Wait, why would they try to fix all of the bugs before implementing changes based on feedback? Changes to balance, gameplay and story might end up causing more bugs or causing issues with any fixes they would have worked on and implemented.
Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it makes more sense to implement any larger changes based on feedback, get more feedback on changes, tweak things and then worry about bug fixing and polishing.
In this instance fixing the immediate bugs and issues makes much more sense. Aside from everything else, you'll be getting skewed data if players are running into bugs that aren't getting fixed. The longer those stay in the game, the less relevant the data they're getting from players with regards to death/gold/weapons is. Plus the more immediate crash/stability fixes added, the more players are able to get into the game and spend more time playing it. More players = more data and insights, which is also good.
Immediate fixes first, get it stable and working, particularly on PC, as there's usually a variety of different configurations players have - stuff you can't usually test in-house (or not to that kind of level)
Also, bigger system changes take time to put in. They've got a few weeks of insights now to work with, they'll need to analyse that, change things, test things internally, make sure everything's balanced as much as possible before getting things out. That kind of stuff takes time. It's not something you can throw out in a week.
