4 vs 4 or 5 vs 5 !

32 is a mess ...

Personally i hate big MP games. Like everyone else said 8v8 is so cluttered and chaotic there should not be any more than that. 6v6 is even pretty crazy sometimes personally team slayer (4v4) and Doubles (2v2) are my favorite gametypes. It makes you rely more on team work and skill than 6v6 or 8v8

Using standard squad and platoon sizes in the US military, 42 vs. 42 would be the right mix, but I think 64 total would work as well, but it will take alot of coordination to prevent a cluster. For fast pace pick-up games, you probably don't want more than 24-man games. The issue is combined arms, and do you allot a command element to the battle. I think for command and control, you’d have to bird’s eye view the tactical command element to have a true squad based scenario. The other issue is one of carrot-n-stick to ensure that people execute their roles and the battleplan…that’s why it’s going to be very interesting to see how it plays out in MAG…256 is a HUGE number command in a on-the-fly tactical engagement….I’m sure you’ll have some organized groups, but playing against them will be no fun for most, since they will smoke all competition.

What about that new super-secret mode they were talking about? This could be a possibility.

I am pretty sure that just like many other games out now a days you can choose to play 16vs16, 12vs12, 8vs8, etc...

So there isn't really anything wrong with giving the option is there?

MAG for example is marketed as a 128vs128 but you can just as easily have smaller scaled battle like 32vs32 which is a lot of fun since the maps are so big.

I always feel that more options are better than limited options.

i think big teem battle or whatever it will be called will only support 16 players but i think there will be another a game mode simaler to mag. not as big but 32 on 32 class based i can see that. i also think this game type will be simaler to mgs4 online were you buy your wepons for how good you do. you also buy armour, and vicheles.