It`s the `bubble effect`. You have a group of guys in there little bubble who appear to agree with everything and just get used to a system. It seems nobody really wanted to `rock the boat`.
Assuming that you're referring to how we designed this game: God no, there's probably not a single studio in the world where everyone agrees with each other on such matters and we also did get external feedback long before release. I myself was initially a big opponent of certain mechanics in this game and reacted much like you guys, as did some others on the team. What convinced us that the mechanics are good was the experience we amassed over a longer time with the game as well as the external feedback we got which was surprisingly positive, better than some opinions on our own team, in fact. So it appeared that this unconventional philosophy is not as controversial as it had seemed and that we could rather safely reap the benefits of this system in spite of some initial scepticism. Obviously many consumers, including you guys here, had a very different opinion on these mechanics than any people who got to play the game in advance so now we're evaluating this feedback and working out improvements.
And the "getting used to a system" thing you mention is actually a very complicated matter. Sometimes you just get used to a flawed system, sometimes a system that seems flawed at first is actually good once you've wrapped your head around it. We've basically been playing the game for almost two years, so we got used to certain solutions and developed the corresponding tactics - the game is rather easy to us and the fact that the correct tactics work differently than in other games is at first glance a massive plus to us.
The fact that we can easily finish many encounters that give new players a hard time and even frustrates them puts us in a tough position: will those guys change their opinion eventually, just like we did? What about the guys who like the game the way it is? Can we make more players happy without sacrificing some of our original solutions? It's really not as simple as you make it appear.
However, some things are admittedly botched and we're very busy making changes to many things.
So the game gets released and everyone else is like, "What is this?" I actually posted this was a bad idea when I first heard no one can miss (before release) and was shouted down by fanboys who don`t think.
First off: I do not condone shouting down a critical voice like yours. As far as I'm concerned you raised legitimate concerns if you expressed scepticism of our shooting mechanics. As I said: so did many people on the team including myself.
Secondly: the thing is that shots can and do miss, much like in Hard West, and whoever from our team may have ever said that there's no "misses" in this game, made a big mistake in my opinion. Mechanically a "dodged" shot is identical to a "miss" in Hard West but for various reasons the naming convention was inverted from "miss" to "dodge" which has, as far as I can tell, brought quite a few problems.
Mechanically the biggest difference is that this time we also have graze shots and I think that's a highly controversial aspect that may need adjustment.
I also agree that an optional RNG system (in options) that would at least reduce the AI`s ability to hit from across the map would definitely be a great thing.
That kind of optional feature has actually been on our list of potential post-release additions for a while so fingers crossed.
But the good news is they`re reaching out and listening to constructive criticise, so I`m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.
Thank you. And I'm sure you will highly appreciate our upcoming updates which address many of the problems you mention.