In general, the argument "more peple use X, so it must be better" is just one of the most common logical fallacies. There is no reason for this to be true. One thing doesn't follow from the other, like at all.
Fomr the single obervation:
""more high rated people use default icons than modded icons"
you try to conjur causality:
"the only possible reason for this is that the icons are bad"
whithout even considering that other reasons for this probably exist.
Most people use what is given to them without changing the defaults. If the deffaults are bad they might or might not notice. They might or might not be aware of alternatives. They might or might not be aware of the options that those alternatives provide.
Once people are invested, they might no longer switch to better icons because of their investment.
If you haven't noticed:
The whole point of this thread is to stop with subjective arguments and fallacies like "these people dont like it so its probably bad" and to use objective arguments instead to actually find the true pros and cons of modded icons.
Please read this:
Now, if you had proper data:
- Percentage of lower rated players using modded icon
- Percentage of higher rated players using modded icon
then you could filter that based on date when first game was played so you get a comparable distribution for when those playsers started playing on FAF.
And only then could we start comparing those percentages to try to find out wether usage of modded icons increases with time or with rating or not. But even then you could still not find good causations becasue the mentioned fallacy still applies.
The absolute percentage of how many high rated players use something however has absolutely no value and your argument is just completely invalid.