Allow more than 4 members in a group

Since there’s a big issue with matchmaking and with the fact that sometimes more than half of the team deserts, i think having more than 4 players in a group would be a good thing. I’ve had countless battles where it would be my team and maybe 2 other players, with the rest of the team deserting for some reason. Also there’s the issue of complaints of joining bad teams and having to carry them the entire match.

Why would there be a limit of how many players i want to invite to my team? I usually play with the same 3 friends daily, yet some other friends of ours that are good players can’t join the same battle because of the group limit.

Please share your thoughts.

3 Likes

That would cause big problems for players who play alone, 4 is more than enough already.

9 Likes

No because we already have discord clan if they add more player squad the battle become

6-10 player of the clan
[Lmg!pro!gamer] in one side

Random in the other

1 Like

So? Since it’s random you can still have 2x 4 player groups in the same team but they can’t comunicate with eachother. The game does not limit how many groups enter a battle so odds are that one side can have more than one group. So what’s the difference between 2x4 player groups and one 6 player group?
Actually if you think about it, it’s better for the solo players. Joining a battle where, by chance, 2 groups joined the same side means that only 4 other solo players can join that team. Joining a team where a group of 6 and one other player joined means that there are 5 more spots to fill with solo players.

The now difference is have 2 or more squad is random

But you want make common 6-10 player squad and fuck totally the random queque

1 Like

You answered yourself in your first paragraph:

Stacks are one of the big reason why the opposite team just desert: it’s effortlessly easy to dominate while in a stack.

Instead, what the game NEEDS, for longevity is
drumrolls
A matchmaking! I’m sure nobody saw this one coming.

Many multiplayer fps limit the amount per stacks already (like Enlisted) but also have a basic mm that make stacked players play versus the same amount of players in a stack of their own. It’s fair this way.

Because let’s be real. If you want to play in a stack of 5 or 6 rn, without the opposite team having a mm giving a stack of their own…

… then you’re better off playing pve custom matches as it will amount to the same result.

5 Likes

That’s one way to demoralize and ultimately remove all solo players. Definitely won’t cause even more desertions.

6 Likes

the only number i gave was 6, and even so, just because you can have 5 other players doesn’t mean you will have them constantly, ppl have lives. they can’t play all the time.

Later edit: Yes, reading the OP again i did say “why would there be a limit?”. I said that thinking that just because you can have more members doesn’t mean you will have them.

Exactly.
I can’t play all the time. Since Pacific realeased, I only had the time to play…

26 matches total.

Now I’d at least hope those very few matches are versus teams not filled to the brim with ppl enjoying pve stomping.
Else I do like everyone: I desert.

I reiterate: you can play with as many friends as you desire in pve custom matches. It will be pve the exact same way.

🤷

1 Like

well not really, even tho we play stacked we still lose. Playing in a group does not guarantee victory. We lost some matches with the top 3 in the team being members of our group with 100+ kills each, engineer points, something close to 22 vehicles destroyed between all members of our group, etc.
So we had our asses handed to us quite hard.

So it isn’t exactly pve stomping just because you play stacked.

Yes imagine how even more annoying it is to deal with more 4 than people that are in a single squad vs only me + some noobs and even worse, bots considering the lack of special matchmaking for people who squad up together unlike War Thunder.

6 Likes

here’s what i don’t get… since there isn’t a limit of how many groups can join a side in a battle, why would someone worry about a 6 member group when, STATISTICALLY, a team could be composed 90% of groups of 4, 3 or 2 players.
Haven’t you encountered players from a previous match that you just finished in the one you just started? So it isn’t that random when a new game starts so odds of multiple groups in a team are quite high

Absolutely not, way too rough on random players

And being able to have them on both teams isn’t an argument because then you can say just allow hackers, since there’s a chance hackers will be on your team too

2 Likes

Because what we have is already unacceptable and you’re suggesting that we should take another step towards making things worse.

4 Likes

Did you read that part? Do you know how many other groups are in your team when you enter a battle?

There is a difference between several groups and one single group. A vast difference, unless these several groups are actually one single group abusing the matchmaker to play together. Even if they do that, it’s not a guarantee they’ll succeed.

Either way, this is a “not a step back” situation. Not a single move towards making this abuse worse or easier to pull off should be allowed. What we have is bad enough. It needs to be improved, not made worse.

2 Likes

The only difference is that they can’t comunicate and develop strategies on the fly.

1 Like

So we complain when players play toghether and we complain when we enter a random fight with noobs and bots. How exactly is that working out for us?

So… some friends playing a couple of matches together is abuse because…???

i would even bring that down to 2-3 players. ffs even 1 stack of 4 players can swing game in total roflstomp…

2 Likes

care to elaborate? besides having the ability to better organise because they can comunicate, how is a stacked group better?