Players complain alot. Anything they don't like, or think they won't like, or once heard someone else say that they might not like, they'll complain about.

Good game designs sometimes include things that players won't like. "If I touch a goomba, I die? That's LAME!"

But hey, Mario is very fun. And successful.

Also, it could just be a vocal minority. One game designer gave the analogy of standing in an empty room, with all the players on the other side of a wall. The game designer hears complaints about this and that, but whenever he looks into the other room, what he actually sees is some players complaining, and everyone else silently and happily playing. If you listen to the complaints from the 10% of your players complaining, you need to also make sure you listen to the lack of complaints from the 90% who don't have a problem with it.

I'd say, use your intelligence as a designer to think it through. "Do I think it'll actually benefit the game?", then implement it, test it, tweak it, have someone else test it, polish it and release it. If the community complains, let them! Wait two weeks. See how it has actually affected the community and actually changed the gameplay.

Don't let the community dictate your designs, or you'll get design-by-committee, which ain't good. Your game needs a cohesive design, not a piecemeal design catering to a hundred different people's personal whims and wishlists. If new players come to the game with the feature already inplace, and they hate it, then give a bit more weight to the complaints.

Another designer once said, "Ask players what they want, and they'll give you a laundry list of last year's popular features.". As a designer, you need to know where you are taking your game, and be willing to make decisions that might not be popular, to create a game that is cohesive, polished, and meets your design goals.

Additionally, I'm not sure of how well jumping puzzles are likely to work there: without checking the shadows (which seems likely to make jumping a little less intuitive), I'm not sure of how one would know whether to jump to the right, or to jump "up"/"north" and right to reach a given platform. If any of your platforms involve both vertical and horizontal offsets--a platform placed above, to the right and to the "north", for example--then the jump could get very awkward, I fear. Finally, any case in which the shadows are obscured--such as if the platform is too high above the next level below for them to be seen--would make the appropriate jump directions thoroughly non-obvious, and may even reduce to guesswork, which can be frustrating.

That said, how difficult would this be for you to prototype? If it's a feature for which you could whip up a small test-level in short order, then I suggest doing so: you'll get to try it yourself, and perhaps even get feedback on how it actually plays.

I know what my game's limitations will be. I wouldn't dare give any player platforming I believe would confuse them especially after playing really confusing isometric games and knowing this flaw. When I started this project I knew confusing platforming would be my number one priority. thought out the my development I have added features to increase the depth of the levels. This game stores a height value for everything, If I create level design that's sores to the sky, the height value of the character will dictate what becomes transparent and what is seen.

So, its hard to say without seeing things in motion or playtesting, but based on your screenshot, it might be the case that its no apparent when the player is going to fall and take damage. In your shot I see what looks like a very slightly raisted platform (the white tiles), and grass, but along the right and top edge I see no visual indication that there's a height change from tile to tile. If greater disparities in height go similarly without visual indication, then I wouldn't expect to take damage either, and I'd be upset if I did.

On second glance, those blue pillars are floating, aren't they? and you mean that damage is taken when you fall from a blue pilar to the ground, which is either grass or white tile here -- is that right? I'd say that here you have non-clear visual communication about the height differences, owing to using a mixed-perspective. The ground appears to be in traditional 3/4ths overhead perspective, but the floating pillars appear to be in something closer to a traditional platforming side-view (as indicated by the shadows being in a straight row. And also if your player character has just fallen from the blue pilar above, why has he (she?) not landed next to its shadow?

I would guess that players are responding to the lack of visual cues and mixed messages regarding viewing angles.

Not everyone I pitched this to, played my game.

thought out the my development I have added features to increase the depth of the levels. This game stores a height value for everything, If I create level design that's sores to the sky, the height value of the character will dictate what becomes transparent and what is seen.

Did you mention this when pitching the idea to others?

As you described it previously in this thread, there was no indication that steps had been taken to deal with the issue, and the screenshots didn't seem to show anything that suggests that it's been addressed beyond the shadows (which I've already addressed).

The people to whom you're describing this feature--we in this thread included--presumably don't see what you're imagining, or what you already have in development, beyond what you tell us or show us.

Again, I really think that letting people play a prototype--even if it's just a single, basic level--is likely at this point to get better feedback on a feature like this. That way we can see just how it actually plays out, rather than speculating based on description and static screenshots.