Why Soooo Many Bases ?

"The bright side is your opinion is only the result of your own poor decision-making. Meaning: if you make better decisions you will literallynever be spawn-camped, rendering your statement obsolete."

You are clearly telling me, who never wrote about being spawn-camped, that I was being spawn-camped due to my "own poor decision-making"! There's nothing as pitiful as a person who can't admit a simple mistake. Thank you for pointing out what you are.

Also, I think you still misunderstood my point. I'm not against spawncamping itself. The battlefield is shared by three empires after all, so it's inevitable. My point was that the gameplay is practically nothing but spawn camping. We camp spawns, move 400 meters, camp spawns, move 400 meters, rinse and repeat forever. It's all caused by the large number of outposts.

Well, to some extent that is true. People may play badly and it may render them spawn camped or it may make them waste more time spawn camping than what is necessary. However, you wrote "spawncamping ONLY exists when players play badly". That's a tad strong statement in a game where three empires collide. If the most of the NC and TR forces are tied together and VS decides to move towards one of the other empires then what do you think VS would be doing there all the time? They'd be camping spawns one after the other and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with anyone playing badly! They simply outnumber the enemy. Keep in mind, I was talking about camping spawns, not being camped at spawns.

Decreasing the number of outposts will not fix players' bad decisions. So whether you have a few outposts or many, bad players are still going to repeatedly spawn into that camp, over and over.

Meanwhile plentiful outposts with vehicle access actually reduces the amount of spawncamping, because it lets defenders spawn somewhere nearby to pull vehicles to clear the spawncamp. If the next-closest spawn was far away, this would be less possible.

Yes, guarding the enemy spawn will always happen as long as there are hard spawns (and I'm not sure the game would be as fun without hard spawns. Even PS1's softer hardspawns could result in somewhat bad situations where you blew the gens at a ton of different bases to limit enemy respawn options across the entire map.)

But spawncamping only occurs from player mistakes (apart from the 0-2 deaths necessary to scout out whether you're actually camped.)

Being outnumbered just means you have to pick your battles and get everyone fighting in the right place. It's probably strategically better to completely abandon a front and let that other empire get bored and start fighting the other empire (who, by nature of the first empire probably having the most territory, should naturally want to switch their focus anyway.) It all balances out as long as players play the game right, and with cont lock bonuses being considered "overpowered" by many there's more reason than ever to play the strategic game right. However there still needs to be personal incentive to play the strategic game right (stacking bonuses for fighting pop and/or territory and/or alert leaders.)

Ofcourse it doesn't "fix players' bad decisions"! How could it?!?

All it does is that it limits the options for them. Instead of being able to pursue 10 different targets you'd be able to go for 1-4. This will keep the empires in larger groups and obviously the battles will therefore be much more even in size. It will not get rid of the camping part, we would still have that, but it wouldn't dominate the gameplay anymore. It would happen less often, hence improving the gameplay. Is this honestly so difficult to understand?

I'm sure the fact that these outposts cause the uneven gameplay over-weights the ability to spawn silly vehicles. It's a no-brainer.

OMG, regardless of what the person inside the spawn room do, you still have a large bunch of people sitting outside the spawn room twiddling their thumbs. Are they playing the game badly? Yes? They should have left the spawn room and moved towards the next one, right? And what exactly should they do there? They can't capture the other outpost before the previous is taken, so what exactly are they supposed to do there?

This has to be dumbest argument I've ever read. It's truly pointless to continue this.

1. Since bad decisions are literally the only reason spawncamps exist (defenders repeatedly spawning at the wrong base), changing the base count wouldn't change the amount of spawncamping at all.
2. Continent pop is not always even. Therefore taking 10 battles and condensing down to fewer will actually make cont pop imbalances much more pronounced and making zerging the automatic strategy, rather than something you should do only when the situation requires it.
3. Fewer bases implies fewer lattice lanes. Which makes continent strategy shallower since there is less opportunity to flank with a smaller (but smarter and more mobile) force.
4. This means that the attackers have even fewer options for spreading out to other bases, which makes their gameplay even worse than it currently is.
5. "Limiting options" for a spawncamped side does not improve things, unless the limit comes in the form of forcing them to spawn elsewhere. So the limits you're proposing do nothing to help spawncamping.
6. More bases with vehicle access allow the defenders to retaliate without a huge time requirement of driving across a continent. This would improve empower the camped side to break a spawncamp if they made the right choice. Vehicles aren't the "source" of camping. Players choosing to be camped are the source of camping. Camping literally cannot happen without their bad decisions.
7. And no, the attackers won't be twiddling their thumbs if the defenders make better choices. They'll be too busy holding off against enemy tanks and aircraft for that.

I can fire from a spawn room in an outpost not connected to a biolab and hit aircraft on the pads with a Phoenix.
All this talk of ANT runs, if it'll only be a couple of hundred meters, it's not really a run.

80 bases is too many for the map sizes.

I am in favor of fewer bases....BUT!!!! That isn't possible with out more continents. That is the problem SOE has put itself in. They chose to pack the continents we have with bases rather then create more continents with fewer bases.

As for the issue regarding spawn camping and how fewer bases would impact it. I think over all it would actually reduce it slightly, but very slightly. The reason I think it would slightly reduce spawn camping is logistics. If the bases are farther apart, then as the attacking vehicles are destroyed it will take greater time for the attackers to replace those vehicles due to travel time. Bases that are farther apart are going to benefit the defenders, because they will have the least amount of time for infantry and vehicles to get into the fight, which is going to give them a slight logistical advantage.

Really agree with this. Less bases per continent would be a great move. I say get rid of 50% of them.