Yeah, not gonna happen.

Ya see, they are a small, small team. What you want is to double or triple the work necessary for a map. Considering how much effort it takes to get all the mesh problems fixed on the current ones (some still aren't fixed yet, just so you know) I doubt if increasing the work load is going to get a positive response.

I dont think that Role-Specific Maps are a great solution, but I think I the problem you try to solve with this is leading us to an important point.

I do think, that the design of the Maps can go a long way to solving a lot of issues with balancing vehicles versus infantry (and they already do to some extend). If the Infantry has enough Installations to retreat into (and enough of a role to play there, hacking/defending Null Cannons or other stuff), there is no need for very powerful AV weaponry. Let the tanks dominate the open land, thats their role. Let the dropships and LAVs transport infantry to where they can fulfill their role and not be walking targets for the tanks.

What I ask myself is, what role do tanks actually have to play when all the relevant game-winning action is happening insides? atm the complexes where infantry fights take place are semi-open to vehicles, what makes tanks very powerful. If they would be shut, tanks could cease to be played, which would be a shame.

With a fully rounded role-definition (paper/rock/scissors-style), that would suit the game, where are tanks to be located? My guesses are:
1. Blaster Tanks: cutting of the stream of clones on the ground on open field (spawning-areas to objectives)
2. RG Tanks: breaking the blockade of Blaster Tanks + other AV stuff.
3. Missile Tanks: cutting of the transport of clones via air + AV.
4. All of the above: taking care of installations.

Maybe a simple relocation of Spawn-Areas and CRUs could solve much of the problems. That would be time efficient and could be adjusted till it works.

this was intended as a long term objective, unlike most people on the forums i don't expect it to happen over night, i simply post ideas that could help improve the game.

I understood your point. I didn't see anything in your post that demanded immediate attention like many in the forums. Thanks for that.

The size of the team is still a problem as is the size of the player base. On any given day lately the player count runs from 1000 to slightly less than 4000 from startup to max count then quickly tapers back down into two thousand and eventually falling below that until shut down. By the end of the week the last number trail down even faster with less than a thousand players the last part of the day (end of day being defined by server shutdown). This may well be the reason CCP/Shanghai hasn't provided a matchmaking system. There simply aren't enough active players at several times during the day to warrant it.

There are a large number of vehicle based players. Cutting them out of a map is a problem economically as it means a portion of the player base will not be playing the map, will not be spending AUR on items to play on that map and the only thing worse is when you invert the problem by having maps be for vehicle warfare and limiting Mercs on the ground. Too much work with not enough ROI (Return On Investment).

When, or if, dust has survived another year than you might well see your idea come to be. Until then, getting new content for the entire player base is critical. Because, frankly, Dust514 has devolved to be as boring as it is possible to get these last few months.

you make a good point at the end there, a conman theme among my posts of late are more variety in the gameplay ie the tasks and such that make up a gamemode so that all the various roles have a better component on the battlefield not just meta, feel free to look up some of my other posts on the matter of variation i think you might find them interesting