Beta 1 (and the following betas up to 4) had MANY more severe issues that needed to be resolved. So this just kind of fell under the radar. Now that the majority of those bugs are fixed and beta 4 is by far the most stable and balanced beta, it's about time we re-visit the logic behind this glitch, and fix it.
Even if you can afford them, they are easily disarmable there and you'd have to spread them out significantly. That's assuming that your team does mine there and does not use the mines in the buildings, and therefore using up the limit.
Even though you won't ask, I'll still provide the answer for you. They were being compared for sake of glitches on maps that still exist, yet could have the argument made that they were intended. How ridiculous that argument is for something like this and for something like that was the comparing point.
Aesthetically, yes. As a form of gameplay, I wouldn't say so.
The current is pretty strong there, actually. Not sure how you haven't seen that, as it's especially strong right next to the bridge. Swimming upstream in a river with that current is not possible in real life, and the gameplay factor looks silly as well.
This whole analogy comparison went right over your head. I'm making that argument in hopes that you'll realize just how ridiculous you sound defending this glitch, and that it would be the equivalent of defending that glitch in many ways.
What sense? Why are you even defending this? If it was removed, rocks or some sort of cover would take its place and provide cover anyway. On what merit are you defending this? Gameplay? It makes you almost entirely invincible, and still be able to travel. That's not good for the gameplay. Realism? It's not realistic at all. Honestly, what is your logic behind defending this other than "it's been here for a long time and we've used it for a while." ?
Man, you're grasping at straws at this point. Just admit that you're upset that the guy who made the map agrees with us and move on please.