Yea, we're really grateful for the feedback, and one important part is the we-just-did-this changes as there are often bugs or other unintended side-effects where it's like "oh, I didn't mean for
that to happen" and it's a quick fix.
On the other hand, there are sometimes things like the no-AI-turrets during this interval where y'all just don't have enough info (on our plans) to give any kind of comprehensive feedback. In cases like that it's blind people in the dark room with the elephant, trying to piece it together by feel
Though sometimes even that is at least mildly useful, like the person who pointed out that the AI particularly lacks ability to stop scouting without turrets. We already knew that, of course, but avoiding duplication is not the primary goal of feedback.
What's more important is the attitude with which the feedback is presented. If we make a change that causes a player significant distress (either due to intended or unintended effects) and they write some mournful rage post, it can be frustrating/demoralizing for us. Or sometimes just amusing, but that's beside the point. Anyway, y'all are great and there's very little feedback here that really fits that exaggerated description.
Negative feedback is fine. Actually it's
essential. But the more it focuses on objective facts, concrete flaws, and concrete solutions, the better
To be clear, I'm not describing or referring to any particular feedback in this thread.
Anyway, onward and upward, I have context menus to port