Higby plans to focus on quality of life after GU09

No where in history?
How about now, aircraft, drones, battleships, and tanks do most of the fighting in today's wars.
In fact since the end of world war I vehicles have been leading the offensives, the introduction of primitive tanks to war world 1 was one of the final factors that helped end it.

The entire German offensive in World War II was based off tanks and aircraft, and when they started running out of tanks and aircraft, they started loosing the war. Infantry plays a huge part in wars, but its often the infantry supporting the armor, not the armor supporting the infantry.

1. Better vehicle UIs. I hate that I can't see where my Dalton is pointing in relation to which way the lib is flying, and that goes for both when I'm gunning and when I'm piloting. All the tanks UIs display turret rotation and a bloody range finder, but not the belly guns for some reason. It would also be wonderful for everyone in the vehicle to see each weapon's ammo count too.

2. Better movement for tail guns. Right now the angle restrictions make tail gunners largely pointless, not to mention unrewarding. Which leads me to...

3. Everyone in the vehicle should share exp gains. Or at least the gunners/drivers should. Liberators, tanks, harassers, sundies, and gals all require a team to work effectively, so why the hell does the main gunner get the lions share of the exp?

4. Allow the main gunner in libs and harassers nominate, for lack of a better term, 'Vehicle Waypoints' so I can stop worrying about if they have squad lead or not. I don't know how this would work in a sundy or galaxy though.

5. Assault rifles for LAs please? I want to use my SABR-13 or H-V45 on more than just my medics and it would give me a good reason to put down the shotguns for a little while.

First things first.

This game is unplayable for me due to unexplained lag spikes. It has nothing at all to do with how large the battle is or what is going on.

They are sudden, inexplicable and drop me to 1 or 2 FPS for about 3 minutes, when it all magically clears (if I haven't been killed during the lag period, that is).

This happens, on average every 7-10 minutes or so.

Until this is fixed, there's not much point me (and many of my friends) fixing anything else.

This one single issue is the one that needs addressing first.

Once you have a stable game platform, THEN think about enhancements. Thinking about enhancements when it's broken is utterly pointless.

...to the point I have deinstalled, and don't plan on coming back in the near future until it's not broken anymore.

...and yes... I've reinstalled from scratch on a fresh wind 7 install on a machine that used to work perfectly adequately prior to the last GU. What an utter waste of time THAT was.

-How about fixing the c4, pressing the trigger once never works and the amount of time it takes to throw both bricks is appalling.

-When throwing a grenade, can it actually be thrown from the arm that throws it?!?! It's REALLY annoying how it gets thrown from the chest, you cant throw a grenade without getting in the door way and standing there for a minute.

-Please optimize this game to use, idk, the video card perhaps ?

-The constant crashes.... I crash 2-4 times upon choosing my character before I can actually login with my character, I crash right after I click exit all the time.

-Maybe tanks can stop sliding around minuscule hills like it's made of ice, and even when its ice they don't friggin do that...

-OPTIMIZE...

-The triple loading screen, granted it is reduced to a double loading screen.... Seriously?? What, are we gonna have to unlock single loading screen with SC??

-and Optimize the game.

(This list is written by NaySayer in Impact font even though it won't make one.)

He means hats. Maybe disco dancing outfits and speedos for the Vanu.

Just give us some new maps for ***** sake

Give us DOORS! Is that too hard?

Let's go over this point for point then, since you still haven't grasp this.

World War I and II and to this day, the aircraft has been used in warfare. It has made runs to attack places, but has it conquered territory or held it? Did it do it for the Japanese for Midway, or Pearl Harbor? Why did Midway completely fail when their first wave was considered reasonably successful? Let's think about this... In order to take Midway, they needed to LAND TROOPS ON MIDWAY TO CONTROL IT. Midway turned into a major naval and air battle because it was carrier versus carrier, but the Japanese did not gain control of Midway because they could not get their troops ON THE GROUND.

The Vietnamese were constantly bombarded by American Air Power, both jets and attack choppers when they could. Yet the US could not achieve victory against the Vietcong or the North Vietnamese, DESPITE HAVING THE MORE ADVANCED AIR POWER over the Vietnamese. Infantry was still required to push the ground in order to secure areas.

Battleships - Great - Except you forgot the wonderful debacle of Pearl Harbor. You know, the Americans had boasted the largest battleship fleet until the Japanese managed to severely cripple that fleet in Pearl Harbor. Nimitz adopted Carrier strike group tactics, but even then, still had to rely on the Marines to take the islands because *gasp* again, a battleship, or a cruiser or ANY ship, still can't take land and *gasp* infantry had to land to do that. Classic examples - Wake Island and Normandy.

Tanks - Again, pointed out again in a post I made. Tanks were suppose to replace infantry as king of the battlefield, except even in World War II, they admitted that infantry has to WORK ALONG SIDE tanks because while tanks have armor to deal with small arms fire, infantry found ways to counter armor. Namely, mines, tank traps, ambushing tanks by disabling their caterpillar treads, making them big roadblock. And then there is that nasty little drawback of fuel to keep them going, maintenance and also just getting them to where you need them. Of course, we can completely ignore the fact that we didn't exactly deploy hordes of tanks at every possible hot spot we have been... Oh wait, we haven't exactly deployed hordes of tanks everywhere there has been a hot spot, we had to rely on infantry to do the job or QRF, which a tank isn't exactly a Quick to Respond at times, even with the most modern tank we have.

Drones - Great. And how often have we used it? For surgical strikes to take out forces, but if Drones are so great... Why are we still using INFANTRY to secure the ground still? Let's see... Probably the same reason we don't exactly go crazy with the air strikes or constantly throwing a lot of hardware at everything else. The cost of it is more than sending in a good team of infantry. While we want to reduce the number of possible casualties, there is always going to be the $$$ cost in whether or not to use certain assets to do the job. And in the end, any taking of ground or considering 'control' of any ground isn't going to be controlled by a drone, or by a tank, or a plane. It will still be relegated to infantry to do that job. They also support those assets, but the general control of that will be reliant of the infantry.

Yes, infantry obviously still has a place, and you cannot occupy territory with aircraft, bombs, drones, or cruise missiles (though we have forced capitulation of enemies before ever landing troops on their main land, and ground forces have surrendered, under fire from naval batteries, to drones). I wasn't disputing this.

However, infantry hasn't been able to do it alone for a century. Without artillery, armor, and/or air support, you may as well send your infantry off to be executed.

The issue isn't that infantry is frequently an indispensable part of real warfare.

I don't see this problem because it's illusory. Things are not how you present them. What you say is happening is plainly not happening.

Bring them from somewhere else. If the enemy can attack your base with vehicles they did not spawn at your base, you can defend your base with vehicles you did not spawn there too.

That a pretty narrow way of looking at it, and is probably the source of your problems.

The timed capture is to give defenders time to respond. There are more ways, often better ways, to respond than to simply try to push out.

I rarely spawn directly at a base I am trying to defend, if it's already under siege. It's usually foolish to do so, unless you have your push from within carefully coordinated with external relief.

No, I never said this either.

It doesn't.

If you need 2-3x the defenders to hold out, you don't.

And why should there be? There should always be issues, namely the enemy faction(s) attacking you.

These issues are not insurmountable, and the attacker does not automatically have as great an advantage as you imply.

I second this idea.

- No throwable C4.
- Deploy timer when placing AP mines.

I'd really love for the Flash to have some actual field of view, at least in third person.

However, you do realize that is EXACTLY the current problem. Defenders are being sent out to be executed to go and try and defend locations by attacking vehicles instead of infantry. Also those surgical strike weapons, given the cost, in RL, to use them... The people using those assets also try to make sure that it is worth the effort to use drones or cruise missiles to take out a target.

However, you make it sound like they aren't necessary at all, this is not true. While there are 'air wars' and 'naval wars', where lots of men have died, those also focused on 'vehicle vs vehicle', not 'vehicle vs infantry', yet this argument seems to act, for a base, vehicles have to be part of the capture. I state, no. They are the means to push to the place, but the proper conquering of any base or city or town is NOT the vehicles, but the infantry.

No, it is EXACTLY what is happening and you aren't seeing it and ignoring even the people stating 'The vehicles are in your base, YOU HAVE LOST.' Given it is also the vehicles that are suppressing your ability to push out, again, not illusory, it is a reality you and several others blithely want to ignore.

And here is where you are NOT PAYING ATTENTION... Which I state, spill over will go to the NEXT base you try to fall back to try and do the VERY THING YOU STATE. Short of falling all the way to the Warpgate to do that, which is even MORE counterproductive in doing so.

No, the source of the problem is you and others like you failing to grasp other concepts BEYOND FALL BACK AND ATTACK. At the same time, it ignores, repeatedly, other realities that DOES happen because you assume it is only 'just pushing out of a base' only. Any form of defense or counter attack also includes the possibility of a "5th Column" support aspect. That being someone on the inside pushing out as much as the people pushing in. However, it cannot happen if they CANNOT PUSH OUT BECAUSE THE DESIGN OF THE BASE MAKES IT EASIER FOR THE ATTACKER TO KEEP THE DEFENDERS INSIDE SUPPRESSED AS WELL AS KEEPING COUNTERATTACKS OUT.

This is why a base redesign to force attackers to get out of their vehicles is necessary. If you want a counter attack possible, you have to make it difficult for the attackers to not be able to focus on one thing. If you have the defenders suppressed, you can focus on outside counterattacks. However, if it was forced to needing more infantry to counter infantry to hold a base you are trying to cap, there are less attackers able to repel counter attacks from the outside because you are requiring people to assist beyond spamming the crap out of them with fire easily and then switching to repelling counter attacks. If you fully pull out of the base to do a massive counter attack... What happens... OH WAIT... THE ATTACKERS CAN NOW FULLY FOCUS ON REPELLING AN ATTACK. *facepalm*

This is not what I stated. I did not advocate falling back to defend a base.

I'm simply suggesting that if you need a vehicle and do not already have one (though if you are intent on defending a location you should have spawned your armor and planes well in advance), you can redeploy and bring one from somewhere else. That's 15 seconds to redeploy, another 15 to find the vehilce pad and spawn what you need, the travel time (which is going to be under three minutes to almost anywhere on the map with most ground vehicles if you are familiar with the path).

I haven't even been advocating this, you are putting words in my proverbial mouth.

I'm advocating concepts like anticipation, preparation, and maneuver.

I know what you are saying, but that's not what a "5th column" is.

If the attackers have to contend with outside support, chances are those inside the base will have an opportunity to break out, unless it's the defenders that are vastly outnumbered.

There aren't many vehicles, or combination of vehicles that can completely suppress a spawn point. There is no combination, assuming anything near numerical parity, that can completely suppress a spawn point while having to deal with half the enemy force pressing from without.

I do not agree, and my vote goes against such a redesign.

Infantry is already needed to flip capture points, and larger bases tend to have nearly completely enclosed capture points already. In my opinion, this is more than enough.

I know you disagree, and that's fine, but the idea that your opinion and your limitations must be universal fact that applies to everyone else, and that the game must be changed to accommodate your minority opinion, is absurd.

Precisely why I've never advocated such an action.

"...advances in battlefield electronics had made the front-line soldier a sophisticated weapons system. A single man could shoot down an attacking aircraft or blow up a tank from over the horizon. He could see and kill in the dark. He could hear his enemy whispering a mile away. Most important, he could jam the systems and transmissions of that enemy, causing their high-tech arsenal to malfunction. Unfortunately so could his opponent. ... Not a single one of the new systems went unanswered by some countermeasure that negated it completely...and it all came down to the only weapon left: The poor, goddamned infantryman. Who'd always known it would."

Yes, we know ECM will do that, as well as know that ECCM tries to also counter that as well. We also know that current targeting systems will allow us to get a rough range of targets. Yet we can't get that in this game. Note, I am not advocating lead indicators, or 'aim here' targeting systems. I just point out for a situation where we are in 'advance tech' vehicles and people who want certain things, such as ESFs to act like hovering tanks of doom when complaining about AA, I point out you can't play the 'tech argument' when we are all fighting with 19th century based targeting systems and wanting flying tanks when since the 1930s to this day, we have had infantry based weapons and ground based weapons to f-up any current weapon system we all have dreamed up to f-over the other side.