Why Soooo Many Bases ?

I think that he is talking about guys that are spamming HE into spwanroom not the other way around. And that is a very boring stuff to do if you are not for easy kills with no risk. And yeah that is where, imo, design got wrong, very wrong.

Hmm? Well it's something you can improve on both ends, since if you are an attacker and have them camped usually you don't need everyone there sitting around until the cap ends; I almost always move on personally.

Although RedeploySide means that a bazillion troops can magically appear out of nowhere to automatically win the defense, which actually means you should stick around and be bored as an attacker, which is one of several reasons RedeploySide sucks.

This

Huge +1. My TR outfit had an amazing fight Friday night with outfit x or recursion I forget which, i just know my squad mentioned it was one of them (I was driving the whole time so I didn't see nameplates). We were both on the way between 2 bases on hossin. Originally we had 2 sunderrers (armor, and repair) and they had a sunderrer and vanguard. We met as I crested a hill and saw them 75m out. I quickly backed my surrender up back over the hill and planted my mines at the crest just in time to blow up their vanguard they had for support. Some of my guys unloaded as did theirs at this point and I crept forward with my battle sundi and kept cresting lobbing bulldog. Was a back and forth for a good 10 min battle over a 150m strech of road with clifs on both sides. I don't think it ever got more then like a 10v10.

We happened to be on the high ground so we eventually pushed them back far enough where they were trying to bait me to commit over the hill far enough for them to peak around the corner with a new vanguard and 2nd sundi of their own but I kept mine alive with the help of a repair sundi a pubber had and max fire suppressant. Eventually we won that engagement between bases but it was hard fought on both sides. Was one of the most fun skirmishes outside a base I think i've been in. Good teamwork on both sides. I really wish they were more common.

Agreed. Hossin is especially bad in this regard, having a base every 50 meters doesn't allow for a lot of creative tactics, but more importantly, it gives a feeling of very slow battle progress. Granted some people may enjoy this, I'm just more in favor of more space between bases.

With lots of tall building around main spawnroom and 3+ telerooms around base, only way to camp would be sitting right near door of every shielded room. And tank, sitting close to door, will be shot in no time.

Defending foothold is boring most of time, not good enough reason to play tanker.

Infantry is very good vs ams too, since they are very sneaky.

Yes, attacking skilled defenders should require some overpop, but if you leave part of attackers to reliably defend ams, less people are free to go inside base, so you need really big overpop to do that well.

SOE wont give us deep logistics, complex objectives etc, we can hope at some minor base redesign at best, so I'd take non-campable spawnrooms as best we can realistically expect solution.

Strictly separating base from outside perimeter ruins combined arms principle. That just creates separate games.

Vehicle-only flippable CC is terrible idea, by this logic we should create CC specially for everything underused. People flip vehicle CC with MBTs mostly? Add flash-only CC! Infantry ignores new carbine? Add CC, flippable only when you carry such gun!
Its not combined arms if you have something for X only with no use for Y.

You're not really using logic here, you're just drumming up the most ridiculous implementation imaginable - reductio ad absurdum fully on display here.

Logic would be pointing out that by your own argument, they should have never taken away the ability of vehicles to flip points/blow up generators and place them indoors, because the current CC points are infantry only with no use for vehicles and by your words should not be considered combined arms ... which isn't actually true, is it. Vehicles and infantry still interact around the lead up to the point in PS2.

A particular kind of point does not remove combined arms from the game, if anything it enhances by requiring a varied force and the kind of vehicles that would prosper at a particular Vehicle CC would be determined by the restrictions placed on it by map design.

Combined arms is all about using the right tool for the right job, if right now the jobs called for have problems that can all be solved by the infantry tools, it really shouldn't be surprising when vehicles see less impactful play on the rules that determine the outcome of a confrontation.

more cap points ABCDEFG viola

They should just drag a box around the continent geometry, grab the corner handles, hold shift and drag it to twice its size.

The point about spawn rooms being underground with many tunnels and walls outside is good.

I also think that there should be more neutral ground with buildings, bunkers and the like. Also neutral terminals that everyone can access and eventually fuel with the upcoming ANT like system they have in mind.

Neutral ground like that wouldn't be camped, since there would be no reason to stay around unless the facility is actually needed, which means people will fight in the open, arriving from their factions bases, rather then the current spawn camping.

I personally believe that SOE is forcing 3 ways with all these bases. back in PS1 when a fight turned into a 3 way, one side usually left. In PS2 it's encouraged, its really weird

1.make continents a bit bigger, number of bases are fine in my book
2. encourage the redesign of spawn areas but thats far off
3. bring backpacks back so we can lewts your weps
4. undergound battles is where its at! or rather where it used to be
5. ANT runs!

Try reading and UNDERSTANDING next time, will ya?

No, really? I wrote 400m there to emphasize how packed these maps are. Ofcourse the distance means nothing. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Your entire point was based on spawncamping existing. Spawncamping only exists when players play badly.

Seems like I understand just fine...

This is what I have been saying since Beta...

PS2 needs 9 Continents on 3 Servers, not 3 Continents on 9 Servers....

I agree there are too many bases, but there are also too few continents to accommodate less facilities. We already have the map layouts, rough topography and base positions from PS1. The developers do not need to reinvent the wheel, just re-skin the maps from PS1 and put the bases in relatively the same positions. They do not have to be finished or complete. These are newly discovered lands, it is going to take time for them to be developed, each week,month or quarter new terraforming, base layouts and small outposts can be added.

We had 14 servers on release. D:

Yes, I know. But at PS2 release we had 3 continents and 9 servers...

What?? I just said we had 14.
EU: LithCorp, Mallory, Cobalt, Miller, Woodman, Ceres
USA east: Mattherson, Waterson, Jaeger, SolTech
USA west: Connery, Genudine, Helios
AU: Briggs

Arggg, long day at work I thought you meant PS1...but you get the idea it was a play on the numbers...Damn its been 2 years now...

If you know so much about logic, try using it already, because logic says vehicle can drive close to CC, magically become infantry for few seconds, cap CC, then become vehicle again. It doesnt work other way, unless I missed update with pocket vehicle terminal. Only unit which cant flip CC without changing class is MAX.
With vehicle only CC we naturally get vehicle only areas.

Combined arms is not about picking right tool for task, its about splitting task to pieces and picking tool for every piece. If task can be done with 1 category of units, its not combined arms.

Infantry is versatile and should be this way, this is it's main strong point. Vehicles have raw power. Both have place in game. We just need better base design.