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

[JerekKruger]

Who would win?

 

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

 

Trick question. The answer is actually the solo character designed by Boeroer of course!

[Archaven]

Well, here is my take on this subject,

At the beginning , because one of the main complain on Pillars Of Eternity was : "Combat Readability".

They chose to reduce that "party members cap" from 6 to 5, to solve that problem.

 

But, after a while, and I think "very recently", Devs came up with that "VFX Opacity" Feature... which, pretty much solves Combat Readability issue on its own, I think they kinda "didn't see that coming". Moreover, now that the Game is fully scheduled down : (Scale wise, Character wise, Monster wise, XP/Level wise, etc...) 

I don't wanna say it's to late to change things back but you know what I mean. It probably is...

 

I'd rather want 6 aswell, I enjoyed Tyranny's 4 a lot, & I'm ok with 5 !

Let's just see how it feels when the Backer Bêta comes out.

 

If Josh want combat clarity i suggest that he go with 1 and it can still be an awesome game i'm sure of it.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Archaven

[Varana]

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.

But then, for some people the heighday of their tabletop gaming happened before the advent of smartphones and tablets. :D

And even now, I know quite a few people who basically ban electronic devices from their PnP sessions because fiddling with them is way too distracting.

 

---

I think Karkarov's observation also holds true for videogames. Keeping track of more than six characters at the same time drastically reduces efficiency while using them. You need to keep track of their abilities, and upwards of that 4 to 6 number, choosing what to do next becomes re-thinking the next move every time, instead of executing a plan.

[Karkarov]

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.

At mid/high level D&D it isn't the DM's lack of skill, or need to update some sheet, that makes combat take a long time.  It is the fact that a player may need to think a moment about what they are doing, may have dozens of dice involved in the resolution, there may need to be multiple saving throws for tons of targets, potential rules discussion as someone may need to clarify if power or item X nullifies action Y, the DM may have 5-10 mobs to control themselves, initiative has to be done each round, etc etc.

 

It can just get very complex.

[injurai]

 

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.

At mid/high level D&D it isn't the DM's lack of skill, or need to update some sheet, that makes combat take a long time.  It is the fact that a player may need to think a moment about what they are doing, may have dozens of dice involved in the resolution, there may need to be multiple saving throws for tons of targets, potential rules discussion as someone may need to clarify if power or item X nullifies action Y, the DM may have 5-10 mobs to control themselves, initiative has to be done each round, etc etc.

 

It can just get very complex.

 

 

I must admit, I don't know much about pnp games. I've tried them, but my group was far to inexperienced to get anything worthwhile off the ground.

[Pallegina's Panties]

I frequently ran with a 3-man party in both Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale all those years ago (moreso the latter than the former as the interactions with followers in Baldur's Gate makes them much more desirable to keep around en masse than your own custom members of your Icewind Dale mercenary troupe).

 

While it is true that you start out weaker (a full party of fresh level 1 characters is way more powerful than one not so full) but I found that it quickly evened out as less people sharing in the spoils meant that each individual character can be outfitted in better gear, and the XP allowed you to gain levels faster - although I'm not sure how Pillars deals with XP like that.

 

So I am perfectly content with the idea of a 5-man party in PoE II.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Pallegina's Panties

[Messier-31]

Been foolin' around with smaller parties in the White March recently - gotta admit: less micromanagment, had more fun.

[injurai]

Been foolin' around with smaller parties in the White March recently - gotta admit: less micromanagment, had more fun.

 

I'm tempted to do the same.

[daven]

5 man parties are the way forward. Huzzah!

[feza76]

Mmm. im an old wow player and sincerely i like the 5 man party. But i hope this not to become a "1 tank, 1 healer, 3 dps party". It would be just a copy of other games.

Otherwise the 5 man party is much easy to handle. Sometimes with a 6 men party (and a fox for instance) i tend to let someone behind... 

[drithius]

It's at times like these that I truly bemoan the loss of City of Heroes,  one of the only games to truly obliterate the ingrained concepts of Tank, CC, Heal, DPS party roles.

[Archaven]

Mmm. im an old wow player and sincerely i like the 5 man party. But i hope this not to become a "1 tank, 1 healer, 3 dps party". It would be just a copy of other games.

Otherwise the 5 man party is much easy to handle. Sometimes with a 6 men party (and a fox for instance) i tend to let someone behind... 

 

The word "I".. With 6 party characters.. you CAN go with 5 man party. With 5 you CANT go with 6 for people who want it.

[JerekKruger]

The word "I".. With 6 party characters.. you CAN go with 5 man party. With 5 you CANT go with 6 for people who want it.

 

This isn't a good argument for a cap of six on the party, since the same argument can be made for seven, or eight, or even twelve (eleven companions/sidekicks in the game). Moreover it ignores the fact that the game is balanced (however poorly) around the party cap: raise the cap to six then anyone who takes five will be at a disadvantage.

[rjshae]

 

The word "I".. With 6 party characters.. you CAN go with 5 man party. With 5 you CANT go with 6 for people who want it.

 

This isn't a good argument for a cap of six on the party, since the same argument can be made for seven, or eight, or even twelve (eleven companions/sidekicks in the game). Moreover it ignores the fact that the game is balanced (however poorly) around the party cap: raise the cap to six then anyone who takes five will be at a disadvantage.

 

The key factor is whether the game uses RtWP or turn-based. Seven character parties work fine in ToEE and Wasteland 2. RtWP is better with small teams because party management doesn't scale well in that mode.

[Sedrefilos]

 

Mmm. im an old wow player and sincerely i like the 5 man party. But i hope this not to become a "1 tank, 1 healer, 3 dps party". It would be just a copy of other games.

Otherwise the 5 man party is much easy to handle. Sometimes with a 6 men party (and a fox for instance) i tend to let someone behind... 

 

The word "I".. With 6 party characters.. you CAN go with 5 man party. With 5 you CANT go with 6 for people who want it.

 

The classic argument that ignores that a game is designed around its party cap. If the game had 6 paty members and you went with 5 you raise the difficulty level, when you might not want to.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Sedrefilos

[Piero]

Having a party caped at six does allow you to go with a five man party, with a disadvantage, yes, but you can't go with six if there is a cap on five, wouldn't be better to establish a recommended party size, and encourage people to play this way, but not to put limitations, so, just as someone can play with a weaker four man party on a game balanced around six, can play with a broken seven, or twelve, on a game balanced around five, if that is what ze wants

[Sedrefilos]

I guess this is the new "In the Infinity Engine games...". 2017 version

[Wormerine]

Having a party caped at six does allow you to go with a five man party, with a disadvantage, yes, but you can't go with six if there is a cap on five, wouldn't be better to establish a recommended party size, and encourage people to play this way, but not to put limitations, so, just as someone can play with a weaker four man party on a game balanced around six, can play with a broken seven, or twelve, on a game balanced around five, if that is what ze wants

Well, no, if Obsidian believes that party of five will work better than party of 6 or 7 or 12 they should cap at 5. Because they are game designers. Their job is to design the game so it is fun to play. It is their responsibility to come up with rules which organize and benefit the experience. You can challenge yourself and go solo, but it is clear for anyone who plays the game that it is not what you are supposed to do. Like no mind control/heavy plasma run in XCOM. Giving you a higher companion cap and expect you to play with 5 to have a good experience would be a silly idea.

[Piero]

Oh

Edited August 8, 2017 by Piero

[Archaven]

 

The word "I".. With 6 party characters.. you CAN go with 5 man party. With 5 you CANT go with 6 for people who want it.

 

This isn't a good argument for a cap of six on the party, since the same argument can be made for seven, or eight, or even twelve (eleven companions/sidekicks in the game). Moreover it ignores the fact that the game is balanced (however poorly) around the party cap: raise the cap to six then anyone who takes five will be at a disadvantage.

 

 

Your argument isn't a good one either. All of the past infinity games were designed with 6 party characters not seven, eight or even twelve. Even first PoE was having 6 party characters. Why out of a sudden it need to be designed at the party cap of 5? Why not 4 then? Or even 3, 2 or 1?  It's the same argument i can make that anyone who takes 4 will be at a disadvantage. Your argument is moot as even first PoE there are people who solo with 1 party character.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Archaven

[JerekKruger]

Your argument isn't a good one either. 

 

What argument? I haven't argued in favour of a five person party cap. I am criticising your argument, not making my own.

 

All of the past infinity games were designed with 6 party characters not seven, eight or even twelve. Even first PoE was having 6 party characters.

 

So what?

 

Why out of a sudden it need to be designed at the party cap of 5? Why not 4 then? Or even 3, 2 or 1?

 

Because Obsidian have decided, for whatever reason, that the game will be improved as a result. They might be wrong, but I'd rather let them do the game development that see the game be designed by internet committee.

 

It's the same argument i can make that anyone who takes 4 will be at a disadvantage.

 

Yes they will. And?

 

Again, I was criticising your argument in favour of six, not making an argument in favour of five. The fact that the same problems apply to both is not an argument in favour of either.

 

Your argument is moot as even first PoE there are people who solo with 1 party character.

 

They do so because they want a challenge, therefore the disadvantage they face by using a smaller party (in this case the minimum) is not seen as a bad thing by them. For anyone who prefers to use a smaller party for reasons other than challenge this disadvantage is a negative.

 

Again, I am not saying this an argument in favour of one party size over another, I am pointing out that your argument that people can just restrict themselves to five person parties is flawed.

Edited August 6, 2017 by JerekKruger

[Sedrefilos]

 

 

The word "I".. With 6 party characters.. you CAN go with 5 man party. With 5 you CANT go with 6 for people who want it.

 

This isn't a good argument for a cap of six on the party, since the same argument can be made for seven, or eight, or even twelve (eleven companions/sidekicks in the game). Moreover it ignores the fact that the game is balanced (however poorly) around the party cap: raise the cap to six then anyone who takes five will be at a disadvantage.

 

 

Your argument isn't a good one either. All of the past infinity games were designed with 6 party characters not seven, eight or even twelve.

Yep, this is the new "in the Infinity Engine games" thing. Brace yourselves for the second wave :D

 

Edited August 6, 2017 by Sedrefilos

[algroth]

 

 

The word "I".. With 6 party characters.. you CAN go with 5 man party. With 5 you CANT go with 6 for people who want it.

 

This isn't a good argument for a cap of six on the party, since the same argument can be made for seven, or eight, or even twelve (eleven companions/sidekicks in the game). Moreover it ignores the fact that the game is balanced (however poorly) around the party cap: raise the cap to six then anyone who takes five will be at a disadvantage.

 

 

Your argument isn't a good one either. All of the past infinity games were designed with 6 party characters not seven, eight or even twelve. Even first PoE was having 6 party characters. Why out of a sudden it need to be designed at the party cap of 5? Why not 4 then? Or even 3, 2 or 1?  It's the same argument i can make that anyone who takes 4 will be at a disadvantage. Your argument is moot as even first PoE there are people who solo with 1 party character.

 

 

All of this would arguably make their decision better, and not worse, since they are more informed on what has in the past worked and what hasn't. For the matter of a direct comparison with the IE games, you also have to keep in mind the amount of active and passive abilities existing on each character in Pillars opposite to the much more standard and straightforward sets that the characters in the IE games had, all of which adds a lot of extra variables for the player to keep track of *as well as* the devs to balance around. With their experience in all these previous games taken into consideration they feel a five-man roster will lead to more intelligible and balanced combat, two problems that were by and large criticized of Pillars the first time around. If anything this is all done *because* the tried 6 party cap is not so true after all.

 

As others have mentioned, that people try to solo-party the game is precisely because they seek to be at a disadvantage and thus make the game harder. However, the devs don't balance the game around a solo experience, they do so around the party size that they set - that's their job as designers, and if they determine that it's easier and *better* to balance around five than around six, they'll do so.

Edited August 6, 2017 by algroth

[MortyTheGobbo]

As I've mentioned before, five of the classes will be getting more active abilities to use in combat. Three of them, the "classic" casters, will be more incentivized to use their abilities in every battle, instead of saving their daily spells for more important ones. This is going to increase the number of moving parts each battle.

 

Baldur's Gate had six party members at a time, but warriors and thieves ran on automatic even more so than they do in Pillars. You picked their targets and forgot about them.

[Raven Darkholme]

I can hardly argue here cuz I rarely go above 3 chars in a party, but:

As long as a restriction/ cap holds for a whole game nobody is at a disadvantage over others, so if the game gets released like this people will adapt to it quickly.

The main reason this could be bad if the party size was smaller than 5 would be the lack of ability to synergise, something that in my opinion sets Pillars 1 apart from other IE games.

But since not many(no?) synergies I know of depend on 6 chars (most depend on around 3) 5 is totally fine.

In Tyranny even 4 was fine, but that was mostly because the game meta was very centered on a single playstyle, you build one solochar as pc and jumped around him and watched him with your party while maybe attempting to keep up. (I oersonally didn't bother, but in my personal opinion that wasn't the best game design)

I like how Pillars 1 animated people to come up with crazy builds not only for single chars but a whole party supporting this idea, but I don't see how a 5 char limit is gonna change it.

 

As long as they keep party play interesting and not make you want to play with 5 very similar characters because it would be strongest, this should not affect the game negatively at all.