Sure you can, just like I can have an opinion of your opinion. And my opinion is that someone who has never played any BF other than a little of the broken BF4 beta, and that being on the xbox, shouldn't opine too forcefully on the PC version of the game. This is a gaming forum and if your opinion insults someone's game of choice, chances are they are gonna come back at ya.
Trust me I know how frustrating it can be to play with a bunch of random morons. Thats why mainly stick to TDM or Domination if no BF4 friends are online, that way I can be more of an influence on the game or just pad my own stats if the team really blows. No need to let them take me down with them, right?
I dont consider a 64 player server a massive game though, and like I said earlier, BF4's maps really arent that large. Most maps have 2-3 flags that can be covered on foot. I consider 32-48 players the sweet spot for most of the Large Conquest maps. Then again if you are comparing it to a 3v3 game, I can see why you may think differently.
Well, 32-48 is a LOT different than 64, even. And what you're describing isn't even my issue. It's not bothersome like in the Xbox 360
BF4 beta (and let's not say "broken beta," like the release version's NOT broken, haha), where you had huge maps for 12-on-12 (or whatever the 360's beta was). That led to big gaps in action, but that's not my concern.
My concern is having little impact. Like I said, a single person is 3.175% of a team. So, even if that player's really good, you're probably only going to affect about 5-10% of the game, AT BEST. In a 6-on-6, a single person is 17% of the team, and he could make up 30% of the team's score or something. I've carried a 4-man team almost single-handedly, in situations (and BEEN carried by a single person in a few, rare cases).
But having 2-3 flags within running distance isn't really meaningful. I assume that the same 3-point maps on Xbox 360 are there on PC, no? There were 3 flags total in the beta map I played on. They were all within running distance, but if you have 64 people on those maps, you're talking about 10 teammates at each flag, and 2 spares. You basically end up with a scenario, I think, where you're going to primarily fight in one-third of a map, because there will probably be about 15-20 people there at a time. The match becomes 3 matches in 1, and you aren't a big factor in 2 or the 3.
It might be wrong, and I might find that out soon (my dad bought two 290X video cards for Litecoin mining, and they each came with a copy of
BF4, and he said I could have a code...told him to try to sell it on eBay first, since I don't like EA/Origin). I just don't like this thought that I'm not a meaningful part of the team. At most, I'd have 5-6 people I'd play with in a game like
Halo. If I take that largest group of comrades into a game of
Battlefield, we're 17-20% of the team. We're still reliant on 80%+ strangers, and it's not a great feeling.
When I'm used to getting a single friend or relative, and we're 50% (
Halo) of 33% (
CoD) of the team, and we can carry the rest, it's OK. I don't LIKE carrying people, but I like knowing that my good play will have a strong impact on the game. I'm not a fan of this thought that I need to get about 7 friends before what I'm going to do is a big help. If can go in there, do really well, and I imagine that great play from 1 of the 32 won't mean too much. I can win a gunfight 2-on-1, but I can't do it 8-on-1.