I'm not sure how big will be the impact of team-based fps with only 8 people teams in a public server environment (for me it's always been 12/12+ in public, 6/6 with known teammates.

Smaller teams of unknown people mean the impact of a single moron is much bigger.

One could argue that the probability of moron presence is reduced by the team reduction in the exact same proportion but for statistical reasons that doesn't help unbalanced teams.

i.e.: Smaller teams make more probable the situation where you've got a bigger amount of morons in your team than the opponents.

8 vs 8 is a good size to reduce the impact of morons.

And even if your team doesn't win, you'll earn XP towards leveling up, and the moron won't get as much. So you'll level up faster, and because your rank (linked to level) determines matchmaking, you won't have to worry about that player after a while.

The smaller teams are, the better it is in public play.

8v8 is already quite a mess, imo. If the automatic communication system in BRINK works as described, however, it could work fine.

Depends on your perspective.

In Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, you have 4 vs. 4 team modes, and 3-team 2 vs. 2 vs. 2 - In either of those, the small number of players makes it relatively easy to coordinate, but a single idiot or griefer on your team becomes a CRITICAL liability.

In Brink's 8 vs. 8, the team coordination becomes more complex, but at the same time, one problem teammate will have less of an impact on the team's effectiveness than they do with smaller teams.

There's a balance to this, and I think Brink has struck it just right for the way they're making it - objectives would be MUCH too complex with more than 8 players per side, but less and you're risking too much on a single bad egg.

while i would like 12 vs 12, the makers made it 8v8 for a reason so i wont complain

8v8 is perfect.

Well said man, I agree completely - I think they got the team size just right.

Edit: happy now flashback?

Did you need to quote the entire post to tell the world you agree?

Just saying.

- F

The devs have stated that 8v8 was the "sweet spot" between having plenty of players and still making everyone feel like they're contributing. Brink isn't really a big team kinda game, like Battlefield or Homefront or MAG, but it isn't a small team game like CoD either. The way the maps, abilties, and objectives are designed, 8v8 is probably the perfect number of players.

No he didn't. And I didn't need to quote you OR make any of this post so far...

But thanks for the agreement, Your Highness *bows politely, then vanishes into the shadows where he belongs, a faint glint of light reflecting from his fangs smile before he fades away completely* (What? You have "King" in your name. And it's not paired with a tiger mask or the American spelling of "Armour")

Technically no one needed to respond to this thread..

And you're welcome, i'm sure it means a lot to you

More players, more chaos. For a lone-wolf flanker like me, it's perfect.

We'll have to play through the matches before we can honestly say if the team size is adequate or not.

In MOST shooters I do like larger team sizes but the nature of Brink does call for not so large teams. 8 vs. 8 seems like a nice large number for a team on paper though.

8 vs 8 is quite a good number. i have no problem with it for an objective based game. there will always be morons. but there are usually enough morons for both sides and they kinda cancel each other out.

i think the biggest problem with team size might be when there are just too many of one or two classes and other classes won't be used at all leaving the team disadvantaged.

That sounds like something I'd say...

If you're lone wolf then yes a large team would be your optimal setting aka more kills basically because it becomes a death match anyway. I think 8v8 is perfect and more intimate and stakes are higher and makes you focus on the mission and objectives and of course your TEAMMATES!

8v8 is the ideal match size. 8 is a good size for a squad which is after all what you are meant to be playing as.

I think most of us will play like morons for a while, until we figure out the game play, but yes smaller teams mean mistakes by one person are that much more critical. I think I'm going to like it that way!

I like the 8v8 but a 16v16 wont hurt. I think that would add a bit more action into it.

By the time we get used to the 8 vs. 8 maps and game play and are looking for something new I feel confident that SD will release some DLC which will probably include new maps, more story, more customization for our characters, more guns, maybe some female character options, and new game types which may include more members per team if it warrants it.

We must watch and wait, my friends. We must see what needs fixing or fine tuning before we break out the tools.

depends how the game plays with the classes IMO as how many objectives each player will have to go towards etc. nonetheless 8v8 seems about right

Well hey, every CoD game has had a 18 v 18 before, and that was pretty stable.

I must agree here.

But I still like smaller games.

6v6 in Call of Duty felt quite good to me. But then again a 9v9 on their maps is just atrocious.

The only problem I see with 8v8 is that clans can more easily field a full team or even 4 or 5 people and just dominate randoms. So unless there is a mechanic to separate premades and randoms I could see MP falling pretty rapidly.

Also means a larger effect for the good players. I'll be there, to pick up after the not so good players.