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.
Just a simple look at reviews will tell you that it sits as the single most hated Battlefield title.
There's no need to deny this, the game truly is the worst Battlefield game. Despite that, I've never had any issues playing the game, even when it had the lowest number of concurrent players. It was certainly unpopular, but that was because of a myriad of issues. You then extrapolate a single issue regarding party size, to mean that it could lead to the game dying. That's a massive exaggeration, plain and simple.
I honestly do not think that this will cause a major imbalance throughout the game
If Battlefield Studios could find a way to balance matchmaking in such a way that it would counteract the influence of large organized parties, then I wouldn't be against it at all. If anything I'd be in favor of it.
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.
In theory, I agree with you that it's possible. In practice I've never seen it happen, not even once. If a helicopter is dominating the entire game, I'm already really impressed if 3 out of the 32 players make the conscious decision to switch to an anti-air loadout in an attempt to kill the helicopter. Once in a blue moon you may get a squad to work together. If you very politely ask for help in team chat, you may occasionally get a handful of people that decide to take action.
The one exception is when people have to complete the weekly challenges and there's something like "Revive x amount of teammates" or "Repair x amount of damage". That's limited to extremely simple tasks though.
I'm not sure what you could do to make people coordinate better. VOIP is in the game, yet it's barely ever used. Commander mode in Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 was a little bit useful, but it didn't lead to teams suddenly becoming coordinated. It was a complete gimmick in Battlefield 4 though.
It's not just about the tools you get, but also about the willingness for people to use them.
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.
