Titanfall has maximum player count of 12 (alongside AI) [Respawn comments post #558]

This. Cant believe neogaf has adopted the pre-historic mentality that EA has been trying to incorporate that more players=better game just to sell more bfz.
League of Legends is probably the most successful competitive MP game right now and its 5v5. Its like we are actually considering player count as a factor of what makes a game good. really? Do you also think next-gen counter-strike will be 32v32? Its about playing a well balanced competitive multiplayer. Not a mindless clusterf*ck because casuals are attracted to bigger numbers. Bf4 cant even scratch MLG with all the hype it got. i mean, do you people really think that they couldnt add more players? even a graphic intensive game like bf4 runs 64 players, what makes you think titanfall cant run 24? Competition is addictive and thats what they're aiming for, they dont care about huge mindless battles where no one has control of it due to all the variables. History speaks for itself the most successful games dont even break the 10 player count.

So what i gathered from this is... You think everyone who plays BF is a mindless casual?
Mlg hasnt been the forerunner of proffesional gaming since halo 3 bit the dust to make way for reach. ESL deals with everything now, and battlefield 4 has a stay in ESL in the form of MYM and DIG/Fnatic.
Not a massive stay at all, but to call everyone who plays this game a mindless casual as well as to say the game means shit in terms of esports... Is well, rude and uncalled for.

Not to mention misinformation.

Edit : banned nvm
 
For balance I'm fine with there being a max player cap on matchmaking, hell it'll make getting into a multiplayer game and playing quicker.

But why restrict the whole game because of a "balance" decision, they should still allow the ability to have 16v16 in custom matches.
 
The crap I've seen in this thread is something I expect from GameFAQs, not here.

c78.gif


We're probably worse than a lot of forums.
 
So what i gathered from this is... You think everyone who plays BF is a mindless casual?
Mlg hasnt been the forerunner of proffesional gaming since halo 3 bit the dust to make way for reach. ESL deals with everything now, and battlefield 4 has a stay in ESL in the form of MYM and DIG/Fnatic.
Not a massive stay at all, but to call everyone who play this game a mindless casual as well as to say the game means shit in terms of esports... Is well, rude and uncalled for.

Not to mention misinformation.

Edit : banned nvm

To be fair, comp play in BF4 is essentially dead at this point.

The bugs, lag, broken modes, poor maps, and overall direction Dice took the game did not fare well for the fledgling community.
 
i'll never understand why people have this "high player count or gtfo" mentality. most games are a clusterfuck of a mess at these high counts. and I see people bringing up CS

CS is absolute shit with anything other than 5v5. It just doesn't work and maps that are one sided in competitive play, are even more ridiculously one sided in a 12v12 or 16v16

Imagine trying to push Long A on Dust 2. In competitive, throw a flash or two and maybe a smoke and you can pretty much safely push out.

On a custom server? good luck. You'll have a guy behind the door, two guys on each side of the dumpster in front of A tunnels, two guys in Pit, 1 guy Long A, one or two guys back A with an awp

and your teammates are going to have the same trouble over at B and Mid.

and the other maps aren't much better. They're either the size of the universe, or the size of a college dorm room and still face the same problems.
 
I have difficulty understanding the apparently popular mindset that a raw, higher number of players necessarily makes a game more fun. Their follow-up explanation does a good job of showing they are paying attention to the important parts of gameplay, at least to my liking.

I'm tempted to react to some of the more negative reactions here, but I don't think it would necessarily contribute overall; I think some people haven't actually thought about it as much as I might like for the sort of indictments being made.

On that note, I'll be escaping to space on my cheese-spaceship.

iLivap0KGuoeY.gif
 
For balance I'm fine with there being a max player cap on matchmaking, hell it'll make getting into a multiplayer game and playing quicker.

But why restrict the whole game because of a "balance" decision, they should still allow the ability to have 16v16 in custom matches.

This was the reasonable criticism lobbied

IT would seem that the maps and entire game are fine tuned to support the 6v6 setup and they intend to keep it that way. At least according to the devs.

They did test high player counts and the fact that AI is running around instead of players lends credibility to the limitations argument.

Why is AI preferable to actual players from a design standpoint?
 
This was the reasonable criticism lobbied

IT would seem that the maps and entire game are fine tuned to support the 6v6 setup and they intend to keep it that way. At least according to the devs.

They did test high player counts and the fact that AI is running around instead of players lends credibility to the limitations argument.

Why is AI preferable to actual players from a design standpoint?

If you're designing a game that tries to emulate SP, you cannot trust human players to actually do it. You need A.I to build up those sections that the humans players then carry out.
 
For balance I'm fine with there being a max player cap on matchmaking, hell it'll make getting into a multiplayer game and playing quicker.

But why restrict the whole game because of a "balance" decision, they should still allow the ability to have 16v16 in custom matches.

Maybe it just doesn't work well with the AI (for whatever reason). That's what I took from Zampella's tweet anyway.


If you're designing a game that tries to emulate SP, you cannot trust human players to actually do it. You need A.I to build up those sections that the humans players then carry out.

This.
 
To be fair, comp play in BF4 is essentially dead at this point.

The bugs, lag, broken modes, poor maps, and overall direction Dice took the game did not fare well for the fledgling community.

Its entertaining in terms of LAN, which what i meant, online play was fucked from the start.

The last major tournament that wasn't LAN based, had people DCing all over the place, was a mess (this was back in nov). It has a stay in LAN form, but other than that its gone outside of their signups tourneys, where as mYm and Fnatic/DIG are for live.
Im hoping visceral does something.

On that note, i hope Respawm pushes it as well, hard.. I would love to dump hours into Titanfall and have a tournament to enter afterwards.
 
I for one don't mind the player count.

I miss the days of gears 1 when having a tight group of people to coordinate was required to be efficient. Hopefully this capitalizes on that.
 
If those are concerns like what you have - I'd highly suggest checking out the game if you have a chance. Comparing to my experience in Battlefield over the last decade, and games like Planetside 1 + 2, MAG, etc. there's plenty happening in a large enough space that Titanfall doesn't feel like a small player count game. I think thats the crux of it.

I'm surprised that the ghost of planetside doesn't haunt you still. I don't know you personally, but among those I do know, it still haunts them when they see new titles and most games feel small afterwards. Hence the ghost haunting us and ruining future experiences. Those first 6 months post launch have yet to be replicated anywhere in any game to date. I am glad it wasn't an experience that soured you, or those within your team, in general like I have experienced myself.

I think it is funny though, to those who claim larger player counts = chaos. That simply wasn't the case even in Planetside. There was the zerg, but once you knew all about the zerg, what once appeared to be chaos soon became structured and very predictable. Although given the size of the title, even if you understood what needed to happen, being able to do it was something else entirely and almost always required a decent squad working together of 4-8 people at a minimum to get it done. 1 guy could be extreemly annoying as well. That talented guy, or small squad could hold positions against signifigantly larger forces for a long period of time or break a defense quickly by targeting specific points (and largely being unseen without an infiltrator suit) instead of chasing down every single player they see like the zerg does. The only real downside of that title initially, was that after a while it felt like a job and stuff didn't get done unless you really worked at it.
 
Like i said i am ready for a shooter doing it different but to me this feels a bit of Quake 3 infused with titan's and fast paced action made by the core team of CoD with my favorite shooters of all time MW1.
 
I was expecting many more players, but it could still be a good game.

My main worry is that you'll need a clan or to enjoy getting slaughtered. With large servers like BF4, having a squad of clanners join doesn't necessarily mean that they will win.
With only 6v6, a small group in teamspeak vs a bunch of pubbie randoms is going to be a slaughter.
I wonder what sort of matchmaking there will be?
 
Like i said i am ready for a shooter doing it different but to me this feels a bit of Quake 3 infused with titan's and fast paced action made by the core team of CoD with my favorite shooters of all time MW1.
To me, it looks like Call of Duty and Hawken fucked out Starsiege: Tribes baby and I couldn't be more excited.
 
I think the wall-running stuff will spate the good players from the bad ones. Looks fun as hell.

I'm very curious as to how all that jumping is going to affect accuracy and people's ability to track a target vertically with a controller. There isn't a ton of jumping or crazy vertical aiming with the current crop of multiplayer shooters, you mostly just see a lot of left/right strafing and horizontal aim adjusting.
 
i'll never understand why people have this "high player count or gtfo" mentality. most games are a clusterfuck of a mess at these high counts. and I see people bringing up CS

CS is absolute shit with anything other than 5v5. It just doesn't work and maps that are one sided in competitive play, are even more ridiculously one sided in a 12v12 or 16v16

Imagine trying to push Long A on Dust 2. In competitive, throw a flash or two and maybe a smoke and you can pretty much safely push out.

On a custom server? good luck. You'll have a guy behind the door, two guys on each side of the dumpster in front of A tunnels, two guys in Pit, 1 guy Long A, one or two guys back A with an awp

and your teammates are going to have the same trouble over at B and Mid.

and the other maps aren't much better. They're either the size of the universe, or the size of a college dorm room and still face the same problems.

This a thousand times.

Battlefield is good at what it's meant to do, give you a giant chaotic sandbox to play in with tons of cool vehicles, lots of PvP action strewn all over the map, and basically do it's best to emulate a pain and penalty free war for it's players. That's great, a lot of people like that. But a lot of people do not.

Some people (like myself) simply prefer a more focused experience. More focused from a gameplay standpoint on fewer vehicles/weapons, more focused on player count and map scope, etc.. This provides a really polished PvP experience where skill can really shine. BF isn't a bad game because skill gets overruled by chaos/luck sometimes, but it can be frustrating to die from sheer dumb luck.

CS has a ton of good examples for this where the most popular stages are amazing in anything up to about 6v6, then start to decline and by the time you're at 10v10 they're complete rubbish. That isn't what they're meant for and they get too crowded. Then bangs and 'nades are popping off everywhere, bullets are being sprayed like they're coming from garden hoses, and the whole thing turns into a quagmire. I'd rather just lock it at 6v6 and know that it plays damn well as a 6v6 game than muck it up with the option to have a shittier experience.
 
This was the reasonable criticism lobbied

IT would seem that the maps and entire game are fine tuned to support the 6v6 setup and they intend to keep it that way. At least according to the devs.

They did test high player counts and the fact that AI is running around instead of players lends credibility to the limitations argument.

Why is AI preferable to actual players from a design standpoint?

No one seems to be able to answer this question.

It seems to me everyone running around in a titan at high player counts makes it suck, so they needed some "gimp" people running around so there are more humans than titans on the map at all times.

Since making the respawn for titans really long/limited makes it suck they came up with bots.

I really don't see how this is drastically different from AI turrets/drones/bots in any other MP shooter that everyone hates? Go into almost any MP thread of a game that features AI alongside humans and people complain they don't want to fight drones they want to fight humans.

I mean I guess we will wait and see, maybe their AI bots are 100x better than anyone else's but I don't see it. All the videos I have seen so far show a player dominating the crap out of stupid bots that barely fight back.
 
I'm very curious as to how all that jumping is going to affect accuracy and people's ability to track a target vertically with a controller. There isn't a ton of jumping or crazy vertical aiming with the current crop of multiplayer shooters, you mostly just see a lot of left/right strafing and horizontal aim adjusting.

I think it will be tough for foot-soldiers, unless you know how to navigate the map better to find a good position. Would be nice to get a new shooters that relies on knowing the map, instead of just being able to shoot faster.

Also the Titans will be just the right height for chasing those fleeing soldiers. :D
 
In my opinion:

Its GAME design choice based on the limitation of the X1 CPU, Next Gen consoles require the GPU compute for the majority of the Grunt (and Source engine probably isnt using GPU Compute efficiently - at a guess) The fact that the Source Engine is apparently CPU bound/Intensive and is a re-worked 10 year old engine, it points to the fact that they know their limits in Localized AI.

They are likely trying to push positivity on why its 6v6 (and they should, they have alot invested in it) But the likely hood is they KNEW it would be 6v6 and designed the games and maps around it.

Any AI Bots involved in the game, I would put a guess on that they will Run on MS Azure Cloud servers (Since AI is pretty much the only thing atm theorized to use the Cloud with decent results without any latency negatives) , which basically will backup that theory that the Game is CPU bound/Source Engine related.

Huh, so The One's limitations might be the actual cause for a low player count? Wouldn't surprise me if that's true.
 
Is anybody bothered that AI controls non-player combatants in DOTA2, Left 4 Dead, DayZ, Grand Theft Auto 5, Dark Souls, and every single bloody hoard mode? Where is it written that every multiplayer shooter must, with absolutely no concession made to the game design, support 100% player controlled characters and zero AI? That Titanfall should have a ton of players in every map calling in their personal Titans even if it plays like diarrhoea because the map size, design, and objectives don't support the player count but fuck it lets do it anyway.

It's a magnificent sort of confusing to call out Respawn for very specific, calculated game design in their own game, one an overwhelming majority of people here haven't played, based entirely on the premise that it's not designed exactly like a bunch of other shooters on the market, shooters it's specifically designed not to be like in the first place.

Ya'll basically looking at Call of Duty and Battlefield and going "BUT WHY BOTS", instead of looking at Titanfall and thinking "Bots must serve a purpose". They're designing a 6v6 player game supplemented with limited function bot fodder, all components working together to forge the core design.

This. This. And this.

Seriously, why are people acting like there's gonna be mindless perfect dark AI bots running around the map taking up player spots? The devs said the AI have they're own function, their own agenda. What that function is? I have no idea but the game is designed around it. I'm intrigued.

C'MON guys, this is the NEXT GEN. This is when the devs pull out new ideas, new game mechanics, and new design philosophies. They're supposed to. We WANT them to. Open your minds and try to remember that.

People are looking at this player/AI count and judging it based on current gen design standards. this new gen we're going to see the line between single/multi-player, player/AI, PvP/PvE blur and possibly disappear. Even though they say TItanfall is "multiplayer only", they still might've found a new way to include in-game storytelling and scripted events. Whatever they're doing, they found that 6v6 works best. How bout we play the damn game first before deciding to agree or disagree with them. Titanfall isn't going to be just CoD with mechs. We should be excited about that.
 
Perfection, also, people are complaining that it's 6v6, really???=O
People have been bad at games for a long time, and games designed for them have been really popular as of late. It makes sense that they would want to stay in their comfort zone. When everyone dies in like 2 hits, your movement is based on "reality", and you can jump in vehicles to just point and click, it's easy to feel like you're doing okay, especially when there's 48+ people on a map that can't keep track of the little camping spot you found.
 
How on earth could it be 12v12 on Xbone and not PC? That makes no goddamn se-


...never mind

Haha, you're mean. These forums are tough, I tell ya man...

Anyway, yes, the PC and X1 versions of Titanfall should be better than the 360 version. That's all I'm trying to say.

And now there is new information regarding nobody knowing who is developing the 360 version.
 
Yes, and on PC too.

For me the only issue is that it's also 6v6 on 360, which is last gen.

Its purely from a map design standpoint.

Are they going to make completely different maps between the 360 and PC/XB1 versions to accommodate the different player counts and performance? Are they going to change the balance of the weapons?

No, they are going to create one game and balance around that point.
 
No one seems to be able to answer this question.

It seems to me everyone running around in a titan at high player counts makes it suck, so they needed some "gimp" people running around so there are more humans than titans on the map at all times.

Since making the respawn for titans really long/limited makes it suck they came up with bots.

I really don't see how this is drastically different from AI turrets/drones/bots in any other MP shooter that everyone hates? Go into almost any MP thread of a game that features AI alongside humans and people complain they don't want to fight drones they want to fight humans.

I mean I guess we will wait and see, maybe their AI bots are 100x better than anyone else's but I don't see it. All the videos I have seen so far show a player dominating the crap out of stupid bots that barely fight back.

This is pretty much how I feel. I want to discuss the purpose of the bots, and the ramifications for them being in a presumably competitive multiplayer. Most people don't like responding to these questions though, they'd rather this thread only be about the 6v6 player count.
 
If limitations weren't a factor there would be a 'Ground War' match variation to silence the haters.

But I doubt limitations were the primary motivation. Concessions could be made if they wanted in excess of 12 players per match.
 
No one seems to be able to answer this question.

It seems to me everyone running around in a titan at high player counts makes it suck, so they needed some "gimp" people running around so there are more humans than titans on the map at all times.

Since making the respawn for titans really long/limited makes it suck they came up with bots.

I really don't see how this is drastically different from AI turrets/drones/bots in any other MP shooter that everyone hates? Go into almost any MP thread of a game that features AI alongside humans and people complain they don't want to fight drones they want to fight humans.

I mean I guess we will wait and see, maybe their AI bots are 100x better than anyone else's but I don't see it. All the videos I have seen so far show a player dominating the crap out of stupid bots that barely fight back.
I've personally answered this question probably four times in this thread alone along with other people.

The AI are not meant to replace human players. They are weaker, can't wall run, can't double jump, and can't call in titans. Though not a perfect comparison, they are fundamentally by design closer to creeps in DOTA, than to your average bot replacing a human character.
 
Its purely from a map design standpoint.

Are they going to make completely different maps between the 360 and PC/XB1 versions to accommodate the different player counts and performance? Are they going to change the balance of the weapons?

No, they are going to create one game and balance around that point.


That actually makes sense. Alright.
 
Its purely from a map design standpoint.

Are they going to make completely different maps between the 360 and PC/XB1 versions to accommodate the different player counts and performance? Are they going to change the balance of the weapons?

No, they are going to create one game and balance around that point.

I wonder how much they will have to compromise for the PC version for the sake of console parity.
Will they really make the PC version the best one? Or will The One be the best one?
 
Top Bottom