Player Count Locked at 6 v 6

  • 189 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by SSully (4117 posts) -

So this is kind of weird? Personally I don't mind smaller player counts, it can make for a more tactical and intimate game. With that said I look for that in games like Counter Strike, not Titanfall.

#2 Edited by Funkydupe (3305 posts) -

We've known this for quite some time. It is hilarious. They prefer AI to populate the play-field and not players.

#3 Posted by awesomeusername (4152 posts) -

Should be 12v12 since the maps in the demos looked fairly big and there's going to be jumping on buildings and all that. But I guess it depends on how many people can get titans.

#4 Posted by KoolAid (821 posts) -

Not to be a jerk, but do we really know what Titanfall is like yet? Maybe it is a tactical and intimate game.

With giant robots.

#5 Posted by JayEH (516 posts) -

Not really surprising since these are the Call of Duty guys

#6 Posted by SaturdayNightSpecials (2305 posts) -

Surely this will last.

#7 Edited by Vuud (1943 posts) -

That doesn't make the giant robot part seem like much fun. I mean, I guess the focus is mech vs. mech combat, but I think the real fun is from stomping around in a giant mech watching all the other players run like hell.

Like in Battlefield when a squad of enemies is hunkered down somewhere and you roll up on their asses with a tank.

#8 Posted by Vinny_Says (5681 posts) -

Lets just say this guy probably knows what he's doing. Not only because of his pedigree but also because they've been working on and testing this multiplayer only title for a while.

#9 Posted by super2j (1650 posts) -

Sooo, how much money down that they spin this as "part of the vision" and then in the sequel expand it to 24 or 36 (64 if we are really lucky) and talk about how "the players have spoken and we delivered".

#10 Edited by bigjeffrey (4704 posts) -

PS4 Player Count 0 vs 0

#11 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7039 posts) -

I'm gonna go ahead and trust the guy for now. He's not exactly inexperienced at making multiplayer FPSs.

#12 Edited by Chaser324 (6254 posts) -

@super2j said:

Sooo, how much money down that they spin this as "part of the vision" and then in the sequel expand it to 24 or 36 (64 if we are really lucky) and talk about how "the players have spoken and we delivered".

I really don't think that's the case. If Respawn goes on to make a larger scale game, it will be a very different experience that's crafted with that in mind.

Personally, I've never understood why some people get caught up on large player count. If multiplayer matches are balanced to be fun on a smaller scale, that's perfectly fine and there's plenty of great games that have proven that. Yes, Battlefield is a fun game, but not everything has to be Battlefield.

Moderator Online
#13 Posted by Zeik (2188 posts) -

I don't know if I'll ever play this game, but I see no inherent problem with 6 vs 6. Most of the best experiences I've had with multiplayer has been with small player counts.

#14 Edited by Funkydupe (3305 posts) -

My mindset is that I wanted Titanfall to be a large scale, futuristic war game, with mechs stomping around and laser bolts flying everywhere. Yes, Battlefield 2142 had some of that going for it, but it was never expanded upon, which I think was a misstep. Now that I know that is not what Titanfall is, I'm entering a new process of trying to like the close quarters / quick intense action of COD in this type of setting. I didn't like COD.

#15 Edited by SharkEthic (1003 posts) -

Best balance with AI? Seems like a weird reason...it's a multiplayer shooter, who gives a fat shit about AI? Anyway, if the maps are well designed I guess it's fine, but at first glance that number seems way low.

#16 Posted by Funkydupe (3305 posts) -

@awesomeusername said:

Should be 12v12 since the maps in the demos looked fairly big and there's going to be jumping on buildings and all that. But I guess it depends on how many people can get titans.

Yes. Titans are "specials" in this game which are on cool-down timers. You can call down and waste several Titans during a match, as it seems they go down pretty easily versus enemy Titans or player pilots armed with Anti-Titan weaponry.

Players will assume the roles of "Pilots", Heroes I guess, given gods among men status on the field because we're able to pilot the Titans. The rest of what's on the field will be fodder aka AI grunts and AI pilots who will only be able to pilot lesser mechs. The AI will be really happy to see a Titan drop-ship arrive with Pilots joining their struggle on the ground. The concept of this is really cool! It is really sad though to see the cap set to 6 players per side for a map, it seems if anything really restrictive, it almost counters the epic first impression I had of this game and new universe entirely.

#17 Posted by PandaBear (1295 posts) -

I was hoping for 32 v 32 minimum. I guess that's coming in Titanfall 2. Then Titanfall 3. Then Titanfall: Futuristic Warfare. Then Titanfa.... ah whatever.

#18 Posted by super2j (1650 posts) -

@super2j said:

Sooo, how much money down that they spin this as "part of the vision" and then in the sequel expand it to 24 or 36 (64 if we are really lucky) and talk about how "the players have spoken and we delivered".

I really don't think that's the case. If Respawn goes on to make a larger scale game, it will be a very different experience that's crafted with that in mind.

Personally, I've never understood why some people get caught up on large player count. If multiplayer matches are balanced to be fun on a smaller scale, that's perfectly fine and there's plenty of great games that have proven that. Yes, Battlefield is a fun game, but not everything has to be Battlefield.

Personally, a big open map with lots of people means much more lively world with many things happening. It was amazing to turn to any corner and find action and people, join up with them and help out or maybe keep moving to some other interesting skirmish somewhere on the map. There was liveliness and discovery. Small player capped games cant exude that same aura. MMO's never gave me that same feeling either (people playing their own games near you, no real interaction). So basically, experiencing the larger player count shooters has broken me of being able to enjoy small match games. Of course the more unique the shooter is, the longer I can forget about this... but the thought always returns, "this would be amazing if there were more people in here". I have the same desire in other kinds of games, imagine a 32 vs 32 most wanted (or what ever that new one they released is), they already have huge empty maps, more players= more unique interactions with new people, map not so empty anymore.

Titan fall can be well made and fun with 6 vs 6 but will be able to justify why it couldn't be bigger and provide me with Mech war rather than Mech school yard fight?

#19 Posted by l4wd0g (1892 posts) -

I think these guys (gender neutral) know multiplayer.

That's even less people yelling me how much I suck and how good of fuck my grandmother is... I really hope they have a mute all button

#20 Posted by Humanity (8709 posts) -

@super2j said:

Sooo, how much money down that they spin this as "part of the vision" and then in the sequel expand it to 24 or 36 (64 if we are really lucky) and talk about how "the players have spoken and we delivered".

I really don't think that's the case. If Respawn goes on to make a larger scale game, it will be a very different experience that's crafted with that in mind.

Personally, I've never understood why some people get caught up on large player count. If multiplayer matches are balanced to be fun on a smaller scale, that's perfectly fine and there's plenty of great games that have proven that. Yes, Battlefield is a fun game, but not everything has to be Battlefield.

NO NO NO everything has to be Battlefield!

So technically for the first few months Titanfall should crash constantly when you call down your titan.

#21 Posted by afabs515 (1003 posts) -

As long as it's better than Ghosts and not half as broken as Battlefield, no one can complain.

#22 Posted by Captain_Felafel (1552 posts) -

It sounds weird, but I actually found the AI on the battlefield to be a good thing when I got my hands on the game. It made the match feel populated, but not overcrowded or too chaotic like what happens in Battlefield when too many players are in one central location.

Online
#23 Posted by DystopiaX (5291 posts) -

@awesomeusername said:

Should be 12v12 since the maps in the demos looked fairly big and there's going to be jumping on buildings and all that. But I guess it depends on how many people can get titans.

Yes. Titans are "specials" in this game which are on cool-down timers. You can call down and waste several Titans during a match, as it seems they go down pretty easily versus enemy Titans or player pilots armed with Anti-Titan weaponry.

Players will assume the roles of "Pilots", Heroes I guess, given gods among men status on the field because we're able to pilot the Titans. The rest of what's on the field will be fodder aka AI grunts and AI pilots who will only be able to pilot lesser mechs. The AI will be really happy to see a Titan drop-ship arrive with Pilots joining their struggle on the ground. The concept of this is really cool! It is really sad though to see the cap set to 6 players per side for a map, it seems if anything really restrictive, it almost counters the epic first impression I had of this game and new universe entirely.

If it's done right it would be a cool tactical experience, the setup reminds me of a Halo and MOBA cross.

You don't need 32 or 64 to a side for every shooter.

#24 Edited by ripelivejam (3454 posts) -

@koolaid said:

Not to be a jerk, but do we really know what Titanfall is like yet? Maybe it is a tactical and intimate game.

With giant robots.

giant "robots" w/ shivs:

e: added requisite eva image

#25 Posted by RazielCuts (2906 posts) -

I wonder if this has anything to do with them having to make a 360 version as well. As they've said in the past though they're going for 'single player multiplayer' so I guess the AI is there to guide you to mission to mission and feed story to you.

It's funny on paper though hearing a 'next-gen' titles multiplayer is capped at 6 x 6, not the future of MP shooters we'd hoped for. What happens when Destiny comes out and says you can only quest in 4 player groups?

#26 Posted by ripelivejam (3454 posts) -

this will probably end up being a more diablo-ish/co-op experience anyway. except you may meet up occasionally with bands of opposing players.

guess it may even end up more like destiny than we think (which i guess would raise suspicions of a whole EA vs Activision thing going on...)

#27 Posted by big_jon (5707 posts) -

I just realized that Battlefield 4 has made player counts seem low to me.

#28 Edited by MB (11884 posts) -

I wonder if this has anything to do with them having to make a 360 version as well. As they've said in the past though they're going for 'single player multiplayer' so I guess the AI is there to guide you to mission to mission and feed story to you.

There's definitely something up. One could read into Vince's tweet a number of different ways, but I'm guessing it's that they couldn't get a higher player count to work correctly or reliably so they dropped it down. Whether that was a problem with the number of characters on screen causing framerate drops, a network issue, a combination of those two things and other factors, it being due to the 360 release, who knows.

We have seen this time and time again over the course of the previous generation when player counts were dropped from what was initially expected. I think it's a little naive to believe that the decision is about something as innocuous as "balance." Clearly a developer should never claim that the reason their game's player count is lower than expected is due to hardware or network limitations, it would be professional suicide. Especially on a new studio's first game that is a Microsoft exclusive.

Moderator
#29 Edited by SomeJerk (3130 posts) -

If they're basing playercounts on what the 360 can handle (restricted maximum bandwidth usage by MS is a thing that long has plagued the machine and poorly lazily done multiplatform titles) and it bleeds over to the Xbone, then this is weird because what is the PC version going to be like?

I'm not expecting 12vs12 or above but christ man.

#30 Posted by WesleyWyndam (134 posts) -

Small player counts aren't really my cup of tea. It doesn't have to be 64 or anything. But 6x6 doesn't really interest me.

#31 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@wesleywyndam said:

Small player counts aren't really my cup of tea. It doesn't have to be 64 or anything. But 6x6 doesn't really interest me.

Just depends how much AI cannon fodder there will be. I for one don't mind cannon fodder one bit. Cannon fodder makes me feel good about myself. In a game like Battlefield, the ratio from hardened veteran to clueless cannon fodder is random, and if there are too many veterans knowing exactly what they're doing, it can pretty much break everything outside of the infantry game (mostly because unlimited lock-on weaponry is a bad idea).

I think Respawn is going for a more MOBA-esque player experience, with more capable and powerful player characters. Hell, there might be a proper MOBA-style gametype in there from the get-go, at least on current gen and PC, with tons of AI creeps running down different attack lanes and towers and all that shit.

Regardless there-of, there could be hundreds of characters in any given match-up, for all we know - even if only 12 of those are proper players.

#32 Posted by SomeJerk (3130 posts) -

Lots of armchair game designing going on in here. I'd suggest playing before judging a something as insignificant as a number in a vacuum.

Vince is right - we tried a huge amount of playercounts (all the way down to 1v1 and up quite high) and designed the maps, gameplay mechanics, and entire experience around which played best

. If anyone wants to chase the numbers game, perhaps we're not the experience they're after? I dunno.

And FYI, for amount of stuff happening at once in a map you'll be hard pressed to find a game that keeps the action higher. I literally have to stop playing every few rounds because my heart just can't take it some times. Remember, you can get out of your Titan and let it roam on AI mode - meaning there can be 12 Pilots wallrunning around, 12 Titans stomping below, and dozens of AI doing their thing.

Oh, and I keep seeing people thinking we've got "bots" when we talk about AI. Thats not how they are. The AI in Titanfall are not replacements for human players. Our playercount is not 6v6 because of AI - AI play their own role in the game and are a different class of character in the game.

Can't wait! Only a couple months until speculative threads like this are gone and people are actually talking about their experiences with the game. Its truly fun stuff, and I hope everyone at least gives it a try.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=96299528&postcount=558

1) If the computer-controlled pilots aren't "bots" but instead "AI"..?
2) Then what's the reason for 6v6?
3) And this is a clear change from what a trailer showed unless they really intend for the "AI" to play that large of a role always
4) Which is totally what I wanted in a game that's an always-online MP shooter
5) Pre-order nonexistant to begin with. Pass.

#33 Edited by Mcfart (1537 posts) -

Dunno how it will work out, but we'll see.

#34 Edited by RonGalaxy (2834 posts) -

This game is going to have AI? Multiplayer and AI do not mix

#35 Edited by AMyggen (2459 posts) -

I'll wait and see how this turns out in practice, no point in speculating about how this will turn out when we haven't seen the final product. Also, a low player count isn't exactly surprising from the COD 4 guys.

I highly doubt it's the 360 version holding them back or whatever. They could easily make two versions of the game, one for 360 and another for Xbone/PC, like DICE has done with the Battlefield series.

#36 Posted by RoarImaDinosaur (191 posts) -

I was under the impression that this might be able to fulfill some of my lust for a full blown a Battlefield 2143 game but I feel really mislead. I thought we saw 12 v 12 matches being played out at E3? I admit it was probably my own fault for thinking this but damn this is pretty dissappointing.

#37 Posted by AMyggen (2459 posts) -

@naru_joe93: They've been open about AI playing a big part since day 1, so yes.

#38 Edited by AMyggen (2459 posts) -

@roarimadinosaur said:

I was under the impression that this might be able to fulfill some of my lust for a full blown a Battlefield 2143 game but I feel really mislead. I thought we saw 12 v 12 matches being played out at E3? I admit it was probably my own fault for thinking this but damn this is pretty dissappointing.

From what I've read on GAF, people who played the game at E3 said it was 6v6. So, if so, they've never mislead anyone, really.

#39 Posted by AlexGBRO (267 posts) -

hmm maybe it had to be 6v6 because there is a xbox 360 version of this game

also this should be 1080 60 on xbox one witch such a low player number

#40 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@alexgbro said:

hmm maybe it had to be 6v6 because there is a xbox 360 version of this game

also this should be 1080 60 on xbox one witch such a low player number

Didn't they already say 720P?

#41 Posted by Cramsy (1163 posts) -

These guys know what they're doing. I have faith.

Also after reading these comments it fucking kills me how much people who like video games suck. Fucking wa wa wa everything sucks and it's bad. Cheer up.

#42 Posted by AlexGBRO (267 posts) -

@darji: hmm not good news for xbox one but i imagine the game will be good and no one will complain but strage that this source engine game with a 6v6 multiplayer can at 1080

#43 Posted by RazielCuts (2906 posts) -

@cramsy said:

Also after reading these comments it fucking kills me how much people who like video games suck. Fucking wa wa wa everything sucks and it's bad. Cheer up.

Irony, thy name is @cramsy

#44 Posted by Cramsy (1163 posts) -

@cramsy said:

Also after reading these comments it fucking kills me how much people who like video games suck. Fucking wa wa wa everything sucks and it's bad. Cheer up.

Irony, thy name is @cramsy

I don't understand :(

#45 Posted by AMyggen (2459 posts) -

@cramsy: He's saying that you're complaining about people who complain, and that's ironic.

#46 Edited by xyzygy (9867 posts) -

Bigger player counts aren't better and never were.

@cramsy Yup, sometimes it's embarrassing how whiny and self entitled gamers are.

#47 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

Bigger player counts aren't better and never were.

@cramsy Yup, sometimes it's embarrassing how whiny and self entitled gamers are.

Yeah shame on people who want things because they want to have the best game possible.^^

#48 Edited by Cramsy (1163 posts) -

@darji said:

@xyzygy said:

Bigger player counts aren't better and never were.

@cramsy Yup, sometimes it's embarrassing how whiny and self entitled gamers are.

Yeah shame on people who want things because they want to have the best game possible.^^

Give me a fucking break. All I can see is MORE PLAYERS IS MORE BETTER.

@amyggen said:

@cramsy: He's saying that you're complaining about people who complain, and that's ironic.

Ah right fair enough

#49 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@cramsy said:

@darji said:

@xyzygy said:

Bigger player counts aren't better and never were.

@cramsy Yup, sometimes it's embarrassing how whiny and self entitled gamers are.

Yeah shame on people who want things because they want to have the best game possible.^^

Give me a fucking break. All I can see is MORE PLAYERS IS MORE BETTER.

@amyggen said:

@cramsy: He's saying that you're complaining about people who complain, and that's ironic.

Ah right fair enough

How do you know it is not? When people thing of next generation or new machines they also thinking of more on screen action, or more players. Look how a game like battlefield 3 was gimped on PS3/360 because of the player count. With a game that has mechs in it I would imagine huge mech battles would be also very awesome and fun as well instead of smaller battles.

#50 Edited by xyzygy (9867 posts) -

@darji said:

@xyzygy said:

Bigger player counts aren't better and never were.

@cramsy Yup, sometimes it's embarrassing how whiny and self entitled gamers are.

Yeah shame on people who want things because they want to have the best game possible.^^

There is a difference between wanting to play a good game/giving constructive criticism and whining on message boards about absolutely everything that you don't agree with in a game. My philosophy is, if you don't like something about a game enough to whine and bitch about it, don't play it or go make one yourself.

Valid complaints are fine and constructive but when you have people coming into a thread like this for example and going on about how the game will suck because of 6v6 when it's been in development for years by a studio headed by tried and true veterans of shooters on grounds of it being a balance issue, that SHOULD be enough to at least stop people from whining if people thought logically. Instead we have a ridiculous MORE=BETTER response. Not all multiplayer games need huge player counts. Each game should be its own game, not a cut-copy of another.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.