To be fairly honest a player's desire or 'goal'
if you will is to 'win' the game
("win" being the sense for whatever reason you play for; not just kill dragon, get achievements ect)
This drive (
which is usually subconscious), will influence a player to favour mods/ideas/changes that makes 'winning' easier. The vast majority [probably 99.9%] of time the simple desire to realise one's own goals will ultimately bias the decision to whether its 'good' or 'bad'.
Now a significant majority seem to play 'winning' as- among others- '
unlocking the highest tech in the tree', or '
defeating all the bosses', and '
[effectively] unlimited resources via automation'
So to design via a player democracy will inevitably make a game progressively easier through each iteration. This is not always a bad thing- sometimes it can be a good thing. Sometimes just as easily it can be too much of a good thing.
Because player feedback is a
vital part of balancing a design. Why?
Simply put mod/game devs are good at playing their own creation. They knew the ins, the outs and all the answers before it was released. Through design and play testing they know their game like the back of their hand. Meaning something thats 'easy' for them, can feel a lot harder for us.
[If you ever see a designer who isn't good at his/her creation, then it means either the difficulty is set way too high, or they did not spend enough time playtesting.]
The hard part comes in splitting valuable feedback from the desire of wanting to 'win' -a skill usually gained by experience- and having the guts to say 'No' when needed. (surprisingly hard to do if a large fanbase wants a 'yes')
-interestingly watching LPs can provide a far more valuable insight into the game/players mind than a public forum. I guess this is analogous to observing wild animals in their natural habitat instead of caged in a zoo.
I'm being fairly ambiguous with 'win', 'goal' ect for one simple reason;
Everyone wants something different. Its a fact; what floats my boat probably sinks yours.
Now this is where it gets interesting- quite a few of our interests share a common theme [thats why we're here]. Chances are one or two of my goals are similar to yours.
Chances are a significant majority [say 90%] will have a similar goal; just with differences in how we go about it/play towards it- is it a means to an end or an end for a means?
Chances are a smaller majority [say 70%] will also have a similar second goal, maybe a 3rd majority with a 3rd goal and so forth.
So lets design by a player democracy; first rule: IN, second: not everyone likes this, but IN, and the 3rd? the 4th, 5th?
With each iteration, the design becomes more diluted and gray- as everyone has different tastes; so by majority we don't know what we want.
Does this mean a majority opinion is always a bad idea? Nope- for the same reason its not always a good idea either.
Blinding ignoring a majority opinion can be equally destructive as fully embracing it.
So we back to the same core answer- the designer's skill is needed to discern the useful content from public opinion.