Although it’s true that discussions about suggestions for game “improvements” can become heated or quickly break down, I don’t think it’s because reasons opposing those suggestions are silly.
Firstly, many of the people acting as opponents in those threads are not against the suggestions so much as they dislike the tone implicit in the OP. Many “improvements” come in the form of “Elite Dangerous sux0rz/is dead/bores me now,” as if “one change” will somehow magically “fix” the game. Many of these threads begin from an assumption that Elite Dangerous is broken, fundamentally flawed, unplayable except by the few hardcore fans who can’t see how terrible it is, etc. (Or, as Mohrgan put it above, suggestions FD must implement if they want to get “big”.) I think what many of us oppose when we post in those threads is the sense of entitlement we feel coming from such posters. Attitude is an important thing; tone is hard to achieve in writing. But if one genuinely wants change, coming into a forum of clearly biased people and insulting the thing they like is not a very good opening move.
On a related note, there are many people who genuinely like the game, think it is a good game, and have suggestions they think are good … and others disagree. I see a lot of myopia, where people find a play style that works wonderfully for them, discover some edge cases where the game breaks their immersion, becomes a grind, becomes too boring, etc., and come up with a way to “fix” the problem—but they are coming from a position fundamentally different from the majority of the player base. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, when they receive less-than-enthusiastic feedback about their idea.
This is, as Privata noted above, a discussion forum, and it isn’t a great place for making suggestions to the devs themselves. This is a place for fans—enthusiasts—to talk about the game. This includes talking about potential “improvements.” The level of discussion and debate should hopefully remain civil and respectful—and a shout out to the mods who spend their time helping to make that happen! However, no one should be surprised when they encounter pushback or critique of their ideas.
So, no, I don’t think any of the reasons you cited in your original post are dumb reasons to oppose a suggestion. Now, arguments against a suggestion can fall prey to all the follies and fallacies I noted above, and it’s certainly possible to make arguments from a weak position that use those same reasons. But that’s not the reasons’ themselves being wrong—that’s the people posting who, once again, have a sense of entitlement and feel like they are the ultimate arbiters of what makes Elite good or not, just coming from the other direction.
In particular, I think discussion about the extent to which Elite should have features similar to other games is a vital one. We are at a point where gaming tech and networking tech have become good enough to make space sims viable to the extent that Frontier and many other developers have long dreamed. While a certain amount of overlap and similarity is useful, even desirable, diversity is also nice—not just to appeal to different types of players, but also because the same player might enjoy different space sims for different reasons. Features that transform one game into a “rich experience” might detract from another game.
I think where we run into problems most often is when we start bandying about terms like “the core values” of Elite: Dangerous. Because that’s not really our bailiwick; only the developers have that vision, and it’s also a vision that will evolve. Thus, making such ontological arguments is ultimately a specious exercise; we are forced to fall back on the so-called “silly” reasons.
I, for one, welcome silly reasons—I just want to see the level of discourse, including the tone of players and their ability to empathize with those who might play the game differently, remain or increase as Elite continues to expand and grow, both in features and players.
