Overwatch and handing out nerfs/buffs

[Wokkel-21908]

I’d really want some insight on the nerf/buff decisions.

It feels like it’s always:
Buffed a hero too much.
OR
Nerfed a hero to the ground.

And now when a hero (Brigitte) is so gamebreaking that pro’s are saying that she is way too OP, streamers are quitting the game due to it’s current state and a very vast majority say that they do not like Brigitte at all.

This is being said:

@GeoffGoodman

There is another change coming to PTR that didn’t make the first build up there.

We’re raising the CD on her bash by 20% (5s->6s). We’ll keep an eye on her to make sure she is still in a good place, as the last thing we want to do is over nerf her.

The hero that needs either a rework are a huge nerf is made sure that she isn’t "over nerf"ed. Why is Brigitte being taken care of so carefully while she’s the big issue of a lot of people while other hero’s just get a big nerf to the point where they’re not viable anymore.

No disrespect intented to the devs, at all. I love Overwatch a lot! Though I’m just noticing that a lot of my friends including people I watch on Twitch/YouTube + people I talk to in-game just aren’t happy with the current game.

[LtLatency-1382]

Cause she was throw into the game too strong to shake up the meta to see if anything good happens.

If it’s a train wreak for a while she will eventually get nerfed into oblivion just like Ana

[Wokkel-21908]

But why? This isn’t doing anyone any good? Why want to “stir up” anything? Why not just do what a majority would love to see? Why even have PTR when people are clearly not happy yet with the meta?

[Rocktopus-11683]

Because it’s easier to drop a +S tier hero down to A or B tier than it is to send the OP hero to F tier and try to build them back up to C tier. Doomfist is the best example, it took a year to balance him.