FreddieQuell
Member
What would you call AI controlled characters in a multiplayer game then? I am genuinely curious. Why is bots a bad word?
Cause people obviously don't like bots. Gotta spin it somehow.
What would you call AI controlled characters in a multiplayer game then? I am genuinely curious. Why is bots a bad word?
I'm not saying I won't give the game a chance, but what I'm saying is that I think 12 players is way too small for my taste when it comes to multiplayer fps games.
Cause people obviously don't like bots. Gotta spin it somehow.
No, it's not. But it's not even implicitly worse.Jesus, the negative responses to this...
Small player count is better.
This is the point at which your thoughts become mostly irrelevant, since you are assuming this game is a sci fi + mechs version of whatever your favourite fps is, rather than looking at it for what it is.
Don't worry you're not alone, about 50% of the thread so far have done it.
I think having one character in an RTS is the dumbest idea someone could ever come up with, maybe I should go rage about DOTA or something... Oh wait it's not the same type of game as Starcraft 2.
Call of Duty is, typically, 6 v 6.
So ... I don't get the upset.
I don't see how they can simultaneously make maps large enough for 12 titans but small enough for 12 humans. But I guess we shall see.
6Vs6? Really?
I could've sworn I played it with ~20 players at gamescom
I'm not saying I won't give the game a chance, but what I'm saying is that I think 12 players is way too small for my taste when it comes to multiplayer fps games.
There were extensive playtesting during the development of Halo too, and the previews were positive, but from looking at videos and hearing about the game I knew before I played it what I wouldn't like about it. And voila I didn't like it. The playtesters somehow didn't know exactly what I like, how weird.
Same with virtually every other game out there. I like the open nature of Destiny, but I don't like some other things about it. Still going to try it, but if I starts explaining the aspects about it I'm not at all excited about, it's pretty childish for a developer to come tell me I'm wrong because their playtesters are obviously right. Playtesters are rarely right according to me, as it seems.
Its the Fulda Gap of the console wars. EA. Microsoft. A moneyhat exclusive. Takes advantage of the cloud. From the makers of COD. The biggest reason to buy an Xbox. Multiplayer only. Hyped by the big names in gaming press. And now its 6 v 6 max with a strong AI component.
Its a perfect storm of divisiveness. A potent recipe for knee-jerk vitriol, and sometimes even batshit fucking madness by the look of things.
But God damn does it look amazing in motion in terms of moment to moment action. Letting the gameplay do all the talking ala "Battlefield moments" was a great idea.
See to me that sounds way too high. 10v10 was where I thought it was aiming.16v16 would have been the max sweet spot.
That might not go over well for the COD crowd they want to attract.
how the fuck is this 21 pages.
Because bots implies human replacements, would you call these things bots?
I'll reserve my final judgement for after release
Why is this so many pages? I'm glad they focused the game around a very specific player count.
Hell my favorite competitive FPS or 3PS experiences come from even less than 6v6s. Halo trilogy 4v4. Counter strike 5v5s. Gears of war 4v4s. List goes on
Hype +1
This is the point at which your thoughts become mostly irrelevant
since you are assuming this game is a sci fi + mechs version of whatever your favourite fps is, rather than looking at it for what it is.
No one would ever mistake a creep for a hero. On the other hand, multiple people in this thread were under the impression that Titanfall would be more than 6v6 based off of trailers.
Clearly titanfall's bots can't do everything a human player can, they're gimped pilots. At this point it still feels disingenuous to me to not call them bots. More info or some hands on play could definitely change my mind, but that's the point I'm at now.
Well they could at least change the damn models or skins of the characters. If they're clearly meant to fill a different role than they should be clearly easily distinguished beyond just the name. The same way most single player games make enemy types look different or multiplayer games make classes look different.
What would you call AI controlled characters in a multiplayer game then? I am genuinely curious. Why is bots a bad word?
Don't read the first ~15 pages. Seriously, its a trash pit.
Both Vince in a tweet, and myself in this thread, have said that we think people should just try it and form their opinions. If it doesn't match up with something you like? Ignore it and move on! Thats totally fine, and expected, since we don't think we're making some magical game from heaven than will appeal to everyone.
I literally have to stop playing every few rounds because my heart just can't take it some times.
Funny. I'm sure his thoughts are pretty relevant his decision as to whether or not he should buy the game.
What is it then, Paz? Care to summarize? I see a class based shooter with mechs being marketed with the tagline "from the makers of Call of Duty." If there is some deep MOBA style metagame system, they haven't talked about it.
So you're going with willful ignorance? Completely ignoring everything the actual developers, all hands on impressions, and what press have said?
Rock on.
This is the point at which your thoughts become mostly irrelevant, since you are assuming this game is a sci fi + mechs version of whatever your favourite fps is, rather than looking at it for what it is.
Don't worry you're not alone, about 50% of the thread so far have done it.
I think having one character in an RTS is the dumbest idea someone could ever come up with, maybe I should go rage about DOTA or something... Oh wait it's not the same type of game as Starcraft 2.
Because bots implies human replacements, would you call these things bots?
Last reply for the night before I conk out;
Childish? Sorry if thats how it came off. It was meant a response to people somehow assuming they know our game balance far better than we do and that we're obviously making a huge mistake. Both Vince in a tweet, and myself in this thread, have said that we think people should just try it and form their opinions. If it doesn't match up with something you like? Ignore it and move on! Thats totally fine, and expected, since we don't think we're making some magical game from heaven than will appeal to everyone.
Perhaps its not the playercount in games like Halo that you don't like, but the game itself? Would adding more players magically have made Halo a game you love? I'm going to wager it wouldn't, since they do have some "larger" game types. The point is that adding more players to a finely designed game doesn't instantly make it better. Assuming it does is what I'd like to call "armchair game design". If that is offensive or childish to you I apologize, but its not meant to belittle anyone or their liking of large player count games.
Oh, and it wasn't playtesters who told us to do 6v6. It was those guys we have on staff called game designers, after playing thousands of hours with the entire company and taking feedback from everyone. We're all gamers here, and all our opinions are heard and used. Stuff like this isn't unilateral decisions from on high - we all want to be proud of the game we ship and enjoy playing it ourselves.
The feel of 10v10.
That's one way to look at it, but I see it more as evidence that people weren't paying close enough attention.The fact that everyone thought those bots were human in the Titanfall trailers is evidence enough that those are bots.
Willful ignorance, I guess that's one way to put it. How am I wrong the ai runs around the map, shooting players and other ai, getting shot, taking objectives, etc. But they're gimped in that they can't use titans or do parkour. Seems like a bot that got toned down from the full capability of a player character.
That's probably a design decision to give you a false sense of accomplishment. "Oh look, I've killed 25 guys this round" - never mind that 18 of them were bots.
Titanfall’s maps are target-rich environments, populated by dozens of AI soldiers run by Microsoft’s dedicated servers. All of them put up a decent enough fight to be trouble, but they’re thick and flimsy enough to be worth fewer points than a Pilot or Titan kill. “AI grunts keep that quick time-to-kill feedback loop,” says McCoy. “When you can kill three guys in eight seconds, that’s good – but when you’re on the other side of that, it’s not. If you run into a group of AI [units] you can take them out, and you still have that gameplay loop of doing things, achieving things, killing people.”
Respawn rejects the word ‘bot’ for its AI units, but like all bots, Titanfall’s grunts are terrible in concept – a legion of semi-coordinated goons – except here, they work so well that Titanfall wouldn’t be Titanfall without them. “They’re not bots,” says McCoy. “They’re not meant as a human replacement. They’re a different class of people. Pilots are these super-awesome soldiers that have the gear to do double jumps, the weapons to take down Titans, but the AI are the low-level guys that are always on the ground – they’re not double-jumping and they’re really weak, but the purpose they serve design-wise is multifaceted. They show new players where to go. And once they start fighting, they’re usually fighting other AI because all the experienced players are fighting on walls and rooftops. New players start getting kills on AI, when usually in multiplayer games they’re getting completely whacked.”
I imagine the pawns are there to serve as fodder for those who need to kill something every 15 seconds, and that a confrontation between two pilots should be meaningful.
Can someone clue me into why a FPS with Mechs is a new amazing original groundbraking idea..?
I don't understand why everyone is so blown away by a small sided game with mechs? BF2142..KZ3..Starhawk..all with mechs, all..kinda terrible.
Is it because the CoD guys are doing it? Basically it could have been a FPS with Blimps and Unicycles and it be hyped due to who's making it?
That's probably a design decision to give you a false sense of accomplishment. "Oh look, I've killed 25 guys this round" - never mind that 18 of them were bots.
I'd say very quickly and how long before the spawns and patterns are predicted? I don't see why they couldn't have had players in these positions. Just have 2 classes. This is why I don't see it taking off as an eSport. Bots are predictable always have been and will for a long time. INB4 Bot camping 101 Videos.
You're assuming that Titanfall operates on a standard K/D ratio scoreboard. Nothing we've seen from the game so far should give you any reason to assume that.