Support NeoGAF

[Forsaken82]

6 v 6 + 12 AI per team? Technically makes for 18 v 18 potential in a single match 24 NPCs of which will supposedly have unique AI routines and that is on top of X, Y and Z movement and Mechs. I am ok with this to be honest if the levels are designed well enough for it and the AI is smart enough, which is sounds like they have a some clever AI routines in place.

 

[Phades]

There's more to that point than the part I quoted, where the level design and mobility is brought up as major contributing factors. So just to be clear the player count isn't being spoken about here in isolation.

I can't read the link and quoting it in isolation just made it seem like a talking point, rather than an explanation, hence my response.

What I feel it will come down to ultimately, before the map design comes into question as that can be a moving of the goal posts once players really digest a title, I feel that it will ultimately come down to a question of skill ceiling. If the ceiling is high, then the AI will largely be there for show and just contribute background noise as things play out. Arguably if the ceiling is high enough, the game will be interesting even at a 1v1 duel scale setting exclusively regardless of map size or other factors. If the ceiling is low, then the AI would potentially be a very real threat to players and invariably degrade into football pushes between the two scrums of AI, which may turn off a lot of folks in the FPS genre. If the ceiling is low and the weapon mechanics are bad, thus implying force multipliers ruling the day, then the gameplay could become stale fast as a race to acquire/utilize those force multipliers and turning every match into a momentum battle exclusively.

Hopefully, things like lock on/guided weapons, auto aim mechanics, and high front loaded weapons take a back seat of the train in terms of usability and putting forward weapons that force repeat precision, slower ROF, slow projectiles, and limited resources to force creativity and raising the skill bar to sort things out between the players. Otherwise the game risks having a nuicance element that gets ignored and quick paths to repeat events that will get the gameplay stale quickly regardless of mission type or player count.

 

[Garrett 2U]

Probably not technically possible for the game as it stands. Otherwise I'm sure they'd give players the option to play like that.

More than the player count itself I've seen a lot of people talk about it in the context of next-gen. "6 v 6 for next gen. That's too low". I imagine that after deciding on a 6 v 6 game, the main parts of development meant that they didn't have enough 'untapped power' to allow higher player counts as an option. Their ideal is their max. On the positive side, it means they have tapped out the Xbox One for what they can get out of it, on the negative side it means they have tapped out the Xbox One with Titanfall, as it stands. A 6 v 6, seemingly sub-1080p game. That's where I can understand people being disappointed.

Obviously yeah, I can't say anything for certain, but that's the impression I get.

Lol fantastic analysis

 

[charsace]

Probably not technically possible for the game as it stands. Otherwise I'm sure they'd give players the option to play like that.

More than the player count itself I've seen a lot of people talk about it in the context of next-gen. "6 v 6 for next gen. That's too low". I imagine that after deciding on a 6 v 6 game, the main parts of development meant that they didn't have enough 'untapped power' to allow higher player counts as an option. Their ideal is their max. On the positive side, it means they have tapped out the Xbox One for what they can get out of it, on the negative side it means they have tapped out the Xbox One with Titanfall, as it stands. A 6 v 6, seemingly sub-1080p game. That's where I can understand people being disappointed.

Obviously yeah, I can't say anything for certain, but that's the impression I get.

You shouldn't ding a game for things that you have no idea about.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

Probably not technically possible for the game as it stands. Otherwise I'm sure they'd give players the option to play like that.

More than the player count itself I've seen a lot of people talk about it in the context of next-gen. "6 v 6 for next gen. That's too low". I imagine that after deciding on a 6 v 6 game, the main parts of development meant that they didn't have enough 'untapped power' to allow higher player counts as an option. Their ideal is their max. On the positive side, it means they have tapped out the Xbox One for what they can get out of it, on the negative side it means they have tapped out the Xbox One with Titanfall, as it stands. A 6 v 6, seemingly sub-1080p game. That's where I can understand people being disappointed.

Obviously yeah, I can't say anything for certain, but that's the impression I get.

I think this concern from people would hold more weight if we didn't already have Battlefield 4 with 32v32. Or if we didn't already know that Planetside 2 is coming for PS4. I know PS4 is a more powerful machine than the X1, but I think it's safe to say the X1 is close enough in power to handle it if the PS4 can, even if they had to lower the player count a bit or lessen the graphics some. My point is that using player count numbers to quantify power, especially when we really don't know the context of it's use, is ultimately useless.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

You shouldn't ding a game for things that you have no idea about.

That's pretty much been the entire thread.

 

[Rayme]

Dat spin.

Just say you can't do anything above 6 v 6, but you feel that the game is best at that limit anyway. Because, let's face it, that's the reality.

It is not the reality. This is not a technical limitation. There are entire articles explaining this now, multiple devs on gaf/twitter/facebook explaining this. You have no visibility into the technical workings of this game, and insinuating those that do are liars is counter-productive.

6 v 6 + 12 AI per team? Technically makes for 18 v 18 potential in a single match 24 NPCs of which will supposedly have unique AI routines and that is on top of X, Y and Z movement and Mechs. I am ok with this to be honest if the levels are designed well enough for it and the AI is smart enough, which is sounds like they have a some clever AI routines in place.

There are also potentially up to 12 titans in the game (one per player), and they can actively fight in AI-mode alongside their pilot. Just one of them in a fight makes a huge difference.

 

[TomShoe]

Polygon posted a new article that goes into a little more detail about the player counts and the AI soldiers.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/9/5292474/titanfall-maps-can-be-packed-with-nearly-50-combatants-including-ai

Looks like there will be 12 AI soldiers per team

So it looks like the AI players are almost certainly going to be grunts patrolling the map a-la MOBA style, where their only objectives are to walk around, capture objectives, and just die and respawn over and over.

It kind of feels like they're making the game too noob-friendly.

Not sure if I'm completely happy about that because it makes finding and shooting the human player out of all the AI extensively difficult. Not to mention slaying bots gets tiresome after awhile. What makes playing vs. humans so fun is the unpredictability of it. You never know how skilled the other player is going to be.

Have a Titan following them like over-protective, weaponized pets

That part made me giggle a bit.

 

[NullPointer]

I can't read the link and quoting it in isolation just made it seem like a talking point, rather than an explanation, hence my response.

Ahh OK, here's a bigger snippet if you're curious:

But the decision to keep the player count to six per side wasn't based as much on worries about a crowded battlefield as it was the reaction play testers had to the intensity of the experience, said Justin Hendry, lead designer at Respawn.

"The higher the player count, the more uncomfortable the game gets," he said. "Unlike in most games where you can sit there and guard the two ways in, in Titanfall the guy can come in through the window right behind you, he can come from the window to your left, he can come from straight ahead, he can come in from the stairway and he can come in from the doorway, or whatever. Essentially there are five directions you can get killed from and the higher that player count, the more likely you are to get killed from behind and the more difficult it is to kind of manage your surroundings."

That's because of the particular design of Titanfall. When not in their Titans, pilots aren't really meant to walk or even run along the ground, they're meant to traverse maps by wall running. And the more a player wall runs, the faster they move.

Combine that with the fact that players can essentially create their own approach into a building, up a building or around a building, and toss in those mammoth Titans, and suddenly a player's brain has a lot more to think about than in a typical shooter.

(full article (Polygon))

 

[Phades]

Well I don't assume that. However your post also does a good job of explaining why simply increasing the player count may not work, if it's tailored for 6v6 in all those areas you mentioned.

It really depends. Even in a TDM tribes match, you could have more folks than that flying around even on the smaller maps. Sure, it was like playing in a wolf pack until the murder balls got broken up and duels occurred, but the overal player count had very little to do with how well the gameplay was and simply offered different tactics to be employed like baiting without puting the entire team at risk. In that instance, more players allowed for a more diverse environment affording more tactical choices.

By contrast, a rabbit match is the default definition of chaos as more people are added. So, it really depends on many different factors.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

Not sure if I'm completely happy about that because it makes finding and shooting the human player out of all the AI extensively difficult. Not to mention slaying bots gets tiresome after awhile. What makes playing vs. humans so fun is the unpredictability of it. You never know how skilled the other player is going to be.

I'm not sure it will be that hard since the humans will be the ones wall running and double jumping around the map. I guess you could sort of hide in a pack of AI as a tactic, but then you would be sacrificing your full range of mobility.

 

[collige]

Not sure if I'm completely happy about that because it makes finding and shooting the human player out of all the AI extensively difficult.

If I remember my previous reading on this, the AI can't wallrun or do any of the other advanced movement techniques that human players can.

 

[Ricerocket]

So 6players + 12 AI per team, and also titans.

This is sounding more and more like a MOBA objective FPS game. 6 makes sense when you have to include so many freaking fodder bots.

 

[Alienous]

You shouldn't ding a game for things that you have no idea about.

Ok. I guess this is a new spin on that whole "armchair developer" thing? I'm just saying my impressions of it. Perhaps you shouldn't credit developers on limiting decisions you have no say in? They're fine, but having the best rise to the top as the best naturally is better.


["It's been this number for months," he said. "We are pretty avid players in the studio. People speak their minds and we listen and make changes. This is the number that felt best.]

That's fair.

["The game is essentially built to be six on six."]

Ok.

[And that headcount won't impact map size, he said; Titanfall has all sorts.

"There are at least two maps that are really big, one of those is huge," Hendry said. "The map size isn't a technical limitation, it's what felt best. It's, 'How do we make this thing feel good?' Some maps are smaller, some are medium size and some are bigger.]

So maps, like those chosen for Ground War in Call of Duty, that might be able to comfortably accommodate a higher player count? Hmm, ok.

["I think the only thing that the player count does is really affect the overall chaotic level of the game."]

O ... wait. So why don't we have the option? Assuming that 4 v 4 allowed, and less chaotic, why isn't 9 v 9 allowed and more chaotic? Ultimately, if it's technically feasible, why not give the option?

["It all comes back to the same thing," Hendry said. "I can see why it's hard for people, why it's hard for it to make sense. But it's up to the developer to make the best choices and create the best experiences."]

Yes. But options are fun, and would appease a lot of people. Or maybe it wouldn't. Maybe they'd get to see how it isn't as great as the 6 v 6 experience, first hand, even in a private match setting.

 

[Phades]

Ahh OK, here's a bigger snippet if you're curious:


(full article (Polygon))

Interesting. I keep wondering though why they can only be attacked from 5 directions instead of 6 (above/below being prime killing angles when airborn, front/rear with most folks prefering the rear, and finally left and right). It just makes me wonder more what the history their tester have and which games they prefer in general, as the overall tone and commentary just feels really alien to me, since aspects of what they mention tie directly into learning curve aspects for long term retention at high skill levels. Not to say I'm top tier at anything mind you, but I understand the general sentiment of it.

I can see this going in a few different ways potentially, but there just isn't enough information released to make a real determination on it yet. I'm also trying to not read into the statement that I have with comments from Japanese developers "dumbing down" the game for a "western audience" when referencing difficulty and depth of a game. From a FPS perspective, I have a hard time believing that there is "too much" going on for the player to process ever, since your FOV is always going to be limited and the rest is going to be intuitive based upon prior experience. If they were discussing what Star citizen could potentially be, with fleet combat, builds, and other factors, then yeah I might begin to rationalize the meaning behind it, but not with an infantry based title like this.

 

[CoolNumber9]

I wonder why the AI controlled players are there in the first place?? I've had a theory since the game was announced and played at E3 after hearing impressions. It seems to me it might be a way to lower the barrier to entry. In other words, make it eaiser. I remember hearing Andrea Rene on WC raving about playing it after playing it at E3 and how she was able to get kills and really feel like she was contributing after saying how she isn't the greatest FPS player, it seems I remember her saying she didn't even know who was real and who wasn't. So I just wonder if that's some part of it? Give some player balance to the game. Could we see matches where all 6 human players in your team go positive but still lose the match, is that possible?

 

[Raide]

I wonder why the AI controlled players is there in the first place?? I've had a theory since the game was announced and played at E3 after hearing impressions. It seems to me it might be a way to lower the barrier to entry. In other words, make it eaiser. I remember hearing Andrea Rene on WC raving about playing it after playing it at E3 and how she was able to get kills and really feel like she was contributing after saying how she isn't the greatest FPS player, it seems I remember her saying she didn't even know who was real and who wasn't. So I just wonder if that's some part of it? Give some player balance to the game. Could we see matches where all 6 human players in your team go positive but still lose the match, is that possible?

Mainly due to the fact Respawn are making an MP game with the feel of the SP game, hence A.I being an important part of that feel. You cannot trust human players to direct the flow of the narrative. Even less chance when you have 12 people tea-bagging things with giant robots. A.I draws players into something much more than just a straight team death-match mode.

 

[CoolNumber9]

Mainly due to the fact Respawn are making an MP game with the feel of the SP game, hence A.I being an important part of that feel. You cannot trust human players to direct the flow of the narrative. Even less chance when you have 12 people tea-bagging things with giant robots. A.I draws players into something much more than just a straight team death-match mode.

That's true, I don't really know anything about the type of modes or how the matches actually play out. I'm assuming they will have more competitive modes with no AI?

 

[Raide]

That's true, I don't really know anything about the type of modes or how the matches actually play out. I'm assuming they will have more competitive modes with no AI?

According to their recent trailers, players go through the MP campaign as they set out, jumping between the various factions etc and seeing the various modes/Titans etc.

I am sure they will have later modes without the A.I but for now, they are a big part of the overall feel of the game.

Personally I hope they have a 6v6 Titanfall CTF variant.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

I can see this going in a few different ways potentially, but there just isn't enough information released to make a real determination on it yet. I'm also trying to not read into the statement that I have with comments from Japanese developers "dumbing down" the game for a "western audience" when referencing difficulty and depth of a game. From a FPS perspective, I have a hard time believing that there is "too much" going on for the player to process ever, since your FOV is always going to be limited and the rest is going to be intuitive based upon prior experience. If they were discussing what Star citizen could potentially be, with fleet combat, builds, and other factors, then yeah I might begin to rationalize the meaning behind it, but not with an infantry based title like this.

I could be wrong, but I believe what they're talking about in reference to that statement is the "meat grinder" effect that sometimes happens with large player counts. Like how in some games, there are so many players around each other that most of your deaths are going to come from a guy you never even saw or even had much of a chance of avoiding no matter how good you are. I think they're trying to say that at 6v6 (along with all of the other stuff going on like AI and Titans), they found the sweet spot where that wasn't happening to a frustrating degree and anything higher pushed the game in to the "meat grinder" zone.

 

[Coffee Dog]

I see all these comments about 6v6 providing a "more tight and balanced experience", and I'm wondering if these people even played the modern warfare games. Assuming that EA wants to replicate Call Of Duty's success (which I would think that they very much do) turning Titanfall into a balanced skill-based shooter would be a horrible idea.

I could be wrong, but I believe what they're talking about in reference to that statement is the "meat grinder" effect that sometimes happens with large player counts. Like how in some games, there are so many players around each other that most of your deaths are going to come from a guy you never even saw or even had much of a chance of avoiding no matter how good you are. I think they're trying to say that at 6v6 (along with all of the other stuff going on like AI and Titans), they found the sweet spot where that wasn't happening to a frustrating degree and anything higher pushed the game in to the "meat grinder" zone.

Modern Warfare 2 lived in the meat grinder zone.

 

[Woo-Fu]

If we had the infinite power of the cloud we could trade those 12 bots in for 4 more players.

 

[CoolNumber9]

According to their recent trailers, players go through the MP campaign as they set out, jumping between the various factions etc and seeing the various modes/Titans etc.

I am sure they will have later modes without the A.I but for now, they are a big part of the overall feel of the game.

Personally I hope they have a 6v6 Titanfall CTF variant.

Right, everytime I look at this game I keep forgetting about the MP and SP being blended. I keep looking at it as a traditional MP portion of a game.

Me too, I'm hoping they start talking some about traditional style modes like CTF/Territories whatever they be.

 

[Synth]

O ... wait. So why don't we have the option? Assuming that 4 v 4 allowed, and less chaotic, why isn't 9 v 9 allowed and more chaotic? Ultimately, if it's technically feasible, why not give the option?

["It all comes back to the same thing," Hendry said. "I can see why it's hard for people, why it's hard for it to make sense. But it's up to the developer to make the best choices and create the best experiences."]

Yes. But options are fun, and would appease a lot of people. Or maybe it wouldn't. Maybe they'd get to see how it isn't as great as the 6 v 6 experience, first hand, even in a private match setting.

I'm going to just quote myself from a couple pages back, as I gave an explanation as to why a dev may make this choice.

Why doesn't Capcom give you the option to use all specials and supers on the right-thumbstick anymore like you could in Capcom vs SNK:EO? You could choose not to, and they've shown it's possible, so what the fuck right?

The problem is that when some options are given, they are immediately taken by people when they are introduced to the game. These options may actually make the game worse, but many of these players simply won't ever give the developers original vision for the franchise a proper go. The game essentially becomes what they were initially introduced to, and often those options are initially more appealing, even if they harm the game in the long run. It's quite possible that Respawn believe that many Battlefield players will enjoy Titanfall enough in it's current form that all the servers being 6v6 won't bother them once they play it. They may also believe that allowing 32vs32, Titans as a killstreak reward and larger, more terrain based maps would be enough to convince more Quake, Tribes, CounterStrike, Halo, Gears (etc) players to stop playing when only one in five games allow the game mechanics that they created to actually be utilised properly. It's their call to make. If they get it wrong, than that's their problem. But it is their call to make.

I think most people here would agree that simply doubling the max player count in Gears probably wouldn't have made the game better. But I can imagine that there would probably be far less 4v4 (or 5v5 in the sequels) games available if people were able to set it to 8v8 (and 10v10).

I wonder why the AI controlled players are there in the first place?? I've had a theory since the game was announced and played at E3 after hearing impressions. It seems to me it might be a way to lower the barrier to entry. In other words, make it eaiser. I remember hearing Andrea Rene on WC raving about playing it after playing it at E3 and how she was able to get kills and really feel like she was contributing after saying how she isn't the greatest FPS player, it seems I remember her saying she didn't even know who was real and who wasn't. So I just wonder if that's some part of it? Give some player balance to the game. Could we see matches where all 6 human players in your team go positive but still lose the match, is that possible?

I'm pretty certain this at least part of the reason for their inclusion. They can also be a way to 'direct' the action somewhat in regards to playing out a story scenario in a multiplayer environment. Human players can't be relied on for some roles, and some scenarios may fall apart if there aren't at a least a few 'players' that stick to the script somewhat.

This actually isn't something completely new. Anarchy Reigns had many dynamic scenarios in the middle of multiplayer matchs, which added AI units (sometimes even boss characters). It worked really well in that game, and could help to eliminate some of the repetitive nature of multiplayer FPS.

 

[mishakoz]

Personally, I want a higher player count. TF2 is designed for no more than 12v12, yet 16v16 can feel quite empty on some of the larger payload maps. And that's with enemies killing you from every which way, From the air, from across the map, sneaking up behind you while invisible, running up to you and away before you can react, etc.

I guess I may stick to TF2. Up the player count, let the players choose.

(Post made with understanding that the player count is still 12 and not 50)

 

[DieEnteWurzel]

I really wish we could see more gameplay, more of the objectives/maps and how the AI comes to play.

Without all that it almost impossible to judge if 6v6 is the sweet spot or not imo.


Besides that I still cant wrap my head around how double jumps & wall running will be controlled appropriatly with a controller. When I first read about it I was thinking about some Quake/UT level action but with X1 kinda beeing the lead advertising platform it dont see it. Or maybe this will play very different in the PC version, we'll see (it's probably not fit for this thread anyway)

 

[Synth]

Personally, I want a higher player count. TF2 is designed for no more than 12v12, yet 16v16 can feel quite empty on some of the larger payload maps. And that's with enemies killing you from every which way, From the air, from across the map, sneaking up behind you while invisible, running up to you and away before you can react, etc.

I guess I may stick to TF2. Up the player count, let the players choose.

(Post made with understanding that the player count is still 12 and not 50)

12 players, ~50 units (may vary). Depending on what problems you have with the player count, this may or may not be ok for you.

 

[DanielJr82]

I'm ok with 6v6, it's going to be chaotic either way.

 

[charsace]

Ok. I guess this is a new spin on that whole "armchair developer" thing? I'm just saying my impressions of it. Perhaps you shouldn't credit developers on limiting decisions you have no say in? They're fine, but having the best rise to the top as the best naturally is better.


["It's been this number for months," he said. "We are pretty avid players in the studio. People speak their minds and we listen and make changes. This is the number that felt best.]

That's fair.

["The game is essentially built to be six on six."]

Ok.

[And that headcount won't impact map size, he said; Titanfall has all sorts.

"There are at least two maps that are really big, one of those is huge," Hendry said. "The map size isn't a technical limitation, it's what felt best. It's, 'How do we make this thing feel good?' Some maps are smaller, some are medium size and some are bigger.]

So maps, like those chosen for Ground War in Call of Duty, that might be able to comfortably accommodate a higher player count? Hmm, ok.

["I think the only thing that the player count does is really affect the overall chaotic level of the game."]

O ... wait. So why don't we have the option? Assuming that 4 v 4 allowed, and less chaotic, why isn't 9 v 9 allowed and more chaotic? Ultimately, if it's technically feasible, why not give the option?

["It all comes back to the same thing," Hendry said. "I can see why it's hard for people, why it's hard for it to make sense. But it's up to the developer to make the best choices and create the best experiences."]

Yes. But options are fun, and would appease a lot of people. Or maybe it wouldn't. Maybe they'd get to see how it isn't as great as the 6 v 6 experience, first hand, even in a private match setting.

Where do I give them credit? I'm not developing the game, I'm not testing it, I don't have a final copy on a shelf; you are also in the same situation I'm in. And you also don't have any idea what goes into developing a game. Yet you have a theory on why technological limitations are causing them to drop the player count.

You have games like L4D that have big maps with a lot of navigation meshes and demanding AI that determines things during game play and it handles 8 players. And this can be done on a console with less than 512MB of available ram and without a GPU assisting in the AI tasks. I'm pretty sure that if the X1 can run battlefield 4 and that the 360 could handle L4D then the X! could handle Titanfall with more than 12 human players if the devs choose to design the game around more than 12 players.

 

[LightOfTruth]

Im surprised this has gotten to be such a big deal.

Personally, COD4 was my favorite MP last gen, so player count means nothing to me as much the gameplay and map design.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

Besides that I still cant wrap my head around how double jumps & wall running will be controlled appropriatly with a controller. When I first read about it I was thinking about some Quake/UT level action but with X1 kinda beeing the lead advertising platform it dont see it. Or maybe this will play very different in the PC version, we'll see (it's probably not fit for this thread anyway)

I don't see why this would be a problem. Warframe is even more complicated from a maneuver perspective and people seem to be doing fine with that on PS4.

 

[Rex Griswold]

O ... wait. So why don't we have the option? Assuming that 4 v 4 allowed, and less chaotic, why isn't 9 v 9 allowed and more chaotic? Ultimately, if it's technically feasible, why not give the option?

Yes. But options are fun, and would appease a lot of people. Or maybe it wouldn't. Maybe they'd get to see how it isn't as great as the 6 v 6 experience, first hand, even in a private match setting.

This is such a ridiculous argument, I'm 100% sure that BF4 is technically capable of having 256 players on screen, so why doesn't DICE do it? Is it because PCs are inferior machines to the PS3? I mean, mag did it, why can't BF4?

Enough, there is a reason that Respawn is opting for that player limit, instead of assuming that this is going to be like every other shooter since the CoD4 era, why not step back and notice "hey, this is actually doing something different, let's see what it's going for".

There has been complaining that everything is the same and stale and nothing is changing and there is no innovation and etc. etc. etc., for years now. Now we're seeing something that is potentially new and fresh. Instead of complaining about how bad it's going to be because it's only 6v6, maybe the right thing to do would be to step back and observe.

 

[Alienous]

Where do I give them credit? I'm not developing the game, I'm not testing it, I don't have a final copy on a shelf; you are also in the same situation I'm in. And you also don't have any idea what goes into developing a game. Yet you have a theory on why technological limitations are causing them to drop the player count.

You have games like L4D that have big maps with a lot of navigation meshes and demanding AI that determines things during game play and it handles 8 players. And this can be done on a console with less than 512MB of available ram and without a GPU assisting in the AI tasks. I'm pretty sure that if the X1 can run battlefield 4 and that the 360 could handle L4D then the X! could handle Titanfall with more than 12 human players if the devs choose to design the game around more than 12 players.

I wouldn't say I have no idea about what goes into developing a game. Neither do you, clearly.

And yes, my point is that Titanfall could absolutely handle in excess of 12 players, if it was developed for that. It wouldn't exist as it does now, but I''m sure it would work. But, more importantly, it seems like the Titanfall that exists now, with the graphics, framerate and resolution we have seen, can't handle above 12 players. That does give an idea of how far Respawn feel they can push the Xbox One. That's really the extent of what I'm saying, that Respawn doesn't provide the option because they can't. Taking Titanfall as it is now, and adding more players, would push their main development platform beyond the limits Respawn has reached. That's the conclusion I think is implicated by the fact that they aren't giving an option , you may disagree. I don't think it's purely a 'best experience' thing, as 'Ground War' would imply.

It's all speculative, and it's interesting. More interesting that not thinking about it, certainly.

This is such a ridiculous argument, I'm 100% sure that BF4 is technically capable of having 256 players on screen, so why doesn't DICE do it? Is it because PCs are inferior machines to the PS3? I mean, mag did it, why can't BF4?

You shouldn't be. It wasn't developed to be able to support that amount, and it already supports an impressive amount.

 

[Synth]

I wouldn't say I have no idea about what goes into developing a game. Neither do you, clearly.

And yes, my point is that Titanfall could absolutely handle in excess of 12 players, if it was developed for that. It wouldn't exist as it does now, but I''m sure it would work. But, more importantly, it seems like the Titanfall that exists now, with the graphics, framerate and resolution we have seen, can't handle above 12 players. That does give an idea of how far Respawn feel they can push the Xbox One. That's really the extent of what I'm saying, that Respawn doesn't provide the option because they can't. Taking Titanfall as it is now, and adding more players, would push their main development platform beyond the limits Respawn has reached. That's the conclusion I think is implicated by the fact that they aren't giving an option , you may disagree. I don't think it's purely a 'best experience' thing, as 'Ground War' would imply.

You're just gonna ignore me like that as I attempt (again) to answer your question?... I see how it is.

 

[EL CUCO]

This is set to release in March right?

Judging by the little gameplay information Respawn has actually voluntarily announced/shown, I'm beginning to feel like Titanfall in itself is just a $60 beta.

 

[Alienous]

You're just gonna ignore me like that as I attempt (again) to answer your question?... I see how it is.

Ah, I meant to.

I was thinking about a higher player count more in the context of a private match. It seems like people would want it, and that they tested it, so why not let them mess around it with? Outside of it distributing the core balance.

 

[Phades]

I could be wrong, but I believe what they're talking about in reference to that statement is the "meat grinder" effect that sometimes happens with large player counts. Like how in some games, there are so many players around each other that most of your deaths are going to come from a guy you never even saw or even had much of a chance of avoiding no matter how good you are. I think they're trying to say that at 6v6 (along with all of the other stuff going on like AI and Titans), they found the sweet spot where that wasn't happening to a frustrating degree and anything higher pushed the game in to the "meat grinder" zone.

Meat grinders are more common among low skill ceiling games.

I am not implying that titanfall will have a low skill ceiling.

 

[mikey1123]

I can't think of any other online fps where there are more NPCs on your team than real players. How are you suppose to communicate with AI teammates?

 

[BruiserBear]

I can't think of any other online fps where there are more NPCs on your team than real players. How are you suppose to communicate with AI teammates?

They're not supposed to work like normal AI. They're not supposed to behave like humans. They're supposed to be easier fodder for everyone.

 

[antitrop]

I can't think of any other online fps where there are more NPCs on your team than real players. How are you suppose to communicate with AI teammates?

The MOBA comparisons are getting a bit tired, but honestly, what you're talking about is like being upset that you can't give orders to the creeps going down the lanes in DOTA 2.

Like... your line of thought just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Synth]

Ah, I meant to.

I was thinking about a higher player count more in the context of a private match. It seems like people would want it, and that they tested it, so why not let them mess around it with? Outside of it distributing the core balance.

That would very likely lead to the same complaints really.

"Why not give us the option of playing a larger count in ranked if the ground is already laid? Do you seriously expect me to find 17 friends to invite to private? In order to fill a game like that, I need to be able to play with randoms!! FIX THIS SHIT!"

Then their boards get filled with this, and they're relunctantly forced to move this into ranked after the first week. At which point the scenario in my previous example plays out. Whereas, those same people would probably be fine if they're not told that 9v9 is an option.

 

[charsace]

I wouldn't say I have no idea about what goes into developing a game. Neither do you, clearly.

And yes, my point is that Titanfall could absolutely handle in excess of 12 players, if it was developed for that. It wouldn't exist as it does now, but I''m sure it would work. But, more importantly, it seems like the Titanfall that exists now, with the graphics, framerate and resolution we have seen, can't handle above 12 players. That does give an idea of how far Respawn feel they can push the Xbox One. That's really the extent of what I'm saying, that Respawn doesn't provide the option because they can't. Taking Titanfall as it is now, and adding more players, would push their main development platform beyond the limits Respawn has reached. That's the conclusion I think is implicated by the fact that they aren't giving an option , you may disagree. I don't think it's purely a 'best experience' thing, as 'Ground War' would imply.

It's all speculative, and it's interesting. More interesting that not thinking about it, certainly.



You shouldn't be. It wasn't developed to be able to support that amount, and it already supports an impressive amount.

I'm not saying I could helm a big game like Titanfall, but I know enough that I can see the game as it is currently being able to run with more players.

Battlefield 4 has bigger maps and I'm guessing it pushes more polys than Titanfall and that game supports way more players. I doubt the levels need a lot of navigation meshes that eat up memory or that the ai is eating up a lot of cycles since I don't see them doing bot agents that would require more cpu power than what we have seen in Quake Arena or the UT games.

 

[mikey1123]

The MOBA comparisons are getting a bit tired, but honestly, what you're talking about is like being upset that you can't give orders to the creeps going down the lanes in DOTA 2.

Like... your line of thought just doesn't make any sense.

But creeps do the same thing every single time they spawn. I assume the bots won't work like that. I don't the MOBA comparison. If i see the enemy headed toward bot teammates, how do i warn the bot?

 

[Alienous]

I'm not saying I could helm a big game like Titanfall, but I know enough that I can see the game as it is currently being able to run with more players.

Battlefield 4 has bigger maps and I'm guessing it pushes more polys than Titanfall and that game supports way more players. I doubt the levels need a lot of navigation meshes that eat up memory or that the ai is eating up a lot of cycles since I don't see them doing bot agents that would require more cpu power than what we have seen in Quake Arena or the UT games.

Actually, I think the AI might be handled by the cloud servers. Not entirely sure, but I think that was suggested.

 

[see5harp]

I don't think what I've said is unfounded. And it wouldn't have anything to do with debugging the game. There are certainly more apt quips you could have come up with.

A player count in excess of 12 players, if it was technically feasible for Titanfall's current state, would probably be an option in the game. Similar to Call of Duty's 'Ground War'. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. It's not a negative. Respawn is utilizing the power they can get out of the Xbox One to its maximum to ensure the experience they have, though testing, deemed best is as good as they can make it. But rather than more confusing messaging ("What, so it's ... 25 vs 25?") they should be more upfront. "Titanfall was designed for 6 v 6, and therefore higher player counts wouldn't only be detrimental to the gameplay, but technically unfeasible".

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Alienous]

What the fuck are you talking about?

I assume something. Try reading it, perhaps?

If you have another whole lot of nothing to say, feel free to PM me about it.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I assume something. Try reading it, perhaps?

If you have another whole lot of nothing to say, feel free to PM me about it.

Quite the anti-Titanfall agenda you have going here, if your recent post history is anything to go by. Especially it's all baseless speculation on top of conjecture on top of hyperbole. I'm sure I don't need to post your recent gems to make that clear to everyone, right? Take a chill pill.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Always liked team slayer in halo because it was less hectic, so im cool with this.

Didn't you read what the guy from Respawn said? It's so hectic that he needs to take a break from time to time cause his heart can't take it any more.

 

[Alienous]

Quite the anti-Titanfall agenda you have going here, if your recent post history is anything to go by. Especially it's all baseless speculation on top of conjecture on top of hyperbole. I'm sure I don't need to post your recent gems to make that clear to everyone, right? Take a chill pill.

You can go ahead and post those 'recent gems'.

I don't think my speculation has been baseless. It has been speculative. That's what speculation is.

And whilst it hasn't been entirely 'pro-Titanfall' (that's a silly way to see it) it hasn't been 'anti-Titanfall', certainly. But you would only know that if you bothered to read any of it. It's quite overt.

So I don't see what point you're making, or what (if anything) you really have to contribute to the discussion. In any of your comments in this thread, really, going back. And I notice you don't have a rebuttal to any particular points, including my own, just blanket dismissals.

If you don't want to discuss it, don't. I'll continue to theorize, and speculate, as I only can. Explaining my points when challenged, and explaining my views and the subtext I see.

 

[DrForester]

Certainly stops me from picking up day one. I'm going to have to hear more impressions to make a decision about buying. I like large scale multiplayer, and 12 player just seems too small scale.