Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
No, no i dont think it would be best. I believe it being built around a group of four is just fine.
and no having enemy scaling be irrelevant won't help either. you'd just beat the game every single time in under 10 minutes and it'll get old quickly.
there's a reason most games like these that even have co-op are capped at 4 players max.
Everytime I host, I got FPs drops based on how many players I play with, going from 58 FPS at worst to 13 FPS at worst.
That reason stems from 4 player split screen on consoles making it the standard for a decade. Before consoles got big coop games had any number of players. 6, 8, uncommonly 12.
That being said I agree this should stay 4.