Get a part-time job and learn not to expect to go trough life having everything delivered to you on a silver platter.
Brazil no have part time job, only 8h job 
World of Tanks.
Peak server pop: >20k
Battle size: 15v15
Squad size: 2, 3 with premium
Status: Seems to be doing damn well
Squad size is not what makes the game a success or failure.
WoT is popular. conflict is not. you point is invalid. yes in a popular game you can do whatever you like. in a small game that will soon be in DIRECT competition with star citizen? you can not. It’s extremely tricky seeing as people have already tried and left this game. the limited squads for some games works fine. but not when your bleeding players. so far its been a steady 2k which is decent. and as long as it stays at 2k the game is still good. if it starts to dip. then things will fall apart too fast to fix.
How long has WoT been out and has it always been so popular?
Is there any game that doesn’t have a competition now or in the pipeline?
Some group of players complain that the small squad size without license limits their experience. A subset among that might consider this a deal breaker.
Say squad size without license is increased…I expect to see more 4 player squad. If all the players in the squad is meh…no difference. If the players are any good, there is a good chance that they will add more weight to the winning probability. One of the key thing about match making in this kind of game is to have a balance team…and that’s already proving to be a challenge. Larger squad size will increase the deviation of the team’s aggregated skill level…which then we’ll have another group of player complaining that it spoils the game. So the real question is: Which group is larger?
I have 6 friends playing this with me…we manage to try 4 player squad yesterday, and we whooped some serious xxxx. Only time we got beated bad was when FROG squad was there…otherwise we pretty much dictated most of the games.
Sure, corporation VS corporation wars are OK, and this is already announced that it will happen, but not so, that a full corporation is placed against a pick-up-group (unless the PUG wants so). It is already bad when 4 skilled players of same organisation happen to be as a squad against full pick-up-group without squads (or non-corp casual squads).
I didn’t mean increasing the size of possible squads, it was meant to be in combination with “new playmodes” 
so I am with you there.
Also, in my experience, gameplay evolves. If balancing is done right, teamplay gets “researched” by the players. Usually, players with higher skills then seek out more high tier games (what is called “inhouse” in the dota tradition, and e.g. carried through the star battle community, which is more a dota like space shooter in sc2), in this case, it would be games by bigger and more prepared squads.
This again leads to rebalancing. Which is good for everyone.
And, to be honest, I wouldn’t call WoT a good example of how things go. We still have to see if it stands the test of time. But it is also in its genre pretty alone, while space fighting games are not (moon breakers is also a free game on steam, also a twitch shooter, but not as innovative). It’s also kind of feeding off eve players, because it is very popular among that community.
Playing alone is fine, but the experience of a squad “ruling the field” is a) not bad because it shows squads have potential b) leads to players to socialize and squad more. It will never be THE means of getting balanced games, because frankly, if you get good at a game, and you play with people who are as dedicated as you, usually mostly you will pubstomp. But it will lead to more team played orientation.
Most people are in squads, but it wont help them. Even our squad is usually still losing cohesion. We are still Aces in the gameplay itself.
But losing some games isn’t bad. Every game lost still brings cash and rep. Every game lost is usually also a “lesson” of some sort.
No I meant, by having to pay silently to have bigger squads, it is discouraged. This means, soloing will always be the more favorable way to go, and players will leave who like coordinated teamplay more (to even skills out). It is not explained anywhere in the game, how this logic works, nor are you informed about this limitation coming up, which is a blow to the face. We lost every game as we discovered this, by sheer morale loss. I expect a lot of players leave at that point, if they didn’t plan to pay. Which is bad for everyone, because it means less pilots to fight, slower matchmaking, …
It makes players feel cheated. Even if it is clear to people, who play a lot of f2p games, the first time you read that message makes you very angry.
E.g. in bf f2p you cannot form squads, but you can join your friends in battle, however never knowing if you really come to their team. bf is running great, seen by numbers. They have a lot less budget. And they are even kind of p2w, which is ok.
however in nfs world f2p, which this game shares engine with, you see a high player loss because it is p2w. There is more than just one ingredient of why a free game stays popular. In this case however, all of the incentives to pay money is made right, except the squad thing.
Licenses bring money boost, so do buyed ships give you more financial independence, to have a corp costs a bit of money, and to really make it big, too. all great. But what if all of this only depends on how many players join, and does not count in how many leave?
And dont forget the stigma. Early f2p games had an enourmous stigma because of the mmos released early this century, which were financial failures, to be free to play games, and over time, each one which had an unbalanced approach, failed miserably; so there is kind of still a precedence set each time a new game is developed with this financial model. Getting friends to even try the game is hard enough at the moment.
And very many of these games make early cash flows and then turmoil, because of small reasons.
I believe in this case, but I can be wrong of course, this limitation is bad for the game. Having to have a licensed player in a squad over 4 if thats possible? ok. No squads greater than 2 without a corp? ok, well. Not having them at all? Well, someone must pay now or we dont play all together. Which usually means, -(1…4)*players.
I didn’t mean increasing the size of possible squads, it was meant to be in combination with “new playmodes”
Also, in my experience, gameplay evolves. If balancing is done right, teamplay gets “researched” by the players. Usually, players with higher skills then seek out more high tier games (what is called “inhouse” in the dota tradition, and e.g. carried through the star battle community, which is more a dota like space shooter in sc2), in this case, it would be games by bigger and more prepared squads.
This again leads to rebalancing. Which is good for everyone.
And, to be honest, I wouldn’t call WoT a good example of how things go. We still have to see if it stands the test of time. But it is also in its genre pretty alone, while space fighting games are not (moon breakers is also a free game on steam, also a twitch shooter, but not as innovative). It’s also kind of feeding off eve players, because it is very popular among that community.
Playing alone is fine, but the experience of a squad “ruling the field” is a) not bad because it shows squads have potential b) leads to players to socialize and squad more. It will never be THE means of getting balanced games, because frankly, if you get good at a game, and you play with people who are as dedicated as you, usually mostly you will pubstomp. But it will lead to more team played orientation.
Most people are in squads, but it wont help them. Even our squad is usually still losing cohesion. We are still Aces in the gameplay itself.
But losing some games isn’t bad. Every game lost still brings cash and rep. Every game lost is usually also a “lesson” of some sort.
No I meant, by having to pay silently to have bigger squads, it is discouraged. This means, soloing will always be the more favorable way to go, and players will leave who like coordinated teamplay more (to even skills out). It is not explained anywhere in the game, how this logic works, nor are you informed about this limitation coming up, which is a blow to the face. We lost every game as we discovered this, by sheer morale loss. I expect a lot of players leave at that point, if they didn’t plan to pay. Which is bad for everyone, because it means less pilots to fight, slower matchmaking, …
It makes players feel cheated. Even if it is clear to people, who play a lot of f2p games, the first time you read that message makes you very angry.
E.g. in bf f2p you cannot form squads, but you can join your friends in battle, however never knowing if you really come to their team. bf is running great, seen by numbers. They have a lot less budget. And they are even kind of p2w, which is ok.
however in nfs world f2p, which this game shares engine with, you see a high player loss because it is p2w. There is more than just one ingredient of why a free game stays popular. In this case however, all of the incentives to pay money is made right, except the squad thing.
Licenses bring money boost, so do buyed ships give you more financial independence, to have a corp costs a bit of money, and to really make it big, too. all great. But what if all of this only depends on how many players join, and does not count in how many leave?
And dont forget the stigma. Early f2p games had an enourmous stigma because of the mmos released early this century, which were financial failures, to be free to play games, and over time, each one which had an unbalanced approach, failed miserably; so there is kind of still a precedence set each time a new game is developed with this financial model. Getting friends to even try the game is hard enough at the moment.
And very many of these games make early cash flows and then turmoil, because of small reasons.
I believe in this case, but I can be wrong of course, this limitation is bad for the game. Having to have a licensed player in a squad over 4 if thats possible? ok. No squads greater than 2 without a corp? ok, well. Not having them at all? Well, someone must pay now or we dont play all together. Which usually means, -(1…4)*players.
Some wise words, with common sense to follow them.
Every1 keeps saying that premade groups are ruining this game. If EVERY1 could make a premade group this 1 sided experience every1 keeps having will get better because on every team there will be a premade group. Not just the p2w groups stomping. Which is pretty much why theres only 1 premade in a server because there is so few of them because its totally unfair to make ppl pay to play with their friends.
Also agree with everything g4borg has said.
OP is absolutely right, I havent read everything here since its quite a big thread, but I do believe it is hurting the community to force people to buy a license to play together. I had a different post about this here [http://forum.star-conflict.com/index.php?/topic/18692-i-almost-bought-a-steam-dlc-almost/](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/18692-i-almost-bought-a-steam-dlc-almost/) I actually bought a dlc now, because I believe the devs need support. And I will be buying more packs later. But for the love of god. Remove the need to have a license. Its just wrong in so many ways stipulated here and in the above mentioned thread.