Hell, there have been good live service balance philosophies in games before. A game dev just needs to understand while other players can decide whether something needs a nerf or not…their input shouldn’t be even remotely factored in deciding HOW to nerf it. The ‘majority’ should be almost completely ignored at this phase of balance. The only ones who should decide this are people who actually play the hero. This way, the hero gets nerfed correctly without potentially becoming completely useless.
that I disagree, reason being Bias, now that’s not to mean it should be immediately dismissed. all feedback should be considered and certain weight can be given to feedback from people that main a particular hero, the Bias while does enable some better opinions of a hero, the trade off being useful knowledge elsewhere is often neglected that may be of importance that the bias feedback either neglected to consider or “conveniently” forgot.
I’d say negative bias is way stronger than positive bias tbh. People tend to want to overdo it with things they hate.
True, one thing I have learnt when dealing with feedback, is to be able to discern what is emotional, and what it logical, emotional is what you want to filter out unless your specific goal is to generate an emotional response (in the game, not trolling users). You just have to be more on your toes with positive bias, furthermore there is also the consideration that the suggestions have actually been tested and for whatever reason not implemented, which is part of why I noted that positive bias can be blind and neglect other factors and trade-offs