Five man party ? idk... let's discuss

[Tigranes]

As I said before, switch to five isn't actually likely to massively change how tactically complex the game is, or how your play experience feels in the way some people seem to think. As someone who's played IE games, POE, and many other RPGs ranging from full party to 3-4 man party to solo (and 8-man parties where permitted), the difference between 5 and 6 just isn't a big deal. 

 

Imagine someone said they think 7 is the magic number and it's a travesty POE only had 6. Obviously something changes once you go down to 2 or 3, but up here, it's less significant.

 

The reason a game like FF8 is much less tactically complex is down to the design of the combat and character system, not the 3-man party; it wouldn't be more complex or entertaining with a 6-man party, just more tedious. Hence the question is what they're doing to the rest of the systems, not the party size in itself.

 

Neither is 6 some kind of holy grail, there's a fair number of variance throughout RPG history. 

 

Exception is if you have this magic lineup that you insist on creating every single time you play any party WRPG and it absolutely needs 6 people, but in that case, take the opportunity to try some different compositions and build types. You'll find it's more enjoyable, and, uh, tactical. 

[injurai]

I noticed a big jump in Poe from 5 to 6 because my 6th was Sagani and I really ended up at 7. If I'm packing Maia most of the time I don't think things will feel that different from PoE tbh.

[Karkarov]

The general consensus here on the forum (from what people have talked about anyway) seems to be "We have some concerns, but are willing to see how it goes." However, if the objections become 'significant opposition' during the beta, would it be too late?

 

I have no idea about the reddit community or elsewhere, but it might be a similar "lets wait and see until we get our hands on it" attitude.

Considering that this community is probably the most hard core, and therefore niche, community for eternity games it is worthless as a measuring stick of what players want.  That said, the fact that the posts in this thread are 50/50 at worst indicates even the supposed "hard core" aren't that worried.

 

The cold truth is this, to the majority of people who end up playing Eternity 2 won't even stop to think about 5 versus 6.  Even if they do, they will be highly unlikely to think 6 is somehow inherently better.  I expect some reviewers will mention it if they are big RPG sites, but that's about it.

[smjjames]

I wouldn't say it's completely worthless as a measuring stick. Probably more useful as a litmus dipstick test.

[Gregorovitch]

 

The general consensus here on the forum (from what people have talked about anyway) seems to be "We have some concerns, but are willing to see how it goes." However, if the objections become 'significant opposition' during the beta, would it be too late?

 

I have no idea about the reddit community or elsewhere, but it might be a similar "lets wait and see until we get our hands on it" attitude.

Considering that this community is probably the most hard core, and therefore niche, community for eternity games it is worthless as a measuring stick of what players want.  That said, the fact that the posts in this thread are 50/50 at worst indicates even the supposed "hard core" aren't that worried.

 

The cold truth is this, to the majority of people who end up playing Eternity 2 won't even stop to think about 5 versus 6.  Even if they do, they will be highly unlikely to think 6 is somehow inherently better.  I expect some reviewers will mention it if they are big RPG sites, but that's about it.

 

 

The concensus is 50% expressing concern and 50% "I don't know, we'll have to wait and see". There is virtually no direct support for the reduced party size. Nor is there any real arguements made as to why a five charcter party might be better than six.

 

I have three main issues with it:

 

1. I am going to have me (druid), Eder, Aloth and Pallegina so I will only be able to use one other charcter, and that will be whoever the priest is. I am obviously unhappy that the game has already predetermined exactly who is going to be in my party first playthrough.

 

2. I almost always select a specific team and stick with that in any one playthrough, that's just hop I roll. Having only four companions is obviously an unwelcome restriction on using new recruitable NPCs

 

3. The magic of PoE1 for me was the tactical depth involvedd in holding a front line against numbers trying to kill your backline on PotD. Losing a charcter from the party leaves me worried that that depth will degenerate into a simplistic toe-to-toe ability-clicker slug fest a la Tyranny. That would be just....bad.

[Archaven]

I think some will find that having one less party character is being even out with multi-classing. I think having that impression is wrong. Having 1 less character means having 1 lesser power/support. It's quite punishing even you have 6 party characters in POTD. I can't imagine with 5. Plus my biggest issue is that i'm having 1 less slot that i wanted a character to fit in. If let's say you always want the 3 core returning characters to be in the party it means you have 1 slot left to choose for the new party.

[smjjames]

To be honest, I have a feeling that if the three companions weren't returning, there wouldn't be quite as much complaint about it. Most of us are likely to play with those three in the first run, which is totally fine, however, in the E3 vid and some others, we've seen Maia be in the only other available slot. So, doing it without a dedicated healer should stil be viable.

 

Besides, you have the multiclassing and Paladins already have some team healing abilities.

[Wormerine]

I think some will find that having one less party character is being even out with multi-classing. I think having that impression is wrong. Having 1 less character means having 1 lesser power/support. It's quite punishing even you have 6 party characters in POTD. I can't imagine with 5. Plus my biggest issue is that i'm having 1 less slot that i wanted a character to fit in. If let's say you always want the 3 core returning characters to be in the party it means you have 1 slot left to choose for the new party.

 

Well of course, party of 6 is more powerful than a party of 5. But you won't be played PoE1 with 5 characters but Deadfire which was designed with a party of 5 in mind. Multiclassing will only allow you to bring tools from more classes. I will probably no use multiclassing until my 2nd playthrough, when I have a better idea of how the game works.

[Tigranes]

" I am obviously unhappy that the game has already predetermined exactly who is going to be in my party first playthrough."

 

It hasn't, only your mental compulsions.

[Sedrefilos]

A party of 5 is obviously less powerful than a party of 6, which is less powerful than a party of 7, which is less powerful than a party of 8, which is less powerful than aprty of 9, which is...................................................................................................................................., which is less powerful than a standard army.

[rjshae]

A party of 5 is obviously less powerful than a party of 6, which is less powerful than a party of 7, which is less powerful than a party of 8, which is less powerful than aprty of 9, which is...................................................................................................................................., which is less powerful than a standard army.

 

There's more to it than just numbers. Look up combined arms tactics some time. The whole can be stronger than the sum of its parts. Larger numbers allow more sophisticated tactics, which makes combat more interesting... and challenging.

[Heijoushin]

" I am obviously unhappy that the game has already predetermined exactly who is going to be in my party first playthrough."

 

It hasn't, only your mental compulsions.

 

Don't you know? Obsidian put a gun to his head and told him how to role his opening party

 

Look, I do sympathize with the guys who just want to roll MOAR characters, but look on the bright-side: replay value! 

[Wormerine]

 

A party of 5 is obviously less powerful than a party of 6, which is less powerful than a party of 7, which is less powerful than a party of 8, which is less powerful than aprty of 9, which is...................................................................................................................................., which is less powerful than a standard army.

 

There's more to it than just numbers. Look up combined arms tactics some time. The whole can be stronger than the sum of its parts. Larger numbers allow more sophisticated tactics, which makes combat more interesting... and challenging.

 

I agree. But I am not sure it applies to PoE as it is. The positioning, movement and tactics has never really been a big part of this genre (and I wish it would be.) In the end it is all about rolls, statistic and exploiting weaknesses of your opponents, while fortyfing your defences against attacks of your enemies. There is little opportunity for maneuvering, outthinking enemies or winning against the odds. Buffup/focus DPS/healers/tanks. That is pretty much all there is to it. I just don't see how one character less will change it, except they might be one less DPS to kill on enemy team, or less enemies so one tank can lock them up instead of two. That's really it.

[Archaven]

A party of 5 is obviously less powerful than a party of 6, which is less powerful than a party of 7, which is less powerful than a party of 8, which is less powerful than aprty of 9, which is...................................................................................................................................., which is less powerful than a standard army.

 

and your point is? so what should be the magic number for a standard army then? based on older games the standard number has always been 6. so what makes 5 a better number and not 4, or 3 or 2 or 1?

[Sedrefilos]

 

A party of 5 is obviously less powerful than a party of 6, which is less powerful than a party of 7, which is less powerful than a party of 8, which is less powerful than aprty of 9, which is...................................................................................................................................., which is less powerful than a standard army.

 

and your point is? so what should be the magic number for a standard army then? based on older games the standard number has always been 6. so what makes 5 a better number and not 4, or 3 or 2 or 1?

 

My point is that there is no magic number for best party number. Many people here say that 5 will be worst than 6 because Pillars 1 was playd with 6. But Deadfire is designed around 5 so I believe it won't matter. And at the end, we can't talk about it untill we playtest it.

There is no magic party number; only good and bad game design.

[DexGames]

Lol, this thread goes full non-sense. 

 

It's 5 for now, will probably end up being 5.

That's it, until Bêta Feedbacks. Y'all should deal with it...

[Sedrefilos]

Lol, this thread goes full non-sense. 

 

It's 5 for now, will probably end up being 5.

That's it, until Bêta Feedbacks. Y'all should deal with it...

Don't be so cold. Peoples' lives depend on that

Edited July 25, 2017 by Sedrefilos

[injurai]

Who would win?

 

Party of 6 on their first adventure vs Party of 5 on their second adventure?

[Sedrefilos]

If you invited 5 friends to your house, would you call that a party? A deep philosophical question.

[Wormerine]

If you invited 5 friends to your house, would you call that a party? A deep philosophical question.

As a matter of fact 5 is my preferred party size. 6 or more and people start splitting into groups and it kills me if two conversations are happening and I can't be part of both...

[Heijoushin]

If you invited 5 friends to your house, would you call that a party? A deep philosophical question.

 

Excellent point. Just inviting 5 friends over doesn't make it a party. You need food, drinks and babes. Which tells me that it's not the number that's important, it's the entertainment. 

[FlintlockJazz]

Interesting thought: there is the theory that people can only effectively manage 4-6 people directly.  More than that and it is best to delegate control of people to others and then manage those people.  Tabletop RPGs traditionally recommend parties of 4-6 players managed by one GM.  I have seen and played in games where there were more, a lot more like 12 players, and regardless of the fun had between friends the actual game was just dire, just dire, half the players didn't know what was going on etc.  This makes me think that the party size of 4-6 comes from this: the number a GM can manage in a tabletop situation, based on human management capability. 

 

What relevance does this have with cRPGs?  **** knows, I just thought it was interesting to bring up, since apart from Final Fantasy games the number of party members tends to be in this range (except strangely 5 isn't used that much, its either 4 or 6 normally, possibly because you either cater to the ones capable with managing their parties or you cater to the ones who aren't so good).  Add to this: is the player in cRPGs closer to being a GM than a player in the traditional tabletop sense due to this?  Just food for thought.

[Quillon]

 

If you invited 5 friends to your house, would you call that a party? A deep philosophical question.

As a matter of fact 5 is my preferred party size. 6 or more and people start splitting into groups and it kills me if two conversations are happening and I can't be part of both...

 

 

And this is why the fellowship of the ring dissolved. If it was just Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli they'd have destroyed the ring in the first book

[Karkarov]

This makes me think that the party size of 4-6 comes from this: the number a GM can manage in a tabletop situation, based on human management capability.

I guess it is a little bit that, but the truth is far simpler.  One round of combat, especially at mid level +, in D&D, or other tabletop games, takes a helluva long time if you have a lot of players.  I was once in a game with 10 players, no one had problems keeping up with what was going on, but one round of combat took 35 minutes.  That is just not a fun experience.

 

When I played D&D the ironic truth is, my preferred game size was the DM, and 5 players.  It gave enough characters to cover all the bases, and was a big enough party to make encounter design fun for the DM.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Karkarov

[injurai]

 

This makes me think that the party size of 4-6 comes from this: the number a GM can manage in a tabletop situation, based on human management capability.

I guess it is a little bit that, but the truth is far simpler.  One round of combat, especially at mid level +, in D&D, or other tabletop games, takes a helluva long time if you have a lot of players.  I was once in a game with 10 players, no one had problems keeping up with what was going on, but one round of combat took 35 minutes.  That is just not a fun experience.

 

When I played D&D the ironic truth is, my preferred game size was the DM, and 5 players.  It gave enough characters to cover all the bases, and was a big enough party to make encounter design fun for the DM.

 

 

Even if you're playing a tabletop scenerio, I'm surprised I haven't heard about any GM software to at least take the pnp part and automate it. I know Original Sin 2 is doing something neat in that regard. But it doesn't even need visuals. Just like a GM/Character sheet update interface, maybe a way for players to keep logs or lore entries. It  would make rounds much quicker.