Statistically speaking even a small number of complaints here and elsewhere are a fair representation of the general population. Polling works this way.

That is true. But did it change Bungie's general course with Destiny? Not so much, unfortunately. The point is that Bungie doesn't need to change their handling of Destiny and the Destiny community, as long as millions of players log into it every day, or at least every week. That's the statistical number that counts. If people complain but keep playing, you don't really have to spend time and money to improve your game.

I would say that many of the cries for nerfs here have indeed had a huge impact on Bungie who has implemented them within Destiny. I also believe their constant manipulation of CB and SB mm are them trying to respond to their larger streamers who have complained.

You said it: Streamers. You are right, some nerfs may have had a base in community feedback. Usually Bungie simply looks at their statistics though, in their misguided belief that levelling everything out would provide more fun.

But....Mida. And then there's the Gally The 1st. JW stated he felt nothing was wrong with it, heard the complaints and nerfed it anyway. The 2nd. Nerfing the gally just because some in the lfg community who required it for raids. These complaints didn't come from streamers.

How do you know these weapons were only nerfed because of community complaints? Afaik MIDA was nerfed based on stats. It was overused, becoming the one and only scout rifle in the crucible. Player feedback may have had an impact, but certainly wasn't the only reason for the nerf. Gjallarhorn was a PvE game breaker. I remember a team beating Atheon in a single round on hard in year 1 just with 5 or 6 of them, without even using the invulnerability the relic shield provided. They were all over the place and pounded Atheon. The same happened for some PoE (Skolas) bosses. These activities were meant to be challenging. The Gjallarhorn removed fundamental mechanics built into these activities. Now you can argue whether it was legit or sensible to make sure players had to beat them the way they were meant to be played, but I can understand the reasons for that, and I have to agree. The Gjallarhorn was grossly OP. I had one myself, and I have to say that I don't really miss it. I miss the Icebreaker much more. Imo that weapon wasn't OP. It had its uses and was really valuable in certain situations, but it wasn't OP. The only gun I know of where Bungie admitted they reacted to player whines was the Vex nerf. That gun was OP, but very few players owned it. It's a bit like with sniper rifles: Actually there aren't that many sniper rifles in the crucible (at least since their last nerf, and Trials probably being an exception), but being one shot with one by a player you do not even see before it's too late, and where you do not have a chance for a "fair" fight creates a strong negative emotional impact, making players grossly overestimate their significance in the crucible. Same was true for the Vex. It was unfair, so people got upset when being killed by it, but actually you didn't get killed by one very often. So Bungie (a) listen to players calling for nerfs and (b) nerfing guns until all play and feel more or less equal is the wrong way to go. Balancing could also be done by making every weapon special in certain circumstances and allowing players to dominate with them under these, but making them weak in other circumstances. The effect would be that players dominated would be upset, but they could dominate under different circumstances. The net effect would be balanced. It would just be that while weapon balance now means bringing everything to the same level, that method would mean introducing valleys and mountains of power in a way that there would be an overall balance. I don't even think that would be harder to accomplish, and statistics could be used as a measure there just as much as their are being used to water everything down right now.