Originally Posted by Alatar
Player count tells nothing about how good a game is. A well designed 6v6 game isn't any worse objectively than a well designed 64v64 game. 3v3, 32v32, 1v1, 6v6, none of that really matters as long as the game is good and works as intended.
You don't see people complaining about no 64 player star craft matches. Everyone knows the game is designed for a smaller amount of players.
One of the first smarter posts in this thread that I've read so far.... People here are so quickly to judge a game based on the max players, it's literally ridiculous considering they haven't even played it or understand the gameplay/mechanics/meta/etc.
Originally Posted by Victor_Mizer
Metro isn't made for 32v32, don't use that as an example. 6v6 is bad, Titanfall should have been 12v12 minimum. The game turned out to be CoD with robots like I expected.
Mentioning CoD before you've actually played the game and understand how every little mechanic works. Considering this is on the source engine, I highly doubt the mechanics are going to feel anything like CoD.
Originally Posted by Raven Dizzle
I'm fine with 6v6 on moderately sized maps. Never understood how people enjoyed playing CoD style games (small mapped, arcady, fast paced shooters) with 64 people. Worst multiplayer experience ever. Nothing close to anywhere near fun. 64 people is good in large Battlefield type games...but in other circumstances it's just nonsense.
Spawn, throw nade, die, get 4 post death kills, repeat. Screw that lol.
I wouldn't mine seeing 32 player 16v16 matches though. That was about the max I would go in CoD before it felt like an overcrowded camper and nade-fest.
All CoD games were played in a 5vs5 format on the PC besides the very early days of CoD1. It was the perfect amount of people for CoD1, CoD2, CoD4, CoD:WaW. CoD:UO required a 6vs6 though due to the larger maps.
Originally Posted by nitrubbb
to me, battlefield maps are way too small for 64 players for example.
I agree on most BattleField 3/4 maps. The older Battlefield's had much better maps that were more suited for it's player size.
Originally Posted by BinaryDemon
Well I skimmed the article but I really can't say I was impressed with any of their explanations. Why not design levels for 6v6 and default the servers to that, but allow people to host dedicated servers with larger or smaller player counts as desired? TF2 was only designed around 12v12, but damned if I don't prefer the unofficial 16v16 servers.
Pretty sure TF2 was designed around 8vs8 actually. Or at least that's how it was played during the testing stages.
Originally Posted by paulerxx
You're missing the point..It's far more skillfull with 6v6(or a lower player count), you NEED strategy. Much like a sport, x player has to defend, y has to be offensive, b has to flank left as a distraction. And the A.I. we call duds/shields.
EDIT: And let's not forget this will probably be modded by servers on day one.
Doubtful. I believe EA/Respawn will have full control over the servers. As this game will be using a MatchMaking system as well, and servers are hosted on the Microsoft cloud.
Originally Posted by Audio
Gamers don't actually know what they want.. I mean practically every pub counter-strike match is a good example of that. 32 player de_dust 2 matches. With literally 3 paths to choose from. So you're cramming like 10-12 players down one hallway and it really makes for a horrible experience, and it also makes death a lot more unenjoyable because the matches tend to last a lot longer. 12 player count to me, is good news.
Partially why Valve introduced a 5vs5 Matchmaking system.
Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie
I don't see how people thought it was going to be a larger game mode.....
Just the original videos showed a handful of guys with their Titans on each team, that is what excited me about. The early videos clearly showed small squads on "small" maps just blowing the living snot out of each other!
Exactly this. Even in the gameplay videos they never showed that many players. I really don't understand where everyone got the idea that there should be more players from the videos.
Developers have a direction they want their game to focus on, I see this as a good thing. My biggest issue with this game so far from what I've seen, is the lack of recoil.
Originally Posted by Masked
You do realize that the entire purpose of the AI is to create balance within the game?
Take for example REAL Battlefield 4 or COD matches right now. Say your team is pro and you DESTROY the other team.
Is it challenging for you to get a shutout? How's the other team feel at being slaughtered?
Do you support the merciless beatdown of another team?
Now picture Titanfall.
We have a 6 v 6...My team starts to destroy you.
Oh wait, the AI is sporadically improving...Hold on, I just took one in the back from the AI and now the game is actually balanced.
Holy crap, they're making a comeback and now the game is even FASTER because the AI's level artificially increased mid-game.
AI is capable of doing what a human is not. Period.
That's what this game was designed for and one of the features it's pushing so hard...Innovative AI that scales in difficulty based on the opposition.
It's never been done before and if they back down, cater to the public, I'm withdrawing my support 100% because it's simply such a step backwards, it's incredible...In both technology and within the gaming world, itself.
Depending on this actually works. This could honestly dumb down the game.
Originally Posted by decimator
This doesn't exactly sound like a good thing to me...If I and my teammates are legitimately more skilled at a game than players on the other team, we should win the majority of the time (not 100% of the time, but definitely over half the time). This is why I get frustrated when I go into a pub in TF2 and eat a random crit rocket from some bumbling soldier who I've been dominating for the past 5 rounds. I know that I am the beneficiary of random crits, too, but it just feels cheap to get kills that way and I prefer playing on servers with random crit and random spread turned off.
This feels like something geared more toward the casual gamer demographic. I think it's fine in that scenario because it does suck to lose every match you play if you're just a casual gamer and you don't have enough time and/or dedication to invest a lot of hours into the game to become legitimately good at it. But if I play the game very often with friends who are as skilled as I am, it would feel cheap if our win-loss percentage is capped at around 50%.
Obviously, you have experience with the game, Masked, and maybe you didn't explain the nuances of the AI system clearly enough. If that's the case, I'm all ears and would love to hear how Respawn plans to make this game accessible and fair at the same time.
Agreed.Edited by dmasteR - 1/11/14 at 12:38am