The main reason why many players constantly argue about Tracer boils down to a simple issue: different fundamental beliefs on how to properly balance a game.
Some, like you, believe that each hero should be good or bad based on their skill requirements. A challenging hero, once mastered, should be more effective than an easier one, and vice versa. This approach would enhance the competitive side of Overwatch, but it might lead to a rigid meta.
On the other hand, there are those who think that no hero should ever be significantly more powerful than another, regardless of their difficulty. This would cater to the casual side of the player base and prevent any hero that is easy to play but not very effective from being left behind in Overwatch’s lower ranks. As a player’s skill improves, they might reach a point where they can no longer rely on the hero they’ve always played to climb the ranks.
As you can see, both viewpoints have their merits. One system caters to players who enjoy a challenge, while the other considers those who simply want to enjoy the game without excessive demands.
Blizzard’s solution so far has resulted in what you see with Tracer. She is barely relevant in 95% of the ranks until you reach Master/Grandmaster/T500, where she becomes a must-pick. It’s like walking a tightrope between these two systems, trying to strike a balance.