I like games where I see a lot of action, is BRINK more open field or and I hate to use this as a example, call of duty like map size?

Because of how objective based gameplay tends to work out, even in wide open fields, most players should be piling on top of each other around a single point at any given time. The exception being lone wolf snipers which fortunately, won't be too much of a problem in Brink between no OHKs and health regen. If a sniper does take you out, you practically let them, or they're actually doing it right and picking off the wounded, one of the two.

1. More people require larger maps.
2. Larger maps and more people cause more lag.

I wouldn't play anything over 8v8. I'm personally hoping that there is a 6v6 or even something awkward like a 5v5 or 7v7.

8v8 is perfect i wouldn't mind slightly bigger maps depending on where the spawn points are and how the missions can fluctuate

its fiiiiine, ive gotten used to 12v12 on BF but 8v8 should be good

i just want a mixture of moments ranging from intense to mild.

16 is just fine, after bumming mw2 for so long it seems like an almost perfect team size, 20 would be cool but should be no larger than that, having experience of 64 man crash 24/7 servers (which i hate coz it's boring) it just gets stupid and you cant move outo f spawn or even have fun, just turns into a kill farm with no real skill involved other than camping your [censored] off.

Call of Duty sized maps are atrocious with 16 players.

BRINK maps are bigger, but focus more on single areas. So 16 players is not only enough, but sometimes it could even be too much.

Truedat, allthough i do see brink maps having the width of a cod map, but being much longer like a combat mission map from moh. so you'll find mmost ppl running around 1/4 of the map instead of all over the place, this being forced by having to play the objective.

as a PCgamer i have allways been a fan of how the cod maps are made but not a fan of the ppl that play it, im ashamed to say i was one of them, most are elitist douchebags (a mentality im currently trying to shake off myself), you'll see alot of comparison between cod and brink because of the cod players like me who are sick of the game and sick of the players. so hopefully we'll bring a positive competetive element and everyone else brings the creativity and sense of community.

A team with over 8 players would take away the necessity of everyone being a role.

The classes work best in smaller groups.

8v8 is perfect for clan warfare... which is what this game is aiming to be stellar at if I were to take a guess at the developers "Wants" from the game.

CoD maps are of varying sizes and all fall into the category of an "arena style" map. While Brink does have some large maps (although they are partially segmented), they are not built as arena style maps, they're "assault" style or "point to point", so even if they are the same size they won't feel that way.

Gears of War plays out as 5v5, and that is great and enough

So 8v8 on bigger maps will probably be as great as it sounds

This is my thinking as well. If you have more people playing you either need multiple objectives or some other means of spreading people out. It's certainly doable, I remember some awesome games of Starsiege: Tribes with large numbers of people, but it requires some heavy alterations to the gameplay.

I think 8v8 is a very solid number. If Brink does well adding a new larger play mode, either as DLC or a consideration in a future title, might make a lot of sense. However I'm happy with 8v8 at the moment.

(Another consideration for larger games: bots. If you could have 16v16 with only a few human players the computer would need to manage a tremendous number of AI companions.)