Bigger player counts aren't better and never were.
Except the real answer is it's game design dependent, you sound just as idiotic as the people mindlessly saying more is better.
Battlefield 4 with its map sizes on conquest would be a waste of time with 24-32 players, you already spend enough time without people to shoot with 64 players.
I'm talking about games in general. Everything is game design dependent. For example: Game A is a multiplayer game with up to 64 people in battle. Game B is a multiplayer game with up to 12 people in battle. Game A is not automatically better than Game B just because it has more people in a match.
No need to call me an idiot.
It's a known fact that the multiplayer in Spec-Ops: The Line is better than Street Fighter 4.
It's also a well established fact that a low player count mixed with AI fodder doesn't work either. Why do you think no one plays League of Legends or DOTA 2? As many people working on as many different goals independent of each other is the key to successful multiplayer. We've seen this time and time again.
6 x 6 X 720p = 25,920 (Titanfall)
25 x 25 x 720p = 450,000 (Frontlines: Fuel of War)
The numbers don't lie
I know you're being condescending but you still deserve to be punched in the face for posting this drivel.
Now that I've been baited I'll post something less inflammatory. Comparing a competitive multiplayer FPS to a MOBA or an RPG (and all the other ridiculous comparisons in this thread) is very stupid. 6v6 seems pretty weak from a game that is multiplayer only (seems to me it would be nice to save the option for a game mode or two with large lobbies), but the game will still probably be fine. It's most likely a non-issue.