If a large percentage of players say "I avoid this because it seems/feels like it's far less effective", then it doesn't matter what the theoretical maths says; what matters is what the players do. Testimony is data - it's the primary data source that is used in modifying designs in games, in fact; that testimony can and often does come in the form of recorded play data - that is in this case, seeing that players are avoiding save spells frequently in their playing and favouring attack roll spells of their choices more often - but directed feedback gives explanation to action and context to results and thus it is considered extremely important all the same. Granted - the testimony we have is just those present and talking right now, which is a tiny smattering of people... but it's what we as players have access to. (Though it must be said...Larian have shown a frankly worrying willingness to apply their own motive reasoning to their data, to suit what they want and to claim it says what they want it to say - like when they concluded, purely from data showing low uptake on buff spells, that 'no-one liked' buffing spells because they were 'boring', and needed to be flashier and do more... and not because of how fraught their design has made concentration, and how reduced in value and effectiveness concentration spells have become as a result... and that folks weren't using the spells because they were far too often a waste of a turn, when concentration could not be maintained for any useful amount of time)
Also, the RNG IS bad ^.^ This has been tested and demonstrated with a sufficiently large data set already, a long time ago... but it's beside the point here.
Point being, as is the point of the thread - Saves are in a position in BG3 right now that many players are feeling pushed away from using them at all, and a part of that is Larian's homebrew design and implementation which makes attack roll spells more appealing and more reliable (lower Ac ratings, easy and sometimes stacking homebrew buffs to attack rolls, easy advantage sources above and beyond usual mechanics,etc.), and saves less appealing and less reliable (higher base enemy stats resulting in higher saves, large amounts of incidental damage and consistent chip damage making concentration much less secure, a lack of similar homebrew effects to support saves as exist for attack rolls, etc.).
You aren't wrong - 5e itself does favour attack roll spells in the ways you describe. I'll add to your list the relatively stable and slow AC growth, alongside large growth of attack bonus, opposite the large growth of save bonuses in monsters, alongside slower, more static growth of save DC for players... but this is a careful balance factor - not perfect by any means, but viable at least - because of the value of save spells in their utility, and the fact that save spells, when used for damage, have (with one or two exceptions - disintegrate I'm looking at you, you old signature spell you...) reliable partial damage, and also hold the majority of AoE options (which attack rolls seldom offer, except in two or three cases)... However, this balance does not need to be tipped further towards attack rolls and away from saves by Larian's homebrew, and if it is, then saves need an equivalent bonus/rebalance to compensate... which, while not impossible, becomes a difficult and tangled minefield once you wade into it. I'd rather not have the Larian homebrews, to begin with, personally.
