WHAT KIND OF DEV INTRODUCES CONTENT INTO HIS GAME THAT SABOTAGES HIS OWN CONTENT?

Now, that Biolabs hurt alerts and that alerts are badly designed are in no way mutually exclusive. Both are correct.

1) Endless at single bases stalemates don't progress the alert? = True.
2) Said endless fights draw a lot of people from elsewhere, taking them out of the fighting force for literally everywhere else? True.
3) Alerts offer limited (and unoriginal) rewards, especially when one logged in later than 20 min into them? True.
4) Alerts often require roaming the entire map? True. (Imo that is nice because you get to see everything, but that is an opinion.)
5) Some people think not firing their gun for even a minute os boring and stupid? Probably true.
6) Pushing forward often requires mindless zergs instead of smart application of forces, and some people dislike this? True.
7) The people from bullet point 5 and 6 join Biolab fights instead of alerts? Partially true.

And here we went full circle.
So what needs to happen? For example
1) Better and more interesting rewards for alerts and some way for people who log in late to still participate and get something emaningful so they actually bother. Needs especially interesting potential rewards for alert winners (just not too unlikely on the loot tables, otherwise few people will care). Then people care more about the alert, and winning it.
2) Redesign bases in a way that both attacker and defender have equally long/short ways from their (potential) sawn locations to the control point(s). Also those ways need to be about as safe as one another - length of way is moot if they can be shelled into oblivion menawhile. Especially for defender pathing that's important as the attackers usually have vehicle superiority in ground and air and therefore rarely suffer bombardments on the way to the points. This way defending gets more interesting and might pull some people out of the pure zerg mentality, as well as making the sustained fights many people like more likely to occur.
3) Allow defenders some prober fortification options, like give them a terminal where they can pull a limited number of PMB buildings and place it inside the and around the base. They need a comparatively quick build time, though. Also makes defending more interesting and makes different fights over the same base a bit more diverse and keeps them interesting.
4) Make the space between bases meaningful. This can be done by puling PMBs out of their hole, ancouraging defenders to push with their vehicles against the attackers before they arrive (instead of hunkering down and fortifying - to the limited extent that's possible, see above). Makes travel less of a sightseeing tour and more of a fighting advance.
5) (Copied out of another thread) Secondary objectives in bases that speed up or dely the cap. Speeding up for attackers, delying for defenders, obviously. Could be stuff like "hack the base's mainframe terminal", "plant your faction's flag on the roof of the highest building", "blow up object XY" and so on. And the other side gets counter-objectives when the one side succeeds, in this case "take back control of the mainframe", "destroy the flag and/or repace it with your own" and "replace the destroyed object XY". Hell, the first two are even class-specific, so that can be as interesting and mixed-up as you please as the list of objective expands. Again makes bases more interesting, engaging for all players and encourages more than pointhugging and spawncamping.

I mean, none of those are new ideas, seen them before on this forum. Problem is, the devs don't bother.

And here I was half-expecting to get a lecture from you on chem-trails. Wonders never cease.
At least conspiracy theorists are smart enough to pretend to have evidence. Doing the online equivalent of covering your ears and shouting the same thing over and over doesn't even clear that low bar.