I haven't actually and I am not sure whether to take this as a compliment or an insult - my field of expertise is statistical modelling, not public relations in any way. This is why I made comments about biases. I am also not a fan of Ad Populum, just because something is more popular, doesn't mean its the right thing to do.
It was mean as a compliment. If it came across as anything else it was due to the fact that I took charisma as a dump stat
It was also a "I see what did you did there" combined with a "well done". I declared myself a pleb and you challenged that. As far as ad populum there is a variant in which an argument is dismissed because it is associated with a particular elite group of people. It's a particularly powerful technique because people are rarely willing to give up their (hard earned) status as experts in a matter. The more you put yourself forth as an authority, the deeper the hole gets. For someone who hasn't had a rhetoric class you've intuited the from perfectly. I think @uncle lester's chosen word of "veteran" is a good one but I think we've found our word -- nerd. Doesn't have unfortunate connotations of expert but makes the case well.
And this is where I see the form returning. Having agreed that BG2 was a nerd's game and was better for it I think you return to the "biased sample" by saying that any forum feedback is poisoned because forums are out of date.
BG 1 and 2 were made in a different era, when the market was much smaller, much less saturated and the expectations of the player were different. At the time when BG 1 and 2 were released, most people playing PC games were us nerds. You could reasonably expect the people who are playing the game, to have some understanding of the ruleset . . .
Forums are still largely visited by the same groups of people however, the newer communities in gaming prefer different mediums of communication . . . My point being, time goes on, things change.
Or, in brief, that assessment is out of date. Right? It's a way of dismissing the sense of the majority of the forum.
And it gets to the point of our disagreement -- I don't have strong opinions about how the X men movies should be made but I do their success has come, in part, because the directors have paid such close attention to the opinions of the comic book nerds. I really do think those nerds are as responsible for the success of movies I enjoyed as were the producers.
This is different to today, where I would argue that the average person playing PC games is not us nerds, it is far more of a mainstream hobby. There is another aspect of this as well, D&D itself has changed. Back when D&D was originally conceived, its roots were in war gaming. At the time of 2e, this was still present to some extent, with some of the rules like for example the different armor types being good against different damage types being present because of this.
I don't disagree with the theater of mind the mind characterization but I don't think it applies to the discussion -- I'm not critiquing the theatre of the mind aspects of the game, I'm interested in combat aspects. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give Larian a 9 on capturing "theatre of the mind feel" and a 5 on "D&D combat feel". I'd also argue that Larian markets itself as company that excels at tactical play.
As I said in my very first post in response to you, better is subjective and it depends on the person giving feedback. Better for you does not necessarily mean better for someone else.
But that's a given. In the absence of data we only have access to our opinions. Like the OP, I would like to see an official poll. Unlike you I think that if the devs listen to results of that poll and make changes it will be to their benefit.
Larian already has the loyalty of DOS fans, it needs to earn the loyalty of 5th edition fans. I'm trying to help them do that. It just so happen that a side effect of my generosity is a game I would really like to play
