Titanfall has maximum player count of 12 (alongside AI) [Respawn comments post #558]

You saw more than 12 at a time? I didn't see it. I hope the outrage is shortlived.

There aren't many popular small scale series and I hate shitted up threads full of outrage instead of discussion. I honestly might have to take a leave of gaming forums with the way things have been going to enjoy this.
Other people in this thread have said that they thought the AI were human. It's been a while since I saw a Titanfall trailer or gameplay footage so I can't recall myself. I hadn't thought much about it.

If you feel the need to leave the forum then that's a pity but obviously your prerogative.
 
I played in many "high dollar" Quake and UT tournaments back in the day. If you dig up interviews I did during Gamescom and E3 you'll see lots of mentions of Doom, Quake, Tribes, Unreal, etc. There's a lot of inspirations that have been added to the soup that is the design of Titanfall. I personally think its what is causing a lot of people who, after playing it, have such a good time. It brings back a lot of those old feelings and experiences.

And yes, the artbook is awesome. Its huge!
I can totally understand why the game would be more fun with 6 opponents plus a bunch of AI. Here is my theory on the matter. Let me know if I'm wrong.

FPS games are great fun for the most skilled players but it means half of the players get killed more often than they kill other people (that'd be me!), and while getting killed is an essential part of the experience to keep tension up, maximum fun is derived from killing more than dying. I don't know what the ideal ratio is, but I would postulate it is 2:1 or higher.

That's where the AI comes in, they are the fodder that will keep all the players with positive kill/death ratio and they will make the game more fun for many more players, keeping people coming back for more.
 
This news actually makes me somewhat interested in this game now. Tired of multiplayer developers thinking that more = better. It's the main reason I don't deal with the FPS genre anymore - it's become so feature bloated. 4v4 would have been better, though.

Less players makes for a potentially simpler, more competitive game. TF is officially relevant to me.
 
Other people in this thread have said that they thought the AI were human. It's been a while since I saw a Titanfall trailer or gameplay footage so I can't recall myself. I hadn't thought much about it.

If you feel the need to leave the forum then that's a pity but obviously your prerogative.
Oh not a forum, I mean any online discussion about Titanfall. If things are that polarized off a playercount, I don't even want to see what's going to happen after the game goes live, because I already know.

People hollering and complaining and ruining any and every discussion possible.

Real life discussion will be much more palatable if this thread is any indication.
 
I can totally understand why the game would be more fun with 6 opponents plus a bunch of AI. Here is my theory on the matter. Let me know if I'm wrong.

FPS games are great fun for the most skilled players but it means half of the players get killed more often than they kill other people (that'd be me!), and while getting killed is an essential part of the experience to keep tension up, maximum fun is derived from killing more than dying. I don't know what the ideal ratio is, but I would postulate it is 2:1 or higher.

That's where the AI comes in, they are the fodder that will keep all the players with positive kill/death ratio and they will make the game more fun for many more players, keeping people coming back for more.
Wean the bad players in, I can see the benefits of that.
 
The complaints of 6 Vs 6 being too low are hilarious.

So higher player counts are directly related to fun factor now? I guess we'd better inform the millions that play 6 Vs 6 TDM in COD they could be having so much more fun if it were 12 Vs 12. Map designs are irrelevant. Game design is irrelevant. Player count above all!
 
There are lots of competitive FPS games with player counts much higher than 12 - Battlefield, TF2 and CS immediately spring to mind. No need for the stupidity comments.
So? I'm seeing lots of posts in here talking about player count as if it's somehow the determining factor on how good a competitive multiplayer game is going to be. Player count is the last thing I feel people should be worried about.
 

Goreomedy

Console Market Analyst
Well, that's not the focus of the game so I don't see the problem.
Okay... but my post was mainly about seemingly limited modes for matchmaking.

I remember back on old GAF, arguing with Frankie that Halo would be so much better (for me) if they'd evolve from the 5 on 5 model. But he defended the "balance" such a player count brought the game. A year later they introduced larger modes. Which were wildly popular... (I still want 64 player Halo)
 

DKo5

Respawn Entertainment
Incoming mega-reply!

CoD4 was one of my favorite games of the last generation. Titanfall looks great, but, honestly, if it's like a MW2 where there were kill streaks every three seconds or constant harriers in the air, I'll probably play for like a month and move on. Please tell me the mechs aren't going to be like AC-130s in CoD when the pilots are out.
They aren't uber killing death machines when in AI mode.

I really think you guys should highlight the shit that makes Titanfall different from other popular MP games, whether it's post match extraction stuff or how the game just is different from CoD. I know it's different from CoD, but I'm sure the higher ups want to make it look like it's just CoD with mechs.

That's going to work for the mass market, but I really, really, really hope Titanfall shakes shit up in terms of MP shooters. Because FFS I can't take CoD anymore. I realize you guys have nothing to do with that now, but if Titanfall is just a cluster fuck like MW2 I'm out. I'm hoping this and other games that have been announced actually redefine how MP games are played because right now? I don't give a fuck about competitive MP shooters where as I was on CoD4 ever weekend for years.
Its actually been really tough trying to accurately market Titanfall. If you look at what we've done, its a lot different than what most FPS games do. Without a bunch of highly scripted SP moments to recam from different angles, the usual "movie like" trailer is just about right out. Instead, we've decided to show unedited gameplay segments that last 3-5 minutes (so far - more footage coming, of course!) to show the "flow" of the game. Starting as a Pilot, taking on AI and other player Pilots, wall running around a Titan, earning your Titan, climbing in, battling other Titans while stomping on humans, ejecting, etc. There's a huge amount of gameplay mechanics available at any one time, and encompassing them in a few minutes is actually quite hard to do.

Its also why we took an extremely early pre-alpha build of the game to events like Gamescom, PAX, etc. to let normal dudes hands-on time with the game. There's no amount of polished marketing that can replace playing the actual game.

High count games tend to have persistent servers. From what you've told me, Titanfall doesn't have that. I played on the same TF2 server for a year and enjoyed the sense of community. It is a combination of all the things above, but it also has to do with the challenge of playing against actual players. You will never convince me that AI can correctly mimic the experience another player provides. More importantly; I know there aren't more players on the enemy team. I know the grunt I just wasted - quite easily - was programmed to be that way. You can tune these players to be as easy or as difficult as you want. They will never give the same satisfaction as killing another human player.
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.

Part of the appeal of dropping into a large server is coming up against the unknown. Will someone smash my team? Will my team smash theirs? Will it be a constant tug of war? These are all things that are better answered when there are more actual people to enjoy the experience with. This is a shooter after all. That's the appeal of high counts, to me. And the games that do it right do it very well. People want to use 64 player TDM as a knock against high count games, and that's just not correct. But there are people who enjoy that sort of thing, and those games give them that option.
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.

I wish your game would give me the option. I understand it does not fit your design decision, but also understand that your vision does not fit every gamer. There are lots of people, many of whom I'm talking to right now in my own gaming circle, that would adore a 24 or 32 player Titanfall mode. Your answer will be "try it" and I will. But I know the limitations of small count games, and as creative and delicious as Titanfall looks, It will never escape some of the fundamental flaws those games have.
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.

And yet in Planetside and MAG you are laughing and screaming with other players, due to the actions of others. In Titanfall, it's five other people.

I have no doubt that you guys will unleash upon the world a unique experience that is worthy of praise. I just don't think it will be for me. And I fully understand why you included the AI, and what you are shooting for. I can see how that would appeal to the high count crowd. But I like playing with other humans and a persistent community. Maybe higher counts is something you can explore in sequels, expansions, or DLCs. I would encourage it. Because there's a huge market that loves your game that also loves large scale games.
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 :)

Bigger battles are more intense and varied.
I do not feel that having lots of AI instead of players is going to be as fun.
The challenge of MP games is the skill of the other players vs you (and a lot of the reason people MP instead of SP) and I think having so many AIs running around the place is just going to dilute the challenge.
Appreciate the response. As above, I hope you get a chance to play the game, and let me know what you think. There's a lot going on constantly in this game, I doubt anyone will say it lacks competitive challenge, intensity, and variety though.
 
I hope that controller players are forced on their own servers, I doubt K&M players would be too happy about someone that can not hit the broadside of a barn on their team.



You have to have it before you can lose it.
Controllers have never been a problem in Battlefield or Call of Duty before (Doesn't Counter Strike also have controller support?). No need for that plus it would just divide up the community.
 

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
Respawn said:
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.
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.

I mean TF2 had 4v4 up to 8v8 (later updated only on PC to 16v16), so it's completely fine with me if it's 6v6, but that's kinda a step back after CoD and BF and all that, you know?

Grief.exe said:
I only play Scout in TF2 and 16v16 maps totally destroy the viability of the class and the general flow of the game as a whole.
Maybe that's what has soured me on TF2 besides the class updates, coming from the 360 version of 200-600 hours played on consoles: the player-count screws with some classes. :/
 
So? I'm seeing lots of posts in here talking about player count as if it's somehow the determining factor on how good a competitive multiplayer game is going to be. Player count is the last thing I feel people should be worried about.
Some people prefer high player counts. Some people prefer low player counts. You can't understand why some people might have a preference either way? I can and I don't have a particular preference myself.
 

Hazaro

relies on auto-aim
My reply got buried, but basically people need to play the game, it kind of hammers you even with 6v6 (although I still don't like idea/thoughts behind the AI). Plus all that game and map and class design, etc.

Thanks for taking the builds public.
 
The complaints of 6 Vs 6 being too low are hilarious.

So higher player counts are directly related to fun factor now? I guess we'd better inform the millions that play 6 Vs 6 TDM in COD they could be having so much more fun if it were 12 Vs 12. Map designs are irrelevant. Game design is irrelevant. Player count above all!
it's sad. I feel bad for devs having to read stuff like this. god, making games must be so shitty when you have to contend with mindsets like this.
 
you're downplaying the importance and mechanics of creeps to save face here

yes, they just trudge down lanes, but controlling creeps is a vital part of the game since they're basically packets of gold and XP. their aggro mechanics are also absolutely vital to early laning or playing mid. a fat creep-wave pushing in your lane (without a hero!) warrants a TP-scroll response.

i think having 'creeps' in a shooter is fascinating if it allows for interactions like it does in Dota.
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

As someone said before the game could essentially turn into who can camp the most bots depending on their role, and with the way that Respawn are shoving AI down our throats its seems they will hold a pretty significant role indeed. Im already seeing multiple competitive communities laugh off Titanfall due to the exact reason.

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

Im reserving my final judgement til I play the game but my stance at the moment is that it will be a great Pub game and will be some fun. I just don't think it will have a place in the competitive arena
 
I don't think twelve players is low at all, especially when coupled with the AI which, as they've said, won't be just a matter of "bots".

More players would, in my experience, make it harder to find a better quality game anyway since there's a better possibility in a group of 64 people having shitty connections than a group of twelve.

Titanfall is doing enough different from other shooters in the industry right now that I honestly don't mind the "compromises" (and I only use that word for lack of a better one) they're making.
 
12 players is fine (plus the 12 A.I mode titans) but I would of preferred 8v8. Bigger doesn't always mean better though. MAG was trash having said that Planetside 2 is awesome. If the game is fun to play then thats the main thing right?
 
There have been devs that have been discouraged by internet negativity. It's becoming a problem.
The worst part is, some people will say the most vile and disgusting shit directed at a game developer and their families, but as soon as they snap back they are unprofessional and cry babies lol. Filthy double standards by nothing more than a mob of cavemen who should have been extinct millennia ago. Whenever I see someone in this industry snapping, I usually always take their side. I refuse to encourage primitive and unintelligible vitriol by standing beside the vocal idiots.
 

TheD

The Detective
The former-Infinity Ward pedigree is enough for me to have automatic respect for Respawn right off the bat.
I really was never a fan of CoD (even the old versions).

Appreciate the response. As above, I hope you get a chance to play the game, and let me know what you think. There's a lot going on constantly in this game, I doubt anyone will say it lacks competitive challenge, intensity, and variety though.
That response might of earned it thou.

Controllers have never been a problem in Battlefield or Call of Duty before (Doesn't Counter Strike also have controller support?). No need for that plus it would just divide up the community.
It has been proven time and time again that a mouse can out aim an analog stick by a huge margin, I am not sure how happy people will be with a player that is at such a disadvantage is on their team.
 
I just wanted to say DKo5, I really appreciate and respect the hell out of you guys at Respawn.

I'm disappointed to not be playing this game on my console of choice, but I wish you great success with it. It sounds like you guys have put a lot of thought and effort into it and it looks like a fantastic game.
 
FUCK YES

Maybe I'm strange but I'm more interested in Titan Fall than ever.

I play tons of BF4 on PC and XB1. Only about 12 of your teammates are actually useful on a 64 player server :D
that's something I like about smaller team sizes also

your chances of having memorable and meaningful interactions is higher with fewer players

you can actually get a sense of your teammate's tendencies and personality and develop some chemistry in a game like CS, and that sort of inter-personal interaction is even more pronounced in MOBAs. of course the good comes with the bad and you might be in close-quarters with an asshole but ehh, you can jump into higher player count games and just feel completely anonymous... no cohesion or strategy or communication
 
Incoming mega-reply!
I appreciate your answers. Unfortunately, it's better to be PR these days and not respond directly. As excited as you are, I don't want you to get misinterpreted and piss off your higher ups. For the record, I'm very excited for the release and good luck to you and Respawn!

Still can't believe the outrage over 6v6 in a Respawn game
 
Come to think of it, I remember when M.A.G. for PS3 had a lot of people go crazy with its player count. Look how that turned out... It's all about balance between quality and quantity. I'm pretty sure Vince is right when he says that they tried experiencing low and high end player count.
 
I'm hella excited for the game but I'm just waiting for that $50 season pass announcement *cringe*

EA pls.
Right, and who knows what else is in store. Zampella's response to the finding out about exclusivity is an example.

I'm sure we're not the only ones concerned and leery due to EA's being on the box, especially after the last few debacles they unleashed upon consumers.

I hope it's great though. It's a cool concept, and they have the obvious pedigree at Respawn, those which are what's keeping my eye on the game for now. If this title wasn't being dev'd by Respawn I would write this off immediately "because EA".

I'd like to get my hands on it, but there's no events nearby where I live unfortunately to alleviate my concerns. So I'll just be relying on CS:GO for my shooter fix for now, fingers crossed Titanfall and Destiny turn out good, and of course bated breath of hopes on H-Hour.

Come to think of it, I remember when M.A.G. for PS3 had a lot of people go crazy with its player count. Look how that turned out...
...turned out to be one of my favorite console shooters last gen along with Warhawk and MW1&2?
 
Come to think of it, I remember when M.A.G. for PS3 had a lot of people go crazy with its player count. Look how that turned out... It's all about balance between quality and quantity. I'm pretty sure Vince is right when he says that they tried experiencing low and high end player count.
Yup. MAG was all about the 256 player count, and no one ended up giving a shit because the game sucked.
 
it's sad. I feel bad for devs having to read stuff like this. god, making games must be so shitty when you have to contend with mindsets like this.
When you choose to be a creator of music, lit, movies, games etc you have to develop thick skin or simply never talk about what you're doing until it's released. Otherwise the sound of the empty cans rattling around on the Internet will drive you mad. I doubt Vince cares much. He's done this a long time. Make a great game and gamers will show up...

Yup. MAG was all about the 256 player count, and no one ended up giving a shit because the game sucked.
And make a bad game and people will stay away.
 
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.
 
Come to think of it, I remember when M.A.G. for PS3 had a lot of people go crazy with its player count. Look how that turned out... It's all about balance between quality and quantity. I'm pretty sure Vince is right when he says that they tried experiencing low and high end player count.
nah bro I'm pretty sure the game design experts who started cancelling preorders halfway through reading the thread title have a better idea of what works and what's Right and Good and Acceptable than the makers of the game
 
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

As someone said before the game could essentially turn into who can camp the most bots depending on their role, and with the way that Respawn are shoving AI down our throats its seems they will hold a pretty significant role indeed. Im already seeing multiple competitive communities laugh off Titanfall due to the exact reason.

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

Im reserving my final judgement til I play the game but my stance at the moment is that it will be a great Pub game and will be some fun. I just don't think it will have a place in the competitive arena
This entire reply seems based on the premise that the AI can take a player down in a few bursts, which doesn't reflect what the developers have been saying about increasing the average time a player goes before respawning. Player health seems closer to Halo than CS.

Taking out AI gets you your Titan, and protecting your AI makes taking objectives easier, so they have a role to play.