What I'm getting from your post is that you think PGI should nerf the DWF because a lot of people whine about it. But most of the whiners are pugs who don't know how to play the game properly, to tactically engage a threat like a DWF differently than they would any other mech.
Your latest response is self contradictory where it argues for balancing based on top tier while at the same time leveling a bunch of prototypical pug arguments about the DWF that demonstrate a lack of tactical proficiency. It amounts to a bunch of convoluted, erroneous statements that would take way too long to unpack (you don't know how to tactically engage assault mechs, thinking nobody should be able to do 800 damage, thinking MM did a great job vs Vorpal, thinking Vorpal held the enemy team at bay, repeatedly focusing on the DWF's one strength while ignoring or downplaying its many weaknesses, etc), mixed with a couple statements like the two below that I don't disagree with but which have nothing at all to do with what we were discussing:
When you balance, you should balance with the top-tier pilots in mind.
This goes to how people SHOULD balance their game.
That is unrelated to what we were discussing, but yes that's true. It actually contradicts other things you state in your post, though.
We were discussing how most people that demand nerfs for the DWF are pugs who need to learn to play because it's not super OP. Most people that demand nerfs are not comp players, they are the typical pug whiners that have no understanding of tactical gameplay and get upset when they can't face stare a DWF. If PGI listens to them and nerfs it accordingly, the DWF will be instantly extinct from all levels of play.
[Balance the game] Based on these metrics.
fwiw, that actually runs contrary to your earlier statements that it should be balanced based on the top 0.1%. If PGI looks at overall metrics, which they do, they see no reason to change the DWF yet, which is why they haven't. That's because the metrics don't agree with your perception of the DWF being super OP. Even in top tier comp play, the DWF has a distinct purpose and role. Returning to the context of our discussion, listening to the pug whiners and removing the DWF's ability to perform that one role will not result in a magical somehow "better balanced" DWF, it will result in a shelf mech, both in pug and comp play.
Every developer BALANCES a game based on play from the very top.
Within the niche of competitive FPS games, yep, most do. Regardless, it's unrelated to what we were discussing. We were discussing how most people that demand nerfs for the DWF need to learn to play because it's not super OP and they need to get better at tactical gameplay. They need help learning how to play the game better, not have the game nerfed down to their level of incompetence.
No game that is successful has ever balanced a game based solely on "pug play".
You sprinkle your post with red herrings like this that make it appear like I disagree with top-tier balancing or even said anything about that subject in the post you're responding to. Yet it is actually the opposite. None of this has anything to do with our discussion about the DWF. We were discussing how most people that demand nerfs for the DWF are scrubs that need to learn to play better, and how nerfing the DWF to where pugs no longer have to fear it would mean the end of the DWF in all levels of play.
To expect to balance things based on this regular play is an absurd notion.
It's actually you that's arguing for the DWF to be nerfed based on the apparent inabilities of pug players. In fact, that's precisely what I'm arguing against. I don't want to see the DWF nerfed to the place where it's no longer effective simply because some pugs refuse to figure out how to properly engage it. Because if PGI nerf it based on the incapable pug whiners, they will have nerfed it way past whatever minor adjustments it might need for comp play, and thereby make it a shelf mech in both comp and pug play. And I don't want that to happen.