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.
One suggestion to solve this imbalance would be to implement a stack vs stack matchmake like in CS Go. If people 5 stack they are more likely to get put in a game where the other team is stacked as well. If enough players play in large parties they can easily implement it so that the system pits them against each other. Of course sometimes it won't because there won't be enough said parties but that is one solution to your point. I am not well versed on how easy it would be to code the matchmaking system to do such a thing but if it is a possibility it will almost fully eliminate the problem, at least in my eyes. There are plenty of ways you can counteract a well organized party and it all comes down to making the community play together more and forming social circles, but not at the expense of the solo player of course.
That's a good idea. From a programming perspective, it's certainly possible. The question is mostly how it affects the matchmaking time and quality. If you enforce it too strictly, parties may spend up waiting for a long time, because it needs to search for that perfect 8 vs 8 line-up.
If you allow for a less strict ruleset, then that may mean faster matchmaking times, but the matchmaking quality goes down. What I mean by that, is that you may end up in situations where you have to accept matching a party of 4 against a party of 8. Alternatively you'd have to compromise on ping or map preference.
It certainly doesn't have to be perfect though. I'm perfectly fine with a ruleset that isn't too strict, as long as it leads to a decently playable experience.
