• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

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

Sanic

Member
To the incredibly silly people suggesting a future version (PS4 or otherwise) would support 8v8 or whatever players: Dota 2 is 5v5 on PC where there are no limitations, what a terrible game right? Player counts are only relevant based on game design, sure they could design the game around 64v64, maybe a sequel will be, but clearly this game is designed around 6v6.

Holy crap I can't believe the reactions in this thread, just insanity left and right. Negative reactions ranging from claims of engine limitations, hardware limitations, enforced story elements in multiplayer, claims that the player count is 'trash' without any understanding of context.

I'll tell it to you straight: This thread is the reason why the gaming community is constantly bullshit by publishers PR, and to a large degree they are justified in doing so.

Yep. Can't believe how some are jumping down their throats.
 

B.O.O.M

Member
Well it entirely depends on how well they design the maps. This is lower than I expected but if the maps are done right it should be fun. I enjoy KZ Merc despite the low player count for example
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Why? What is the value of this?

The value is in however the game is designed. Can bots call in Titans? If no, then you have your answer.

It does matter to me because I find shooters to be fun as a multiplayer experience of servers being more like large lobbies where groups of players can gather with both people they know well and people they might not be very familiar with. Very low player counts on a shooter shift design to focus more on small insular groups that roam instead of allowing larger communities that can really thrive. Something like player count can have a monumental impact on how players move between and interact with others in games.

Sure, but it's still dependant on what the game is, how it's designed, and how the map plays. Battlefield 4 64 players is fucking awesome on most maps. Metro/Locker 64 players is hot garbage that provides nothing but a gravy train of players pissing bullets at each other to grind for unlocks and achievements.

Respawn's objective is to make a good, fun multiplayer shooter that provides entertainment and challenge alongside balance. Not to make a social networking tool. Perceptually small player counts have worked for multiplayer shooters since forever. If that's not for you, fine, but what you like as a number on paper isn't a prerequisite for making a good multiplayer video game.
 

Chobel

Member
I thought part of the reason for the AI is that the game is meant to merge some single player / campaignish elements into the multiplayer.

Having bots to provide context and story elements and mid-battle events makes some sense if thats something they're shooting for.

In the trailer map, bots aren't doing that.
 

fallagin

Member
Or it could be gameplay design?

Eh, I mean, maybe. It seems appropriate for some kind of horde mode or something, but being gunned down by bots in a mp vs mode is not really my idea of good gameplay design.

Edit: I dont really know about other features of the game though. If they do have some kind of moba style 'gettin gold and xp' system, it might turn out pretty good.
 

Big_Al

Unconfirmed Member
To be honest, if they have ai bots playing, what is the difference between that and replacing bots with players? This seems to be less about map size than technology limitations the more I think about it.

Because I'm guessing the bots don't call down mechs, they don't go into/take over mechs and don't have AI mechs which can follow them which players can do. Maybe having a few AI bots with the 6 players/their mechs on each side makes more sense due to the size/design of the maps ? People are judging the flow of the games/maps without even most of us having played it, seems silly to criticise it due to player count when we don't have the playtime/experienced it for ourselves.
 

ArjanN

Member
To be honest, if they have ai bots playing, what is the difference between that and replacing bots with players? This seems to be less about map size than technology limitations the more I think about it.

Reasons to have these bots:
A) the battle is larger in scope without having all the issues (lag, people not working together. takes longer to fill a lobby, etc) more human players bring.
B) more survive-ability for human players without having to turn them into bulletsponges.
C) Even bad players get some kills. :p
 

Principate

Saint Titanfall
It actually seems like a very apt comparison.

Dota 2's map is designed for 5v5, as Titanfall's maps are balanced around 6v6.

Dota 2 is considered a very finely tuned game.



CS 1.6 was also in the top 10 during European peak hours today.

TBF Dota has been evolving the same map and mechanics for a decade.
 

Alex

Member
Then it's a bad gameplay design

I disagree, I'd rather have a smaller, squad based multiplayer title when I can get it. I wore out of the whole "wow, it's a big war field!" element that people are saying is necessary to next-gen after the first two Tribes games and 1942.

If they pull it off, and the map flow and AI usage feels significant like in a good MOBA then I might actually enjoy playing a competitive FPS again.
 
How many of you people have played Operation Locker on 32v32?

Operation Locker? Really?

That is an exception. There are no other maps in Battlefield 4 even close to that bad. Every other map plays absolutely fine with 64 players and most feature plenty of extra room to maneuver around without encountering other players.
 
In the trailer map, bots aren't doing that.
The trailer I just watched again had an AI mech barking instructions as AI soldiers followed along.

There was that other trailer with some drunken guy being held underground too - I forget the exact details but thats far more context and character/world connection than your usual multiplayer shooter match.

As far as mid-battle events, that's pure speculation on my part but would fit since the game does have AI and is meant to incorporate single player elements.

I regret making this thread.
Is it a full moon outside? It has to be a full moon.
 

A_Gorilla

Banned
That Titanfall was multiplayer only was bad enough for me, now this? I can no longer justify a $60 price tag for this game...
 

Grief.exe

Member
Wow nothing, why in the hell would you make it AI slots, why not allow players to fill those slots? This isn't LoL.

AI can't call in mechs or be a legitimate threat.

They obviously enjoy the gameplay that the AI brings to the table, but they don't terribly throw off the balance like adding in 2-4 extra players.

For example, maybe mechs get destroyed too quickly with increased player count. Maybe the maps aren't big enough to accommodate that many call downs, or too much of a clusterfuck for one player to make a difference.

What is this AI people keep mentioning? There are also bots running around? That would be weird

Yes.
 
You guys are right. Nobody plays games like CounterStrike.
It MUST be bad with 6 vs 6.

csgoposxe.gif

The majority of Counter-Strike servers, whether you're discussing 1.6, Source, or Global Offensive, are ~16v16. 6v6 is not popular at all. Have you even played any of the Counter-Strike games?
 
I disagree, I'd rather have a smaller, squad based multiplayer title when I can get it. I wore out of the whole "wow, it's a big war field!" element that people are saying is necessary to next-gen after the first two Tribes games and 1942.

If they pull it off, and the map flow and AI usage feels significant like in a good MOBA then I might actually enjoy playing a competitive FPS again.

I really don't see why games need to be LoL or Dota, this is an FPS. It has some interesting little twists but it really doesn't fit the genre, I've played games like this before but they are much more slow paced, they are MUCH larger scales on MUCH bigger maps.
 

Whompa

Member
I plan on getting it on PC. I honestly do not see how more instantly means better. Some people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and it's sad...

The majority of Counter-Strike servers, whether you're discussing 1.6, Source, or Global Offensive, are ~16v16. 6v6 is not popular at all. Have you even played any of the Counter-Strike games?

and yet the entire tournament/matchmaking scene is 5 v 5.
 

Papacheeks

Banned
I regret making this thread.

Well your not to blame, blame people like Adam Sessler, Arthur Gies for hyping this game up to MEGATON proportions.

When Vince Zampalla said they made the game in under 2 years(To me that spells barebones for modes and content the rest will be sold in DLC packs), I took a step back, when they announced Multiplayer only, I jumped back. Now with them charging 60 bucks and touting AI to make up the rest of the roster in the game with 6x6, I await impressions and reviews before investing any type of time into this game.
 

MercuryLS

Banned
I plan on getting it on PC. I honestly do not see how more instantly means better. Some people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and it's sad...

Exactly, it's all about the map size/design/spawns. 6 v 6 should be fine if they design the game around that number properly.
 
Very interesting. I feel like this is an important first step in moving away from the CODs and Battlefields of the world, who seem obsessed with the idea that a higher player count on a server immediately means a better experience. Titanfall doesn't seem to really be a class-based FPS, and the idea of a Counter-Strike dynamic of smaller teams excites me.
 

Grief.exe

Member
Well your not to blame, blame people like Adam Sessler, Arthur Gies for hyping this game up to MEGATON proportions.

When Vince Zampalla said they made the game in under 2 years, I took a step back, when they announced Multiplayer only, I jumped back. Now with them charging 60 bucks and touting AI to make up the rest of the roster in the game with 6x6, I await impressions and reviews before investing any type of time into this game.

Are you really that guy who plays shitty campaigns from these multiplayer-focused AAA offerings?

Don't be that guy, buy good games if you are looking for that experience.
 
I'm fine with 6v6 for as long as the map design works. The old IW were awesome at making maps though so i have faith in Respawn.

If they need any tips, play Call Of Duty Ghosts to see how not to make maps.
 

Respawn

Banned
That doesn't make any sense... MAG was 128vs128 on PS3. Every game with a lower player are an absolute failure?

lol you're using Mag as a sword and shield? How about I raise you with Planetside? Seriously now I'm not even asking for 32 but 6? Why not 9?
 

Big_Al

Unconfirmed Member
I really don't see why games need to be LoL or Dota, this is an FPS. It has some interesting little twists but it really doesn't fit the genre, I've played games like this before but they are much more slow paced, they are MUCH larger scales on MUCH bigger maps.

It's irrelevant what you've played before or what game does what or what you even think 'fits the genre'. This is a different game and they've obviously designed it this way for a fucking reason. This is essentially the same core team that have designed multiplayer FPS for many years. Maybe, just maybe, they know what they're doing.

Jesus Christ people.
 

HariKari

Member
and yet the entire tournament/matchmaking scene is 5 v 5.

That's for logistical reasons mainly, and for spectating. It's more fun to WATCH a smaller team. Really weak way to argue your point though. There are better reasons to support small player counts. "Competitive games are small scale" is not one of them. Most every popular CS server is 16v16 or 12v12.

It actually seems like a very apt comparison.

Dota 2's map is designed for 5v5, as Titanfall's maps are balanced around 6v6.

Dota 2 is considered a very finely tuned game.

DOTA is a MOBA with a ton of variables.
 

Pingoreous

Member
I loved how MAG mitigated players by giving Squad vs Squad objectives. Then at the end letting everyone go at it at a choke point.
 
I love how people were like "Oh, it's just CoD with mechs and wall-jumping!" and now that we've got a good example that the game design is more than that people are pissing their pants in tantrums.
 
It mostly depends on the size of the maps if I consider 6v6 to be good. If the maps are small like CODBO2, then I don't mind. If they're huge like COD Ghosts, then it might be a problem. If anyone has played any of the larger maps on CODG, then you would know that it takes a while to find players. I wouldn't want that to happen to this game.

Seeing the trailer, I'm guessing the maps are mid sized. So it might be ok.
 

Alex

Member
I really don't see why games need to be LoL or Dota, this is an FPS. It has some interesting little twists but it really doesn't fit the genre, I've played games like this before but they are much more slow paced, they are MUCH larger scales on MUCH bigger maps.

It fits the genre as well as they pull it off, I'm not looking for a tropes based shooter. personally, I'm highly interested in what they're making as I want a squad based title and I currently like what the aux elements sound like they may add to it. Player count means little to me as I do not want more war field titles, personally, we've had 128+ player FPS's since the 90s, good, polished ones, they are not new, novel or "next-gen".
 
Top Bottom