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

[BrotherFerg]

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.

Were you born with autism

[Heijoushin]

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..

 

Basically this. When I'm planning my party, I'm mostly thinkng "What classes can I fit in there?". In PoE1, the max is 6 obviously. But through multiclassing, you can squeeze in a max of 10 classes in PoE2.

 

I would have also preferred 6, but a change to 5 is not the end of the world.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Heijoushin

[injurai]

With multi-classing I don't think the 5-party system will be an issue.

[Varana]

Sometimes I can't help but think that if consoles weren't a thing, they'd need to be invented so people would have something to blame.

[Tigranes]

"Oh no, what if there aren't exactly the right number of companions so that sometimes I can't take all of them in one playthrough or I have to take the same guy twice?"

 

"Oh no, they have 7 companions and 4 sidekicks is that reallly a good number for 5 parties should it be 8 companions maybe it should be more sidekicks maybe the numbers aren't exactly right even though we get companions and sidekicks and playables oh no"

 

"Oh no, I insist on playing games with my own pigeonholed roles of two tanks and one glass cannon and one healer and one clown and one sadomasochist and you are forcing us to not have complete parties oh no"

 

Completely. Inconsequential.

 

There's one, and only one, real argument against dropping to 5: that it represents a small but non-trivial decrease in tactical complexity. This is undeniable, without blowing it out of proportion.

 

Accordingly, my opinion is proportionate to the degree of its impact: I don't think it's a particularly great idea, but I don't much mind if it helps them design everything else better. 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Tigranes

[Kinowek]

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?

 

 

 

I've actually played Tyranny, where the combat was indeed more simple than Pillars 1. Generally I don't do betas, simply because I don't have the time anymore.  I mentioned Numenara mostly because that game was altered due to console influence, whether you want to call it simplified or not is up to you at that point.

 

Your point about a single character in Pillars 1 is flawed, no offense, because Pillars 1 combat was based around having the full 6. In that game, if you take fewer people, you are stacking the deck against yourself  in difficulty since each encounter was based around 6, but obviously you have far fewer tactical options available to you.  So yes, lesser complexity, more absolute difficulty(for most fights, exploits/tricks existed of course). Interesting but ultimately not quite pertinent to this thread.  I'm talking base game design, not self imposed restrictions.  Solo players can still solo Pillars 2(or attempt to) and face the same challenges of exploiting AI.

 

Hopefully people don't somehow read my thread as some sort of call to boycott the game or something. I will indeed, survive the loss of 1 party character, as will almost all of us. However that doesn't mean I don't think the game wouldn't be BETTER overall with 6(or more) party members. 

 

None of us have yet played the actual game of Pillars 2... if they ever release some combat test or demo/beta or whatever, we'll obviously know more.  Until then, all I can do is hypothesize that tactically, the game will be reduced, even if each character has more abilities.  They already claimed they want to reduce the sheer number of bodies in each battle, because many people found it overwhelming. What would you call that, if not a reduction in complexity? Chaos and noise(signal, not literal combat noises) are part of the appeal of larger party combat, at least to me.  Other reduction/simplification changes include mostly removing Vancian casting, etc. but those are other topics entirely.

 

Aside from tactical concerns, I personally like having more characters in the party at once, whether it be 6, 8, whatever, so as to see more of each character's story and their interactions.  If I had infinite free time, this wouldn't be an issue, as I'd just replay the game X times until I saw every side story, but unfortunately I do not.  Also, on a more OCD-ish level, it bugs me to have the majority of my character's companions just standing around at the home base, staring at the walls and drooling. Hardly heroic or epic, and definitely jarring from a story standpoint.  "Let's go slay the dragon!" - my PC   "Yeah!!!" - all the companions   "Wait, most of you stay here, only you 4 come with me, because...uh...I don't like most of you." -my PC

[phimseto]

I prefer the traditional 6 player party as well, but the fact is they've already done a chunk of work on the game and it's balanced for 5. It's too late to go back. They were good about soliciting insight for this game, so my only suggestion is that after PoE2 is out, petition them to return to the original party size for PoE3. 

 

[injurai]

​

I prefer the traditional 6 player party as well, but the fact is they've already done a chunk of work on the game and it's balanced for 5. It's too late to go back. They were good about soliciting insight for this game, so my only suggestion is that after PoE2 is out, petition them to return to the original party size for PoE3. 

 

​People certainly will. But I'll issue the obligatory "let's wait and see first."

​

[Fenixp]

There's one, and only one, real argument against dropping to 5: that it represents a small but non-trivial decrease in tactical complexity. This is undeniable, without blowing it out of proportion.

Even that is questionable, it highly depends on how many options will every individual party member have in battles. And with Multiclassing... It can turn out to be 'Quite a lot'

[Gromnir]

sounds as if 5-person were a fundamental consideration for the developers.  for such design choices, we do not need obsidian to be simpatico with our preferences to be satisfied.  can be disappointed with the choice, but satisfied with the rationale, yes? am not a fan of 5-person, but obsidian has reasons which has been communicated.  obsidian were thoughtful and deliberate 'bout the change.  obsidian rationale may not be universal convincing, but they got a rationale and the rationale is reasonable.

 

past obsidian design choices has, from time-to-time, been poorly considered and/or communicated.  at such times and in such situations, we complain.  we complain forceful and often.  5-person is not such an instance.  is not such a time. 

 

am satisfied.  we needed a reason from obsidian.  we got one.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[dragubaba]

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.

 

Wait, are you making the argument that having the entire village with you is more tactical than having to make due with fewer people? 3-4 is optimal to me atleast, six and above is just overkill. And this has nothing to do with consoles.

[ruzen]

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.

Are you talking about the game or..?

 

What is so triggering about a man saying his opinion about 6 man party is better? 

[tid242]

 

 

Sometimes I can't help but think that if consoles weren't a thing, they'd need to be invented so people would have something to blame.

 

Well, they did kill Elvis Presley ... and Jimmy Hoffa... 

 

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.

 

Honestly, at this point the 'Sidekicks' sound a lot more interesting/colorful than the 'Companions' - I mean, the flaky alcoholic and a guy who can only mumble in a foreign language? - definite party picks IMHO.  Although, I'll be the first to admit that not much has actually been revealed about the companions, I'm sure they're going to be totally awesome, chars with a schtick just always have such an immediate visceral appeal ..

 

Besides, just you wait and see - the sidekick that speaks no known tongue - talk about an obvious avenue for additional content (expansions, sequels, etc).  It might just be to Pillars what the Ring of Sauron was to tie the Hobbit into LoTR..

 

this is a good thread though, thoughtful discussion.  Yes less tactical complexity (5 actions/time vs 6), but hopefully it'll have me hitting 'pause' less...

[Pel]

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.

 

Not a big fan of having one basically unkillable tank balancing in games. I think it's much more fun having off-tanks (and needing them for tough fights) so that fights and strategies don't devolve into taking every defensive talent/skill/armor imaginable for a tank and sending him in to do virtually no damage but be unkillable and an insanely OP, AI-breaking distraction (though if the AI was better at calculating enemy hp/damage ratios we could surpass this balance issue). As a hardcore tactical player, I'm also not a fan of the 5 party limit even if it is easier to balance, as easier =/= better gameplay. I love having more pieces, variables, and challenges to play with, and 6 party members instead of 5 definitely fulfills this relative improvement.

[Pope]

I have no issue with the 5 member limit (thanks in good part to the new multiclassing), but the sidekicks I'm just not feeling.

[Bill Gates' Son]

I have no issue with the 5 member limit (thanks in good part to the new multiclassing), but the sidekicks I'm just not feeling.

 

Then don't use them?  Pretty sure they're optional, and I'm still sure we're getting that 8th companion stretch goal.

[Pope]

 

I have no issue with the 5 member limit (thanks in good part to the new multiclassing), but the sidekicks I'm just not feeling.

 

Then don't use them?  Pretty sure they're optional, and I'm still sure we're getting that 8th companion stretch goal.

 

Yeah sure, but I'd prefer Obsidian to put the time and effort into the companions. Doesn't even have to be an 8th.

[Hemmer]

I bet there's already people itching to go through the innards of POE2 looking for ways to mod the 6th party member back in.

IF POE2 is indeed going to be more mod-friendly than its predecessor. Which nevertheless allowed for some amazing modifications like the IE Mod for instance.

[Quillon]

I don't care if its 5 or 6 but Obs should better stick to their vision. Now they have the opportunity to evolve the IP with relatively less nostalgic ties/restrictions and more creative vision, they better use it and if 5 person party limit will be good for their overall vision for the game, so be it and for the others who wants the 6th slot back: LET IT ****ING GO ALREADY!

[Messier-31]

Does a party of 5 break someone's immersion?

[Boeroer]

Sacred Immolation breaks my immersion.

[Elric Galad]

I think 6th slot opens interesting possibilities to customize the party once each essential role are fullfilled. But I can live without it and see what happen.

[Karkarov]

Personally I am fine with 5, I would be fine with 4.  I don't judge how a game plays based on how many party members I can have.  Tyranny worked fine in my opinion for example.

All that said, Sawyer specifically choose a "will you change your mind and go back to a 6 person party" question in one of his streams.  His response was to smirk (rightfully so), and then say no.  After a pause he went into the explanation that has already been offered dozens of times.  Point is, this is not going to happen, period, outside of mods.

[RKHeliplex]

I've actually played Tyranny, where the combat was indeed more simple than Pillars 1. Generally I don't do betas, simply because I don't have the time anymore.  I mentioned Numenara mostly because that game was altered due to console influence, whether you want to call it simplified or not is up to you at that point.

 

I played the beta for Numenera and it was an intriguing experience. A lot of thought goes into your characters and how you play them. It was a nice change of pace.

 

There wasn't a single time in the beta that I felt "console influence" watering it down. The learning curve felt steep and cerebral. I celebrate the idea that console gamers might get exposed to this type of RPG. 

 

That said, I was concerned with the bugs and the beta didn't feel very polished. I hope InExile has worked out the kinks and I look forward to giving it a full go next week for the release. 

 

Back to PoE2 - less companions doesn't make it less tactical. At the extreme end I consider my solo attempts (especially PotD) to be the hardest tactical challenge I had in PoE. Less resources, including companions, means more thoughtful gameplay. 

 

Obsidian knows the guts of their title better than anyone and have obviously given # of companions a lot of thought. If you don't like 5, then mod it on release and move on. 

 

I'm curious about sidekicks. If they operate like a pet slot. Or if they take a companion slot, do you opt to take sidekicks until you find companions (who may be harder to meet this time around). There's a lot of potential in this idea when it comes to RP. 

Edited February 21, 2017 by RKHeliplex

[Karkarov]

I'm curious about sidekicks. If they operate like a pet slot. Or if they take a companion slot, do you opt to take sidekicks until you find companions (who may be harder to meet this time around). There's a lot of potential in this idea when it comes to RP.

Sidekicks are full on party members.  They just don't have as much story/lore in them as the companions, and don't work within the companion reputation system.  Think of them like Yeslick, Branwen, or Xan from Baldur's Gate 1.