I read the modding part of forums... and unless I read something incorrectly (which is entirely possible) then the modders are saying that it would be possible to leave the extra party member(s) concept to the modders themselves.
With the fact that people really want this (some don't) it will probably be introduced as a mod at some point
People have have been requesting this for years, but until now it was impossible due to hardcoding.
I believe it would be better as a mod, as it would involve a lot of programming effort that should be directed at making the game as stable and optimized as possible for release.
I read the modding part of forums... and unless I read something incorrectly (which is entirely possible) then the modders are saying that it would be possible to leave the extra party member(s) concept to the modders themselves.
I'm pretty sure that the exact opposite has been said over and over again.
I read the modding part of forums... and unless I read something incorrectly (which is entirely possible) then the modders are saying that it would be possible to leave the extra party member(s) concept to the modders themselves.
With the fact that people really want this (some don't) it will probably be introduced as a mod at some point
In over ten years of modding the infinity engine, the one thing modders have not been able to do is increase the party size, because it requires direct alteration to how the code handles actions by the players. Hence why this has to be done by the Overhaul team and not by anyone else.
There is some research going into it as part of the GemRB project, but no results yet.
Wouldn't the game have to be rebalanced in order to make 8-people party make some sense?
Possibly. Although the party's experience would be split by 8 rather than 6, so the characters would improve at a slower rate.
D&D games (both tabletop and computerised) assume that all parties carry a warrior, a thief, a wizard and a priest. Deviating from that formula tends to have... unbalanced results. You can kill Sarevok with six stealthed rogues with backstab in seconds, but struggle to survive for more than a few minutes with only pure-class fighters. Balance is relative.
To add to what @Luge said, balance also becomes even more relative when dealing with a game that lacks a pvp system. Not to mention the ability to determine the difficulty setting you wish.
To hell with the game, I just want to do what I want! We should also create an FPS mode and introduce a +1 M-16 in the game!
No, I dislike this idea, for balance, storyline and replay value depend on a small party.
You may recall that the "hidden" pantaloons "quest" essentially gave you a semi-automatic magic missile shooter. That's about as close as you can get to an M-16 without actually having one. Yes, I know, the in-game weapon isn't a 3-round burst, but since the Archer at the higher levels + Improved Haste is essentially a fully automatic AK with better accuracy and less recoil, especially if he's got 5 slots in sling and is using the Sling of Seeking +2 (adds the Strength modifier to ranged attacks), I'm not too worried about that.
Let's be clear, Ladies and Gentlemen: To those of us who have been playing this game for 10 years or longer, especially on the increased difficulties given us by BG2, this game is only going to get but so hard. Those of us who have solo'd the game with a Sorcerer know that no more than six characters are required. Honestly, I'm not sure more than four are if you're not playing a solo-able class as the main character, especially considering how powerful Sorcerers and dual-classed Kensai/Thieves or Mages become.
That said, I often worry about dropping members of my chosen party for the specific purpose of doing a character-specific quest, especially when I have to drop the member for some time. I worry about triggers, I worry about bugs, I worry about romance interruptions, etc. It'd be nice to be able to do those quests without having to risk something that I might not be able to fix with a reload. Per the realism value, which is always a concern with any game, it's not likely that I won't be able to escort Nalia to her funeral and rescue her from kidnappers without telling Aerie or Jaheira to bugger off for a while.
This is another one of those situations where additions could be made to the game without affecting those people who don't want the additions. Should they increase the maximum amount of party members, the hardest thing you would have to do to enjoy your gameplaying experience is not add another member, i.e., do absolutely nothing at all. If you want to advocate a slider of some sort to customize further how many characters your party can hold, sure, why not?
This is not a matter of just changing a byte somewhere from "LIMIT = 6" to "LIMIT = 255" and then everybody who wants a bigger party can have it and those who don't, don't have to play that way.
That seems a rather unfair statement. Nobody seems to be under the impression that it's as simple as typing a command into CLUAConsole.
The Infinity Engine's script language is *not prepared* to deal with a party of arbitrary size. It is super-duper-set-in-its-ways on expecting six characters, and in fact has no way to perform useful actions on a party of arbitrary size. All of the in-game scripting is similarly wired to expect six characters. Hundreds of scripts in every game are already written for a hardcoded six-player party. First the engine would have to be changed, then these hundreds of scripts would need to be changed. Never mind the balance/XP/performance/etc questions--it would be a substantial task just making sure all of the code was changed, and changed correctly, so the game doesn't get hung up in a cutscene, so party members don't fail to make area transitions, and so forth.
Sounds like it would be tedious and time-consuming. But not difficult or complicated. Having 5 guys doing 5 script alterations a day 250 days a year is over 6,000 scripts a year from today. Having 5 guys reviewing 5 script alterations a day 250 days a year to scan for errors is... You get my point.
I won't pretend to understand the budget or coding constraints, but if it's a matter of applied effort, then I say apply the effort. You're about to charge me for it, so apply the effort. If that means increasing the price of the game somewhat, then so be it. I'm a capitalist. I know how this works.
There is a term for a software project manager who lets developers tinker with hundreds of scripts in a shipped product which *already work just fine*, when a mistake in *any one of them* could break the product. That term is "very bad at their job."
There's also a term for a game design manager who is authorized and paid to alter a product and then simply rewraps the old product and ships it out. That term is... Oh, you get my point.
Well I don't want 15 people to have to look after. That's just ridiculous. To those who proposed it, I always thought they were joking, and if they're not... well... okay fine. 7 or 8 would be a great max in my opinion, and yes pathing in those hallways is a bit of a pain with 6 people. Would it be more of a pain with more? Probably. Doesn't really matter because it's a pain anyways. Narrow hallways aren't THAT bad in BG1 anyways, there's like, what, 3 places where it's an issue
Ugh. A largely squishy party in the Firewine Ruins with 8 characters... Yikes!
I think changing the amount of players one can have in a party is a bad idea, 6 is enough to complete the game without too much effort and allows for interesting party compositions, adding more will make the game ridiculously easy. Besides, Balder's gate has always had 5 party slots and 1 for a protagonist.
The most fun I have is trying to create a party that is unique and interesting while needing to be able to provide combat effectiveness within the slots available.
All I say to the game being too easy is get SCS. That pretty much makes everyone happy in that particular scene. With more people also comes with more responsibility, even one extra person can slightly alter the strategies used, not to mention the smaller amount of experience gained because it has to spread even thinner, which has been said... Quite often in this thread.
Had a dumb idea... expect it to be ripped to shreds (Haven't seen anyone else say this yet either... but just in case sorry if this thought has been written before...)
It would be lovely to have more than 6 slots. You could get all the interactions you could wish for. You could get all the quests on offer. You can take an army around the streets of Baldur's Gate...
Not gonna happen @JCompton has already stated, and he was just the messanger, (I love you JCompton!) SIX = LIMIT, HARDCODED.
It's a bit like watching students on their mopeds looking for a big hill. They will never achieve 120mph on their 50cc bike however much they want it...
But I regularly took armies for a jaunt in BG. I charmed everyone and sent them willy nilly everywhere. Didn't cause me a problem...
My idea is this. Lots of Characters come in pairs. Why can't you take one of the pair into the party and have the other tag along like a charmed character. Khalid would join the party... No one could control Jaheria... She just acts on her own but following (I suppose like a familiar...) and fighting following a script. Minsc would join the party, Dynhier would act on her own, Xvar would join, Montarion would be the extra muscle. If poss you should be able to get them to join the party to change their gear and stuff... But if the other half is still their... the other one stays and follows.
Get my drift? Okay they would not act in the way you would want them too, but they would be there. Not sure if this would work with conversations etc... I have no idea how the engine works.
If you think this is a good half measure you could live with agree. If your a modder and think I'm an idiot... click insightful on realising my idiocy ; )
Sadly, the reason (at least I) want a bigger party isn't for power; it's already been clearly indicated that you don't need more than 6 for difficulty, and that's obviously true. The reason I'd want more slots if for roleplaying reasons; to hear the banters, and talk to the NPCs, etc.
Still, Anduin's suggestion would be a big improvement, especially since I almost always take Jaheira+Khalid, and Minsc+Dynaheir. As long as you could switch which one was the "true" party member without too much difficulty (in order to change their eqiupment and AI), then this could be very effective. Enough to induce me to buy the game, I think.
Probably want the womenfolk as the "true" members most of the time, as control is more necessary for spellcasters than fighter types.
I'm actually amazed this hasn't been mentioned before. Or if it has, my search-fu is weaker than I thought...
It sounds like there are a lot of cool new things in EE, but with the modding community ten years old, a lot of it has been done before.
Ported into the BG2 engine? Check. Fixed the bugs? Yep More NPCs? Pick from dozens of mods with high-quality additions to your party. More quests? Been done before. High resolution/widescreen? Double-check.
I bought the BG1 and BG2 collectors edition years ago, so I've already supported the developers. But I was to buy EE, what's the one thing that hasn't been done with the engine (but which the GEMRB environment might finally achieve?) More NPC slots.
There's no roleplaying reason why you're limited to six characters. Why do you have to abaondom someone just to help Eldoth rescue Skie from Baldur's Gate? Why do you have to leave one of your party of six behind after you finally make it through the Gnoll fortress and find that the only way to "rescue" Dynaheir is to add her to your party?
BAD! No cookie for you.
I'd like twenty NPC slots, please. Especially now you're introducing three new characters to bring along. I'd be happy with a dozen or so, at a push, but I'd rather have all I can get. Feel free to scale the difficulty to the number of players in my party - In fact, I'd prefer it, since I like a challenge.
Well, they shouldn't have given us so many interesting NPCs in the first place, should they? Then we wouldn't be complaining :P
Seriously, though. I think balance is over-rated. Elsewhere on the forum there are cries that certain classes are underpowered or overpowered. I would say that all the D&D classes are perfectly balanced but not necessarily in combat . The problem is that in a CRPG, a combat is inevitably the main feature of the game, and ablities that are incredibly powerful in the tabletop version are forgotten.
One example is bardic lore. In a tabletop game, having a bard in the party greatly increases the players' ability to solve puzzles and get information about the game world. Players might not know who the current mayor of Nashkel is, but the party bard will definately know AND will know of any juicy rumours going around about the town. All of this information can be used as part of the quest to influence the outcome. Similarly, wizards and priests will know a fair amount about magical phenomenon and be able to interpret certain mystical signs. Fighters, for all their combat prowess, get none of this and function as little more than meat shields (although important ones all the same).
Back on topic... There could be severe penalties for a large party (exponential fees per head for staying at inns, demands for tribute from locals who are uncomfortable with large groups of heavily-armed adventurers hanging around their village), but an arbitrary limit on the number just feels wrong.
@Luge I agree with you on both your points, about the usefulness of some classes on tabletop and the need to expand the limits of your group.
The first could be implemented in game by having free rumors get to the bard whenever he enters a tavern, for instance. Maybe after a performance he hears the rumors and get some gold as well, no need to pay the inkeeper for rumors.
I never saw anyone in a tabletop game complaining about balance. The classes are supposed to be complementary to each other in combat and have other uses outside of it. No one should expect the party's wizard to be a frontliner or the party's warrior to single handedly hold an entire horde of monsters. What many people do not understand is that no class in AD&D is all powerful and all useful, each has a role to play.
About your second point the main problem I see with a limitless party is not only the social problem of walking a heavily armed small army in a city and find an inn that has enough room for all, but there is also the technical problem of game scripts.
They all expect a party to be a certain size (up to 6) and test only this amount. A remember a comment by one of the developers saying that the party size is hardcoded thousands of times throughout the game, over 2000 if my memory is not failing me. It would be simpler in a first moment to expand the party size to a certain number (7, 8, 12, whatever) than make it truly limitless. It would probably require the creation of a new function to check for end of party when applying area of effect spells.
Notice that even increasing the grup size would break all mods that changes spells, for instace as the spell wouldn't check for party members beyond 6.
So as much as I'd like to see a bigger party, I understand the enormous work it would require and understand the decision to not change it in release.
@mlnevese, the coding problems that you mention have already been explored by the GemRB modding team, and you're right in what you say - The game engine is indeed coded to check for party member #1, then party member #2, then #3, #4, #5 and finally party member #6. However, since the pattern is the same each time, they've found that it's possible to search for instances of that block of code and add subsequent lines for party member #7, #8, #9 and so on.
In fact, all you would be searching for is any mention of party member #6 (in the code "Player6"), because that indicates that the script is doing something to all the party members (rather than just the protagonist).
As stated in the subject topic, this is the one change that wuld guarantee that I buy the game. I'm trying to help the developers. I think this change would mean some work (but not as much as many people think) and it would be definately worth the effort.
@Luge That's why I point the problem is in an unlimited party size. How do you know where to stop checking? Most probable change would be to increase the party size, but keep some kind of limit, then change all scripts to check for those new limits.
The mods would still be broken until updated though...
I think the vast majority (certainly myself) would be more than happy with a doubling of party size, mlnevese. Heck, even two more slots would be enough to guarantee my purchase of the game.
@Luge That's why I point the problem is in an unlimited party size. How do you know where to stop checking? Most probable change would be to increase the party size, but keep some kind of limit, then change all scripts to check for those new limits.
The mods would still be broken until updated though...
If you're going to increase it by some arbitrary number (say from six to eight) then you might as well change it to fifty, and then softcode the lower limit.
Mods could be updated using he same detection routine as changing the main code scripts.
I think I'm being misunderstood here. I'm all in for a larger party size. All i'm pointing is that due to limitations in the script language it can't be unlimited.
There's also the practical problem of reworking the UI for a larger party, which is much simpler than changing the script language.
So yes, if it's softcoded maybe you could have a 50 member party. In practice you'd run into problems displaying them all.
There may be other problems in increasing the party size related to the run-time environment where the scripts run. Only the developers could answer that.
Comments
With the fact that people really want this (some don't) it will probably be introduced as a mod at some point
I believe it would be better as a mod, as it would involve a lot of programming effort that should be directed at making the game as stable and optimized as possible for release.
Not.
Going.
To.
Happen.
There is some research going into it as part of the GemRB project, but no results yet.
L.
L.
D&D games (both tabletop and computerised) assume that all parties carry a warrior, a thief, a wizard and a priest. Deviating from that formula tends to have... unbalanced results. You can kill Sarevok with six stealthed rogues with backstab in seconds, but struggle to survive for more than a few minutes with only pure-class fighters. Balance is relative.
L.
Let's be clear, Ladies and Gentlemen: To those of us who have been playing this game for 10 years or longer, especially on the increased difficulties given us by BG2, this game is only going to get but so hard. Those of us who have solo'd the game with a Sorcerer know that no more than six characters are required. Honestly, I'm not sure more than four are if you're not playing a solo-able class as the main character, especially considering how powerful Sorcerers and dual-classed Kensai/Thieves or Mages become.
That said, I often worry about dropping members of my chosen party for the specific purpose of doing a character-specific quest, especially when I have to drop the member for some time. I worry about triggers, I worry about bugs, I worry about romance interruptions, etc. It'd be nice to be able to do those quests without having to risk something that I might not be able to fix with a reload. Per the realism value, which is always a concern with any game, it's not likely that I won't be able to escort Nalia to her funeral and rescue her from kidnappers without telling Aerie or Jaheira to bugger off for a while.
This is another one of those situations where additions could be made to the game without affecting those people who don't want the additions. Should they increase the maximum amount of party members, the hardest thing you would have to do to enjoy your gameplaying experience is not add another member, i.e., do absolutely nothing at all. If you want to advocate a slider of some sort to customize further how many characters your party can hold, sure, why not?
That seems a rather unfair statement. Nobody seems to be under the impression that it's as simple as typing a command into CLUAConsole.
Sounds like it would be tedious and time-consuming. But not difficult or complicated. Having 5 guys doing 5 script alterations a day 250 days a year is over 6,000 scripts a year from today. Having 5 guys reviewing 5 script alterations a day 250 days a year to scan for errors is... You get my point.
I won't pretend to understand the budget or coding constraints, but if it's a matter of applied effort, then I say apply the effort. You're about to charge me for it, so apply the effort. If that means increasing the price of the game somewhat, then so be it. I'm a capitalist. I know how this works.
There's also a term for a game design manager who is authorized and paid to alter a product and then simply rewraps the old product and ships it out. That term is... Oh, you get my point.
Ugh. A largely squishy party in the Firewine Ruins with 8 characters... Yikes!
The most fun I have is trying to create a party that is unique and interesting while needing to be able to provide combat effectiveness within the slots available.
Had a dumb idea... expect it to be ripped to shreds (Haven't seen anyone else say this yet either... but just in case sorry if this thought has been written before...)
It would be lovely to have more than 6 slots. You could get all the interactions you could wish for. You could get all the quests on offer. You can take an army around the streets of Baldur's Gate...
Not gonna happen @JCompton has already stated, and he was just the messanger, (I love you JCompton!) SIX = LIMIT, HARDCODED.
It's a bit like watching students on their mopeds looking for a big hill. They will never achieve 120mph on their 50cc bike however much they want it...
But I regularly took armies for a jaunt in BG. I charmed everyone and sent them willy nilly everywhere. Didn't cause me a problem...
My idea is this. Lots of Characters come in pairs. Why can't you take one of the pair into the party and have the other tag along like a charmed character. Khalid would join the party... No one could control Jaheria... She just acts on her own but following (I suppose like a familiar...) and fighting following a script. Minsc would join the party, Dynhier would act on her own, Xvar would join, Montarion would be the extra muscle. If poss you should be able to get them to join the party to change their gear and stuff... But if the other half is still their... the other one stays and follows.
Get my drift? Okay they would not act in the way you would want them too, but they would be there. Not sure if this would work with conversations etc... I have no idea how the engine works.
If you think this is a good half measure you could live with agree. If your a modder and think I'm an idiot... click insightful on realising my idiocy ; )
Still, Anduin's suggestion would be a big improvement, especially since I almost always take Jaheira+Khalid, and Minsc+Dynaheir. As long as you could switch which one was the "true" party member without too much difficulty (in order to change their eqiupment and AI), then this could be very effective. Enough to induce me to buy the game, I think.
Probably want the womenfolk as the "true" members most of the time, as control is more necessary for spellcasters than fighter types.
L.
Don't ask me its name. I was a child.
Anyway, yes. a 8-member-team DLC would be greatly appreciated, especially now that we have new characters added for the Extended Edition.
that would be a nightmare to manage!
Seriously, though. I think balance is over-rated. Elsewhere on the forum there are cries that certain classes are underpowered or overpowered. I would say that all the D&D classes are perfectly balanced but not necessarily in combat . The problem is that in a CRPG, a combat is inevitably the main feature of the game, and ablities that are incredibly powerful in the tabletop version are forgotten.
One example is bardic lore. In a tabletop game, having a bard in the party greatly increases the players' ability to solve puzzles and get information about the game world. Players might not know who the current mayor of Nashkel is, but the party bard will definately know AND will know of any juicy rumours going around about the town. All of this information can be used as part of the quest to influence the outcome. Similarly, wizards and priests will know a fair amount about magical phenomenon and be able to interpret certain mystical signs. Fighters, for all their combat prowess, get none of this and function as little more than meat shields (although important ones all the same).
Back on topic... There could be severe penalties for a large party (exponential fees per head for staying at inns, demands for tribute from locals who are uncomfortable with large groups of heavily-armed adventurers hanging around their village), but an arbitrary limit on the number just feels wrong.
L.
The first could be implemented in game by having free rumors get to the bard whenever he enters a tavern, for instance. Maybe after a performance he hears the rumors and get some gold as well, no need to pay the inkeeper for rumors.
I never saw anyone in a tabletop game complaining about balance. The classes are supposed to be complementary to each other in combat and have other uses outside of it. No one should expect the party's wizard to be a frontliner or the party's warrior to single handedly hold an entire horde of monsters. What many people do not understand is that no class in AD&D is all powerful and all useful, each has a role to play.
About your second point the main problem I see with a limitless party is not only the social problem of walking a heavily armed small army in a city and find an inn that has enough room for all, but there is also the technical problem of game scripts.
They all expect a party to be a certain size (up to 6) and test only this amount. A remember a comment by one of the developers saying that the party size is hardcoded thousands of times throughout the game, over 2000 if my memory is not failing me. It would be simpler in a first moment to expand the party size to a certain number (7, 8, 12, whatever) than make it truly limitless. It would probably require the creation of a new function to check for end of party when applying area of effect spells.
Notice that even increasing the grup size would break all mods that changes spells, for instace as the spell wouldn't check for party members beyond 6.
So as much as I'd like to see a bigger party, I understand the enormous work it would require and understand the decision to not change it in release.
In fact, all you would be searching for is any mention of party member #6 (in the code "Player6"), because that indicates that the script is doing something to all the party members (rather than just the protagonist).
As stated in the subject topic, this is the one change that wuld guarantee that I buy the game. I'm trying to help the developers. I think this change would mean some work (but not as much as many people think) and it would be definately worth the effort.
L.
The mods would still be broken until updated though...
Mods could be updated using he same detection routine as changing the main code scripts.
L.
There's also the practical problem of reworking the UI for a larger party, which is much simpler than changing the script language.
So yes, if it's softcoded maybe you could have a 50 member party. In practice you'd run into problems displaying them all.
There may be other problems in increasing the party size related to the run-time environment where the scripts run. Only the developers could answer that.