Updated: Titanfall Will Have a 6v6 Player Cap

[Callate]

I hope their server farms are as good as they've been boasting. 12-player games for a title that's as popular a tentpole as they're expecting Titanfall to be could end up amounting to a lot of games running simultaneously, with a lot of these AI grunts running "on the cloud" in each instance.

I don't think anyone is going to have any patience for network snafus on this one; too much is riding on it.

 

[ron1n]

Add to this the horrid virtual 'cloud' servers enforced for all games with no genuine dedicated server support, and you have another copy paste, piece of crap console fps.

Sure games like CS and CoD are suited to a standard 5v5 format, particularly for competitive play, but that doesn't mean you frigging cap it at that. People are always looking for fast and ridiculous pub servers with over-the-top team sizes and different rule sets/map rotations.


10v10 or 12v12 would have made a lot more sense if they were so set on capping it.

 

[chikusho]

Wow, that's.. Underwhelming.

I thought that they would at least support 12v12.

Oh well. Not getting an XB1 anyway.

 

[KaZuYa]

Good to hear, proper oldskool fps, 6v6 makes players engage and prove their worth not sit back and spam or camp.

 

[MCerberus]

I was just about ready to start giving this game a chance, then they went Quake Wars on us. AI coffin-stuffers incapable of accomplishing objectives that have to be turned on or the maps are insanely empty.

 

[Corven]

You know, this isn't that bad, I've played on "big" player count games and what those devolve into is the large 32 man team splits into small groups and fights other small groups in a large map.

 

[Mojo]

Having played a couple of rounds at the Gamescom, I can only support the others in this thread saying that 6v6 will be absolutely satisfying. There wasn't a single time in well over an hour of playtime that I wandered the map with nothing going on. And yeah, the AI is also a lot better then people might assume.

 

[el_kabong]

As far as I'm concerned, as this is going to be a full-priced (assumed) multiplayer-only game, having a cap at 12 players is pretty terrible. If you're relying solely on multiplayer, then you have to be able to deliver a lot of different experiences within the game. Capping it at such a small number may hinder the overall experience over time.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Keep in mind, 6v6 is often how many players are in a Call of Duty match (unless they upped it recently). Given that there is far more going on in this than just two teams of six going against each other, this doesn't seem like it will lower the intensity of battles at all when compared to CoD, and since that is the only reason to go with larger battles, I don't see how this is a bad thing. If anything, this will likely offer more intense firefights than CoD does, and that game is already known for its fast, intense gameplay. Granted, there's more to it than just player count, but I doubt Respawn is going to diverge too far from the smaller map sizes designed for fast-paced action that they worked on when with Infinity Ward, especially since they were using that map size for about a decade.

 

[Flippincrazy]

This seems like a courageous decision by the developers based on the style of game that they're trying to create. Respawn is trying to create a new form of FPS, in which the campaign is mulitplayer-focused, so it makes sense that they want fewer real-world players on a server - to make players feel necessary and integral to the plot. Whilst I don't quite understand why Respawn couldn't include a straight-up Team Deathmatch mode with more players to satiate the new hysteria, that's a creative decision on their part.

Reading the comments so far, wow. It's clear that many people here believe that more players on a server is the only way to create a better FPS experience, and that the fact that Respawn have made this decision is clear indication of the limitations of the Xbone. Guess people are still pretty hysterical about the Xbone debacle. I'd have thought people here would be a tad more positive about a developer trying to create something a little different from the standard FPS.

Looking forward to how the game plays.

 

[Glaice]

There goes any remote interest left in this game, be it not EA is the publisher, PC's mod SDK not initially available on launch and now this 6v6 nonsense. I mean come on, you can't have it 8 vs 8, 10 vs 10 or even 12 vs 12?

Shame on you Respawn, first you signed a deal with the devil (EA), next you announced the PC version won't initially have the SDK available on launch and now this. Good job alienating like 60-75% of your audience so far.

 

[Trishbot]

Welcome to the modern era.

A multiplayer focused game on PC that doesn't have mod tools, caps battles at 6v6, and is optimized for consoles over PC.

Pretty sure Planeside 2 is free... and has larger battles... Been thinking of trying that out. Any recommendations?

 

[Vigormortis]

Titanfall is announced as a futuristic military shooter:
"Oh em gee, guiz! Dis game is just like every other game I play, therefore it is shit and not worth my time!"

Titanfall is shown to have a host of features and mechanics that differ from other popular titles in it's genre:
"Oh em gee, guiz! Dis game is not like the other games I play, therefore it is shit and not worth my time!"

Christ, has this community become that cynical and jaded?

Good to hear, proper oldskool fps, 6v6 makes players engage and prove their worth not sit back and spam or camp.

My thoughts exactly. Titanfall is sounding more and more like a contemporary take on the old-school, pure-skill based shooter. Something I've been sorely seeking for years.

trust me played it at pax and 6 is enough to have a hell of a time. also the bots are smarter then most humans they use cover work together and punish you for screwing up(my team lost the match cause we had 4 rambos)

Having played a couple of rounds at the Gamescom, I can only support the others in this thread saying that 6v6 will be absolutely satisfying. There wasn't a single time in well over an hour of playtime that I wandered the map with nothing going on. And yeah, the AI is also a lot better then people might assume.

Funny how all the people bitching and moaning about Titanfall are the ones who haven't tried it, yet all of those that have tried it are claiming the 6v6 setup is justified.

No wait. Funny's not the word. What was the word I was looking for...?

Ah, whatever. Point is, the quality and "joy-factor" of a game are not predicated on it's match sizes and player counts.

Left 4 Dead 2 is still one of the most popular and most played games on Steam. Routinely beating any Call of Duty game. Yet it's player count is (barring server mods) capped at eight.

Good to hear that a game's developers is limiting the number of players in a given match to best suit the environment that the game was designed for. Bigger is not always better.

Good to see at least a few people looking at this objectively.

 

[Johkmil]

I think this just means we have to stop comparing this to some kind of acrobatic mech Battlefield, and rather see it as heading down its own path. Battlefield with 12 players and 52 bots would have been terrible, a competitive game such as CS with bots would have been terrible, but Titanfall is neither. Respawn might screw this up of course, but all we as players need to do is refraining from pre-ordering, reading reviews and finally making an informed decision at launch.

 

[A-D.]

Im just..going to use a Meme for this now, so please excuse me for the joke i am about to make.

Much players, such next-gen, so wow. -Doge

On a serious note. 12 Players in total, are you serious? I mean it makes sense for the 360 maybe, but the Xbone and the PC especially should be capable of having twice, of not triple those numbers. So why not make it upscaled, 360 gets the 6vs6, Xbone gets the 12vs12 and PC gets the 24vs24 or something? Why the hell would i want to play essentially Mechwarrior with just 11 other people, when basicly 2 or 3 get to ride a mech? I could just play Mechwarrior Online, or Hawken, more players and everyone gets a mech.

This is bloody pointless, seriously. Plus "bots" were meant for the casuals, so the uber-leet-haxorz could play on top with the newbs on the streets against the bots, yet its limited to 6vs6..what.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

That's disappointing. The last time I played a multiplayer game that didn't support more than 12 players was back in 2007. It was CoD 4.

 

[seditary]

I just noped as soon as I read you can put the Titans on autopilot.

Because basing half your game around something that might be better at times to not even use is just exactly what I don't want to play.

 

[orangeapples]

So if I got this right there are to be 6 players, 6 AI bots running around and a possible of 6 titans running around the field at the same time for a total of 36 units on the field. Sure the use of AI bots instead of real players seems cheap, but there must be some sort of reason. Perhaps that's their team balancing tool. If one team has 3 humans and the other has 6, then the team with 6 people will have dumber AI and the team with 3 will have smarter AI. When the teams are balanced they will play with the lobby's average player skill.

unless... 6 players, 6 bots, 6 titans... 666... OMG THIS GAME WAS DESIGNED BY THE DEVIL!!!!

okay, published by EA but close enough.