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.
First of all excuse that I'm not quoting parts of your post, it's mainly because I'm on a phone and don't know how to and sorry if I'm coming across a bit aggressive and rambling in responding.
In the case of community biteback I can disagree with you. The only reason 2042 saw a resurgence was because of the hype around 6 and the inclusion of exclusive rewards for 6. Just a simple look at reviews will tell you that it sits as the single most hated Battlefield title. Party sizes are a fraction of what's wrong with the game, but what I meant by giving 2042 as an example is that it went the way of less community engagement with the removal of simple things like clans, scoreboard, leaderboards and so on and it just sunk some months after launch.
Of course I'm pulling out imaginary statistics for something that is not recorded. In my own experience it was the other way around, but each to their own. I honestly do not think that this will cause a major imbalance throughout the game but if enough people say it will then my point is moot. I'm here defending my point of view and I'm always open to discuss it on how I might be wrong.
Yeah I agree that there are far more solo players and parties of 4 than larger ones, but in my opinion it does not warrant limiting said larger parties, just because they might dominate a round or two. If they are as few as you say they are then it means that there is no way you faced almost every game to be imbalanced because that doesn't seems statistically possible in my eyes.
Even then say I agree that just increasing party size will add some sort of balancing problems for matches, the other way to battle that would be to get solo players to communicate/coordinate better. If a party between 5 to 10 people can change the whole round then imagine what a team that actually plays together would do.
I'm not buying the game. The same thing happened in 2042. Getting a 5th/6th person into the game was so difficult that it just became "I'll sit out you guys can play" and then nobody wanted to even get on to play because it just meant ditching friends.
And the pathetic excuse that "it would be imbalanced" is such a joke, treating Battlefield like it was ever a hardcore competitive game. Battlefront 2 was only 40 players and it allowed 10 man parties that ALSO had your friends not in squad be yellow. It was perfect and there were no balance issues.
As the previous poster said, all this does is limit large groups of friends and makes them not want to play the game. And they need *every purchase they can* to make their money back. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE way to get their money back.
Hard skip. I subbed to the game pass for 2042 for 1 month as did my other 5-6 friends, and we all cancelled within a month because of the "I'll sit out" issue and how impossible it was to get into the same game. And even if you did, you had to do it after every single map change AND you couldn't see them as a unique color.
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...
