I think that people will leave more often with 16 man squads for some of the same reasons that newer corps don't go into PC: there isn't a reasonable expectation of an even fight. I understand that FW is not designed to be even all of the time. However, think one of the conditions for queuing for FW is: "I believe that, more often than not, me and my team mates will get good fights instead of bad ones", where "Good fights" could be defined as "Fight that we win", "Fights that give me lots of LP", "Fights that are close", etc.

I don't think that the aforementioned condition will be satisfied for a group of 4-8 people who want to play FW. They will be going up against a much more organized team, and (I contend) will lose more often than not. Instead of queuing for a game mode where the reasonable expectation is: "I will, more often than not, get into bad fights instead of good ones", people will queue for game modes where that condition is satisfied. And that is going to be Pubs.

Say there are squads of 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 searching. There are now 55 people in the queue and there is not a match going on. In the current system it is impossible that it happen to that extent. This is exactly why CCP chose to not throw 16 man squads in the current system which is simply not built to handle that.

In that scenario those 55 people now have to wait on groups of 7, 6, 5, 4, and 3 before they can start. How is holding up 55 people and forcing them to wait on 25 more people in the proper number groups when on 16 are required for a match good for anyone? You can do this same math with any number from 9 to 15 and the same results happen.

I said it in 2012, and it has been true for the 2.5 years since: If you leave communities without an easy-to-organize way to get into matches with a full team on short notice, those communities will atrophy and die. Looking at our corporate landscape, that's exactly what has happened.

He said very clearly that they CCP Nullarbor is working on it but it will not be included with the new matchmaking.

Was there another update saying it was added? We know how things get sidelined so I can not imagine that it made its way in.

There's an old saying, if my aunt had ballz, she'd be my uncle.

I do support full TD in FW but I prefer the iterative approach we have to make sure we don't break something first.

If you want this game to get to a 'healthier' place, you need to accept, encourage and allow for 'casuals' to play.

Piercing, again whether you like it or not 16 man syncs are already in the system all you are doing is limiting their competition, but restricting platoons.

So in a game in which there is no competition you want to limit it more? Go play barbie then

The exact opposite. By easing the ability to create full team deploys they will not be limited to a select few and thus the current syncs in the game will end up facing other syncs as well.

The more syncs in the system the higher the probability that they will themselves face another sync.

Again Deezy, you've been told on several occasions that your logic is both inaccurate and flawed.

You can keep saying that team deploy will keep people that don't have 16 man platoons until you are blue in the face, but it won't make it true. Again, you make so many assumptions about what pairings will be present it's not even funny. Not to mention assumptions about total player population in faction warfare and don't even consider rolling population numbers or observational evidence that's been collected over the years that directly counters your, quite frankly, short sighted and somewhat moronic claims.

The 8 + 8 does actually screw over people that may not play in a main language, multi-lingual groups that would like to form unified teams, and players that probably RARELY come to the forums that don't even know that q-syncing is an actual thing that can be executed.

8+8 won't allow a team to be publicly broadcast so all can join. It won't solve the issue that a custom player channel or corp chat is REQUIRED to execute a sync.

This is about giving the faction warfare community the tools that they've be clamouring for for years and allowing the entire Dust community the ability to organize for themselves and easily make teams in an environment and game mode that allows instantaneous matches rather than being forced to only interact with some of the most important in-match social aspects through 24 hour minimum scheduling.

Again, you have 5 game modes that are free from scheduling and logistic burdens. Four of which have both match making that takes into account MU to build fair teams and will soon limit groupings to 4 or less players to further enhance that matchmaker.

Allowing 1 game mode out these 5 to be geared towards more organized play and teams is hardly onerous or unreasonable. This is especially given that many team deploy champions laid down their swords in limiting squad size in public matches with the understanding that team deploy would finally fully come to faction warfare.

CCP needs to allow the faction warfare community to finally realize it's many-year-in-the-making dream of team deploy in the Faction Warfare Skirmish.

I'm against any queuing system where full teams can go against not full teams. And making two separate FacWar queues doesn't help anyone. With any luck, we'll get a raiding mechanic that allows full team action with short notice in PC.

Ok, can we all just stop this rather pointless discussion?

Regardless if you are For or Against team deployment in the current implementation of FW, the fact remains that Warlords 1.2 is now at Sony QA, and is likely not going to change until release.

To blame the CPM is also ludicrous since we have CPM members who are publicly advocating both for and against Team Deploy. This is ultimately a CCP decision regardless if we agree with it or not..., and they probably had good reasons why they choose not to include full 16 teams in FW.

This might change, based on a earlier quote by CCP Rattati regarding team sizes:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2625732#post2625732

Hard to fill two "platoons" when the playerbase is so small (and declining).

Better focus those resources on a PC port.

Until team deploy is implemented in the game the discussion will never be pointless since it is something that the community has wanted and desired for years as has been previously stated.

I can guarantee you that if the CPM had unanimously supported team deploy in faction warfare as CPM 0 had then it would have been in the game with 1.2. So, no the entire CPM is not to blame, but the holdouts (as can be seen in this thread) surely didn't help the case for team deploy in Faction Warfare being implemented in 1.2 off the bat.

Luckily, it seems that this change can be fixed server side, so this mistake can be corrected quickly and the spotlight needs to be shone on the situation until it is fixed.

Not only that, but the fact that the limitation of team deploy to Planetary Conquest occurred without a community discussion on the matter regarding 8 man squads is pretty surprising.

Deezy, I'm sorry but now your ignorance is truly showing.

From what CPM 1 members like Dennie has said they are being cautious. Again, since we already have team deploy in it's most basic form in Faction Warfare already there is no reason to NOT flip the switch.

Let team deploy out of the box and then if there are issues it seems that CCP more than has the capability to quickly address it. This is a case where using the Golidlocks method would actually prove useful since the scenario of team deploy is already occurring.

Again, part of CCP's caution was no doubt because of holdouts on the council that turned their backs on a compromise of letting team deploy occur in FW in light of reduced squad size in public matches.

As for the how and why it doesn't really matter only that this mistake is addressed and quickly.

The exact opposite. By easing the ability to create full team deploys they will not be limited to a select few and thus the current syncs in the game will end up facing other syncs as well.

The more syncs in the system the higher the probability that they will themselves face another sync.