Obsidius

That would have been infinitely better than the wall of silence with which we were met. Apparently, Avatea said as much to the French players, but no one replied to the main discussion thread on the topic.

The rapport we had with the developers and community reps is one of the things that I found most appealing with this game - it was something I had never seen before, and something we may never see again. There are, and have been, a lot of very cool people who work on the game, undeniably. But without the rapport (and combined with other factors), I'm much less enthusiastic about my future in the game, even on the heels of GR. I'm not stating that to spread FUD (or to get anyone to jump ship), that's just my honest perspective at the moment.

I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm only stating the most plausible reason developed by experienced players in the vacuum that has become red name responses to feedback. But I think you already knew that.

I know a certain moderator would have preferred that I kept this subject in PMs between them and I; this may have been a key reason. They can't publicly dissent with the "united front", or even acknowledge any questioning to it. IMPO, it sounds like a sort of Marketing Dictatorship. (This is where I stop short of Godwin's Law.)

On that note, "Be careful what you wish for," as they say. Many of us thought that Marketing wasn't doing enough to promote the game. Now it's more like Marketing saying "We're doing X to the game and you WILL like it."

Mostly math, AFAIK.

24 players x 24 nukes applied to 1 AV = imbalance in encounter.

At least that's how it's been explained by players, as there has been no red name elaboration on this change despite repeated requests by the general playerbase. I'm unsurprised, honestly.

Whoever did it discovered that Warburg missiles were more lucrative

You don't even know the definition of the word until you've played <game name redacted due to forum policies>.

Perhaps my OP was a bit ubiquitous. There are valid reasons for changes; this is not one of them.

Some powers, as previously stated, where changed in order to avoid visually-related illnesses of players. Any power FX that causes nausea, headaches, seizures, or the like obviously should be changed. This is not one of them.

Any power that has a discrepancy in rooted time and non-rooted time, or is otherwise bugged, should obviously be changed. This is not one of them.

Any power animation normalization (ie: normalization between rooting for self buffs or PBAoE damage auras) in order to create or maintain uniformity across all ATs should happen. This is not one of them.

Ths only reason for the change listed in the OP is purely asthetic (ie: I don't like how the power looks). This power does not cause player illness, is uniform in animation across all ATs, and is not otherwise bugged. Hence, it should not be changed until Power Customization can be added - to allow players to keep it as-is or change it to their content.

Not at all. Changing a power wholesale, well, changes it, for those who want change and those who don't. You have one campe that is happy, while the other isn't. Hence, the Cottage Rule.

Power Customization, OTOH, doesn't change a power wholesale as much as it adds options. People who like the power the way that it is can keep it, while others have the options of changing it. Both camps are happy.

The rest of your example is, IMPO, a scarecrow. Unless we're discussing power effects that give people migraines or epileptic seizures, which is an entirely different discussion altogether (aesthetic reasons vs. the health of players).