Not playing the beta (I don't use Steam), but I watched:

 

 

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

 

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

 

Level 1 Adventurer 1000cp

Level 2 Adventurer 2000cp

Level 3 Adventurer 3000cp

Level 4 Adventurer 4000cp

 

Is that still the case in the current beta?

 

If so... It costs a minimum 5000cp to create a full party?  Unless it rains coins in Dyrwood, that seems damn expensive.  You could rest 25 times in the most expensive room in the inn for that amount.

 

030cp The Old Stables

120cp Wurm's Nest

150cp Drake's Den

200cp Dragon's Lair

 

How about an option to say:

 

"I'm looking for an old friend."

 

to which the innkeeper could respond:

 

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

 

Is that too much to ask?

 

Pacing is not an excuse: The number of companions could be limited by level if pacing absolutely required some kind of limitation (which I doubt).

 

Nor is ignorance of player desire to roleplay a group of adventurers rather than hire mercenaries an excuse:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61516-the-adventurers-hall-should-not-be-a-money-sink/

 

Nor is "realism" an excuse:

 

Maybe a rogue wants to join me because I offer them a suit of Shiny Chainmail of Awesomeness.  Or because I'm a famed adventurer.  Or maybe I'm just charming as hell.  Who knows?  Why enforce some arbitrary fee?

 

What good reason is there to screw players that want to build a custom party?

I'm not sure how the adventurer's hall works, but I'll also play with some custom characters. Personally, I think using it as a money sink is OK as long as there's enough money in the first place!

Without any info on how scarce or plentiful money is, this is kind of pointless to discuss.

 

5k might be a major loss, or spare change.

Getting free adventurer mercs to throw to their deaths is a very easy way to become degenerate gameplay.

^ I excite.

Bear in mind that it's a beta. It exists to be examined, criticized, and refined - not to immediately fulfill all of our wildest dreams.

 

You get a default Rogue/Wizard/Cleric/Fighter party because the Obsidian devs want to be sure that people are testing classes against what should be a fairly generic, balanced background party (and because they want to be sure that the default 4 are indeed a balanced party). The Adventurer's Hall isn't so much there to give you a bajillion options as it is to make sure that it works. And if it really bugs a player, that's what the console is for.

 

Getting free adventurer mercs to throw to their deaths is a very easy way to become degenerate gameplay.

 

Letting you trigger a script exactly 4 times, however, is not.

I'm more concerned with what impact it has on the story, because you'd think that premade characters will have more depth to them, right? Or am I on the wrong wavelength?

I'm more concerned with what impact it has on the story, because you'd think that premade characters will have more depth to them, right? Or am I on the wrong wavelength?

 

No party chat in the beta.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67960-adventurers-hall-questions-a-little-extra/

 

Read through. Has a bit more detail for ya on the matter.

@Utukka:

 

Thanks! I somehow didn't see that thread in the search results, or I used a phrase that didn't return it, or something. Appreciate the pointer.

 

Getting free adventurer mercs to throw to their deaths is a very easy way to become degenerate gameplay.

Flimsy excuse. See my reply to Sawyer in the thread Utukka linked.

Yup, design decisions are made entirely troll players.

 

*eye roll*

@Bryy:

 

At this point, I could almost believe that...

@Utukka:

 

Thanks! I somehow didn't see that thread in the search results, or I used a phrase that didn't return it, or something. Appreciate the pointer.

 

Getting free adventurer mercs to throw to their deaths is a very easy way to become degenerate gameplay.

Flimsy excuse. See my reply to Sawyer in the thread Utukka linked.

 

I saw it, now here's my response:

 

1) Josh Sawyer has not at all been above limiting player freedom in order to achieve game balance. Expect lots of things to be limiting for balance sake.

 

2) Free companions would totally break the game. I could just hire 5 five guys and throw them at any tough encounter with little thought put into it. Since their survival wouldn't be concern; suicide attacks would be incredibly OP. Making most of the combat mechanics & quests pointless.

 

3) Creating your own team is going to be more effective than using the allies Obsidian gives you. So it's worth the gold.

 

4) For those who care; free companions is lore breaking.

 

 

If so... It costs a minimum 5000cp to create a full party?  Unless it rains coins in Dyrwood, that seems damn expensive.  You could rest 25 times in the most expensive room in the inn for that amount.

 

5000 cp doesn't seem to be a lot of money going by the beta actually. I get more than that after selling all the unused equipment from Medreth's group.

2) Free companions would totally break the game. I could just hire 5 five guys and throw them at any tough encounter with little thought put into it. Since their survival wouldn't be concern; suicide attacks would be incredibly OP. Making most of the combat mechanics & quests pointless.

 

Unless they were free and limited in number. Or is that unfeasible?

The money is a pittance, I'll be using in-game NPCs rather than blank templates anyway, you could do it in IWD and suicide attacks will still involve going back and forth from the inn which if you're abusing the game in that way is your own problem.

 

I have to say I find this to be a total non-issue whichever way it goes.

Unless they were free and limited in number. Or is that unfeasible?

 

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 actually really like your idea about finding the "old friend."

 

It makes more lore sense, too, and would be awesome for people who want to get an early adventurer to customize. 

 

Unless they were free and limited in number. Or is that unfeasible?

 

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?

Edited September 22, 201411 yr by Utukka

 

 

Unless they were free and limited in number. Or is that unfeasible?

 

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.

Considering just how strong a player-optimized character is compared to an NPC one (provided they dont have NPC-exclusive abilities) and considering that +1 adventurer has serious balance implications I think its fine if adventurers cost a bucketload of money to hire. The price isnt set in stone though.

Also dont think of it as penalization, its like purchasing a new weapon instead of using the ones that drop from mobs.

 

Somewhere Sawyer said that early game the content is made for a 6 member party so it would make sense to prevent you from steamrolling everything with 8 party members, which is the max. You may agree or disagree with that design, especially if you like the BG munchkin style of party building which amounts to "bumrush through everything, not killing anything to get all your party members ASAP before they get to level 2 and have their hp pools ruined". Not to start an xp debate here but with quest-progression-only xp you dont have to fear engaging in combat for wanting to keep as low a level as possible. But we dont know how companion NPC levels and accesability is going to be so theres that to ponder.

 

Im personally hoping for a full-companion party from the start as oposed to having 5 silent protagonists + 3 companions. Then again I dont know how much companion banter there is if at all. Would be nice to get a companion to test in the backer beta area.

Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale (both cited as being inspiration for Pillars of Eternity's design goals) allowed players to create party members at will, for no cost. I don't ever, in all the years I have been playing these games and reading about them on online forums, recall someone stating that using these freely generated characters as meatshields, or in a "kamikaze" manner was exploitative. I don't think that has ever even come up. Am I wrong? Why is that not the case here? 

 

 

 

Unless they were free and limited in number. Or is that unfeasible?

 

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.

Edited September 22, 201411 yr by Utukka

Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale (both cited as being inspiration for Pillars of Eternity's design goals) allowed players to create party members at will, for no cost. I don't ever, in all the years I have been playing these games and reading about them on online forums, recall someone stating that using these freely generated characters as meatshields, or in a "kamikaze" manner was exploitative. I don't think that has ever even come up. Am I wrong? Why is that not the case here? 

Couldn't you only create them in the beginning of the game? Whereas here you pick them up part way though? I think it's kind of cool that you can pick them up within the context of the story and personally have no problem shelling out money for them, though I also would have no problem with the player having a leadership value which would determine the number of people who could accompany them.

2 important differences Zitchiok:

 

There's a difference between a multiplayer mode allowing you to bring in new characters at will, appearing out of the ether in a most lore-breaking way... and the singleplayer mode letting you just have tons of free companions as an in-game thing. It goes back to the removing exploits thing - exploits and cheats that require going outside of the game rules are fine to leave in a game, but a good designer should design a self contained system that is internally consistent. Or to put it another way, there should be a clear line between playing the game as it was intended to be played and "cheating". Not that there's anything wrong with cheating in a singleplayer game, but there should be a line.

 

Also, the player created companions in the IE games were always lvl 1. So there's that.