I am very disappointed to hear the party will be reduced to five.

[Katarack21]

More imaginary boo-hoo self-victimisation.

 

You're absolutely free to complain loudly that you don't like it. We're absolutely free to express our opinion that this is all much ado about nothing.  

Yes. The thing is, when you actually tell other people to stop complaining because you personally disagree with their opinion, that's when you're a controlling jerk who needs to shut up and let other people discuss their opinions. When you tell other people to shut up and stop complaining, and they call you out on it, you don't get to act like the victim whose being bullied by those mean complainers.

[Vaeliorin]

Personally, I'd rather have 4 or 6, but that's just because I have a thing about even numbers.

[Sedrefilos]

There is no basis to either agree or disagree with 5 member party at the moment. We just have to wait and see, THEN talk about it. It's not like they're re-publishing Pillars 1 with shorter party limit. They're designing the whole game around it. If nostalgia is the problem, it's understandable but unreasonable at the same time. If gameplay is the problem... well we don't know how it'll play so I believe it isn't the real problem (of complainers) at the moment. It's either nostalgia or some personal fetish with 6-member parties. 

[Slapstick87]

This is the only part about Pillars 2 I'm quite decidedly not looking forward to. I already think it's hard to figure out how to make room in my party for "extra" characters that I want to include. If they had said "Guess what guys, 7 PARTY MEMBERS!!" I would've been overjoyed! Right now I'm trying to get through a game without a priest and proper tank so I can finally find room for what I perceive as non-essential characters for once.

 

2 tank/melee, 1 priest, 1 wizard is pretty much mandatory IMO. Sure you can hybridize the roles, but it's still hard to fit more than a single character rotation into a party setup with the player character filing one new role so you can try out one new character. The restrictions on party composition doesn't change, but whether or not you can include extra characters just for fluff and giggles is seriously reduced.

[Hertzila]

 

More imaginary boo-hoo self-victimisation.

 

You're absolutely free to complain loudly that you don't like it. We're absolutely free to express our opinion that this is all much ado about nothing.  

Yes. The thing is, when you actually tell other people to stop complaining because you personally disagree with their opinion, that's when you're a controlling jerk who needs to shut up and let other people discuss their opinions. When you tell other people to shut up and stop complaining, and they call you out on it, you don't get to act like the victim whose being bullied by those mean complainers.

 

 

And in turn, we can immediately tell you to stop assuming that we're acting like victims rather than just annoyed at the tone of you guys. The victimization is happening strictly on one side and it certainly isn't us. Stop projecting on to us. The fact that we are telling you that your worries are unfounded doesn't somehow mean we are controlling jerks. We are simply telling you that this discussion is ultimately pointless and the burden of proof is on you.

And a-round and a-round we go, until one side decides to either stop responding (which the other side will immediately view as a win by surrender, of course) or something to actually talk about shows up. It's a grand old time, isn't it. (We need a smiley that's a mirrored version of the    so that we can have two guys hitting the same wall.)

 

 

More on-topic: I'm sad to see a reduction in party size since it means there is a bigger chance of missing great party banter and interesting companion comments. However, I understand that they would prefer to scale back the party to make combat more manageable, so it isn't a big issue. A sad but logical solution for better encounters.

[Regggler]

I understand the desire for the "standard party" archetype and the restrictions it suffers due to a reduced party size. Usually I do want a fighter, mage, rogue, cleric party. In Pillars 1, however, I mostly chose the companions I found most fun / interesting at that moment. Admittedly, I always included at least one tank, but I often omitted the priest or wizard, and I hardly ever used a rogue. This did change my approach to encounters a bit, but it was quite fun to try different things, and it worked reasonably well. Admittedly, I only played on hard. I guess it would be different on PotD.

 

So all in all, I trust the reduced party size will be fine. Personally, I'd like a party size equal to the number of available companions, but I'm aware that this probably can't be done in an IE-like game in a manner that's fun to play and still gives each character their deserved spotlight.

[Grotesque]

The real problem is not the 5 party members but the inability of Obsidian to properly balance encounters and make them interesting enough to make the game challenging and not a borefest like in Pillars of Eternity in which the player was constantly overleveld and combat trivial. Potd difficulty is the only dif level which makes the game mechanics shine

 

These should be the real concerns - encounter design and proper xp balance

 

5 party members would imply fewer encounters per battle but stronger with more abilities

The casters not to be overrun should make melee disangegement way more punishing than it is now in poe

[Sedrefilos]

I never have enough party space for all companions so I swap them from time to time. Where am I going? Who do I need atm? Is this a place some companion has a quest? Who do I feel I enjoy most right now? Stuff like that. I don't care about party archetypes and the best of all... NEITHER DOES THE GAME. If it was WoW we're talking about, then yes, you can't go adventuring without a tank, a healer and 3 dps because the game is DESIGNED AROUND THAT. Pillar's isn't. It's just personal fetishes about 6-member parties and archetype lineouts.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying the games is goind to be better with 5. I don't know it yet but I don't believe the party size per se makes for good or bad gameplay rather the encounter and location design. So it's an issue I need to actually play and find out. And its game mechanic so I believe the issue is objective than subjective (like if we were talking about graphics style or weapons design or music score).

[Grotesque]

I never have enough party space for all companions so I swap them from time to time. Where am I going? Who do I need atm? Is this a place some companion has a quest? Who do I feel I enjoy most right now? Stuff like that. I don't care about party archetypes and the best of all... NEITHER DOES THE GAME. If it was WoW we're talking about, then yes, you can't go adventuring without a tank, a healer and 3 dps because the game is DESIGNED AROUND THAT. Pillar's isn't. It's just personal fetishes about 6-member parties and archetype lineouts.

 

.

In other words, the game is designed to be crap. And the game is crap on story mode and normal and hard difficulty.

 

And poe plays exactly like an mmo . The first poe review on rpgcodex clearly states why is that.

 

 

For someone that likes a challenge from poe, party composition is important. Not some fetishes like you smugly state.

[JerekKruger]

like you smugly state.

 

This actually made me laugh.

[Sedrefilos]

For someone that likes a challenge from poe, party composition is important. Not some fetishes like you smugly state.

 

Well, if you think the game is not challenging enough (to me it was) or no good, play something that actually is. What are you doing here? This is no political debate; Pillars is not affecting your life. If you don't like it or don't believe the sequel's gonna be good, well... don't play it.

 

The review at Codex may say "why" it is, but it's just the reviewer's opinion based on his or her personal tastes. I can point you to reviews that said the exact opposite. Again, we don't know how challenging the game's gonna be yet.

[Blarghagh]

I feel like party composition in PoE II with 5 will be much more important than it was in PoE 1 with 6. There was so much option for redundancy, you really only needed 3 (probably less, considering some people triple crown soloed it) and everything else was a safety net. Having to make more sacrifices in your party composition means you have to make more tactical decisions about what's important.

[hilfazer]

I feel like party composition in PoE II with 5 will be much more important than it was in PoE 1 with 6. There was so much option for redundancy, you really only needed 3 (probably less, considering some people triple crown soloed it) and everything else was a safety net. Having to make more sacrifices in your party composition means you have to make more tactical decisions about what's important.

Being able to pick only 6 options out of 1007 instead of 11 is quite a sacrifice if you ask me.

[Grotesque]

 

 

 

For someone that likes a challenge from poe, party composition is important. Not some fetishes like you smugly state.

Well, if you think the game is not challenging enough (to me it was) or no good, play something that actually is. What are you doing here? This is no political debate; Pillars is not affecting your life. If you don't like it or don't believe the sequel's gonna be good, well... don't play it.

 

The review at Codex may say "why" it is, but it's just the reviewer's opinion based on his or her personal tastes. I can point you to reviews that said the exact opposite. Again, we don't know how challenging the game's gonna be yet.

I am literally dumbfounded by the stupidity of this post.

[Sedrefilos]

 

 

 

 

For someone that likes a challenge from poe, party composition is important. Not some fetishes like you smugly state.

Well, if you think the game is not challenging enough (to me it was) or no good, play something that actually is. What are you doing here? This is no political debate; Pillars is not affecting your life. If you don't like it or don't believe the sequel's gonna be good, well... don't play it.

 

The review at Codex may say "why" it is, but it's just the reviewer's opinion based on his or her personal tastes. I can point you to reviews that said the exact opposite. Again, we don't know how challenging the game's gonna be yet.

I am literally dumbfounded by the stupidity of this post.

 

You have serious problems with talking with people about superficial hobby stuff, aren't you? Where's this attitude coming from? We're talking about a video game and I venver offended you as far as I know. Good luck out there.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 Where's this attitude coming from?

 

If I had to guess? Probably the KKKodex.

[Tigranes]

Nah, he's too thin-skinned.

 

Some of this finally starts brushing up against the real factors, though. Party member size doesn't mean a thing in itself. It determines tactical complexity when compared to the number and kind of classes and abilities you have, the different roles party members can play, how encounters are designed, etc, etc. 

 

 

So for example, having 9 party members in BG2 would reduce tactical complexity, because you would be able to cover all the bases and have a ton of redundancy, and you'd never really have to make meaningful choices about what to bring with you and what to give up. Being able to do everything and have all the options you want has nothing to do with tactical complexity. 

 

With POE1, there was nothing particularly terrible about six, of course, it worked well. But, speaking as someone who's run every party size from 1 to 6 in POE1 and every IE game, five hardly makes much of a difference - unless, as I said, you have some compulsion to run a very specific party every time. The only important question that remains is whether POE2 will prove, by virtue of other system changes, that five is a nice balance of scarcity, options, complexity and combat pacing. It may, it may not, but it's going to come down to more than the magic number of six and who worships it.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Tigranes

[molotov.]

A game that have done well, both in sale and critic wise, just because of it's nostalgia factor, will remove one part of the nostalgia. Good luck with that.

I find so funny that people are saying "you can choose any party in PoE1!!! There is no such thing as a tank or healler!!!!!!!! ", you can solo the game (every IE game can be soloed) but if you want to make a good party you will always want to have some sort of roles to play "but I played without a tank and a healer on PotD and won! You are just mad because you are bad!" sure... you want to know what you actually did? You just replaced the priest and fighter with some scrolls and potions, same damn thing.

[Blades of Vanatar]

Deep breaths everyone. I think you will be ok with 5 multiclass level 20 characters.

 

Every argument here that "5 sucks we need six!" could just as well be applied to 6 characters if PoE 1 had originally allowed seven. Would you be now clamoring that "6 sucks we need 7" in that case? Or 8, or 9... or maybe we need 10, one for every class?

 

Five will be fine... and the new game will be designed around it so the encounters will be balanced for it.

 

Deep breaths.

 

Many prefer six as it is the tried and tested party balance in a ton of CRPGs going all the way back to the SSI gold box games, the Wizardry series and of course what PoE was supposed to the.... heir apparent to the BG series for starters. For Fantasy CRPGs look at most of the 'greatest of all time list' and see how many six man party games are in it. It's a lot. It is was people want.

 

Has there been a poll on this forum about this topic?

[molotov.]

 

Has there been a poll on this forum about this topic?

 

Yes, and 6 members won.

 

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91294-poll-on-preferred-party-size/

 

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by molotov.

[Tigranes]

 

Deep breaths everyone. I think you will be ok with 5 multiclass level 20 characters.

 

Every argument here that "5 sucks we need six!" could just as well be applied to 6 characters if PoE 1 had originally allowed seven. Would you be now clamoring that "6 sucks we need 7" in that case? Or 8, or 9... or maybe we need 10, one for every class?

 

Five will be fine... and the new game will be designed around it so the encounters will be balanced for it.

 

Deep breaths.

 

Many prefer six as it is the tried and tested party balance in a ton of CRPGs going all the way back to the SSI gold box games, the Wizardry series and of course what PoE was supposed to the.... heir apparent to the BG series for starters. For Fantasy CRPGs look at most of the 'greatest of all time list' and see how many six man party games are in it. It's a lot. It is was people want.

 

Has there been a poll on this forum about this topic?

 

 

"A lot of good games had X, so clearly X is great, and changing it to Y sucks." Sorry, there's no logic there, just cliches. 

 

What if you started calling healing potions wunderbenders, and made skeletons high level enemies instead of low level fodder? Is that suddenly going to kill the game because it changed stuff? 

 

6 in a Wizardry game (or actually, 8 for Wizardry 8 ), or 4 in M&M 6, or 3-4 in a Final Fantasy game, or 2 in Divinity: Original Sin... all of that works or doesn't work to the extent that it's designed together with the rest of combat pacing, active abilities, encounter design, etc. If you don't bother thinking about any of that and just mouth "six six six" it's hardly much of an argument. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Tigranes

[molotov.]

 

 

 

 

"A lot of good games had X, so clearly X is great, and changing it to Y sucks." Sorry, there's no logic there, just cliches. 

 

What if you started calling healing potions wunderbenders, and made skeletons high level enemies instead of low level fodder? Is that suddenly going to kill the game because it changed stuff? 

 

6 in a Wizardry game (or actually, 8 for Wizardry 8 ), or 4 in M&M 6, or 3-4 in a Final Fantasy game, or 2 in Divinity: Original Sin... all of that works or doesn't work to the extent that it's designed together with the rest of combat pacing, active abilities, encounter design, etc. If you don't bother thinking about any of that and just mouth "six six six" it's hardly much of an argument. 

 

 

 

Which games introduced a smaller party size compared to it's predecessors?

He suggested that the IE games, which PoE1 was based from, were balanced towards 6, you are just ignoring this and preteding that it don't have any logic, on the other hand "What if you started calling healing potions wunderbenders, and made skeletons high level enemies instead of low level fodder? Is that suddenly going to kill the game because it changed stuff? "this don't have any logic, you are suggesting just a replace, 5 members is not a replace to 6 members, it's less members.

"But the game will be balanced towards it!" Why bother rebalancing the game towards 5 members? People liked 6 members. Where are the explanations? Everyone here who are defending this don't have any solid explanations or reasons, they are just giving excuses, or saying "nah it's not a big deal, but what I think is a big deal!"

[Tigranes]

"Which games introduced a smaller party size compared to it's predecessors?"

 

Who cares? Even if every RPG in the world reduced party size in a sequel, that still wouldn't mean it's a great idea.

 

All that matters is, how will they rebalance the game for 5, and will that result in comparable or better tactical complexity - or no?

 

Nobody has made a single argument for why the number five is inherently unable to produce a good result. The burden of proof is on people saying it's a big deal, not the people saying 'let's wait and see'. People like you. People whose arguments mostly come down to "but I like 6", "other games did 6". 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Tigranes

[algroth]

 

"But the game will be balanced towards it!" Why bother rebalancing the game towards 5 members? People liked 6 members. Where are the explanations? Everyone here who are defending this don't have any solid explanations or reasons, they are just giving excuses, or saying "nah it's not a big deal, but what I think is a big deal!"

 

 

The truth to the matter is that this is not even a deal big or small to begin with, it's a non-issue. There's no natural law that states a six-member party is the ideal size, it's simply an arbitrary limit, but some people are so hell-bent in keeping even the most inconsequential detail the same that there have to be five threads about this topic (sorry, six, because six is the magic number). Learn to move on, folks.

Edited March 15, 2017 by algroth

[Heijoushin]

"But the game will be balanced towards it!" Why bother rebalancing the game towards 5 members? People liked 6 members. Where are the explanations? Everyone here who are defending this don't have any solid explanations or reasons, they are just giving excuses, or saying "nah it's not a big deal, but what I think is a big deal!"

 

We can't give an explanation because we're not the designers. As far as I know, all the designers have said is:

 

Feargus: "Totally understand your feeling. This was a design decision though not a funding one. We really feel that reducing the party size by one lets us make the combat aspect of Pillars more enjoyable. With Pillars one we tried to stick as closely to the Infinitey Engine (BG, IWD) formula as possible, but we want to see (slowly) how we can evolve that formula into 2018 and beyond."

 

Pretty vague I agree.

 

Now, I suppose there have been single design decisions that have completely put me off a series in the past. Like throwing away turned based combat in Final Fantasy or Diablo 3's respec system to name a few. But I don't think that this will be a decision that completely destroys Deadfire.

I think it may even increase replay value. Instead of throwing every companion and class you want to try into a single playthrough, you might have to do multiple playthroughs to experience everything. Sucks for the guys who only play it once, but good for the guys who play multiple times.