ROFL. Wow. You think I have a wild opinion, and your example is that you don't believe people loathe the pod system. How about you go anywhere where XCOM is discussed, and ask people what they think of the pod system?
Or read discussion of XCOM Chimera, or Gears Tactics, and hear all the rejoicing about it not using the pod system.
What people specifically loathe is the outright cheating, where, then the pod detects you, they get to move and reposition, for free, without missing their turn or having any kind of penalty. Even though you don't get the same if they discover you on their turn.
Seriously. You think that's a wild opinion? You're proving you have no idea what XCOM fans or turn-based-tactical game fans think. You seem like a totally massive XCOM fan, so how you don't know is staggering. You really going to sit there and pretend you haven't heard huge amounts of griping about the pods system, after mentioning stuff like Long War? Do you just not read XCOM-connected forums or something? This isn't even pot kettle black. This is pot (you) calling the candlestick black.
You also claim rolling is worse than side-based initiative. That is objectively false. Yes, you can end up with the same result. But that's the worst case scenario for rolling, and it's unlikely. It's a 50/50 chance (or thereabouts) with group initiative. So it is a logical impossibility to claim that rolling is "worse" than side-based, given that fact.
Individual passive initiative is okay, but would massively increase the value of DEX and anything which boosted your initiative, except Advantage, which would be obviated.
I haven't played a mega-ton of Chimera - I've enjoyed it, and I don't agree that there are no choices, rather that they're different choices. I personally find them more engaging them XCOM2, which at this point for me is pretty dull. Gears Tactics is also way better at doing XCOM2 than XCOM2 is. It has side-based initiative, but doesn't use the weak crutch of the pod system, and generally plays really great (I can see not buying it given how expensive it is though - I only have it because of the cheapo subscription you can get it on).
Well as someone who has thoroughly enjoyed several generation of XCOM games (and Mods) as well as consumed a bunch of theoretical discussion on the games, pod mechanics came up, people are venting about it once and a while (mostly because of teleport bugs or AI clairvoiance). Worst case that has been a minor occurence compared to the usual RNG gripes from my recollection. So your blanket statements could use some less hyperbole if you want to aim to bring a point across.
I'll take artifically smart pods and actual mechanics over the usual increase in HP and damage most of the remaining designers seem to consider adequate balancing
shrug
Also read again. I don't remember or intend to claim rolling is worse than side-based initiative. It accidentially can be better or worse to split the initiative, especially with AI involved. You're not thinking creative enough if you can't come up with a scenario where your Rogue is worse off going first since he won't get a sneak attack in or where it's better to wait till the other side wastes their Action on a Dash to close the gap. This correlates with my comment about save scumming, there's a massive difference in between the first try when the enemy mage got a nat20 on Initiative and fried your party with a Fireball and the second attempt when your Warlock Archer crit smites the guy to death before he gets an action. 5E mechanics can probably take this much variance, but I think the game could benefit from individual Initiative being passive/stable rather than DnD5E or DOS2 versions.
Mind you current Larian group Initiative also makes only the highest dude in the party matter. Investing a Feat into Alert to raise Initiative and then fumbling the next 3 Initiative rolls anyway is quite possible in 5E, but you'll just accept that's how the dice fell.
At this point I assume we all know enough about game psychology to know the same result isn't going to fly well In a video game, where you didn't roll a physical die with direct feedback from the other players on the third "fail". Most people end up simmering with annoyance towards that machine that's incapable to roll dice "fairly". There'll be no shortage of people claiming the RNG is rigged after their Wizard fails to make the 5th 60% DC based Spell stick, ignoring all the dice rolled in between or the amount of dice rolls total for that campaign to match that pattern against.
BG3 is a singleplayer game. I'm just gonna assume more than half the opponents are melee/have weaker ranged than melee options, can't close every fight with a single move. Passive Initiative allows for easier encounter design, as simple as that. If anything rolling for Initiative is more problematic because you can reroll fights till your 8 DEX Fighter manages to go first every fight. I'm not saying 5E should adapt that, because there is no need to. The games at our home tables are always going to be Ironman (with the DM in charge of adjusting fate... or not). BG3 will not be a home game, with D20s involved RNG discrepancy will be massive at times. Removing the randomness from passive combat components like Initiative might just be a better way to go about it in that environment. Just a hunch though, we'll see at the end of playtesting what sticks.
I also don't see the usual "DEX is so much better than STR" argument having much weight in a PC game. Pretty much disappears in a game that remembers Athletics checks are STR based and can't be handwaved away by Acrobatics, where Sneaking is going to be done solo by the sneaky party members because "do not split the party" doesn't apply and no one has to wait IRL on the Rogue finishing a solo heist. Gonna go out on a limb and claim you'll want a STR guy in your party to jump far, climb cliffs and lift heavy stuff requiring STR checks and Athletics rolls.
You'll also want a DEX guy, because this is an RPG with rolls, so you want every kind of check covered to be "optimal", which means INT is also going to be relevant when a riddle, hidden door etc is gated behind i.e. an Arcana check. The one stat I'd predict is going to be less valueable than usual is CON. Simply because you'll be able to sit back and snipe or avoid "aggro" in ways your usual DM would never let you. 10-12 CON glasscannons are probably going to be alright to get a +2 to your Perception checks on a ranged Fighter instead.
Same for Skills like Survival, Animal Handling and Performance or a proper split in between Perception and Investigation. A DM might simply forget 99% Performance exists, a Larian game is likely going to have a quota on how much each individual Skill is going to be invoked. Not all of them are going to be equal, but all of them are likely to be relevant.
Oh my, again with the blanket statements where your personal opinion supposedly equates public opinion. Chimera Squad isn't fairing so well in the numbers. GoW barely cracked 80, I'm honestly surprised they got away with that given the 4 or so actual side mission types, narrow spectrum in opponent classes and massive pricetag relative to content. Think I'm on savegame 75 or so in XCOM, Gears of War critique lists about zero replayability as one of it's major flaws, although it was fun for the 4 days or so it took to play through I don't see anything that warrants another playthrough atm. Can't say lack of enemy designspace or replayability was ever a problem in the XCOMs (and then there's War of the Chosen and the Long Wars, to make that pretty much 5 full games in terms of content).
Again, would you happen to have anything to back up your claims with?
