Thanks for the link. I've submitted a ticket.
Ignoring the tendency of some users to go into a discussion assuming that the OP is a complete back-birth who has never played a game before, there are a number of good arguments made here on both sides. The statistical discussion has reminded me why I flat-out refuse to teach stats, no matter how often the department chair tries to talk me into it (
), so I will skip all of that. I would like to address some of the other points, though.
1) Scouting is all well and good (and is the reason that I stopped trying to play anything other than a rogue), but if you scout into a group of mobs and they spot you (remember the RNG thing?) you're dead before you have a chance to assess the situation.
2) Barrelmancy is a thing, and some people may actually find it entertaining. I don't. If barrelmancy is the only "right" strategy for playing the game, then I'm not interested in playing.
3) Having to reload 40 times a week because most encounters start with the party outnumbered, surprised and having already lost the high ground doesn't make a game "tactical", it makes it poorly designed. Similarly, a game in which the best tactic is ALWAYS "climb the highest structure and play King of the Hill while yeeting oil barrels down onto the enemy" is also not "tactical", it's one-dimensional.
Since the I was foolish enough to drop $60 on a game in the mistaken belief that it would be a D&D game, rather than DOS 3, I'm forced to do what I can to make the game playable FOR ME. I don't care if the game is playable for you. It'd be nice if we all could enjoy it, but if I have to choose, I choose me. People who love barrelmancy already have multiple DOS games to slake their love of oil barrels. I just want another Neverwinter Nights, or something vaguely similar.
(As an aside, anyone who wants to Venmo me the $60 I spent on EA can buy my silence; I'll delete my forum account and mothball the game until 1.0 releases. DM me your account and I'll send you a request for payment.)
