I should start a drinking game given how many people are necroing threads lately.
In a sense that it cumulates, means for every additional thread means I have to kill all shots again plus the one from the recent thread and so forth.
Would be funny to find out how many I'd need to to at once then. Sounds like a plan.
@soapy_catusesWhat about if we combine both? 🍺🍺🍸🥳
Despite the necro (and one month shouldn't be a necro, but considering how inferior this forum is compared to the OG Star Wars Battlefront Forum, maybe one month is indeed a long time around here), this topic is really good. What were they thinking? Good thing they decided to make the minimum needed players be balanced accross the teams (remember when Strike could start with 8 players in one team, and 0 on the other? good times), but this balance should be more strict in bigger modes. Allowing 4 more players in one team can be too much. HvV doesn't allow even one, and I think Strike only allows 2 at most.
IMO this difference should scale with the amount of players in a match. Taking Strike for example (minimum 4 players accross the board, and max 2 players more in any one team). 1v3 is ridiculous, while 6 vs 8 isn't. The difference is the same, yet the situations are totally different. So for bigger modes (minimum 20 players accross the board, and max 4 players more in any one team*), 10 vs 14 is much worse then 16 vs 20.
*Actually I don't know which is the max difference between teams so a Supremacy or GA match can start. If I said something wrong, please do correct me.
I wish DICE had taken more time to try to balance stuff that only required number tweaking, as it isn't something that should take much effort during development time. And also that they took more time listening to their community, instead of only consulting reddit on which are the most heated topics so they can decide which is the fix they need to do and which is the new content they should bring.
@RogueZeroRendarIt can be considered to be a necro simply because the content of the reply from this guy after one month here contributed absolutely zero (just ranting) to the original discussion.
One month is often ok here because replies tend to be related to the topic or adding something to the discussion. In this case it didn't apply and rather brought a great risk to let the convo drop dead immediately again.
Also we have a flood of necros atm anyways with the often same behaviour of pointless replies and this one here was another good example.
Sure, the topic itself is a fine problem to be discussed (I feel your pain about one-sided reddit and youtube influence) though there are more clever ways to pick up the discussion again, no matter how "inferior" some forum might be.
@TRlALON
Oh I know it can be considered a necro. Actually, if you stop to think about it, rules here (and in any EA forum AFAIK) are so lax, that the moderation staff can stretch interpretations as they see fit. I was just delivering my usual dissatisfaction with the fact EA mistreated their customers (not only by discontinuing the game too early) by abruptly killing our main way to exchange thoughts and opinions about the game with 0 reasons given.
And yes, the necroer hasn't contributed anything to the discussion, that's true. But considering it's a one month old topic in a low populated forum, I wouldn't label this a bad thing, like necroing a year old topic full of 1 year old posts. I only saw it because of this necro, as I only check this subforum once in a while now. Nevertheless, he definitely can have more then enough reason to behave that way. His message is horrible and not constructive at all, but coming from a customer whose product is subpar at best and full of consistent issues, and posted in a place exactly for dissatisfacted customers to come and complain with the company about what's wrong (as AHQ is a place to come when you have issues with the products and services you acquired from EA), I actually take no issue with his language and message. If EA didn't allow the mistreat of their customers in as frustrating ways as disgruntled customers come to shout out and exaggerate about the issues with the product/service they acquired, then I would agree this isn't a suitable behavior for this place. I won't start a list of reasons why I know EA has dealt very poorly with Battlefront II's community, not only because I think it isn't necessary, but especially because these tend to fit in the description of some obscure rule that allows moderation to go hard on who makes them.
And yes, there are much better ways to reply to old topics. And doing this kind of bad behavior has nothing to do with how superior or inferior a forum is, as this also happened a lot in the old forum.
One thing is certain though: This is indeed the inferior forum, and there's nothing we can do about it, unfortunately. The amount of people who were active in the old forum but never migrated, the fact we have less ways to navigate the website and to customize our profile, the only reactions being a XP button and a button which acknowledges a problem (X players had this issue)... I miss the good Battlefront Forum, despite all the issues and flaws.
Just be happy to get a game
After a round or two it will sort it self out
If you don't get kicked back to the menu it should be ok
