My Feelings on Five Party Members

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

Carries weight with you certainly, but not with me.

Then why in nine hells are you a backer, if devs opinions don't carry any weight with you?

Yeah, see, I have the freedom to back whatever the hell I want, so ....

Had no intention to suggest otherwise. Just expressing my astonishment at seeing someone who generously funds a project led by a team he doesn’t have a trust in.

 

 

I believe having trust and disappointed with certain decisions made by Obsidian are both different things. I'm greatly disappointed with their decision in party size limit reduction but that doesn't mean i don't trust them.

 

Accurate. Trust in this sense isn't an all-or-nothing deal. Just because I dislike a choice made by the dev team doesn't mea I don't trust them to make a good game, and just because I trust them to make a good game doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticize choices they've made or express frustration with some aspect of the game.

[kanisatha]

 

The big mistake you make is assuming the issue of party size is, for all players, all about combat. 

 

The big mistake you're making is assuming that by giving combat as an example that's all I care about. Character development and companion interactions are both important to me, but I don't buy the more is better argument.

 

Developing my characters is what's fun for me, and having only five to develop instead of six, by definition, means I will have 1/6th less fun therefore "worse" for me.

 

So you actually want a twelve person party right? I mean there are going to be twelve companions/sidekicks in Deadfire so, by definition, having a party of only six means having half as much fun as having a party of twelve.

 

As Fardragon says it's a false comparison. Character development looks to be significantly deeper in Deadfire as compared to Pillars such that I'll probably spend more time making choices in it than I did in Pillars.

No, actually it's you guys making a specious argument here. Character development is absolutely not zero-sum, so there's no such thing as spreading myself thin. Number of companions directly relates to amount of character development I can engage in.

 

And yes, I was referring to the mechanical development of my characters but also to narrative and story development. I especially also include optimally equipping my party as development, which again means the bigger the party size the more equipment I can optimally distribute across them.

 

Claiming that I must want party size 587 is just straw-man reductionism.

 

The one thing that would make the situation ok for me would be if the game (a) made it easy to swap companions in and out of the party without appreciable loss of XP levels, loss of banter, loss of progress on companion quests, etc., and (b) provided a UI where all companion paperdolls and inventories can be simultaneously accessed (not just those in the party). This would effectively make your entire group of companions your "party size" for the purpose of character development, which would be awesome. This is in effect what you have with companions in all of the Dragon Age games as well as NwN2, something I really liked and appreciated about those games.

[JerekKruger]

Character development is absolutely not zero-sum...

 

Who said it was?

 

Claiming that I must want party size 587 is just straw-man reductionism.

 

Given that you have now said:

 

... so there's no such thing as spreading myself thin. Number of companions directly relates to amount of character development I can engage in.

 

and

 

... the bigger the party size the more equipment I can optimally distribute across them.

 

I really don't think it is. Your argument throughout has been that more characters means more character development means more fun for you, and the logical extension of that is that you'd have the most fun with a twelve person party (the Watcher, the seven companions and the four sidekicks). If there's some reason why, in fact, the extra fun ceases at six then feel free to share it, but at this point my argument is in no way a straw man.

Edited October 17, 2017 by JerekKruger

[Sedrefilos]

Party of five until beta, at least. Get over it - subject exhausted - numerous threads. Reopen it after beta.

[Abel]

The limitation to 5 party members was bound to create debate.

 

I have no definite argument to give to explain why 6 would be better. It's just a personal preference. I'm a loving person, you know. I have much love to give :D. So, having only 5 characters to love frustrates me. I could easily love 6 of them, or even 7.

 

If i had an argument, it would only be a very personal one. In the playthrough i plan to export in Pillars 2, i have Eder, Pallegina AND Aloth in my party. So, it makes sense that i will use them in Deadfire. Which means i will have only 1 free slot for a new companion. I know already, that it will give me headaches... (but i'm happy that i can finally properly multiclass my priestess as a cleric . I will just have to suffer the end of Pillars 1 with her lame flail)

 

I would love the idea, too, for the party as a whole to have more importance in dialogue. Having the party members react/participate, and the NPC reacting to them. 6 party members would probably allow more complex/interesting things, and i guess that one more party member would allow way more combinations of banters in one playthrough. I don't care as much when it comes to combat, though i'm used to build balanced parties of 6 because of my tens of hours playing BG. So, i guess 5 would imply some difficulties for me to build the kind of parties i like to play. It was hard enough already to select only 6 in Pillars 1.

[smjjames]

Why even are we talking about 12 person parties? I doubt anybody thinks that is even close to reasonable, or even practical. Besides, there aren't 11 compnions, there are 7 companions with four of them being sidekicks that have even less content to them than PoE1 companions.

 

 

Party of five until beta, at least. Get over it - subject exhausted - numerous threads. Reopen it after beta.

 

^This. Without actual play experience, we can't evaluate whether five is fine for PoE2 or if it needs to be moved back to six.

[Fardragon]

Why even are we talking about 12 person parties? I doubt anybody thinks that is even close to reasonable, or even practical. Besides, there aren't 11 compnions, there are 7 companions with four of them being sidekicks that have even less content to them than PoE1 companions.

 

 

Party of five until beta, at least. Get over it - subject exhausted - numerous threads. Reopen it after beta.

 

^This. Without actual play experience, we can't evaluate whether five is fine for PoE2 or if it needs to be moved back to six.

 

Thorin Oakenshield favours 14.

[Lephys]

Claiming that I must want party size 587 is just straw-man reductionism.

 

Claiming that you want that would be that, yes. Merely pointing out that your reasoning finds a party of 700+ characters to be fine is nothing of the sort. You expressed absolutely no criteria for a ceiling on party size. You even stated that the number of party members has no bearing on the difficulty of balancing the game for said party size.

 

See, the expected sequence of events is:

 

1) Present reasoning.

2) Someone points out, in a completely robotic, neutral fashion, a flaw in your reasoning.

3) You amend your stated reasoning by elaborating on it or otherwise explain how it was misunderstood and the flaw doesn't actually exist, OR you realize that the flaw exists and re-consider your reasoning.

 

Instead, for some reason, I've noticed a trend of people choosing imaginary option #4, which is "Pretend no one pointed out anything valid, and that their argument had nothing to do with what you stated/presented, presumably so that you can feel better about yourself after assuming that all logical observations are personal assaults in some fashion."

 

Discussion is collaborative. You have a perspective on party size that is different from mine and others' here, so we're simply trying to explore your reasoning and perspective so that we can better understand the topic as a whole. Either I was mistaken in pointing out a flaw in your reasoning (in which case you make that known to me, and understanding is gained), or I was not mistaken (in which case you observe my addition to the discussion, and greater understanding is gained). Blocking this process by dodging/circumventing collaboration accomplishes nothing. Nor does anyone "winning" against anyone else. The only way we win is to discuss and understand. This is discussion's only purpose.

 

 

@Abel:

 

Definitely nothing wrong with having a preference for 6, . And hey... when all's said and done, with how things are in Deadfire when we actually get to play it, you may even find that they've done it in such a way that you don't greatly miss that 6th party member. You never know,

Edited October 20, 2017 by Lephys

[Abel]

 

@Abel:

 

Definitely nothing wrong with having a preference for 6, . And hey... when all's said and done, with how things are in Deadfire when we actually get to play it, you may even find that they've done it in such a way that you don't greatly miss that 6th party member. You never know,

 

 

It's a possibility, indeed. Or, maybe i'll find 5 is not enough, advocate for 587 and launch a "Cossacks" instead

[JerekKruger]

Instead, for some reason, I've noticed a trend of people choosing imaginary option #4, which is "Pretend no one pointed out anything valid, and that their argument had nothing to do with what you stated/presented, presumably so that you can feel better about yourself after assuming that all logical observations are personal assaults in some fashion."

 

The worst thing that happened to internet debating, in my opinion, was the propagation of the idea of logical fallacies. Most people don't seem to actually understand the fallacies, but claim their opponent is using them nonetheless, and treat that claim as though it's the ultimate trump card.

[Lephys]

Agreed, JerekKruger. There's a trend in people just not even considering how logic works, even while their brains use it to compute data for them to cognitively utilize. Some people nowadays would even go so far as to say that nothing can actually be correct, or there's no such thing as truth. But, as a result, people tend to approach anything contrary to their current opinion/viewpoint as some kind of petty "Nuh-uh, what I think is better!". It doesn't help that text can be read in so many different ways.

 

But, I remember back during the development of PoE, the term "strawman" was getting tossed around like beads at Mardi Gras, and most people had no idea what it even meant, really. They just knew that it meant someone was wrong.

 

*sigh*... annnnywho. I don't know what to do about it, unfortunately. No matter how may times you re-iterate something or explain it in a different way, someone either is interested in employing effort to understand the idea you're conveying, or they aren't. You can do 50% of the work, and the ball's in their court.

 

 

Another unfortunate trend is that people's posts are often treated as either 100% correct or 100% incorrect. I could say "2 + 2 equals 4, and penguins are reptiles," and half the time, the responses would just be that I was completely wrong and don't know anything, rather than "well, you're right that 2 + 2 does equal 4, but penguins are actually not reptiles. You were mistaken on that one thing." I don't know why that's become so taboo to do. *shrug*. I feel like a lot of people want to experience the thrill of debate without actually putting forth the effort, and I wish I knew why they think that's okay to do.

[Fardragon]

 

Instead, for some reason, I've noticed a trend of people choosing imaginary option #4, which is "Pretend no one pointed out anything valid, and that their argument had nothing to do with what you stated/presented, presumably so that you can feel better about yourself after assuming that all logical observations are personal assaults in some fashion."

 

The worst thing that happened to internet debating, in my opinion, was the propagation of the idea of logical fallacies. Most people don't seem to actually understand the fallacies, but claim their opponent is using them nonetheless, and treat that claim as though it's the ultimate trump card.

 

 

Where is your evidence that "most" people claim their opponent is using logical fallacies? Surely you have statistical data to support this assertion?

 

(I am willing to accept, a priori, that most people don't understand logical fallacies, since logic is not studied at many schools. Evidence: it is not on the UK National Curriculum.)

[JerekKruger]

Why even are we talking about 12 person parties? I doubt anybody thinks that is even close to reasonable, or even practical. Besides, there aren't 11 compnions, there are 7 companions with four of them being sidekicks that have even less content to them than PoE1 companions.

 

Aloth, Edér, Maia Rua, Pallegina, Serafen, Tekēhu and Xoti. That's seven full companions. On top of that there are four sidekicks, for a total of eleven NPCs who can join your party.

 

Of course twelve person parties are ridiculous. My point was to show the flaw in kanisatha's argument in favour of six person parties by pointing out that it actually favoured even larger parties.

 

^This. Without actual play experience, we can't evaluate whether five is fine for PoE2 or if it needs to be moved back to six.

 

Agreed, with the caveat that I'd say it would have to be pretty terrible to warrant the change since such a big change would involve a huge amount of rebalancing work and would likely hurt the game balance of the final product.

 

Where is your evidence that "most" people claim their opponent is using logical fallacies? Surely you have statistical data to support this assertion?

 

I misspoke or, more accurately, misstyped. I should have written "Most people don't seem to actually understand the fallacies, but many claim their opponent is using them nonetheless, and treat that claim as though it's the ultimate trump card." Many might still be a bit too strong, perhaps some is the better word. My evidence is simply that I see them brought up a lot more often in online debates recently than I used to. Of course there are all sorts of flaws with that evidence, most notably that my sample is not at all representative.

Edited October 24, 2017 by JerekKruger

[Skaddix]

Well I think they did a huge amount of rebalncing anyway with the spells moving to a per encounter basis instead of per rest. Priest all gaining restrictions on their spells list while Druids and Wizards can choose restrictions thanks to subclasses and that is not account for multiclassing coming as well. 

[Lephys]

I misspoke or, more accurately, misstyped. I should have written "Most people don't seem to actually understand the fallacies, but many claim their opponent is using them nonetheless, and treat that claim as though it's the ultimate trump card." Many might still be a bit too strong, perhaps some is the better word. My evidence is simply that I see them brought up a lot more often in online debates recently than I used to. Of course there are all sorts of flaws with that evidence, most notably that my sample is not at all representative.

 

My favorite indefinite quantitative term is "a goodly number of."

Edited October 24, 2017 by Lephys

[kanisatha]

 

Why even are we talking about 12 person parties? I doubt anybody thinks that is even close to reasonable, or even practical. Besides, there aren't 11 compnions, there are 7 companions with four of them being sidekicks that have even less content to them than PoE1 companions.

 

Aloth, Edér, Maia Rua, Pallegina, Serafen, Tekēhu and Xoti. That's seven full companions. On top of that there are four sidekicks, for a total of eleven NPCs who can join your party.

 

Of course twelve person parties are ridiculous. My point was to show the flaw in kanisatha's argument in favour of six person parties by pointing out that it actually favoured even larger parties.

My entire argument was very strictly speaking to the five versus six discussion. I never made any claims about wanting an infinitely large party. That said, one could favor a party greater than six (though not necessarily anywhere near twelve, seven for example) and there wouldn't be anything wrong with that. So I don't see a "flaw" in my argument at all. The only flaw I see here is people assuming things and then impugning others on the basis of those assumptions. If you were serious about "discussing," you could easily have just asked me what I favored.

 

Oh, and the "I know stuff and you don't" condescension is laughable. I'm sure I had already learned the principles of logic while you were still in elementary school, so enough with the silly insults.

 

I have yet to be provided with a *logical* argument for why five is better than six given that gameplay was just fine with six in PoE1, all of the personal opinions in this thread not withstanding.

[Katarack21]

I'm sure the gameplay will be fine with five. I'm only upset because it'll require a second playthrough simply to get another companions full story.

[AnneS]

My personal plan is to always have a ranger in the party. (I love the class but find managing the pet and six party members in POE a little annoying at times, so I figure five kith + one furry friend will be a perfect number for me.)

[Fardragon]

 

 

Where is your evidence that "most" people claim their opponent is using logical fallacies? Surely you have statistical data to support this assertion?

 

I misspoke or, more accurately, misstyped. I should have written "Most people don't seem to actually understand the fallacies, but many claim their opponent is using them nonetheless, and treat that claim as though it's the ultimate trump card." Many might still be a bit too strong, perhaps some is the better word. My evidence is simply that I see them brought up a lot more often in online debates recently than I used to. Of course there are all sorts of flaws with that evidence, most notably that my sample is not at all representative.

 

 

Yeah, sorry, I was trying (and clearly failing) to make a joke. I knew exactly what you meant. And that is perhaps a side issue - people use language loosely, expecting the person they are communicating with to understand what they mean, rather than the exact words used. This usually works fine in face-to-face communication, but can break down when translated into text.

 

I do think that arguments that could loosely be classed as "of a straw man type" are used too frequently though. Clearly by people who are completely unaware that they are doing it. For an example, a friend of mine recently responded to a suggestion from some UK doctors that the NHS should not treat obese patients for certain conditions because they are self inflicted with this argument: "What next? refusing to treat sporting injuries because they are self inflicted?! Outrageous!".

Edited October 25, 2017 by Fardragon

[Lephys]

I have yet to be provided with a *logical* argument for why five is better than six given that gameplay was just fine with six in PoE1, all of the personal opinions in this thread not withstanding.

 

The logical argument is that Obsidian know better than any of us how their party interaction and encounters are going to be designed, so it's extremely likely that they chose 5 instead of 6 for a whole bunch of tiny good reasons. There is no logical argument for why any number of companions is better than any other number, in a vacuum. Although, I could probably say that 5 is better than 12, because 12 just starts to become unwieldy, whether I prefer that number or a different number. That's just an example, by the way. I'm not at all suggesting anyone is asking for 12 party members.

 

Also, I'd just like to add that text can often read with a different tone than it was actually typed. Also, actual logical arguments often come across like androids speaking to you, so they often phrase things in such a way that could infer a lot of extra stuff, were someone other than a robot/android to say it. So, keep that in mind. If someone does not expressly say "Hahaha, and therefore I know more than you and that makes you dumb," please give them the benefit of the doubt. If someone says "There's a flaw in your argument," don't immediately think "HOW DARE YOU! YOU THINK YOU KNOW MORE THAN ME?!" internally. It's a matter-of-fact statement. Either they're wrong, in which cause you can correct them, or they aren't, in which case you now know something you did not. The goal of constructive argument is always to direct everyone's attention to greater understanding, including the person making the argument. It's a collaborative investigation of the topic at hand.

 

On that note, that last paragraph is not an attack on anyone. It's just a food for thought thing for everyone here to consider and find the value in individually. If you didn't need it, then cool. If you did, then cool. It's just there in case it's helpful.

[kanisatha]

On that note, that last paragraph is not an attack on anyone. It's just a food for thought thing for everyone here to consider and find the value in individually. If you didn't need it, then cool. If you did, then cool. It's just there in case it's helpful.

 

 

Ok fair enough, and I'm happy to extend that benefit of the doubt to you. But I still see your argument as opinion more than logic. The devs have offered their (logical?) argument, and I've stated here my personal opinion that their argument just doesn't wash for me and explained why this is so.

 

As for larger party sizes, yes, as a matter of fact even though my personal enjoyment of a game is directly related to party size (i.e. more is better), there are other important considerations involved as well including things becoming unwieldy and impractical as party size increases. So six (plus animal companions/familiars, summons, NPCs required to be taken along with you) is actually the sweet-spot for me at the convergence of those two important considerations.

[Lephys]

Fair enough. I guess when it comes to the change to 5 and logical reasons for it, it's almost like a coin toss in a way. You can't have a coin on heads and tails both, so you've gotta pick one. At the very least, maybe they're trying out 5 because they've already tried 6 and know how that plays. If objectively there is no better reason for one option over another, then logically they are all equally sound, I suppose. *shrug*.