When you go and pick your Merc AC, the npcs hints you that the merc class is supposed to be the biggest dps between the 2 classes.
Where does it "hint" that Commandos do more damage? I'm pretty sure that the only "hint" is "gots a big gun". Beyond that, you're just reading into it, which isn't the fault of the devs. I also wouldn't hold it to be even *remotely* binding because, even if it *is* hinting, it's not being explicitly stated, which would *actually* be evidence in your corner (and I *know* it's not explicitly stated).
Your comment about the game abandoning lore/cosmetic in order to balance classes is somehow wrong, those comsetics are the defining of each class, I'm not sure a maraudeur would be okay if he saw a one saber class like the juggernaut outdpsing him.
Except you're not realizing the entire reason *why* the "real life logic" is being abandoned. They're not being abandoned for no reason whatsoever. They're being abandoned for the purposes of creating a balanced game construct. If Commandos were *intended* to always be better DPS, why would anyone roll a VG unless they wanted to tank? If you *do* think that's the only reason someone should roll VG, then why do they only have a single tank tree?
The *entire* point of the game is that spec matters more than anything else. If you choose a DPS role, you are a fully functional DPS, intended to be balanced within a reasonable approximation of the other DPS.
And, at release, Guardian DPS *was* higher than Sentinel DPS. There were *some* Sentinels ************ like mad because they weren't doing as much as the guys with a single lightsaber, but most just sat there and recognized that it was done as such because of the current balance construct of the game. Then, the Guardian debuff got nerfed, Sentinels got buffed, and the position swapped.
Of course, it's not really the same argument you're making with Commandos and VGs though. Commandos are using a *big* gun compared to a normal gun whereas Sentinels are using *two* weapons rather than *one* (of course, it's *one* weapon wielded in two hands, so it's entirely sensible for it to explicitly hit harder than one in one hand). A closer comparison would be Guardians to Shadows, since Guardians are using the standard weapon and Shadows are using the superior version. Shadows don't completely demolish Guardians for DPS and, iirc, Shadows have actually been routinely middling for total DPS. Infiltration manages some decent spike damage, but average DPS has *never* been something to write home about (Balance had the best *theoretical* top end pre-2.0, but it required such perfect play that it was really only ever "good" at best). They've really been pretty much tied.
Cosmetics, and when I say cosmetics I say the "reason why these classes exist" in this game are still pretty important, unless, of course, you want to turn SWTOR into a korean mmorpg, then I would agree with you, the hell with the lore.
The cosmetics do not define the play of that class. They define the intended aesthetic. Hell, they don't even *really* define anything except for some animations. The only reason that the developers *don't* allow a massive number of weapon options amongst players is because it would require *way* too much in the way of animations (every different weapon category would require different animations for attacks, which multiplies the development effort and, since there would be different mechanical advantages to each, you'd end up with the "choice" not really mattering since there is a mathematically defined "best") and restricting specific weapons to specific classes allows each class to maintain a unique weapon aesthetic. It has *nothing* to do with any numbers or even the gameplay of the class. It's purely an aesthetic point. Whether you somehow attach mechanical importance or think that aesthetics should *supersede* mechanical importance, neither of those opinions matters because the mechanics are explicitly separated from each other.
Why not bring up WoW, where monks in leather, bear druids, and death knights with two-handed weapons are just as effective at tanking as paladins and warriors in plate armor using shields. In reality, a monk in leather, a bear, and a guy with a two-handed sword would all be *less* durable than a guy in plate armor with a shield. The only reason that the 5 classes are *balanced* is because of the game construct *requiring* the classes be balanced. To bring the comparison even *more* in line, a Rogue can use *daggers* and deal just as much, if not *more*, damage than a Warrior wielding a giant two-handed sword (or, in some cases, *two* giant two-handed swords).
I'm *still* trying to figure out how my VG's *bowcaster* is capable of generating a mortar volley, pulse cannon, or ion pulse. It's a *bowcaster* and, unless you recognize that we're dealing with a game and not some attempted approximation of reality, should only ever be firing out charged crossbow bolts, not blaster bolts or any of the more exotic ammunitions that VGs use on a regular basis. The only possible reason for my Stockstrike to consume cells and put an electrical DoT on the target is if it, for some reason, has a taser located in the butt (you only actually strike with the stock as a Commando; if you use it with a rifle, you hit em with the butt). I don't let it bother me because I recognize that all of the wonkiness is just intended to create parity with the Bounty Hunter which accomplishes all of those same mechanisms not by using their weapon but by using their armor (which doesn't even require *heavy armor* to use, but that's a different argument).
Hell, something that you *should* bring up because of how it's an aesthetic choice that *would* impact performance in real life, body type 1 deals the same melee damage as body type 3. Body type 4 has the same movement speed as all of the other body types. Female characters hit *just* as hard as male characters. All of these things are *just* as important, if not more so, than your insistence that Commandos should do more damage than VGs based entirely upon the reasoning of "big guns should do more damage than small guns".
You cite "korean MMOs" when, honestly, it's something that *every* MMO does. All of the classes *have* to be balanced in a game. The hybrid tax no longer exists because fulfilling multiple roles partway isn't useful, so all DPS are equally able to DPS, all tanks are equally able to tank, and all healers are equally able to heal.
If you *really* want to be shown how wrong you are, just look at adaptive armor. It's the *exact* same shell no matter who is wearing it. Looks *exactly* the same. On a Shadow, it's light armor and, on a Commando, it's heavy armor. It looks *exactly* the same. It's *already* possible in TOR to get a character wearing a bikini to tank fully effectively (female VG or Guardian in Republic Dancer's Outfit). You can do the same while *shirtless* (the cartel armor shell that's invisible). You can also dress up a Sage in trooper grade heavy armor *and it does nothing more than their robes would*.
The cosmetics of the game (which includes weapons, armor, race, *and* gender, all of which would have real world impacts) have no influence over gameplay and mechanical balance. They are *purely* cosmetic decisions that, at most, impact the preferred *aesthetic* and intended equipment for a class but do nothing for performance (as long as you actually follow the desired weapon aesthetic).
And, hell, if you're looking for a reason why a VG should be able to do just as much as a Commando even though the VG is using a smaller gun, just think of it as the VG *specializing* in Blaster Rifles (and being able to use them to greater effect) whereas the Commando just uses a bigger gun. The VG has more explicit *skill* since they're using a weapon that they've been using for *years* and just getting *better* with it whereas the Commando is using a *new* weapon that they've only been using for a comparatively short time and are keeping up because the weapon *itself* is strong enough to overcome their comparative lack of skill with it.
You just did, and now you got owned, *****.
Except that you didn't. You just restated your position without actually countering any of my arguments. Quoting me isn't the same as actually *countering my arguments*. You could've just as easily cut out that entire quote of me and it wouldn't have changed *anything* you said.
Try actually tackling my *arguments* rather than continuing to say the same thing over and over again without actually bringing up any specific arguments or evidence other than ones that have *already* been contradicted, and we'll see about who is the *****/got owned. My vote is that it's *you* because, honestly, I doubt you're capable of actually putting together a cogent debate on the subject.