If you can fit 16 suits of plate armor in your backpack, why can't the ammo belt hold 2000 arrows?
Ah yes but is it an actual backpack, or just the picture used to represent your inventory as a whole?
Does it matter? You can carry 16 full suits of plate armor, plus whatever armor you are wearing, plus weapon, plus back up weapon, plus shield, plus potions, helmet, etc. Also, while travelling long distances, sleeping without putting anything down or taking anything off, and being able to FIGHT, with NO HANDICAP OR HINDRANCE. What person can do that?
If you can fit 16 suits of plate armor in your backpack, why can't the ammo belt hold 2000 arrows?
Ah yes but is it an actual backpack, or just the picture used to represent your inventory as a whole?
Does it matter? You can carry 16 full suits of plate armor, plus whatever armor you are wearing, plus weapon, plus back up weapon, plus shield, plus potions, helmet, etc. Also, while travelling long distances, sleeping without putting anything down or taking anything off, and being able to FIGHT, with NO HANDICAP OR HINDRANCE. What person can do that?
I like to think that most of that is actually covered - keeping in mind this is a video game and not pen and paper D&D of course. Strength score is a big part of it. You really can't carry 16 full suits of plate armor, and all those things, unless your strength is ridiculous. The sleeping mechanic is fatigue, which does affect combat... but I admit - especially in Icewind Dale - it seems to be 8 hours to everywhere and not a whole lot of rest inbetween.
If ALL THAT is covered, then what makes the ammo bag "not covered"? I legitimately am not understanding why it bothers you, amongst everything else.
It seems unrealistic based on what the item is described as - I mean really that's it. I kind of explained a lot of why already, so I won't repeat it all. In short, I just don't see why you have a magic bag of holding for 10k and then an ammo belt for a pittance that holds 2,000 of something. I'm not saying - fix every illogical thing in the whole video game. That was just a head scratcher to me.
If you can fit 16 suits of plate armor in your backpack, why can't the ammo belt hold 2000 arrows?
Ah yes but is it an actual backpack, or just the picture used to represent your inventory as a whole?
Does it matter? You can carry 16 full suits of plate armor, plus whatever armor you are wearing, plus weapon, plus back up weapon, plus shield, plus potions, helmet, etc. Also, while travelling long distances, sleeping without putting anything down or taking anything off, and being able to FIGHT, with NO HANDICAP OR HINDRANCE. What person can do that?
I like to think that most of that is actually covered - keeping in mind this is a video game and not pen and paper D&D of course. Strength score is a big part of it. You really can't carry 16 full suits of plate armor, and all those things, unless your strength is ridiculous. The sleeping mechanic is fatigue, which does affect combat... but I admit - especially in Icewind Dale - it seems to be 8 hours to everywhere and not a whole lot of rest inbetween.
It's not really about the strength. What's harder to believe, that a person has some kind of contraption that can hold a couple thousand arrows, or that the same person can carry 16 suits of full plate and still participate in melee combat with a two-handed sword? Where in the bloody Hell is all that armour stored on that person's body? Does he/she just drag it behind them with some rope or something? Even if that was the case, it would certainly make combat rather dicey.
If ALL THAT is covered, then what makes the ammo bag "not covered"? I legitimately am not understanding why it bothers you, amongst everything else.
It seems unrealistic based on what the item is described as - I mean really that's it. I kind of explained a lot of why already, so I won't repeat it all. In short, I just don't see why you have a magic bag of holding for 10k and then an ammo belt for a pittance that holds 2,000 of something. I'm not saying - fix every illogical thing in the whole video game. That was just a head scratcher to me.
The cost reflects what you can use it for. The bag of holding can store nearly all the types of items you find in the game, the ammo container very few.
In terms of comparative capacity I also don't think the ammo container is particularly generous compared to gem, scroll or potion containers (or a bag of holding). The absolute size is larger, but then the quantities you get to put in it are also larger. I find it doesn't take long at all to fill the ammo container with magic ammo picked up during a BG2 adventure.
Actually, all characters have a trolley they pull behind them. Max carry weight is just how much load they can manage to pull in an uphill. The devs did not animate these trolleys, because lazy.
Honestly I didn’t see what the big fuss was with the ammo belt. I find it annoying enough to go in that I don’t even stick normal arrows in there, I just stash magic ones until needed and keep my normal arrows in inventory. There’s plenty of room to accommodate enough for long adventures.
But sure, if you’re excessively camp-farming and killing 6000 yetis and 9000 skeleton guardians, I can see how an extra thousand arrows would come in handy. I mean, I think the solution here is more “nerf camp-farming” and less “nerf the ammo belt”, but yeah, that’s probably impacting game balance.
A good way to nerf "camp-farming" is by making it so you can't hold 2k arrows at a time in one inventory slot. Just sayin.
You can purchase infinite arrows as easily as you can farm them. So I don't understand how farming arrows enters into it, really.
You could eliminate arrows entirely and it wouldn't nerf camp-farming, since you could just use melee weapons.
I'm not saying camp-farming is broken because it lets you get lots of arrows. I'm saying camp-farming is broken because it breaks the game's economy, and having lots of arrows is useful while camp-farming (but of little practical utility otherwise), so the real balance issue here is "camp-farming" and not "having lots of arrows".
Honestly I didn’t see what the big fuss was with the ammo belt. I find it annoying enough to go in that I don’t even stick normal arrows in there, I just stash magic ones until needed and keep my normal arrows in inventory. There’s plenty of room to accommodate enough for long adventures.
But sure, if you’re excessively camp-farming and killing 6000 yetis and 9000 skeleton guardians, I can see how an extra thousand arrows would come in handy. I mean, I think the solution here is more “nerf camp-farming” and less “nerf the ammo belt”, but yeah, that’s probably impacting game balance.
A good way to nerf "camp-farming" is by making it so you can't hold 2k arrows at a time in one inventory slot. Just sayin.
You can purchase infinite arrows as easily as you can farm them. So I don't understand how farming arrows enters into it, really.
You could eliminate arrows entirely and it wouldn't nerf camp-farming, since you could just use melee weapons.
I'm not saying camp-farming is broken because it lets you get lots of arrows. I'm saying camp-farming is broken because it breaks the game's economy, and having lots of arrows is useful while camp-farming (but of little practical utility otherwise), so the real balance issue here is "camp-farming" and not "having lots of arrows".
IWD's economy is already broken. Orrick's inventory changes twice, starting at Chapter 2, Conlan sells a plethora of magic weapons for 20k - 50k a pop, and the only way to make money is off Yeti Hair and Battle Axes for the entire 1st Chapter.
If ALL THAT is covered, then what makes the ammo bag "not covered"? I legitimately am not understanding why it bothers you, amongst everything else.
It seems unrealistic based on what the item is described as - I mean really that's it. I kind of explained a lot of why already, so I won't repeat it all. In short, I just don't see why you have a magic bag of holding for 10k and then an ammo belt for a pittance that holds 2,000 of something. I'm not saying - fix every illogical thing in the whole video game. That was just a head scratcher to me.
The cost reflects what you can use it for. The bag of holding can store nearly all the types of items you find in the game, the ammo container very few.
In terms of comparative capacity I also don't think the ammo container is particularly generous compared to gem, scroll or potion containers (or a bag of holding). The absolute size is larger, but then the quantities you get to put in it are also larger. I find it doesn't take long at all to fill the ammo container with magic ammo picked up during a BG2 adventure.
You filled the ammo belt in the course of normal adventuring? Kudos to you I'm not sure how you got close to 2k projectiles without arrow farming. Oh you're talking BG2... scratch that.
IWD's economy is already broken. Orrick's inventory changes twice, starting at Chapter 2, Conlan sells a plethora of magic weapons for 20k - 50k a pop, and the only way to make money is off Yeti Hair and Battle Axes for the entire 1st Chapter.
It's only broken if you assume you're supposed to be able to buy everything every run. For the most part, IWD is designed for you to be getting the huge bulk of your gear through adventuring, with the Kuldahar shops serving as a fallback if the RNG gods are looking down unfavorably on you. It's prohibitively expensive because it's intended to prohibit purchasing wholesale. Something like the Helm of the Trusted Defender or Shimmering Sash are so valuable precisely because they're so costly. (Also: most of the expensive stuff Conlan sells is quickly-outclassed junk.)
I played through IWD dozens of times on initial release and a handful of times on the EE and I don't think I've ever once farmed for gold. (I will admit I have occasionally rest-farmed some XP to grind out an extra level before a big fight or to hasten completion on a dual-class.)
I'm not ever going to tell anyone that they're playing *wrong*. If you're enjoying the game, then you're playing it right. But you're playing in a way that wasn't intended by the developers, and therefore you should expect the game balance to not be as finely tuned for you, (just as how the game wasn't designed for soloing, so while doing it is doable and rewarding, the game balance is going to be skewed dramatically in the attempt).
IWD's economy is already broken. Orrick's inventory changes twice, starting at Chapter 2, Conlan sells a plethora of magic weapons for 20k - 50k a pop, and the only way to make money is off Yeti Hair and Battle Axes for the entire 1st Chapter.
It's only broken if you assume you're supposed to be able to buy everything every run. For the most part, IWD is designed for you to be getting the huge bulk of your gear through adventuring, with the Kuldahar shops serving as a fallback if the RNG gods are looking down unfavorably on you. It's prohibitively expensive because it's intended to prohibit purchasing wholesale. Something like the Helm of the Trusted Defender or Shimmering Sash are so valuable precisely because they're so costly. (Also: most of the expensive stuff Conlan sells is quickly-outclassed junk.)
I played through IWD dozens of times on initial release and a handful of times on the EE and I don't think I've ever once farmed for gold. (I will admit I have occasionally rest-farmed some XP to grind out an extra level before a big fight or to hasten completion on a dual-class.)
I'm not ever going to tell anyone that they're playing *wrong*. If you're enjoying the game, then you're playing it right. But you're playing in a way that wasn't intended by the developers, and therefore you should expect the game balance to not be as finely tuned for you, (just as how the game wasn't designed for soloing, so while doing it is doable and rewarding, the game balance is going to be skewed dramatically in the attempt).
In short, if you want to afford more than s a single item sold by Orrick before Chapter 2 when inventory changes (plus spells), you more than likely have to grind a bit. I certainly don't grind every game, advocate for it, etc. - I'm just stating a fact. I know that many players who don't know better, save for an item, and progress too far only to see that item vanish. That's always bugged me a bit granted. As for Conlan, his shop isn't broken, its just ridiculous in terms of what this guy has available and how much it costs - in relation to the money you make. By the time you save for some things you'll find something better anyway.
I just personally, and this is in other posts out there and discussed to death, don't think that the economy of IWD in the first Chapter or Two really gives you a lot of options.
In the end camping and the economy of the game really have nothing to do with the original post which is talking about a specific item's capacity. In all honesty, if I'm a super camper who thinks gold in the game sucks - I should be happy with how much it carries, I'd think?
As for the statement with "how the developers intended someone to play". I highly doubt they intended anything at all. If someone doesn't use cheats, its on them how they play.
In short, if you want to afford more than s a single item sold by Orrick before Chapter 2 when inventory changes (plus spells), you more than likely have to grind a bit. I certainly don't grind every game, advocate for it, etc. - I'm just stating a fact. I know that many players who don't know better, save for an item, and progress too far only to see that item vanish. That's always bugged me a bit granted. As for Conlan, his shop isn't broken, its just ridiculous in terms of what this guy has available and how much it costs - in relation to the money you make. By the time you save for some things you'll find something better anyway.
I just personally, and this is in other posts out there and discussed to death, don't think that the economy of IWD in the first Chapter or Two really gives you a lot of options.
In the end camping and the economy of the game really have nothing to do with the original post which is talking about a specific item's capacity. In all honesty, if I'm a super camper who thinks gold in the game sucks - I should be happy with how much it carries, I'd think?
As for the statement with "how the developers intended someone to play". I highly doubt they intended anything at all. If someone doesn't use cheats, its on them how they play.
I think the fact that the economy of IWD doesn't give you a lot of options is kind of the point. It's not supposed to. You're in the middle of nowhere, not smack in the heart of one of the most prosperous areas in the world. Scarcity is the name of the game.
Anyway, the reason I relate this to the ammo belt is because in "normal" play, you really don't need that many arrows. Who cares if the Ammo Belt holds 2,000 arrows if you're only firing 400 per trip from town and you can easily carry that many in your inventory? I never actually knew that the ammo belt had a capacity limit because I've always been able to hold enough regular arrows in my inventory to tide me over, (and I frequently run a Messenger of Sseth wielding archer character, even dating back to the original release with no ammo belt and smaller ammo stacks).
If the Ammo Belt had a capacity of one million arrows, increasing that capacity to one BILLION arrows instead wouldn't make it the teensiest, tiniest bit more "overpowered", because the capacity increase occurs well beyond the functional limit of however many arrows you'd ever need or want. So my point is, for "regular, intended play", just having an ammo belt in the first place is beyond the functional limit of how many arrows you'd need or want, (800 arrows in your inventory is more than enough already), that it's weird to call it "overpowered" instead of merely "convenient". For most people, it's not increasing their power level at all. They could already carry enough arrows, but now they can conveniently do so in less inventory space.
Now, if you're artificially extending your time in the field beyond what was "intended", then sure, the ammo belt can count as a power boost. Because instead of going from "I have enough arrows" to "I have enough arrows and also a bit extra inventory space", you're going from "I don't have enough arrows" to "I have enough arrows". But again, this is like complaining about game balance while soloing. Sure, it might be unbalanced, but the game was never intended to be balanced for that playstyle.
And you can't deny that the developers *absolutely* intended for people to play a certain way. Why is the fireball scroll in the first level of Dragon's Eye? Because the developers assumed you would have gotten your level 3 spells long enough before that to really feel its absence, but not so long as to get frustrated and give up on ever finding it.
IWD is by far the most tightly balanced of the 2nd Ed IE games, with Black Isle planning every step of the way to make sure the threats and privations were commensurate to the current strength of your party. In BG2, a party might be running into Firkraag straight out of Chateau Irenicus or out of the Underdark. They might have Carsomyr when they assault the planar prison or they might not. They could be level 30 by the time they take on Watcher's Keep or they could be level 9.
Bioware had no way of knowing what level or gear you'd have when you undertook any individual challenge. As a result, with a few (linear) exceptions, the game effectively gets easier as you go on. Challenges that are doable at level 9 become trivial at level 20, and by the nature of the game *some* of the challenges must be completed at level 9, while others must be completed at level 20. So it's a matter of picking which parts of the game you want to make super-easy. Quest heavy in chapter 2 and make the underdark a breeze. Rush chapter 2 to preserve the difficulty of the underdark, and suddenly all of that chapter 2 content is a joke once you return.
Given its linear nature, IWD is not beset by that problem. The developers knew exactly what level and what gear a typical party of 4-6 would be working with at every point of the game, and they could extensively playtest every battle to make sure it was challenging but not impossible at every step along the way.
You can certainly, say, farm Yetis to overgear your party, or run a "party" of 1-2 to crank up your level progression. These can be very fun things to do, even! But when you do them, you're no longer getting the "intended" challenge that the developers worked so hard to balance.
In short, if you want to afford more than s a single item sold by Orrick before Chapter 2 when inventory changes (plus spells), you more than likely have to grind a bit. I certainly don't grind every game, advocate for it, etc. - I'm just stating a fact. I know that many players who don't know better, save for an item, and progress too far only to see that item vanish. That's always bugged me a bit granted. As for Conlan, his shop isn't broken, its just ridiculous in terms of what this guy has available and how much it costs - in relation to the money you make. By the time you save for some things you'll find something better anyway.
I just personally, and this is in other posts out there and discussed to death, don't think that the economy of IWD in the first Chapter or Two really gives you a lot of options.
In the end camping and the economy of the game really have nothing to do with the original post which is talking about a specific item's capacity. In all honesty, if I'm a super camper who thinks gold in the game sucks - I should be happy with how much it carries, I'd think?
As for the statement with "how the developers intended someone to play". I highly doubt they intended anything at all. If someone doesn't use cheats, its on them how they play.
I think the fact that the economy of IWD doesn't give you a lot of options is kind of the point. It's not supposed to. You're in the middle of nowhere, not smack in the heart of one of the most prosperous areas in the world. Scarcity is the name of the game.
Anyway, the reason I relate this to the ammo belt is because in "normal" play, you really don't need that many arrows. Who cares if the Ammo Belt holds 2,000 arrows if you're only firing 400 per trip from town and you can easily carry that many in your inventory? I never actually knew that the ammo belt had a capacity limit because I've always been able to hold enough regular arrows in my inventory to tide me over, (and I frequently run a Messenger of Sseth wielding archer character, even dating back to the original release with no ammo belt and smaller ammo stacks).
If the Ammo Belt had a capacity of one million arrows, increasing that capacity to one BILLION arrows instead wouldn't make it the teensiest, tiniest bit more "overpowered", because the capacity increase occurs well beyond the functional limit of however many arrows you'd ever need or want. So my point is, for "regular, intended play", just having an ammo belt in the first place is beyond the functional limit of how many arrows you'd need or want, (800 arrows in your inventory is more than enough already), that it's weird to call it "overpowered" instead of merely "convenient". For most people, it's not increasing their power level at all. They could already carry enough arrows, but now they can conveniently do so in less inventory space.
Now, if you're artificially extending your time in the field beyond what was "intended", then sure, the ammo belt can count as a power boost. Because instead of going from "I have enough arrows" to "I have enough arrows and also a bit extra inventory space", you're going from "I don't have enough arrows" to "I have enough arrows". But again, this is like complaining about game balance while soloing. Sure, it might be unbalanced, but the game was never intended to be balanced for that playstyle.
And you can't deny that the developers *absolutely* intended for people to play a certain way. Why is the fireball scroll in the first level of Dragon's Eye? Because the developers assumed you would have gotten your level 3 spells long enough before that to really feel its absence, but not so long as to get frustrated and give up on ever finding it.
IWD is by far the most tightly balanced of the 2nd Ed IE games, with Black Isle planning every step of the way to make sure the threats and privations were commensurate to the current strength of your party. In BG2, a party might be running into Firkraag straight out of Chateau Irenicus or out of the Underdark. They might have Carsomyr when they assault the planar prison or they might not. They could be level 30 by the time they take on Watcher's Keep or they could be level 9.
Bioware had no way of knowing what level or gear you'd have when you undertook any individual challenge. As a result, with a few (linear) exceptions, the game effectively gets easier as you go on. Challenges that are doable at level 9 become trivial at level 20, and by the nature of the game *some* of the challenges must be completed at level 9, while others must be completed at level 20. So it's a matter of picking which parts of the game you want to make super-easy. Quest heavy in chapter 2 and make the underdark a breeze. Rush chapter 2 to preserve the difficulty of the underdark, and suddenly all of that chapter 2 content is a joke once you return.
Given its linear nature, IWD is not beset by that problem. The developers knew exactly what level and what gear a typical party of 4-6 would be working with at every point of the game, and they could extensively playtest every battle to make sure it was challenging but not impossible at every step along the way.
You can certainly, say, farm Yetis to overgear your party, or run a "party" of 1-2 to crank up your level progression. These can be very fun things to do, even! But when you do them, you're no longer getting the "intended" challenge that the developers worked so hard to balance.
Not sure I follow the "economy is perfect because its the middle of nowhere" logic. Conlan a simple blacksmith of Kuldahar has more magic items for sale than most kings have. Where did he get this crap? Does it make sense? Probably not. If its there, it'd be nice if you had some option at some point to afford some of it.
I really think this is going off the rails. I made a point about an item in game with a massive capacity that seems to exceed what the item (as described) would be capable of. Yes, most people would probably never meet a 2,000 arrow capacity you're right - but I bet some people would hit, 500? Maybe I should save up and buy that bag of holding?
In any case, as for what developers planned for - Sure they planned you'd be close to level 3 by the time you got a fireball, but in terms of how you make money - who can say? Personally, I think the changing shop inventory at Chapter 2 is a bit annoying and doesn't match with your progression. Its just an opinion of course. Same as the original post.
And you mention balance, but that's what I am talking about with the Ammo Belt. An item that was added post-original game. That's why I brought it up.
"IWD is by far the most tightly balanced of the 2nd Ed IE games, "
Hehe, no wait, tell me another.
I really don't see how the point is even arguable, to be honest.
What level are you when you fight Firkraag in Baldur's Gate 2? Answer: somewhere between level 9 and level 30.
What level are you when you fight Yxunomei in Icewind Dale? Answer: somewhere between level 6 and level 8.
Can you balance a fight so that it's challenging and rewarding for parties anywhere from level 9 to level 30? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Can you balance a fight so that it's challenging and rewarding for parties from level 6 to level 8? Of course, that's trivial.
Repeat this comparison for every major setpiece battle in BG2 and IWD.
"IWD is by far the most tightly balanced of the 2nd Ed IE games, "
Hehe, no wait, tell me another.
I really don't see how the point is even arguable, to be honest.
What level are you when you fight Firkraag in Baldur's Gate 2? Answer: somewhere between level 9 and level 30.
What level are you when you fight Yxunomei in Icewind Dale? Answer: somewhere between level 6 and level 8.
Can you balance a fight so that it's challenging and rewarding for parties anywhere from level 9 to level 30? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Can you balance a fight so that it's challenging and rewarding for parties from level 6 to level 8? Of course, that's trivial.
Repeat this comparison for every major setpiece battle in BG2 and IWD.
I guess one could argue you can pre-gen an entire party of 6 characters in IWD (Classes, Stats, everything) and don't have that option (by default anyway) in BG2. But I see your point.
@SomeSort Giving someone the option to postpone a fight till much later is not an example of non-balance, its an example of player choice. Don't conflate the two. FIrkraag is first available in chapter 2, and is balanced well as an optional fight in said chapter. In fact, the bg series is MUCH better balanced than IWD. Any class can complete it with reasonable knowledge of the game and good strategy. All major encounters have multiple ways of tackling them available to a large large variety of classes.
IWD says, "No screw you, you chose the wrong party I'm immune to all magic." IWD is scewed SO HEAVILY in favor of fighters and physical damage that adding more than one mage is outright making your party weaker. It discourages you from experimenting and forces certain tactics, and not just for optional more difficult fights, but for major enemies that must be beaten to finish the game. Thats not balance, thats "Do things this one correct way or die."
@SomeSort Giving someone the option to postpone a fight till much later is not an example of non-balance, its an example of player choice. Don't conflate the two. FIrkraag is first available in chapter 2, and is balanced well as an optional fight in said chapter. In fact, the bg series is MUCH better balanced than IWD. Any class can complete it with reasonable knowledge of the game and good strategy. All major encounters have multiple ways of tackling them available to a large large variety of classes.
IWD says, "No screw you, you chose the wrong party I'm immune to all magic." IWD is scewed SO HEAVILY in favor of fighters and physical damage that adding more than one mage is outright making your party weaker. It discourages you from experimenting and forces certain tactics, and not just for optional more difficult fights, but for major enemies that must be beaten to finish the game. Thats not balance, thats "Do things this one correct way or die."
Game balance, to me, is the Goldilocks principle: fights that are not too easy and not too hard, but just right. Now, it's possible to very tightly arrange a BG2 run to maximize how many fights adhere to the Goldilocks principle. But doing so requires an astounding amount of metaknowledge, and with a similar amount of metaknowledge in IWD you could easily smash through any "impossible" challenges. (Source: my third run-through was a solo Conjurer on the original, pre-Heart of Winter release. Turns out nobody was so immune to all magic that they couldn't be killed by a solo pureclass mage with heavy metaknowledge, scroll scarcity or not.)
But arranging BG2 to maximize the Goldilocks zone is an ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT by the player. If you're just playing through it blind, you're going to wander into the Planar Prison straight out of Chateau Irenicus or save the Copper Coronet until after the underdark or do countless other things that will make various stages of the game too hard or, (more likely), too easy.
In IWD, all you have to do to reach the Goldilocks Zone on your first run-through is create a sensible party. If you have six characters, two of whom are fighters, one of whom is a divine caster, one of whom is an arcane caster, and one of whom is a thief, (in whatever combination), you've got everything you need to complete the entire game.
I'd also disagree that there's "one correct way". I think everything has a role. 90% of the game is low-level mobs spawning in huge hordes. For those, you need renewable damage, so yeah, spellcasting is heavily disincentivized and you're forced to rely heavily on your beef.
But on the other hand, 10% of the game is uber-bosses, your beef is hopelessly outclassed, and suddenly what you need is a way to dramatically ramp up your burst damage and short-run survivability. You know what excels at this? Spells! Fighters are for mooks, spellcasters are for bosses, and "do things this one correct way or die" really just means "have a broad range of skills to face a broad range of threats".
Ultimately, one can't design a difficult game that simultaneously doesn't heavily incentivize optimal or near-optimal play. IWD decided to make the game difficult even if that meant weird / quirky / underpowered combos (such as an all-spellcaster party) would be a major challenge. That doesn't make it unbalanced, that makes it hard. But, crucially, it makes it *consistently* hard.
Baldur's Gate 2 instead undermines any sense of challenge by giving players the option to overlevel and overgear for anything. Each of the major quests in Chapter 2 is designed to be possible for a poorly-geared, low-level team straight out of Chateau Irenicus, but only one of those major quests is actually going to be tackled by a poorly-geared, low-level team straight out of Chateau Irenicus.
@SomeSort My response is in spoilers because of length and getting off topic.
"Game balance, to me, is the Goldilocks principle: fights that are not too easy and not too hard, but just right. Now, it's possible to very tightly arrange a BG2 run to maximize how many fights adhere to the Goldilocks principle. But doing so requires an astounding amount of metaknowledge, and with a similar amount of metaknowledge. But arranging BG2 to maximize the Goldilocks zone is an ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT by the player. If you're just playing through it blind, you're going to wander into the Planar Prison straight out of Chateau Irenicus or save the Copper Coronet until after the underdark or do countless other things that will make various stages of the game too hard or, (more likely), too easy."
Nope. The quests are arranged in such a way that they become available in a natural progression. Waukeen's Promenade (the first area) can be cleared easily out the gate. THe slums (next up) only has mildly more difficult quests. And the quests there that send you elsewhere (Nalia, Firkraag, etc.) are a step up from there. Even with FIrkraag (one of the tougher bosses) the game even tells you to come back later and gives ample chance to do so after clearing all the quests in the windspear area. So unless you GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to hit certain areas in a certain order, the natural progression of quests as you run into them is a very natural difficulty curve. BG1 does a similar thing, with the critical path keeping you on north/south trade route with encounters getting more difficult as you travel more east/west.
"Turns out nobody was so immune to all magic that they couldn't be killed by a solo pureclass mage with heavy metaknowledge, scroll scarcity or not.)"
And this just highlights what I said earlier. Belhifet is straight up IMMUNE TO MAGIC. Most of the end game bosses are. You won't beat them with mages without heavy metaknowledge. This is not natural gameplay or balance, its straight up using exploits acting against class roles to force a square win through circle hole. Thats poor desing. BG allows more varied tactics to overcome foes with metagaming or exploits.
"Baldur's Gate 2 instead undermines any sense of challenge by giving players the option to overlevel and overgear for anything."
PLAYER CHOICE. If you overlevel and overgear for easy challenges, thats on you. The game never forces it.
tldr: Every "example" you give of bad balance is player choice, rather than forced game design. If you want to just play a certain way, and have a linear experience you don't need to think through (not an insult, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the playsyle), the IWD is for you. BG offers far more choice and better balanced combat for higher class combinations without gimping youself, and there are players that prefer the more open gameplay. But more player choice (and the consequences that entails) does not equal bad balance.
You could always head canon that you don't actually have hundreds of arrows in your inventory. You are just that good at picking them up again after every battle.
You could always head canon that you don't actually have hundreds of arrows in your inventory. You are just that good at picking them up again after every battle.
There's a Tweaks Anthology component that allows you to recycle some or all of the arrows with which you endangered several species ...
Comments
In terms of comparative capacity I also don't think the ammo container is particularly generous compared to gem, scroll or potion containers (or a bag of holding). The absolute size is larger, but then the quantities you get to put in it are also larger. I find it doesn't take long at all to fill the ammo container with magic ammo picked up during a BG2 adventure.
I'm not saying camp-farming is broken because it lets you get lots of arrows. I'm saying camp-farming is broken because it breaks the game's economy, and having lots of arrows is useful while camp-farming (but of little practical utility otherwise), so the real balance issue here is "camp-farming" and not "having lots of arrows".
I played through IWD dozens of times on initial release and a handful of times on the EE and I don't think I've ever once farmed for gold. (I will admit I have occasionally rest-farmed some XP to grind out an extra level before a big fight or to hasten completion on a dual-class.)
I'm not ever going to tell anyone that they're playing *wrong*. If you're enjoying the game, then you're playing it right. But you're playing in a way that wasn't intended by the developers, and therefore you should expect the game balance to not be as finely tuned for you, (just as how the game wasn't designed for soloing, so while doing it is doable and rewarding, the game balance is going to be skewed dramatically in the attempt).
I just personally, and this is in other posts out there and discussed to death, don't think that the economy of IWD in the first Chapter or Two really gives you a lot of options.
In the end camping and the economy of the game really have nothing to do with the original post which is talking about a specific item's capacity. In all honesty, if I'm a super camper who thinks gold in the game sucks - I should be happy with how much it carries, I'd think?
As for the statement with "how the developers intended someone to play". I highly doubt they intended anything at all. If someone doesn't use cheats, its on them how they play.
Anyway, the reason I relate this to the ammo belt is because in "normal" play, you really don't need that many arrows. Who cares if the Ammo Belt holds 2,000 arrows if you're only firing 400 per trip from town and you can easily carry that many in your inventory? I never actually knew that the ammo belt had a capacity limit because I've always been able to hold enough regular arrows in my inventory to tide me over, (and I frequently run a Messenger of Sseth wielding archer character, even dating back to the original release with no ammo belt and smaller ammo stacks).
If the Ammo Belt had a capacity of one million arrows, increasing that capacity to one BILLION arrows instead wouldn't make it the teensiest, tiniest bit more "overpowered", because the capacity increase occurs well beyond the functional limit of however many arrows you'd ever need or want. So my point is, for "regular, intended play", just having an ammo belt in the first place is beyond the functional limit of how many arrows you'd need or want, (800 arrows in your inventory is more than enough already), that it's weird to call it "overpowered" instead of merely "convenient". For most people, it's not increasing their power level at all. They could already carry enough arrows, but now they can conveniently do so in less inventory space.
Now, if you're artificially extending your time in the field beyond what was "intended", then sure, the ammo belt can count as a power boost. Because instead of going from "I have enough arrows" to "I have enough arrows and also a bit extra inventory space", you're going from "I don't have enough arrows" to "I have enough arrows". But again, this is like complaining about game balance while soloing. Sure, it might be unbalanced, but the game was never intended to be balanced for that playstyle.
And you can't deny that the developers *absolutely* intended for people to play a certain way. Why is the fireball scroll in the first level of Dragon's Eye? Because the developers assumed you would have gotten your level 3 spells long enough before that to really feel its absence, but not so long as to get frustrated and give up on ever finding it.
IWD is by far the most tightly balanced of the 2nd Ed IE games, with Black Isle planning every step of the way to make sure the threats and privations were commensurate to the current strength of your party. In BG2, a party might be running into Firkraag straight out of Chateau Irenicus or out of the Underdark. They might have Carsomyr when they assault the planar prison or they might not. They could be level 30 by the time they take on Watcher's Keep or they could be level 9.
Bioware had no way of knowing what level or gear you'd have when you undertook any individual challenge. As a result, with a few (linear) exceptions, the game effectively gets easier as you go on. Challenges that are doable at level 9 become trivial at level 20, and by the nature of the game *some* of the challenges must be completed at level 9, while others must be completed at level 20. So it's a matter of picking which parts of the game you want to make super-easy. Quest heavy in chapter 2 and make the underdark a breeze. Rush chapter 2 to preserve the difficulty of the underdark, and suddenly all of that chapter 2 content is a joke once you return.
Given its linear nature, IWD is not beset by that problem. The developers knew exactly what level and what gear a typical party of 4-6 would be working with at every point of the game, and they could extensively playtest every battle to make sure it was challenging but not impossible at every step along the way.
You can certainly, say, farm Yetis to overgear your party, or run a "party" of 1-2 to crank up your level progression. These can be very fun things to do, even! But when you do them, you're no longer getting the "intended" challenge that the developers worked so hard to balance.
Hehe, no wait, tell me another.
Not sure I follow the "economy is perfect because its the middle of nowhere" logic. Conlan a simple blacksmith of Kuldahar has more magic items for sale than most kings have. Where did he get this crap? Does it make sense? Probably not. If its there, it'd be nice if you had some option at some point to afford some of it.
I really think this is going off the rails. I made a point about an item in game with a massive capacity that seems to exceed what the item (as described) would be capable of. Yes, most people would probably never meet a 2,000 arrow capacity you're right - but I bet some people would hit, 500? Maybe I should save up and buy that bag of holding?
In any case, as for what developers planned for - Sure they planned you'd be close to level 3 by the time you got a fireball, but in terms of how you make money - who can say? Personally, I think the changing shop inventory at Chapter 2 is a bit annoying and doesn't match with your progression. Its just an opinion of course. Same as the original post.
And you mention balance, but that's what I am talking about with the Ammo Belt. An item that was added post-original game. That's why I brought it up.
What level are you when you fight Firkraag in Baldur's Gate 2? Answer: somewhere between level 9 and level 30.
What level are you when you fight Yxunomei in Icewind Dale? Answer: somewhere between level 6 and level 8.
Can you balance a fight so that it's challenging and rewarding for parties anywhere from level 9 to level 30? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Can you balance a fight so that it's challenging and rewarding for parties from level 6 to level 8? Of course, that's trivial.
Repeat this comparison for every major setpiece battle in BG2 and IWD.
IWD says, "No screw you, you chose the wrong party I'm immune to all magic." IWD is scewed SO HEAVILY in favor of fighters and physical damage that adding more than one mage is outright making your party weaker. It discourages you from experimenting and forces certain tactics, and not just for optional more difficult fights, but for major enemies that must be beaten to finish the game. Thats not balance, thats "Do things this one correct way or die."
But arranging BG2 to maximize the Goldilocks zone is an ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT by the player. If you're just playing through it blind, you're going to wander into the Planar Prison straight out of Chateau Irenicus or save the Copper Coronet until after the underdark or do countless other things that will make various stages of the game too hard or, (more likely), too easy.
In IWD, all you have to do to reach the Goldilocks Zone on your first run-through is create a sensible party. If you have six characters, two of whom are fighters, one of whom is a divine caster, one of whom is an arcane caster, and one of whom is a thief, (in whatever combination), you've got everything you need to complete the entire game.
I'd also disagree that there's "one correct way". I think everything has a role. 90% of the game is low-level mobs spawning in huge hordes. For those, you need renewable damage, so yeah, spellcasting is heavily disincentivized and you're forced to rely heavily on your beef.
But on the other hand, 10% of the game is uber-bosses, your beef is hopelessly outclassed, and suddenly what you need is a way to dramatically ramp up your burst damage and short-run survivability. You know what excels at this? Spells! Fighters are for mooks, spellcasters are for bosses, and "do things this one correct way or die" really just means "have a broad range of skills to face a broad range of threats".
Ultimately, one can't design a difficult game that simultaneously doesn't heavily incentivize optimal or near-optimal play. IWD decided to make the game difficult even if that meant weird / quirky / underpowered combos (such as an all-spellcaster party) would be a major challenge. That doesn't make it unbalanced, that makes it hard. But, crucially, it makes it *consistently* hard.
Baldur's Gate 2 instead undermines any sense of challenge by giving players the option to overlevel and overgear for anything. Each of the major quests in Chapter 2 is designed to be possible for a poorly-geared, low-level team straight out of Chateau Irenicus, but only one of those major quests is actually going to be tackled by a poorly-geared, low-level team straight out of Chateau Irenicus.
Nope. The quests are arranged in such a way that they become available in a natural progression. Waukeen's Promenade (the first area) can be cleared easily out the gate. THe slums (next up) only has mildly more difficult quests. And the quests there that send you elsewhere (Nalia, Firkraag, etc.) are a step up from there. Even with FIrkraag (one of the tougher bosses) the game even tells you to come back later and gives ample chance to do so after clearing all the quests in the windspear area. So unless you GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to hit certain areas in a certain order, the natural progression of quests as you run into them is a very natural difficulty curve. BG1 does a similar thing, with the critical path keeping you on north/south trade route with encounters getting more difficult as you travel more east/west.
"Turns out nobody was so immune to all magic that they couldn't be killed by a solo pureclass mage with heavy metaknowledge, scroll scarcity or not.)"
And this just highlights what I said earlier. Belhifet is straight up IMMUNE TO MAGIC. Most of the end game bosses are. You won't beat them with mages without heavy metaknowledge. This is not natural gameplay or balance, its straight up using exploits acting against class roles to force a square win through circle hole. Thats poor desing. BG allows more varied tactics to overcome foes with metagaming or exploits.
"Baldur's Gate 2 instead undermines any sense of challenge by giving players the option to overlevel and overgear for anything."
PLAYER CHOICE. If you overlevel and overgear for easy challenges, thats on you. The game never forces it.
tldr: Every "example" you give of bad balance is player choice, rather than forced game design. If you want to just play a certain way, and have a linear experience you don't need to think through (not an insult, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the playsyle), the IWD is for you. BG offers far more choice and better balanced combat for higher class combinations without gimping youself, and there are players that prefer the more open gameplay. But more player choice (and the consequences that entails) does not equal bad balance.