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.
In
your opinion. Who elected you to tell everyone else what they should and should not enjoy?
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
Moot, you are absolutely 200% dead wrong there. No one is imposing
anything on you. The only one trying to impose a style of play on others is
you. The map is a big place, and if you don't like "horde missions" you have a simple and 100% effective remedy: just go somewhere else on the map and ignore them. Your complaint isn't that they
are doing something
to you, your complaint is that they
aren't doing something
for you: playing in the manner that brings
you the most enjoyment. Well, maybe you aren't playing the game the way that gives them the most enjoyment. That's certainly your right. It's their right as well.
Ask yourself this: if all those players simply vanished tomorrow and no one replaced them, would the game change one iota for you? If not, then your complaint is nothing other than that they aren't doing for you something to which you somehow feel entitled. And with a map big enough for three or four hordes at a time plus 20 or 30 other bases near the front where no hordes are flying, I don't see how the game could differ one iota for you whether or not there's a horde atacking a base where you
aren'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.
On the first, I disagree: under some circumstances it can be amusing; see my reply to the Fugitive below.
On the second, I agree with you, but that's still nothing more than a personal opinion with which anyone else is entitled to disagree. For the record, I like small-to-middling sized fights and missions better too, but that's also just an opinion. But sometimes it's fun being part of something huge. Going to a Michigan, Penn State, or UT football game (or any other huge and fanatical football school), something I've had the pleasure of doing on many a crisp autumn afternoon, has a quality over and above the quality of play - you really have to be there to get that.
As to the third item, again, you're just whining that they aren't giving you the experience to which you feel entitled. Sorry, that's just not their job. They're entitled to to whatever they enjoy as long as they don't
interfere with your fun - and "not doing what you'd like" is
not "interfering."
