Updated: Titanfall Will Have a 6v6 Player Cap

[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.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

Has the thought crossed anyone's mind that maybe 6v6 was the right number for the game, rather than a tech limitation? Perhaps the addition of bots was a design decision to keep the game's mix of infantry and mech combat while preserving the players' ability to get a mech of their very own with using killstreaks or some such bollocks. That makes 6v6 actually a pretty good size. It keeps a feeling of bigness by mixing mechs and infantry, and preserves the dynamism of having both, even when all the players pull mechs.

Edit: I'm not really sure why people are mentioning Planetside in this thread. They are two almost completely different beasts and are meant to achieve different things as a result. Just because there are guns and you shoot people with said guns, doesn't necessarily mean you can compare them.

 

[Vigormortis]

Has the thought crossed anyone's mind that maybe 6v6 was the right number for the game, rather than a tech limitation? Perhaps the addition of bots was a design decision to keep the game's mix of infantry and mech combat while preserving the players' ability to get a mech of their very own with using killstreaks or some such bollocks. That makes 6v6 actually a pretty good size. It keeps a feeling of bigness by mixing mechs and infantry, and preserves the dynamism of having both, even when all the players pull mechs.

Edit: I'm not really sure why people are mentioning Planetside in this thread. They are two almost completely different beasts and are meant to achieve different things as a result. Just because there are guns and you shoot people with said guns, doesn't necessarily mean you can compare them.

Psh. Shows what you know.

Clearly, the logical thing to do is to ***** about the game when it's first announced by saying it's "just like every other game we already play". Then, when the game starts to show how it differs from other games in the genre, we must ***** that it's "not like the other games we play" and dismiss the whole thing out of hand.

Jesus, the reactions from the Escapist community to this news is almost as irrational and nonsensical as the IGN message boards.

It's fucking depressing. I thought we were better than that...

I swear, next time someone starts a thread to complain about the industry "just making sequels and clones" I'm going to laugh uncontrollably at the hypocrisy.

 

[hazydawn]

Great, my hype and hope for this game have been completely destroyed.
I didn't even know that there would be NPCs in the multiplayer. If I want to fight an AI I play singleplayer.

 

[A-D.]

Has the thought crossed anyone's mind that maybe 6v6 was the right number for the game, rather than a tech limitation? Perhaps the addition of bots was a design decision to keep the game's mix of infantry and mech combat while preserving the players' ability to get a mech of their very own with using killstreaks or some such bollocks. That makes 6v6 actually a pretty good size. It keeps a feeling of bigness by mixing mechs and infantry, and preserves the dynamism of having both, even when all the players pull mechs.

Edit: I'm not really sure why people are mentioning Planetside in this thread. They are two almost completely different beasts and are meant to achieve different things as a result. Just because there are guns and you shoot people with said guns, doesn't necessarily mean you can compare them.

The problem there is one of gameplay balance and simple logistics. Lets assume you have 12 people, these 12 people can earn killstreaks by killing each other, whoever unlocks the titan first essentially wins because taking one down is probably not really easy, otherwise the titan is essentially a gimmick and you dont even need it to be in the game, its like as if those nukes in CoD games didnt end the match, but rather just kill 3 people of the opposing team and thats it, the reward does not scale up to the requirement to unlock it. Now lets assume further that the bots also count towards the streak, to give a even playing field, so one or two guys cant steamroll basicly everyone else because they simply got their killstreaks full first, i.e. everyone can get a mech, the mapsizes will be limited, there is no way you can fit 12 mechs on such small maps, after all 12 people on massive maps? Good luck finding anyone.

So it boils down to that either the titans are useless gimmicks, or they are massively overpowered compared to your regular infantry mode, or it would be impossible to fit as many mechs as there are players, even just 12 on the map. 6vs6 makes sense if the titans arent factored in, in fact any comparison to games such as counter strike prove this, CS does not have killstreak rewards such as gunships, UAVs, hunter killer drones, nukes, airstrikes, artillery strikes or giant mechs for that matter, or anything else you can think of. Look at your own comparison, different beasts and all that, a 6vs6 with uber-weapons in the form of titans which at best 1 or 2 guys can gain in a single match skews the balance massively, or makes the titans which are supposedly the big reward thing to begin with utterly pointless to have since if you can take them out easily enough, all you do is paint a giant bullseye on your back.

In short, 6vs6 means small maps, means few titans, means skewed game balance which in turn means titans being utterly pointless for the game to begin with. Thats like having Battlefield (any of them) limited to 12 players but giving them tanks, jeeps, aircraft and so forth anyway.

 

[wooty]

Hmm, I was going to look this up....but AI in multiplayer?

I remember BF1942, Unreal Tournament, Counter Strike 1.5 and Star Wars Battlefront sometimes having AI "bots" in the games, and it was terrible. As marginally satisfying as it is to get easy kills because 16 dumbass bots are trying to squeeze through the same door and get mashed by a single grenade...just no! I thought multiplayer games had killed off bots long ago. Though I guess this could be good for the modern FPS player though, (if the AI is thick as pig shit) it will give them nice big fluffy opportunities to pad out their K/D ratio and boast about it online.

Then again, the proof is always in the pudding. I'll try out the PC version, but I'm not holding onto hope for it.

 

[Itsthefuzz]

Clearly, the logical thing to do is to ***** about the game when it's first announced by saying it's "just like every other game we already play". Then, when the game starts to show how it differs from other games in the genre, we must ***** that it's "not like the other games we play" and dismiss the whole thing out of hand.

Yeah I'm not really following some of the hate here either. The game industry has plenty of large scale shooters, why not be a little more excepting of something that's trying something new? And why are we acting like lower player count is inherently bad? As you mentioned, L4D sports 4v4 and is fine, and I personally quite enjoy CS:GO's 5v5 competitive style.

Are people scared they're going to have to actually pull their weight in a multiplayer game or something?