Poll on preferred party size

[Ignatius]

* Changed how visual effects render so they are much less likely to blow out the scene.

 

This is all I care about, and I suspect having 5 characters will aid in reducing this issue. In the later stages of WM, and on higher difficulties (more enemies) fights could really turn into a bewildering mess of particle effects, particularly at the start where everyone launches their buffs at the same time.

 

So I guess I'm happy about the change, though I understand the appeal of having a big adventuring party. I mean, big as in +1 larger...

Edited February 7, 2017 by Ignatius

[Lord_Mord]

I voted for 6, but I can also live with 5. But not 4!

Edited February 7, 2017 by Lord_Mord

[Archaven]

 

* Changed how visual effects render so they are much less likely to blow out the scene.

 

This is all I care about, and I suspect having 5 characters will aid in reducing this issue. In the later stages of WM, and on higher difficulties (more enemies) fights could really turn into a bewildering mess of particle effects, particularly at the start where everyone launches their buffs at the same time.

 

So I guess I'm happy about the change, though I understand the appeal of having a big adventuring party. I mean, big as in +1 larger...

 

 

Changed how visual effects render so they are much less likely to blow off the scene. This should be the correct approach if this is the main issue instead of reducing the party characters to said 5. If we go with reduction, then 4 is obviously better. But even with 4, it's hard to manage the number of visual effects on screen if let's say i make a party of 4 multi-class characters that all have plentiful of spells/skills. Or they really have to reduce the number of active spells or skills significantly this time around?. I don't really like skills/spells to be reduced either. 

 

I think most noticeable issue would be static visual effects such as on-going fire on the ground, buff/debuff abilities that visually appear in characters, etc. Also, one of the issues they were trying to address probably would be the pace of the combat. If people still look at combat log or they want players to look at it, then i'm not sure how are they going to address it. Are they going to make haste that increase attack speed for a short duration obsolete? Because of many actions in the combat log, things would probably be scrolled super fast which makes reading the combat log pointless. Otherwise, they can make the combat log to be shown individually for characters to increase readability.

 

With a much slower pace, combat would more likely resemble like turn-based this time around? If that's the case, then having more characters will actually make battles longer and hence reduction of the party character. If this is the case, then 4 is actually the best.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Archaven

[amazeing4art]

I totally support the change to 5 characters. It will increase replayability, it will reduce party micromanagement needs during fights, and it will declutter party movement during combat. And it will help with inventory management and equipment overflow and gearing choices. I have read people's posts in favor of keeping it 6 but I think they can't really know what they will want until they actually see and play with 5. Only the devs are in a position to be able to compare the benefits of 5 vs. 6 characters right now. They did an awesome job with Pillars and the expansions, lets trust them about this. You may find that the devs are very good at their job, which (to paraphrase Steve Jobs) really is to give players what they don't know they want yet.

 

Also there is something a little magical about odd numbers for social groups... 3 people and 5 people are better than 4 or 6 in the real world if you are getting together with your friends. An odd number also is better for any kind of decision making in meetings. All these things carry over subconsciously into a game world I think. There is research that shows that odd-number groups of people have advantages, such as https://www.fastcompany.com/1193130/could-your-team-be-more-effective-odd-man-out

[Naurgalen]

I prefer 6 because:

 

- Lore: It means more companion time. When every companion I have in the party is interesting story-wise (like in Planescape:T) I want to play with ALL of them. I want to know how they will react to the games situations (like facing Ravel, or the Transcendent one), how their story's relate to some locations or situations and what they have to say about their comrades.

 

- Experimentation: I may be wrong but many times we have some core npcs we like more (lore or gameplay-wise) that we don't want to change, having a "redundant" place lets you experiment alternating with the other companions, specially if you want 2 of the same class.

 

- Managing characters is not complicated or tedious per se as more than 4 (old and not UI/UX oriented) games demonstrate, its a core mechanic/desition from those games about managing a "squad". You can even have only 3 characters like in DA:Inquisition and still sometimes really FIGHT the UI and game-mechanics (like commanding in top view) to try having a simple strategic fight (and heck I really like the game, but in those things it sucked). Taking away a character is just the easy way to simplify things. Not necessary the best one.

[amazeing4art]

Actually if I could make a feature request tied to party size in this thread... would it be possible, as part of the difficulty settings, to be able to limit the party size to a smaller group that 5 for a play through? Maybe this has been asked for already.

 

On several playthroughs on Pillars I decided things like ... "I am going to try with only three characters"... I did that, then I did it with 2 characters. But I was constantly having to decide NOT to add more characters for all kinds of special encounters. Things like for companion quests, or tougher fights where I wanted another tank, or just temporarily, etc.

 

Having a party-size limit setting would be really excellent I think, it would add a whole new dimension to the difficulty level dynamics. And it would make a three or two character or solo playthrough seem so much more realistic (and perhaps more trackable by achievements too). 

[Leeuwenhart]

Mmmm here s an idea...

 

 

How about they give you 5...

Plus one for a once in a while quest.

Like an escort and protect quest.

Or whatever. You know... a npc companion.

Maybe they lost 6th place to be able to pump story characters into the group.

 

Meeehhh already seems iffy when im reading it again hahaha

[Idara]

Personally, the more the merrier! Hell, I miss 8-character parties (a la Wizardry) but I'll concede that anything above 6 is best left to turn-based games, rather than real-time with pause like PoE. I prefer more choice and freedom in how I make up my party, and I feel that 6 slots gives you that best.

[Piero]

The more the most races and classes you can play with, and with the subclasses and multi-classes that s a lot to choose from.

I play my main play-throw after studying a little the mechanics, so is not really a problem even to solo on max difficulty, but for more freedom i go with full party and then choose a few characters to combat, i like to role-play as myself and to complete as much content as i can, my play-throw end with so many hours, and i have no much time,  the consequences that would need a game to make worth to replay it for me it would be tremendous and i end missing companions content, so my ideal would be no limit party so i can bring with me all the companions and then use 1-4 in combat as usually, i even look for a mod everywhere and wait to verify that is not happening before start my game, If we can mod Deadfire to allow this would be a dream. 5<6, so i prefer 6

Edited February 20, 2017 by Piero

[Silent Winter]

Though I enjoyed Toee and the Co8 mod I always wanted another character. I am old a School gold box player from the 80s. Six is perfect. Especially if bringing back a multi class option. I never enjoyed the dungeon crawls of EotB, the Ravenloft games, etc. because of the 4 character limit. Only Darksun did that right back then.

EotB had a 6 character limit (you could recruit up to 2 others).

 

I'm coming round to the idea of 5 - waiting patiently to see how it plays out.  Since it's being designed that way, I'm sure they'll design it well for it.

[pi2repsion]

In CRPGs where I can select my own party members I prefer 6-8.

 

That is enough to allow redundancy, it gives the player more leeway to experiment once necessary roles have been fulfilled, it allows for more interesting tactical encounters with more enemies without requiring the party members to be supermen to deal with it, and it reduces the number of party members that are point failures - while still being low enough in number that it is easy to consider each a person rather than just a combat role. That's what I got used to with the CRPGs of the 80s and it has all been downhill since then with regards to party size as far as I am concerned.

 

In CRPGs where I cannot select my own party I'm fine with smaller parties, however, because in those cases the developers will have created party members that specifically work well together, the tactical challenge is to use them as well as possible, and the encounters are designed with their specific capabilities in mind.

 

But Pillars of Eternity 2 is not such a game - it is a game of the former type. And in such games, when you limit the number of party members to 4 or 5, it usually does not result in interesting tactical combat because the developers, having to be sure that every party combination will mostly work, are hamstrung in any attempt at crafting interesting or challenging encounters; it is easy enough to create something that is ho-hum moderately challenging under such circumstances as you can pretty well expect players to use 3 or 4 slots on very specific roles, but the problem is always how to add things that aren't either trivial or too hard depending on the player's choice of the last slots.

 

Not saying it can't be done, but as a general rule in the CRPGs I've played where the player gets to choose party members combat encounters have almost always been less interestingly designed the fewer party members, and I've played a lot of party-based CRPGs over the last 30 years. Hence my vote for 6, and only because it wasn't possible to answer 6+ in the poll.

 

 

Now, that's looking at it from the tactical combat point of view where combat encounters are deemed more important than intensely meaningful chats with a bunch of broken people, most of whom should be locked up in an asylum for their own good or offered euthanasia, aka. companions, and as such it is not the only relevant point of view.

 

There's a valid argument that the fewer party members/companions in total to choose from, and the fewer in the party at the same time, the more effort you can put into giving them deep and meaningful interactions, but....

 

With regards to Infinity Engine games and later, while I did enjoy the companion banter introduced in BG2 and really liked the conversations with companions in Torment, I can't help feeling that it has gone way too far in BioWare's later games and, to a lesser degree, in Obsidian's as well.

 

Having to periodically chat with every party member to unravel their Very Interesting Story step by step has gone from being something that was interesting when interactions were limited and seemed meaningful in their sparsity, to being a chore, usually done in batches of conversations to get through as quickly as possible because they just go on and on. Not that they are necessarily uninteresting conversations, mind you, I quite liked some of the companions story from Pillars of Eternity, but the formulaic "now I am ready to have step n+1 of my meaningful conversation; please talk to me, but rest assured that I'll put you off with a comment about continuing this later at step n+2 after having fed you a tidbit" has gotten out of hand.

 

At least Pillars of Eternity left out the obligatory "the main character is made out of liquid testosterone; this is what is called romance" and "yet another party member whose tragic background has resulted in mental problems; heal him with the power of friendship! or LOVE!! (alt. LUST!!! for the Dark and Edgy " plots that plague BioWare games, but even so...

 

I'd rather see LESS interactions with the player selecting conversation options with the companions in Deep and Meaningful conversations, and MORE interactions with either companions talking together or having player-companion interaction occur more frequently with interjections and conversation during conversation with NPCs, and something like that is not strengthened by a smaller party size, so... 6+ again when thinking of the roleplaying angle.

Edited February 10, 2017 by pi2repsion

[Lamppost in Winter]

I'd rather see LESS interactions with the player selecting conversation options with the companions in Deep and Meaningful conversations, and MORE interactions with either companions talking together or having player-companion occur more frequently with interjections and conversation during conversation with NPCs

 

 Disagreed with most of this because I generally like interacting with companions in these sorts of games, but agreed on this part. RPG dialogue tends to be one sided, with the player mainly saying "Tell me about X", or generic options that just continue the companion on whatever topic they were already going on about. Dialogue where the companion initiates and asks the player questions and between each other would be welcome.

 

 I believe they're tracking companion reputations with each other and interjections from them will also have more of an impact, which is promising.

[teknoman2]

i dont really have a preference but for the sake of consistency between games of the same series i'd say that 6 is better

[ThatUndeadLegacy]

I voted 6 as i was to experience the most possible without being overpowered. 

[Eurhetemec]

Replaying Pillars 1 right now, I can definitely see the attraction of 5, because good god, the number of times the characters are sort of tripping over each other is pretty high. I really pray they've improved the long-term pathfinding too, so we don't get characters running back and forth, or refusing to take "the long way around".

[Hebruixe]

I voted 6. But I strongly believe that 3 is the minimum number of essential party members: tank, healer, damage dealer. So a party of 5 still permits some redundancy. Handling 6 party members can be cumbersome at times but I feel it would be best for Pillars 2 to "mindlessly" follow the traditional crpg formula in this one respect. Just because of tradition. Innovate anywhere else. Keep the number 6.

[JerekKruger]

... traditional crpg formula in this one respect.

 

Traditional IE game formula. I can think of CRPGs that have had 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 party members just off the top of my head, and I suspect given some more time I could find some other integers.

[theBalthazar]

The true reason for 5 characters is Casual Gamers and testers. (Especially do not shake them with too many things)

 

It's true. Readability.

 

End of the story ^^

 

It is a very bad news, but Josh Sawyer camp on its positions.

Edited February 10, 2017 by theBalthazar

[JerekKruger]

End of the story ^^

 

Not in the slightest.

[Varana]

If "testers" are one reason, that is a good thing, isn't it?

[JerekKruger]

If "testers" are one reason, that is a good thing, isn't it?

 

I think the implication is that it is to make things easier for tester, and thus allow less testing. theBalthazar seems to be selling the idea that this is just a cynical move by Obsidian to make things easier for themselves and, whilst that is a possibility, I think it's far from the only and obvious conclusion that he claims it is.

[Blades of Vanatar]

 

Though I enjoyed Toee and the Co8 mod I always wanted another character. I am old a School gold box player from the 80s. Six is perfect. Especially if bringing back a multi class option. I never enjoyed the dungeon crawls of EotB, the Ravenloft games, etc. because of the 4 character limit. Only Darksun did that right back then.

EotB had a 6 character limit (you could recruit up to 2 others.

5 from the get go. Six would of been better. The Co8 mod allowed for choosing up to 8 starting characters. That I liked.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Blades of Vanatar

[injurai]

One thing I do fear. Is that even if PoE2 turns out phenomenal, like nearly BG2 status. Throttles RPGCodex to their core. The 5 party limit will forever be a black mark on it's record, as far as many grognards are concerned. Which could stand as it's reputation for years to come. Not a great way to see things go. Queue the PoE1 hipsters coming out of the woodwork.

[Notshauna]

I've long been an advocate of smaller party sizes for the exact reason why you want more, redundancy. I believe strongly in the importance of preparation and planning and if you can make a party ready for anything, well that's thrown out the window. It's even worse when you run into the situation where not only you can make a party prepared for everything, you have built in redundancy so even if that perfect party plays incorrectly and/or loses to raw stats inequity they can still win.

 

But, I will concede it's a stylistic choice and one that's not really how Pillars does things, but the question is which I prefer not which I think is better for the game. Regardless until we know whether or not the 85% multiclassing is good enough to be common place I can't really say if 5 or 6 is better, if it's strong then it's very likely 6 slots would completely power creep the game to ridiculous levels.

[Blades of Vanatar]

I find it funny that the thread is about what we think would be optimum party size. Not about firing off **** remarks about those opinions. Gee.... Maybe I misread the title...

Edited February 11, 2017 by Blades of Vanatar