You have 22 posts, if you have the ability to answer to anything you want, then do you not have the will, the interest? you completely avoided my petition, the main idea of the post too.
Make this a debate, there’s plenty of constructive here already, do not just come once and leave never to return as usual.
Stop being gods that only exist in myth and are rarely seen or heard from; get on our level and the game will be much better.
No one should be on that lvl tbh… 
I would never critise developers. I simply say they are all stupid. This is far beyond any discussion. They dont listen to critism but they still hear if I call them stupid - because they know it is true.
Yea but people aren’t going to believe this when even the most constructive threads have no response from you guys. Most threads that have a developer response are stuff like “MEMES OF THE STORM!” or “WOW THIS ART IS COOL AND NICE!”. Occasionally, threads involving constructive discussion of certain changes or wanted changes get a developer to respond with something like “yea we’ve been testing stuff like this” or “WOW this is idea is kinda neato, imma pass this on to my colleagues”. So “we can totally post wherever we want” isn’t enough to convince everyone this is the case.
You can start by listing some of these reasons and some examples. You’d definitely help create a much better understanding between the dev team and playerbase if you guys actually listed and explained these types of reasons. Right now it’s mostly ghost city here where you guys occasionally pop in, comment on a pretty innocuous topic like “MUSIC YOU LIKE TO LISTEN TO WHILE PLAYING?” and then pop out.
It feels like, if this was the case, you’d have a LOT more than just 22 posts. I can definitely imagine there have been more than 22 different constructive threads over the course of this newer HOTS forum’s existence, or at least more than just 22 different times it would be appropriate for someone like you to weigh in on a topic or join a discussion.
I mean this in the nicest way but there definitely needs to be more communication here or people are going to continue to assume things about the dev team, even if you say otherwise.
Mr. Dev-Samuro-main, can you please fix the single-line illusion master bug? Tonight or tomorrow morning? This is Samuro’s 3rd day of the rework and we still can’t play Illusion Master properly because https://gfycat.com/gracefullameiraniangroundjay
Yours patiently but loudly,
a fellow Illusion Master main
" A [fallacy] is incorrect argument in [logic]and [rhetoric] resulting in a lack of [validity], or more generally, a lack of [soundness]."
Shooting down the “truth” you’re offering as a crux to your position would do a heck more against your “debate” then you seem to understand.
The basic premise of what you’re trying to suggest doesn’t have the components to compel people to think this is a worthwhile cause; do you have any experience in persuasive writing or “debate”? Because your composition suggests that you do not. While you wouldn’t need to be the forefront of this “petition” (gj on that poor choice of words btw :P) having a better understanding of the dynamics and skills and consequences of a “debate” would directly influence your capacity to argue this concern, potentially convince other people to be willing to accept it, suggest how this would actually help, or rather, come to realization that it… probably wouldn’t.
When was the last time you, if ever, have seen a “debate” accomplish something directly to the concern of said debate? (Esp on the side of the person who “won” said “debate”) For my interest, I leave that to a rhetoric question, because from my experience (as someone with arguable experience in debate, persuasive writing, and formal discussions) the general pleb doesn’t have the composition to conduct themselves in a manner to make said “debate” worthwhile, let alone be involved in one themselves.
Without qualities to better compel people to back this suggestion, it leaves them to imagine the effect of fanciful whims. The idea being those that don’t know how to get “power” be given to those that don’t know how to use said “power”.
So yea, the idea is compelling on the notion of imaging the implications, but ya know, lacking the substance to realize it.
Your gist is "oh, [we’re] experts at using heroes, therefore there’s a direct association to design elements that are ‘owed’ to us for people to listen to the pleas on that stuff. Being “on the same level” would suggest a squabble of time creates a sense of entitlement to people otherwise unwilling to compose themselves better and… post worthwhile feedback that’s usable from the feedback for the sake of feedback rather than impose a faulty sense of said entitlement to those that apparently haven’t put in the effort to realize it for themselves.
If you look at feedback taken to a concern, the content of suggestions at hand don’t need a “debate” to influence devs particular to a game; they can offer details to be specific on a change, provide math to reinforce a point of concern, and provide concrete components that don’t need someone on the other side to personally hold their hand to affirm their opinion was “heard”.
The concern you express, “it feel’s like the devs don’t listen” could be ‘solved’ by encouraging the time be put into dev notes instead. If they’re more specific on design goals, balance shifts, and other particulars to influence why players “zomg bbqsauce” as seeing their ‘favorite’ whatever be “ruined” then it provides context and perspective for people to consider before they react on impulse, or rather, they can “test” some of the intent and offer specific feedback in turn.
Thus the “effect” of the “debate” wouldn’t need some formal non-ama exclusion and stuff can be handled in a medium suitable to games and gamers, rather than people who don’t know their anaphora from their an[…] aditus 
But really, would said “debate” be capable of a player being ‘proven’ that they’re wrong about something? The premise suggests the outlet impose that said ‘expert’ be thusly “right” (as the expense of the devs) but otherwise doesn’t seem to take into the consideration the futility of said context actually resolve people that feel ‘wronged’ by particular changes.
That’s part of why people tend to post on impulsive outcries and do provide the particular specifics that become useful constructive criticism. If anything, if a person who to “imagine” a debate already, and thus anticipate what they would need to put into their composition in advance, then that all the more defeats the point of a formal setting as the basis of pretending the argument would happen would have to impose said respondents put more into their voice then they so tend to do.
That cycle is part of why I surmise the fantasy of this suggestion seems more appealing to those that don’t have the experience to realize it. 
also, significantly easier ways for people to address the ‘problem’ without superficial fluff.
But hey, keep on trekking that linear spam that keeps to the same thematic complaint and effectively suggests everyone else do more work/thinking/etc than you put into these 
AZjackson ladies and gentlemen.
Doomguy ladies and gentleman…
You are not even worth it with this attitude and your way of replying.
says they have autonomy and then goes out of his way to say nothing
to high for some i guess