@eyeofhorus said in Nobody wants competitive. Stop trying to force it.:
I agree with your other points, but these two are my main gripe. The premise of all my arguments is that I want SS to be an fps that isn't a milsim, that is heavily based on realism. Insurgency is actually the only game that remotely satisfies this description. Arma and Squad are milsims. Tarkov highly appeals to me, but its not what I'm looking for because its basically a gambling game. Siege is just a competitive-oriented game that has barely any basis in reality. All the AAA shooters are unrealistic and are only based on historical wars. Other games I can think of are not based on modern warfare, but on Vietnam or WWII.
Ins2, even though it came closest to what I wanted, didn't satisfy it in many ways. The biggest one was the way the game was played. It was too fast, too twitchy, too instagibby. It honestly felt arcade-y to me. Coop felt like I was playing like a mod or something, not an actual game (which I guess is accurate in a way). The unsatisfactory gameplay for me was due to an interplay of many mechanics that I won't get into, and which I honestly haven't fully identified myself.
When I first played SS in the CTA and right now, I felt like I was getting something closer to what I actually wanted. Once again, I won't go into the specifics of why I felt so, but I felt like this was a better game. The main reason is that things behaved more realistically. Bullet damage was based on caliber, calibers behaved better overall, weapons behaved better, etc.
The balancing of weapons and armor for comp, from comments I've been seeing, seem to be wanting to destroy this increased realism I'm seeing and liking. People want, for example, 7.62s to be more lethal than 5.56s... for balance. This is obviously not how bullets behave in reality against armored targets. People want recoil to be always the same and not in any way randomized for the consistency needed for comp, which is also unrealistic. People want armor to get nerfed more, once more to unrealistic levels.
I'm simply saying that what I tend to see when people say "balance for comp" is to take a siege kind of approach and modify things based on how they compare to other things rather than simply looking at how things actually behave and incorporating them in ways that make sense.