I prefer that. I prefer smaller matches in Gears and Halo multiplayer, never liked BF style big team battles, would just get lost in them and never believe I'm making much if a difference. Smaller matches I usually build mental portfolio of each opponent so I know when to be cautious, this is actually great news.
-
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
MrBambinoDent
Member
Did that typo hurt you so much? lol
Call of Duty was 6v6 and it was barley noticeable when someone left because, unlike Halo 3, there's this magical thing called drop-in/drop-out multiplayer which no one seemed to have ever told Bungie about.
If there's one thing 343 can be commended for, it's for giving up on this ridiculous idea that if a teammate quits, you should be perpetually fucked for the rest of the match.
Turin Turambar
Member
I don't think that will be the case, just having one human enemy on screen (someone that can kill you in one second) between some normal AI or being a few seconds away of a enemy player appearing and wrecking you will made the overall feel of the game as tense and actiony as a normal online game. Imho, etc.
It's true it won't be a "pure" multiplayer game with everyone as humans, but a hybrid. That's the novel idea.
People also like single player fps games, that's a point you seem to ignore or don't understand.
You must of forgot, cod 4 had groundwar 9v9
But i do like some 6v6 , but sometimes you just want shoot lots of people
Well just have to wait and see
I'm guessing this has been 6v6 for a while and nearly ever comment I've read about the game from gaffers who have played it, journalists and randomers on the interwebs have nearly all really enjoy their experience. Yes this may of been short and in a demo environment but there weren't any complains on how limited the action felt, how empty the maps were or how little they saw opposing players.
I'm guessing for the game and the type of action Respawn are going for the 6v6 combat was the right choice. I haven't played the game myself so I will wait until I do before making a comment but I'm sure the 6v6 gameplay is just fine!
My only issues are the smaller player count potentially means playing with less friends at times and then the secondary issue of the AI. I don't know much about the AI so I'm not going to make any crazy statements about how broken they are but I'm sure at times their will be ways to abuse the AI to get the upper hand via bugs, traps or glitches. Hopefully Respawn will be quick to patch any issues or hopefully the AI is such a throwaway thing that it wouldn't even be worth glitching them to get an advantage.
I'm guessing for the game and the type of action Respawn are going for the 6v6 combat was the right choice. I haven't played the game myself so I will wait until I do before making a comment but I'm sure the 6v6 gameplay is just fine!
My only issues are the smaller player count potentially means playing with less friends at times and then the secondary issue of the AI. I don't know much about the AI so I'm not going to make any crazy statements about how broken they are but I'm sure at times their will be ways to abuse the AI to get the upper hand via bugs, traps or glitches. Hopefully Respawn will be quick to patch any issues or hopefully the AI is such a throwaway thing that it wouldn't even be worth glitching them to get an advantage.
I think it was more your obvious troll comment that added nothing to the conversation.
Because generally at shows its only played for 10 mins one a small amount of consoles. You can't compare that to hours played.
MrBambinoDent
Member
Excuse my disappointment in a game I've been anticipating for months now!
Why would they even declare such stupid statement if it doesn't really affect the game, should have left us dreaming for a bit more!
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
6 v 6 is disappointing, whatever the justifications.
Is this so that the game can run on Xbox 360? Shame the PC version has to suffer as a result.
Is this so that the game can run on Xbox 360? Shame the PC version has to suffer as a result.
Marauder Shields
Member
As per the dev post in this thread, they felt that 6 vs 6 provided the best game balance.
360 version is a different game, made by a different developer, so I doubt it.
Prince Vultan
Banned
No single player component + maximum player count of 12 = $60 product.
Amazing.
"Different game" in what way?
Amazing.
"Different game" in what way?
Mister Negative
Member
It certainly did, but let's not act like Ground War was the go-to gamemode.
I'm not so much of a shooter kind of guy, but this literally blew my mind at Gamescom. Guys just wait and try it, for God's sake.
At Cologne it was incredible, EVERY SINGLE PERSON that played the game was talking about that, even developers from other teams. I've never seen something like that, it was the Titanfall expo, not a videogame expo.
Very confident in this, player count is important in a game like COD, where you might find bigger maps and they might feel empty, but here, with titans, AI and that kind of movement allowed this is more than enough.
The only concern I have is on the quantity of content available, we'll see.
At Cologne it was incredible, EVERY SINGLE PERSON that played the game was talking about that, even developers from other teams. I've never seen something like that, it was the Titanfall expo, not a videogame expo.
Very confident in this, player count is important in a game like COD, where you might find bigger maps and they might feel empty, but here, with titans, AI and that kind of movement allowed this is more than enough.
The only concern I have is on the quantity of content available, we'll see.
I also think $60 is a bit much, but CoD and Battlefield have been getting away with this for years. Most of those campaigns made me throw up at how bad they were, and I doubt the MP CoD crowd really give a shit TBH. I wouldn't pay $60 for a MP only game that's for sure.
RazielCuts
Member
Ever dropped into a Search and Destroy match that was already in progress and 3 of your team had already ragequit out? Yeah, that's not a fun experience. Or generally any game mode where a team is getting trounced and the only reason you're getting into an already in progress game is because players have ragequit.
They didn't solve the problem, just made more scattered lobbies with uneven player counts that you could potentially join.
Black Mantis
Member
This. If it were a problem, I doubt it would have reached the levels of hype we've seen and had lots of praise from those who've played it.
If it was 12v12 you would have payed the game 90$, so it's better this way
"And FYI, for amount of stuff happening at once in a map you'll be hard pressed to find a game that keeps the action higher. I literally have to stop playing every few rounds because my heart just can't take it some times."
The maps must be really damn small if the guys heart couldnt take a 6v6 battle due to all the action....... take is cheap, i want to see this in action myself... honestly im shocked at 6v6 limit.. doesnt mean it cant be fun though..
Who knows really ?, the game could turn out great, and a nice change of pace if all you play is BF 64 player matches.
The maps must be really damn small if the guys heart couldnt take a 6v6 battle due to all the action....... take is cheap, i want to see this in action myself... honestly im shocked at 6v6 limit.. doesnt mean it cant be fun though..
Who knows really ?, the game could turn out great, and a nice change of pace if all you play is BF 64 player matches.
Nastrodamous
Member
the maps seem pretty small so this is ok.
Edwards_Omatic
Member
Looks like i'm in the minority here but, I like lower player counts - gives more tension and allows breathing room in games.
Would be nice to have the option of more players but, meh.
Would be nice to have the option of more players but, meh.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Yeah, I think this is the problem. I'd be fine with a 6 vs 6 multi mode normally, but when theres actually no single player either and its ALL multi, my eyebrow raises when theres a hard limit on numbers to encounter like that.
Militant17
Member
6 v 6 is fine, I don't get why people are shitting all over the game for this. Works perfectly well in a ton of other games including COD4 and not all games require massive player counts. I'm still looking forward to Titanfall regardless and can't wait to try it for myself.
FranXico
Member
To be fair, there also is a lot of Microsoft and EA money pushing the hype further.
Do you honestly believe this game would have had this much media attention if it wasn't being pushed by Microsoft as their new exclusive?
They haven't shown it yet and haven't really said.
Zampella has only confirmed that there will be some "key differences".
The hype is coming from the fact that everyone who played it has said it is good. Microsoft hyped Ryse but the media said it was shit, because they played it and it was shit. Unless you are suggesting people are only saying it's good because they got EA and Microsoft money...
entremet
Member
Have you played it, btw?
entremet
Member
Why? This game is on PC too?
You don't see how that inhibits elite players? Why do you think elite players often chose games that has a high entry skill level? You don't think elite players would kind of really hate a game where someone that learns how to quickly grief and farm AI can place high on the scoreboard without even being seen by players?
If killing a bot (yeah, still going to call them bots cause that's what they are) give 1 score and killing a player gives 100 score, then just killing bots isn't a viable tactic, but on the other hand bots would just become a really annoying nuisance rather than a part of the game. On the other hand, if a bot gives you 20 score and a player gives you 100 score, then someone will quickly find a way of farming bots and be as-effective or almost-as-effective as a good player. That's fine, to each his own, you say? Well that's not the point a multiplayer game, in my opinion. A multiplayer game should be about players besting or being bested by other players. Campaign is that way ----->
People that like competitive online games tend to get far more playtime and longevity out of a $60 purchase than your average single-player game fan does.
It seems quite common to see people putting multiplayer as some less important/optional 'gamemode' compared to the single player, but I think that perception needs to go away. A game focused entirely on multiplayer shouldn't be considered any less of a game than one focused entirely on single player. Its just a different type of game.
MrBambinoDent
Member
And now you're not even welcome to show any kind of disappointment at it!
Reminds me of how people were defending MS DRM policy before MS themselves revised it!
Sounds like PR bull to me. I think it is definitely limited by the 360.
So PC will also be 6 on 6?
They are not even testing on the 360, seeing as that is being made by a different studio.
Playing it at EGX, 6v6 was great. It was fluid and it wasn't full of titans. I would rather the game be balanced than have more players.
More doesn't always mean better.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I understand people saying wait until you play it until making judgements.
But the devs saying they chose 6 v 6 for 'gameplay balance' and people repeating the same thing is just BS.
It is 6 v 6 maximum because that is the ceiling running it at 60fps with mechs on the XB1's specs. Obviously if this was PC only it wouldn't be limited to a measly 12 players. And the fact the dev is trying to justify it so much says a lot.
But the devs saying they chose 6 v 6 for 'gameplay balance' and people repeating the same thing is just BS.
It is 6 v 6 maximum because that is the ceiling running it at 60fps with mechs on the XB1's specs. Obviously if this was PC only it wouldn't be limited to a measly 12 players. And the fact the dev is trying to justify it so much says a lot.
Delusibeta
Banned
No single player? Player cap of 12? Sixty dollars? Would have been dead on arrival were it not for Microsoft hype money, but as it stands I'll give it three months.
JayKay1337
Banned
You guys should play this game first before you judge
I´ve played this at GamesCom and it was awesome , maps had the right size for 6vs6
I´ve played this at GamesCom and it was awesome , maps had the right size for 6vs6
SlickShoes
Member
"And FYI, for amount of stuff happening at once in a map you'll be hard pressed to find a game that keeps the action higher. I literally have to stop playing every few rounds because my heart just can't take it some times."
Come on now, this is a hilarious statement. How many QA testers have they went through if the game is just too exciting for humans to handle?
Come on now, this is a hilarious statement. How many QA testers have they went through if the game is just too exciting for humans to handle?
Black Mantis
Member
It's easy enough to look past that though and there have been plenty of favourable impressions posted on these forums from genuine gamers who've played it and loved it, so to me at least, it seems like the hype is justified.
I'll take having to be dumped into an in-progress, already losing match and potentially helping out my new teammates over being stranded with a 2v4 match up and no hope of ever evening those odds. Especially when people drop as often as they did in 2/3/Reach.
Plus, being down a man in a mode like SnD is also a different beast altogether compared to being down in a mode where you perpetually keep spawning. Someone being out of the loop for 15 to 30 seconds in a mode where spawns are determined at set points does sting more, yeah.
MrBambinoDent
Member
THIS^
Unknown One
Member
Depends on the map layout. Cod has tiny claustrophobic maps. Even with the small map it's a clusterfuck. Terrible map design.