Min. 4 players
My sugesstion is minimum 4 vs 4. That will be good also to post in rules for rank, but I waiting autumn to more people arive. 3 vs 3 is minimum strategic group. And minimum 3 vs 3 in freeze is nonsence IMO. Also in TDM on open maps like dm17 3 vs 3 is noncense, because if one is dead end spawning his team have only two players and they cannot make triangle and control battlefield. That is not good. Minimum 4 vs 4 can show more team work and will be verry good IMO. 4 vs 4 is most apropriate on standard maps then 3 vs 3. Anyway clan which cannot have 4 players and one on bench should not sighn for CW IMO.

About timelimit I am also for timelimit as all games played mostly and sport mostly. 15 minutes will be nice :!: Why ? Like HQ said you can then luck push down on minimum and show team play. Also team wich lead alot then can make strong defence and defend only. More, no lame playing because than time running out :!: And if you losing cannot wait and defend, you must attack or will lose. More dinamic tactics and strategie in case of only timelimit. Can be also combined 40 frags per player and time limit what first hit. Why ? Because one excelent team against weak can in 15 minutes on DM17 5 vs 5 make 400 frags. And that not need losing strenght on one map. So, 15 minutes and 40 frags per player is my opinion. On that way was played on WC and we have all combinations. Match is ended by fraglimit and also match ended with time limit.

SUMM: minimum 4 vs 4 is minimum 160 frags or 15 minutes what first hit. In 5 vs 5 that is 200
Best regards

Yeah. Also, in case you haven't already, just drop any ideas about different limits for different teamsizes, I'd elaborate but for once I'm feeling all lazy and nice In short, the simpler rules the better, and the more rules the more loopholes that a certain type of people will always find... Different limits for different teamsizes is something I can see abused in several ways already unless the rules are written to cover a whole lot of points - which breaks "the simpler the better" and will have people messing up anyway intentional or not.

Also in SoF2 our games were 4x20 so a minimum of 80 in-game minutes (and mostly like 5 minutes between each etc) and it was all fun so, don't really get why some people seem to want "short" timelimits, I mean what's a 10 minute game really? Takes freaking longer for all players to connect, would be nice to have fun for a good while then 15 is my vote anyway. I'd say 20 but I don't think games have been taking that much time with scorelimit so it might be a bit high.

In my opinion the best are: min 4 vs 4, and time 15min.

I am no be in clan i know "yet" but, Im Thoughts that it fairest capability
4v4 15 minutes, It will be played great Good idea kicek