Updated: Titanfall Will Have a 6v6 Player Cap

[james.sponge]

Could it be bots will be used as a infantry cannon fodder for grinding stats and players will be ones controlling mechs and wrecking havoc?

I'm still betting this decision was dictated by technical limitations of console hardware that basically influenced map design, and player cap. Having said that this could still turn out to be enjoyable so let's wait and judge it when it's out? Please?

Dammit forgot one thing, remember when they said they wanted to bring cinematic experience of single player campaign? Well this seems to be their way to do that, introduce bots that will conduct scripted events during MP matches, I don't think I like that

 

[Lightknight]

It's a game in which any of the players can hop into giant battle mechs. I think 6 v 6 is ok with that in mind, especially considering the amount of A.I.

Most of the games I play on COD only have teams from 5 to 8 anyways, and that's without battlemechs.

 

[Baresark]

I'm interested in how this is looking. Yeah, it will only be 6v6, but the bots are not copies of you, they are weaker soldiers. They act more like creeps in a MOBA. They are there for you to collect whatever passes for in match currency, as well as other players, so eventually you can call out a Titan. I'm pretty sure there will also be other things you can do with the accumulated in match points, such as in Blacklight Retribution. This actually improves the game for me because huge game matches are the first thing to suffer in times when people play less, such as when I get home from work or during the day. Also, think about a few other games that are awesome with lower player counts such as Counter Strike, and TF2 gets really annoying when there are a lot of extra people running around on them map. My guess is that they are also optimizing the maps for that number of mobile people. I can't wait to check this out, to be honest. I wasn't looking forward to BF with mechs and jump packs.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

So according to the update, there are 3 times more computer player than human players?
Why not just play against the computer if that's the case.

Sorry, but I don't want to play against bots in a online multiplayer game.

 

[Bindal]

So according to the update, there are 3 times more computer player than human players?
Why not just play against the computer if that's the case.

Sorry, but I don't want to play against bots in a online multiplayer game.

Because a competitive game doesn't need to be "humans only" and NPC in multiplayer don't mean "Coop only". Ever heard of a litte game called "Dota"? THAT game ALSO has "humans and non-human players against a second team of humans and non-humans". Nobody compains about it not being humans VS non-humans or player-count being too low.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

So according to the update, there are 3 times more computer player than human players?
Why not just play against the computer if that's the case.

Sorry, but I don't want to play against bots in a online multiplayer game.

Because a competitive game doesn't need to be "humans only" and NPC in multiplayer don't mean "Coop only". Ever heard of a litte game called "Dota"? THAT game ALSO has "humans and non-human players against a second team of humans and non-humans". Nobody compains about it not being humans VS non-humans or player-count being too low.

Ever heard about a game called Counter Strike? Call of Duty? Halo? Battlefield? Tribes? Any shooter with a multiplayer every made? Every single one of those has a competitive scene, yet they allow for matches of up to 64v64. CS could go even bigger if the servers could handle so many player.
Why do you compare the game to something that's not even similar?
Why Dota? Because it fits your argument? Why not something more similar like any other FPS?
Do you realize that Dota can have over 200 AI units on the map at the same time? The amount of different items the player can have? The different skills heroes have? The amount of different skills? The amount of different modes?

Also why "competitive" game? Since when is it a competitive game? Will people only play competitive matches? What about those who don't play competitive matches?
You can't make a game competitive. You can make a game and the player will decide if it's competitive or not. And you don't limit the player who don't play competitively in how they play it unless you don't want them to buy the game.
Dota is limited in player count, but it has many mods and over 100 heroes so even if you don't play it competitively, you can do shit.

Other game, games much close to this one go from 1v1 to 64v64 matches if they play wants it.

Dota is fundamentally different than Titanfall. Don't compare them just because it works for your "argument".

"It's okay that my car drives 20km/h max because no one complains about a bicycle going that fast". That's your argument.


EDIT:
Also Dota had a reason to limit the amount of players.
Warcraft 3 has a 12 players limit. 2 player go for Sentinel and Scourge. 5 players in one team and 5 in the other. It was physically impossible to make more than 6v6.
When Dota2 was made, Dota's competitive scene and the non-competitive scenes where already established. Player accepted it that way. They didn't want a change. Yet Dota didn't force you to play competitively. You could chose from many fun modes if you wanted.

So even Dota doesn't work in your favor because at least Dota had a reason to be 5v5. It's not because they wanted to limit the player but because they couldn't do it otherwise.
Here developer claim that the game can handle more than 6v6 but they don't want to allow for more. So yeah, they are intentionally limiting this with a cheap excuse as "competitive" while not even knowing if the game will ever be competitive.

 

[EvilRoy]

snip

What I honestly don't understand is why you seem to be predicating all your arguments on the developers being stupid.

All the guesses you've made about how the game will work would indeed suck, which would immediately lead me to believe they were addressed in the concept stage of the game. If you can think of them just sitting somewhere behind a computer, then they likely have intimate knowledge of every positive and negative to each of these design choices.

I'll admit that mistakes are made during the development process and not every mechanic turns out to work how one might expect, but you actually seem to be arguing that the game cannot work because they made a mistake on one of the most fundamental design aspects of a multiplayer game.

Most vs. games involving more than two players are typically wholly balanced around player count, with everything from map size to weapon effectiveness and choice being limited by that single factor. Take TF2 for instance, a game developed based on semi-casual play and 12v12. Yes you can play it with more or less, but 32 player is a clusterfuck deathmatch at best, and 12 player is a ghost town on all but the smallest official maps. The game simply works best on 24 players, allowing for both teamwork and consistent action, because the maps and weapons were designed with it in mind.

I really can't parse that you would imply that the game will fail because of its playercount. Even Brink, a game that by and large failed for a multitude of reasons, still managed to balance maps and most weapons appropriately around 16 players.

 

[Baresark]

snip

What I honestly don't understand is why you seem to be predicating all your arguments on the developers being stupid.

All the guesses you've made about how the game will work would indeed suck, which would immediately lead me to believe they were addressed in the concept stage of the game. If you can think of them just sitting somewhere behind a computer, then they likely have intimate knowledge of every positive and negative to each of these design choices.

I'll admit that mistakes are made during the development process and not every mechanic turns out to work how one might expect, but you actually seem to be arguing that the game cannot work because they made a mistake on one of the most fundamental design aspects of a multiplayer game.

Most vs. games involving more than two players are typically wholly balanced around player count, with everything from map size to weapon effectiveness and choice being limited by that single factor. Take TF2 for instance, a game developed based on semi-casual play and 12v12. Yes you can play it with more or less, but 32 player is a clusterfuck deathmatch at best, and 12 player is a ghost town on all but the smallest official maps. The game simply works best on 24 players, allowing for both teamwork and consistent action, because the maps and weapons were designed with it in mind.

I really can't parse that you would imply that the game will fail because of its playercount. Even Brink, a game that by and large failed for a multitude of reasons, still managed to balance maps and most weapons appropriately around 16 players.

It's not worth it man. These guys have clearly played the game and know that this is a downfall. They know the maps are too small because of the player count. You know the Titan's are both too weak and too strong simultaneously (because of Quantum whatever). They just know from a articles and pictures that this game sucks. They just know. They know that these guys have copied COD because of who they are and they have not game left to make. They just know. They also know that the game would in fact be better as a copy of COD (once again because of Quantum whatever). They know that they won't be innovative while at the same time trying something new that will definitely fail, because they know.

/endsarcasm.

 

[A-D.]

snip

What I honestly don't understand is why you seem to be predicating all your arguments on the developers being stupid.

All the guesses you've made about how the game will work would indeed suck, which would immediately lead me to believe they were addressed in the concept stage of the game. If you can think of them just sitting somewhere behind a computer, then they likely have intimate knowledge of every positive and negative to each of these design choices.

I'll admit that mistakes are made during the development process and not every mechanic turns out to work how one might expect, but you actually seem to be arguing that the game cannot work because they made a mistake on one of the most fundamental design aspects of a multiplayer game.

Most vs. games involving more than two players are typically wholly balanced around player count, with everything from map size to weapon effectiveness and choice being limited by that single factor. Take TF2 for instance, a game developed based on semi-casual play and 12v12. Yes you can play it with more or less, but 32 player is a clusterfuck deathmatch at best, and 12 player is a ghost town on all but the smallest official maps. The game simply works best on 24 players, allowing for both teamwork and consistent action, because the maps and weapons were designed with it in mind.

I really can't parse that you would imply that the game will fail because of its playercount. Even Brink, a game that by and large failed for a multitude of reasons, still managed to balance maps and most weapons appropriately around 16 players.

Actually im not saying the game will fail, there is a difference between failing and simply being subpar. My argument isnt about the size of the playercount really, i mean you can also do the opposite by having too many players and too large maps, so it is a balancing act either way. What i question is how useful, how viable the name-giving Titans are going to be on a map which has to be tailored towards a 6vs6 match no matter what. Sure bots would inflate the number, but how challenging is it to fight against the AI, who may or may not actually have titans, though probably not, just because you are too far away from the action? So the AI Soldiers probably wouldnt count into mapsize specifically because the game isnt made for them in mind, but rather for the players, the AI after all doesnt care.

So the problem is, with 12 players per match at most, if not less depending, Titans are somewhat useless because the map has to be small, in relativ terms this might still be a medium sized map, we have no info there yet, but if Infantry basicly have all the upsides because the maps are made specifically for the players, with the Titans being the addition you can use. Yet Titans are limited to ground combat, unless they give you some kind of upgrade to jump or use a oversized jetpack essentially, which means that if they want to seperate ground and vertical combat, titans and infantry would rarely interact and to have vertical combat you need elevation, rocks, buildings, whatever, which means the movement paths for titans are again limited.

Additionally, since you can take out Titans while on foot, with rockets, maybe a well-placed shot to the cockpit or whatever methods exist, it makes them less special because you dont need a titan on your own to take on another titan. Basicly the problem is whether or not the Titans become superflous and pointless in a game which is supposedly revolving mostly around their existence. Thats like playing Mechwarrior but you only play as infantry. From what i've seen and heard so far, Titans dont seem to matter as much. Doesnt mean the game is bad, after all you can have tons of fun with the infantry-mode combat, jumping around, jetpacks and such, but then you may as well just focus on that and remove titans entirely.

So it really depends how well they mesh and so far, it doesnt seem all that good, so unless they suprise me somehow, im not exactly seeing the big appeal. Since combat like Titanfall, if we take out the Titans, is already available in other games, Quake and Unreal Tournament come to mind, although they are more sci-fi.

 

[EvilRoy]

Snip

Yeah see, so again I feel most of those arguments are predicated on the developers being stupid.

Surely the first thing you consider when designing both units and the maps they are used on is how those units will interact with the map and each other. What you propose are glaringly obvious design flaws, things that should be noticed in preliminary stages. To say that those flaws will ultimately be the downfall of the finished game implies either the creators are blind to balancing issues a casual observer can note, or those designers lack the skill or competence necessary to mitigate them.

Additionally, your arguments seem to be based around what Titans and ground units "are", while in reality the developers are uniquely able to change those definitions to suit their needs at will as development progresses.

Considering the fact that balancing units and maps, typically around player count, are critical elements of multiplayer design, I just cannot see a developer being unable to see or avoid the issues you bring up. Particularly given the developers previous experience with multiplayer.

 

[Norix596]

I bet they're going to eventually have a different mode where they just remove the AI troops and allow more Players.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

You're wasting your time. Again, I have no interest in arguing over what might happen based on your assumptions.

However, I will address your last question, as insulting as it is, by asking a few of my own:

If you don't care about Titanfall, why are you wasting so much of your time trying to convince people they shouldn't care either? Why are you trying to convince me I'm "wrong" for wanting to play it? What does it matter to you if I, and many many others, purchase and play Titanfall?

What kind of person spends their time hating on something they care nothing about? Does the prospect of Titanfall becoming a successful franchise; one probably far more successful than one you like; bother you? Why would that be? Is your enjoyment of a piece of media that predicated on how popular it is?

Regardless, I'm done with this conversation. I have no interest in talking to someone who's only goal is to talk down to everyone and ruin everyone's attempts at having fun. As well, someone who only wants to argue over his own assumptions.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

Bud, don't even bother.

Most of the counter-arguments and complaints showing up in this thread are built entirely around assumptions, fallacies, false dichotomies, and double-standards.

For example:
"Battlefield is designed around vehicles like tanks, so tanks are useful in the game."

"Titanfall is designed around vehicles like the Titans, so Titans are either useless or overpowered."


Or another example:
"Competitive games like Battlefield are designed around very large maps that cater to large player counts, which is good game design."

"Competitive games like Titanfall are designed around small maps that cater to smaller player counts, which is bad game design."

What really get's me about this whole affair is: people have been incessantly bitching about the industry stagnating. Bitching about the industry just copying and replicating the same games, the same experiences.

Yet, here we have a game coming that's fresh and new, yet all we see are people bitching that it's not like everything else.

I guess there's no pleasing some people.

And we wonder why the general masses view gaming as a "childish" pass-time.

:|

 

[A-D.]

Snip

Yeah see, so again I feel most of those arguments are predicated on the developers being stupid.

Surely the first thing you consider when designing both units and the maps they are used on is how those units will interact with the map and each other. What you propose are glaringly obvious design flaws, things that should be noticed in preliminary stages. To say that those flaws will ultimately be the downfall of the finished game implies either the creators are blind to balancing issues a casual observer can note, or those designers lack the skill or competence necessary to mitigate them.

Additionally, your arguments seem to be based around what Titans and ground units "are", while in reality the developers are uniquely able to change those definitions to suit their needs at will as development progresses.

Considering the fact that balancing units and maps, typically around player count, are critical elements of multiplayer design, I just cannot see a developer being unable to see or avoid the issues you bring up. Particularly given the developers previous experience with multiplayer.

Actually, assuming they are stupid and viewing the information as available isnt exactly the same thing. I can only work with what i have after all, the Devs havent told me everything about it so im forming my opinion based on what i can see. Right now, i see titans being undervalued because everyone can get one, because their use is essentially limited for no actual reason other than terrain. Think about it, what makes the titan special compared to a foot soldier? I mean what exactly is the upside, like the very first difference when switching from one to the other? The only difference so far that i can determine is size and movement. I havent seen Titans fly or jump yet, they might be able to, if so the whole argument about their use being limited to the ground is moot.

Yet the definition doesnt change, Titans are warmachines, they are in this "universe" advanced and powerful enough to make tanks, if not tanks and aircraft redundant, yet equally they fall victim "easily" to a mere soldier on the ground, where its presence should by all rights dominate. Basicly you shouldnt be able to take them on when on foot, you should need a titan on your own to be a serious threat to the opposing titan. That doesnt mean you should be unable to take one out, but it should be the exception, not the rule. I want Titans to be as important as they are implied to be, rather than being essentially a more advanced version of a respawning tank from any other modern military shooter.

Yet all i have seen so far implies the opposite, that they are indeed just another piece of equipment which is not inherently superior to what you seem to be able to access when you are on foot. Nevermind that titans are numerous enough that everyone can have one somewhat reduces their threat. I mean whats the difference between 12 dudes with jetpacks and 12 dudes in mechs? The playing field is even, what matters is the differences from one to the other, and so far i havent really seen any big enough reasons to make titans actually matter.

I wouldnt mind if titans were rare, perhaps a commander even, both sides get one, the whole point is to destroy the other one and not lose yours, there's a interesting game-mode right there that makes the Titan actually be important rather than yet another piece of equipment, regardless how you acquire it.

I guess i just want Titans to be actually powerful to be a threat, not worry about whether xXAssassinXx and Facemeltor are going to throw a rocket at me from above to feel "cool" about it. So far, it seems infantry has more options of evasion and of attack against titans.

snip

You're wasting your time. Again, I have no interest in arguing over what might happen based on your assumptions.

However, I will address your last question, as insulting as it is, by asking a few of my own:

If you don't care about Titanfall, why are you wasting so much of your time trying to convince people they shouldn't care either? Why are you trying to convince me I'm "wrong" for wanting to play it? What does it matter to you if I, and many many others, purchase and play Titanfall?

What kind of person spends their time hating on something they care nothing about? Does the prospect of Titanfall becoming a successful franchise; one probably far more successful than one you like; bother you? Why would that be? Is your enjoyment of a piece of media that predicated on how popular it is?

Regardless, I'm done with this conversation. I have no interest in talking to someone who's only goal is to talk down to everyone and ruin everyone's attempts at having fun. As well, someone who only wants to argue over his own assumptions.

Okay, lets recap then.

1: Your mind is made up, therefore you do not wish to have any discussion, based on anything, for as long as such a discussion is capable of being contrary to your point of view. You simply do not wish to risk being proven wrong, therefore you declare everyone else wrong first to "win the argument"

2: Who said i dont care? You did, what was that about assumptions again? Im not trying to convince you of anything, in fact, look back. You quoted me first, you told me i was "wrong" for having a different opinion than you, yes clearly i am trying to sway you by making up my own mind which you seem to dislike.

3: Again, you ASSUME i dont care, im sensing a pattern of contradictions here. In fact you dont even get to any kind of point but try to come up with some ass-backwards reason as to why i might enjoy or not enjoy some game, which is rather humorous, sadly it shows your ignorance.

4: Talk down to people? Like you have done since you quoted me? Im not blind, yet i try to not stoop to your level of backhanded insults and ad hominem, which you have just perfectly demonstrated in your latest post in this thread, including wrong assumptions and a clear lack of basic understanding of everything i've said.

Addendum: Just to point it out, Titanfall isnt innovating that much when similar ideas have been used in other games before it. You cant call that a "innovation" or "unique", its simply another attempt at a good idea.

 

[aelreth]

Hopefully the AI will be capable of filling the player role as well, out of the box.

 

[Vigormortis]

It's not worth it man. These guys have clearly played the game and know that this is a downfall. They know the maps are too small because of the player count. You know the Titan's are both too weak and too strong simultaneously (because of Quantum whatever). They just know from a articles and pictures that this game sucks. They just know. They know that these guys have copied COD because of who they are and they have not game left to make. They just know. They also know that the game would in fact be better as a copy of COD (once again because of Quantum whatever). They know that they won't be innovative while at the same time trying something new that will definitely fail, because they know.

/endsarcasm.

It's worse than that.

The basis of many of the assertions being made have been predicated on assumptions and false equivalencies. And, when someone points out these fallacies, the poster insists we're refusing to address his or her claims and that we've "already made up our minds."

The irony of that last statement aside, these arguments are nonsensical.

To use an example:
Let's say we were debating over the existence of mythological creatures; unicorns in particular.

Our side of the argument is that they do not exist. A claim we back up with evidence and by pointing out that the only place unicorns have ever been described is in works of fiction.

The other side fires back with the claim, "Well, we think unicorns like cupcakes."

Then, after we attempt to point out that this assertion neither makes sense nor addresses the debate at hand[footnote]And that this assertion only works if both parties assume unicorns exist.[/footnote] the counter-argument is that we're simply refusing to address the point and have already decided that we're right.

I mean...really? I'm pretty sure none of us care if they don't like the game or have decided not to try it. But patently, blatantly baseless claims are something worth calling out.

 

[Yuuki]

Firstly and most importantly...remember people, this game will be published by EA. Do NOT pre-order or purchase this blindly, please confirm that the game is fully functional (a finished product) before you buy it. You will do the whole industry a huge favor.

Alright back to the discussion...
MOBA's like League Of Legends prominently feature AI mixed with players during battle. You have creeps, mini-bosses and turrets which act as objectives to be used and/or defeated, they make up a big part of the game (if not the biggest part). It all flows rather well.

But as far as a first person shooter goes...I'm interested as to how they will implement AI. 6v6 does sound pretty pathetic by modern standards. I'm not exactly comparing it to Battlefield 4 (32v32) or Planetside 2 (500+ vs 500+) since those feature gigantic maps, but even for an arena/sandbox shooter 6v6 sounds weird.

I'm going to wait till player reviews are out.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

...look at most 5v5 MOBA's.

I kind of wonder if they're making this to be like a MOBA-style FPS, where the "creeps" are little more than a distraction and the real meat of the game is outmaneuvering and outthinking the small group of human opponents you're facing.

There's a thousand ways for a game like that to go wrong, though, so I think I'll wait for reviews before I consider plunking down cash on it.

 

[Vigormortis]

But as far as a first person shooter goes...I'm interested as to how they will implement AI. 6v6 does sound pretty pathetic by modern standards. I'm not exactly comparing it to Battlefield 4 (32v32) or Planetside 2 (500+ vs 500+) since those feature gigantic maps, but even for an arena/sandbox shooter 6v6 sounds weird.

But is it really that weird? There are a number of games that have their competitive multiplayer modes limited to small player caps; like Left 4 Dead which is capped at 4 v 4; and they work just fine. In fact, in most cases, they're every bit as hectic and challenging as any competitive shooter with massive player counts.

Depending on the mechanics of how each match is meant to play out, 6 v 6 might be the most ideal setup for Titanfall.

I'm going to wait till player reviews are out.

Wow. A reasonable stance on the matter. Thought for sure the topic was running out of 'em.

And I agree. I have my hopes and my doubts about differing aspects of Titanfall. However, I'm going to wait for the final release before I start jumping to conclusions.

I kind of wonder if they're making this to be like a MOBA-style FPS, where the "creeps" are little more than a distraction and the real meat of the game is outmaneuvering and outthinking the small group of human opponents you're facing.

This is essentially what I'm convinced they're aiming for; only with a much stronger emphasis on narrative driven objectives.

There's a thousand ways for a game like that to go wrong, though, so I think I'll wait for reviews before I consider plunking down cash on it.

Oh, without a doubt. Without proper balancing and implementation all sorts of things could fall apart and ultimately ruin the experience.

However, IF they get it right, it could be incredibly fun. Something the online shooter genre sorely needs right now.