Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I would think most people who are huge fans of the IE games, like myself, would want a 6 man party in the sequel to a nostalgia-targeting game that featured 6 man parties.  I've played through Pillars multiple times, and can't even bring myself to finish Tyranny, literally because it's too annoying leaving so many characters behind to gather dust at the home base. Also, the Tyranny combat is insultingly simple.

 

If they know 4 is too little, why wouldn't Obsidian just keep the MAX party size 6, and allow people to do what they did in Pillars 1, run with 1 to 6 characters as they prefer? Others in this thread already posted similar thoughts to this.

 

Obviously we haven't seen all the design details at this point, but I can see I'm not alone in thinking this is a glaring mistake.

 

If you are dead set on 5(mind boggingly), Obsidian, please allow the party size to be modded without too much trouble.

 

Honestly I feel a lot less excited about Pillars 2 after hearing about this. :(   (First world problems, I know)

 

Somewhat related request: mod/option for 6 man parties in Tyranny, while we're sort of on the subject. I don't even care how easy it would make the game, the combat is already simple. I just don't like leaving most of the team standing around, drooling on scrolls. I'm looking at you, Kills-in-Shadow!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really mind five-person party... as long as we don't have a total of six or seven companions in the game and have to arbitrarily leave one or two behind. ><

 

(It really killed me how we had effectively four companions in NWN2:MoTB but could only have take three in our party, forcing us to leave one behind for seemingly no reason. For PoE, before the expansion, we could bring 5/8 companions with us. Since I loved them all, having to arbitrarily leave 3 behind hurt my soul.)

  • Like 3

"Not I, though. Not I," said the hanging dwarf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of those things where on paper it looks like a big deal but when you play, it doesn't make or break your game.

 

Five characters doesn't change the fundamentals of building a party, doing a crapload of build tailoring, synergising different characters, putting them in formation, having different roles, etc., etc. Having played IE games and POE with parties of literally every size from 1 to 6, usually the change between 4/5/6 parties is one of degrees and not a qualitative change - e.g. it's the difference of comfortably giving yourself two front-line fighters or having one go hybrid, or rethinking your personal quirk of always having two mages. When you get down below that, you start having major shifts - e.g. having one character death be really significant, have to deal with the environment in combat differently because of the lack of bodies. Also, when you play a game that's designed for 2 or 3-man parties, there's a clear cut difference in degree of tactical complexity. That's not really the case when you're looking at 5 or 6-man; you might as well say that BG and POE were simplified Diablo clones already because they dropped from 8-man parties of some earlier RPGs. It's not like there's a linear progression and more party members means more complexity - and fundamentally you'd have to think the game system in POE2 is going to be closest to POE1.

 

As for "just make it player choice" arguments, you have to set a proper cap so you can balance literally everything from classes to encounter difficulty to health gain to damage to equipment to loot drop... basically everything in the game. That's why, for example, POE or IWD wasn't designed for 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 parties, it was designed for 6-man parties and then minor adjustments might be made for people who want to run 4-parties or solo. At some point they have to say, we think based on how all the different systems work 5 is the answer. (It's a popular misconception to think 'just make everything a choice and it's ok' - in that case you might as well let people run 12-man parties, or to let mages wear heavy armour in BG2, and simply remove every kind of restriction in every game.)

 

*shrug* once you start playing, you're not really going to notice if it's 5 or 6, because it's not like you're taking BG (a game designed for 6) and being forced to play with 5. You don't fire up Final Fantasy VII and say this would be so much better if I could take all 12 party members, and you don't say oh I wish there were only 2 so I don't have to leave anyone behind. What you do say is that the tactical complexity in a game like POE tends to be much higher due in part to large party sizes, not because it's the magical number 6 as if it could be even better with 8 or 12.

Edited by Tigranes
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tigranes, I didn't bother to mention parties larger than 6 because of the cries of horror it would cause, but that would be awesome, in my opinion. Base the combat around 6(like Pillars 1), and just leave party size uncapped, with experience penalties for parties larger than 6. That won't happen in this game, of course, but it makes about as much sense as arbitrarily saying in game, "oops, no room for you to walk next to myself and these 5 others, so stay home, interesting NPC we just met."  Dungeon Siege 1 had a setup similar to that; you could have 8 people, but experience was divided among them, making your individual characters weaker.  It's been awhile, but I am reasonably sure I remember the vanilla NWN2 campaign allowing your entire host of characters to accompany you at the end of the game, which I think was 10 total? I could be confusing that with another game, it's been like 10+ years.  Your slippery slope argument of no restrictions is a bit of a stretch, considering the previous game in the Pillars series went with 6, and it seemed to be alright. :)

 

From the limited info we have, apparently they caved to pressure from people who felt overwhelmed by six characters for the previous game, and dropped it down. Personally I think it's a mistake, because it most certainly will lead to simplified combat in Pillars 2; just look at Tyranny's combat design.  As you say in the end of your post, larger parties can help add tactical complexity, which some of us are actually hoping for.

 

If they are dead set on 5, I'm just hoping for easy modability. If it's still up in the air, count me as a vote for the classic 6 person party.

 

At least for me, I will DEFINITELY notice 5 instead of 6... and shed bitter, ocd nerd tears as I try to keep my lower lip from trembling at the shame of it all. Odd... numbered... party...less...than..6...don't cry, don't cry...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncapped really doesn't make sense - game balance would completely break down, and it would only satisfy a tiny number of super-obsessed guys who can't bear to leave a single companion home even if it means playing a broken game. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having your weird quirks while playing video games, but we can't expect the games themselves to be able to cater to all of them.

 

Anyway, sure, it's much more reasonable to argue, "what was wrong with six in POE1, we like six." I don't know why they think 5 is a good number this time. I wouldn't even necessarily argue for 5 - I'd probably go for 4 or 6 if it was my call. All I wanted to point out was that 6->5 doesn't really massively change the tactical complexity, so it shouldn't ruin the game for most people.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing it does impact is using the npc's for role playing/quest reasons. That's my only issue - if you are going to have 11 companions then only being able to take 5 is a problem. If however, there are only going to be 7 or 8 options to bring along then 5 would be fine.

  • Like 1

"Those who look upon gods then say, without even knowing their names, 'He is Fire. She is Dance. He is Destruction. She is Love.' So, to reply to your statement, they do not call themselves gods. Everyone else does, though, everyone who beholds them."
"So they play that on their fascist banjos, eh?"
"You choose the wrong adjective."
"You've already used up all the others.”

 

Lord of Light

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the main issue here is not

  • "I want a party of six, because I'm used to it, and the battles will be less interesting"

but

  • "I want a party of six, because the more companions I have, the more quest/banter/interactions content I see"

 

I get that feeling too, but backed this game anyway. This is Obsidian, and they deliver, so have some trust.

  • Like 6

It would be of small avail to talk of magic in the air...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with this as long as there will be smaller companions roster and combat is revised and balanced properly for 5 people team. I'd rather have a roster of ~8 companions with more things to say and more quests to give than to have 11+ shallow companions with 2 lines of text for every class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the main issue here is not

  • "I want a party of six, because I'm used to it, and the battles will be less interesting"

but

  • "I want a party of six, because the more companions I have, the more quest/banter/interactions content I see"

 

I get that feeling too, but backed this game anyway. This is Obsidian, and they deliver, so have some trust.

Yeah that's my concern - quest/story related. I'd be really happy if they seriously limited the amount of companions available. I'd be ecstatic if there where only 4 really well written and integrated into the story companions, though I realize that other people might not be that fond of the idea.

"Those who look upon gods then say, without even knowing their names, 'He is Fire. She is Dance. He is Destruction. She is Love.' So, to reply to your statement, they do not call themselves gods. Everyone else does, though, everyone who beholds them."
"So they play that on their fascist banjos, eh?"
"You choose the wrong adjective."
"You've already used up all the others.”

 

Lord of Light

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always though 5 people is the best party. 6 is ok, just reminds me more about Baldur's Gates. Also +1 companion is always nice storywise when you have to see 11 stories :p

Though, for some reason, I have the feeling this will have fewer companions.

And at least it's not that annoying 4!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you have to understand that: another checkbox to fixing trash mobs is to reduce party size. As long as we have more options (than first game) for idle members I think It is a necessary change.

Edited by ruzen

Kana - "Sorry. It seems I'm not very good at raising spirits." Kana winces. "That was unintentional."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never played a RPG with a party size of five. I've found that 4 is extremely limiting and above 6 the team starts to lose identity.

So 5 might truly work in the end... I'm not sure, but I want to trust them on this.

It saddens me a bit, because I already have troubles leaving companions behind in PoE.

 

I believe that - thanks to multiclassing - we won't have the issue of filling all the roles, but at the same time we will have a reduced party size to experience the personal quests/interactions/banter of the companions. That's the only part that annoys me a bit.

 

Still, if the party of five means that the bond between the party members will be much relevant, with more focus on personal relations/quests/feelings, I'm totally fine with it.

Edér, I am using WhatsApp!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it was NWN2, standard party size was 5 and liked it a lot. Also, WoW had a 5-party limit which also worked well. Thing is with 5 party members you get the classic (from WoW and on I suppose :p ) formation: tank, damage, dagame, damage, heal, but you can also experiment with other builds without being limited that much (4 members suck!) and helps for more interesting encounter design. I truly believe so.

 

- "But; in the Infinity Engine games..." >_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of those things where on paper it looks like a big deal but when you play, it doesn't make or break your game.

 

Five characters doesn't change the fundamentals of building a party, doing a crapload of build tailoring, synergising different characters, putting them in formation, having different roles, etc., etc. Having played IE games and POE with parties of literally every size from 1 to 6, usually the change between 4/5/6 parties is one of degrees and not a qualitative change - e.g. it's the difference of comfortably giving yourself two front-line fighters or having one go hybrid, or rethinking your personal quirk of always having two mages. When you get down below that, you start having major shifts - e.g. having one character death be really significant, have to deal with the environment in combat differently because of the lack of bodies. Also, when you play a game that's designed for 2 or 3-man parties, there's a clear cut difference in degree of tactical complexity. That's not really the case when you're looking at 5 or 6-man; you might as well say that BG and POE were simplified Diablo clones already because they dropped from 8-man parties of some earlier RPGs. It's not like there's a linear progression and more party members means more complexity - and fundamentally you'd have to think the game system in POE2 is going to be closest to POE1.

 

As for "just make it player choice" arguments, you have to set a proper cap so you can balance literally everything from classes to encounter difficulty to health gain to damage to equipment to loot drop... basically everything in the game. That's why, for example, POE or IWD wasn't designed for 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 parties, it was designed for 6-man parties and then minor adjustments might be made for people who want to run 4-parties or solo. At some point they have to say, we think based on how all the different systems work 5 is the answer. (It's a popular misconception to think 'just make everything a choice and it's ok' - in that case you might as well let people run 12-man parties, or to let mages wear heavy armour in BG2, and simply remove every kind of restriction in every game.)

 

*shrug* once you start playing, you're not really going to notice if it's 5 or 6, because it's not like you're taking BG (a game designed for 6) and being forced to play with 5. You don't fire up Final Fantasy VII and say this would be so much better if I could take all 12 party members, and you don't say oh I wish there were only 2 so I don't have to leave anyone behind. What you do say is that the tactical complexity in a game like POE tends to be much higher due in part to large party sizes, not because it's the magical number 6 as if it could be even better with 8 or 12.

Plenty of people noticed the 4 man limit in Tyranny, of course, this was amongst the other more.. glaring issues with the combat.

 

I don't really look at it as a "oh I have to leave them behind", but only as a worry that they may take even more from Tyranny (obviously in this case the "bad" or "simplified" things). Things I think most people would rather not be taken, with multiclassing it bridges the gap between class specific and classless, and instead of 4 or 6 we get 5. I already am wary about how well multiclassing will work, and I take this reduction as a necessary decision because of it, rather than a magical right choice of finding its way.

 

We all know the balancing definitely took a while to come, and in Tyranny it may never be there, being the ultimate mage archer and fighter there was is something we all know people have been trying to prevent for years.

 

It seems multiclassing necessitates that you reduce the party size down, and may intertwine with this, but whether it ends up being good or bad probably isn't something to be discussed considering the game hasn't even begun alpha yet. They made two decisions that while not directly taking the actual simplified systems in Tyranny, seem to be a bridge a gap between those and the "complexish" systems in Pillars. I think as with most cases, the players who like being given the most challenge will notice it the most being the most use to every mechanic and their own quirks on how to manage them.

 

An edit, I see quite a bit of "well this game only had x amount of characters and it was fine!!!!" comments. And I think it is very unfair to compare games with vastly different combat systems, and visions to one of this nature. You could of course make that argument for many different features  "x game had a voiced protag and it turned out fine". Some things can go against the core of the game vision, even if those games share a genre.

Edited by Tarbomb
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NWN2 had a party size of 4. The PC and 3 companions.

I think it may have increased for a while when Shandra Jerro joined you.

You're right, I believe. It wasn't for very long, though. She became a normal companion for a bit after that iirc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

NWN2 had a party size of 4. The PC and 3 companions.

I think it may have increased for a while when Shandra Jerro joined you.

You're right, I believe. It wasn't for very long, though. She became a normal companion for a bit after that iirc.

 

I believe it was you +4 and then, for story reasons, it got down to 4 and up to 7. But I might be wrong and this isn't the point of the thread so better leave it here, no? :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty disappointed with this change. I guess it will make things more "manageable" but I think it would've been fine since they are already doing slower combat speed and the improved graphics will probably mean a much greater clarity. 

Managing the 6 player party in PoE was really fun in my opinion and while it could certainly become chaotic in some places, yeah... I think there are other improvements that could've helped with that.

 

Still, not a deal breaker for me. And like someone mentioned, I hope it's not a sign that they'll take pointers from Tyranny's combat which was quite awful I think.

Listen to my home-made recordings (some original songs, some not): http://www.youtube.c...low=grid&view=0

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...