duvessa wrote:First the goalpost was "does anyone actually do this", now it's "does it actually improve your chance of winning". When we show you proof of that, you'll just move it again. Why so eager to justify this awful feature?
I have never moved my goalposts, my goalposts for tedium-based removal are: 1. It must be possible, 2. It must require little to no risk 3. It must provide some measurable benefit.
If it is tedious but provides no measurable benefits, then it is not a problem (for example, walking around in a circle with nothing in sight just to waste turns)
Now that doesn't mean that traps ate or are not justified as a feature that brings benefit to the game, only that until someone has any evidence that this behavior provides any benefit, this behavior *by itself* doesn't merit the removal of traps.
Lasty, i will have to disagree with you about perceived, but not real benefits being cause to use tedium to justify removal, it is quite possible for someone to (wrongly) perceive any number of things as beneficial when they are not, (If someone thinks that not training any weapon skill on a conjurer is beneficial, should we force them to? )
Now as to the larger question outside of this specific example of whether traps merit being in the game. I have an opinion that they do, but an argument could probably be made that they do not.
Also, here is a counter suggestion: when a tile passes *out* of your LOS, any undiscivered trap that might have been on it is destroyed.