Saying there is major things wrong with this game reminds me of when I was watching the world cup at a bar by my house and there was this drunk American watching perhaps his first soccer game and the whole time he was shouting out these dumb ideas on how to make soccer better. Descent is balanced in my opinion but if you have a not so talented overlord and a great player as a hero, the heroes will probably win. A talented overlord who understands the game, the overlord will win.
I'm sure I would win or at least make it challenging for the players is I was your overlord, with no restrictions. Where do you live? I have saturday off.
I am not going to debate with you on who the better gamer is. I have no reason to doubt you and am sure that you do really well. I agree with you that this game is well balanced; my friends and I have had a blast with the Shadow Rune Campaign (although I own everything, thus far we have only played the starting campaign) and have played the Overlord in turn.
I believe that the problem lies in the lack of mortality for both hero and OL. There never seems to be mortal repercussions as a direct result of a poor decision that I or another have made. If anyone dies in this edition of Descent, they are simply "revived" in the next turn. That's it, no permanent setbacks or fear of committing their forces of good or ill to battle so and so as everyone is rewarded for failure by earning an experience point regardless.
This to me cheapens the overall experience for me on a personal level. And lets be clear, you and I know that the heroes can play the "loose to win" strategy whereby each player focuses on treasure hunting until the end of the game, collects the best treasure before the final battle and then commits to operation "Ground and Pound".
If the heros gave me every choice of quest, every relic I wanted, and all the XP bonuses... I could hand them the act 1 and 2 shopping decks and tell them to take everything they wanted I would still paste them.