Support NeoGAF

[Giggzy]

It's not a perfect comparison but it's more accurate. The AI players aren't nearly as capable as human players. They are weaker, can't double jump/wall-run, can't call in Titans. Though they're obviously more complicated, conceptually and within the game's design, they are more similar to creeps in DOTA than they are bots in DOTA.

That's exactly how I'm thinking this game is turning out to be. Just FPS focused. I hope that's right because that sounds awesome.

 

[Paz]

You can't compare a MOBA set of AI to an FPS set of AI.
AI in this game doesn't server the same purpose here. They don't reward gold or xp and I am sure the game could operate perfectly fine without them essentially they are doing what the players are but without the fancies. They still have guns with deadly accuracy

Except they serve the exact same purpose, and do reward the player (not gold or xp in the dota sense, but you can farm them for your next call-in), and the game doesn't operate the same without them, and they are not emulating the player.

All of this is freely available information either in previews, dev diaries, posts in this thread (from players at expos and the devs themselves) or by simply watching the various video trailers.

Please seriously consider how you react to news in the future, knee-jerk reactions triggered by surface level understanding doesn't help anyone, least of all you.

 

[DarkoMaledictus]

Let me guess, 6 vs 6 with no dedis and you have to use matchmaking and can't join ongoing games...

 

[GuitarAtomik]

So... that doesn't clarify/clear up something: Is there more than "six players" in the game besides the Titanfall/Players? IE: AI wallrunner/infantry and a few more bots? Because if not, that's a little... disappointing.:/

Yes. Every vid they've shown has been a combination of players and AI. that's why the battles still look large because there are more than 12 soldiers on the field.

You can't compare a MOBA set of AI to an FPS set of AI.
AI in this game doesn't server the same purpose here. They don't reward gold or xp and I am sure the game could operate perfectly fine without them essentially they are doing what the players are but without the fancies. They still have guns with deadly accuracy

Oh cool! You've already played the game! Could you give us some more in depth impressions?

Spoiler

Also they do reward xp. Just less than human players.

Hey if you can turn the bots off PERFECT now we can talk.

Pretty sure they've already said there will be a mode without them. I'd be surprised if there wasn't.

But the unpredictability and reliability of an AI army in a Competitive FPS is not something that anyone wants and for that reason I don't see it being a good thing. You have to remember this is an FPS not a MOBA or RTS. The AI can't mimic human movement, action or error and they could essentially have an aim bot e.g "oh look a little piece of cloth from that soldiers clothes is poking around the corner" Human player may or may not recognize this however so far ALL AI I have seen in an FPS game would instantly realise that this is a person and now I know where they are. And the power of the "cloud" won't change that.

Its also sad that they can put AI in these positions and not players. You can't justify that.

You seem to either be ignoring all the posts about the AI role or you're just not able to grasp how it works yet. Either way there is obviously no way to convince you otherwise from what you believe prior to release so I'm not even going to try. I guess this is one of those things you'll just have to see in actual implementation before you get how it works.

 

[RealityPales]

I literally have to stop playing every few rounds because my heart just can't take it some times.

You should consult your doctor immediately.

 

[Facism]

I just realised I have no idea what game plays like. is it tdm? Is there an objective like capturing the flag, capture and hold? Is it like a first person dota? I need to educate myself on this.

Something like natural selection 1/2 work at their best with 6 players per team. Killzone 2 competitive was at it's best with 6 - 8 players per team. I'm not worried as long as the primary objective isn't pure tdm.

 

[rokkerkory]

Who cares if it's 6v6 human players? As long as the game is balanced and good right?

Geezus

 

[Grief.exe]

I think the appeal of a high player count is the feeling of just doing your small part within the context of a much bigger battle, just like it would be in a large scale war.
That’s what I loved in MAG, the sense of scale, the huge maps.
With a lower player count, the feeling is more that you’re just part of a skirmish.

That being said, from a pure gameplay point of view, maybe it doesn’t make much difference in practice, it could still be a small group vs another small group in both cases.

You also have more effect on the battle as a whole with a smaller player count, and more interesting tactics and coordination come into play as it doesn't devolve into a massive zerg/clusterfuck.

 

[Gamesadict]

12 players and a load of AI could work well, at least it isn't a 50 player free for all in CoD 4's shipment map.

EDIT: points raised about the competitive aspect being ruined by AI, I'd wait and see how it would play out.



This too, I love manly dressup :3

Oh man, good old times playing CoD4, nostalgia.

About AI, should I suppose they work like the Dota 2 creeps? The players must defend/attack them to ensure the team can complete objectives, or the enemy team is kept at bay?

 

[TheSeks]

Yes. Every vid they've shown has been a combination of players and AI. that's why the battles still look large because there are more than 12 soldiers on the field.

Guess I'll try it if there's a PC beta in the future/demo. Not sure if want AI bots with 6 v 6.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

A.I.

So no, not one or the other.

i see.

 

[FinalStageBoss]

You should consult your doctor immediately.

That was hilarious, cant tell if dude is serious lol

 

[Bsigg12]

2 months... Just 2 more months until I'm calling down my Atlas class.

As for the count. The most fun I ever had with competitive games is 4v4 Halo with 3 friends. Coordinating attacks on a flag and movement around the map is so much more satisfying and entertaining than playing in say BF4 with 31 others who don't communicate.

 

[antitrop]

I just realised I have no idea what game plays like. is it tdm? Is there an objective like capturing the flag, capture and hold? Is it like a first person dota? I need to educate myself on this.

Something like natural selection 1/2 work at their best with 6 players per team. Killzone 2 competitive was at it's best with 6 - 8 players per team. I'm not worried as long as the primary objective isn't pure tdm.

The E3 gameplay demo shows off a mode called "Hardpoint", which basically just looks like zone capture, a la BF's Conquest.

The Angel City demo shows off a more story focused mission, where you have to hold out for a certain amount of time while the NPC story companions escort a high-value target through a sewer.

 

[HariKari]

You're combining PC community run dedicated servers with high player counts. Lets not confuse the two. And not once have we said AI is there to mimic playing against another player. They have a role in the game, and it isn't buffing player counts.

Will your game have traditional dedicated servers on the PC? If not, then I don't have a persistent community to be a part of. I think that's a fairly straightforward drawback. This is largely something consoles have done without, so it may not seem like a big deal. But you can ask any player who has played Battlefield, Counter-Strike, or Team Fortress; persistent communities add to the experience in a major way.

AI may not mimic players, but you are saying they add to the experience. I say that, for me personally, they really don't. In DOTA, creeps are an interesting minigame on their own. Will Titanfall have a metagame of sorts where you must decide whether or not you want to help move your AI across the map or seek out other players? So far it has been explained that they provide atmosphere and a way to ease casual players into the game. That doesn't appeal to me as a player or customer but I'm just one set of preferences among millions.

What about high player counts makes that more fun, though? I honestly want to know, because this kind of stuff is super important and we obsess over it every day.

You are asking me to quantify the human experience. What makes a large party more fun than a small one? What makes sharing a fun experience with friends better than being by yourself? Clearly it has some strange allure, because we see large scale in many games and not just shooters. I understand that it is vexing as a designer to be told that "well, it's better" and then not given a clear reason why. I would say for me, the most important factor is that my enemy is controlled by a player and I explained why. I think having more of these players on the field makes it even more fun, with more chances for interaction between actual humans, good or bad.

None of us are diluted enough to think we're making a game that fits every gamer. We're making a game we think is badass, and hope other people do it. So far, you haven't really been able to tell me what it is about larger player counts that makes any of this stuff better or more fun. Other than "it is". And thats fine if thats your opinion, I'm just wanting to dig deeper into why. I've spent hundreds of hours setting up playtest sessions with players from all walks - from the iPhone Angry Birds player, to the hardcore clan players of various FPS games, and getting into the "why" of what makes a game fun for different people is a huge question.

What did you find in your playtests that made 6v6 a clear win? What was it about 12v12 that didn't appeal to people? I'm just as curious, if you are willing to share. I am a competitive player. I've played in tournaments, clans, squads etc.. for nearly every game I've given a lot of attention to. I grew up on nothing often less than 16v16. That's the style of game I like and the perspective I have. Titanfall could be absolutely amazing to someone who is new to shooters and it might bounce right off of me. That's a consequence of the choices you guys make. You guys seem very excited about what you have cooking, and I don't blame you.

I have a CE reserved and am not sure if I really want to see it through now. I have never experienced a small scale online shooter that I've liked. I was the type of person who played Ground War 24/7 for the scale and the feel of a big team, not because I enjoyed so much spam. I really hope there is a beta or demo.

If having more people is just core to what you expect for fun, then I guess thats it. That said, this is an MP game, and we do plan on supporting it, adding to it, and making it better. Player feedback is something we crave, and want to do things based on. I hope you get a chance to play it - if you do, send me a PM and let me know what you thought

I really feel like you guys could open up to a whole new set of gamers by moving to something like 12v12. If you don't want to, and think that compromises your design vision, then by all means ignore those of us asking for it. At the end of the day it is your product to launch and your vision. Maybe Titans just aren't fun with four or five on the map at once. Maybe the pilot and grunt balance doesn't scale well, and results in things being less fun. Those are valid reasons to not pursue higher player counts. I just selfishly wish you'd open up the hood, turn on the options, and let the players decide what is best. Some really weird people like 64 players in a phone booth sized map. You don't want that to be what your players experience when they first play the game, obviously, but the option for those who like it has never hurt anyone.

I want nothing more than to be wrong. Titanfall was my most hyped game of 2014. But I find myself turned away by this news, and the Battlefield crowd I personally play with is scoffing at it as well. What matters in the end is how it plays, and if you are confident that you've got it nailed, then I can't wait to try it.

 

[TheFatOne]

Small player counts don't bother me but the inclusion of bots does. I will remain skeptical about them until I see how the game plays.

 

[viveks86]

I have already played all the maps and I know exactly how many players would make this game fun. You don't know your game design, Respawn. 6v6 = no buy. Didn't you do any focus tests? SMH!

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I'm curious now how AI units will work with something like Team Deathmatch. Do you get a point for killing an AI-controlled unit the same way you would killing a human opponent's character? Or maybe there's no traditional TDM as we know it? Hell maybe scoring in general is measured differently than we've seen in the past.

 

[Facism]

Do you know if objectives rotate within the round? Safe to say I've got a curious twitch now I know that they're designing around a competitive player count.

 

[Sub_Level]

I'm curious now how AI units will work with something like Team Deathmatch. Do you get a point for killing an AI-controlled unit the same way you would killing a human opponent's character? Or maybe there's no traditional TDM as we know it?

25 points for AI kills

500 points for Pilot kills (AKA human enemies)

500 points for Titan kills

Do you know if objectives rotate within the round? Safe to say I've got a curious twitch now I know that they're designing around a competitive player count.

Dunno if it's rotation Killzone style, but rounds end with the Epilogue which is the losing team trying to GET BACK TO DA CHOPPA while the winning team tries to kill as many fleeing stragglers as possible.

 

[antitrop]

I'm curious now how AI units will work with something like Team Deathmatch. Do you get a point for killing an AI-controlled unit the same way you would killing a human opponent's character? Or maybe there's no traditional TDM as we know it? Hell maybe scoring in general is measured differently than we've seen in the past.

AI soldier kills are worth +25 points, Pilot and Titan kills are worth +500.

 

[anon_mastermind]

Lots of armchair game designing going on in here. I'd suggest playing before judging a something as insignificant as a number in a vacuum.

Vince is right - we tried a huge amount of playercounts (all the way down to 1v1 and up quite high) and designed the maps, gameplay mechanics, and entire experience around which played best. If anyone wants to chase the numbers game, perhaps we're not the experience they're after? I dunno.

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. Remember, you can get out of your Titan and let it roam on AI mode - meaning there can be 12 Pilots wallrunning around, 12 Titans stomping below, and dozens of AI doing their thing.

Oh, and I keep seeing people thinking we've got "bots" when we talk about AI. Thats not how they are. The AI in Titanfall are not replacements for human players. Our playercount is not 6v6 because of AI - AI play their own role in the game and are a different class of character in the game.

Can't wait! Only a couple months until speculative threads like this are gone and people are actually talking about their experiences with the game. Its truly fun stuff, and I hope everyone at least gives it a try.

lol ... sounds INTENSE

 

[killer rin]

What I find hilarious about all these backseat armchair game designers is that Titanfall has pretty much won every single game award at every single game conference and convention where press and players alike have gotten actual hands on time within the game. This game isn't even complete, yet people have such high praise after seeing the game, and even higher praise after actually playing the game. Its a rarity to find a single youtube video online where atleast someone says this game isn't fun to play. Something that would definately be out by now considering how it has been in plenty of conventions and press events since it was announced.

I think people just need to settle down. Only 6v6 wont kill the game, actually if you look at the statistics for other multiplayer games (Halo, COD) most people overly prefer the smaller multiplayer modes of 4v4 and 6v6 instead of the 8v8/12v12/+v+

 

[WordsintheWater]

Nothing wrong with 6v6 as long as it's done right and I am sure it will be. Anyways I usually enjoy games when their is a smaller player count as opposed to a larger one.

 

[mkenyon]

6v6 is very eSports. Hype rising.

 

[ghst]

how the hell did this thread happen? something about this game really makes people emotional.

as for 6v6, i think that's probably about the right number for a tight team experience. i adore the huge dynamics of something like red orchestra or planetside, but ultimately the numbers produce something more experiential than something like CS, natural selection or mobas, where competition is woven into every strand of its fabric.

 

[Concept17]

You know what would help us all understand, Respawn? Showing the public a 6v6 match and how it operates. Have the team play a game on twitch or something.

 

[Grief.exe]

Will your game have traditional dedicated servers on the PC? If not, then I don't have a persistent community to be a part of. I think that's a fairly straightforward drawback. This is largely something consoles have done without, so it may not seem like a big deal. But you can ask any player who has played Battlefield, Counter-Strike, or Team Fortress; persistent communities add to the experience in a major way.

No. It will run Microsoft Azure dedicated servers, not player run.

What did you find in your playtests that made 6v6 a clear win? What was it about 12v12 that didn't appeal to people? I'm just as curious, if you are willing to share. I am a competitive player. I've played in tournaments, clans, squads etc.. for nearly every game I've given a lot of attention to. I grew up on nothing often less than 16v16. That's the style of game I like and the perspective I have. Titanfall could be absolutely amazing to someone who is new to shooters and it might bounce right off of me. That's a consequence of the choices you guys make. You guys seem very excited about what you have cooking, and I don't blame you.

Probably around map design.

Too many players meant there were too much chaos, too many titans that cluttered up the space, players/titans dying too quickly, etc.

I want nothing more than to be wrong. Titanfall was my most hyped game of 2014. But I find myself turned away by this news, and the Battlefield crowd I personally play with is scoffing at it as well. What matters in the end is how it plays, and if you are confident that you've got it nailed, then I can't wait to try it.

I have a hard time believing this.

Battlefield is such a bad game on so many levels I can't believe people would be sticking with it for the long term.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I have already played all the maps and I know exactly how many players would make this game fun. You don't know your game design, Respawn. 6v6 = no buy. Didn't you do any focus tests? SMH!

I'm sorry but this post is insulting. Jeez..

"Epic" doesn't just mean 16 v 16. People need to stop falling for buzzwords, and play some actual shooters beyond massive deathmatches. Epic is being the only living engineer in Wolfenstein ET, trying to detonate the objective. Epic is going 1 on 3 in Counterstrike and winning. Epic is healing a Heavy in TF2 and dominating just long enough to guarantee victory.

edit: fuck me, can't believe I fell for that

 

[RELIGHT]

Seeing as how I love TLOU MP and it's just 4v4 this could work well.

 

[BONDO]

So i posted in this tread early on and i wasnt overly excited for this game despite having it pre-ordered. Looks different enough for me to try. Just whatever

After the comment from Respawn, the frenzy of a match sounds amazing. Its def gone up a notch with this 6 player news/bots/titans all in one match. Cant wait to give it a whirl.
Seems like not alot of info out there for a game releasing in 2 months. Im usually fairly up to date with info on games im interested in....This one im pretty much in the dark for lack of trying and lack of news

 

[Grief.exe]

I have already played all the maps and I know exactly how many players would make this game fun. You don't know your game design, Respawn. 6v6 = no buy. Didn't you do any focus tests? SMH!

I'm sorry but this post is insulting. Jeez..

"Epic" doesn't just mean 16 v 16. People need to stop falling for buzzwords, and play some actual shooters beyond massive deathmatches. Epic is being the only living engineer in Wolfenstein ET, trying to detonate the objective. Epic is going 1 on 3 in Counterstrike and winning. Epic is healing a Heavy in TF2 and dominating just long enough to guarantee victory.

He is poking fun at the average poster in this thread.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

25 points for AI kills

500 points for Pilot kills (AKA human enemies)

500 points for Titan kills

AI soldier kills are worth +25 points, Pilot and Titan kills are worth +500.

thx. sounds fine to me.

Carry on, Respawn.

 

[antitrop]

I'm sorry but this post is insulting. Jeez..

I think the "I've played all the maps part" clearly gives it away as satire.

 

[Sub_Level]

6v6 is very eSports. Hype rising.

MLG broski fuck yea

I think something like that has to happen naturally anyway. Black Ops 2 tried to really push it's league esports mode but who's gonna play that competitively past the first year or two max? No sustainability and it didn't become esports naturally. It's like two people being in love, you can't force it, both have to be on the same page.

 

[Facism]

how the hell did this thread happen? something about this game really makes people emotional.

as for 6v6, i think that's probably about the right number for a tight team experience. i adore the huge dynamics of something like red orchestra or planetside, but ultimately the numbers produce something more experiential than something like CS, natural selection or mobas, where competition is woven into every strand of its fabric.

Indeed indeed. Glad to see another natural selection mention. That shit was intense in 6 v 6 gathers.

 

[Bsigg12]

You know what would help us all understand, Respawn? Showing the public a 6v6 match and how it operates. Have the team play a game on twitch or something.

We are about to hit the massive marketing push so I expect to start hearing a lot soon.

 

[viveks86]

I'm sorry but this post is insulting. Jeez..

Apology accepted

 

[Superflat]

The low-ish player count is how I prefer most multiplayer matches, since my favorite MP games are CS:GO, L4D2, and Dota2 (wow, all Valve lol), and they're around the same ballpark as far as player count-- besides casual matches in CS and third party servers.

I do think that the absolute max player count of 12/max team count of 6 will serve as a handicap because people like having the option to go and have a thrilling chaotic match with 20+ players in it. A number of friends I know don't go into random MP games with small teams because it increases the responsibility of each player, therefore easily creating situations where the lesser performing players get ousted and ridiculed. Sure, you can say they just need to stick with it and get better, suck it up, etc., but they could also just not buy the game instead.

 

[antitrop]

thx. sounds fine to me.

Carry on, Respawn.

There also looks to be bonuses for things like First Strike (first kill of the round) and Pilot Headshots, which offer a +100 bonus on top of that. You also get an extra +25 points for headshotting an AI soldier, so +50 total for that.

I also saw +50 points for an Airborne kill, after the enemy pilot ejects. Also +300 points for a "Pilot Beatdown", which is the Titan vs Titan finishing move. (Grabs Pilot out of Titan and throws them away, Titan class specific finisher)

Crushing a Pilot with your Titan looks to grant a +100 bonus.

The scoring system in Titanfall seems really cool.

 

[Aylinato]

I'm sorry but this post is insulting. Jeez..

"Epic" doesn't just mean 16 v 16. People need to stop falling for buzzwords, and play some actual shooters beyond massive deathmatches. Epic is being the only living engineer in Wolfenstein ET, trying to detonate the objective. Epic is going 1 on 3 in Counterstrike and winning. Epic is healing a Heavy in TF2 and dominating just long enough to guarantee victory.

Massive death matches are awesome. Take me in CoD for instance. I go into a 32v32 server and just dominate other teams. Heck I've been banned multiple times because people thought I couldn't be that good so therefore I had to of been cheating(I only use cheat codes in the orignal starcraft so I can go sim city, and sometimes AoE2). The feeling of getting banned for being too good is satisfying beyond belief.

 

[Big_Al]

Are we ever going to be allowed to run/rent our own servers on PC or is it purely going to be the MS Azure servers ? That sort of thing can make or break it for a lot of people (well clans I assume more than anything)

 

[Paz]

You are asking me to quantify the human experience. What makes a large party more fun than a small one? What makes sharing a fun experience with friends better than being by yourself? Clearly it has some strange allure, because we see large scale in many games and not just shooters. I understand that it is vexing as a designer to be told that "well, it's better" and then not given a clear reason why. I would say for me, the most important factor is that my enemy is controlled by a player and I explained why. I think having more of these players on the field makes it even more fun, with more chances for interaction between actual humans, good or bad.

There is nothing vexing about your statements, I would wager the feeling they generate is more along the lines of frustration since you seem unwilling to consider this game as anything other than Sci Fi Battlefield with a 12 player cap.

Tell me honestly: Would Street Fighter be a better game if it was 128v128 because it had more human interactions at once? Or any number of other games with small player limits, such as all the MOBA's being talked about in this thread.

The only way your comment would be vexing is if you had played a bunch of Titan Fall at 32v32, determined it to be better, and then said you can't explain why. As it is your statement isn't something a designer can actually use in any meaningful way because it has no relevance to the game they are making, unless they were dead set on emulating whatever game experience you have imagined in your head.

I'll make an equally vexing statement: games are at their best when they are single player and there is only one enemy on screen, I can't tell you why because it's part of the human experience, but Shadow of the Colossus proves this beyond any doubt.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

There also looks to be bonuses for things like First Strike (first kill of the round) and Pilot Headshots, which offer a +100 bonus on top of that. You also get an extra +25 points for headshotting an AI soldier, so +50 total for that.

I also saw +50 points for an Airborne kill, after the enemy pilot ejects. Also +300 points for a "Pilot Beatdown", which is the Titan vs Titan finishing move. (Grabs Pilot out of Titan and throws them away, Titan class specific finisher)

Crushing a Pilot with your Titan looks to grant a +100 bonus.

The scoring system in Titanfall seems really cool.

yep sounds new. I like new. Especially in a genre so tired.

 

[Q8D3vil]

I like it, had blast playing Halo3 in 3v3 and 4v4 and the game was balanced faround that (8v8 was a mess)

 

[Kalnos]

Massive death matches are awesome. Take me in CoD for instance. I go into a 32v32 server and just dominate other teams. Heck I've been banned multiple times because people thought I couldn't be that good so therefore I had to of been cheating(I only use cheat codes in the orignal starcraft so I can go sim city, and sometimes AoE2). The feeling of getting banned for being too good is satisfying beyond belief.

Don't worry, that's not unique to large player counts. The second you start playing well in CS the other team will warn you that they're reporting you and that you will be overwatch banned.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

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. Remember, you can get out of your Titan and let it roam on AI mode - meaning there can be 12 Pilots wallrunning around, 12 Titans stomping below, and dozens of AI doing their thing.

ROTFLMAO!

Heart Pounding 6 vs 6 multiplayer action confirmed!
Player count should be 100% dependent on map size.

Small tinsy tiny maps have 3 vs 3 or 6 vs 6. Medium sized map have 8 vs 8 or 12 vs 12. Big maps have 16 vs 16 or 24 vs 24.

If the maps in TitanFall are big, but only has 6 v 6, then this is a dealbreaker.

 

[HariKari]

Tell me honestly: Would Street Fighter be a better game if it was 128v128 because it had more human interactions at once? Or any number of other games with small player limits, such as all the MOBA's being talked about in this thread.

It's not an all or nothing situation. There are happy mediums for every genre and every game. What works in one doesn't work in others. Nowhere have I said Titanfall must be 32v32 or it will fail. I am simply saying that, in my experience, I like online shooters that have larger player counts. Why? Because they tend to have less reliance on each individual player and more chances for interactions with other human players. Some people like the really well done atmosphere of previous 4v4 or 5v5 titles. I don't. What is so confusing about that?

 

[DKo5]

I would rather hear about adjustable FOV.

No Steam info

Not yet talking about specific PC stuff. That time will come...

Will your game have traditional dedicated servers on the PC? If not, then I don't have a persistent community to be a part of. I think that's a fairly straightforward drawback. This is largely something consoles have done without, so it may not seem like a big deal. But you can ask any player who has played Battlefield, Counter-Strike, or Team Fortress; persistent communities add to the experience in a major way.

We have dedicated servers for all platforms, hosted on Microsoft's cloud. Here's an article Jon Shiring wrote after E3 to explain it a bit. Your response still makes the assumption that big player counts = community servers. Having been a part of quite a few PC FPS communities, I know exactly what you like about them, why they're good, and why they're different than the average P2P matchmaking system.

AI may not mimic players, but you are saying they add to the experience. I say that, for me personally, they really don't. In DOTA, creeps are an interesting minigame on their own. Will Titanfall have a metagame of sorts where you must decide whether or not you want to help move your AI across the map or seek out other players? So far it has been explained that they provide atmosphere and a way to ease casual players into the game. That doesn't appeal to me as a player or customer but I'm just one set of preferences among millions.

Having not played the game, I assume?, you probably shouldn't yet say they don't add to your experience. You very well might not like them in the game, but again - save judgements until playtime! That said, they do provide more than just "cannon fodder". Thats one thing they do provide for newer players, but they are a source of earning XP, earning your Titan faster, and other things that we haven't yet talked about. They aren't some huge "OMG GUYS WE FOUND THE ANSWER", but they do add flavor and a unique angle to the game that aren't currently available in other games; at least none that I've been playing.

You are asking me to quantify the human experience. What makes a large party more fun than a small one? What makes sharing a fun experience with friends better than being by yourself? Clearly it has some strange allure, because we see large scale in many games and not just shooters. I understand that it is vexing as a designer to be told that "well, it's better" and then not given a clear reason why. I would say for me, the most important factor is that my enemy is controlled by a player and I explained why. I think having more of these players on the field makes it even more fun, with more chances for interaction between actual humans, good or bad.

Yes I am! Its a really tough nut to crack. Not everyone likes big parties. Or maybe only some times? Its not vexing to be told an opinion. Whats hard is figuring out the root cause of that opinion. Plus, I just like to ask questions...

What did you find in your playtests that made 6v6 a clear win? What was it about 12v12 that didn't appeal to people? I'm just as curious, if you are willing to share. I am a competitive player. I've played in tournaments, clans, squads etc.. for nearly every game I've given a lot of attention to. I grew up on nothing often less than 16v16. That's the style of game I like and the perspective I have.

Its mostly the consistency of firefights. Lower player counts and there starts to be too many lulls in the action, too many "Hrmm... where to go now..." thoughts going through your head. Higher than it and there's just too much. You lose the ability to "keep it all from spilling over", so to speak, in your brain. 6v6 hit upon the sweet spot of being able to keep track of everything you're seeing, all the information coming in from your POV, the mini map, the obituary scroll, your teammates chatter, etc. Most players are usually still feeling quite in control of what they're doing, where they're going, and what they want to accomplish. Beyond 6v6 and it quickly turned into much more of a random mosh pit of "How did I die?" and feeling like there was nothing that could have been done to NOT die. Thats an important distinction to make.

A driving mantra for this game, as cheesy as it sounds, is what we dubbed MLLM. Minute to Learn, Lifetime to Master. Like Chess, or Go. Players quickly feel like they can get in and have fun. Thats not the "hard" part to accomplish with this. The hard part is, after 5, 10, 20, 100 hours - what is the player learning? Are they feeling like they have the ability to increase their skill at the game, or have they hit a ceiling? Are their wins and losses based on something they have control over, or is it purely luck/chance? Higher than 6v6 was really fast ruining this goal.

I have a CE reserved and am not sure if I really want to see it through now. I have never experienced a small scale online shooter that I've liked. I was the type of person who played Ground War 24/7 for the scale and the feel of a big team, not because I enjoyed so much spam. I really hope there is a beta or demo.

I really feel like you guys could open up to a whole new set of gamers by moving to something like 12v12. If you don't want to, and think that compromises your design vision, then by all means ignore those of us asking for it. At the end of the day it is your product to launch and your vision. Maybe Titans just aren't fun with four or five on the map at once. Maybe the pilot and grunt balance doesn't scale well, and results in things being less fun. Those are valid reasons to not pursue higher player counts. I just selfishly wish you'd open up the hood, turn on the options, and let the players decide what is best. Some really weird people like 64 players in a phone booth sized map. You don't want that to be what your players experience when they first play the game, obviously, but the option for those who like it has never hurt anyone.

I want nothing more than to be wrong. Titanfall was my most hyped game of 2014. But I find myself turned away by this news, and the Battlefield crowd I personally play with is scoffing at it as well. What matters in the end is how it plays, and if you are confident that you've got it nailed, then I can't wait to try it.

Glad to hear you've got it preordered, sad to hear this news makes you question it. I'd suggest holding on to your preorder

ROTFLMAO!

Heart Pounding 6 vs 6 multiplayer action confirmed!

Blame it on my heart and laugh at it all you want, but its the truth

 

[antitrop]

I can't wait to see more from "Campaign Multiplayer". Such a unique concept, with so much potential. I'm really interested to see how they can pull you through a makeshift campaign by completing multiplayer matches.