Paratroopers is being introduced to the game it’s hard to put up a defensive line against the attackers so if there’s more people in the game it makes it a little bit easier to prepare the defensive line and that also means the attackers get more players too but having more people means we can build a defending line
And this would also especially help For someone who doesn’t want to play with In a stack
I am interested in the larger game, but I think it is 100% foolish to use the “difficulty of defence” against paratroopers as a reason. It’s whining with a logical fallacy.
A good defender can deal with paratroopers and defend his base. I have played and witnessed both attack and defence in many games. This is your Skill issue.
id like it to be bumped up to 20.
Greyzones expanded a little bit more too. getting a bit claustrophobic
Brain dead players and fighting a Battle on two fronts and being the only one doing it that’s a lot to ask for While doing it solo not everyone wants to play in a stack
It is a given that if you form a stack, you have an advantage. Not all defenders have brain-dead players, and the idea of solving the problem of the strength gap between solo/stack by only incentivising the defenders is silly.
Also, I have prevented many paratroop surprise attacks solo, and there are many players like me who have dealt with them solo.
It’s a pointless argument to begin with, because if you expand the number of players, the number of paratroopers will also increase.
You call players who don’t do what you want brain-dead players, but in my opinion these whining players are not much different from brain-dead players.
I have no problem with more players it means we can fight a battle on two fronts instead of just one defender doing it all by himself More people in the game give better odds and less brain dead players
So you are saying that with more players you can form a more flexible frontline?
But if you want to put 20vs20 players + bots on the current map, the current map might be too small.
A larger map would be needed, but then it wouldn’t be so different from playing 10vs10 after all.
Battlefield 2142 made 128-player matches possible, but when playing with 128 players on a 128-player map, the experience was almost the same as playing with 64 players: a very large battlefield was set up to allow 128 players to fight evenly, so that someone else is fighting far away from you, irrelevant to you. It was just that someone was fighting in the distance, which was irrelevant to you. And when playing with 128 players on a 64-player map, the game was too small and the game became either very one-sided or a boring game with no battlefield movement at all.
Perhaps this game will be the same.
I’m not even sure if they’ll even give us a bigger map or ever fix the Grey zone problem but I wouldn’t mind if they just shove more players in the maps we have at the moment
i would like 20v20 or 50v50. problem is that there is simply not enough playerbase for MM without game switching to persistent servers. there are 6 servers with crossplay off making ~22% of playerbase and crossplay on making ~78% of playerbase. even on crossplay on that makes most of the game population, when entering game bots make ~30% of the players. increasing the limit would make human players in minority.
yes, 20 vs 20 matchmaking must be very difficult.
The current custom matches are also a bit unsuitable for large groups of people getting together to play spontaneously, as they can only be started if everyone agrees.
There also needs to be a game mode that is easy to join in the middle of a match and does not break down easily even if a large group of people join.
A participation format like Battlefield and a large conquest map like Battlefrield could make 20vs20 matches more fun.
Apart from that, the game engine also needs to be adjusted. From what I’ve heard, playing squad mode 20vs20 causes problems with the server and the behaviour of the game.
More players would be cool, yet, I would ask what that has to do with paratroopers?
More players would only mean also more paratroopers.
No, seriously, paratroopers need 100 % a rework.
I like this idea, but the game could use this anyway. It doesn’t really have anything do with paratroopers or another specific game mechanic.
This right here 
It’s a good idea for the wrong reasons. But having more people in a match would just make things better.
So there’s more people focusing on defense and some people focusing on attack instead of one person focusing on defense and most of the people working on attack
You have some matches where people just rush the enemy line instead of putting up a defensive line and Leaving us Open to be flanked
This makes no sense.
Why would more people mean that more will “defend”? If just one or two defend, you will get at bedt one or two more against 100% more attackers.
More attackers also mean more paras and more German mains writing lol cows on the forum because they lost one or two D-Days more than usual.
That’s their problem if there’s one more extra person helping me defend the objective instead of a legion of bots it’s better than nothing Remember I’m not like Reaper I don’t want Extreme things or indestructible things I just want a little bit more breathing room we can agree on some things but we’re not the same
We would need bigger maps and cap zones.
Otherweise the game will turn into poor copy of WH40k.
Hey there’s nothing wrong with 40K but almost there with Normandy with all the explosions there’s nothing wrong with it
most maps are too large currently and especially conquest is boring af because you spend half of the time running around. 15vs15 would solve many issues automatically. map size must not be increased for that purpose, otherwise the problem of empty spaces and running around for 30 seconds comes up again.
Trully a walking simulator.
Seriously though, increasing number of players most likely won’t affect this. Fights will be larger, more chaotic and more cluttered but they will happen in the same places (so distance to travel won’t change).
Perhaps you should play Call of Duty.