Not quite. Even barring DGL and PUGs, as I think it's become clear that no decision could be made based around them, as they are, by their nature, about strategy and (semi-)careful planning, we shouldn't be making decisions to appease even the top 50% of the player base. Decisions need to be made with the good of the majority, not the good of the majority of the dedicated and expectant.
I don't think I quite understand you. Here, you are saying that game design decisions should be made to appease 100% of dystopia players, or just the lower 50%? Isn't ~50% a majority? Especially when that 50% is the top 50%. The people who enjoy Dystopia. Who have played Dystopia for years. Who are (usually) good at Dystopia.
Maybe it's just me who thinks this but
the airlock is fine. Yes, it is a hard objective to conquer. Yes, it is easier to defend than the rest of the map. Yes, that is a good thing. The final objective,
especially on a three objective map, should be hard to capture. The airlock is hard to break through, as it should be. It appears much harder though when the attacking team is employing no strategy at all whatsoever. A team full of idiots blindly rushing forward in to the meatgrinder taking absolutely no notice of their own spawn timer, living teammates, defender's armor, living defenders, or defender's spawn timer will have an extremely hard time pushing past the airlock.
This game is made for (and at it's best in) organised play.
That doesn't mean DGL 5v5 no noobs allowed. 12v12 can be organised. A game full of new players can be organised, even if they don't know what they are doing, they can attempt some sort of strategy if there is team-wide communication.
The airlock can be overcome just as easily as any other difficult objective. (Compare to silo 1, silo 3, fortress 5)
I know this is a really shitty way to end this argument, but seriously; to attack airlock, just get good.
L2P