You guys are the ones working on this day in and day out, you certainly should make the game that you want, and you obviously can't handle the harsh criticism when the vast majority give an idea a thumbs down.
I don't think it's a matter of handling "harsh criticism" but your phrase "vast majority" does put into perspective what we're dealing with.
A few people commenting is not a meaningful measurement for the support for something.
Moreover, as was demonstrated in the sovereign discussion, wording, without coding change, is really the issue.
If I say:
(X) 10% boost to morale ability
users will argue that this is a bad feature.
But if I say:
(X) Great Leader: Inspires troops in battle
users will support that even though, programatically they're the same.
Similarly, in these battle discussions if I say:
We aren't going to have weapons and armor that track specific types of damage.
People will say we're dumbing down the game.
But if I say:
You will be able to equip your troops with weapons like "Mace of eternal smiting" that does 5 to 8 damage PLUS 5 points of lightning damage.
People are suddenly okay even though programmatically it's the same.
A damage TYPE means (code-wise) means that there is a corresponding counter to it. No strategy game that I'm aware of does this. Early on, we were tempted to do this because we thought it would make unit design more strategically interesting. The result, however was it just made it more complicated.
Players can have their cake and eat it too. I can make a dagger that does 3 to 5 damage PLUS 2 points of poison. That's not the discussion we're having.
The discussion we're having is whether poison damage would be its own type of damage in which a player could equip their units with say antidote equipment that makes them immune. Conceptually, that's very interesting -- in an RPG. But in a world spanning strategy game, having to worry whether Soldier 1138 of the third battalion serving in the Henge has an antidote to poison it's not fun.
Heck, why stop with generic poisons? We could have several different types of poisons, each requiring their own special antidote. I'm sure there'd be "vast majorities" somewhere who would like that. But in the end, such complexity, once implemented, is difficult to take out.