The real reason for this is the demographics--In general, people who play as heavy (not all, but most nowadays) are new players, who have a much lesser grasp of the in game mechanics or map features, or the way that CQC works, etc.

Though there are a great number of MLT and STD Sentinel Frames on the field, I don't really find this plausable, and there seems to be a lack of evidence within this post to support this claim.

Source?

On the opposite end of the spectrum we have scouts--most of the scouts who are complaining about ridiculous heavy spam are among what I lovingly call the "OG Cult". We have been around for a very long time, and I can't speak for all, but most of us went through the days of Slayer Logi permascan AR 514 with our shoulders high, and our profiles low, proud to be some of the few who actually ran scouts since day 1. These are the players who know the maps, understand the mechanics, and have become powerful while their suit was in a bad place.

This is true, so I will not debate it. Though personally I refer to pre-Uprising 1.7 Scouts as "Barbers".

The heavy and the scout each attract their own types of players, however, the ones that are more liable to complain are the newer players, the ones that don't understand the mechanics or how they work, and by coincidence, these player's demographic is comprised mainly of heavies.

Is there any data showing the latter to be true? Without such data, one could say the same of Scout users with the same amount of credibility.

These new players seem to have some ingrained sense of entitlement to fair 1v1 fights where even a militia heavy straight from the academy could slaughter even the game's toughest scouts. The problem is, the inherent play style that the scout utilizes requires trickery, a basic knowledge of human psychology, and an deep in depth knowledge of in-game mechanics.

Is there any data to show that the first part of the paragraph is true? If not, this is a Strawman.

Though being a Scout user requires none of those traits (barring the latter to an extent). You have passive scans which have the ability to cover a vast area with very low Precision, meaning you don't need to rely on trickery/being cunning as you're fully aware of where your targets are, as well as the direction they're facing.

As for basic knowledge on Human Psychology, I'm just going to assume that this is a light heated joke.

Most players find this unfair, and believe that by donning the all-mighty sentinel suit that they should somehow become invulnerable, and that things such as the use of tactics or even their personal gun game are useless in comparison to the incredible advantages given to them by donning said sentinel suit.

This is both a Strawman, and an Association Fallacy.

When they are killed by something that is smaller and faster than them, it seems like a spit in the face, and indeed, for many, it is. They know that their skill and knowledge of game mechanics was less than that of their opponents, yet refuse to admit it. Instead, they become bitter and frustrated as they know that their gear is inherently stronger, yet they cannot beat their opponents.

Are there any factual sources and/or evidence you have to support this claim?

To this, I have to say--Suck it the **** up. Seriously. 6/10 of the scouts complaining have been scouts throughout the dark ages, where the supremacy of fine rifles and brick tanked logis with perma-scans reigned supreme, and many of us even thrived (to whatever extent we were allowed).

The same could be said of Sentinels. Though neither the Scouts nor Sentinels had to go through as much $#!t as the Commandos did, as there were ways to make yourselves somewhat effective (Brick Tanking for Light Frames, and Logi Support for Sentinels).

You HMG sentinels have been given superior weaponry and suits, yet refuse to adapt to a battlefield in which tactical decisions and gun-game matter.

The former could be said of Scouts as well.

Despite saying this, however--
Are scouts OP? Yes. Will Charlie fix that? Yes, for the most part. Some may need buffs post Charlie, others, nerfs.

And we do openly admit it. We understand the game mechanics and the reasons why certain scouts coughCaldaricough are OP.

--BUT!--

Are Sentinels OP? Yes. Will Charlie fix that? No, all it will do is make it so that core skills will need to be close to maxed or maxed to fit full proto.

Well, at least you aren't a complete Scout FoTM apologist.

However, the lack of acknowledgement of the issues making the sentinel OP as well as the condescending, brash, rude, degenerate, and occasionally illiterate ways that the Sentinel community represent themselves makes the glaring balance problems all the more annoying for many of us long-timers.

This I can agree with, though this makes it annoying for other subsets as well.

TL;DR-- The reason Sentinels complain so much about scouts is because they are generally newer players, and the very way the sentinel role works causes them to resent scouts in particular.

Source?