Your statements are certainly not true, if you'll kindly take the time to actually read what people post here.
I, for one, came here with a respect for the opinions of many people in this thread. And would really like for this thread to stay constructive, even though I hear contradicting opinions.
We are (partially) waiting for Larian representatives to form their own understanding of their resources, willingness to share with us, the capability to ask or direct.
Or it could be like it is now, and while it isn't bad at all on a grand scale, I'd say there will be missed opportunities.
Really? There's only one person who asks the right question thus far and that's Orbax in his signature and there's Whispering Spider who can definitely hold his own and understands the basic questions posed by people like Surface and Sharp.
Yet, in spite of that, no one has actually sketched out what the demographic breakdown would be like at a basic level and what mechanical changes means to each. You can pretty much apply this across the board to all concerns. Here is an example illustrating what I mean:
Given the possibility that Larian has to cater between 5e purists, nostalgia driven players, new players with minimal RPG experience, co-op players (could be a subset of the previous), players who have moderate experience with RPGs but prefer narrative experiences etc. what kind of combat flow would be acceptable to that audience, of what percentage might we lose if we increase the turns of the average combat by say five and how would player experience be if they missed more often? etc. What are the trade offs, how can we tweak the system and maximize users?
Name me anyone who bothers to actually do that because that's, at a bare minimum, what any game dev has to think about when given possible constraints (as highlighted by the interviews) such as these at a minimum (we don't know their other constraints). People like Isaac, Victor, Maximuus, and KillerRabbit simply do not care to answer that basic as fuck question.
There's nothing respectable about opinions that have zero work behind them and not one iota of brain power, you can pretty much compound everything they say into 5e > *. While they understand the rules they don't actually understand the system or its actual break points because they have never put themselves in the shoes of what a DM is supposed to be which is a game designer or a systems architect. If they did then they would at least be able to compete with Larian while heading in a different direction.
But hey it's great that you have respect for opinions that are rarely substantiated or well thought out and would never pass for any technical vigor, bravo.
If you want a thread to be constructive then why don't you take the time to read the interviews you posted and pretend to be in their shoes? Is that so hard to ask?
Oh, wait, it's because you're not interested in asking the hard questions and answering them, I am willing to wager that the questions are above you based on reading your previous posts here.
And I have definitely read most of the posts here, it's basically quips and agreements here and there or circle jerks about how it's not D&D or not BG or it needs to be more BG - again not much real substance behind it and when pushed by either Sharp and others here there's not much of a defense either.
