I see more negative feedback than positive and the positive all seems to come from players who like being overpowered, or DM's who think balanced rules are an afterthought that doesn't matter.
I said, "forget all the positive feedback," because, while you have seriously mischaracterized the feedback about the new ranger from these boards, even if you hadn't, your uncontextualized citation of my words completely missed the point of what I actually wrote and (in so doing) also mischaracterized my claim. I never said, in proper context, that the UA options have quality control because they are all well balanced. They are not! I said
they are part of the quality control process. So, even if your mischaracterization of the UA ranger was accurate, what you wrote still made it look like you didn't bother reading my post or thinking about it before you quoted it.
The fact that the vast majority of the feedback about the ranger is positive is merely a cherry on this frustration sundae. And yes, the majority of the feedback about the ranger is positive. It pretty much amounts to, "great job, but X, Y, or Z feature need tweaking." "X, Y, and Z" usually refers to the following list of issues: too front-loaded; primaeval awareness is a little too strong; the damage buff from "greater favoured enemy" is granted a little too early. None of those, for the record, are egregious imbalances. Yes, additional tweaking is required. Again, however,
figuring what needs to be tweaked and how badly it needs to be tweaked is what the UA articles and subsequent polls are for.
I see no reason for the snark either.
I am sorry if I came across as "snarky." To be frank, cherry picking a quote out of my post and responding to it in a misleading manner that implicitly mischaracterizes the content of my post seems fairly snarky to me. Frustration over that action is what led to whatever quantity of snark my post included. But whatever. We can let bygones be bygones. Please, however, take the time to make sure that you are responding to posts appropriately. There is no point in arguing with somebody about whether the content of every UA article is well balanced or not when they have never said anything about every article being balanced.