Titanfall to have max 6v6 player count - Vince Zampella

You guys don't seem to understand that this isn't JUST an arena shooter like COD and BF, it's a full blown Single Player Campaign set in a Multiplayer Instance.

The devs themselves said that they tried different player counts and agreed that the human 6v6 was the perfect balance.

I say wait and play it and then judge the player count.

I would choose a game with low player count but fun over a huge player count game that is boring any time of the year.

True it being the source engine which is outdated to hell, is going to be modifiable even if they don't want it to be. Mod tools or not this game is getting modded. This is still an overrated game imo.

The source engine can be outdated or not (it's a modified source engine to be exact), but doesn't take away that the game looks very pretty.

Overrated? well might be. I think Titanfall will be one of those either HIT or MISS kinda games, but it's understandable why people are hyped because of the people behind it and the whole campaign inbuilt into the MP.

Like I said before, you think it's overrated and that's fine, so you'll never play it right?

I want to play it just to say Gears of war, Halo and COD, Crysis, Killing floor are worse games. I would love to say that. We will see.

Titanfall isn't just an arena shooter, its attempting to blend SP and MP together and will have a ton more "moving parts" then traditional shooters, I can see why they'd be stricter on balancing it.

I don't think the player number is due to tech limits, it's just how the devs feel they want their game to be played.

@geminontraveler: This is Source, there is no legitimate engine limitation. It is the same engine that runs TF2 and DoD (both are 32 player servers). This is shitty design and/or hitting a release window pure and simple. The fact is that 80% of the enemies you have to target will be AI controlled is ridiculous, it is simply not going to be enjoyable where 80% of the characters are AI controlled. This game has been hyped so hard as the next BF/CoD and you will mostly be shooting bots. I stand by my comparison to games like L4D2 versus where you have two teams, but the majority of enemies are AI zombies. Sure it is fun, but it gets stale real fast.

And I still cannot see their stated reasoning for dropping the player count as anything other than a cop out. There are way better ways they could have addressed it - tone down the movement speed, not everyone can have a mech at the same time, larger maps, etc. Again this is Source, one of the most stable and modable engines in gaming and there best solution was to cut player counts?

Or maybe like they said it was the perfect balance in their opinion AFTER TRYING WITH DIFFERENT PLAYER COUNTS

Which I flat out call BS. They would not willingly do that because they know how it is going to play in this era of 32-64 player servers, massive maps, and enemies that are not driven by AI. I cannot stress this enough - this is supposed to be a COMPETITIVE MP game, where 80% of your targets are AI controlled. That is just flat out moronic, this isn't a MOBA, I would wager the majority of competitive shooter fans don't want to be mowing down bots at a 1:4 ratio to human opponents. This is just BRINK with a handful of player controlled opponents who will shoot back at you.

Feel free to take my opinion with a grain of salt. I am definitely hoping this game will fail and that colors my opinion. But that doesn't change the fact that what they are doing does not sound at all appealing to a large number of shooter fans. Do you really think the bro-gamers (which makes up the majority of the audience for these games) want to spend all night shooting bots or shooting and trolling their friends?

Did they say it was a competitive MP game?

And why would you want a game to fail just so you can say "hey, I was right", that's childish.

@FelipeInside: They have been hyping it as the next CoD/BF since VGA 2012, that damn sure means competitive multilayer to the majority of gamers.

And me wanting it to fail has nothing to do with "I told you so".

"They" as in the devs or "They" as in the press and gamers?

And you said "I am definitely hoping this game will fail and that colors my opinion", like I said, pretty sad that you WANT a game to fail. I would rather it be good fun for all those that buy it.

They as in the devs or They as in the press and gamers?

And you said "I am definitely hoping this game will fail and that colors my opinion", like I said, pretty sad that you WANT a game to fail. I would rather it be good fun for all those that buy it. Never understood this new generation of gamers that want games and companies to fail.

They as in both.

And as to your second point, would you say the same thing about SimCity based on what happened? Because that is precisely why I'm hoping it fails. They are going to shove out a stripped down game and force people to buy content through micro-trans every few weeks (just like SimCity). A few high profile failures of this monetization scheme over at EA might wake them up and finally put the stake in the heart of this trend. So yes I hope it fails hard, just like SimCity so we can actually get better games.

Because mark my word the exact same thing that happened with SimCity is going to happen here - server overloads, launch day insanity, microtransactions out the ass for XP, weapons, what have you. If I turn out to be wrong, then you can call me an idiot, but based on previous examples I don't think I will be.

Guess we have to wait and see then.

I don't know about microtransactions, they haven't said anything about that have they?

As for Server overloads and launch day issues, that's understandable. I don't think ANY big title MP game has launched without hiccups. Maybe in 30 years when the technology is better they will, but for anyone that knows networks it's expected to have some launch issues.

@FelipeInside: There is a profound difference between launch day "issues" and the catastrophe that was SimCity.

Also they didn't directly say anything about the micro-trans in SimCity and look how that turned out. I guarantee you it will be worse than PlanetSide 2 in terms of the sheer level of micro-trans BS.

http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/23/titanfall-will-not-have-microtransactions-says-respawn/

Just additional content maybe, like DLC or new Campaign etc.

i think they should make the game the way they want to make the game. then we should play the game as it was envisioned by the developers, and then decide for ourselves what their product is like.

i'm totally OK with single player games, and I'm totally OK with games like Guild Wars 2.

I think the idea of Titanfall being an FPS MOBA type game where you have 'minions' sounds really really fresh. I've been playing video games for decades so I welcome something fresh.

If this new fresh thing turns out to suck - I'm OK with that. I would take my hat off to them for trying something new.

BLASHPHEMY !!!

You mean that these forums have been complaining year after year that BF and COD are always the same, and that a developer should try something new.

Then Respawn tries something new with, like you say, a kinda FPS MOBA with a whole SP Campaign in a MP environment, and the forums explode complaining it's not like BF and COD???

Shame on you Crown...

lol, good one mate.

yes the inhabitants of the gaming world can be pretty flakey sometimes!

I think that sounds like the WORST possible idea to include in an FPS ever. MOBAs are already bad enough as it is, including the god-awful progression system in a FPS match would be the safest possible way to get me to never play it.

From what they have said over the last few days it basically sounds like BRINK only there is a handful of player controlled characters on each side.

i don't know how its going to work, if its going to work at all.

that's cool you think its a terrible idea. but it seems they are making the game this way and there is nothing anyone could do to curb their development ideas. "If this new fresh thing turns out to suck - I'm OK with that. I would take my hat off to them for trying something new."

would you try the game or have you already written it off?

Hah... try the game? That is a good one... Like there will be a beta or demo? Never happening. They know how bad that would end with lots and LOTS of canceled preorders. The only way to TRY the game would be to buy it and then be out $60 on a POS.

But to answer your question, written it off, and mailed it to a conflict region in Africa.

So we can put down as FACT that you will NEVER play this game? even if reviews say it's good?

99.75%, I'm a scientist and that puts it outside the statistical margins. For a variety of reasons I cannot see any way I would ever play this game based on what I have seen. Not with games like TF2, CSS, and even BF4 available (once they fix it).

Why can't Bungie stop being dicks and give us Destiny at the same time as consoles? I would trade that for Titanfail in a heartbeat. It look 100000000x better than anything I have seen from Titanfail.

@SerOlmy: well, it's an origin game. their refund policy is one of the best in the business.

https://www.origin.com/en-nz/great-game-guarantee

do you accept that because of this refund policy, EA could lose 100% of preorders?

So you won't give 100% NO then?

I really don't want to see you buy the game down the track if the reviews are good, it would just be hypocritical.

People can argue till your blue in the face and tell people how bad the game will suck but hardly anyone's even played the game yet. I don't see why some people are so against a game they barely know any about.

I don't know if the game will be good or bad but I don't think the player count will have much to do with that. I've never played a bad game and thought, "If only they had more players." I think this games success will rely mostly on how they implement all the AI and the mission structure with the MP.

Maybe that's how you act but my optimistic view of humanity leads me to hope most people would reserve such critical judgement until it's launched or we at least have more information/reviews.

I understand everything is judged but I don't think it makes any sense to doom a game when no one's even played it, just my two cents.

Well, there have been games where I've seen gameplay videos or my friends playing it and it never interest me, but then I tried it and actually enjoyed the game.

The main one I remember is Diablo 1. I saw my friend playing it and even said "that looks so boring". Then I played it and was hooked.

They have not really clarified the "Single player campaign" portion yet. I'm not sure it will be much more than a few cinematic pieces tied together with a normal multiplayer match. One of the story bits is escaping on a drop-ship after losing a multiplayer match. I don't consider that significant.

Haha what? No.

All I meant was if a game doesn't interest me I don't play it. I don't feel the need to make fun of it or foretell of it's doom.

Anyhow where getting really off-topic here so back to Titanfall...

Yeah, we still have to wait and see how the SP campaign ties into the MP environment.

Defiance does something similar and it works well in most cases.

They need some kind of progressive mission system where as the story goes one way or the other, the objectives change etc.

@geminontraveler: who said anything about 120 player servers? Regardless, the bottleneck on Source MP games is not client side. I could run everything maxed out at 1080p on my previous 5 year old rig. And have absolutely no issue with 32 player servers on a 0.3mb/s DSL. It is not a hardware or engine issue as I have stated previously.

The bottleneck is server side. It requires considerably more horsepower to runs 32 player server as opposed to a 24 player server. And since they are already making it 48 "combatants" then that isn't an issue. The AIs eat up more calculations than a human player.

Again, this is not a hardware or engine issue. This is shitty design plain and simple.

@geminontraveler: wow, there are so many incorrect and just flat out moronic assumptions in your post that I don't even know where to begin.

its crazy to me. i remember playing quake 1, we could have 64 player matches. what was a really popular mod?

rocket arena. "gimped" the game to 1v1. perhaps there is not a linear relationship between playercount and 'fun'?

@geminontraveler: Fine. For 1 your "memory allocation limitations" are completely disproven by L4D 1/2 running on the same engine. You can have HUNDREDS of models on screen in the same area at the same time + 8 player characters. There are also custom L4D servers with 8v8 or even more available. If you need further proof go play with Garry's Mod and you can do well over 48 models on screen at once. Furthermore you can set up 32 player servers running bots in TF2.

You can also ask literally any Source MP server operator what is the technical limitation of 24 vs 32 player servers and I guarantee they will tell you that it is how much horsepower the server need to run the 32 player. It requires a more powerful server with more bandwidth to operate. So basically the limitation here is COST (rentals for more powerful servers with more bandwidth cost more $$$) and nothing technical.

So please in the future before you start trolling with your holier than thou BS know what you are talking about.

@SerOlmy: that is not true at all...L4D only has maybe 30-40 zombies on screen at any given time.... not hundreds.

also... 32 player servers.... that isnt very good evidence for what you are trying to peddle here....

@cyloninside: Elevator defense in No Mercy can push well over 50-60 in a very small space, same with the airplane defense in the swamp map (forget the name), the viaduct on Cold Stream, or the bridge finale. These are just examples of non-modded servers, you can get crazy zombie counts on modded servers, with little client-side impact.

I am not peddling anything. I am pointing out there is no valid engine or hardware limitations for the low player count other than server horsepower/bandwidth.