One for all and all for one 6

How sensitive everyone is...

Seriously, after all these years, haven't you gotten used to it? :D

It's just a disaster; our team in Game of Thrones proved it perfectly when one person didn't know what a "hota" was, another hadn't played a single game, and a third had only played one or two. Three people is the most optimal number; it's better to create more groups.

The more players on a team, the worse the interaction within the team. As a result, more responsible teams make it to the playoffs, sometimes even with a less strong lineup. Game of Thrones is a prime example of this. Some good teams simply fell apart in the group stage. And even in the final stage, some can't figure out what, where, and why. With three players on a team, these problems still exist, but there are more competitive teams remaining. However, there are also drawbacks: With three players, a missing person automatically dooms the team... While with five players, you can let a weaker player play (this is a better option to add initially) or win the match without them.