particularly companions quests (BG I'm looking at you)?