Titanfall: 6-vs-6 Multiplayer Maximum

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
According to this news post over at Blue's News, Titanfall will be limited to 6-vs-6 multiplayer matches.

Respawn Entertainment's Vince Zampella tweets about multiplayer support in Respawn, saying their upcoming mech game will support six-on-six multiplayer games, saying limiting this to 12 players is best for game balance: "6v6 is max player count. Turned out to be the best balance with ai for us," then clarifying "that's humans only count. There are lots of ai, everyone can have a Titan in follow or guard mode too."
Click to expand...
 
Well this sucks. Was hoping for at least 10 vs. 10 but I have a feeling this is for the console gamers.
 
AthlonXP said:
Well this sucks. Was hoping for at least 10 vs. 10 but I have a feeling this is for the console gamers.
Click to expand...

I doubt that, battlefield 4 on the consoles are 64 players as far as I remember, aside from the fact that the game is also coming on the PC, either the developers are confident with those reasons or they are pushing a tight time frame to bring it out ASAP, either way that sucks especially for a game without any singleplayer value
 
Turned out to be the best balance with ai for us," then clarifying "that's humans only count. There are lots of ai, everyone can have a Titan in follow or guard mode too."
Click to expand...

I mean, this sentence alone should be a clue to them. If more people begins to cause AI balance issue, remove the AI bots. I would rather have 1 player for 50 bots.
 
Count me completely uninterested in this game now. 6v6? seriously? so what, 6 titans vs 6 titans? Might as well go play MWO.
 
first bad news I've heard regarding Titanfall...still interested in the game just slightly less so now
 
Max of 6v6 is great for competition type game, but last I checked, most people don't play competitively 100% of the time. CoD4 was fun to just hop in a 48 person server every now and then and just embrace the craziness. This game is off the lists for me too. Meh.
 
Whelp, here's another game I won't be purchasing this year

Thanks for dropping the ball, its not like I've played Planetside 2 the last year, you know, where its 200 vs 200 vs 200 and nobody says its "Too much"
 
Fucking Pathetic. i was playing in 32 vs 32 matches in tribes 2 over a decade ago.
 
Noooooooo. I was so looking forward for to this game. 6 v 6 is laughable.
 
I'll reserve judgement until it comes out, maybe the maps are tiny. I'm actually fine with 6v6 if the game is fun and fast paced.. I don't really care specifically about the number of players on the server if there is stuff to do, the mechanics are good and it's enjoyable. BF needs tons of players because the maps are huge but I'd always be fine with a 6v6 Counter Strike match, for example.
 
While this sucks, its honestly probably not that bad. If the AI is REALLY good and there is a lot of them, then its okay.
 
Shocking, the guys responsible for the CoD modern warfare series (up to 2 anyway), can only make 6 v 6 technically 7 v 7, or 8 v 8 if you include the mini mechs (compared to the Mech Warrior games, or Walken, they are tiny).
 
PCunicorn said:
While this sucks, its honestly probably not that bad. If the AI is REALLY good and there is a lot of them, then its okay.
Click to expand...

A multiplayer only game for $60 that only supports only 6v6 better be very impressive.
 
Cripes, you give gamers 4 they want 8, you give them 8 they want 10, you give them 32 they want 64, etc....they can't fucking win.
 
Honestly, I don't mind this. Anything over 12 people tends to be pure chaos anyway. I'd rather have things streamlined.
 
IM sorry why would someone go from enjoying playing a huge FPS universe like Planetside 1/2 or Battlefield down to 6 vs 6 dude thats just horrible, im not even thinking about picking this up for the console now. Hell MAG for PS3 had huge servers too why would I want a stupid AI player/bot follow me around when I can have a human being?
 
I like how everyone is passing judgement without ever playing the game. There are lots of other multiplayer games that limit the number of players too. I don't have much of an issue with it. There could be other reasons, like how the game is designed for it to have a lot less players. I never got the sense that TitanFall was a full on person on person shoot em up FPS.
 
dyzophoria said:
I doubt that, battlefield 4 on the consoles are 64 players as far as I remember, aside from the fact that the game is also coming on the PC, either the developers are confident with those reasons or they are pushing a tight time frame to bring it out ASAP, either way that sucks especially for a game without any singleplayer value
Click to expand...

But Battlefield 4 only supports 24 on 360 and PS3, and Titanfall is coming to 360. Either 6v6 is for the 360 version or they just aren't going to change much for Xbone and PC because of development time.
 
Low limits in multi-player games is one of the downfalls of many X-Box games. That is a low count for this type of game.
 
C'MON WATUP WIT DAT

128 vs 128 player is the norm and standard

Get with the program developers >:[ Even Battlefield 2 supports 128v128 games

(Yes, I'm trolling)
 
5150Joker said:
6 vs 6...sweet...if you're still living in 1992.
Click to expand...

Oh bullshit. Nobody good plays on large player servers anyways. Competitive always ends up in the 4-12 range depending on the game. The best players stay around. Other than noob training and stomping grounds larger servers have always been an odd item.

Besides we knew this was coming. They stated it was going to be a pseudo single/multiplayer game, and nothing is stopping them from adding more stuff later.
 
polonyc2 said:
the size of the maps will play a big role in how this effects gameplay
Click to expand...

This. I don't really enjoy 64 players or even 48. I feel 32 is a solid mix and a maximum. I don't get why everyone is surprised or upset. If it feels right and meets the pace head on then it works.

The flow of a game is heavily effected by player count and map size. If the maps are tight and well made then 6v6 will be great. COD : Ghosts suffered (among many other things) from HUGE maps and a low player count.

Titanfall still looks exciting.
 
6v6??????

That's acceptable............in 1996. Mark me down for the "officially unexcited about this one" group.
 
It's too bad they have to hobble games for all of those so totally last gen PCs.

If only PC gamers had access to forty jahoogabites of GDDR5 RAMPOWA then games could really advance.
 
Why would you want AI in a multiplayer game? That seems kinda weird... i mean unless you're playing a comp stomp.

I wonder if you'll end up spending some kind of currency unlocked through grinding experience lol

They could win massive props by having no levels and no unlocks.
 
pcjunkie said:
Cripes, you give gamers 4 they want 8, you give them 8 they want 10, you give them 32 they want 64, etc....they can't fucking win.
Click to expand...


64v64 was common a DECADE ago. Then most games started to restrict it to less because?- lazy and consoles that's why. PC multiplayer should have hundreds of players optional in FPS shooters now. I have never wanted 4, 8, 10, or even 32 person FPS games. I want the option for hundreds. This is screaming console garbage port already now.
 
6v6 limits map size. I liked the good old days where player limits were based on the map chosen. In 6v6, all of the maps will need to be similar in size or use some clever level design to make up for it.
 
I don't need 32v32, or 64v64, or any other ridiculous number.

But limiting it to 6v6? The only way that works is on tiny maps, otherwise you're doing laps around a big area just looking for people. I don't want another "tiny map wannabe pro level competitive shooter game", I want a damn game that is fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top