MMMMM DELICIOUS matchmaking on PC. I cant wait to go backwards.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.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.
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.
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.
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?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..:
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.
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...
Dayum... Interest killed
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.
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..:
Most Cod 4 maps worked with 12vs12 just fine.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.
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..:
I'd rather play mano-a-mano personally.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.
These posts fit perfectly well on GAF, sadly.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.
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..:
What did you think of it having seen it in person? I read some good feedback at PAX
What I'm hearing about the bots makes this sound like a MOBA shooter. Interesting stuff!
I highly doubt they are just there for fodder. If so what the point of having bots in multiplier at all?
Fucking bring it on, I absolutely cannot wait to see more out of this game.I'm sure we are only 4 or 5 weeks away from the all out media assault.
Tiny maps confirmed then.
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.
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..:
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?!
What about PC?
People who don't agree with anyone saying smaller matches are better than bigger ones are Sony fans and idiots now? Gtfo
That might not go over well for the COD crowd they want to attract.
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.
no complaining about player count without actually know how it affects the gameplay makes your stupid.
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 am not sure that 6v6 player count mattered when people that played the game, gave it good impressions.
Why would PC have any different? Remember, this is "next gen", resources shouldn't be a problem (allegedly), only thing will be game design.
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.