I for one do not support longer spawn time or non-SL spawning. Although I can understand where you are coming from, Natty is usually right about alot of things regarding gameplay - Although I almost never agree with his final conclusion. Like myself, he must have great knowledge in game theory. One part of this is, feedback needs to be proportional to the action that caused it.
It goes as low down as sound feedback or screen flashes etc, but it also gets to more complicated things like spawn-time in relation to a death. Spawn time in Battlefield series has never imo, been about sanctioning the player, but depicting spawn waves.
Personally, I'd even reduce it 5 or 10 seconds. When a player stops and needs to watch the number counting down, you know you're doing something wrong, imo.
SL spawn is used to depict realistic squad size. It has been estimated that by the team a good squad leader is dead, he will have spawned about a realistic sized squad per combat situation - Don't forget, in low-combat action and during fighting breaks, there would be replacements, which are also accounted for in spawn rate. Coupled with a good spawn-time, this works quite fine. It's like crosshairs - It may seem unrealistic - But it actually represents an even more realistic aspect of warfare than were it not in...
Some of my own thoughts to improve gameplay (Said in brief so as not to get the thread focused on each per se but rather to inspire thought),
1/ Realistic tank motion, damage and handling to make any reasonable tank life based on coordination eg. BGF tank motion, Arrow key turret control, multiple-speeds on tanks and other vehicles, improved damage system.
2/ Suppression effect - Not more blur, but inclusion of camera-shake to throw off the suppressee's aim more and more under suppression, so it becomes a feasible tactic to fix the enemy and flank him.
3/ Deviation over range using 'breath' from mg-aim margins - Most of the silliest kills imo, are distant shots from players with the lowest ping from great ranges on account of pixel-perfect-aim. This idea wont affect average range combat, but will make such shots partly based on lack rather than simply principles. Using margins also gives a clear reason for the deviation rather than random deviation. You will notice players moving in the open more and in large force, and sniping will become 'special' and a notable threat to a force who identifies it instantly.
4/ A robust commo-rose and voice overs - Its a biggie, but with a commo-rose that affords alot of actions in a clean design, perhaps with hand motion for some actions like suppress, flank, hold etc, you get not just immersion, but a system that makes simple communication by most players (as on average 1 man in 2 squads on HSLAN uses VOIP), possible using the default comm. aparatus
5/ Voice over/ radio over dichotomy - A special radio man pickup kit with a radius that allows SL in that radius having radio over whether or not the kit-user is dead. All other infantry chatter is voice over. Radio overs can also be heard only by people who can in turn use radios i.e the SL with radio, commander, vehicle users etc... Even hull gunners etc would still use voice over and scouts will only use radio in calling spots.
6/Commander assets - Commanders having various forms of arty, smoke, flare etc which they can call in so that playing commander in FH2 is like playing World in conflict.
7/ Rougher (not slower) traverse for all turrets and turn-able vehicles above hand-held weapons - When an 88, AA gun, AT gun, tank turret moves, it pushes on a bit by itself unless the user compensates by simply tapping, slowing its turn or moving the opposite way to make them more mechanical and hence making AT fire less pixel-shot.
8/Adoption of mummble, to make sure Voice, and specifically, proximity voice is imgame, making players constrained to the rules of real world commincation
9/ Removal of text-communication altogether - This requires the other 2 forms of communication are robust enough.
10/Documented gameplay strategy guide (My department) - A succinct guide with diagrams (perhaps also as video) that gives each side unique playing strategies that they can use depending on the situation. Neccesity being the mother of invention, players would see the proven reason why moving in force is better than moving solo in smaller groups.
In fact, this already exists, except people make it up as they go, so its employed haphazardly, but ever noted how a team moves in force desperately when they are under 10frags, and bulldoze everything in their way, but only too late. We just need people to know it works - and design side-specific versions: Blitz-Krieg for Germans, Red army human waves, bayonet charges for Japanese, slit trench defense for Brits, etc - its not about just saying 'oh you can do this or that', its about the logical use of it eg. A bayonet charge is stupid cannonfodder without men firing in the rear, or a large enough charging force versus a small enemy. Even without having read this, you will see most people employing it and would find your place by observation
11/ More practical use for under-developed game mechanics - Supply drops or crates will work best where there are none and supplies can ACTUALLY run out without them, voice-versus-radio overs as said, commander's having a bigger role as said, a more robust damage system esp. for vehicles, more dynamic or robust flag-cap system to expand the compexity of maps based on simply a more solid cap system i.e not just about capping that 20m flag radius - So that theaters feel different, even though they employ the same essential game design..
12/ A more complex flag cap - Now this is a big one. With flag caps being large areas of the map, and them being 2 types i.e small zones where a flag is lost immediately a single enemy is in its zone, and major zones, where it takes all defenders being removed to cap - So you get a more persistent axis of advance, besides the effect of Push.
A side would then have the time to defend major cap areas and send small parties to cap the small ones eg. small one = a house, a street, a town square, a church, while the major ones may be areas behind the town, a village some way off etc - Cap areas will NEVER be an entire town - That will consist of several cap areas.
The map will break up the cap areas in colour blocks of red, blue and white adjecent patches depending on who owns it, and many wouldnt need flags either on the map or in the game world - Flag areas would be key strategic areas that cause bleed, irrespective of how many flags the enemy has. you can then have bleed on both sides depending on what flag is held (Most would just have one of a few flags).
The effect will be that, sides would have that major objective, rather than equal merit flag zones, and may be disadvantaged depending on which flag is lost...The system is easily implementable on current maps i.e not easy to setup, but wouldn't require a new type of map.
These are just my 2-cents...
I figured I HAD to say it eventually before I said no more of it, so I have. A key eye may realize that many of these overlap in one way or the other: Besides an AT gun having harder traversal, it can be suppressed (camera shake) by simple mg fire of the tank to cause it to fire a tad off target unless it already had the target in sight and the target was moving straight at it...
The combined effect, among other unmentioned suggestions and others anyone else can come up with, are geared towards a more WWII gameplay (Not realism) - Each playing a part on the whole, rather than just being individual GOOD IDEAS.