Titanfall has maximum player count of 12 (alongside AI) [Respawn comments post #558]
- Thread starter Fracas
- Start date
You're reading my post completely out of context. Was talking about a point made in the youtube video about what would have happened had Titanfall limited mech access. And I was agreeing with the dude, that it would have been a bad idea.
Sigh...
Turin Turambar
Member
Oh, I think they will be somewhat significant, which is why I don't like the creep comparison.
Creeps are really really, sacks of walking xp/gold. In the metagame of Moba games, they are there to see how is more efficient in farming them and therefore gain a slight advantage over the enemy team. They only help with objectives when there is a big fight and the enemy team is dead for a good amount of time. They just move in a straight line like robotic drones for a tower defense game, they don't attack you even if you are nearby unless specific conditions are met, etc.
Let's agree that they will be a middle point between a creep and a full AI bot.
emiranda061288
Banned
this should be free to play for a week so people can really feel the game, if the game is good people will buy it anyway, EA can't handle another case of bug infested game.
That makes no sense. Someone just said KZ : Shadowfall is 7v7 and thats a Ps4 title. I dont think being the "Weaker console" had anything to do with it. I think thats just what respawn wanted to do.
Pretty sure a "beta" will be out for it
iJudged
Banned
The ridiculous fanboys, what did you expect.
***For the last time people, educate your selves before posting shit. The XBOX360 version of TITANFALL is being created by a different team, mimicking the TITANFALL being created for XBOX ONE.
It is like making 2 different games on 2 different engines, only one is trying to copy the other as much as it possibly can. Why? Because the engine A is more capable then the engine B, and unfortunately the engine A can not be developed for the console B because it doesn't have enough squirtjiuce to take it.
No the maps are not insanely small, nor will you really be fighting AI, it's a 6v6 game, just like Call of Duty team deathmatch, Halo etc. If you wanted Battlefield, play Battlefield. Not all shooters are the same. What exactly is the reason you are 'reconsidering' the game?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
There's no way this was from limitations of the hardware. They're already rendering the models of more characters than that and netcode isn't really that expensive. The only possible technical limitation is the Azure servers, but I don't personally know enough about those limitations to talk about it.
I think most likely they've made a deliberate design decision to limit player interaction by making fighting easy to kill bots the primary interaction of the game.
Whether that's because those bots somehow add strategy to the matches or because they want to pander to people who suck at games is the only question I have left. The fact that they seem to be wanting to hide this core aspect of the game makes me feel like there's not much more to the bots other than to farm for kill streaks and small amounts of points.
And the one thing I do know for sure is that shooting a bot will never be as fun as shooting a person so if you're going to limit my time spent shooting other people by distracting me with bots there better be a damn good reason for it.
I think most likely they've made a deliberate design decision to limit player interaction by making fighting easy to kill bots the primary interaction of the game.
Whether that's because those bots somehow add strategy to the matches or because they want to pander to people who suck at games is the only question I have left. The fact that they seem to be wanting to hide this core aspect of the game makes me feel like there's not much more to the bots other than to farm for kill streaks and small amounts of points.
And the one thing I do know for sure is that shooting a bot will never be as fun as shooting a person so if you're going to limit my time spent shooting other people by distracting me with bots there better be a damn good reason for it.
GuitarAtomik
Member
Yep. I think that's exactly the case. I mentioned before that the MOBA thing wasn't a perfect comparison, just the best I could think of to explain it from a larger design decision perspective. So I think we are on the same page here
Shadowfall is 12 v 12, and that wasn't my point.
If they wanted it to be 32 v 32 it would be, and it wouldn''t be the same game. But, unlike COD, it seems like they don't have enough unused power to expand the player count. Just to appease the audience that wants it. Their ideal player count is their maximum. And sure, that's fine.
However, it seems like Respawn is already pushing the Xbox One as far as they can, considering the graphics, framerate and player count. People will make of that what they will.
No. Ass storm implies objectively bad. This is objectively good.
*edit*
Wait, I get what you're saying. Yes.
"Hey guys, how about an option for larger matches. No need to irrationally fear some odd imbalance, or fly to the conclusion that anyone saying why not have an option is demanding 128 players online at once in a free for all. The Xbox One's hardware weakness has already affected the resolution, its safe to say the developer is optimizing the engine with lower standards already."
This is just like saying HD doesn't matter last year. Instead of just saying "well that comes up short compared to next gen and last gen standards." Its back to mental gymnastics & defense. There is no Titanfall footage that shows some some intimate -never before seen, new to fps- game dynamics that requires such a debate. Its ridiculous that you can't fathom why anyone would be disappointed by the news, and understand exactly what they are saying, instead of making up this unbalanced 50000 players or bust argument. Which im sure everyone here would agree is a stupid comment.
Its a pretty sound opinion, and gamers don't need to be developers to see trends in their hobby.
bigboss370
Member
geez i sure hope not...
They are not MECHS!
They are not BOTS!
Call creeps in a MOBA bots to a MOBA fan and see what kind of reaction you get.
RedRooster
Member
That's a shame, but I'm willing to give it a chance and see how fun it is with fewer players. Adding mechs is kind of like adding vehicles IMO, and as soon as you do that it expands(or should) the map which in turn spreads out the battles. A couple guys drop from a server and suddenly half the other team is gone and you're hunting 3 or 4 guys.
We'll see, the jet packs still sound cool, at least they were in Tribes.
We'll see, the jet packs still sound cool, at least they were in Tribes.
That doesn't mean that the Xbox One doesn't have untapped power. Of course it does.
MEsoJD
Banned
All the game videos til now showed many players, but now that's a lie. I shouldn't have jumped to conclusion, but you can see why I thought the player count was larger. I just hope the pc version has a lot of options for player/AI count. We'll see when It comes out. If it disappoints I have battlefield to fall back on.
This is nothing like HD that is a screen resolution. Player size is a gameplay element part of the game design. There are multitudes of games with high player counts go play those. Respawn doesnt need to and shouldn't cater to these children complaining about something they have no clue about.
Even an option for higher players means that every map and gameplay aspect needs to be designed with that in mind and makes the game completely different. This is not the game they are making.
This has turned into some serious horoscope shit over time. Absolutely everything is validation of an ass storm.
Because they didn't design the fucking game around a larger player count? That they only wanted 6v6 max?
It's ridiculous how people here are just talking out of their ass about how they're having a tough time with the Xbox One limitations, blah blah blah. Hell, even the guys from Respawn have posted here and said people are being armchair devs.
If they don't want larger than 6v6 matches and are happy with it, why the hell would they add options for larger player counts? And I have yet to see a solid argument from anyone who's wanted a larger player count and the reason why? What would 12v12 give you, that 6v6 won't? And even then, how do you know that 12v12 won't utterly mess up the gameplay and make it a clusterfuck?
Wildstar75
Member
6v6 is surprising especially with the last gen graphics but I guess as long as the maps are tuned for it, it should be fun. Loved gears 1 multiplayer for example. One thing they'll need to watch for is when a noob gets put on a team he/she can't completely ruin it for everybody. I typically play ground war in cod for that main reason, if I have a bad game I am not the only reason the team lost 
.
.Good man.
That was probably the point of the statement to begin with.
This thread has been crazy, so all sorts of detectors are malfunctioning right now
I love that people just bash the game just because they didn't inform themselves.
It never tried to be a battlefield clone ( THANK YOU BASED RESPAWN FOR THAT)
And blaming the Xbox One or hardware limitations as the issue is so fucking stupid it just has to come from some people here.
The game was designed about smaller teams, and that is good.
God this thread made me hate GAF for today.
It never tried to be a battlefield clone ( THANK YOU BASED RESPAWN FOR THAT)
And blaming the Xbox One or hardware limitations as the issue is so fucking stupid it just has to come from some people here.
The game was designed about smaller teams, and that is good.
God this thread made me hate GAF for today.
Dreams-Visions
Member
The problem, of course, is that there isn't enough information out there for people to be properly informed.
Which is part of the point.
You still didn't say why you want a larger player count and why you think say, 12v12 would make the game better for you, rather than 6v6. They never said this game would be Battlefield. If anything, people should have expected it would be like Call of Duty meets Halo in a sense.
admartian
Member
I'd love to - if it weren't for the fact that MS has your company's balls in a vice grip and won't let you release on PS4.
Nah it's all good, seems to be a cool game regardless of whether I play it or not. I'm sure I'll try it out on a friend's XB1 at some point.
6v6 is fine on consoles.
Just make the player count moddable on PC.
That's how it's always been with FPS games on PC.
Well unless you count those P2P console ports which lose their community within a year.
But it's ok, they have the next version, with DLC maps to segregate the community.
That was the great thing about CoD4 on PC, it wasn't like the console versions.
They allowed for servers to be modded.
They also released all the maps for FREE so that all players could play,
and that the community would not be split.
The way to keep a community while maintaining DLC,
is to make the DLC non-community breaking.
The reason they don't want to build communities on console,
is so they can sell the next version of the game easier.
Just make the player count moddable on PC.
That's how it's always been with FPS games on PC.
Well unless you count those P2P console ports which lose their community within a year.
But it's ok, they have the next version, with DLC maps to segregate the community.
That was the great thing about CoD4 on PC, it wasn't like the console versions.
They allowed for servers to be modded.
They also released all the maps for FREE so that all players could play,
and that the community would not be split.
The way to keep a community while maintaining DLC,
is to make the DLC non-community breaking.
The reason they don't want to build communities on console,
is so they can sell the next version of the game easier.
The game was designed around 6v6. But it'll likely support 4v4. The lack of upwards variance, with the design ideal being the limit, indicates to me that it's a technical limitation of the hardware. The game, as it is, can't go above 6v6. Or, in doing so, they would have to change aspects of the game (framerate/graphics/fidelity).
Otherwise I don't see why the option wouldn't be presented, as it has been in Call of Duty. Perhaps not simple, but in an online only game it would be more inclusive to the players who want that.
But it is the design decision they have made, and I don't think they chose to go with 6v6 because of the hardware. But rather built using 100% of the hardware around 6v6, which leaves Titanfall as it is and leaves no hardware room for more players in a match.
6v6 is surprising especially with the last gen graphics but I guess as long as the maps are tuned for it, it should be fun. Loved gears 1 multiplayer for example. One thing they'll need to watch for is when a noob gets put on a team he/she can't completely ruin it for everybody. I typically play ground war in cod for that main reason, if I have a bad game I am not the only reason the team lost
Not directly related to what you said, but it did cause me to wonder:
They could potentially tune up the AI based on the disparity between the number of players on each team. So if someone was to quit out mid game, maybe the AI could become slightly more adept until a new player comes in to fill the gap.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Man this whole thread is funny.
Ardent defenders -- who've never played the game -- are fashioning all manner of apology and poor analogies because they don't know what the game experience is like either which, of course, does nothing to help the cause because people see right through it. You don't understand it better than anyone else who hasn't played it. Ardent attackers -- who've never played the game -- continue to use their past FPS game experience and design understanding as a bat to hit Titanfall over the head with. It's not fitting into their conventions of what an FPS is (or should be) and since they don't know any better they're shitting on the idea that something could be different and good without even waiting to see footage with which to make a proper assessment.
The whole thread is irritating. Lots of blind soldiers and persecution complexes on full display. Again, the sooner Respawn posts some vids of this MP experience with some developer commentary, the better. Personally I'll take the word of those who've played the game and said it's fucking awesome over anyone pontificating with nothing but conjecture here. Your mileage may vary.
Ardent defenders -- who've never played the game -- are fashioning all manner of apology and poor analogies because they don't know what the game experience is like either which, of course, does nothing to help the cause because people see right through it. You don't understand it better than anyone else who hasn't played it. Ardent attackers -- who've never played the game -- continue to use their past FPS game experience and design understanding as a bat to hit Titanfall over the head with. It's not fitting into their conventions of what an FPS is (or should be) and since they don't know any better they're shitting on the idea that something could be different and good without even waiting to see footage with which to make a proper assessment.
The whole thread is irritating. Lots of blind soldiers and persecution complexes on full display. Again, the sooner Respawn posts some vids of this MP experience with some developer commentary, the better. Personally I'll take the word of those who've played the game and said it's fucking awesome over anyone pontificating with nothing but conjecture here. Your mileage may vary.
Ah, another one joins the fray
unempLLOYD
Member
childplease
Banned
sounds good to me.
6vs 6 was one of the reasons I loved cod 4 and mw2.
Combat felt more personal.
6vs 6 was one of the reasons I loved cod 4 and mw2.
Combat felt more personal.
It's funny how gamers can shout for something to be "new & different" while yet being so shortsighted and dismissive of something they've never played at the same time.
That's straight from Respawn. And yet people want to act like they're more knowledgeable about why they chose 6v6, player limitations, blah blah. They feel 6v6 gave them the best option, so they designed the game around that player count. They didn't want anything higher.
And Respawn said it best if you want 32v32 Battlefield style gameplay, go play Battlefield. Not every shooter needs to be homogenized and be the same.
PanicFreak
Member
The true measure of quality is in Ps. 1080P, power, and maximum players.
Fun is only a side effect of all those Ps.
While I agree with you to some extent, the difference is that there are people who have played it and turns out that 6vs6 is the best. So yea..
agreed on bolded.
This design/experience isn't hardly a new concept to gamers. Nor are bots. Which is why some are weary. Are you getting this?
The opinion is there that is a let down, for the type of game it is. You might not enjoy large number matches, I might not, but some gamers do, for a myriad of their own reasons. You and I aside, Its a let down to people that feel they've got a grasp of what type of game Titan Fall is.
I can understand where people are coming from. They aren't doing some new-to-us gameplay dynamic, again, its more of the same shit with less players that can actually join a game. If this was some sort of more intimate gameplay i'd say its clear that its what the devs are doing, not being blasted as showing off the Xbox one's abilities, being a large 'exclusive', coming from COD herritage, questions about it taking sales from the COD franchise etc, We'd all be on the same page here. I just don't see the game you're looking at, to be completely flabbergasted by anyone with an opposing opinion that this is a let down.
People have been playing these type of FPS's, with these game sizes balanced perfectly fine for decades. We aren't talking about some amazing innovation that is going over peoples heads. Its just what it is.
I don't think that I'll be able to convey this any better than I have. But wanted to at least respond to the absurd notion that people are demanding large numbers of unbalanced game play, that isn't the argument going on here, nor is it what anyone is saying. Everything you're responding to, seems to be with that in your head. That people are demanding high player counts, or nothing. Just like the HD thing, it wasn't that "HD and HD alone is important, period!" It was hd at a good framerate is desirable, more so than sub-hd. Thats all. No need for assumptions to be made that 1 person just wants a hd frame at 4fps.
edit;
People will have to play it to confirm whatever their positions are at this point. But both sides of the coin seem pretty understandable right now.
According to that, they didn't want anything lower either.
I'd argue that a lot of developers would like to limit the lower end of multiplayer games as well, if it was feasible. However as Anarchy Reigns and Lost Planet so aptly demonstrated, it isn't. Because not being able to start a game due to being one player short, and one person keeps leaving out of frustration just before another joins, will kill a game quick.
Scaling downwards is also generally less harmful to the gameplay. Using Quake as an example again, if you had a map for 4 people but only had two, the game still worked well enough, and just became more of a duel. Place 8 people in that map however, and people couldn't focus on battles as there was also 2-3 other people fighting in any area. There would be insufficient spawn points, and so people started to get spawn fragged regularly. Weapons became too sparse, as 3 guns and 1 armor for 8 people simply wasn't enough (especially when you were dying every 5 seconds).
So the two situations aren't actually directly comparable.
See above.
lastflowers
Banned
I hope they open it up for PC gamers...while maintaining the vast majority of games to stick to the desired 6v6.
I'm a huge CS nut, so 6v6 is a welcome relief for me, but I definitely can understand why some people are a little dismayed.
I'm a huge CS nut, so 6v6 is a welcome relief for me, but I definitely can understand why some people are a little dismayed.