-
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]
- Thread starter Fracas
- Start date
GamingIsDead
Member
Considering the largeness of the mechs i was expecting pretty large maps with a good amount of players to be fodder for them. This is pretty disappointing... the mechs are probably quite lame and and easy to take down if that's the maximum number of players involved.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
This means nothing to me until I play it. Player count is just one factor of the game design, not a bullet point.
Really positive showing at e3 for a shooter. If you missed that then I can understand why.
That's what I don't understand. If the game is designed to be 6 a-side then why fill up the maps with cannon fodder. Why not just up the player count? That's a genuine question because I don't understand the design choice.
Comparisons with moba games don't really make sense as the genres are completely different. I wouldn't want half he humans in TF2 replaced by bots so why would I in Titanfall? Again, that's not meant to be snarky but is a genuine question.
I know, but that's because this game gets so much hype, without really obvious reasons for the people passing by.
Well there is the sense of bitterness that this is the first really hyped up exclusive hitting next-gen consoles. The fanboys wars have just begun.
I see people dismissing infamous: Second son as a poor man's crackdown with a donte level cringeworthy lead.
It happens on both ends. Just saying.
I'm pretty sure the same thing will happen for Halo and Uncharted and in many ways already has.
I agree with this right here.
I know, it's like another reality in some threads. Luckily this doesn't happen every thread, but I do get maybe the occasional 1/100 thread that makes me think I'm being set up like on some reality T.V show where they try hard to fuck with my mind to see my reaction. Sadly, I don't think this is the case.
Makes me wonder where these people were last generation, as a lot of games with big MP numbers have had their servers shut down or are getting shut down. It's like if Aliens: Colonial Marines had 100v100 online it would be a good game or something. Yeesh.
The days when developers let people customize games the way they want to is long gone. Titanfall is going to be locked down HARD like the console port it is.
pokeystaples
Banned
Sounds like a nice move as long as the maps are designed properly. It also sounds waaaay more competitive. Battlefield is great, but there are a lot of people hanging out just to fart around and not work towards a goal. Smaller player counts always seem to foster a good amount of teamwork IMO.
qa_engineer
Member
I'm more stunned by the people who are saying smaller matches are better than medium to larger ones. Opinions =/= facts especially for a game that isn't complete and very few people have played.
mullet2000
Member
Yeah that's a good example of why raised player counts doesn't = better game.
14 player warzone plays quite well but 24 player becomes a clusterfuck sometimes. I definitely have more fun in regular warzone.
This thread is making me angrier than I had anticipated, and I knew how bad some of the responses would be.
What a shit experience Street Fighter 4 is with its unbelievable maximum player count of 2, absolute trash. What the hell Starcraft, 4 vs 4 max for ranked matches?!?!?!?!? That shit might have been fine 10 years ago but get the hell out of 2014.
You literally have no basis for understanding the context of this player count, it depends so much on AI count/design, map design, and overall game design. The game has been playable by the public and press at numerous trade shows (Including one where I got to see it) and I have yet to see a backlash against the player count.
SMH.
What a shit experience Street Fighter 4 is with its unbelievable maximum player count of 2, absolute trash. What the hell Starcraft, 4 vs 4 max for ranked matches?!?!?!?!? That shit might have been fine 10 years ago but get the hell out of 2014.
You literally have no basis for understanding the context of this player count, it depends so much on AI count/design, map design, and overall game design. The game has been playable by the public and press at numerous trade shows (Including one where I got to see it) and I have yet to see a backlash against the player count.
SMH.
it gets so much hype, because the public played the game not just the press and they liked it.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
My initial reaction is that that's way too low, but depending on how the maps are designed it could be just fine.
It's not like BF4 64 player matches do much for me, but I'd normally hope for at least 8v8 in the absence of information about how the game is balanced (as in, my knee-jerk reaction).
It's not like BF4 64 player matches do much for me, but I'd normally hope for at least 8v8 in the absence of information about how the game is balanced (as in, my knee-jerk reaction).
Yep. There won't even be 3rd party servers. It's all matchmaking to Azure servers as per a Respawn dev on here a month or two back. PC uses the same matchmaking as console.
10101
Gold Member
It's coming to PC, surely that would be the definitive version not some theoretical PS4 version? I like my PS4 but damn dude lol.
Anyway, I'm a bit shocked by this news, I don't necessarily think it's bad I just assumed it would be more than that. I do prefer bigger player counts normally, but I'm still undecided on it tbh.
rudieboy77
Member
Even on PC? Those maps must be small. So will there only be one Titan per team on the map at any one time?
reptilescorpio
Member
6 on a team sounds smaller than I had imagined in my head.
I can see it working out to be more arena based, small maps, than the concept had first hit me with.
I can see it working out to be more arena based, small maps, than the concept had first hit me with.
digoutyoursoul
Member
Toothless Spoon
Member
These guys know what's best and if they say 6v6 is the best balance, I'd say they'd done a lot of testing...well I'd hope so. It doesn't bother me one bit really, as long as it's fun and it LOOKS fun to me. I have BF4 for bigger matches.
My 24 player TF2 server says "No!"
It's simply a design decision based on map size, balance, and the AI bots.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
There are confirmed pilot vs pilot only modes. No ai, no mechs.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
Yup. Good times.
BananasWithGuns
Member
Sounds good to me as long as the maps are the right size and aren't accommodating so much for the AI. Respawn knows what they are doing so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here.
A game doesn't have to have a high player count to be good. Not sure why people are acting like this is such a negative thing. Gears 3 was 5v5 and that was my all time favorite multiplayer game.
A game doesn't have to have a high player count to be good. Not sure why people are acting like this is such a negative thing. Gears 3 was 5v5 and that was my all time favorite multiplayer game.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Pilots are not meant to be just fodder for the guys in the mechs. It is supposed to be balanced where pilots are a lot easier to kill but a lot harder to hit due to the maneuverability and their size. Mechs are easy to hit but take a lot more punishment and cannot fit in small areas. If mechs could just straight up demolish everyone with no skill involved, the game would tank... BADLY.
As it stands, a single pilot can take down a mech 1v1, just not easily in a straight up fight.
Twin Tails
Member
good
IAmRandom31
Banned
I had a feeling being a X1 title it would need some type of compromise. Sort of like Gears of War looking so good but then only have 2v2 multiplayer to keep the poly count down.
Anyone who has played 64 player BF4 matches knows the pure chaos of it can be overwhelming, but if you get with a group that is well put together, man it is absolutely incredible.
Planetside 2 = thousands of players, hundreds within the same area sometimes..:
Anyone who has played 64 player BF4 matches knows the pure chaos of it can be overwhelming, but if you get with a group that is well put together, man it is absolutely incredible.
Planetside 2 = thousands of players, hundreds within the same area sometimes..:
I don't know how Titanfall is going to play like. Haven't seen the previews or anything but it seems like a Call of Duty esque experience thats faster, with AI and a focus on mechs.
CoD worked fine in small maps with small matches. It was quick and to the point.
My problems with games like Battlefield and others are that it becomes so disorienting because maps are so large that not everything is used effectively. And I'd rather just stick and play in one area than dealing with the others. That's just me though.
It's why I prefer games like The Last of Us when it comes to MP. Small maps, 4vs4 but man does it become a much more thrilling experience than anything else I've played.
If I want to explore large maps I prefer co-op or singleplayer for that sort of thing.
mullet2000
Member
Only for actual players.
Portugeezer
Member
Whilst low player count means "Good"?
Nah I agree with you though. Lower player counts can be better in some games.
digoutyoursoul
Member
The review thread will almost certainly bring this place down. It will either be angry at paid reviews or cheering for the 7/10's. I can see it a mile off.
Ghost and World at War have maps that are too big for playercount. I'm surprised they even made that mistake again with Ghost.
Maps hopefully are medium to smallish size...or whatever that is considered for TF