This thread is now about group sizes being too small.

CCP, you said we would be seeing 6 person groups, and bigger games "Very soon" I believe were the words. The sooner the better. 4 person groups suck, TBQH.

Apparently the devs are on hiatus until the 21st. I think it's high time we got some dev blog posts so I'd look for details on the next content update around then.

This thread is now about group sizes being too small.

CCP, you said we would be seeing 6 person groups, and bigger games "Very soon" I believe were the words. The sooner the better. 4 person groups suck, TBQH.

This has made my day. Post in the wrong section and have it turned into something useful.

This thread is now about group sizes being too small.

CCP, you said we would be seeing 6 person groups, and bigger games "Very soon" I believe were the words. The sooner the better. 4 person groups suck, TBQH.

Go read this G+ Post on Squads and Comms, please.

my AR just sounds wussy now in comparison.

I pretty sure that the increased squad sizes are tied to increased team sizes. So I'm not sure that six man squads will be quite as excessive as you might think (unless I'm not understanding something). We should be moving from sixteen a side to twenty four a side, I don't think six manning an objective is unreasonable in a forty eight person match. I don't know if you play many corp battles, but so far we can only play on a three point map thanks to the fact that we only play eight a side at the moment. Also I don't think our default squad sizes are really teaching people anything. It could just be my experience but the chances of ending up in a squad interested in working together is slim to nil.

Heps,

I would expect that larger teams also results in slightly larger maps, optionally more objectives.
On whether dedicating 6 persons to a single objective is excessive, then no - but at least consider deploying them as 2 squads of 3, eg 2x heavy+logi+sniper (example only), and with the option of re-deploying 1 squad (3 people) to a different objective if needed. Remember, if the objective is not currently being assaulted, you might be able to get away with 1 squad close to it and 1 squad deployed slightly further ahead.
Ingame example: Manus Peak Skirmis. 1x4 dug in on C, 1x4 dug in B and 1x3 keep watch on the grounds between B and A. Effectively, you've assigned 6 people to B, but for different purposes, and you can move the last 1x3 over to cover C-A if needed.

You might also see something similar in 8v8 skirmish on 3-point maps - assign 1x3 people to 1 objective, another 1x3 to 2nd objective, and the last 1x2 to assist. You dont (generally) need the last objective, and dont need to dedicate a full set of 4 people to a single objective. Think smallest squad possible, that is able to do the job required.

in 24v24, you could also decide to not hold an objective, but to deny the opponent the use of HAVs or Dropships - again, doesn't take 6 people to take down a Dropship, 3 people can do that.


Finally - if you make a 6-man squad, and tell them to sit tight and defend an area, while it is not being assaulted, thats a lot of clones being tied up

Are any of the scenarios you described made impossible by increasing the max squad size? We already shift men between objectives in CB's. Secondly, more squads in a CB than necessary? Do you hate OB's or something?

Increasing squad size doesn't force you to dedicate six men to three man jobs. It just places more men under the command of individual SL's. Yes, if you over commit resources inefficiently it will cost you. I don't see how small squads necessarily prevent this. I think that as battle counts increase one squad = one job will place too much on the plate of the battle commander and makes the SL little more than a guy who repeats orders.