Obsidian, please come to your senses. (6 person vs lesser party)

[Kinowek]

It seems like the Fig Pillars 2 will easily surpass the $3.25m stretch goal at this rate, congratulations.

 

However that stretch goal is 4 more companions(excuse me, Sidekicks), whom most people will probably barely use, as the party size is apparently hard set at 5.

 

Don't give in to console-money dreams. Stay strong, go back to 6 person parties.

 

Winnowing down the team because people are too confused as to how to control 6 characters is a huge mistake.   5 is bad, 4 would be unforgivable.

 

While there is still time, I beg of you, go back to 6.  Multi-classing and sub-classes will NOT make up for having to leave most of your team at home, gathering dust.  If whatever UI you are using works better with smaller teams, it sounds like that UI needs some work. Somehow Pillars 1 survived having 6 people in a party.

 

Think this is an outlier opinion? Check the poll on these forums, look around  at the majority of the people who backed this and the previous game.  Old school Bioware/Black Isle fans, who cut their teeth on Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale series, who maybe even dabbled in Planescape:Torment and Temple of Elemental Evil.  The vast majority of your target audience can easily and deftly use 6 characters.  Newcomers can easily learn to use the full 6.

 

Don't become the new Bioware, continually dumbing down your great games, trying to chase mainstream money.

 

 

[Hebruixe]

I agree.

[LuccA]

The 5 person party is another reason why the +4 half-made companions was a bad idea... instead of sticking just with the 8th companion...

 

The developers already stated several times that there would be fewer but deeper companions in PoE2 comparing to PoE1. They coudn't have raised more false expectations... Now with 7 companions (probably 8 if there is indeed a stretch goal coming), there is already more options considering the 5 sized party. And the +4 sidekicks thing is the total opposite of "fewer but deeper"...

 

I also hope they undo this somehow. 

[Sedrefilos]

Too late. Bioware sold everything by going to 6-member parties when Wizardry had 8. The signs of consolitis were obvious siince then but noone talked. Now we have to face these putrid consequences. We're the only ones to blame...

Edited February 19, 2017 by Sedrefilos

[Sedrefilos]

Seriously OP does Pillars look anything close to mainstream to you? Just because it droped down to 5?

[algroth]

I don't get this. In the original game we had a total of eight companions that could join - was it a terrible decision to limit the party size to 6 instead of going with a 9-party system to allow all companions a place in it? Did we actually lose all that much by keeping some companions out at different intervals?

 

In all honesty I don't follow this complaint at all. Sure, I'd like to see as much as I could in terms of party interaction so I wouldn't mind having my companions around more often, but in reality I usually managed my party as a revolving door adapting to where I wanted to go next and I didn't feel I missed a whole lot in the process. I don't think it'll be any different with Deadfire. I doubt this'll be an either/or situation like it was in the Baldur's Gate games, where if you didn't take a companion chances were you might not see them again, or they'd be left behind in terms of experience, itemization, and so on. They already addressed it in the first Pillars, as they did in Neverwinter Nights 2 for example, so why would it be so different this time around?

 

You guys need to learn to let go from conventions as arbitrary as this.

Edited February 19, 2017 by algroth

[JerekKruger]

I don't get this. In the original game we had a total of eight companions that could join - was it a terrible decision to limit the party size to 6 instead of going with a 9-party system to allow all companions a place in it? Did we actually lose all that much by keeping some companions out at different intervals?

 

In all honesty I don't follow this complaint at all. Sure, I'd like to see as much as I could in terms of party interaction so I wouldn't mind having my companions around more often, but in reality I usually managed my party as a revolving door adapting to where I wanted to go next and I didn't feel I missed a whole lot in the process. I don't think it'll be any different with Deadfire. I doubt this'll be an either/or situation like it was in the Baldur's Gate games, where if you didn't take a companion chances were you might not see them again, or they'd be left behind in terms of experience, itemization, and so on. They already addressed it in the first Pillars, as they did in Neverwinter Nights 2 for example, so why would it be so different this time around?

 

You guys need to learn to let go from conventions as arbitrary as this.

 

Well said.

[Leeuwenhart]

Some people dont like change.

 

They want to exist in a vacuum.

 

If taxes rise they complain.

If they need to work more they complain.

If there isnt enough work they complain.

 

 

As lives goes on we do less and less.

But even without anything to do they will sit in their rocking chair and complain.

[Nicze]

Don't give in to console-money dreams.

 Really. Because somehow changing party size from 6 to 5 will magically make the game suitable for consoles? Even when it's still RTwP?

 

 

Winnowing down the team because people are too confused as to how to control 6 characters is a huge mistake.

 Yes, they obviously did it because people couldn't handle one more companion, not because the combat felt smoother or whatever they decided.

 

 

If whatever UI you are using works better with smaller teams, it sounds like that UI needs some work. Somehow Pillars 1 survived having 6 people in a party.

Change the UI! That's so simple and they didn't even think about it! Thankfully some random poster has brilliant problem-solving skills.

 

 

Think this is an outlier opinion? Check the poll on these forums, look around  at the majority of the people who backed this and the previous game.

Game development is not a democracy.

[Leeuwenhart]

 

Don't give in to console-money dreams.

Really. Because somehow changing party size from 6 to 5 will magically make the game suitable for consoles? Even when it's still RTwP?

Winnowing down the team because people are too confused as to how to control 6 characters is a huge mistake.

Yes, they obviously did it because people couldn't handle one more companion, not because the combat felt smoother or whatever they decided.

If whatever UI you are using works better with smaller teams, it sounds like that UI needs some work. Somehow Pillars 1 survived having 6 people in a party.

Change the UI! That's so simple and they didn't even think about it! Thankfully some random poster has brilliant problem-solving skills.

Think this is an outlier opinion? Check the poll on these forums, look around at the majority of the people who backed this and the previous game.

Game development is not a democracy.

 

But crowdfundig IS an election.

 

And money is your vote.

 

 

Im still all in. But if you cant stomach things then stop spending.

 

Or just go along.

[JerekKruger]

Seriously OP does Pillars look anything close to mainstream to you? Just because it droped down to 5?

 

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that five person parties are the last step on the path to converting to a modern warfare style first person shooter. We should already have guessed it when PoE had guns: what else has guns? Call of Duty, that's what!

[Leeuwenhart]

 

Seriously OP does Pillars look anything close to mainstream to you? Just because it droped down to 5?

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that five person parties are the last step on the path to converting to a modern warfare style first person shooter. We should already have guessed it when PoE had guns: what else has guns? Call of Duty, that's what!

 

Call of Eternity: Duty Pillars

 

Q4 2020

[Nicze]

 

 

Don't give in to console-money dreams.

Really. Because somehow changing party size from 6 to 5 will magically make the game suitable for consoles? Even when it's still RTwP?

Winnowing down the team because people are too confused as to how to control 6 characters is a huge mistake.

Yes, they obviously did it because people couldn't handle one more companion, not because the combat felt smoother or whatever they decided.

If whatever UI you are using works better with smaller teams, it sounds like that UI needs some work. Somehow Pillars 1 survived having 6 people in a party.

Change the UI! That's so simple and they didn't even think about it! Thankfully some random poster has brilliant problem-solving skills.

Think this is an outlier opinion? Check the poll on these forums, look around at the majority of the people who backed this and the previous game.

Game development is not a democracy.

 

But crowdfundig IS an election.

 

And money is your vote.

 

 

Im still all in. But if you cant stomach things then stop spending.

 

Or just go along.

 

It's not an election, you decide whether you want to support the project or not. They never lied about keeping 6-person party, if someone doesn't like it they can decide not to pledge.

[JerekKruger]

Think this is an outlier opinion? Check the poll on these forums...

 

A poll with 307 votes, hardly a representative sample for a game that has sold more than one million units.

[Leeuwenhart]

 

 

 

Don't give in to console-money dreams.

Really. Because somehow changing party size from 6 to 5 will magically make the game suitable for consoles? Even when it's still RTwP?

Winnowing down the team because people are too confused as to how to control 6 characters is a huge mistake.

Yes, they obviously did it because people couldn't handle one more companion, not because the combat felt smoother or whatever they decided.

If whatever UI you are using works better with smaller teams, it sounds like that UI needs some work. Somehow Pillars 1 survived having 6 people in a party.

Change the UI! That's so simple and they didn't even think about it! Thankfully some random poster has brilliant problem-solving skills.

Think this is an outlier opinion? Check the poll on these forums, look around at the majority of the people who backed this and the previous game.

Game development is not a democracy.

But crowdfundig IS an election.

 

And money is your vote.

 

 

Im still all in. But if you cant stomach things then stop spending.

 

Or just go along.

It's not an election, you decide whether you want to support the project or not. They never lied about keeping 6-person party, if someone doesn't like it they can decide not to pledge.

Like an election you cast your vote/cash for something somebody says they will do.

 

If they do that job good they get reelected/cash again on next project.

 

All you have is a promise.

 

 

Look at Torment:ToN

 

I bet you its a good game... but a lot of stuff that was promised went out the window.

Thats gotta have some backlash.

 

I dont think a 2nd crowdfunder of theirs would be as succesful.

 

 

Thats all i meant and said.

Im not talking about your 6 dolly tea party.

 

Im talking the greater perspective here.

General points.

 

Edited February 19, 2017 by Leeuwenhart

[George_Truman]

I feel like people are ignoring how fleshing out melee classes changes party dynamics. In old I.E. games you had a couple of micro casters and then meatbag melee that were quite passive.

 

A party of all wizards is super powerful and not particularly difficult to manage but is imo extremely tedious and boring to play.

 

More or fewer characters doesn't increase or decrease tactical depth by itself. Fewer characters with more abilities can potentially require more intensive control than a larger party.

 

I think the average player dislikes tedious gameplay. If obsidian is fleshing out the more passive roles then I think it is smart to balance encounters (and therefore design the rest of the game) around a smaller party size.

[algroth]

 

 

 

 

Don't give in to console-money dreams.

Really. Because somehow changing party size from 6 to 5 will magically make the game suitable for consoles? Even when it's still RTwP?

Winnowing down the team because people are too confused as to how to control 6 characters is a huge mistake.

Yes, they obviously did it because people couldn't handle one more companion, not because the combat felt smoother or whatever they decided.

If whatever UI you are using works better with smaller teams, it sounds like that UI needs some work. Somehow Pillars 1 survived having 6 people in a party.

Change the UI! That's so simple and they didn't even think about it! Thankfully some random poster has brilliant problem-solving skills.

Think this is an outlier opinion? Check the poll on these forums, look around at the majority of the people who backed this and the previous game.

Game development is not a democracy.

But crowdfundig IS an election.

 

And money is your vote.

 

 

Im still all in. But if you cant stomach things then stop spending.

 

Or just go along.

It's not an election, you decide whether you want to support the project or not. They never lied about keeping 6-person party, if someone doesn't like it they can decide not to pledge.

Like an election you cast your vote/cash for something somebody says they will do.

 

If they do that job good they get reelected/cash again on next project.

 

All you have is a promise.

 

 

Look at Torment:ToN

 

I bet you its a good game... but a lot of stuff that was promised went out the window.

Thats gotta have some backlash.

 

I dont think a 2nd crowdfunder of theirs would be as succesful.

 

 

Thats all i meant and said.

Im not talking about your 6 dolly tea party.

 

Im talking the greater perspective here.

General points.

 

 

There's a fine line here somewhere, but I think it's ultimately for the best that the community suggest things and say what they'd like to see, but let the company do as they will with all of it, as the company knows best what is what they want out of the game and how it'll serve better for their plans. With Torment it remains to be seen if, for example, reducing the Oasis in favour of expanding the Bloom was a better decision for what the creators had in mind, if cutting three characters ultimately allowed them to really flesh out the six characters left in the game, and even if the cutting of crafting and Italian translation was a good move so as to allow more money, time and resources to be spent elsewhere instead. The community can't know for certain what is happening behind doors, so all they have to go with to make an informed case is preciously little. If, on the other hand, the makers do cave in to each demand made by the community, chances are they won't be making the game they intended in the first place at all (to be honest, few, if any, do so already), and the chances to see a dumbed-down audience panderer only increase in turn.

 

Perhaps the issue there is to "promise" anything to the backers, but in all honesty these are all pretty small points - even the lack of an Italian localization, by far the worst offender there, can be solved in a future patch as it's not essential for a finalized game. If the game turns to be something entirely different to what was first pitched, that might be a reason to complain, but as it is it's good that the people at inXile said "**** it" to things that may have only acted as detriments to the overall experience/development, even if these had at some point been promised.

 

Josh says the 5-party limit is final. We just have to trust him on this judgement, as only he and the team behind Deadfire can know if it is a good decision or not. All we can do is play it, and evaluate in hindsight.

Edited February 19, 2017 by algroth

[rjshae]

I can live with a five character party. It's enough to form a line, and have enough party class variation to make combat interesting. I do wish though that summoning were made faster at higher levels, for those times we're facing mobs.

[Kinowek]

Seriously OP does Pillars look anything close to mainstream to you? Just because it droped down to 5?

 Where did I call Pillars 2 mainstream? Let's try to keep this forum civil and not go immediately to strawmen.

 

But hey, look what happened to Tides of Numenara, I surely didn't back that years ago hoping for a small party, turn based console rpg, but that's what ended up happening.  I'm still interested in Pillars 2, and will watch to see how it ends up, but yes, I see them simplifying the game to be a mistake.   If they eventually announce Pillars 2 for console we'll know it was somewhat of a factor.

 

Tyranny, while it had some very interesting aspects, ultimately was too simple in combat with the 4 man teams, for me. Obsidian recognized their mistake there, so they avoided going that small again this time, for Pillars 2, but yes, even 5 is still simplification and dumbing the game down.

 

Interesting that you mention 8, I'd vastly prefer 8 or more characters at once, but that's not realistic to ask for, now is it?  Hopefully Pillars 2 is mod friendly enough that those unsatisfied with 5 can adjust the party size and battles to their liking later on.

 

I'm sure most people, like myself, who love good team based RPGs, can survive the 5 man team, but that's not really the point of this thread. Many, perhaps most of us, would prefer larger teams, and the greater tactical and story aspects they bring.

[algroth]

 

Seriously OP does Pillars look anything close to mainstream to you? Just because it droped down to 5?

 Where did I call Pillars 2 mainstream? Let's try to keep this forum civil and not go immediately to strawmen.

 

But hey, look what happened to Tides of Numenara, I surely didn't back that years ago hoping for a small party, turn based console rpg, but that's what ended up happening.  I'm still interested in Pillars 2, and will watch to see how it ends up, but yes, I see them simplifying the game to be a mistake.   If they eventually announce Pillars 2 for console we'll know it was somewhat of a factor.

 

Tyranny, while it had some very interesting aspects, ultimately was too simple in combat with the 4 man teams, for me. Obsidian recognized their mistake there, so they avoided going that small again this time, for Pillars 2, but yes, even 5 is still simplification and dumbing the game down.

 

Interesting that you mention 8, I'd vastly prefer 8 or more characters at once, but that's not realistic to ask for, now is it?  Hopefully Pillars 2 is mod friendly enough that those unsatisfied with 5 can adjust the party size and battles to their liking later on.

 

I'm sure most people, like myself, who love good team based RPGs, can survive the 5 man team, but that's not really the point of this thread. Many, perhaps most of us, would prefer larger teams, and the greater tactical and story aspects they bring.

 

A question here... Have you actually played the beta for Tides of Numenera, or are you assuming it'll be simpler due to being turn-based and involving less characters? I haven't yet so I know I may be wrong here, but based on everything I've seen so far, they seem to be adding a ton of options and strategic elements to their combat system, which seems in my mind that, even if it may be "easier", it's not by any means simpler. For that matter, I don't see how Tyranny or Neverwinter Nights 2 are simpler due to involving a smaller party than the likes of the original IE games (I do however agree that, in my experience at least, Pillars was a tougher game overall) - what's more, would you also say that the solo-party players are opting into a simpler or less tactical game mode for reducing their party to a single character?

[tid242]

I for one am totally happy giving a 5-member party a go, especially with multiclassing suspecting that smaller parties are both more viable and interesting.  Obviously, they feel that the player experience is ultimately better with this choice..

 

If it's horrible for some reason it's not like it can't ever be addressed ever again by an update or something..

[Baramos]

I for one am totally happy giving a 5-member party a go, especially with multiclassing suspecting that smaller parties are both more viable and interesting.  Obviously, they feel that the player experience is ultimately better with this choice..

 

If it's horrible for some reason it's not like it can't ever be addressed ever again by an update or something..

 

Yeah. While I'd prefer a 6 member party I'm willing to give this a shot. Especially since they've been justifying it with better encounters and what not.

 

And hey if we don't like it even on release maybe they'll go back to 6 in the third game.

[algroth]

Also I'm not sure where the idea that the party is being reduced to avoid confusion/simplify combat comes from. From my understanding the reason to a reduced party size has to do with balancing instead, and if so, I can understand how, if we think of the many different builds and comps one can run with each individual character, five groups of these are easier to work on than six. If anything the argument can be made that the idea here is to make combat more consistently challenging, and therefore more strategic/less simple overall, than actually going the opposite way.

Edited February 20, 2017 by algroth

[Koth]

Personally I am also happy to go down to 5. More often than not in PoE, the 6th slot was just a filler position anyway. 

Really my average party often consisted of:

 

- Main Tank

- Off Tank

- Crowd Control

- Support Buffer / Healer

- Damage Dealer

- Filler - Reserved for whichever Companion quest I was trying to complete at the time

 

And to be honest, If they scale the fights correctly, you shouldn't really need an offtank.

This would allow for a core party of 4: tank, cc, support / heals, dps with your 5th as 

the rotating slot for whichever quest you want to complete. And with the addition of 

multi-classing you can theoretically fill multiple roles with the one character thus further

reducing the need for party size bloat. 

 

Also, in PoE 1, I often found that in choke points like doorways if I had 3 melee characters,

one of them was always in the back having to switch weapons to a bow or whatever as

they couldn't fit through to engage the enemy. Less characters to control = less pathing

issues / easier to micro party encounters.

[Rahelron]

Personally, I'm not concernet by party sizes