[Suggestion] Spawn Limitations

then seriously ... leave (and i don´t mean that offensively) ... because this wont change in general ... ..
what you want would not be PS2 anymore ..
and frankly if what you want was to be implemented then surely i would leave ..and i can assure you you would have even less players than now ..

this is a simple thing of
"i think this would be better"/ "i think your idea would make things far worse"


i (and i´m sure i mentioned this to you more often) just don´t see this game be for you ..

it´s pretty simple actualy .. if you build it they will come (be that with propper PR or just through word of mouth) ..
if they wont than what you have build simply is not popular .. .. doesn´t matter if you have a small superloyal fanbase of hardcoreplayers ..you either stay small like that (in that case more power to you cause that doesn´t have to be bad) or you die out ..

If you just want to limit respawns couldn't you just add an SCU to more bases?

There's hope for this game still. And it's not at all catering to hard-core players, which I certainly don't consider myself. It's just basic balance, that a weapon's effectiveness is directly tied to its ease of use. As for the small changes that give me hope, we've seen unstable ammo in the Canis nerfed, as well as long as air locks vs ESF and Coyotes nerfed against everything. The big outliers are flak and Maxes. And when you consider the happiness of the majority of players, I'm sure that most would be in favor of flak changing from a deterrent to a killer. But for that to happen the difficulty of use has to be increased. I accept this game as a dumbed down shooter, so I'm against most sweeping changes 6 years down the road. But what I'll continue to argue for is a more competitive environment provided for us without turning the game upside down.

Edit: looking at your proposed changes in that air thread, I like most of them. I admittedly would love a more tactical game, but agree PS2 will never change. I really only argue for changes that would fit this player base and this game, and I don't think they're as unreasonable as you make them out to be.

correct me if i´m wrong but there aren´t many ways for infils to do offensive or defensive disruption is there?
what are they capable of?
hack terminals and turrets? ... it would be actualy intresting to have components added to a base
that only a infiltrator can interact with .. in this case have something that controls the spawncapability of a base and the infiltrator can hack but reqiures time doing so .. once succesfull either spawning in that region takes longer or is deactivted for a ammount of time ... say 5 to 10 minutes? .. .. just a bit of a wild idea ... cause imo there isn´t much of blackops style play to this game ... at all ...

That's a great idea. But more measures should be taken to balance the game out.

Everyone so uptight about having lives in an FPS are actually behind the times. You limit your ammo to give better tactical play. You limit your shield recharge to give better tactical play. You limit reload speed, chamber time, and even accuracy to give more realistic better tactical play. You introduce friendly fire to enforce better tactical play. And lastly you limit lives in a given fight context to simply give better tactical play.

In the words of so many of you: "git gud"

Someone gives you a tactical objective, that affects the ability to respawn, and can be defended & attacked.
Something that isn't so unavoidable, as death is in this game, unless You are as far away as Daring, helpful or at the objective as possible.
And you go "Not good enough, They need to be always at the edge of unable to play"

Better tactical play;
Tank rolls up, in sight of spawn; Okay, those people are ****** - They either lose the ability to respawn, or they let the base be lost.
Aircraft rolls up anywhere; Those people can't do anything but die, or Log-off before the aircraft even shoots.
MAX appears; Better hope you aren't near an objective, as that is where it is going.

Sniper; Suddenly, everything involving K : D supersedes all tactical play.

You want to deplete your enemy? Get Good, take out their Sunderer, their spawn-points.
Don't expect your farm to win you the tactical day on top.

You're just complaining but it doesn't change the facts. Limitations have always been increasing in these games for a greater depth and meaning to the fps genre.

And Planetside in particular would benefit greatly from this limitation.

Change the facts:

Team gameplay; Everyone is to focus on their KD, majority of rewards are for Kills & solo actions.
KD does not help the team; By itself, it is useless.

The game is designed around infinite lives.
The tactical choice to an enemy assault, isn't to farm a position harder; If you want the waves to stop, you attack their spawn point.

If it was limited in deaths per person, rather than an SCU, the solution to an enemy assault; is to Farm.
The solution to rewards, is also to farm.
There is logical reason to leave a farming position, nor a vehicle, until the region is basically depleted.
Tactically, you want to farm the enemy, reducing your exposure entirely.
Attacking the enemy sunderer, is useless, as you have a better position to farm lives.
Spawning at a Sunderer is useless, as you give the enemy the easiest to farm lives.
Attacking a base, results in choke-points; The best tactic, is to avoid actual combat, and farm lives rather than engage.
Defending a base, farming from the safest locations is the best tactic.

Zerging a base, redeploying-en-masse, and ghost-capping are the most tactical options, than any engagement, even more than now.
As it removes the risk of death, that is a personnel objective for every single solider.
You can't earn certs if you die: Playing the objective, risks that, unless you have already farmed the enemy away.
The farm, is the most tactical play, when the enemy can't avoid it, past not existing in that area.

We haven't seen a limitation, where farming the enemy's spawn, is the best & encouraged tactical option, Over taking & holding a capture point, in a game about open-world large engagements.
Anywhere outside the base, where the capture is, is the most illogical place to be, with these limits.
As you are as exposed to as many instant deaths as possible, and as far from re-enabling your respawns.
Not your team's, yours.

SCUs, are team-objective points, are defended & attacked by the team, for the team's benefit.
Taking an SCU, can remove your enemy's local spawn options;
This is something only team-work can achieve, and farming can not.
Retaking it, allows your team, a local respawn, that is secure: No action that is personal, matches this.

When respawn capability is limited, to where the motivation to take a point, is about Your ability to respawn specifically, and only a factor, when You are limited in lives; It opens the door, to wanting the objective to be lost, for Personal gain.
There is no value in letting your team lose the SCU:
There is however a motive to losing a capture point, if the switching or loss of it, resets your Deaths.
Farming your enemy, removes their ability to respawn, just as well, as any team-based action, with such limited personal deaths.
It also means, any death, or sacrifice, is on the person to pay, any risky play or new tactic, endangers the personal gains.
Is it the objective worth losing respawn for the Player? Not likely.
Is the SCU Worth taking, when you could do the same effect with an MBT, and be paid endless farm Certs? No.

SCU's, are a tactical objective.
They are valuable to the team, and to the individuals.
The value of this objective, is more than any Farm in the greater battle.

When your farm, which is the most rewarding, also acts as the most tactical & best way to eliminate enemy resistance.
You put all value in taking an objective away, until the farm is empty.
As there is no value in taking Control-Point A to take the base, when you can farm the enemy for certs & secure the base by doing so, until you run low on Lives -- And when you are the defense, losing that objective is actually a Boon.
Which is counter-productive for the war-effort; As you are encouraged to lose that objective, to reset your personal lives.

I gotta weigh in on the side of LordKrelas here. The absolute moment you prioritize kills over all else, tactical game play is out the window. You may not think so, but go play any other shooter where that is the case. How many snipers do you really like playing on your side? "Oh my buddy, but he's different from the rest and helps out!" is a pretty common thing to hear, isn't it? Why is that?

You might also note that those other games with servers have options in place to enforce this. Server rules where you get kicked if you do not obey them. Squad kicks at an in-game level for most. Generally do as we enforce or get kicked out. Now how would you do that in a MMOFPS where there is only the main server?

"Increasing limitations increases the tactical gameplay" So if I hand you a rock that does one damage, you're going to find that tactically fun? This is taking it to the extreme level, but there ya go. Go use the Amaterasu's ranged attack to get all your kills. That outta restrict ya enough to get that "hardcore and in depth" experience you crave!

Essentially if people grow concerned about losing their digital lives, there are going to be far less last minute push backs than ever before. In fact, it'll pretty much never happen. Whoever secures first secures last. Once a zerg starts rolling, you'd likely never see a reversal until the warpgate, not due to anything other than the snowball effect and the morality drain that hits when one team starts losing.

Not to mention as LordKrelas has pointed out. You think cert gain is slow now? Implement that and watch it die. I can't think of anyone that could keep their motivation going if getting zerged (It'd be even worse than it supposedly is now for all those complainers of it which still amuses me) for no gain themselves was introduced by this system. And that'd be exactly what would happen if it was put in to any degree. It'd turn into everyone staying at range and running from any engagement. Remember the hex based gameplay at the start of the game's life? The one where zergs tried their best to avoid one another and there where rarely any big fights happening... if ever? Imagine that coming back and that's what this would likely do. Less spawns means less targets which means less time to die as multiple foes engage the same targets, and that equates to less cert gain for the losing forces which are already losing the facility. This leads to less people actively defending facilities and focusing more on what gets them certs, picking on the outskirts minimizing their death time.

To those that want an active way to mess with spawns. Neat idea, except that now you have to have someone defending it from said hacking. So for all the fun gameplay you get, someone else has to stand around... Waiting for you... Getting nothing in return except perhaps a few pitiful returns like point defense so he has some minor reason to when he could be out there among the enemy earning infinitely more. Gotta look at it on both sides. It could probably be balanced at some length, but I'd rather see work on other content than that personally for all the trouble it would likely cause.

It reminds me of when people complain about their spawn sundy on a base attack being blown up. "Thanks for ruining the game." is often said by a handful for someone having the brilliance to... well... defend the base. Heaven forbid. The tactical depth is already there folks. Generators, spawn vehicles, combat vehicles of air/ground, infantry, deployables, player made bases, resource gathering, hacking terminals, open terrain for flanking, it's all there. Name a game, any game with more than 5+ ground attack vehicles as well as 5+ non-combative vehicles,and 5+ air vehicles of varying types let alone weapon configurations. I probably already have you at a stalemate on the air AND ground vehicles being in the same game let alone coming in more weaponry flavors than most or the fact that there's the ability to adapt them to fit situations you feel are important. Now throw in various infantry types, deployable turrets/shields/mines/healing items... Entire player made bases...

What am I getting at? What even is "tactical" when people refer to it? What is it to "think tactically" about something? Tactical =/= limitation. Tactical is a mindset, a certain finesse on how to approach a situation using tools that are appropriate to that situation.

Why do you need someone to force you to think "tactically" when we already have the tools to do so? I often see people do so. Putting their AAA in a weird place to surprise aircraft. Ambushing a tank from a position others thought was a safe area. Keeping your in-roads and out-roads in your head during engagements and moving through them so quickly as to avoid a multitude of vehicles at once. Using a window to ambush other infantry before moving from it and relocating to catch anyone rushing to find you there. Understanding the flow of battle enough to see which lines of the lattice should be cut off or kept to win an alert.

Someone forcing you to play a certain way to achieve victory isn't adding tactical in depth gameplay. It's simply forcing you down a narrow lane you don't have to think about. It's not tactical if you're not thinking about it.

Both of you fail to understand that if you limit spawns directly by capping lives per region then you must ACCOMMODATE that change. Every change must be ACCOMMODATED. Do you really think right now that I or anyone would ever say that spawns need to be limited and that's that? Really? If you want to be intelligent then give intelligence. The fact that you are thinking so simply is why none of your argument has any substance.

If you were to change the META to have lives per region then you would have to increase cert gain for objective play. So why are you complaining about cert loss when that has NOTHING to do with what lives per region actually offers for the META. Both of you guys are taking your OWN meta in your OWN mind and saying, "Look how bad this game would be with limited lives." But you could do that about ANYTHING with the right assumed context.

So change your context and start realizing that limited lives is the future of tactical fps.

And how many systems would be needing severe changes, just so you can change the meta into K : D over-all-other-reasons?
Changing every single base, the entire AMS system, the entire role of vehicles & infantry: That's massive. This game is 6 years old.
You haven't ever mentioned how you planned to do anything, to fix anything that has been mentioned. Not once.

I state exactly how your suggestion of limited lives, has severe flaws, You respond as if I can mind your perfect world.

You want the meta, to be lives, with certs for objective play;
Then you realize, that leads to every single problem I mentioned right?
Combat is counter-productive, as is objectives, when Farming positions, is how you best remove people of their lives.
As I explained you, how our tools work, right now, every single reason for ever exposing yourself, to the enemy, or leaving that position where you farm the enemy without them being able to do anything, is amplified by the Lives-Limitation.
As that is the most effective, most profitable, and most secure means to do the objective;
Take the C-Point: Okay, compare farming the enemy, removing them as a threat by removing them permanently by just spawn-camping them, or shelling with tanks, sniper-fire, aircraft, Max-spam, or even just Zerging, and then capping the point, compares to actually fighting the enemy.

Right now, you can't win a base, by putting yourself in the best position to farm kills.
With your suggestion; That is the most godly way to win a base.
As you remove the entire ability to use said base, and if you do not touch the capture points, they can't come-back.
You can then move up, with the least possible enemies available, entrench the spawn-camp, and take the point.
Move your allied force up as you do it, and that's the best & only tactical way to claim the entire lattice lane.

You ever played with truly Objective-focused players? I did.
It involved a lot of "Exterminate any Counterplay".
There is nothing more effective, than farming the enemy into oblivion, if that also depletes their entire ability to act.
Any objective capture point, that re-enables them to act, is only used by an complete idiot, before the enemy is reduced into a state of complete-harmlessness.

Certs are needed for everything.
You as a new player, might not be aware of it, but Certs are the most important thing we have past Directives.

So when you discourage any new tactics, or tools, or playing method, by directly punishing any attempt to play that does not favor surviving over all other things; New players have to avoid direct combat, as any skilled combat will completely dominate them.
Enemy armor is to avoided entirely, or lose ability to actually have a chance to gain certs.
Without certs, You can't get new equipment, or fund anything.
A Zerg, has the sheer numbers, to take out any small-force easily; A tank has a similar advantage, but even against groups.
Air is never suffering from any limitation, unless it affects the entire faction, in which case, the first side that wins an engagement, snowballs hard across the entire map.

You have a stubborn goal of making K : D, a matter of absolute importance.
In which encourages nothing about actual combat past avoiding encounters where you do not win before the first shot.
Now that's all fine & dandy, until you realize; Your only engagement is you massacring someone, or being massacred.
Anything less, is a fool's plan, when you need several thousand certs per tool.
And several million for Implant upgrades.

The only way to get reliable certs is large-engagements.
If lives are limited, those engagements are short, and anyone actually intelligent will avoid being seen without a complete advantage.
As then you're just gimped, and likely to lose out on all manner of certs, nanite use, and be slammed into a wall.
This requires a very specific gameplay from the player; All else is less productive.

When billy-joy who takes the point-room, is considered a useless idiot, same with the Guy who blew the enemy spawn-point
Ask yourself why.
The answer will be : You could've farmed the spawn, allowing us a severe advantage over any idiot who uses an external spawn.
Any Sunderer is a suicide trap, any competitive outfit, might even stoop to 4th faction placement of them, to lure the new players to be farmed; As the number of operatives to die & be killed, is hard-limited per engagement.
And when objective is king: You don't let the point be lost every 3 minutes of play.

Or you are not playing the objective.
You are playing strictly for your own Personal farm.

I think you're off track here.

Games with a ticket system do make you play more cautious and thoughtfully, but that's not a bad thing. There's still an area to control which keeps people from camping. Honestly think about the people who would suffer from some sort of death penalty. 1) Laggy suicide bombers (good riddens) 2) laggy pump action or knife mains (good riddens) 3) noobs running to an inevitable slaughter (whatever, they need to learn when a fight is lost).

Half of the games that use a ticket system don't even have leader boards, stats, anything to grind... It's purely about the fun of the game, not stat whoring. Tickets or smw other system simply promote more thoughtful and tactical play. That sort of play is exactly what outfit leaders are craving. The lack of that play is why they leave. And the lack of good outfits is the death of a mmo. This systembof mindless life spamming absolutely has room for improvement.

Edit: I'm also totally for this from an underpop perspective as well. Say you're zerged and they're better players... You lose. Say skill is even.... You lose. Say you're a better player.... You lose, as anyone you kill is almost immediately back in the fight. With tickets, or some sort of limited spawn, you could at least stand a chance of whittling down a mindless horde.

Whether you think it's a good idea or not, I think we can all agree that a Battlefield-esque ticket counter per hex wouldn't work as the game currently stands; too many aspects would need to be reworked to accommodate such a system.
What you could probably get away with is dynamically increasing and decreasing spawn timers based on factors like hex population ratio, the type of weapon that killed you, and whether you were on foot/in a vehicle/in an aircraft when you died. Right now if you were to give the defenders a 3:1 ticket ratio over the attackers in an overpopped fight it wouldn't matter in the slightest because they are being bottlenecked by the physical number that can actually be "alive" at any point. But if each person you killed had say a 30 second respawn and you only had a 5 second respawn, that means each kill matters more, even if you technically have no restriction on spawns.
Aside from that Krelas has the right idea as far as satellite objectives to promote more tactical gameplay. Adding more points of interest like the light bridge terminals at Heyoka would be a nice start.

None of this is easy. I'm a definite fan of buffing/nerfing Nanite generation or respawn times on a global level to somewhat equalize the power each faction can weild. But I'm hesitant to equalize power on a local level, as the over-pop faction could benefit from that just as much as anyone, depending on how they deployed their troops.

As for spawns, I 100% agree a ticket system isn't the answer, I just think it's important to note that this k/d apocalypse and toxic gameplay caused by limiting spawns argument isn't based in reality. I don't think a fight on the local level should be artificially weighted in favor of either side, but a balanced system would let better players whittle down a zerg. The zerg committed numbers, sacrificed from another battle, and should absolutely have an advantage. But they should be a little bit smarter with that population, and not mindlessly throw bodies at the problem. I get that that's what PS2 kind of is, but I really don't think it suits the open world and its scale, and all the strategy that is available because of those things.

I think it's also important to note that no one is suggesting fixing something that isn't broke. This game isn't doing as well as it should, so things really should change, and people need to accept that. Not saying my ideas are right, but things do need to change.

If there were abother option then I'd be all over it, but no one else has managed to get more than 100 players per server, and usually not half that. Squad now has transport, light and heavy armor, and is soon getting aircraft (transport, A2G and A2A). And they still can't manage 50 vs 50. I think they're making a monumental mistake by adding so many roles before they can up the player count, as infantry fights there are perfect, but they'll heavily suffer. Meanwhile Arma lags at 35 vs 35. It's so sad that PS2 doesn't do combined arms justice, as they're the single game that has a mechanical shot at it.

No but as far as changes are concerned copy-pasting a few more generator points onto the map and adding a few timers* is less intensive than the OP's proposed rework of the entire spawn system.

*The timers are easy, but depending on how badly the code has been speghetti'd over the years adding the algorithms controlling those timers may not be.

For the most part we're talking the same language, I agree that something needs to be done to attract newer players and keep the game alive. Hopefully that can be accomplished without driving even more vets away.

WW2 Online came close, sadly it has too many things working against it to attract much of a playerbase in this environment, but it made Planetside look conservative. Would be nice to see some more competition on the MMOFPS front, but it seems that most developers lost the magic they had in the early 2000s. It's really a shame considering what they were able to accomplish with 56k modems and single-core processing back in the day. What they tried to do.

Man stated he is about K : D , he called himself a "Master Chief", with the goal of avoiding death.

In some ways, you play more cautious as you have no choice, and thoughtfully depends on what you can do.
In PS2, that thoughtfulness to camp a corner, or terminal, or spawn-room, shouldn't be rewarded heavily on top of certs, for being the best way to achieve the objective.
As it's actually smart to camp an area; You camp the spawn, right now, with infinite lives, and it gets results hard.
Now with limited lives, the original defenders are locked in, any redeploy swarm has to come through that point.
Which kinda the hilarious issue; Re-deploy swarms would be absurdly more effective , as it's a sudden population spike.
Unless they're camping the very very secure chokepoint on the spawn-room, that will swarm over; And they won't feel the lives.
As they've constantly shifting battlefields, in an entire swarm; Akin to a Zerg.

We have some many things here, like Armor, high-explosives, Aircraft, one-hit knives, camouflage, Bolt-actions, MAX units
So death is cheap.

Unless your opposing zerg is so unskilled, that it can't focus-fire down a smaller force, you're basically holding around invulnerable spawn rooms, or avoiding them with stalker cloaking or just standard cloaks.
Anything more, and you're basically using force-multipliers, and your enemy's incompetence.

It also means, Any fight with an skilled enemy, doesn't matter if you defend your sunderer, they'll just farm you.
As that removes your ability, and removes the respawn threat on top; As you lost all the lives.
Your opponent is discouraged from destroying the sunderer, as that is the best cert source, and of course, farming also achieves the needed goal of removing reinforcements better than destruction.

I am for respawn time penalties to counteract problems, or extensive SCU Use. (As I explained earlier)
Not hard disabling people from respawning; This discourages a lot, and harms the new player in any battle.
It also needs less work, to make it not abused-to-the-nine-hells than his idea.

Let alone, do you really want to encourage everyone to value their personal respawns over the objective?
We already have Zergs, and spawn-room snipers who never leave,
Do we want to remove players who play the objective instead of farming the enemy harder?
As that farm, would remove the entire enemy's ability to act and is the best manner of getting certs, if they had limited lives.

Also about that future of "Tactical FPS Shooters." you got there.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tactical

I'm against using this buzzword I see thrown around by the "hardcore elite" of the shooter communities these days. Right alongside "realistic" when it's used. Yet I see these same exact people doing the exact same as everyone else unless someone forces them to do otherwise via some outside artificial "balancing" mechanic. Be that tickets or some other idea.

There's nothing in this game stopping you from being tactical already. It's a consistent enough game that it doesn't feel like it betrays it's version of "realism" IMHO. It's why I've returned to playing it and am not playing any of the newer games coming out. I'm amazed by the feats gaming used to accomplish without having to stoop to forcing the players into a line, but now it seems like people are losing the ability to think on their own. That's it's own can of worms, however.

LordKrelas still has the nail on the head atm. If you're concerned about how the community "is dwindling" then why would you take it in a further "hardcore" approach? That's not worked for any other game I've noticed run down that route. It retains, but it does not grow. Right now PS2 is quite unique among other shooters.

The real trick, this game is what... 6 years old now? It still has no problems getting people online that I see. It's rare to see a game last 6 years anymore. Let alone with planned content coming. If you want to really see people rush away from it though, make that entry barrier that much harder. Discourage people from dying so that they camp more and new folks get sniped with no way of fighting back more. It'd be the same as a death warrant. The balancing required to even get that system moderately fair would be better spent towards another game entirely based on that concept from the ground up. Not retooling quite literally everything in an already established game. Doable, yes. Business smart, no. It'd make little return for the investment and you'd see even what we have go down the drain.

As to Squad or even Post Scriptum being the games to look forward to. They have quite small player numbers adding the servers together. Not much different from PS2 in prime time in fact. I often only spy a handful of servers populated at any given time with varying degrees of stability. Prime time for both games doesn't look too different in the server browser. PS2 is 6 years running. How are those games doing if they're the future of "tactical FPS games?" Hell they barely have a handful of vehicles to rub together as well. Only adding the efforts of those two devs together would you get what PS2 has in vehicle variety. That's before factoring in that I can swap my weapons to fit different roles. I play those two, but I honestly can't say it's always a fun experience. From "tactical" teammates sitting back while the points are being capped cause they're concerned for their digital lives to a myriad of issues I have with the "cluster" of tactical movement (If you're hand is in the other guy's pocket, a grenade will get you both), to the fact that no modern game that has come out has actual combined arms. Just meh.

And yeah, I said it. No other game has true combined arms. ArmA does in larger numbers, but I still feel the only group that does that game right is Shack Tactical. Could watch their stuff all day. Battlefield only has a small helping of active vehicles at once. It's probably the closest with Battlefield 4. Rest not so much until you go back to the old BF2142 or BF2 days. Red Orchestra had a large pool of vehicles available at once, but not enough player count to support it. No air. WWII online was... WWII online. I wanted to love it but it's got some issues with its model. Planetside 2 is in a pretty unique spot tactically as it is. Throwing limitations to cater to "hardcore play" will likely drive what little uniqueness it has into the dirt. It's one of the few games these days that actually pushes objective first gameplay in.

Honestly, sounds to me like folks just want an easier time taking big points without a fight. Limit the spawns so we can rush in type-o-deal. Do that, you limit the other major draw PS2 has. Those massive fights no other game can pull off. And as has been said, you hurt the new player experience worse.

OK. I've been in the province for a while and a signal is iffy. I haven't been keeping up well. I also favor some sort of soft penalty over a denial of spawns. Just 5 seconds here or 5 seconds there might be enough. Nothing that would make PS2 an entirely different game.

[quote="Inogine, post: 3521659, member:
Honestly, sounds to me like folks just want an easier time taking big points without a fight. Limit the spawns so we can rush in type-o-deal. Do that, you limit the other major draw PS2 has. Those massive fights no other game can pull off. And as has been said, you hurt the new player experience worse.[/quote] Simply put, for such an open world game, there's way too much structure which limits it. I call other games "tactical", which I k ow is annoyingly trendy, and not PS2 because of how rigid this lattice system is, how rigid and stale most base fights are, how worthless territory is, how vehicles in a combined arms game aren't meta, and how there's often just one right way to approach a fight, regardless of what your enemy is doing.

That lack of options yields the same fights, day after day, week after week, month after month. I consider Squad and Arma more "tactical" because they're more like chess. You locate and maneuver on your enemy, he moves against you, you maneuver to get a terrain advantage in him, and fights are always different. I wouldn't even call PS2 checkers, but maybe connect the dots. As far as game success, Arma keeps growing at a surprising pace. For being in beta and all the crazy changes taking place, Squad is between stable and growing. Warthunder and world of tanks went a more realistic rout and are strong. PS2 had the player advantage, but too heavily corralled them in to CoD-style tiny base fights, where infantry just kill die kill die kill die while going to some artitrary room. This game has so much more potential. And the argument that "it's fine, not for everyone" doesn't hold water because this game has never really succeeded and is still bleeding players. Things should absolutely change.

Yup, I feel we need something, akin to SCU, or soft limiters.
Helps cut down on the suicide rush from hell (Which I've done & led myself at times), without removing the ability to have our massive field battles, to the dynamically shifting battlefields.
As a hard-lock would discourage fighting anywhere but the caps, where the limiters would be disabled.
And farming would be a double-victory.

Edit: your broken quote, cascaded. lol

Yeah, that quote... I'm tired, sick and hungover. Maybe Inogine will see it.

I do all the same stuff in game and often end up leading that mess. I'm not a fan of it but I do what it takes to win. Full platoons playing redeployside and ruining fights at the last second, or gal dropping two squads of Maxes on points. I'm a huge advocate of each faction getting the Striker mechanic and for small arms to be buffed against ESF not because I'm farmed by air, but because I'm typically the one using a radar/Banshee in small fights. I believe that you can see that there's a problem even though you only understand one perspective, but you really need to experience and understand both sides to come up with a solution.

Looking at this thread, it seems Ketenks wants an entirely different game, which simply can't happen after 6 years. It wouldn't be right to screw over investors by that drastically changing the product so far down the line. But little nudges here and there could help give us the dynamic battlefield that this huge map with so many players deserves. It's just such a shame seeing such limited available tactics in a game of this scale.