This right here. Not only is assaulting A the worst, attacking B from A is nearly as bad. This is something where secondary objectives would be great. A secondary objective between A and B that can be held for close respawns or even vehicle spawns would be great. If you can destroy the attacker vehicles at A, the drive from spawn to A is HUGE, and means that losing vehicles at B is even more of a chore. A is out in the middle of nowhere and honestly doesn't feel that tactically important, because it's such a chore to hold from B, which has a quicker route with vehicles than attacker spawn.

I hope whatever the new Veteran spawn system is later is used to balance things out in the end as well. Attackers should have a pretty strong stream of Veterans both for taking A, and the final push on C. Defender Veterans should start showing up some at B, and really pull out the stops at C. That way the fight constantly feels like the stakes are getting higher and there is a natural flow as the tables turn and eventually even out throughout the battle. I agree that the B to C fight is much more interesting (though the C control room itself is a bit of a lackluster battleground, which the courtyard in front is a place of amazing fighting).

I think it comes down to the maps. When Olipsis had the tug of war mode, everything seemed great. In fact, I enjoyed Olipsis just a bit more back then compared to the domination mode we have now. It was structured yet open. I could sneak around to A through B to avoid detection.

Maggon and Zedek are just poorly designed, though I enjoy Zedek more than Maggon. The maps are also very linear. It's enough that the game mode dictates where the action is; the map doesn't really need to force it as well. Personally, I think the level designers need to go back and rethink the tug-of-war maps. The mode is great, but it's the level design that makes or breaks the experience.

I don't understand why defender cap time was made to be faster. There was never a good reason for that, that I can think of. Tug of war was always fine with equal cap times. It demanded equal effort from attackers and defenders and equal use of tank resources. It's already hard enough to assault a point that is defended by the entire enemy team, let alone knowing that the point you are trying to defend gets capped way faster.

defender cap time on A was made to be exactly the same as attacker time to cap on A,

why?

because the code in EC is really that simple