@DingoKillr .
>> "No, it does not if a vehicle is destroy how does it appear on the runway. My guess is still magically."
I don't know why you're going in circles. Let me once again provide the already-provided answer to that bit of pointless rhetoric:
... and? This still applies:
"Vehicles having supporting map elements (garages, runway, hanger, depot, etc) where they await deployment, can be entered, need to take-off / be driven from, is a lot more realistic *and immersive* (visually and experientially) than magically poofing into an airplane in the sky.
As the gameplay is reduced in its scope towards being a one-note experience, at some point it becomes cheap-feeling and unsatisfying. And I think that happens sometime before making immersion-killing, experience-cheapening, vehicle spawns that appear only when a player chooses to spawn in one."
>> "Even your more detail BF4 the majority of the maps did not have those details."
Bf4 maps actually do have those details. I guess you didn't play it. I kind-of figured that.
>> "Having those details does not make one bit of immersion difference to how spawn works. Vehicle spawn in with drivers or vehicle only can still happen with or without those details."
Why are you pretending to naysay other people's experiences and perceptions? Of course it makes a difference to immersiveness, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. It makes a big difference. If a change in design towards more realism and more reasoned visuals doesn't impact immersiveness for you, then I'd guess that you must not pay much attention to your surroundings in a game.
>> "What has that got to do with how vehicles spawn, nothing. It seem to me you are projecting."
I'm projecting by saying that you don't want something unpredictable to happen and don't want more challenges... while I'm advocating for the possibility of those things while you're advocating for the opposite? That doesn't make sense. But then, a lot of what you say doesn't.
>> "How predictable and unchallenging is knowing what vehicles the enemy is using at least if a player has to choose between Abram, Challenger or Leopard you need to find out what your facing before deciding on how you will handle it."
What?
>> "Your projecting."
It seems that you don't understand what that word means. You're advocating for reducing mechanics and involvement to have a more simplified, managed, and protected experience. I am not.
>> "Waffle and more waffle about immersion which has nothing to do with how a vehicle spawns."
You couldn't be more wrong. Everything about how the environment is constructed and how it is engaged with has an effect on the immersiveness of that environment and the game-world.
>> "Projecting much. You are calling for a complete roll back to BF2 and then expecting different results."
Again, you clearly don't understand what that word means. It seems that you don't understand a lot of what you talk about and read. I haven't called for a complete roll-back to anything (though, Battlefield games since Bf2 have generally presented various assortments of mere pieces of the overall package that was in Bf2), and I haven't said I expect any different results from anything. I don't know where you even got that idea from. If a game got the same result as Battlefield 2 (the most popular Battlefield game to-date, based on the market size it released in), that would be a great thing.
>> "Wow such a tight fisted soul, you consider every aspect reduced because it not BF2 while ignore the difference that have been expanded."
That's not my reasoning. And you don't appear to have one to explain why you think it would be mine. I've also pointed-out that Bf1 heavily reduced the game design further from Bf3 / Bf4.
By addressing things that have been made inferior in modern Battlefields (most of all Bf1 and Bf5), I'm not ignoring things that have been expanded on (though, there's not all that much that has been - destruction, levolution, modular weapons being the main ones). But, overall, more has been lost than has been gained, which is why I'm talking about the dumbing-down and casualization of the series over time.
>> "Don't forget Attrition and Friendly Fire. We don't need physical vehicle stations not even every BF2 map had them."
Battlefield 2 had a better attrition system than Battlefield 5: In Battlefield 2, when reloading, any unused ammo in a clip is lost. This encourages a player to not waste their ammo and to think about when they're going to reload so as to not be in a situation where they have only a few bullets left in a clip when going into a firefight, but also so that they aren't reloading when they still have a mostly-full clip. This creates an additional layer of strategy. I would like to see that return to the series, even as just a server-admin option.
With Bf2's attrition system, a lone ranger will inevitably run out of ammo - and because the Bf2 maps are larger and because of slower movement speed and limited-sprint, and because there are 6 classes and only 1 class can give ammo, finding someone to resupply you as a lone ranger would be a challenge. This, together with squad-leader-only spawning, encourages teamwork so that you're near someone who can resupply you. Bf2's elements work together to create a rich and complex experience. Later Bf games are, for the worse, mindlessly run-and-gun by comparison.
Friendly fire has always been available as a server option in Battlefield, since 1942.
In Battlefield 2, there is given visual explanation for the presence of a vehicle on a map. There doesn't need to be a specific kind of station for that to happen. There is more of a cohesive visual narrative in Bf 1942, Vietnam, 2, 3, and 4 than there is in Bf1 and Bf5. And the loss of that visual cohesion in Bf1 and Bf5 cheapens the experiences. So, too, do a variety of other poorly-chosen design simplifications in Bf1 and Bf5.
>> "It Squad leader only spawning has no purpose as you could switching squad leader, so why have."
Squad-leader-only spawning has a purpose in Battlefield: To make it so that players can only spawn on their squad-leader, to make it important to be in a squad and work together as a team, to make the game more tactical.
Your comment of 'you could just switch squads to spawn where you want' says what other comments you've made have also said: That you're the kind of player who leaves a server if they're losing, and who switches teams to be on the winning team, and who basically isn't there to play a game with others, but just wants a personal sandbox and regards other players as inconveniences to their own experience.
Also, you couldn't switch squads if other squads were full. Or if they're locked. And being able to switch squads doesn't mean that there will be one where you want to be able to spawn.
>> "Limit -sprint and breathing space how tedious and stupid to have both. It only benefited vehicle users, good luck trying to get a lift these days."
You don't have to like the same things - that's why server-admin options are a good thing. In fact, going by your comments, it appears that you don't like most things. You sound like a petulant child with very little gaming and Battlefield experience.
Limited sprint affect the pacing of the game, gives the player an additional resource to manage in combat, which emphasizes the tactical aspect. Limited sprint also makes teamwork more important for the sake of vehicle transportation - which makes transportation another resource to be managed. Those are good things - for those seeking a deeper, more engaging experience.
>> "No 3d-spotting. Sorry to inform you but BF2 had 3D markers and spotting."
Battlefield 2 doesn't have 3d spotting. Once again, it's obvious that you have never played it.
>> "Your complaining there not enough explosive spam."
No, I criticized the opposite: There is too much, the maps are too small and the sound travels too far, creating a fatiguing, monotonous drone of explosions and removing dynamic experience from the game.
>> "I can see who does not understand your making BF2 out as some godly game and using the same format DICE will have greater success. Talking about picking horse and cart while everyone is moving to EV. "
By that non-logic, if someone makes Pong in 2021, it's like an electric vehicle compared to the horse-drawn cart that is Civilization VI, because it released later than Civ VI. Newer Bf games have kept recycling systems from Bf2 as if they're great new ideas: Commander, squad-leader-only spawning, resource drops, attrition, etc. And some of the new stuff in Bf has been bad, IMO: Behemoths, vehicle classes.
I don't think you have been seeing much that's accurate, to be honest. But I see that you are interested in a simpler gaming experience (though, I suspect a lot of your interest is based in inexperience with anything else) and have a tendency to make things up to defend a game you like, while making many inaccurate claims and assumptions regarding games you haven't played.
