[quote]This is an activity that was designed to be undertaken by a hardcore team that is ready and willing to adapt and improvise to changing battle conditions.[/quote] I think this is where you're losing folks, DeeJ. It may have been [i]intended[/i] to be that, but it [i]wasn't[/i] designed to be that. It was [b]poorly [/b]designed, and as a result it was easy. You write your posts as though the relationship between you and the dev team is adversarial, as though you're our advocate, but then you let them shape the conversation. People notice, and they draw conclusions from it. Bottom line, aspiration has to meet reality before they can claim "we designed it to be X". If the design team says it's supposed to be hard, but for some reason it isn't hard, that's their fault. It's a direct result of their design and their quality assurance procedures, not an act of god or a natural disaster. They know how they designed it. If they're the ones testing it, or giving any information about it to the testers, then there's confirmation bias involved. They will be leading themselves, or others, to approach it in an artificially difficult manner. The community found holes in the design that made the aspirational intent ring hollow. They showed the designers that their approach to constructing a challenge was insufficiently creative, and had been tested with artificial difficulty applied due via player bias or sloppiness. Bumpers and teleportation aside, those sniper perches and the kill-volume response to them were damning. The latest bunch of changes, with no mention at all of fundamentally broken mechanics that people have been begging for changes to, is just another poke in the eye for a lot of your players who already have pretty bruised sockets. [i]"Here is a hard puzzle, figure it out." "We figured out that it isn't hard, and there's a bunch of broken bits." "No, it's hard because it's the end of the game. It has to be hard. You're just doing it wrong." "But..." "You want to complain? I'll give you something to complain about!" [b]*dev changes things*[/b] "Fine, now it's hard, just like we designed it to be." "That doesn't make any sense! And it's still broken!" [b]*dev changes more things*[/b] "Hard. It's HARD. We say so. Do it in a way that feels hard way or we'll kill you! And stop saying it isn't hard! We should know, we designed it to be hard." "-blam!-, FINE! But we're still going to skip everything before the boss fight." "Well yeah, that's cool, we designed that part to be easy. Just pretend that it's still hard, okay? It's important." "If we go along with that crap will you fix the broken stuff?" "Soon we'll let you have an extra bounty slots." "That's pretty clever, actuall...w-wait..what?" "And voice chat for strikes!" "Well yeah that'd be sweet, but..you know what...-blam!- it. Just forget we asked about the raid."[/i] [b]Eventually, people are going to stop asking.[/b] [spoiler]PS. We appreciate the heads up we got on the future plans, and the extra bounty slots are a good idea for many reasons, but throwing them in at the end of this particular set of patch notes was poorly thought out. Good news first next time, and treat it with as much attention to detail as the bad news.[/spoiler]