So do you you think CG is reading any of the overwhelmingly negative reactions to the new raid rewards and considering addressing it, or will it be status quo as usual where they ignore the majority of the payer base...?
I'm just in here to say that they do read this stuff. I know because I have made many suggestions that later were implemented, and I'm not talking about obvious, general things like "Better UI!" I suggested that they needed a way for some starting ships to have their reinforcement abilities triggered, and that maybe we should allow someone to trigger a reinforcement ability instead of bringing in a new reinforcement. I went on to say that this was most crucial for the First Order faction and especially KRU's TIE Silencer because the who theory of the ship is that you get it out there to be taking damage so that it can build up it's Offense bonuses from its reinforcement (which adds offence when the ship takes damage). I also said that he needed a healer to that he could survive long enough to be effective. I wrote that you're discouraged from using TIE Silencer at all b/c you can't use his best ability unless he's a reinforcement, but if he starts on the bench ... you can't get the most out of his ability. I said that it was a poor fit for the current system and something should be done.
It was a LONG time later, probably more than a year, that Hux's Finalizer came out and low and behold, it activated FO reinforcement abilities on the starting lineup so now you could put TIE-S in right away, and it gave you health steal so that Silencer had the staying power to reach useful levels with his Offense bonus. They didn't implement it in exactly the way I suggested (letting all Cap Ships activate reinforcement abilities of starting ships instead of bringing in a fresh reinforcement) but they paid attention to what I identified as the problem AND what I ID'd as the needed solution (FO healing + Silencer getting RA activated even when in starting lineup).
There are other things like that I've noticed over the years where someone here said something and it was later implemented too close to the original suggestion to be a coincidence.
I don't know if this makes it better or worse for you, but they are listening. If they don't change it's not because they're not reading this. It's because they read it and disagreed, or read it and didn't hear any persuasive arguments.