That's not the problem Falcon. We've derailed the topic but since it's already gone as far as it could (I could be wrong), let's run with it anyway.
When you see someone in the street doing something.. You don't know that person, it's just a bystander. You don't know the full context, but you can work out a dialectic based on the assumed premise (that what you're seeing is what it is). If you argue for or against what he's doing, it's not really the true person you're evaluating, it's what you've perceived, what's visible. It's an abstraction but not just for the sake of arguing, it will apply if the premise is in fact accurate, if it matches reality. The argument here is the same. It's not about every op by any specific squad, it's about a specific type of gameplay: gameplay that's on the far side of less-fun.
The argument isn't that every big squad follows the debated un-fun anti-gameplay, it's that they're an entity who, unlike random player groups where it's merely emergent, willingly decides what to do or not. It decides to press on an attack when the target is undefended. The main valid point (I'll admit there's invalid arguments e.g. like you said "all big squads do X everytime" or "furballers do Y all the time") is that big squads, on the one hand, argue that they can't see any justification in heeding to others' arguments regardless of whether those arguments make perfect sense because they paid 15$ like everyone else, but on the other hand refuse to admit that they willingly impose on others not just a type of gameplay those being imposed on may or may not approve, but one that's definitely neither fun nor conducive to those players even getting better -- that is conducive to those players improving their odds at surviving and actually having fun playing on the team opposite the big organized missions. And not to a minor degree, but to the largest degree of any player entity in the game: they're the ones with the most manpower at their disposal. The same way raw demographics can nullify an established order.
Let me put it another way, though it's less good an example. I could fly just to win in the game. Fly the best plane, fly as unfairly as possible. Stack the odds on my side with total disregard for how much fun the guy in red is having. But I don't.
There's no fun or thrill in watching a heavyweight multi-champion knock-out a super-lightweight rookie within the first ten seconds of round 1. The point of a game is to interact. To act through an unfolding gameplay with as many possible actions so that the actors are left with as much creative freedom, not to be denied any action within a minimized playtime.
And there's no meaning to victories without peril. With all due respect (and I mean it), it's absurd to play a multiplayer game where you minimize multiplayer interaction. I'm not saying it's not fun.. I probably would have played CT a whole lot, not least the toolsheding missions in the B25H.. Anti-shipping raids etc. I get it. But I wouldn't have played those missions if there was absolutely zero doubt about the outcome or if difficulty was non-existant. This last paragraph went on a tangent but it's still related.
