I didn't mean all of them haven't bothered to learn. Some of them may not have after barely learning anything about it, which is why it's included. But many are simply attached to weird quirks/glitches/exploits of 1.8, like this guy...
...on top of spreading misinformation like "1.9 was designed to suit newbies." That's one misconception that would upset people into not playing it, because obviously if you like 1.9 combat you're a newbie. Illogical, yes, but most of this nonsense is illogical. If they could forget this junk, there'd be no issue. Now obviously the people who speak online are the most vocal ones, but I think if there were any real reason that 1.9 was bad that actually made sense, and wasn't anything like the misinformation or bizarre 1.8 attachment, it would've come up by now.
It has come up: the community split. However, most of people's dislike for 1.9 is fine. So what if they liked 1.8 because of spam-clicking and "techniques". It's just as wrong to demand they like a feature as it is for them to complain about it.
The absence of such things would seem to indicate that my statement is correct. The reason the majority don't like it is because of misconceptions and weird attachments to unintended mechanics.
Just because we don't definitively know the objective value of good and bad for 1.9 does not mean there is not one, or that it's all subjective.
There's a difference between my opinion and whether or not it's good. For example, I can like something that is bad and hate something that is good. My personal opinion makes no difference. For example, I hate 1.6. But that doesn't mean it was a bad update.
So, how do we know whether 1.6 was good? By judging the aftermath, in which you can see that there was no problem with the game (in fact, I believe interest in the game was at its peak around that time), where the game was going, and the community's reaction to it.
Positives? How about just an honest analysis. The combat system makes things more challenging simply by its objective nature. It makes it so that missing has consequences. It removes exploits and glitches of 1.8. Even if it does make fighting hoards a little more difficult, and overpowering players harder, it does not require an insane level of skill to learn to handle, and the ability of players to manipulate the environment can make most situations that truly are too difficult a non-issue. The saturation-rapid-healing can lead to certain specific problematic situations. However these issues are worth it simply because you can no longer be an invincible pest-control agent who uses poorly-designed vending machines by clicking on them.
Yeah, I'd agree with you. It does require more skill, and I find it more fun. However, just making the game require more skill does not make it objectively better. And, by the way, I'm still just as much as an invincible pest-control agent as before, though I've never bothered with vending machines because farms remove fun.
And even if you don't consider just that last bit worth it, the negatives aren't necessarily game-breakers. You can still basically play the game normally with some minor irritations. So there is no reason not to update and to also adamantly be against getting the good content, as well as bug fixes, further updates, and the ability to stay with friends on an updated server... unless you're misinformed as to what you're getting, or none of the rest of these things appeal to you. And I doubt the whole of 40% of players don't see an appeal, given that such a division has never occurred before.
You still haven't given a good objective reason for why it's good, other than it requires more skill, to which I say, it really doesn't, it just requires a different set of skills.
However, Minecraft Forum is not a really reliable source. Heck, many people in other forum said it was famous until 2012.You should also add a survey on other server that are still alive (Hypixel, Badlion, Calamity Network, etc).
An those who said that the combat is more realistic. realistic combat in a virtual 16 bit sandbox game is not a good update.
Servers for the most part don't have a large enough or varied enough sample size to be reliable sources either, which is what MCF does have. The best option would be a third party survey that got at least 1,000 votes, but I'm not sure if one exists.