Only five party members?

[Monara]

 

Lower difficulty doesn't change how many abilities you have to manage on your party of 6 characters, it just means you can do more mistakes and not get wiped in 10 seconds. 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean mistakes like... not managing all abilities... and still winning? How is that any different from intentionally not managing them?

[Aotrs Commander]

 

I think it's also notable that PoE's "slow" combat speed is the new default. The more D&D 3.x/4E ish set-up of everyone having abilities or spells (and less reliance on just auto-attack) must perforce make everything more compliacted (not just from out end, but from the AI and party AI end). So that would suggest a tacit admission that there was more management than many people were expecting. (I ended up running the whole game on Slow because otherwise I had to have it pauses every second or two. At slow, I could run it more ar real-time.)

 

So when entering combat and the game pauses it also slows down to "Slow", no matter the speed ("Normal" or "Fast") you had enabled prior to engagement?

Hope they give us the option to adjust that to our liking instead of having to manually speed up things EVERY TIME you enter combat.

 

 

For what I gather, the default "normal" combat speed is now what was before "slow", and apparently with the option to increase the speed as before (presumably the new "fast" is the old "normal.") One presumes the speed toggle is exactly the same functionality as it was before, except they've changed the baseline of what "normal" was.

 

So if you always played on "slow" you would now play at normal, and if you played on "normal" you have the option to play on "fast."

 

(Whether they have a new "slow" or what would have been "fast" in PoE ("fastest?")I don't know.)

[Sedrefilos]

It just occurred to me that this game might be the first one of its type that actually offers a credible in-world rationale for why you can't just take all your friends along.  Maybe the player's boat only fits 5 passengers! 

Like you can't get two boats?

There'll never be a reasonable explanation for party size. Just design purposes

[Sedrefilos]

Here's a thought:

 

Have a ranger in your party and BAM, animal companion is the 6th in the lineup.

 

Genius.

You know what's vene more genious? Make a party of 5 rangers! BAM 10 party members! In you face purists!

[Silent Winter]

I recall a BG2 playthrough where I only used 4 party members (PC-Thief, Korgan, Edwin, Viconia) - mostly because they were the only available evil NPCs (I know I could've added Jan as a neutral, but I didn't need another thief).  It was a fun playthrough, though I still added

sarevok

to make it 5 in TOB.

I still played the full 6 every other time - more character interaction and RP options are better IMO.

[mothra]

I hope 5 brings more party interactions occuring and more complex ones (3 to 4 way banter and maybe even feuds).

I don't really care about logical explanations ingame why the partysize is 1-100000, it is the restriction the designers set for their game and then balanced around it.

This is why ppl like to solo games on the hardest diff, restrictions (selfimposed or dev-designed) are good.

There was nothing exceptionally tactical for me about the 15 trash mobs + 2 real enemies +1 boss fights in POE imo, 

it was just tedious clicking around and pausing, pausing, pausing looking at some recovery bars refreshing and some occasional repositioning and finding the right pixel to click.

The most rewarding part on hard/potd for me was reading the bestiary, scouting out enemies beforehand and then equipping the right spells/weapons/items. Prioritizing targets ,

those kind of things.

The fight itself felt more like turn-based with some real time between them on higher diffs. After one playthrough like this I just switched to normal and afk-ed with party AI on.

And that party AI .... omg, it was hillarious, characters jerking back and forth, running in circles or charging through 6 disengagement attacks.

Just like the campfire. There is nothing tactical or challenging about it, you just had to go more times to the inn or not.

[kanisatha]

My unhappiness with this could be assuaged if they make it so that any "required" NPC that has to be taken along for a quest will not take up one of the five party slots.

[Ashen Rohk]

Reducing the party size by one in what is a party-base RPG should get us to think about our party compositions a little bit more. What is very interesting is that it could push people to make decisions about the CHARACTER that they have in the party, as opposed to the class. I loved Eder as a character, but I was never won over on the Fighter class. But, because he's so great he stayed in the party.

 

Just how conversely Ciphers are awesome, but I could never really connect with Grieving Mother.

 

So, do you want the combat excellence or a bit of character flavour? Pushes you to make that choice a little more I think.

[Volourn]

Wow.

[Rolandur]

Five or six, doesn't matter to me because they'll just balance the game for how ever many we can have in the party. Friendly Fire on the other hand must be an option that is part of a challenge level (be it PotD or an Expert setting that can not be turned off once a game has started). I understand this is small fries for some of you but it really would be the true deal breaker for me if it was not included with this game; yes I want FF and I understand why some don't.

 

Sorry, I already feel defensive about this feature being I'm not seeing anything about it yet.

[desel]

Five or six, doesn't matter to me because they'll just balance the game for how ever many we can have in the party. Friendly Fire on the other hand must be an option that is part of a challenge level (be it PotD or an Expert setting that can not be turned off once a game has started). I understand this is small fries for some of you but it really would be the true deal breaker for me if it was not included with this game; yes I want FF and I understand why some don't.

 

Sorry, I already feel defensive about this feature being I'm not seeing anything about it yet.

 

From the PCGamesN summary:

 

"Combat-wise, Pillars II is set to offer a little more tactical challenge than its predecessor - which was, frankly, more than tough enough for anyone without a solid grounding in the Infinity Engine games of old."

 

Doesn't sound like they're doing away with anything, including friendly fire, but instead are going to make combat even more challenging(?).

[Rolandur]

 

Five or six, doesn't matter to me because they'll just balance the game for how ever many we can have in the party. Friendly Fire on the other hand must be an option that is part of a challenge level (be it PotD or an Expert setting that can not be turned off once a game has started). I understand this is small fries for some of you but it really would be the true deal breaker for me if it was not included with this game; yes I want FF and I understand why some don't.

 

Sorry, I already feel defensive about this feature being I'm not seeing anything about it yet.

 

From the PCGamesN summary:

 

"Combat-wise, Pillars II is set to offer a little more tactical challenge than its predecessor - which was, frankly, more than tough enough for anyone without a solid grounding in the Infinity Engine games of old."

 

Doesn't sound like they're doing away with anything, including friendly fire, but instead are going to make combat even more challenging(?).

 

 

 

This is good news to hear and very much enjoyed combat in PoE1 (including the 40 minute battles sometimes; lol). With that said the combat isn't want I'd like more challenging so long as nothing is really removed (FF being top choice to carry over). I'd like to see other types of mechanics and options added to the game to make gameplay more of a challenge:

 

• No initial, always updated, map system
  • Maps can occasionally be found as part of treasure or commonly bought from vendors for a price. The more rare the more expensive.
    • Maps never show your position (no GPS)
    • Dungeon maps are only part of treasure
    • Caveat: I do not believe adventures should be cartographers (basically, no vocations/trade skills for characters! They are adventures unless it's directly required for game mechanics; see Vocations below for more).
• No quick travel. In terms of this game, at least, that would mean two things: going to different area must directly linked to the origin area (no skipped 2+ areas and simply adding travel time) and the area you wish to travel to must be adjacent to the border of the area traveled to.
• Darkness in dungeons: light source in hand is beneficial. Not having light source would NOT make the screen dark or hard to see but instead just make the fog of war closer to the party or character [if they wander off by themselves] without a light source.
• Creatures always re-spawn over time in all areas; native monsters and animals. Not specific story/lore NPC's [if killed or left the area] just to be clear.
• Stash is a physical object and we must travel there to use it
  • Multiple stash locations are not tied together (if more then one location; base of operations)
• We never know an NPC's name until they give it to us (we ask) or there's a reason we know it (ex. Barek's Armory and Tidbits)
• Any found spell can be researched
  • Research: spells added to a Grimoire take in-game days (Spell Level = amount of days) to research and add to spellbooks. Because actually doing the act of researching would be boring this would just be a mechanic of click-to-learn, and in X amount of days it would be scribed to the Grimoire.
  • Spells of higher level than the caster could be learned as well but with a delta between the spell level and caster would be added to the research time. Ex: a 1st level wizard could learn a 3rd level spell but it would take 5 (3 [spell level] + 2 [delta]) days to learn.
  • Researching spells higher than the caster level costs exponentially more.
  • Casting spells higher than the caster level has potential to fizzle, backfire on the caster, or cause system shock. Scaling hazard mechanic based on delta.
• Not resting after X amount of time has detrimental effects similar to the current Injury (from knock outs) system in PoE1. No their shoulder doesn't pop out of place because they're tired. =)
• Friendly fire also includes ranged characters having a small chance to hit front-line characters on Misses and two handed weapon wielders also having a small chance of hitting nearby characters on Misses. Normal casting FF rules apply (no additional penalties for 'ranged casting').
  • Dexterity and Perception lower, and eventually negate, these small chances of being hit (reflex) on the defenders part when a Miss of the initial target happens and/or based on the Accuracy of the wielder that Misses the initial target.

[morhilane]

 

Five or six, doesn't matter to me because they'll just balance the game for how ever many we can have in the party. Friendly Fire on the other hand must be an option that is part of a challenge level (be it PotD or an Expert setting that can not be turned off once a game has started). I understand this is small fries for some of you but it really would be the true deal breaker for me if it was not included with this game; yes I want FF and I understand why some don't.

 

Sorry, I already feel defensive about this feature being I'm not seeing anything about it yet.

 

From the PCGamesN summary:

 

"Combat-wise, Pillars II is set to offer a little more tactical challenge than its predecessor - which was, frankly, more than tough enough for anyone without a solid grounding in the Infinity Engine games of old."

 

Doesn't sound like they're doing away with anything, including friendly fire, but instead are going to make combat even more challenging(?).

 

 

More tactically challenging, which might not result in a more difficult game. Josh already talked about better counter effects for example.

[Quillon]

I wonder what would be the party limit if we're gonna have a ship that houses all companions and it gets attacked by another ship or sea monster? Like if we have 5 story companions and 5 more custom companions on board when it got attacked...would we have party of 11? or 5? while the other 6 sleeps or whatever.

 

Yeah, very hypothetical.

[evilcat]

I wonder what would be the party limit if we're gonna have a ship that houses all companions and it gets attacked by another ship or sea monster? Like if we have 5 story companions and 5 more custom companions on board when it got attacked...would we have party of 11? or 5? while the other 6 sleeps or whatever.

 

Yeah, very hypothetical.

The rest fights under the deck, lol.

[morhilane]

I wonder what would be the party limit if we're gonna have a ship that houses all companions and it gets attacked by another ship or sea monster? Like if we have 5 story companions and 5 more custom companions on board when it got attacked...would we have party of 11? or 5? while the other 6 sleeps or whatever.

 

Yeah, very hypothetical.

 

That will most probably work like fights in the Stronghold in POE1. Your party stay at 5, but you got a bunch of allied NPCs around you that still get affected by your buffs and healing, you just don't order them around.

[Archaven]

Reducing the party size by one in what is a party-base RPG should get us to think about our party compositions a little bit more. What is very interesting is that it could push people to make decisions about the CHARACTER that they have in the party, as opposed to the class. I loved Eder as a character, but I was never won over on the Fighter class. But, because he's so great he stayed in the party.

 

Just how conversely Ciphers are awesome, but I could never really connect with Grieving Mother.

 

So, do you want the combat excellence or a bit of character flavour? Pushes you to make that choice a little more I think.

 

Same applies with 4 characters.. heck even 3 characters!. So by that theory.. we should go with 3 then?. It's not making us to think. It's more restrictive. There are couple of personal favorites and you dont want them out. But let's say for your 2nd or 3rd playthrough you can't simply because the boat isn't big enough. 6 is the magic number so that you can bring few that were your favorites and mix in say 1-2 new ones with the new party. With 6 party members.. if you so "feel' that you wished that you wanted 5 characters so that you can push yourself further about decisions the character in the party, you still CAN!. You can restrict yourself with 5.. we don't need devs to restrict us.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Archaven

[Andraste]

My main problem with five party members is that if this is anything like POE1, I'm going to want to have a fighter and a priest in the party at all times. Since none of my Watchers are fighters and only one is a priest, that doesn't leave much room for companions of other classes.

 

Oh, well. Just as well I love Edér. (And hiring priest NPCs, because two runs with Durance was enough for me.)

[Eurhetemec]

Same applies with 4 characters.. heck even 3 characters!. So by that theory.. we should go with 3 then?. It's not making us to think. It's more restrictive. There are couple of personal favorites and you dont want them out. But let's say for your 2nd or 3rd playthrough you can't simply because the boat isn't big enough. 6 is the magic number so that you can bring few that were your favorites and mix in say 1-2 new ones with the new party. With 6 party members.. if you so "feel' that you wished that you wanted 5 characters so that you can push yourself further about decisions the character in the party, you still CAN!. You can restrict yourself with 5.. we don't need devs to restrict us.

 

It's actually not the same with every size, because the underlying class/role system limits how far you can shrink things at some point.

 

And that's exactly what the Devs said - they feel five is the size where you are both more constrained so make choices more, and where you can still use all the class/roles properly.

 

The problem I have is that I don't really like "all companions" parties, and the smaller you make the party, the less viable it is for you to not take the official companions. It's not a huge issue, but I feel like they're going to have to take more care with the out-of-party leveling and stuff than they did with Pillars 1, and also may want to look at letting us have "required" companions tag along as a non-controlled 6th character on their quests.

 

It does allow them to make each class more mechanically complex, though.

[Archaven]

I don't buy what devs said. It's just plain excuse. Do i need devs to restrict how the way i play the game? Folks can play with how many characters they want. 5? 4? Heck even 1 for those who want to go solo. The opposite isn't the same for people who want the default old school 6-party characters. Perhaps they wanted it 4 actually just like Tyranny and it flopped hard. So they just have to add 1 back in. With lesser.. it's actually easier and more simplified for devs in terms of tweaking and balancing combats due to new multiclassing/subclassing issues perhaps? So if DnD ruleset is doable but PoE ruleset cant? To put it blandly, it's dumbed down.

 

And the most shadiest of all.. this wasn't reveal in the campaign pitch when it first goes live. For me personally shrinking from 6 to 5 is really a big disappointment.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Archaven

[Eurhetemec]

I don't buy what devs said. It's just plain excuse. Do i need devs to restrict how the way i play the game? Folks can play with how many characters they want. 5? 4? Heck even 1 for those who want to go solo. The opposite isn't the same for people who want the default old school 6-party characters. Perhaps they wanted it 4 actually just like Tyranny and it flopped hard. So they just have to add 1 back in. With lesser.. it's actually easier and more simplified for devs in terms of tweaking and balancing combats due to new multiclassing/subclassing issues perhaps? So if DnD ruleset is doable but PoE ruleset cant? Too but it blandly, it's dumbed down.

 

I don't think you're making much sense here, dude.

 

You seem to be saying the devs are maliciously and needlessly reducing the number of characters. That isn't realistic or likely. They are not out to get you or ruin your fun. They're out to make a game that is popular and sells copies.

[Guest Blutwurstritter]

I hope they change the class system such that priests are no longer a "requirement" (I know that it is possible to beat the game without a priest but it certainly is more of a hassle compared to skipping other classes). Other classes could be substituted for each other, like paladins, fighters, rangers, rogues could all fill a similar slot,  while priests felt like the only one that no other class could replace. If they reduce the party size to five i hope that they change their system in such a way that every combination of character is viable independent of their class. 

[Archaven]

 

I don't buy what devs said. It's just plain excuse. Do i need devs to restrict how the way i play the game? Folks can play with how many characters they want. 5? 4? Heck even 1 for those who want to go solo. The opposite isn't the same for people who want the default old school 6-party characters. Perhaps they wanted it 4 actually just like Tyranny and it flopped hard. So they just have to add 1 back in. With lesser.. it's actually easier and more simplified for devs in terms of tweaking and balancing combats due to new multiclassing/subclassing issues perhaps? So if DnD ruleset is doable but PoE ruleset cant? Too but it blandly, it's dumbed down.

 

I don't think you're making much sense here, dude.

 

You seem to be saying the devs are maliciously and needlessly reducing the number of characters. That isn't realistic or likely. They are not out to get you or ruin your fun. They're out to make a game that is popular and sells copies.

 

 

I think it's not me that's not making sense. It's Obsidian. First PoE has 6 and now the second has 5.

I can't fathom sense in "constrained" and "more choices". When you are constrained, you can't have more choices but lesser.

 

There's a reason why number of characters were reduced. Just like in Tyranny with 4 and with friendly fire. Are we on the same  hypetrain about positioning and tactical battles matter or about button mashing ala Dragon Age Inquisition?

 

Anyhow i'm not here to argue with folks about their thoughts and opinions. I'm here to voiced mine. Hopefully there will be folks out there that's good enough to make a mod for 6 party characters when the game's out? Now.. let's pray Obsidian don't try their best to bar modding community from doing so. Then everyone can play with 6 party characters... and then judge what was the underlying issues of going 5 or lesser for themselves!. Shall we? I'm a programmer myself.. perhaps i have too much logic that i'm not making sense. But my wild guesses is about the balancing and tweaking of the combat. 6 party characters can be making the game much easier for veterans i supposed.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Archaven

[theBalthazar]

Or ...

 

There is one or many  "Shandra" character. (Nwn 2)

 

= A character imposed for the STORY...? (Sixth character overall)

 

So 1 main + 4 characters (can be custom) + 1 slot for scenario character ?

 

It is interresting for mastering the scenario and create surprises.

Edited January 28, 2017 by theBalthazar

[PIP-Clownboy]

5 member party is a disaster for this genre. I just hope Obsidian leaves it moddable so future IE mod 2.0 can fix it.