There Is No Problem With Base Design

Do you mean how they camp at the crown, the most popular place to fight?

The design is awful - holes everywhere, no defensive line, enemy can attack from any direction - how you can not see this is beyond me.

Sounds more dickish than arrogant?

From an FPS perspective, they were atrocious. The gameplay was appallingly bad. So few FPS skills were required I heard the TR were successfully training lobotomised chimps to sit facing a door and shooting anything that came through. You should have had a look in some of their MAX suits...

Too much emphasis on seige/camping mechanics is bad for the game, especially when it's just about all you can offer for infantry gameplay without forcing them to be cannon fodder. Cute, but ultimately boring.

How do you, in PS2, "place fallback points"?

So your tactic is to abandon the besieged base and attempt to retake it from another base? In other words, defend a base by surrendering it?

That's what the proponents of "bases are fine" are saying, yes.

Problem being, when you push the reasoning, why having put a spawn point, why having put a CC, and a whole capture process for the ennemy to take the base, if the logical thing to do is to use NONE OF THEM as soon as the ennemy is at vehicle shooting range of these buildings? Why in that case, force the attacker into a long process of taking CCs ?

If bases are MEANT to not be defended, then they should simply flip by mere ennemy presence at vehicle shooting range. The capture system should be entirely different, something very akin to what was seen in Capture&Hold systems in other FPS (wasn't the Novalogic serie using that?), where ennemy presence in the region prevents owners of the region to spawn there, and the region becomes contested, ie both sides have to spawn in nearby region to go attack/defend it.
Then, YES, in that case, current lack of base design would make perfect sense

BUT IT'S NOT HOW SOE DID IT. They have put a CC which still work when under attack. They have put centralized capture points, with ..... things .... around them supposed to make them defensible / attackable. All nullified by total lack of feature to take cover, define defense arcs, etc....

A capture process put in place, witout setting up the environment for it. Doesn't make any sense.

Yes... But also the modern battle theorists are often using the best gear over all and are not subject to holding a location under siege. They are also the ones pressing the advantage they have. However, when you are actually 'DEFENDING', the idea is to try and hold ground and PUSH back. But you are one who puts 'fall back' in situations where you couldn't establish a defense because things were choked before you could put an offensive defense up.

That is the problem with BASE design, is when some defenses were circumvented before the defense is put up, the fighting centers around the spawn room and not the control point and not due to people still spawning at the spawn room, but the simple fact there is no WAY to make it not center around the spawn room as a DEFENSE measure.

And this is why reasoning fails with 13lackcats... He fails to understand the point of defense. He is an attacker, giving little or no care about actually being able to defend and blames YOU for defense failure and spawn camping.

This looks like a troll thread.

While offense is the best defense, the game nor its bases should be designed in a way that works against the defenders simply because they're defending. It should be a thing that occurs naturally, not deliberately built to be easily attacked. Right now it is nearly impossible to prepare for an incoming attack, most of the time the defense comes in the form of reinforcements. If the only viable method of defending a base is to leave it and attack it later, then there is no reason to actually be in a battle in a defensive position. Not only that, but you aren't even defending anymore, you're just attacking after the enemy attacked you. Right now, battles are more about forcing the opposition into a "spawncamped" state, which is ironic and hypocritical when 13lackCats says that the defenders being able to camp is a bad thing. In base battles, defenders should have both the initial and the inherent advantage. They should leave the base because it gives them some advantage, not because they're simply being attacked. Otherwise, why use base turrets, why use the attacked bases' spawns? When a facility's layout, design, and functions are biased towards only the attacker, then the defenders might as well instantly give up on the first sight of trouble, and they would be perfectly justified in doing so.

However, 13lackCats is right in that camping in general is just lame. People just sit in spawns waiting for a chance to just wade through the meatgrinder instead of trying to take the road less traveled. However, faction chat doesn't change anything. People are simply lemmings. Instead, it should be possible to actually walk inside spawnrooms and destroy the spawn tubes themselves, but only after spawnrooms are improved so as to be difficult to approach and attack. Heck, every spawn room should be underground, anyway.

variety is each base having an unique tactical advantage that can be exploited by the defenders. what i don't call verity is **** design that favors attackers.