What Happened to GM Led Weekly Discussions?

[scottocamp]

12 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

You haven't established there's a reason not to do what "no one is asking for"...  Of course, the answer to that is that there's absolutely no reason not to do so.  When you're working at that level you're looking at the larger game, and the playerbase as a whole.  Being in the top echelons of anything requires a very different outlook than being down in the trenches.
 

 

As above, you haven't established that throwing sand in the gears of the process is in any way useful.

I am simply curious as to the process when changes are made to the game that no one seems to be requesting.  And curious as to how the community should respond and provide feedback for these unexpected changes.  And wondering if changes no one is expecting might benefit from more community input.

 

Am also not advocating "throwing sand in the gears".  Would just like to offer thoughtful feedback prior to the point at which the change is largely considered a done deal.  I have no expectation that my feedback will be acted upon or that the process should be a popular vote.  Just seems as if the goal is to make the game the best it can be, then engaging the larger community as much as possible in a manner that is acceptable to the developers would be a largely positive approach.  Especially for changes no one sees coming.  Just a rough idea of what is on the list with absolutely no guarantees would be a nice gesture.

[Astralock]

I've seen many statements from people that "devs are doing things that no one asked for."  In fact, the vast majority of things they've done, people asked for.  People asked for new enhancement sets, done.  People asked for harder content, done.  People asked for new things to grind for, done.  People asked for Sentinels to be worth playing, done.  People asked for Robotics and Mercenaries to no longer suck, done.  People asked for bubblers to be worth playing, done.  People asked for the Atlas Park and Mercy Island AE buildings to be removed, done.  People asked for Praetoria to be made easier, done by making SOs available at level 2.  People asked for NPC costumes to become available, done.

 

Now, they may be implemented by ways we didn't imagine, and not everyone asked for these things.  But every single one I mentioned above was indeed asked for or suggested over the past couple of years on these very forums.

[golstat2003]

25 minutes ago, scottocamp said:

I am simply curious as to the process when changes are made to the game that no one seems to be requesting.  And curious as to how the community should respond and provide feedback for these unexpected changes.  And wondering if changes no one is expecting might benefit from more community input.

 

Am also not advocating "throwing sand in the gears".  Would just like to offer thoughtful feedback prior to the point at which the change is largely considered a done deal.  I have no expectation that my feedback will be acted upon or that the process should be a popular vote.  Just seems as if the goal is to make the game the best it can be, then engaging the larger community as much as possible in a manner that is acceptable to the developers would be a largely positive approach.  Especially for changes no one sees coming.  Just a rough idea of what is on the list with absolutely no guarantees would be a nice gesture.

 

Join Gold Testers channel/Discord. At THAT point of testing the change is NOT really considered a done deal. That stage is before the feedback threads and when they ask for public testing.

[golstat2003]

2 minutes ago, Astralock said:

I've seen many statements from people that "devs are doing things that no one asked for."  In fact, the vast majority of things they've done, people asked for.  People asked for new enhancement sets, done.  People asked for harder content, done.  People asked for new things to grind for, done.  People asked for Sentinels to be worth playing, done.  People asked for Robotics and Mercenaries to no longer suck, done.  People asked for bubblers to be worth playing, done.  People asked for the Atlas Park and Mercy Island AE buildings to be removed, done.  People asked for Praetoria to be made easier, done by making SOs available at level 2.  People asked for NPC costumes to become available, done.

 

Now, they may be implemented by ways we didn't imagine, and not everyone asked for these things.  But every single one I mentioned above was indeed asked for or suggested over the past couple of years on these very forums.

 

Also THIS. This right here.

 

Also add in the streamlining of the level path by making powers available earlier. THAT one was basically asked for repeatedly and loudly by some folks even when the game was live.

Edited October 28, 2022 by golstat2003

[Ruin Mage]

If you're looking to influence what changes are done to this game? No one but the devs SHOULD dictate that. It's their time and effort and ultimately their server. We're not paying customers, most of us aren't the developers, and none of us are really the reason why HC exists. I say that in a general sense, not as a whole all out sense.

We can suggest all we want, but that's about as far it goes besides feedback through testing.

Cobalt also laid out SOME of the questions they ask themselves for changes:

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Shadeknight

[Troo]

@Doc_Scorpion I believe, and correct me if I misunderstood @scottocamp, they are just asking as many of us have over time.. "how can folks be involved earlier in the process?"

 

Many are not looking to be a dev, but interested in participating earlier in discussions before fully baked beta builds show up.

 

 

Pointing to Gold Standard Testers is all fine (though early on I was told it was not an official channel, opinions still seem to differ on this).

I've not seen a post in these forums that endeavors to inform folks that discord has a discussion on some upcoming proposed changes.

 

What do G.S.T. Discord topics look like? Here's a peak from earlier in the year.. or last year.

Spoiler

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Troo

[Aracknight]

Players:  we want x!

 

Devs: say no more!  (Gives us x)

 

Players:

[TomatoPhalanges]

With regards to the Gold Standard discord, the only real expectations are that you aren't rude and malicious on the discord (this isn't aggressively enforced, you don't need to worry about being 'silenced') and that you don't leak information or upcoming content from the discord anywhere, since things are so bound to change, in addition to just not being a spoiler-poster and ruining the fun for the devs/players who don't want to see it.

For example about things changing on a dime - we saw maybe two or three very different iterations of the Sentinel rework in P5, for example, and there is content that sometimes misses a level of polish expected by the time things reach Brainstorm. There's also occasionally experiments that are done with the intent to never touch Brainstorm, as preparation or information-gathering for changes or content down the line.

You're expected to test, as well, but that's not really measured in any way AFAIK, so you do it when you can and/or think it's needed. Joining the discord just to get a sneak peek on upcoming changes without providing any contribution is generally frowned upon.

[Neiska]

29 minutes ago, Astralock said:

I've seen many statements from people that "devs are doing things that no one asked for."  In fact, the vast majority of things they've done, people asked for.  People asked for new enhancement sets, done.  People asked for harder content, done.  People asked for new things to grind for, done.  People asked for Sentinels to be worth playing, done.  People asked for Robotics and Mercenaries to no longer suck, done.  People asked for bubblers to be worth playing, done.  People asked for the Atlas Park and Mercy Island AE buildings to be removed, done.  People asked for Praetoria to be made easier, done by making SOs available at level 2.  People asked for NPC costumes to become available, done.

 

Now, they may be implemented by ways we didn't imagine, and not everyone asked for these things.  But every single one I mentioned above was indeed asked for or suggested over the past couple of years on these very forums.

 

Right then, a few thoughts.

 

1. "People asked for X" - This is a moot point. How many people? When? On which change? How many people liked it and how many people didn't? Considering that less than half of the people even use the forums and even less use the discord, lets have some fun with math. (pretext: these figures are by no means accurate and are entirely therotical but I am using them to make a point.)

 

Lets be generous and say that 40% of players use the forums. I doubt its even that high, but lets go with that. And lets use a pool of 1000 people for context.

1000 people = 400 people using the forums.

Now on any given change, perhaps 1/4th of those people might chime in either for or against it. So that brings us down to 100.

Out of those 100, a change seems to be about 50/50 for and against. Some voices are louder than others certainly. But this is just painting a picture for context.

This leaves an entirely theoretical 50 out of 1000 people, are openly requesting and supporting a change.

 

I would hardly call 1/20th a validation or a "majority."

 

2. Robots only "sucked" if you had "moar DPS" tunnel vision. If they were so terrible, why were they one of the most popular MMs played? They were just behind Demons and Thugs for popularity. They were quite strong in support, as a single Robots/Time MM could softcap everyones DEF entirely by themselves, bring a bit of AoE, and some -regen to boot. The notion that the new robots is a 100% improvement for all builds across the board is false. My own Demons and Thug MMs still do more damage than my Robots does, while I lost the built in -regen tool. And forgive me if I don't choose the honor of using precious power picks on -regen, when I can get more mileage out of things like Group Fly, Fold Space, Leadership, particularly on a AT that has a damage and END penalty to personal attacks. The robots remake didn't make them "better," it only gave them something to do. Personally the only upside to the new Robots is the built in heal, which is quite nice for sets like Cold or Sonic.

 

I am not trying to be argumentative or confrontational Astralock, truly. But I do resent the notion that all changes were good, that all were requested by the community, or that everyone likes them. Now I hope we mutually agree that some change is better than no change at all, but it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend for a moment that all of these updates are even popular. (It varies from change to change, as well they should.) But for a growing part of the community, they are starting to dislike more than like changes the more we recieve.

 

For the record, I would appreciate a boost to those who enjoy single player activities the most, and not just a single AT. Because the gap between single player and team play only keeps growing, in particular with regards to the changes in farming. But that is a discussion that's been done to death. I only mention what I would personally like to see, if anyone cared.

[Draeth Darkstar]

20 hours ago, Krimson said:

The last time I used the Homecoming Discord, the "Topic of the Day" was an account posting phishing links. Considering the average age of the player base, I would never recommend using Discord out of good conscience. 

 

Phishing and spam happen everywhere on the internet. They happened on the original forums when Paragon ran things and they happen on these forums too. It makes no sense whatsoever to treat Discord any differently than anywhere else online. You either learn how to identify it or you can't be trusted with the internet, period.

[Troo]

Having the Weekly Discussions documented in the Official Homecoming Servers Forum at least let folks point to a discussion that was had, and which may have summarized feedback from various sources without the promise that any changes would even be made. In this way, later down the road, a player could at least see what was talked about before and some of the reasoning behind things.

 

That's a decent way to avoid the perception that major changes to existing powersets are being driven by a small secretive group in a race to make everything the same.

 

[TomatoPhalanges]

1 minute ago, Neiska said:

1. "People asked for X" - This is a moot point. How many people? When? On which change? How many people liked it and how many people didn't? Considering that less than half of the people even use the forums and even less use the discord, lets have some fun with math. (pretext: these figures are by no means accurate and are entirely therotical but I am using them to make a point.)

 

The 'how many' and 'when' is somewhat irrelevant when you consider that the devs don't just choose by popular voice, they also choose by their own personal interests, team priority projects (KW for example), their own behind-the-scenes data, and what's feasible (and then mash all of those together to come to a decision). Something may be more niche but happen to be of personal interest to a specific dev, so they'll put time into making it happen, while a more popular change may also be incredibly time consuming, or forgo an important detail that the devs are considering.

 

Point is, it doesn't matter how many people asked for something, all that really matters is that a dev (or multiple) decided to put it on their plate and work away at it. That also comes down to the volunteer aspect. If this were a profit-based business, then it'd be in the business' best interest to specifically appease majority requests (or the most majority-seeming), but the devs do it out of passion for their work and the game, and because they (usually) enjoy their work. There's absolutely been plenty of popular, great-sounding changes suggested that would have a positive impact on the game but the reality was 'no, that's far too time-consuming and painful to actually make happen, so I don't want to do it, at least right now' and that is absolutely an acceptable response.

[Draeth Darkstar]

21 minutes ago, Neiska said:

2. Robots only "sucked" if you had "moar DPS" tunnel vision. If they were so terrible, why were they one of the most popular MMs played? They were just behind Demons and Thugs for popularity. They were quite strong in support, as a single Robots/Time MM could softcap everyones DEF entirely by themselves, bring a bit of AoE, and some -regen to boot. The notion that the new robots is a 100% improvement for all builds across the board is false. My own Demons and Thug MMs still do more damage than my Robots does, while I lost the built in -regen tool. And forgive me if I don't choose the honor of using precious power picks on -regen, when I can get more mileage out of things like Group Fly, Fold Space, Leadership, particularly on a AT that has a damage and END penalty to personal attacks. The robots remake didn't make them "better," it only gave them something to do. Personally the only upside to the new Robots is the built in heal, which is quite nice for sets like Cold or Sonic.

Your entire premise is based on a failure to understand the game mechanics you're complaining about.

 

-Regen is nothing but an effective DPS increase against targets that have meaningful regen. The gain to average DPS Robotics received without using the personal attacks or any other source of -regen was substantially higher than the loss of effective DPS it previously had from its average -regen level against AVs and GMs, and the -regen was only valuable against those targets, actual damage is valuable against everything. -Regen also has a hard cap of effective DPS, more raw damage is always more effective DPS. The net gain in effective DPS has been tested extensively and you're not going to change the math or the actual in-game proofs by continuing to beat this dead horse.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Draeth Darkstar

[Neiska]

4 minutes ago, TomatoPhalanges said:

 

The 'how many' and 'when' is somewhat irrelevant when you consider that the devs don't just choose by popular voice, they also choose by their own personal interests, team priority projects (KW for example), their own behind-the-scenes data, and what's feasible (and then mash all of those together to come to a decision). Something may be more niche but happen to be of personal interest to a specific dev, so they'll put time into making it happen, while a more popular change may also be incredibly time consuming, or forgo an important detail that the devs are considering.

 

Point is, it doesn't matter how many people asked for something, all that really matters is that a dev (or multiple) decided to put it on their plate and work away at it. That also comes down to the volunteer aspect. If this were a profit-based business, then it'd be in the business' best interest to specifically appease majority requests (or the most majority-seeming), but the devs do it out of passion for their work and the game, and because they (usually) enjoy their work. There's absolutely been plenty of popular, great-sounding changes suggested that would have a positive impact on the game but the reality was 'no, that's far too time-consuming and painful to actually make happen, so I don't want to do it, at least right now' and that is absolutely an acceptable response.

 

I agree, how many and when are irrelevant, as is the point Astralock was trying to make with the "people asked for this."

People asked for many things. Some get worked on, some do not. Its entirely up to the Devs, and IMO, they don't have to validate to us which projects they do or don't work on, but that's just my opinion.

[Ruin Mage]

36 minutes ago, Troo said:

I've not seen a post in these forums that endeavors to inform folks that discord has a discussion on some upcoming proposed changes.

Not exactly something needed if we (I say we and I mean I at this moment) have provided open links to the area where upcoming changes first hit a initial testing stage (albeit in a form of 'hey dont talk about this until we're sure we're going to commit to it' aka the "Closed" Beta -> Brainstorm pipeline) 

Nor has it really ever been done in the history of testing things across games to my knowledge.

[Doc_Scorpion]

52 minutes ago, scottocamp said:

Am also not advocating "throwing sand in the gears". 

You're asking for the Dev and Community teams to do more work within the limited time they have available, slowing down the process, and you don't think you're advocating "throwing sand in the gears"?  And that's setting aside how contentious the process is unquestionably going to be.

 

2 minutes ago, Troo said:

Many are not looking to be a dev, but interested in participating earlier in discussions before fully baked beta builds show up.

Participating at the point in the discussion, at the topmost levels and fairly early in the process, you are essentially a Dev.  You're making significant decisions that affect the course of the game and the play of the entire playerbase.  It's a responsibility, a burden.  (Heck, so is properly participating in Open Beta.)  And you need to be able to move beyond the weaksauce "well, I didn't see anyone asking for this" and "well, I haven't seen any builds using this".
 

 

8 minutes ago, Troo said:

I've not seen a post in these forums that endeavors to inform folks that discord has a discussion on some upcoming proposed changes.

 
There's been several of them in this thread alone.  It's been discussed repeatedly over the course of the last couple of years and especially in the last couple of weeks.

It might be your client...  But your snapshot of the Gold Standard discord is misleading and incomplete.

It's blurred out because "what happens on Gold Standard stays on Gold Standard" - but this is what the Gold Standard discord looks like for Page 5 on my client. (I don't currently have as much time as I'd like, but I do try and keep abreast and informed of what's going on.)  Each of those blurs is a channel dedicated to specific or closely related features.  Some new, some changes to the existing game.  (At least two have been on the Page disscussion for a couple of Pages now and have yet to make Open Beta.)

And this is only a picture of one corner of the discussions.

[Neiska]

6 minutes ago, Draeth Darkstar said:

Your entire premise is based on a failure to understand the game mechanics you're complaining about.

 

-Regen is nothing but an effective DPS increase against targets that have meaningful regen. The gain to average DPS Robotics received without using the personal attacks or any other source of -regen was substantially higher than the loss of effective DPS it previously had from its average -regen level against AVs and GMs, and the -regen was only valuable against those targets, actual damage is valuable against everything. -Regen also has a hard cap of effective DPS, more raw damage is always more effective DPS. The net gain in effective damage has been tested extensively and you're not going to change the math or the actual in-game proofs by continuing to beat this dead horse.

 

First off, with about 20 Robot MMs fully T3'd or T4'd, and having soloed most of what is possible to solo as a Robot MM, I think I have a pretty good grasp on game mechanics.

 

If you actually read my comments both here and elsewhere, my point never was or is about the before or after, or the change to their DPS. My input has always entirely been about how many powers are available in a build. My objection was never about their DPS. But I will try to elaborate.

 

You have 24 power slots, and 64 enhancement slots available to put where you like.

You loose 5 power slots taking the 3 pets and 2 upgrade powers, which leaves 19.

You have 1 obligatory secondary power. That leaves 18.

Most builds take toughness and Weave, which requires boxing or kick. This leaves 15.

Now lets say you want group fly, that takes 3 power picks. This leaves 12.

Now lets say you want fold space, down to 9.

Now you need Leadership, most take Maneuvers, Tactics, and Vengance. Down to 6.

Now you want Haste. Down to 5.

 

This means you have 5 power slots to use, on your secondary AND personal attacks. And this isn't even getting into slotting.

 

My complaint isn't about DPS, and it never was. It is about the limited number of powers in a build. Robots already was pretty tight on slotting, with the lack of a mule power. But now if you want -regen you have to give up already too few power slots in order to include them, as well as the slotting for things like +ACC or END reduction.

 

MMs will never be top shelf DPS, and I don't think they were ever meant to be. Though some can certainly do good or even impressive DPS for a support class, my point is that it is mainly a support class, and this new remake limits the options they have to you know, support. 

 

If you want to be kiss-your-elbow top DPS, you might be better off playing something else.

[Troo]

17 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

1 hour ago, scottocamp said:

Am also not advocating "throwing sand in the gears". 

You're asking for the Dev and Community teams to do more work within the limited time they have available, slowing down the process, and you don't think you're advocating "throwing sand in the gears"?  And that's setting aside how contentious the process is unquestionably going to be.

 

1 hour ago, Troo said:

Many are not looking to be a dev, but interested in participating earlier in discussions before fully baked beta builds show up.

Participating at the point in the discussion, at the topmost levels and fairly early in the process, you are essentially a Dev.  You're making significant decisions that affect the course of the game and the play of the entire playerbase.  It's a responsibility, a burden.  (Heck, so is properly participating in Open Beta.)  And you need to be able to move beyond the weaksauce "well, I didn't see anyone asking for this" and "well, I haven't seen any builds using this".

 

Come on. Folks are not asking to dictate to Devs, it seems you are misunderstanding what is being asked for.

 

18 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

There's been several of them in this thread alone.  It's been discussed repeatedly over the course of the last couple of years and especially in the last couple of weeks.

 

Please re-read what I wrote. specifically, " inform folks that discord has a discussion on some upcoming proposed changes ". I'm not talking about just providing a link.

 

22 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

And this is only a picture of one corner of the discussions.

 

Thanks for the more recent view, I was not going to provide anything current.

[Troo]

1 hour ago, Shadeknight said:

Not exactly something needed if we (I say we and I mean I at this moment) have provided open links to the area where upcoming changes first hit a initial testing stage (albeit in a form of 'hey dont talk about this until we're sure we're going to commit to it' aka the "Closed" Beta -> Brainstorm pipeline)

 

So you are confirming that to your knowledge it hasn't happened.

Save the "yeah, but..".

 

We get the follow the link, signup, and check in from time to time and you might be able to participate.

 

1 hour ago, Shadeknight said:

Nor has it really ever been done in the history of testing things across games to my knowledge.

 

Opinion and as such sort of irrelevant.

Open dialogue about what's working and what isn't working, wish lists and product roadmaps are common place. Letting folks outside the dev team know when a change is being looked at and offering the opportunity for actual feedback is also common. It's not just common, some might consider it best practices.

 

With the small team Homecoming has and the limited time/resources there is no expectation of what an enterprise operation might be doing.

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Troo

[Doc_Scorpion]

20 minutes ago, Troo said:

Come on. Folks are not asking to dictate to Devs, it seems you are misunderstanding what is being asked for.

No, I'm not misunderstanding what's being asked for at all and I've said nothing that could possibly be construed as meaning I thought people were asking to dictate to the Devs.  The central problem here is that people don't understand what they're asking for and what useful participation at that level entails.

 

26 minutes ago, Troo said:

Please re-read what I wrote. specifically, " inform folks that discord has a discussion on some upcoming proposed changes ". I'm not talking about just providing a link.

Here's just one such post, right in this very thread, just a few posts above yours complaining you hadn't seen any.  As I said, what you're asking for has been done and is being done.

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, TomatoPhalanges said:

 

 

Point is, it doesn't matter how many people asked for something, all that really matters is that a dev (or multiple) decided to put it on their plate and work away at it. That also comes down to the volunteer aspect. If this were a profit-based business, then it'd be in the business' best interest to specifically appease majority requests (or the most majority-seeming), but the devs do it out of passion for their work and the game, and because they (usually) enjoy their work. There's absolutely been plenty of popular, great-sounding changes suggested that would have a positive impact on the game but the reality was 'no, that's far too time-consuming and painful to actually make happen, so I don't want to do it, at least right now' and that is absolutely an acceptable response.

 

I'm going to quote this again and remind us of what Cobalt said a few pages back.

 

Even if a change is liked by everyone (devs, players alike) but then the dev gets in and see it requires an engine re-write you can bet it's not going to happen.

 

So even if players and devs agree on a change and want to do it, let's not forget that COH is essentially spaghetti code.

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, Neiska said:

 

I agree, how many and when are irrelevant, as is the point Astralock was trying to make with the "people asked for this."

People asked for many things. Some get worked on, some do not. Its entirely up to the Devs, and IMO, they don't have to validate to us which projects they do or don't work on, but that's just my opinion.

 

It's entirely up to the devs and what's possible in this ancient engine. 😅

[Neiska]

23 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

 

It's entirely up to the devs and what's possible in this ancient engine. 😅

 

Oh, most assuredly. My point of disagreement was the insinuation that most people asked for change and supported said changes. Given that the majority are silent on the matter (here in the forums and discord), this is false, as well as moot. Someone cannot say more people Supported a change, any more than I might say more people opposed a change, simply because the majority of players have not weighed in either way on the subject in question.

 

As an example, in the Masterminds channel there is 9026 users. After scrolling back 4 weeks I counted roughly 52 different users, or .5%. I didn't even go into what was being discussed, but even if we assumed that every user in the past month of that channel supposed a change, that is less than 1%, at least of the Discord users. Though this doesn't take into account ex-players or people who no longer play but whom are still in the channel, but nor does it take into account players who play but don't use the discord.

 

I suppose the TLDR is that we simply don't have enough data or poof to say anything with certainty, one way or another. I do want to add I am not saying there should be no change at all either. Only that the point "most people liked X change" should not be used, for "any" change.

[The Chairman]

11 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

Oh, most assuredly. My point of disagreement was the insinuation that most people asked for change and supported said changes. Given that the majority are silent on the matter (here in the forums and discord), this is false, as well as moot. Someone cannot say more people Supported a change, any more than I might say more people opposed a change, simply because the majority of players have not weighed in either way on the subject in question.

 

As an example, in the Masterminds channel there is 9026 users. After scrolling back 4 weeks I counted roughly 52 different users, or .5%. I didn't even go into what was being discussed, but even if we assumed that every user in the past month of that channel supposed a change, that is less than 1%, at least of the Discord users. Though this doesn't take into account ex-players or people who no longer play but whom are still in the channel, but nor does it take into account players who play but don't use the discord.

 

I suppose the TLDR is that we simply don't have enough data or poof to say anything with certainty, one way or another. I do want to add I am not saying there should be no change at all either. Only that the point "most people liked X change" should not be used, for "any" change.

 

I think you may be reading too much into @Astralock's point. He was responding to the assertion that the Devs were making changes that no one asked for. This assertion appears to be unfounded. Astralock's point was that a majority of changes made have, in fact, been requested. I do not believe that this point was intended to go any further than refuting that initial assertion. It was not intended to insinuate that most people or a majority of people asked for the listed changes or that, by being requested, the changes are therefore good.

 

I could be wrong, but that is how I read it.

[Neiska]

1 minute ago, The Chairman said:

 

I think you may be reading too much into @Astralock's point. He was responding to the assertion that the Devs were making changes that no one asked for. This assertion appears to be unfounded. Astralock's point was that a majority of changes made have, in fact, been requested. I do not believe that this point was intended to go any further than refuting that initial assertion. It was not intended to insinuate that most people or a majority of people asked for the listed changes or that, by being requested, the changes are therefore good.

 

I could be wrong, but that is how I read it.

 

A fair point, as well as true I suspect. I feel it's a safe bet to say there have been more changes that were requested, than changes that were not. But that would be quite a lot of data-digging and forum-scavenging to find out either way.