First, I do not speak for all beta testers, but I suspect that a large contingent of us will fall somewhere in line behind this post.
The most common accusation leveled against beta testers when calling for a nerf to a hero that is clearly out of the current power level in the game, or provides a synergy that will be toxic to the game is that we are simply protecting our current rosters of top heroes like Gravemaker and do not wish to either see new players have a chance at top heroes or wish to never see the meta change. Ignoring the fact that many of us beta testers (myself included) do not even have these top heroes like GM, as we span a very wide range from F2P to big spenders, there is some truth to the notion that a lot of us don’t want to see the meta drastically shift.
Here is where the clarification comes in and from here on I am only speaking for myself, but I do not mind the meta being shifted by the release of a hero, so long as that shift is done in the right way. If anything, I would love for the meta to shift regularly, just not in the way the anti-nerf crowd is advocating for it to happen. I do not consider it to be a healthy shift in the meta for a hero to come in as new king because it is simply flat out better than all previous heroes (see JFv1.0) which then just slots in as a straight-up improvement with negligible downside.
I’m not certain how familiar you all are with Roshambo (Rock, Paper, Scissors), but my suggestions tend to lean towards maintaining that “rock beats scissors, but is beaten by paper” ecosystem whereas the anti-nerfers are much akin to the kid stepping in to play “dynamite” which “blows up rock, paper, AND scissors, and ties other dynamite”, then accusing the purists of just hating to lose. To me, a healthy shift in the meta is created by heroes that are more-or-less in line power-wise with previous heroes already existing, but with an effect that makes people have to alter existing dominant strategies. Malosi2.0 (VFast weak hit to one, prevent status effects from target and nearby) was a great example of this and was, to me, a healthy way to shift the meta. He was certainly strong, and OP in the current dominant status effect flank meta, but after the meta shifted to factor in his existence his power level would be right around par with everyone else. He would be enough of a punish to the status effect flank meta that after a few months a lot of people would shift to running more direct damage-based flanks (like snipers) when their win-rates began to decline, creating a new meta in which Malosi wouldn’t really be OP at all(flaccid hit to target with no effect to nearby at VFast). Hell, if Clarissa launches as-is the best thing that can happen to the game is a VFast hero whose ability is simply “randomly swap the negative status effects of your allies for the buffs of the enemies and refresh their durations”.
The problem with the heroes or synergies that many of us are recommending nerfs to is that there is no reliable answer for them for the meta to shift to in order to compensate for their existence. Instead of counter play, it creates an arms race. When “scissors“ were first introduced to the game of “rock, paper” the meta initially shifted to a lot of scissors being thrown, due to the prevalence of people still just throwing paper every time. It the slightly overcorrected as people started to throw rock as more and more people shifted to scissors after seeing its high win-rate. Eventually, the meta settled into a roughly even distribution of each. Then, along came dynamite…