Can we please stop with all the "your group is not very large"/"yes it is, larger than you think"? It doesn't lead to anything. [...] And it never will since neither side actually knows the demographical data.
It's also largely irrelevant since good system design isn't supposed to be a popularity contest.
True words. As much as possible, we should try to argue for changes using reason, careful analysis and objective arguments, instead of an appeal to popularity.
That being said, this approach has its limits.
One very obvious reason is that not all systems and design decisions are amenable to rational analysis and have an objectively better solution, which merely needs to be identified. When it's a matter of tastes, we can argue that many players want flavour X and that system S is important. But if Larian likes flavour Y better and thinks S is not important, they will likely just go with it (and they have claimed that they are chiefly concerned with making a game that
they will like playing).
Another reason is that DOS 2 was a commercial and critical success. I think we don't need an advanced degree in psychology to understand how, when using reason to explain why some individual elements were bad, the attempt is likely to fall on deaf ears. Obviously, DOS 2 was a large bundle of design choices and decisions, and it is very possible that some individual elements being objectively bad, but the whole package was successful in spite of these weak points.
At the end of the day, I think that the number of copies a game sells remains one of the most important metrics of success, from the point of view of a game studio, especially one that has just made the transition from the indie league to the AAA division. Arguing that "more players prefer flavour X to flavour Y" is (implicitly ?) a way of saying to Larian "you will have better chances of success if you go for Y".
So, quite sadly, it seems as if popular pressure is likely to be useful, if not needed in some cases.
That being said, as PrivateRaccoon noted, nobody here has the full picture of player preferences. So instead of claiming "most players prefer X to Y", we should all stick to shouting "I want X" or "I want Y", and let Larian do with that what they want, if they care.
Yes, I am aware that this is a very sub-optimal way for Larian to gather feedback, and has the side-effect (undesirable, in my view) of making a chaotic mess of this forum. But I, like many, have already lamented about Larian's poor communication, several times, so let's leave this out of the way.
This feeling of deaf ears is reinforced by Larian's muteness and invisibility. They are locked up in their ivory tower, and occasionally send a herald on the balcony to shout about the shiny new patch. Perhaps a loud enough clamour, self-organised and synchronised into some short and easily intelligible message, has more chances to reach them than other feedback approaches ? I don't know.
Coming back to the topic of the thread, I would love the have a D&D mode/difficulty setting. Count this as my +1. It's certainly not out of being a die-hard fan of the 5E rules. I just find the BG3 rules set to be rather bad. And from what I heard from DOS 2, Larian doesn't seem be be very good at, or care very much about, things like rules sets/systems and game balance. So I'd settle for the 5E rules set, which works fine enough.
That being said, it took Larian until Patch 5 to accept making Disengage an Action and separating it from Jump, as well as removing Backstab. It took until Patch 6 for Larian to accept removing Advantage/Disadvantage for High-Ground/Low-Ground.
I'd estimate that, unless the game's code is really a hot mess, the removal of both of the Advantage bonuses could probably be done by a single developer in a half-day, and giving Disengage to our character was another half-day. With plenty of time for coffee with colleagues. Hence why I assume it was mostly a matter of Larian accepting to try it.
Adding a D&D mode sounds like a very complex request.
So I feel like jumping on the bandwagon, and joining the "
Shove should cost an Action" clamour, since it seems to be the one riding high at the moment. Then maybe "Hide should cost an Action", "add the Dodge action", "add the Ready action", and "add proper Reactions". By Patch 11, the rules set could have become closer to how I think it would work better.
