I think fortress maps could use secondary attacker spawns for the final point, perhaps even a "payload" type deal that forces the defenders to contest the payload or give the attackers a close reliable spawn to simply swarm them with. Even if going full "payload" is too much work simply having a secondary cap point for an improved optional spawn would be a huge deal to help prevent the hyper camping of fortress defenders.
This way you couldn't just have a fortress defense be 20 heavy bolters and a few apothecaries with zombie nades presenting a nearly impossible to assault defensive position.

I'd also look into potentially opening up the firing lines from outside more so that people could more realistically lob in plasma, kannon, whatever on stationary targets.

I've noticed a serious bias to defense on fortress maps lately, and it makes them the most boring maps for me.

I think this is largely due to the moving of spawn tickets from the wall. This is a crazy mechanic and completely goes against the whole point of the fortress siege maps.

There are a lot of players that advocate not destroying the walls. This is absolutely absurd. At no point should the primary strategy for these maps be to not destroy the walls. Destroying the walls faster should give more power to the attackers.

A simple solution would be to not move the wall tickets at all. If necessary, give more tickets overall... but upon destruction of the wall, the wall tickets should be completely removed. This would promote faster wall destruction and reward the attacking team for doing so... rather than punishing attackers for doing what they are supposed to do.

I also think they are defender biased, but honestly I like it that way. It's still a fortress and should be hard to take, therefore the attackers are not limited in tickets and need a clear strategy to win it. It shouldn't be able to be handed over easily. Also I still have hope that in the future we still will be able to change conditions of a match depending on what other matches have been won so that these parameters can be modified and shift the bias away from defenders towards attackers...mainly in conjunction with more interactive campaigns.

@Rathael

Totally agree,.... Though i feel as if Tickets should be more wall, less point, more on fortress. Point A would be considered the forward command for the walls. And as such would have to pull from the wall, or fort. as i feel these are connected.

Point A isnt like another choke point,..its just a building. My take on it

Haven't really played fortresses much lately but one of the more successful attacker strategies was at some point rushing in with a lot of JPAs to break defenders heavy weapons line, something f2p can't do and since then melee/jpa effectiveness has been significantly reduced.

Lots of great ideas here, but we need to be realistic about what the devs will do. Significant reshaping of the maps is unlikely to happen. These maps have barely been made to run on the un-optimized engine so I suspect even a few small structures would violate their polygon budget. Also judging by the rate of content patches the devs seem to be short on manpower.

@Rathael makes a good point. That change should definitely be made. However I'd still like to see the B assault sped up somehow besides ticket manipulation.

If the spawns aren't moved up, maybe killing defenders should be worth more points. I'd be less weary of the difficult odds if every kill I made was worth double points.

Ronan have bad design. In defenders best interest is to allow enemy destroy walls and cap A without any resistance and keep all the tickets on B. With decent AV working on rhinos after A cap they have to run long way after each death from A to B while defenders inside B have long line of nice wall allowing them to be repeatedly revived. Def set up this way always win there.

Is Ronan really slanted towards defenders?
Cause every time I play it as LSM tickets drop faster than the fuckers who keep running outside.
60 ticks in 4 minutes. Why do you not have any survival instincts what is wrong with you.

In all seriousness the only really acceptable Fortress map is Harkus.
I still have some gripes with it but overall the importance of actually killing the gates as well as taking the walls and getting transports inside makes it feel like an actual siege instead of some gamey "reduce ticks on the walls or else" crap.
Agnathio B is just awful with the newly added western approach useful but ultimately hampered by doing nothing for each entrance being covered to hell and back with good killzones from the gantries as well as there still being just only two real entrances into the cap.
Ronan is just kind of a shitshow all around considering transports and vehicles can be attacked as they spawn in with too much cover in areas that don't matter and too little in the chokes that do.

They are still a pretty cool spectacle to behold though (when the framerate holds up), and I don't think I'll ever really forget the first time running up those Harkus stairs with a dozen other Murheens behind me as we got hyped to assault that point B gunline by mashing T over and over again way, way back in Alpha.
I think Fortress maps, when they work for both teams, are the best entertainment value that you can get out of EC.
It's just that that situation actually happening is few and far between outside of guild stuff.

10 ticks per minute is about average and with smart play on both sides leads to a very close game with about 20-30 defenders left at the 2 minute mark and can swing either way in the last seconds.

15 per minute is not that unrealistic for a strong offense and as you stated, a poor defense. Even with people staying inside. If flanks fold or nests go undefended from assaulters, they can easily lose 15 per minute.

I've been attacking and seen defenders lose almost 30 tickets in less than a minute. With no one charging outside. I believe the number jumped from 60 to 37 in the span of about 45-50 seconds. Another 5-10 in the next 30 seconds. Now that's overkill and generally just points to poor coordination or superb coordination from attackers. (which it was not in this case since it was pug v pug).

Might be absurd, but considering the ease of destroying said gates, you should not reward the attackers all that much.

It's to the point right now that it might be easier to destroy the gate rather than not to (teammates considered because who doesn't want that free score for destroying the gates), hence the rewards of not moving the spawns to B.