Titanfall to have max 6v6 player count - Vince Zampella

https://twitter.com/VinceZampella/status/420731507842351104

You'll have just 6 players on each side and AI on the maps too.

Thoughts??

I think that's fine because it's more of a Single Player Campaign but in a MP environment. So like a co-op team against another co-op team and all the AI and Campaign going on in the middle.

I think it's fine as long as the game is balanced around it. Often times when games try to throw in a ton of players it just end up being a mess with no teamwork involved, having smaller teams makes teamwork easier IMO.

The devs said they tested it with different number of players and came to the conclusion that 6v6 was best for gameplay and performance.

REMEMBER that anyone can call down a Titan, so it can get really messy with 12 Titans on the field.

People made some good points that the number of players isn't everything.

HOWEVER I don't want to be running around in some huge mech on a small map, because usually the lower the number of players, the smaller the map.

The maps look pretty big from gameplay videos. Remember, there are a LOT of NPCs running around.

Pfttt, good call on marketing it to the "next gen" consoles; Yeah I've seen where it led NFS Rivals...

mp only games are boring anyways

Videos were deceiving in that I thought there would be more. But apparently half of your team is a lesser class bot.

What are you talking about, Rivals was one of the best NFS games, especially how it incorporated real MP into the campaign.

I know it's one of the best, but making a 6-8 players on a map is just plain stupid.

I don't want to play with AI where players could fill those holes and actually be more challenging.

Would be more of a co-op as someone said earlier but nothing wrong with that considering that it'll be the campaign.

Ahh I get what you meant now.

Well yeah, older NFS games had traditionally 8-12 players in a race, but I actually didn't mind the lower number in rivals. I never felt it was too low.

I like the idea of this here. I like to keep in my mind more players doesn't equal a better game. I am still looking forward to Titanfall.

I don't get it, AI is never as fun as real players.

As for balance, just make it harder to get Titans, maybe put a long cooldown on them ore something.

Well, I guess this is also a question of numbers psychology: 6v6 looks yet "smaller" than 12 players..., but still, 24 might be better (as I oftentimes prefer the anonymity of the battlefield to getting killed by the same badass over and over again). On the other hand, I really would need to see the game before making my own opinion about.

I couldn't really tell the scale from the maps from the gameplay I've seen. But the fact that normal soldiers can use jetpacks and freerunning makes the maps also have vertical scale, which is nice.

So, okay, the devs said the 6v6 is really the best. But I really hope they let us find that out for ourselves by releasing a demo or beta or something. Because right now, I have no clue if the game will be any good or not.

That's an interesting point to bring up.

I often feel like many more casual players end up liking large multiplayer games due to there being less pressure on individual performance. I know when I want to play a relaxing game of MP I go for BF4 because there are so many people I can blend in with the crowd and don't feel as pressured on getting the top score.

So long as the game is fun, I don't care.

Well everyone who has played it at events, even those that are skeptical about it, have said nothing but good things so it's looking promising so far.

The devs respond:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/01/08/titanfall-draws-fire-over-6v6-max-player-count-respawn-respond/

The press liked a lot of games I did not, and vice versa. I would love to check this game out to see if it's something for me, if given the chance (beta/demo).

If not, I'm not going to put my money on something I don't know I'll like or not. I'll just stick to the current competitive MP games I play. But I really do want to give this game a chance.

I'm not worried.

I will be on there lets get a 6 going!!!!

Yes, the BF3/4 MP with its 64 player maps is certainly good in that. I don't consider myself necessarily "casual" but everybody might at times experience MMOs where other players have more experience, higher levels, and more unlocks than oneself giving them easily some advantages (e.g., this way one might get enraged when a same guy's turret is killing one five times in a row right at the same spawning point... ;)

could just be holding back for titanfall 2 which will be multi plat title.

lmao you're insane

I love how so many people think next gen means no more small player count games because some how they are inferior.

My concern is where is the variety?

The majority of multiplayer games that are popular have a variety with larger team and smaller team maps and game modes. This a $60 multiplayer only game there should be much more offered.

The devs said that every player can have a titan spawned and that titans will be on AI mode if not piloted. Basically there can be 12 people running around and 12 robots along with all the other AI on the map.

It seems like there is a lot of room for variety but I think it will mostly depend on the missions and maps.

Lets hope so because even games like COD have offered (at least the ones I played up to MW3) large and small maps. Games that are primary multiplayer such as BF do a decent job with maps and player count that manages to be fun whether it is a 32 player Rush game or 64 player conquest game. This game is clearly trying some new ideas so I guess the world will find out how much variety there is once it is released.

My main problem is why do people think higher player count is a requirement for next gen shooters? My luck devs, or even worse publishers, will listen to this feedback and think this is an actual requirement or gamers will be disappointed.

Even though 6v6 does sound kind of low I think if the maps and weapons were designed specifically for that number of players then everything should work out smoothly. If they made it 64v64, then that would have probably taken completely different map designs. It really would change the dynamic of the games.

I guess the developers were trying to go for a more "intimate" setting with each round.

And who knows, they can always release DLC with bigger maps with more players. So everyone can just calm down.

So now they are saying 12 bots per side with up to 6 AI controlled titans. So essentially most of the opponents you kill will actually be artificial intelligence. Killing bots in an online shooter is not something I really enjoy for lengthy periods. Is this the first case of an online shooter where most of the opponents are actually AI? Perhaps they function much like L4D zombies? I wonder if they are doing this to create artificial epic moments? They could basically script action sequences by positioning enemies in such a way that you have some amazing kill-streak. Hopefully not obvious to the player. Hopefully the bots aren't just cannon fodder background noise.

Remember guys, this isn't like BF and COD where it's just maps for people to move around and kill.

It's a whole campaign built right into the MP, so they need AI and scripted events obviously to carry the story forward.

If done right, it could be the next step in online shooters (which everyone has complained has been the same for years). Then with each new DLC the story keeps moving forward.

Defiance does something similar.

The only thing I'm slightly worried about is this turning into some player vs creeps kind of game. I play shooters to compete, not to kill AI.

This is going to be a joke. A full 3/4 of the enemies that you see will be bots and the fact that every human player can have a mech deployed and in AI mode ups that to 4/5. So 80% of the targets you have to shoot at will be bots. Go read the article they lowered the player count because people were getting ganked from behind by human players to often. That almost necessitates that these are pretty small maps or that wouldn't be happening. Similarly it also means that by lowering the player count and throwing in more bots fixed this problem that that bots are creep-level in terms of AI. So basically they are just walking point balloons.

Hmmmm.. what does that sound like... of yeah like L4D2 or any other co-op/versus shooter. I love the fact that they have been hyping this as the next Battlefield and now as we get closer to release the truth starts coming out.

"When people start playing Titanfall like Titanfall, the player count becomes a non-issue," I mean how more conceited can you get? That is basically saying "It's not our game that sucks, you just aren't playing right. L2P noob!".

I guarantee this game will not get an early demo, because they don't want people to see how bad it is and cancel their pre-orders.

Wow, I like how you make so many assumptions and then make assumptions based off your assumptions to arrive at your conclusion. Isn't it a bit early to judge so critically?

Anyway I think you misunderstood the part of the article you referred too. They didn't lower the player count just because people were getting shot in the back, it was more due to the overall chaos that ensued when there where a large amount of very mobile players in one game.

I don't think integrating SP and MP in FPS games is a step that people have been asking for...

Well Defiance sometimes does it very well, and there are heaps of people that play that game and enjoy the story aspects of it.

We shall see what happens with Titanfall. So far everyone that has tried it says it's good and fun. Who cares what the player count is, as long as the game is fun?

Not every game needs 64 players. League of Legends would be terrible if it were 32 vs 32 (I'll admit - it would probably be pretty hilarious though).

I'll admit - I am partially excited about Titanfall since this is from the company that brought us MW1,but I'm also reserved as its the same company that brought us MW2.

We'll just have to wait and see. Titanfall will be great, mediocre, or bad based on its gameplay and design - not because of its player count IMO.

Same here. 6v6 doesn't really bother me.

PC gamers saying 6v6 doesn't bother them? LOL what ever happened to standards and quality control. I'm not buying into the hype of a launch title that claims to be the next COD4.

When did the number of players EVER decide the quality of a game?

I would rather have QUALITY than QUANTITY.

Battlefield 4 always claims it has 128 players on the map but to me it's a clusterf*** of spawn kills. BF4 personally shines more on maps with less people.

Because more players means better game? You're stupid and you have no clue how game balance works.

No you moron more players do not = a better game but more than 6v6 with AI bots do! Have you ever played an online game with bots? The hype for this game is silly everyone of you will like it for a week before making hate threads and death threats.

Quite a few actually. Even COD: Ghosts has an online mode against other humans and bots called SQUADS, and it's pretty fun.

But that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't want to see you buying the game down the track though, and even worse, enjoying it...

I'm not trying to be a buzz kill but i just don't see it. IMO this will be a fun game for everyone until it get's popular and then you get made fun of for playing it a month after.