Support NeoGAF

[Deadbeat]

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.

MMMMM DELICIOUS matchmaking on PC. I cant wait to go backwards.

 

[GamingIsDead]

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.

Honestly that sounds really boring. Sometimes fun is more important then perfect balance.

 

[A Serious Man]

I didn't expect Battlefield sized maps but I was hoping for something at least a little bigger than CoD. This has sort of bummed me out.

 

[Bookoo]

Welll...guess I need to edit my #5 most anticipated game of the year.

Also not liking the sound of AI in MP.

 

[Bgamer90]

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.

Yeah, it's going to be pretty crazy.

 

[FairXchange]

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..:

Xbox One also has 64 player games in BF4, so how is it possibly the cause of Titanfall not having more than 6 vs 6?

 

[abadguy]

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.

Seriously and do people really think they are not designing the maps specifically with player count in mind?( not to mention anyone paying attention to preview vids would see that none of them suggested high player count) It's like they don't even think before posting or fanboys silliness overrides basic common sense. Personally i used to think high player counts in shooters looked fun as hell until i played a Battlefield for the first time. Didn't find it very fun at all.

 

[Jimmyfenix]

I know nothing about Titanfall but this has me interested. Sounds like they're going for balanced, competitive play instead of just throwing a bunch of players on a huge empty map and calling it a day.

Edit: Wow, the posts from Sony fans are utterly pathetic in here...

It seems harsh to call people who do not agree with this as 'Sony Fans'

 

[Milennia]

Makes sense, in the end of the last gameplay trailer, they showed 6 players wall jumping into a single ship to end the match.

I cant say I'm happy or surprised, but i understand their reasoning and it doesn't affect my hype for the game much at all.

Im still excited.
I can however see how some expected large scale battles... The initial trailers were a little misleading and hard to follow in that sense, looked like a war in those.

I cant say i prefer it either way until we actually see some legitimate 2-3 hour gameplay of the final version.

 

[zoobler3]

Dayum... Interest killed

that makes no sense. you were hyped because of player count. why were you hyped in the first place then.

 

[Gadirok]

MAG is a better example.


Regardless, I doubt the hardware has anything to do with Titanfall's focus on small teams. Its more likely they felt that was what worked the best. Plus its being ported to run on 360 as well.

 

[piratepwnsninja]

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.

No, they are just making the game. We truly know better than they do.

 

[Goodacre0081]

6v6 has no real meaning until the map sizes are shown

 

[NeoGash]

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..:

Gears of War was 4v4, Gears 2 onwards was 5v5. Why would it be a compromise when Perfect Dark on Xbox 360 supports 32 players (in 2005)?? You don't even know what you are talking about, it's embarrassing.

 

[Deadbeat]

Seriously and do people really think they are not designing the maps specifically with player count in mind?( not to mention anyone paying attention to preview vids would see that none of them suggested high player count) It's like they don't even think before posting or fanboys silliness overrides basic common sense. Personally i used to think high player counts in shooters looked fun as hell until i played a Battlefield for the first time. Didn't find it very fun at all.

Most Cod 4 maps worked with 12vs12 just fine.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

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..:

2 v 2 Gears is not true

 

[Loudninja]

People do know that others do prefer larger play counts correct?

Same as alot of you prefer smaller ones,calling people names or whatever of preference does no good.

 

[Overdoziz]

I don't think they're normal bots, are they? More like trash mobs to use to your advantage and confront strategically?

Lots of games use that sort of concept to great success.

I'd rather play mano-a-mano personally.

 

[Terbinator]

It's amazing! Some of the posts in this thread would fit well on N4G or Gametrailers forums. I don't want to believe they are serious.

These posts fit perfectly well on GAF, sadly.

 

[Poimandres]

6 vs 6 seems like a decent number to me. I've always enjoyed smaller scale team battles.

I am a little surprised that's where they are capping it though.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Excellent news. Maximizes skill and guarantees your performance makes a difference. Bigger doesn't mean better.

 

[zoobler3]

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..:

wtf...check your facts.

 

[Paz]

What did you think of it having seen it in person? I read some good feedback at PAX

Awesome enough that I'm pretty much on blackout until it comes out because I need no more convincing.

 

[Tsundere]

Tiny maps confirmed then.

 

[Justin]

What I'm hearing about the bots makes this sound like a MOBA shooter. Interesting stuff!

The AI was origionaly compared to the creeps in a MOBA but it has never been described exactly how they work. It seems like there is still a ton about this game we don't know considering how soon it is coming out.

I'm sure we are only 4 or 5 weeks away from the all out media assault.

 

[rob305]

I highly doubt they are just there for fodder. If so what the point of having bots in multiplier at all?

I played it. They are fodder. Actually I remember that when I played it for the first time I didn't even know there was bots in the game and I was thinking "god some of the gamers here are really bad". I suppose one of the reasons they added it is to increase accessibility for casuals and first time players. Very smart move. Nobody likes being fodder and this will allow casuals and first time players to rack up some kills and not get completely humiliated and therefore increase the fun for them.

 

[qa_engineer]

People who don't agree with anyone saying smaller matches are better than bigger ones are Sony fans and idiots now? Gtfo

 

[-COOLIO-]

good, i strongly dislike team games with over 16 players. i actually prefer around 8.

 

[antitrop]

I'm sure we are only 4 or 5 weeks away from the all out media assault.

Fucking bring it on, I absolutely cannot wait to see more out of this game.

 

[Sneds]

Tiny maps confirmed then.

Not if they're filling them with bots.

 

[PerZona]

Huh? 6 v 6? WTF? So I'm guessing the maps are gonna to be small then? At least make it 12 v 12...ugh.

 

[Chamber]

That's about what I expected. Pretty sure they hinted the player count wasn't going to be huge before.

 

[abadguy]

Gears of War was 4v4, Gears 2 onwards was 5v5. Why would it be a compromise when Perfect Dark on Xbox 360 supports 36 or 38 players? You don't even know what you are talking about, it's embarrassing.

Beat me to it, lol. Seriously it's getting downright comical at this point.

 

[Live Free or Die]

only 12? wow that is bad.

 

[Dueck]

As long as maps are laid out properly, player counts aren't a big deal. I'm more concerned with the whole "potential coaster" issue from a total lack of offline support.

No bot matches despite a game full of bots. What?

 

[Papercuts]

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..:

2v2? wut.

Gears MP was 4 on 4 and it was fucking godlike. It also had nothing to do with the tech, nobody designs a component like that around that...they design the maps. Though based on your initial sentence I don't know why I'm bothering.

 

[Swishh]

Sounds fine as long as its still a blast to play and the maps don't feel empty. What concerns me more is the $60 price tag, are we at least getting a good amount of maps (20+) to justify this?!

my guess is 8 maps - no more than 10.

 

[commedieu]

people justifying this with Counterstrike??? We've had quite a normalcy of different game-types, with say 18/24/32/64 players for years. And now all of a sudden, its now optimal to be 6 vs 6? This is just like the HD not mattering shit of last year. Look, its a stupid idea. Its 6 vs 6 because the engine probably can't handle more on the xbox one. They are probably pushing the shit out of it, and rushing to do so.

They are more than likely going to screw over the PC because of this as well. Which is going to throw my purchase out the window if thats the case. I play Arma, bf4, counterstrike, everything. Please, stop pretending this is some how ideal for a console game of this caliber as being pushed by everyone in the gaming world/media. You can balance 6 vs 6, as well as any game size, as many developers have done, for damn near a decade. This is not new ground here. Theres nothing in any of the footage that suggests some sort of tight knit Socom style play, or even the pace of gears.

This is funny.

 

[Betty]

If that's what they think is balanced then... okay.

Not sure why they couldn't have made two modes and have one be the crazier, higher player count for those interested, even if it would be unbalanced.

 

[Portugeezer]

What about PC?

Why would PC have any different? Remember, this is "next gen", resources shouldn't be a problem (allegedly), only thing will be game design.

 

[zoobler3]

People who don't agree with anyone saying smaller matches are better than bigger ones are Sony fans and idiots now? Gtfo

no complaining about player count without actually know how it affects the gameplay makes your stupid.

 

[Omega]

That might not go over well for the COD crowd they want to attract.

you mean the CoD crowd that plays Team Deathmatch which is capped at 6v6?

 

[Sneds]

I played it. They are fodder. Actually I remember that when I played it for the first time I didn't even know there was bots in the game and I was thinking "god some of the gamers here are really bad". I suppose one of the reasons they added it is to increase accessibility for casuals and first time players. Very smart move. Nobody likes being fodder and this will allow casuals and first time players to rack up some kills and not get completely humiliated and therefore increase the fun for them.

But being fodder for awhile is how you improve. Why would I want to play a multiplayer FPS game in which half the enemies I'm fighting against are AI cannon fodder? Won't that get boring really quickly? I'm genuinely confused.

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

Really thought we'd be looking at semi-Battlefield arenas with a game taking place in such large arenas with multiple vehicles. I expected at least 8v8.

 

[xxracerxx]

no complaining about player count without actually know how it affects the gameplay makes your stupid.

So people are not allowed to share their shock/surprise/disappointment/etc over hearing the numbers? Got ya.

Just saying that people are just expressing initial reactions to the numbers here.

 

[LowEndTorque]

I hope they don't go overboard with the AI's.

AI's in multiplayer actually annoy the shit out of me. I despise the sentry drones in KZ. If I want to play against AI's instead of people that's what single player is for.

 

[abadguy]

people justifying this with Counterstrike??? We've had quite a normalcy of different game-types, with say 18/24/32/64 players for years. And now all of a sudden, its now optimal to be 6 vs 6? This is just like the HD not mattering shit of last year. Look, its a stupid idea. Its 6 vs 6 because the engine probably can't handle more.

They are more than likely going to screw over the PC because of this as well. Which is going to throw my purchase out the window if thats the case. I play Arma, bf4, counterstrike, everything. Please, stop pretending this is some how ideal for a console game of this much hype. You can balance 6 vs 6, as well as any game size, as many developers have done, for damn near a decade. This is not new ground here. Theres nothing in any of the footage that suggests some sort of tight knit Socom style play, or even the pace of gears.

This is funny.

I think the general point was not every game has to have 6000 players to be fun, and some people (gasp) are not fans of game with high MP counts. Many of us have been fine with 8 on 8 in games like Halo for years, i don't see how this game would benefit from more players but feel free to explain how it would make it better.

i am not sure that 6v6 player count mattered when people that played the game, gave it good impressions.

No, no...They were all paid off, remember?

 

[Coolwhip]

Why would PC have any different? Remember, this is "next gen", resources shouldn't be a problem (allegedly), only thing will be game design.

This post was made before the PS4 and Xbone were revealed?

 

[zoobler3]

people justifying this with Counterstrike??? We've had quite a normalcy of different game-types, with say 18/24/32/64 players for years. And now all of a sudden, its now optimal to be 6 vs 6? This is just like the HD not mattering shit of last year. Look, its a stupid idea. Its 6 vs 6 because the engine probably can't handle more.

They are more than likely going to screw over the PC because of this as well. Which is going to throw my purchase out the window if thats the case. I play Arma, bf4, counterstrike, everything. Please, stop pretending this is some how ideal for a console game of this caliber as being pushed by everyone in the gaming world/media. You can balance 6 vs 6, as well as any game size, as many developers have done, for damn near a decade. This is not new ground here. Theres nothing in any of the footage that suggests some sort of tight knit Socom style play, or even the pace of gears.

This is funny.

i am not sure that 6v6 player count mattered when people that played the game, gave it good impressions.

 

[graywolf323]

it could turn out fine but from the everything they've shown you would have never expected it to be end up capped at 6 v 6