Updated: Titanfall Will Have a 6v6 Player Cap

[tdylan]

Titanfall's pitch immediately made me think of Brink: you could be playing a "single player" game and have a friend jump in on a whim to assist or to counter your. Anyone familiar with Brink knows that the game was a lot of hype/promise with poor execution.

This announcement of AI units makes me think of Brink yet again. I don't remember what the player cap was, but one of their approaches was that teams would never been uneven due to live players that dropped out being replaced by bots. The immediate concern was "how do you balance the skill of the bots against players of varying skill levels?" You can't have the bots be too good, because they would destroy the new, less skilled players. But you can't have them be dumbed down in order to cater to the less skilled players, because the skilled players could/would obliterate them, making the bots more of a liability than an asset.

So, any word on how Titanfall will attempt to address the AI skill level? Seems to me as though you're going to have to pick your poison. Will the AI be lackluster to give new players a chance, "middle of the road," or skilled? I think Brink had the AI "scale" to the skill of the person the were fighting. If you were low ranking, they would be less accurate, but if they turned the corner and came across a high ranking enemy, they suddenly became laser accurate. Which sucked once you got of high enough rank because the AI began dropping you from across the map with COD levels of twitch lethality.

If the game does introduce some kind of perk/streak system, are we going to see skilled players gaming the system by hiding from human players in order to farm kills against AI until they can get their perks going? We'll see how it goes come March, but past experiences with bots in online games tells me this is probably not going to work out well.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

Wow. You were right to use the words "I assume". That really was full of massive assumptions. Most of which are just patently wrong.

Firstly, you assume there are "killstreaks" in this game. I'm guessing this is because the game is designed by Vince Zampella and Jason West.

Truth is, no such feature has been announced. In fact, from the looks of things, there aren't any mechanics resembling "killstreaks" in the game at all, save for one possibility I'll cover below.

Secondly, your assumptions about the Titans are way off.

Every player has access to a Titan at any time. Their use isn't "earned" through ingame actions. Their availability is predicated on a timer. You can call down your first Titan after a certain period of time passes after the round start, and you can call down another after a given amount of time has passed since your last Titan was destroyed. The only thing that may affect the time is kills decreasing the cooldown timer.

Thirdly, you assume only two possibilities. Either Titans are impossible to take down or incredibly easy to take down. Perhaps they exist in a "middle-ground" zone. As in, they're incredibly powerful but certain classes of Pilots have access to the right tools to take them down effectively. For example, the Anti-Tank classes in something like Battlefield. Or, perhaps the Titans aren't quite as "tanky" as they may appear and have player-controlled abilities to offset this.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Look, I get that the cool thing to do this month is to riff on Titanfall and presume it has this failing or that. But, why don't we all just wait for the game to release, get some reviews, and then judge it's design? It's certainly more logical than judging it; one way or another; on what scant pre-release info there is.

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?

Considering the games people keep attempting to compare Titanfall to[footnote]I.E. Battlefield, Planetside, etc[/footnote] usually boil down to two play styles[footnote]Run around in a confused, muddled, clusterfuck of a conflict or sit in a high point for most of the match trying (and failing) to snipe people.[/footnote], styles that likely won't apply to Titanfall[footnote]Given it's described play mechanics.[/footnote], I'd say yes. Seems people are convinced their current play-styles won't apply to Titanfall.

And frankly...they're probably right. And I couldn't be happier.

 

[A-D.]

snip

Wow. You were right to use the words "I assume". That really was full of massive assumptions. Most of which are just patently wrong.

Firstly, you assume there are "killstreaks" in this game. I'm guessing this is because the game is designed by Vince Zampella and Jason West.

Truth is, no such feature has been announced. In fact, from the looks of things, there aren't any mechanics resembling "killstreaks" in the game at all, save for one possibility I'll cover below.

Secondly, your assumptions about the Titans are way off.

Every player has access to a Titan at any time. Their use isn't "earned" through ingame actions. Their availability is predicated on a timer. You can call down your first Titan after a certain period of time passes after the round start, and you can call down another after a given amount of time has passed since your last Titan was destroyed. The only thing that may affect the time is kills decreasing the cooldown timer.

Thirdly, you assume only two possibilities. Either Titans are impossible to take down or incredibly easy to take down. Perhaps they exist in a "middle-ground" zone. As in, they're incredibly powerful but certain classes of Pilots have access to the right tools to take them down effectively. For example, the Anti-Tank classes in something like Battlefield. Or, perhaps the Titans aren't quite as "tanky" as they may appear and have player-controlled abilities to offset this.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Look, I get that the cool thing to do this month is to riff on Titanfall and presume it has this failing or that. But, why don't we all just wait for the game to release, get some reviews, and then judge it's design? It's certainly more logical than judging it; one way or another; on what scant pre-release info there is.

First, i dont care if there are killstreaks or not, they will probably exist regardless whether they have any rewards tied to it. The fact that the Devs have worked on games which have essentially made this feature common does not change anything there.

Secondly, so everyone gets a Titan? See the point about mapsize. 12 Titans on the ground, on relatively small maps to make the map viable for 6vs6 matches means the Titans are pointless because i doubt they have vertical movement abilities like you have when you are on foot anyway. The fact that you can actually leave your titan and have it be AI-controlled while you run around on rooftops merely proves that the Titans are essentially pointless to exist, they are just there to be there, but the game hardly revolves around them if you can easily discard their use to do whatever.

Thirdly, see point 2. There are not just "two assumptions" here, i actually listed 3, but you ignored the third one. As said, either Titans are easy to take out to balance them against infantry mode, or they require a titan vs titan battle essentially to take out, but the small player number means that the latter might be unlikely because the maps wont be that large, plus the fact that it will probably be mostly urban maps means that the movement of the titan is restricted. You can exchange Titan for Tank and its the same thing at the end of it. And yet, you can play the whole game without even using one? You can take out other Titans without having to use a Titan yourself? Whats the point of Titans then?

Finally, yes I and anyone else can judge this game based on what information is available. This includes judging pre-release gameplay info such as having played it at E3 for example since its still subject to change. Waiting for release is one option but if the intent of pre-release info is to built hype, then there is the equal risk of not building said hype. None of the Info available, what the Devs released nor what you have said have made me hyped for this game, nor actually want the game because from my perspective, all it is is features of other, older games i have already seen, mixed together with very little thought.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

Congratulations. You're not "hyped" for a game you very likely had no interest in from the start.

Even so, that doesn't give any weight to your assertions and assumptions. (most of which are still "verifiably" false)

For example:
"You can exchange Titan for Tank and its the same thing at the end of it. And yet, you can play the whole game without even using one? You can take out other Titans without having to use a Titan yourself? Whats the point of Titans then?"

By that logic, what's the point of tanks in Battlefield? You can play without ever driving a tank, so why have them at all? Further, you can take out a Tank without having to use a tank, so again why use them?

For that matter, what's the point of shotguns? Sniper rifles can kill someone at close and long range. So why even put shotguns into the game? Just make it a snipe fest.

Or maybe, as the old vernacular goes, "Variety is the spice of life". Perhaps the combination of agile Pilots and powerful Titans, placed in maps designed around giving advantages and disadvantages to both, adds a layer of depth and complexity to the interactions taking place in any given match.

See, you are free to judge something on whatever you like. You're free to take snippets of information, make up the rest based on....something, and make a judgement on the merits of something. Doesn't change the fact that that's an illogical thing to do.

Perhaps we should go by the assessments being made by those that have hands-on time with the game. (which sees the general consensus being that the 6 v 6 and Pilot v Titan mechanics are well suited to the game)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I get it. You and others aren't interested in Titanfall. You've no interest in playing it.

However, that leads to a question that bares asking:

Why then take the time to post about the game at all? Why even waste your time jumping into threads on the topic to lament about your assumptions on what the game will be?

Seems to me there must be some kind of interest if people are taking the time to complain about it.

 

[A-D.]

snip

Congratulations. You're not "hyped" for a game you very likely had no interest in from the start.

Even so, that doesn't give any weight to your assertions and assumptions. (most of which are still "verifiably" false)

For example:
"You can exchange Titan for Tank and its the same thing at the end of it. And yet, you can play the whole game without even using one? You can take out other Titans without having to use a Titan yourself? Whats the point of Titans then?"

By that logic, what's the point of tanks in Battlefield? You can play without ever driving a tank, so why have them at all? Further, you can take out a Tank without having to use a tank, so again why use them?

For that matter, what's the point of shotguns? Sniper rifles can kill someone at close and long range. So why even put shotguns into the game? Just make it a snipe fest.

Or maybe, as the old vernacular goes, "Variety is the spice of life". Perhaps the combination of agile Pilots and powerful Titans, placed in maps designed around giving advantages and disadvantages to both, adds a layer of depth and complexity to the interactions taking place in any given match.

See, you are free to judge something on whatever you like. You're free to take snippets of information, make up the rest based on....something, and make a judgement on the merits of something. Doesn't change the fact that that's an illogical thing to do.

Perhaps we should go by the assessments being made by those that have hands-on time with the game. (which sees the general consensus being that the 6 v 6 and Pilot v Titan mechanics are well suited to the game)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I get it. You and others aren't interested in Titanfall. You've no interest in playing it.

However, that leads to a question that bares asking:

Why then take the time to post about the game at all? Why even waste your time jumping into threads on the topic to lament about your assumptions on what the game will be?

Seems to me there must be some kind of interest if people are taking the time to complain about it.

What is false about stating that 6vs6 implies small map sizes which means that Titans become rather useless because their options for use are inherently limited? Verify how it is false that a Titan can NOT use a jetpack, jump onto rooftops or otherwise make use of vertical movement that the infantry can make use of?

Also you use a comparison that doesnt work, Battlefield has actual battlefields, actual big maps which make all the various vehicles useful and gives them a distinct role on said battlefield. If you wanted to use your comparison, you should have went with "Why have boats on a map without water" because thats as close as it gets to what you just tried to do. Titans are limited to the ground, on maps which are both relatively small as well as unsuited for much titan-fighting because if its urban, your routes are predetermined by having roads between the buildings. It still doesnt change the fact that you can get out of it, that you can play without it entirely, in fact in some cases it is actually better to do so as you cant get onto a roof inside a titan. You are essentially trying to strawman the argument so you can avoid the points im raising.

Also, leave the comments to people who have played it? You are new to the Internet, arent you? I have seen many more people complain about games which they have never played, had no interest in playing or even knowing the first thing about them. Also opinions do not mean those people are right, there are people who think "quickscoping" is the only way to use a sniperrifle, are they correct and everyone who doesnt use a easy-aim-button is wrong?

But no, you dont get it. You think you know my thought process or my interests. I may have had some interest in the game, but the more i hear, the less i am interested in actually playing it, let alone see any value to its ideas because they seem utterly halfassed. But i guess that is the downside of having played videogames since they basicly existed.

But yes, its true, this was the first time i went into one of the Titanfall threads to talk about it, but clearly im doing it all the time, that begs the question, when are you going to stop ignoring the points im making and think about it for a second before you attempt to dismiss them as you have done so far? A game supposedly "next-gen"..as useless as that term is, limits the players to this few, when the idea of Titans and jetpack combat essentially begs for at least double that. Why give everyone a titan? Why not have them be big powerful warmachines which are valuable? Why not make their loss be actually a bad thing, rather than "i'll wait 5 minutes to summon a new one"?

 

[Vigormortis]

Snip

I'm not ignoring your assertions. I'm not addressing them because they're nonsense.

Your entire argument is predicated on assumptions; some of which are just patently false. In effect, you're saying, "If this one thing ends up in the game, and this other thing is in the game, then that means this other part of the game is pointless. Therefore, the game is bad as it is now."

Even your argument about "why give anyone Titans" makes no sense. As I brought up in my previous post: why give anyone a tank in Battlefield? And yes that comparison works because Battlefield is built around the concept of vehicles like tanks, just as Titanfall is built around Titans. So asserting there's no point to Titans is just like asserting there's no point to tanks in Battlefield.

And don't preach to me about having "played video games since they basically existed". I've been playing them since the 80s. Even so, what the hell does that have to do with this particular game? You're basically claiming that because you've played games in the past, none of which were like Titanfall, you can assess Titanfall's value simply by making up what might be in it.

Like I said, you're free to make your judgements based on whatever info, or lack thereof, as much as you like. But don't expect to not get called out on them.

But you know to expect this, right? I mean, you're more versed on the ins and outs of the internet than I, after all.

Regardless, I'm not going to argue with you over what might be in the game. That's about as pointless a discussion as one can have.

 

[Amaror]

Well there goes my interest in the game.

 

[RA92]

People hate MP with lower player counts because when they suck, it becomes obvious. All they wanna do is pick a hill and snipe people 3km away!

 

[MetalDooley]

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.

CoD 4 could actually support 18 players in Ground War mode as long as the only match types you wanted to play were TDM and Domination

OT:Not too bothered about this actually.The info about the A.I plus testimonials from people who've actually played it make it sound like it's going to be pretty action packed.As others have already said more does not necessarily mean better

 

[Dandark]

I haven't really looked into the game at all yet despite hearing people talk about it lots. From what I have heard in this thread it actually sounds like it could be pretty good.

I remember thinking it was an Xbox one exclusive though, I hope it gets a decent PC port so I can try it out. I like the idea of the AI, one of my favourite shooters was Section 8 and its sequel prejudice which ended up having a lot of AI most of the time and I usually enjoy having lots of weaker bots to keep the feel of a battle going while the players are the ones who actually make the plays.

 

[suitepee7]

i gotta be honest, it sounds like a fucking mess. no matter what they say, it's still only 12 PLAYERS per map, the fact that it gets to 48 is not a selling point to me, when only 12 can be human controlled...

I haven't really looked into the game at all yet despite hearing people talk about it lots. From what I have heard in this thread it actually sounds like it could be pretty good.

I remember thinking it was an Xbox one exclusive though, I hope it gets a decent PC port so I can try it out. I like the idea of the AI, one of my favourite shooters was Section 8 and its sequel prejudice which ended up having a lot of AI most of the time and I usually enjoy having lots of weaker bots to keep the feel of a battle going while the players are the ones who actually make the plays.

it's XBO, XB360 and PC only, so microsoft plantforms exclusive, not just XBO

 

[A-D.]

Snip

I'm not ignoring your assertions. I'm not addressing them because they're nonsense.

Your entire argument is predicated on assumptions; some of which are just patently false. In effect, you're saying, "If this one thing ends up in the game, and this other thing is in the game, then that means this other part of the game is pointless. Therefore, the game is bad as it is now."

Even your argument about "why give anyone Titans" makes no sense. As I brought up in my previous post: why give anyone a tank in Battlefield? And yes that comparison works because Battlefield is built around the concept of vehicles like tanks, just as Titanfall is built around Titans. So asserting there's no point to Titans is just like asserting there's no point to tanks in Battlefield.

And don't preach to me about having "played video games since they basically existed". I've been playing them since the 80s. Even so, what the hell does that have to do with this particular game? You're basically claiming that because you've played games in the past, none of which were like Titanfall, you can assess Titanfall's value simply by making up what might be in it.

Like I said, you're free to make your judgements based on whatever info, or lack thereof, as much as you like. But don't expect to not get called out on them.

But you know to expect this, right? I mean, you're more versed on the ins and outs of the internet than I, after all.

Regardless, I'm not going to argue with you over what might be in the game. That's about as pointless a discussion as one can have.

Alright, lets go over this one more time, because you dont really see what im saying apparently. Why are you so adamant about defending a game, which is still being made, therefore subject to any change from here until its release, as if said features as they are now are set in stone? Yes, a 6vs6 with big hulking warmachines is stupid exactly because it limits their usage, what is so hard to grasp about this concept?

Better yet, why is it that the game is only good when it has 6vs6? Why could it not possibly any better than now if..i dont know, they made large maps, perhaps even more open maps, perhaps even larger playernumbers? No, clearly its 12 players only and it could not even be possible to be any good if it were more. Your argument essentially boils down to this because you are ignoring the statement that 6vs6 is too few when the potential is there to have larger maps, larger playernumbers.

But yes, clearly Battlefield, which has large maps, which effectively require vehicles to be present, even planes and helicopters for air support, is exactly the same as 6vs6 urban maps with jetpack soldiers. A vehicle is a option that serves a distinct role on the battlefield, titans do not really serve a role. Lets use this example, if you could use a tank to blow a jet out of the sky, but there is a flak available, would you use the flak if the tank can essentially do everything the flak can, including its primary role which is shooting down planes? No, you'd use the damn tank because it fulfills the same role. If as a normal soldier i can take down Titans just as effectively, if not even more effectively due to larger movement abilities (you can attack from above for example), why would i use a titan? Why would anyone use a titan if its sole reason to exist is to be just there?

Granted yes, you can kill other titans with it, yes you can kill other infantry with it, but you can already do the same thing as a soldier and in some cases, being on foot is the advantage, as said you get access to jetpack, roofs, effectively 360 Degree movement, as a titan..you dont. You are limited to the ground and open areas which are big enough for your titan to get through, and yet they are vulnerable to infantry. So whats the point of the titan if anything it can do can be done by infantry, or rather, what is the point of titans if all they can be is detrimental compared to the upsides you have as a soldier?

Want me to list the downsides again? That is the problem, it wouldnt be a issue if titans existed to kill other titans, basicly a "you can, but using a titan is the better option" and from what i have seen, that isnt the case, you have the same, if not more options to kill a titan or its pilot while you are on foot.

Also yes, i am preaching, clearly. You seem to forget that games like titanfall have existed before titanfall was a dream in the dev's heads. Section 8? Blacklight Retribution? Battlefield 2142? Red Faction 2? Armored Core? The idea of "piloting a big mech" isnt new, nor is the idea of combining mech-combat with infantry-combat a novel concept, it has been done before, maybe not in exactly the same coat of brown and grey, but it has been done. So for your playing since the 80's you seem to have missed a couple games which were basicly like what Titanfall is trying to be.

And to be frank, you've tried to have a discussion with me when you declare my entire argument to be "wrong", yet you equally claim that having such a discussion is a waste of time, so clearly you have wasted time. Who exactly are you trying to convince? Me? Or perhaps yourself that your prefered title might not be as golden as you would like it to be?

 

[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.