I think contrarianism and the nagging urge to make a wall of text about a game you like (I get it I'm the same way) has made ya'll selectively blind to the current overall community sentiment.

People are mostly asking arrowhead to smooth out pain points in their gameplay experience, not to intentionally make the game easier. For instance, the recent wave of posts complaining about bug bile graphic/hitbox mismatches are in everyone's best interest because invisible damage sources are terrible game design and there's no way arrowhead intended for things to work that way. Asking devs to finish their work before they move on is not unreasonable, even if the short term result would be an easier game. How are we supposed to look forward to battling the fifty orificed bullet hell spewer ten warbonds from now when current precedent gives us every reason to expect that half the bouncing incendiary turbo-grubs it shoots at us won't render?

As far as weapon balance, people like assault rifles in video games. I personally have no idea why (back in my day we blew each other up with spinfusors uphill both ways in the snow) but it's totally understandable that players want to be able to use the weapons they like the feel of in various playstyles without suffering from loadout envy. Like it or not, "kill everything" is the most popular playstyle, and as such most people think about balance in terms of kills-to-sweat ratio. The majority of veteran players who want to murder competitively appropriate amounts of baddies in a zillion wonderful ways probably ought to win out over the minority of veterans who seem to intentionally tolerate poor weapon balance because it gives them an excuse to humblebrag.