Just some of the threads that people made recently:
In short:
- 8 Player parties for portal is a good idea.
- 8 Player parties in public matches leads to an increase in teamstacking and pubstomping.
You may consider it frustrating if larger groups can't play together. It is even more frustrating if 56 other players have to suffer from a lack of team balance. So 4 players for public matches is a happy compromise. You still get to play with friends, but there's less chance of you upsetting the balance.
It is a weak point that bigger parties will unbalance servers. This was never a problem in Battlefield 3 and 4, and to my knowledge in Battlefield 1. Limiting people's playstyle and creating an anti-community environment is absolutely detrimental to the game. The best example is 2042 which was an absolute sham and completely discouraged friends from playing together due to that exact limitation. The game has and always should be community building focused in order to encourage a longer life in terms of how long people will keep playing said game. When we had Battlelog for 3 and 4 it was the best of times because that platform was a social platform on its own and encouraged friends and players to compete with each other. I know that we will never get anything resembling Battlelog again but the least I can ask for is platoons/clans and the addition of larger parties so people can actually play with their friends and not get sent to another matchmake server after the round finishes.
It is a weak point that bigger parties will unbalance servers. This was never a problem in Battlefield 3 and 4, and to my knowledge in Battlefield 1.
What do you mean? Have we played the same game? It was a major issue when players started stacking a server. It completely ruined games.
Limiting people's playstyle and creating an anti-community environment is absolutely detrimental to the game.
You can throw words like "anti-community" around and I'll throw them right back at you. Team stacking is anti-community and is absolutely detrimental to the game.
When we had Battlelog for 3 and 4 it was the best of times because that platform was a social platform on its own and encouraged friends and players to compete with each other.
This wasn't specifically because of Battlelog, but because of the tools that those games provided, like platoons and rentable servers. Platoons are coming and having one free persistent server per person isn't quite the same as a rentable server, but it'll get you playing with your friends as well.
the least I can ask for is platoons/clans and the addition of larger parties so people can actually play with their friends and not get sent to another matchmake server after the round finishes.
Sure, go right ahead in portal.
Go ahead and limit the way people play and we will see how that will go. Plenty of examples in recent time with Helldivers 2 and 2042, as soon as the devs start deciding what's best for the community instead of the community, it bites back and leads to the game and community dying. Just because you faced 10 games out of a thousand to be unbalanced doesn't mean that they should work towards balancing that. With your logic go ahead and limit the parties to 4 in portal and remove that limit at default so you can go and solo play on portal.
Plenty of examples in recent time with Helldivers 2 and 2042, as soon as the devs start deciding what's best for the community instead of the community, it bites back and leads to the game and community dying.
That's excessively generalizing the subject. Developers make decisions for the community all the time, often even against the wishes of the community. This is due to all sorts of different reasons, such as technical or economical limitations. If it's really a terrible decision, sure it comes back to bite them, yet there are just as many examples of situations where it doesn't and the community just accepts it and enjoys the rest of the game.
Party size isn't really an issue that's garnered the same kind of attention as things like SBMM. To think it would cause a game to die is a wild exaggeration. Battlefield 2042 never died, despite of its many issues. If anything the Road to Battlefield 6 was a major resurgence of its popularity.
Just because you faced 10 games out of a thousand to be unbalanced doesn't mean that they should work towards balancing that.
I'll fully admit that I'm just stating my own anecdotal experience, and from what I've noticed is that it wasn't just 10 out of a 1000 games, it was pretty much every single game where that happened. You're just stating some imaginary statistics though.
With your logic go ahead and limit the parties to 4 in portal and remove that limit at default so you can go and solo play on portal.
I think it comes down to catering to the largest possible audience. Who do you think is a larger audience, those that play with 4 players or less, or those that play with 5 players or more? I don't have any proof of this, but I'd estimate it's not even close.
I just quit the game for the reason mentioned. In older battlefield games it was easier to join another party of friends and split into 2 squads. We were with 6 people just now and we had to quit and rejoin after each match just to be able to play together... To me as a battlefield veteran, this is **bleep**e and made me and my other friend exit the game out of frustration...
It was a massive problem in bf3, on xbox anyway, too many well organised players on one side always ended in a spawn trap and the server emptying.
We had our own server and this was a constant problem so had to switch players so it was evan.
BF3 on Xbox was limited to 12v12 so sure, one team stacking could cause imbalance but BF6 will be primarily 32x32, 6-8 friends are not enough to cause the game to be unbalanced anymore than 4 friends would.
