Yes, we did. You just didn't like the answers and dismissed them.
This is why I don't spend any time on courtesy when I see these kinds of arguments. I could spend hours crafting a masterful explanation of all the things bad about Pathfinder, and you(or someone with a similar response) would dismiss the entire thing with some version of "No u" or "Blizzard said so."
This is also the lion's share of why I say people who think Pathfinder is good are stupid. They're not thinking. They're not using their brain. They're only accepting what's in front of them instead of stepping back and looking at the entire picture. They're just taking what's given to them instead of asking themselves "What if?". If you don't prefer the word "stupid", then use "complacent" or " "naive". They've fallen prey to one of the oldest tricks in the book, and let Blizzard anchor their expectations, without ever considering that there should be something better. And if you think Blizzard is doing that because they just want players to be happy, then You. Are. Being. Stupid!
You've accepted that Renown is a "better" system because you've had your expectations anchored by the previous reputation-based system. That doesn't mean that Pathfinder is now good. It just means that it's slightly less terrible than it used to be. And while it's tempting to approve of any slight improvement of the situation, it's a bit like being complacent about your donut spare tire on your car. You don't replace the flat with the donut and then act like everything is fine(some people do, but again....they're being stupid). You get your ass to the nearest shop and get a real tire! And while you might be happy that the car is even able to move at all, it's most definitely NOT fine!
That's what Pathfinder is: A donut spare tire. Perfectly acceptable as an emergency measure because Blizzard had to scramble to correct the horrible mistake during WoD. But not something that should have continued to be used indefinitely. Meanwhile people who defend Pathfinder are trying to come up with reasons why it's ok while the donut is already going bald! "No! No! Guys! It's ok! We took the cement bricks out of the trunk! There's less pressure on the donut! It's FINE!"
But to take a further step back: Pathfinder might seem ok if you're happy with the grounded experience that Blizzard is selling right now. And it's ok to like that! But if you REALLY want to understand where I'm coming from, you first have to accept that for every person who thinks things are ok right now, there is AT LEAST one other person playing who dislikes the grounded slog. And that doesn't even consider the people who aren't playing anymore because they're sick of pathfinder and the no-flying philosophy it represents.
Pathfinder is lazy. Pathfinder is hurting the overall game. Trying to force players to like or interact with a ground-only open world design is hurting the game. Taking away player agency is hurting the game.
This is why I come down so hard on people who try to argue that pathfinder is "fine". It's not fine. It's barely working. It's syptomatic of an overall bankruptcy of creativity and innovation, where Blizzard doesn't ever actually give players anything new, but instead takes away agency and sells it back to us. And just because you don't agree with those reasons, because you "like" the current setup, because you've let blizzard define your expectations, doesn't make them any less true. Even if you're some kind of super-exeption who's come to the conclusion of liking the ground-only game through independent logic and thought, that STILL doesn't make it ok to dismiss the people like me who point out the very real problems with it, especially when they're arguing for everyone to get what they want.
I fully expect all this to be dismissed or ignored. But there is the attempt anyway.