Squad Deploy nerf exposes the horrible base design

More what? The want less surely.

What exactly is a "campaholic"?

But why stop there? Why not remove ALL walls in the game! Genius idea! (except it has largely been tried in PS1 and bombed)

He was talking about you, though. I think. He even says "TheFamilyGhost" right in there.

You're really bad at trying to "twist" things, when there isn't anything to twist. In fact, let's go back and take a look.

As you can see, undeniable proof.

It's called an "outfit", not a squad. We sometimes have something called a "platoon" which is a larger organizational structure holding multiple squads. And I'm not their dad, so they're free to post whatever they want. That you make assertions about my OP and me based off of their statements leads me to question whether you're projecting the angst you have for them onto me. If you want to debate my points with me, then debate my points by me. In other words, don't pull a Czuuk.

The ignorance you show for what my outfit does is not entirely your fault as we're on different servers. I will give you a brief summary to hopefully enable you to be more informed. Das Anfall is a collection of extremely skilled players that specializes in thwarting enemy advances or spearheading assaults while the zergs stalemate each other. We go into situations typically outnumbered 2+ to 1 with limited spawn options, relying on teamwork and skill to accomplish our goals. We're the guys that keep the 24-48 enemy from capturing all the territory behind the main front. We're almost constantly on the move and rarely wait out an entire timer on a capture because we've either secured it to the point we need to help elsewhere or we didn't accomplish our goal. We spend VERY little time in the spawn room.

The point isn't to make defense softer. The point is to give infantry a role in both attacking and defending, other than the defenders being fodder for vehicles. If you look at my stats, you'll see that I have over 4000 base defenses (which is misleading as like I said, we typically leave before the timer goes totally through). I think this number of defenses has given me a decent understanding of the mechanics for defending and attacking in this game. My OP was mainly to drive conversation on ideas how we can take things that quite a few find pointless and annoying and make it more engaging gameplay. Did I say it was the best idea? No, simply an idea.

Local engagements are currently contrived to promote vehicular spamming. The point has nothing to do with "contriving", it has to do with how game mechanics can support varied, combined arms play.

This tells me you don't understand the difference in defense when infantry are camping and vehicles are camping spawn rooms. If you did understand this, you would know that defenders can make viable pushes against infantry only campers while most vehicle camping situations are impossible to break within the time before capture.

For all of your fluff as to why this is a "crap" idea (really mature), it seems the developers have already set the precedent that they agree with my assessment to some extent. I think you should inform them that they need to stop watering down the game. You seem like the type they want to hear from.

Tells me you don't understand fighting 2+ to 1 odds on defense in this game. Actually, this is the perfect illustration that leads me to question your knowledge of game mechanics.

I laughed because the fact that it's a suggestion OP means that contrived language should be expected. And it's not my job to educate you on game mechanics. If someone reads the OP and doesn't comprehend how it fits with the current dynamic, they probably should move on to a different thread as I'm not going to waste much more time (sadly, I am currently doing this) doing so.

There's always a certain population that believes the game is enjoyable without fighting each other, I suppose. To those people, I don't really have much to say.

Again, you aren't grasping the entire picture. Infantry would still be very present outside of bases, they would just support vehicles. The precedent is already there (biolabs).

Again, you either don't understand what my OP would allow to happen or you don't understand the game's mechanics. This seems to be a common theme.

Absurdly false. There are two people that are dedicated vehicle users who are also members of probably the most organized vehicle unit in the game that see validity to my OP. There are others that are mainly vehicle users that, like the aforementioned two, understand the dynamic that would be created and see how it would enrich their gameplay. When I make posts like this, I actually try to consider how alternative playstyles might benefit from the concept. The only playstyle this doesn't benefit is the one where overpop means automatically winning territory because defenders can't get out of their spawns.

How literally you took the word static (which was preceded by the word "somewhat") led me to believe you didn't understand the point. It wasn't to provide spawn points in set places, but to keep spawn points active longer.

Nope, my assessment of you is based on the...content...of your posts. I'm not sure how my assessment that led me to the OP would involve you since I never knew about you until this post...

You like throwing the "I'm a wise old guy" card, yet you know nothing about my age or experience. I R amused.

Completely false. That you don't understand why this is false invalidates a large portion of your argument.

As additional reference, I have ~75 hours in my Mosquito and still feel like a novice. He has ~75 hours in the game, and considers himself an expert.

On topic: I really think Ghost needs to go back and work on his reading comprehension. He continually argues that spawn camping is bad, and that real players (Not DA--they're only the third most highly ranked outfit globally, and are thus clearly totally incompetent) never spend any time in bases, because spending time around the enemy's objective (which is coincidentally, the same as the defender's objective) is not how you are supposed to play an objective-based game. Clearly designing bases in a way that encourages better fights between bases out in the open field entirely contradicts what Ghost thinks is the best part of the game...which is open-field fights between bases.

He also seems to be very good at reading thesauruses, but not so much mathematics concepts. Otherwise he'd understand that if you create more effective bases, which offer a number of entrances and exits and locations to appear, that this dilutes the ability of enemies to spawncamp a base, meaning that fights would take longer, and would give more for everyone to do--infantry,tankers, and pilots--, and create more combined arms gameplay because it creates more edges (looking at a base through the lens of network theory, where different components of the base fight are nodes). With a bit more game experience, he'd also know that there are plenty of ways to break a spawn camp if you use the combined arms part of the gameplay and work with other players. Been many a time I fought my way out of a tower with a good MAX crash, or called in a reinforcing platoon from another outfit through command chat while we dealt with armor and aircraft from our spawn room so their drops/rushes would have an easier time.

It's far from impossible, but part of the excitement of base fights and fighting in the field is that defenders should have the advantage. That means bases that have strongly defensible facilities, with the surrounding terrain designed to allow defenders to sally out and weaken attackers, as well as to sneak around and flank, ambush, or harass attackers. The current base and environment designs give a lot of good attacking bonuses (hills overlooking capture points and giving good LOS into defender positions, for example), while failing to give equal opportunities to defenders (one of the best strategies for defenders is to place their own sunderer in their own base, because it gives a faster spawn rate than the facility spawn, and they can be placed in less exposed positions, nor do bases often have good defense points for snipers and AA nests to set up, and the good bases that do exist have at least one poorly designed base between them, limiting the availability of good fights).

One really good example of base design that encourages fights between bases and within bases is Howling Pass->Mao tech plant. Both attacker and defender have equal opportunities for attacking and defending from either direction, the bases themselves are elevated, with well-positioned walls and defensible generators, have spawn rooms that are not easily campable, and have several differently sized routes of attack. There is also a lot of terrain cover between the two bases, allowing for excellent tank fights, and the flight ceiling is high above the ground, giving room for air to maneuver, while ground cover also allows them some ability to hide and avoid lock-ons, and there is a lot of room to flank and maneuver. However, the poorly-designed base of abandoned NS offices slows down this fire rate, and is not entirely exciting, because both the point and spawn room are easily campable. Most of the good fighting doesn't occur here: it instead gets in the way, and is a pain to both attack and defend from either side. Fights would be much more interesting if that was removed (small squads could go back and forth trying to get onto the point first, while larger forces fight to get into position, and there is lots of room for combined arms fun).

Even though this is a good fight area, there is still room for improvement, and most bases do not have this kind of dynamic tension between them, and are a lot less interesting because of poor base design. Base design, again, doesn't just mean the facilities: It also means the surrounding terrain, and the way the facility interacts with it. Better base design means more, better fights all over the place, both in the field and in facilities, and gives more of a place for every type of player.

Your "words" are a crutch for things I don't understand or agree with.

Not to distract you gentlemen from your catfight.

But how about we get back to actually debating.

I suggest, does segregation even if it removes frustration in certain situations entitle PS2 to call itself a combined arms game.

And I don't think 'PS1 did it' is a particularly good argument.

Well there's no convincing anyone who wants the game turned into an inside the box shooter that there is value outside of the box.

Also, stat attacks are the lowest form of argument. You assume that because my stats are bad, everybody I play with has stats that are similarly bad. Classic mistake of course.

Doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. Nor do personal attacks correcting my grammar.

Off-topic, non-constructive posts aren't helping anybody.

You were the one who brought it up (~10 pages or so as well). If you bring up something in a public forum, you should expect responses. Funnily enough, the posts of both ajma and myself were pointing out that your bringing into the discussion in the first place was irrelevant.

And you think suggesting that one squad of infantry should be able to defend against two squads of resources make you good at the game?

Resource pipeline - Well, I thought about this but I'm not sure what the status is given the recent changes to the team's priorities. That, overall, is a much more macro level concept (resource acquisition and usage) that I didn't want to really get too into on this thread. The overall idea I had was I wanted to give players that want to only play in vehicles a way to allow them to do so without having frustrating restrictions. I'm not sure that #4 is the most appropriate way, but it's *a* solution. I guess I look at it from a point of view that if I can do infantry stuff all the time, why should we restrict people from being able to drive around when they want. Obviously, this creates the issue of having an overabundance of vehicles, and the OP is one thought on how everyone can have some cake and get to eat it, too.

Cloaked AMS - Where I would disagree with your assessment is being able to easily identify the AMS position based off of troop pings. This was more true in PS1 because you had CR reveals and interlink benefits. For defenders, one would assume that defenders wouldn't have scout radar up, so they'd be reliant on infiltrator darts. Those darts have to be fired within 50m of the troops to pick them up, plus they're not infinite in duration. I think this would give enough "cover" to the spawned troops so that the AMS is not so easily identifiable. Plus, it opens the door for some other things like the old PS1 sensor disruptors that could mask troop movements, which might be cool additions to the game (or the PS2 implants that were removed).

I don't consider it segregating as I do making areas that are vehicle areas supported by infantry and infantry areas supported by vehicles. I think that you'd find removing one component would cause that faction to lose the battle (meaning if there were no supporting tanks keeping a base assault protected from counter assaults via neighboring territory, the assault would crumble fairly quickly).

Well, if you know EliteEskimo's idea, we could mix these two up so Infantry would rely on tanks and **** to get into the base, then defend the tanks while said tanks act as anti-infantry along the roads, while they push for the objective, or go for the spawns, or whatever the plan for that squad is. Air would probably remain the same, sort of, as I can't think of anyway to balance a bunch of objects that have multiple dimensions in which they can move.

Nah. I brought it up because somebody attacked my grammar and speeling.

Says the guy that referred to me as "scoreboard", insinuating I'm only after stat padding...

Your whole debate is about you wanting a better way to win. So yes it is

Can't believe this has made 31 pages out of 5 guys saying the same things over and over.

Not about a better way to win, but a better overall experience for everyone that enjoys shooting things. If I wanted to stat pad, I'd just follow a farmable fight around and get the easy kills.

Thanks Posse.
This is the point I was trying to make.
The more options the defenders have to leave the spawn, the more 'spread out' the attackers have to be to 'camp' each exit.
Therefore the defenders have more of a chance at creating a break out to recapture the point, repair a shield generator, destroy the enemy AMS Sunderer, etc...