Remove Lattice System

Reading it again there is the possibility that you meant that you understood my point (but not necessarily have to agree on it). If that is so then its oddly written. Cutting down my response: assuming that your reply was about understanding my point and you saying okidoki, I owe you an apology for insulting you.

I was actually trying to get you to reread my post and put the proper emphasis on the correct points so that you understood I WAS going to make a good post, and that INSTEAD I would just leave you with a video.

I understand the points you are trying to say, but every single point you make is always based off a variable, and you never ask questions to understand EXACTLY what our ideas entail and THEN judge for yourself what is wrong with it. Also, I am not saying that you can't be negative. I am saying not to FOCUS on the negative, hence why I wanted you to reread my previous posts.

For instance, you base the attackers having an easier time on a variable. If the cortium cap and drain were the same between bases, then yes, the attackers would have an easier time attacking than the defenders have defending. However, to offset that and make sieging harder, especially if you can't get on the point, make the cortium drain limits per spawn and for decay greater on a sunderer than for the bases, and make it be able to hold less cortium. If the sundy can only hold 10k cortium and drains 3 times as fast for spawns and just regular decay, that means that they are going to need more ANTs to sustain the attack or more sunderers, especially if the bases hold, say 100k. That means you'd have to use up 10 spawns, one after the other, to get the same standard as a regular base. But wait, there's more. An attacker is attacking from a base, so they have to sacrifice a player or a group of players to keep that previous base up and running, especially if you are draining cortium from spamming vehicles at them. Now, for the defender side, you don't necessarily need a vehicle escort. If you do need it, say for the worst map in the game, Hossin, that means that the escort is there for a reason; to protect against an attack. If you are getting attacked, that means that they sacrificed attackers to attack your convoy, so there is still a sense of balance there. If you have a convoy protecting your ANT, they have one protecting theres, that means you are both sacrificing, and even if they send a few vehicles to just destroy you, they are sacrificing.

There is a tactical battle still going on too. That means you have to find and destroy enemy convoys while protecting your own and getting them to bases that don't have much power. At the same time, the enemy who is attacking your bases has to make sure their own base doesn't run out of power and that they don't get attacked from behind from those who cut off your routes. By forcing a few players to get their ANTs out and get some cortium, while rewarding them heavily for it, you get more out of the game, and it becomes better. Think about all the new tactics we will have to come up with. Imagine a group of tanks and a specialized squad of Engineers and Heavy Assaults who sit around and camp a supply route. When you get intel of their whereabouts, you send in a strike force of aircraft to take them down. Or a more likely scenario, you have been assigned to take care of an ANT driver who is full of cortium (which is now also highly explosive, which would be a super good update if you could turn ANTs into literal bombs and run them at stuff and blow them up, as long as they have cortium in them), and you get ambushed, and have to defend the ANT and yourself from a group of infantry or something. Amazing, right?

Sorry for the paragraph, but it was necessary. Please ask us questions about our ideas and please don't assume you fully understand them. We have more to add, and your interpretation of our ideas may be false. We have to remember that this is a game, and that there are variables at play that need to be addressed. Also, I wanted to end the conversation with the "Oki Doki Boomer", because I am probably not going to change your mind and there is no use in arguing about it. Thanks, Demigan.

But you ignore my points! Right here you are doing it again!

It doesnt matter if the cortium drain for the attackers is a higher variable, as the key point I'm making is that it punishes large fights. The more players arrive, the more cortium is drained per time unit and the fight will end faster. This is a simple matter of cause and effect.

It would need a higher amount of vehicles to sustain the fight with ANT's that will ineviteably need protection from vehicles, there's more non-ANT vehicles at any time now and that wont change with this change. Which means more cortium that needs mining from a larger area and be brought to the fight. Again, cause and effect. This isnt hard to understand or figure out.

But to start a fight the attackers automatically have vehicle superiority or they wouldnt have been able to place the Sunderers, so only in small fights could they hope to effectively resupply. But wait, resupplies arent half as necessary in small fights! Cause and effect.

So for a large battle you need to drain cortium from other bases to pull together a vehicle force to push through and resupply the base as defenders. But if you could do that you have enough vehicles to push the attackers away and the resypply isnt needed to keep the defenders alive but to start counte rattacking. Cause and effect.
But wait, people can theoretically pull vehicles right now and push the attackers away! Its practically impossible but theoretically it is! So why dont they? Oh yeah because its not practical and requires more effort of the defenders than the attackers. ON TOP OF THAT you force the defenders to first organize a ANT or two to fill up and go there.

"But they will adapt!"
Ok, players can theoretically adapt RIGHT NOW to do half of what is necessary in your new system, but they dont. Why would they suddenly adapt if you made it more difficult?

So once again, you ignore cause and effect. Simple, easy to understand cause and effect. Its like you are droppig a rock and expecting it to fly off and write a book or two.

Also apparently my insult was at the right adress, no apology made.

The fight will not end faster simply because of the drain. As I said before, players will adapt, and it is still true. If you need an ANT to keep your sunderer alive in a bigger fight, one of the ANT pilots will come to aid you, either for love of certs or love of battle. If they don't, you should already have another sunderer there, otherwise your fight was already bound to end. Also, again, you can add parameters to the battle to dictate drain.

What happens at a fight, usually near the beginning? People get in tanks, harassers, flashes, and drive to the next base. They blow up anything in their path, a portion of the vehicles there bail and get on point. Having more players have a reason to keep their vehicles is not a bad thing, and giving the people who don't bail from their vehicles something extra isn't a bad thing either.

You do not need vehicle superiority to start a fight, especially in most situations where you get there before there are many vehicles to even start a big fight. Even if there is a fight ensuing, you don't need vehicle superiority to plant a sunderer. There are many variables that go into play which dictate whether or not you will survive long enough to get to your destination and deploy, such as the route you take, where the enemies are, if they are preoccupied, if they see you, and if you have infantry superiority, just to name a few. Not sure what you mean about resupplying. If you mean cortium, yeah, you probably won't need to resupply in small fights, meaning that in large fights, its all that much more dangerous, but you are talking about punishing big fights, so there is still no need to mention the small fight effects when I have already said that small fights would work the same..

Stop saying you need a vehicle force. All you NEED is one ANT. The rest are commodities. Your only job is to deposit cortium, not fight off the attackers. You find your way out, you get out, you get the cortium, and you get back in. You don't even have to get cortium from near the fight. You just need to get it to the fight. Also, let me also add that pulling vehicles from warpgates does not drain cortium. That means you CAN go to the warpgate to get a vehicle if you must, but it will take longer to get an ANT from the warpgate to the front lines. Again, your only job is to get the cortium.

Also, do you understand cause and effect? That means that one event or action CAUSES another one to take place. In what way does instituting this system cause punishments to large fights? It doesn't cause a fight to end faster. It only means that you have to either make the battle quick or get ready to sustain it. As of the current game, you can attack all you want, and as long as they don't get your sunderer, you are fine. The defenders have a time limit that changes based on who has the point. So yeah, in that sense would the fight end faster, if it wasn't supported, but the main goal is to capture bases and lock down the continent. It'd be so much more fun if you could siege a base, cut off supply routes, and be a tactical general. By adding this change, it forces the attackers to think it out too. They can't attack forever unsupported in big battles, and by making ANTs and cortium needed in those big battles, it creates mini battles within that battle.

They would adapt because they have to. They don't need to adapt now to siege a base because there is no point to doing so! That's just common sense! Why would you waste time and energy sieging a base, keeping a vehicle convoy from coming to destroy you when there is no point in doing so? No one is launching a vehicle convoy to blow you up except on rare occasions. With this system, it gives you more incentive to doing so. We could even add our own "Escort" ribbons for being in a vehicle while in close proximity to an ANT for X amount of ticks. That way they'd have incentive to be more tactical and to teach new players tactics.

Seriously, I wanted to end the conversation with the last post, because you don't change and you don't reason. You keep making these incompetent remarks, and I just have to go back, read what I wrote, read what you wrote, and reason on the matter. This system would add to the game. It won't screw up large fights, and you have nothing to truly back up that claim other than your flawed logic, based on your own unstated variables. If a large fight was to ensue, you'd need to support your sundies with ANTs as an attacker, while the defender needs to destroy those sundies. It causes mini-battles inside of your large one, and that adds to a sense of tactical awareness and overall fun. Please, if you disagree, just end the conversation and stop being so argumentative. I'm not changing my idea until you prove to me that it is flawed, then I will happily make adjustments, but as of now, I think that cortium should be ESSENTIAL TO THE MAIN GAME.

Let's try and cut this down to something shorter.

1: Fights will get shorter with higher population counts. There is no indication that players will adapt to sustain large fights with ANT's, in fact we see the opposite happening. The only adaptation that we could be certain off is that the defenders would quit more quickly.
And again, the parameters of drain would still punish larger populations. Unless ofcourse the drain is so minimal that large fights can be sustained for more than an hour. But at that point small fights would last forever and the effect of cortium would be lost. So no matter the drain rate it would hurt the game or be virtually useless. Probably both.

2: You aren't giving these people in vehicles another thing to do, you are forcing the defenders to fight through a vehicle column that even with the current system they cannot break with any practical amount of players and teamwork. Most of the vehicles aren't abandoned, and your idea would only increase the amount of vehicles the defenders have to punch through.

3: You do not need vehicle superiority, but in 99% of the fights it is a given. And you even admit that resupplying is more dangerous in large fights... Except that this isn't more dangerous for the attackers, just the defenders. Since if the defenders can feasibly stop the ANT's from resupplying the attackers then they can also feasibly destroy the attacker vehicles and their Sunderers, ending the fight.

4: "You find your way out". How? Oh yeah, you have to fight your way out. Or spawn somewhere else, find cortium and then still fight your way in. ANT's aren't exactly designed for vehicle vs vehicle combat, and since the attackers are almost guaranteed to have vehicle superiority it means that said ANT is going to be destroyed unless it has an escort. If it has a sufficient escort to get it there and resupply then either A) The escort is able to secure the base or B) The escort suicides during the run and the defenders have sacrificed a lot just to resupply.

5: Are you daft? The more population you have the faster cortium is drained, forcing faster and more cortium resupplies to be necessary. IE you are being punished for bringing a lot of people to a fight especially one so heavily in favor of the attackers.

6: Just because something is added doesn't mean it will happen. If you added Triage facilities where players have to drag bodies to be respawned or else they have to respawn at the warpgate and drive back again, you can have a tactical gameplay. But who is going to be dragging these bodies? Who is going to wait doing nothing for someone else to revive them? Just because something can be tactical does not mean it is fun or going to support the game. Tying cortium to respawns is a horrible idea that just punishes players. ANT runs wouldn't be mini-battles around a battle, they would be slaughters in favor of the attackers. The "general" of the defenders would need more teamwork, more coordination, more vehicles and more effort to organize their ANT runs and succeed than the attackers. How is that an enjoyable gameplay element?
We see right now how this works. Theoretically you can organize a vehicular counter assault from the next base. But it takes more time, more effort, more teamwork, more coordination and more vehicles (especially since the attackers will likely be capturing your base while you organize) than the attackers to succeed. People don't adapt because it is impossible to properly adapt to this.

7: I reason, you don't. You just say "adapt!" and think that is a magic word that makes everything allright. Hey here's an idea: I don't adapt to your responses (and for good reason), maybe that is a sign that your idea of "people will adapt" might not be as true as you think it is.

ok boomer.

Hey you keep repeating "everyone will adapt" while there is quite literally no indication that people will adapt. If we look at a similar tactic that is available right now we see it's not in use, and there's reasons for that lack of use. Why would you ignore that?
Then when I point that out you repeat "they will adapt" again and then claim that I'm ignoring your arguments?

You have the bad habit of putting words in my mouth that I never said. I also told you to stop replying if you are just seeking an argument, which you are. You aren't changing my mind, especially when you aren't listening to what I am saying. You aren't even hearing it. Our opinions differ, simple as that. I think cortium should be essential to the game. You think it should be a commodity. Simple as that. Stop arguing with me.

Wait, what words did I put into your mouth? You quite literally say that everyone will adapt every time you have to explain what effects these changes will have and think that's enough of an explanation why suddenly there's mini battles around the big battle and every Tom Dick and Harry in an ANT is joining in.

And I am hearing your argument, that's why I can react to it and say that it makes no sense. That's why I can come up with examples of current in game tactics that are virtually the same as what you are asking of the playerbase, that aren't used at all because there are flaws. I quite literally take your words, in context, and just extrapolate what it would mean for the game.

I think Cortium could be valuable, that it could have uses beyond a commodity similar to how a Sunderer is "just a commodity" but the advantage of using it is so paramount that it's a requirement. I did say that it shouldn't be as valuable as the Sunderer as you should never be punished for just playing, that's why I tied it into things that do not scale with the amount of players but is generally useful. Ofcourse you kind of glossed over the part where I pointed all that out. Funny how hypocracy works.

I never said you were ignoring my arguments; you said I was ignoring yours.

You also keep continuing an argument that changes nothing. Nothing I say will change your mind, nor will it get this cortium idea into the game. You can stop now, Demigan.

You can drive any vehicle in and out of a base as long as you don't make yourself a target, so that truly isn't a problem. If you are being rewarded heavily for doing something, the community will adapt to get the most certs. They always do. There is no reason to do anything like sieging a base now because you aren't rewarded for it. There is no point in having ammo sundies and repair sundies sustain your vehicles now because it isn't necessary. It could definitely help, but you don't need to do it. Just keep your own sundy alive. The community is pretty selfish as is, and doing these cortium changes won't change that. It just hides their selfishness under an act of greed. Every little cert counts. In no way would giving preparticipating vehicles an extra objective cause the defenders to have to fight through a vehicle column they wouldn't have had to otherwise. You yourself said that there aren't very many vehicles ditched, hence why I started it off by saying a "portion".

You may be right though. Bigger fights may end faster. All I say to that is, "So. What?" That doesn't mean they are of less quality, and it doesn't mean you can't have a big fight. The main goal is to capture the continent and have fun while doing it. Stand-still fights aren't very fun to me, and I would like the threat of the tables turning to be more prevalent even without a population shift. So I will say it again: they. will. adapt. Stop replying.

Let's look at the core of your idea:

You want a Siege to be able to end through cortium depletion. In other words you want it to end faster than before. This is the entire core of your idea, the entire premise, your goal you want to achieve. Yet when I say that you are trying to end fights too quickly you say I'm wrong? How is this a "may end faster" if this is everything you are trying to achieve with this system.
You also want the cortium drain to be noticeable only during larger fights. Yet you claim that bringing a larger population isn't going to be punished? You quite literally punish them for bringing more players!
Ah but the variables! Just imagine if the attackers have 3x more drain than the defenders! Well they are punished 3x more for each extra player they bring. The height of the variable doesn't matter until you make the variable so low that a base will virtually never run out of cortium.
And the solution to at least make larger fights not be punished more is also easy as all hell: Make the cortium drain a set amount per minute rather than for each use by a player. Of course that would still mean a horrible gameplay value as the defenders still have to put more effort into the same action (resupplying) than the attackers and when the cortium runs dry the entire fight instantly grinds to a halt and players have to wait until the fight is taken to the next base. Progress I guess?

Now imagine if players "will adapt". That would mean that ANT runs are frequent and the entire cortium system doesn't end fights prematurely. Where do these come from? We can do a similar tactic right now but it's not used because...? Can you think of the reason?
And if ANT's are stopped, which is more likely for the defenders, what will happen then? Oh yeah the fight will end sooner.


It's easy for you to claim that I'm not going to change your mind if you don't even acknowledge the entire core of your idea and say that it'll magically be solved by players that "will adapt".

Maybe you can't read or something but I have said at least 3 times that you need to stop replying. Oh well.

You base all of your ideas about this system on the incorrect assumption that fights end and come back after that. They don't. If the attackers can't take the point, they usually give up. That is why when a sundy gets destroyed, the pop goes down, even if they still have more sundys. At least that is what I have seen. Adding a way to siege a base just means that the longer a fight goes on, the large change the attackers have to actually take the base. If you can't take the base by getting as many people on the point as possible and holding it, you would be able to take it by draining it of its main resource, cortium. That allows you to be able to take the base. If you are going to spawn in with tons of players, it will force the attackers to have more spawns when doing so. As of now, if a large force of attackers spawn in with tons of sunderers, some of those sunderers aren't needed until they lose one. They are pretty much backups, and you have to destroy all of them to stop the attack. With this cortium system, the attackers will actually have the ability to deplete their spawns, and those extra sunderers will go to use. They'd need ANTs to keep their good sunderers alive, but also their backups.

The goal is not to end the fights more quickly. It is to get you to the endgoal when you can't simply just take the base. It'll help start fights or at least keep them alive when you can't get on the point.

Bringing a larger population won't necessarily be punished; you just have to support it. It'll ease zergs. It'll favor longer battles for the attackers as long as they can support it, as they will be able to siege the base. The defenders would want to fight them off as quickly as possible and destroy their ANTs so they can't keep their spawns alive, which yes, could prove to be a difficult feat. We can do something to help them out if we need to. Why don't you think of it?

Having to put more effort into resupplying while you are being attacked is the same as in real life, is it not? In this game, the bases are connected by road systems. Keep them off of one side of the base as long as you can and make an open route for the ANTs, and try to flank and attack their ANTs with whatever units are able to. I mean, you don't really have to overthink this, Demigan. If that doesn't work, try something else. This just gives a disadvantage to defenders when they already have the advantage now in most bases. If needed, rework all the bases to be more favorable to defense, maybe adding more cover, like y'know, the Auraxians who built this base didn't want to lose it?

Can you stop mentioning that we can use a similar tactic now without mentioning WHAT that tactic is and the BENEFIT of using it? People won't do anything without a motivation for doing so unless you are a selfless person, a term used for basically none of the Planetside 2 community. If you are going to hint at a tactic, please tell. If not, don't use it.

I will say it again, players will adapt. If we reward them with this system with a new way to earn certs and give the base builders who are out there farming cortium a reason to drive their ANT up the front lines and support their allies, they'll probably do it. Heck, we should even use cortium to be able to repair vehicles, and get ANTs up there to do that too. My point is that cortium should be used in the main game and the players who already use ANTs have even more incentive to do so. It'll bring players who are new to the ANT to test it out and see what they can do. We may even have a positive boost to base builders out of it. Who knows? I will say it another time; players will adapt. That isn't the main crux of my argument either, but it is true. They adapt to get as much certs as possible.

entirely disagree with this for the simple reason that any defender who has a low playercount will get snowballed HARDER by the high pop attacker ... it won´t matter if the lowpop would have more cortium available to them per player .. .. their cortium would be just quickly depleted because of how many times they would get killed in a row even if you assume players would be on a similar level ... worse the lower pop unlike the overpop won´t have any expandale players to be able to keep their cortium suplied (even worse if the battle is on a outpost than a corebase like being left alone from other factionmembers) .. so sooner or later they would run out of cortium ... it´s even very likely that the overpop comes with forcemultiplyers the lowpop would have trouble to deal with in the first place ... this would only FURTHER put an emphasis on zerging as the bigger the zerg the less likely you are to die and have to further use cortium ..


it additionaly creates the problem that suplydrivers would have to drive anywere, and since AA is crap at the moment any aircraft and in particullarly liberators would have a fieldday on ANThunting .. .. of course then comes the problem of which bases to suply and which to ignore .... by your design any non suplied base would be easy to capture because the faction that held it may have not have the players to supply it, who then can not get there by redeploy, without bringing vehicles from a closeby base ...
this again makes it difficult for a underpop faction as a whole on which bases to focus on ...

Questions:

what if a couple bases, be they in a row or clumped up, are cut up from territory that is connected to the warpgate?
how are they affected? would they still be fully functional with cortium suply? because that would dictatehow easy or difficult it would be to recapture the base that cut off affected territory ...
since you mentioned planetside 1 i assume you at least would want lattice to stay ...

also you still need to consider, even if it was possible to destroy the spawntubes of a base it is more likely to happen with a large squad than a small team otherwise the bases inquestion would have to be rather empty in the first place ...
redeploy in PS1 iirc was not possible, you ..

that would just allow infiltrators to ghostcap them .. which means some other players of a lowerpopfaction that could have been more usefull on the front would need to go recapture them and waste time ...

the simple solutions I see to your concerns are to add a multiplier to the amount of cortium attackers use when they respawn at sunderers, and to buff AA.

the simple solution is to not include this need to supply bases and sunderes with cortium at all ...
because it easily leads to downtime for players to go off harvesting cortium than to fight against other players when they may not realy want to do that .... you may argue that a number of players may harvest cortium right now for farming xp, exactly ... because being in a fight especialy infantry vs infantry allong with directives and ribbons is obnoxius AF to gain XP with especialy if you happen to not exaclty be a good shot meaning you kill less people and sometimes even get nothing from an engagemeant if your opponent survives..
harvesting cortium for PMB´s is the choice of players wanting to construct one or support a existing one (at least it should)...
turning cortiumharvest into a neccessity to supply corebases takes away from what players actualy came for to do in this game in the first place .. fighting other players ..

if you go and put a multiplyer on a group that happens to be larger than the group they are fighting against meaning the overpop has to spent more cortium per respawn that may help with zerging as a squad or platoon may consider attacking multiple places instead of focusing one area to level the cortiumcost .. but at the same time you spread the army thin which kinda goes against what planetside 2 advertises with its big battles .. on the other hand if the zerg is already big enough that multiplyer may not even matter ..

AA would need a buff any way ...

I mean hey, if you have enough people to zerg and sit around in vehicles and sunderers as they do nothing, you can sacrifice 2 or 3 of them for ANTs, but you won't necessarily need them depending on how small the fights are. You won't be dying too much o r using much cortium unless the multiplier was dynamic. So yeah, you got a point there.

Players are already forced to do things they don't want to. You pretty much are forced to get a sunderer if you want to start a fight. Big fights would then need someone on cortium duty. You wouldn't need it in small fights unless they lasted forever. Whats sacrificing a few willing souls to get it? With any system, we risk players not wanting to do it, but I truly believe that this will benefit the game. Its not like it'll take them away from the fights. Just code in objective support for this and give loads of xp, and people will hopefully adapt. Then you have attackers attacking the ANTs and defenders defending them, leading to more battles, vehicle battles at that.

You are on a forum. If you say something, then you should expect that the information you give is going to be read and either accepted or replied too. Saying "Well here's all this information but don't reply" is weird. Just imagine if everyone starts using it:

Trump in his next election where both candidates are having that topic discussion: "Ok so I'm awesome, the best candidate, if I become president you will all simply adapt to the situation. This is all the truth, but my opposing candidate isn't allowed to reply or retort to this".
And then the next candidate comes up.

I've never seen or heard of this. Attackers will continuously keep attacking, and the only time the fight really ends is when either the attackers have taken the base or all Sundies are destroyed without new Sundies being brought in quickly enough.
Thinking on it I have heard of it but in a specific situation: As attacker you are heavily outnumbered but the defenders just sit there and don't destroy your Sundies. That is the only time I've seen sufficient amounts of people leave a fight as attackers.

This system just won't start fights. There is too little enjoyable reward in dragging cortium to bases and the whole premise of the cortium farmers is that they avoid fights, not try to drive straight into a deathtrap of enemy vehicles and sacrifice their lives to refuel a single base. Where would those new fights happen even if you did that? The attackers have zero advantages to gain by going out and searching for ANT's. Their best bet is to simply stick around the base and murder any ANT that tries to get through them. The ANT has an escort? Well we can see now that liberating a base surrounded by vehicles is something that takes time. It's not like you can just charge them and win, in fact that's a sure-fire way to get yourself killed. So said ANT will be sitting still behind his escort as that escort slowly tries to whittle away the enemy vehicle presence without being whittled away themselves. Should the escort succeed then... The ANT has no real reason to be there anymore as the base is in all likelyhood liberated! Should the escort fail then it's wasted time and might actually be killed.

And this will definitely punish larger populations. To start with they have to spend more people on supporting their numbers or have the most enjoyable part of PS2 fall apart (large fights). It is also skewed in the effort required for one team or the other. The attackers are almost guaranteed to reach their Sunderer and resupply it, the moment they can't do that anymore their Sunderer is getting attacked and is likely going to be destroyed. The defenders have to fight through an enemy cordon especially in large fights.

There's also other things to consider. Continental layout for example. Hossin isn't build for this. Many bases don't even have cortium spawns before the next base begins, Hossin is also a railroaded map where bases can't be surrounded and prevent vehicle passage until it's captured, meaning the defenders (and attackers) have almost guaranteed resupplies... If they can get the cortium. Many bases on south east Indar have similar problems with cortium availability. So you would have to redesign all continents so that all bases can be properly supplied without one side having a monopoly on the cortium spawns and still fostering good fights.

players have a number of ways to attack a adjacent base, they either go with a sunderer which rather is easy, or they spawn a squadbeacon or they get a galaxy or valkyre as a mobile spawn for their squad, so plenty of options to initiate an attack .. heck you can even just go and start your zergcolumn from any homebase to come in as a huge wave this is not such a big deal .. but harvesting cortium would be a consistent thing you would have to do as is already the case with high consumtion PMBs ..

the vehicle combat you would get is harrasers or mbts hunting for ANTs without them being escorted nor cappable to defend themselfes, at best they would be able to cloak away, that´s it ..

they way vehicles should be involved in fights should be with open bases and infantry capable of defending themselves against them other than being limited to bloody C4 and HA rocketlaunchers ..

if infantry would be able to better support their own vehicles you would automaticaly see more battles between bases with both infantry AND vehicles vs infantry and vehicles, but for that infantry needs both more surviveability as well as a threatening punch against vehicles .. medics are heavily lacking in that regard to be able to both support engineers on repairduty and defend themselves, infils have not even a propper specopsoption for it other than mass ex crossbow, Maxxes are lacking in survivability: one bloody 50 nanite vehicle can roadkill the thing ..

Having a sunderer is how you sustain a fight. If you want to start one, you can literally just walk all the way to the base, but don't count on surviving and actually taking the base. Also, the other 3 ways you mentioned all include having a squad. If you want to do any of those methods, you are forced to start and run a squad, aka being forced to do something. You can't fly a Valkyre solo and use that as a spawn for yourself, hence it isn't just you starting the fight; it is your squad. That is why I say that if YOU want to start a fight, you need to bring a sunderer. When I say start a fight, I don't mean shoot one person and die, hence why I say you are forced to bring a sunderer. To me, it isn't a fight when you are going to get ganged up on right as soon as you flip the point and a group spawns in. That is a massacre.

The easiest answer I see is to give ANT's topgun the ability to drain enemy vehicles of health or if the vehicles run on cortium, it would drain that. You could also give them a new topgun by default. Also, I think that by rewarding players for defending an ANT, say with an escort ribbon, you would get more people doing so. We could give them 100 exp per X seconds of being within X meters of a ANT while you are in a vehicle. I could see that being exploited by zergs having a few ANTs rolling with them for added exp, so maybe the ANT will have to have some cortium in it to make it a little easier.

I am not saying this system is perfect or that it can be perfectly implemented into the game at this point. Of course infantry need a way to better defend against vehicles, but that isn't a problem with this system. It is a problem with the current game. When we fix that and a few other things, the system would work better. For infantry v vehicles, I say to punish vehicles for running headfirst against infantry by having a special hitbox where the engine would be that deals a lot of damage. You can make tank's main cannons turn slower so that they can't turn as fast when they get flanked, and it would require someone who is trying to destroy the tank to try to out maneuver the tank gun. You can controversially give Infiltrators vehicle hacking at the cost of nanites and an alert to the person driving the vehicle, and take the ability away from Stalkers and not allow deployed Sunderers to be hacked. I say that MAX's should just aim for the driver for the Flash.

just because players are "forced" to do a action that is still temporal (because enemy controlled bases don´t have a natural attackerspawn, duh) doesn´t mean the inclusion of laticebase cortiumsuply being a good idea ... temporal forced action vs consistend forced action ... you don´t even need a squad for the squad beacon, you create a squad with a second player and kick him afterwards ... as for galaxy and valkyrie .. squad or not these are teamfocused vehicles anyway, galaxies with a general spawn made sunderers redundant ..

it doesn´t matter what it is to you, you can´t expect that your action won´t cause a certain response in a game in which opponents can number in the hundreds ..

people already get xp for standing arround on a capturepoint for x seconds ... and it´s the most boring thing to do ..
will some people go escord ANTs for an XPgain? sure, but not enough, and not as many as you think, again you are ignoring teams/defenders in a underpop situation .. this whole implementation at worst spreads troops thin over the continent ...
AND you FORCE people to do a action that might not be fun at all to them, turning them into mobile hunting targets for harrasers and MBTs, you ask players to escort ANTs for a raid that may or may not come (chance of action vs battlearea where there will most definetively be action) ..

it´s not just not a perfect system, it goes entirely against what the game advertises .. and it´s absolutely too late to implement this
with how drastic an impact it would have on gameplay
why was it not in game in the first place compared to PS 1? .. because it leads to too much downtime between battles with how much people would have to invest in setting up bases or setting up an attack, and this was already a problem with a smaller playerbase and the many interconnected maps (even if those were on avarege smaller than PS 2 Continents), it would be a problem in PS 2 aswell ..

PS1: spawn into the warpgate, spawn ANTs, farm nanites, take likely neutral base and suply it with nanites, spawn combatvehicles and sunderers, only THEN go to the location you want to assault were there might be an opponent ...

PS2: spawn into warpgate, redeploy to closest spawnable allied base, spawn Sunderers and combatvehicles, assault enemy base .. ... or just instantactionspawn in a area you may (hopefully) find yourself in a decent battle ...