Titanfall has maximum player count of 12 (alongside AI) [Respawn comments post #558]
- Thread starter Fracas
- Start date
dripdripsplash
Member
A great art style?
I am clearly missing something here. The mechs have cool designs, but that's pretty much as generous as I can be.
60FPS motion makes it look a lot better though.
Marauder Shields
Member
If the threads are anything to go by, this place is going to be a circus when Titanfall releases. Can't wait!
A sony jihadist? What the fuck am I reading? What the hell is going on with some of these posts.
Sword Of Doom
Member
The game is what it is and listening to people who have actually played it it's a lot of fun. It's actually a game where the hype for it didn't begin with marketing but from people actually playing the game and experiencing something new and exciting. I'm personally disappointed that the game won't be available on the PS4 since I have no plans on buying an XB1 but I can't bring myself to speak ill of a game because of that. In the end it's EA/Respawn's loss not mine
Marvel
could never
one for the archives
So which one do I need to pay to get direct feed of the Titanfall Tutorial from E3?
Still want to see some good footage of that video, since it pretty much shows people how good the game could be.
You mean this one?
Actually, its from the E3 Behind the Scenes video
Here's a direct feed version:
http://eaassets-a.akamaihd.net/prod...s/RESPAWN_E3_BTS_Extended_FINAL_ESRB_x264.zip
NoirVisage
Banned
I don't personally care about the player count, Its online and match based only so it couldn't interest me any less, I think the 800lb gorilla in the room is that 6v6 may in fact be due to hardware limitations rather than "design choice". It could really be worse, but knowing the pedigree behind this game, I have a feeling they themselves wished it were better.
What is wrong about my post?
Where else do previews come from pre-release? And I am not speaking for myself, I am speaking for the guys at my work who rely on it and the rest of the population to extrapulate that onto. Titanfall has the same vibe. My post pointed out the misinformation.
If the game can handle more players, why not leave the option there? That's what bothers me. Every modern FPS has different options and playlists so people can choose Ground War in COD is a love/hate thing, yet the option is still there, same for BTB in Halo.
"Vince is right - we tried a huge amount of playercounts (all the way down to 1v1 and up quite high) and designed the maps, gameplay mechanics, and entire experience around which played best. If anyone wants to chase the numbers game, perhaps we're not the experience they're after? I dunno."
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but aren't maps always design with a player number range in mind? Like "best suited for 4-12 players" or "ideal for 24-32 players"?
It's not like these guys are new to this. Their previous franchise and probably every modern FPS has the option to play with more than 12 players if you want to.
This sounds like terrible design to me, so I still think there's another reason for the player count.
"Vince is right - we tried a huge amount of playercounts (all the way down to 1v1 and up quite high) and designed the maps, gameplay mechanics, and entire experience around which played best. If anyone wants to chase the numbers game, perhaps we're not the experience they're after? I dunno."
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but aren't maps always design with a player number range in mind? Like "best suited for 4-12 players" or "ideal for 24-32 players"?
It's not like these guys are new to this. Their previous franchise and probably every modern FPS has the option to play with more than 12 players if you want to.
This sounds like terrible design to me, so I still think there's another reason for the player count.
Your comparison is fine, except for the fact that Goldeneye is 17 years old and these games had no online component.
Time to lock It down me thinks.
I'll be too busy playing Titanfall and having fun in a 6v6 match to read GAF.
The only thing about smaller player counts and maps is that (when respawns exist) the match can get boiled down into repetativeness far more quickly than a larger map with more people. The 1 guy that is slightly better will shift a battle much sooner, since even eliminating 1 player will create an asset imbalance allowing for 2v1 or 3v1 situations easier where as in a larger map and higher player counts, the better player has to work harder to single out folks and reduce the inherent disadvantage of acting alone, but the talented player can still create imbalances elsewhere on the map in spite of larger player counts and wider spaces.
Game to game, once a certain knowledge base is achieved within the players, there will always end up in a certain repetativeness on how it is played (aka the meta game), since that will always be the most efficient way to win (excluding new people, clueless, and trolls/griefers). However, how the game is designed around movement, how weapons work, ammo constraints, and other factors are the true limitus test towards how much each individual can grow and learn within the game which gets reffered to as a skill ceiling. Some games, like tribes, had a very high skill ceiling when it came to movement, movement knowledge, gunnery lead, and loadout setups. The amount of impact a single skilled player had on the outcome did not matter how many people were playing the match, as they would always sway the outcome due to the high skill ceiling involved. The only difference the player count made was on the map size. Smaller sizes for fewer people and larger for more people.
In many other games within the FPS genre, they are far more limited in terms of how they are played out by comparison. Of which, the player ends up being more limited in how they approach a situation, thus creating repetativeness sooner and how that is commonly alleviated is through larger maps with more players introducing more random elements. The problem with discussions like this, is that people fail to identify which elements allow for the varied encounters to occur and why each exists and how they work together. Lower skill ceiling games (ground bound, cooridoor design, short TTK or high front loaded weapons, high velocity shots, slow player movement) almost beg for a larger player count with more content in order to create more randomness to retain the player's attention over time. Higher skill ceiling games could just drop 2 players in a duel setting with zero cover and watch as the match unfolds over the course of a few minutes as they duel it out.
Game to game, once a certain knowledge base is achieved within the players, there will always end up in a certain repetativeness on how it is played (aka the meta game), since that will always be the most efficient way to win (excluding new people, clueless, and trolls/griefers). However, how the game is designed around movement, how weapons work, ammo constraints, and other factors are the true limitus test towards how much each individual can grow and learn within the game which gets reffered to as a skill ceiling. Some games, like tribes, had a very high skill ceiling when it came to movement, movement knowledge, gunnery lead, and loadout setups. The amount of impact a single skilled player had on the outcome did not matter how many people were playing the match, as they would always sway the outcome due to the high skill ceiling involved. The only difference the player count made was on the map size. Smaller sizes for fewer people and larger for more people.
In many other games within the FPS genre, they are far more limited in terms of how they are played out by comparison. Of which, the player ends up being more limited in how they approach a situation, thus creating repetativeness sooner and how that is commonly alleviated is through larger maps with more players introducing more random elements. The problem with discussions like this, is that people fail to identify which elements allow for the varied encounters to occur and why each exists and how they work together. Lower skill ceiling games (ground bound, cooridoor design, short TTK or high front loaded weapons, high velocity shots, slow player movement) almost beg for a larger player count with more content in order to create more randomness to retain the player's attention over time. Higher skill ceiling games could just drop 2 players in a duel setting with zero cover and watch as the match unfolds over the course of a few minutes as they duel it out.
Only if it gets less then a 9/4stars from the major review sites. Then it will hit the fan.
Socom during PS2 days was great at this also.
loooool
Well....this is a new one. You should be ashamed.
How do we know they don't have another mode that disables Titans and AI, just allowing players to battle it out with increased player count?
They haven't revealed that much about the game yet.
NoirVisage
Banned
POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE! >__<
UnObtainium17
Member
Lmao Sony jihadist.. he gonna get banned, isn't he?
GlenChivas
Member
I don't care what the player count is. I'm still excited for Titanfall.
Marauder Shields
Member
Imo it's going to be a circus no matter what. The game is just such a lightening rod.
Define "meat" please. Do you know haw many maps the game will ship with? How many modes? Weapons? Titan?
Google says "Jihad" is defined as "struggle against unbelievers". One might say that console fanboys are doing exactly that
miDnIghtEr20C
Banned
It's post like these that show some people have no idea what they're talking about. So is Skyrim half a game? It has no MP.
Why is it that a MP only game is half a game in your mind? How is that? They make no MP for a game like Skyrim and can make that SP game that much more awesome with all the rescources going into a SP experience.
This game is doing that exact thing but will MP only. I wish COD and BF would do the same and go MP only. Use all their time on MP that they would spend on the SP mode of this game.
Cracks me up at the post about Titanfall being half a game. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Nah, that's not the same one, but the one I linked is pretty cool, too.
Have a Nice Day
Member
Take that shit out of here.
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.
THIS FUCKING WALL RUN THOUGH:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TRlEM_oB4Lo#t=393
Absolutely amazing. I wish there was a higher quality version of that vid so someone could make a GIF out of that, because daaaaaaaaaaaamn
Wow, I've never seen anyone so defensive about a single game before...
NullPointer
Member
For me, whether its half a game or not will depend upon how many maps it ships with and how soon they start marketing new ones and other sundry "premium" packages.
You'd think a multiplayer-only game would have more content than the single+multi titles we see. Am curious how this ends up working out.
NoirVisage
Banned
Are you really actually defending that word being used?Google says "Jihad" is defined as "struggle against unbelievers". One might say that console fanboys are doing exactly that
To all the BF/Huge Battles/Epic people:
You have Battlefield. You have Planetside. Stop bitching about this game not being like them.
Let competitive players have this one. Please.
6v6 is eSports as fuck, and from what I'm seeing of this game with your left hand mattering again, this could be huge. 6v6 + movement as a core aspect of gameplay + money bags = possible eSports phenomenon. Just need to see how the TTK is.
You have Battlefield. You have Planetside. Stop bitching about this game not being like them.
Let competitive players have this one. Please.
6v6 is eSports as fuck, and from what I'm seeing of this game with your left hand mattering again, this could be huge. 6v6 + movement as a core aspect of gameplay + money bags = possible eSports phenomenon. Just need to see how the TTK is.
I think the wall-running stuff will spate the good players from the bad ones. Looks fun as hell.
I really want to see what they will do with the Epilogue stuff.
Marauder Shields
Member
Damn that's a lot of BBC.
If the game is highly mobile (as advertised) and there are force multipliers like mechs (as advertised), the keep away tactic will fail as you would simply draw the attention of a player deliberately, so you wouldn't have to go so deep to score the kill on him (if on foot) while allowing your AI mech to handle the scrub AI infantry for you. If you net the player kill and lose your mech, you just have to sweep up the rest of the scrub AI afterwards.
This, of course, assumes the AI isn't beefed up in such a way that they are like wall guards in a MMO setting to do signifigantly more damage to players, thus making them more like a moving wall to be avoided rather than fought.
Everyone loves the smell of napalm in the morning. Because it smells like victory...
.
.
.
.
.
Right? ><;
DrROBschiz
Member
Yeah I don't see how this isn't a reasonable response
Game looks great either way but the smaller scale reveal with a game that pretty much screams large scale from its marketing... is disappointing.
Kind of impressed that this is a source engine game though lol.