[H]Titanfall just 6v6

[smackababy]

Do the ai in dota kill players?

It certainly can. It plays a huge role in the game.

 

[Doppel]

I have always hated anything that happens in a multiplayer game that is outside of a players direct control.

It really doesn't mesh well with 6v6 gameplay if you ask me. At those player counts win/loss should boil down to who is better. Not whose robot/AI aimbot decimated the other team.

It's going to be wait and see, but if the AI directly effects outcomes of matches then this game will forever been a noob friendly, uncompetitive, and short lived game that will be forgotten. Any game that is 5v5 or 6v6 should be ultra competitive by nature and not cater to noobs, but that's just my opinion.

Perhaps if you view an AI asset as you might a deployed turret you could overlook the external force as unfair or introducing too much luck.

If we are to believe the def, they chose these numbers for a good reason.

 

[Lil Frier]

Yeah, I can't help but laugh at how quickly Titanfall has gone from "love" to "love to hate." It's like Call of Duty at warp speed, and it's not even been out.

The allegations that they made the game look 20-on-20 are silly, because that wasn't the case. It didn't look like a massive game to me, from the videos I watched.

The complaint that 6-on-6 means it's too small to be competitive ignores the existence of Counter-Strike, and even the way many games of Unreal and Quake are played.

The excuse that AI is present is just as silly, given the fact that we see so many games mix in AI. World of Warcraft (though not exactly competitive) allows for damage to be decided, in part, by random number generation. Their World First races are all player-vs.-AI battles. DotA and LoL allow for AI to factor in GREATLY, given that you can watch a 45-minute match where a lot of it is spent stealing kills on AI to level up more quickly than the opponent, meaning fights against AI can be every bit as meaningful as fighting the players themselves. Heck, the objective in DotA 2 is to go destroy an object with health--not an actualy player.

Finally, thinking that the presence of AI-controlled mechs somehow ruins it is also silly. It's not like mechs are handed out at random to random people at random times. Each side gets mechs, and they are earned through performance. They excel at different styles of play, same as guns. How is picking a close-quarters mech over a fast-moving mech different than picking a shotgun over an SMG?

It's all just a bunch of silliness, in my opinion. I think it's simply something where people want to sound "intelligent" half of the time. Titanfall got really popular really quickly, now everyone has to tear it down because it's cool. It's the same thing as with CoD, where so many people say it's the same game every year, yet they'll have increasingly-negative opinions about a game that they say is the same as a game they like (all while defending the bug-riddled Battlefield 4 because it's "different" and "big").

Personally, I'm excited for Titanfall. I don't like 32-on-32 hysteria where you don't even SEE probably half of your teammates throughout a match (let alone manage some sort of strategy). I mean, are we REALLY trying to say that 6-on-6 makes Titanfall a non-competitive game, while saying CoD is just too bad? Battlefield can't work 32-on-32 for competitive play, because the groping of teams just won't happen. If we're excusing Titanfall, CoD, AND Battlefield, what ARE we permitting as a competition-worthy FPS? Unreal and Quake aren't even around, so does that mean we're going to just make it all Black Ops II and Global Offensive or something? I'm just curious as to which games are acceptable for "esports."

Again, I don't have a problem with 6-on-6. At least there, I can manage to play primarily with friends and family, and I can get SOME chance of being in a game of strategy where I can make a real difference. Titanfall isn't the TOP game I am interested in (that's The Division), but I don't see these player-count complaints as anything of real value. The AI, I can get the displeasure with possibly losing a competitive match to an AI, but if you really feel that way, then I guess you should also seek to ban MOBAs from competitive play.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

We aren't saying Titanfall can't be competitive at 6v6. At least I'm not. I'm saying that Titanfall should be ultra-competitive at 6v6 but it likely won't be. They need to remove all the idiot mode stuff from the game.

Also, anyone thinking this game will have a focus on competition with it's Story based MP gameplay al la Brink should really go try that game out. Brink was horrible.

 

[jimrawr]

Smaller battlefields means that you influence the game more. I remember for COD2 on Xbox 360 it was 4v4 and if you were really good you could carry your team more often than not. When the teams are huge you cannot do that. Competitive games are almost always smaller teams which says something.

If you enjoy larger games then it stinks for you personally, but its not a case of "wtf this is 2014 6v6 only omg". Games will continue to be this size FOREVER because some people (many) prefer it. Personally if the game has more than 6v6 or 8v8 it loses its appeal to me so I am happy with the news, and thats just for pubs. Forget competitive with anything about 5v5 IMO.

 

[Lil Frier]

They need to remove all the idiot mode stuff from the game.

Also, anyone thinking this game will have a focus on competition with it's Story based MP gameplay al la Brink should really go try that game out. Brink was horrible.

I don't get what that first part means in the least, so I can't address it.

As for the second, it's not a reasonable conclusion, in my opinion. Respawn isn't this Splash Damage studio, where their claims to fame are Brink and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, which are both unpopular titles. Titanfall is coming from a developer built by people who have made well-received FPS titles, and arguably the best title in the biggest FPS franchise around (CoD 4). Just because Splash Damage couldn't make Brink good, it doesn't mean that Titanfall good, just as CoD 4 doesn't prove that Titanfall will be great.

Story-based MP just hasn't been a big thing beyond MMOs, so it's hard to call it doable or not right now. I liked Defiance just fine, and it worked OK as something of a story-driven MMOTPS (though the story was played almost entirely from a single-player perspective). Destiny seems to be working with the concept on a bigger scale (not sure how story-driven its multiplayer will really be), and it looks good as well.

 

[Lil Frier]

Smaller battlefields means that you influence the game more. I remember for COD2 on Xbox 360 it was 4v4 and if you were really good you could carry your team more often than not. When the teams are huge you cannot do that. Competitive games are almost always smaller teams which says something.

If you enjoy larger games then it stinks for you personally, but its not a case of "wtf this is 2014 6v6 only omg". Games will continue to be this size FOREVER because some people (many) prefer it. Personally if the game has more than 6v6 or 8v8 it loses its appeal to me so I am happy with the news, and thats just for pubs. Forget competitive with anything about 5v5 IMO.

That's close to what my point is. I don't necessarily want to be in a setting where a single talent can carry a team, but I want to be in a setting where teamwork is possible. In Battlefield 4, what are the odds you're working with 25% of your team (8 people) towards a common goal? 50% (16 people)? 100% (32 people)? Anyone who has tried LFR in WoW can attest to what I'm getting at, I think.

LFR gives you a 25-man raid that's incredibly easy, but it's built almost entirely out of random players. There is little incentive to try hard or pay attention, because the game's not that difficult in that setting. However, when you get 25 people barely trying, simple things become difficult, and you have something that could be done in a drunken stupor become difficult, just because no one has any sense of teamwork or strategy. You get 3 or 4 people in the group trying to implement their own strategies for the same thing, and it's a nightmare.

In that same vein, I don't like this idea of "epic" matches in Battlefield. I just don't have much faith in the random people on the Internet, to be frank. It's annoying having 1 or 2 people drag you down in Halo or Call of Duty or Counter-Strike (I'm admittedly the one doing the dragging in that game). If you get into Battlefield, and you have 10 people playing like idiots, it's just too much to tolerate. I haven't played BF AT ALL (the entire franchise), beyond a few matches on the BF4 beta on 360. It was OK, but it was also a scaled-down version of the game. I don't tink I could happily tolerate objective-based games where I have to trust in the performance of 31 strangers. If I play poorly, I can tolerate that, but I can't tolerate performing well and getting annihilated because I got a team where 20 of my 31 teammates are YouTube trolls who like to act like idiots.

That's why I can happily deal with Titanfall's 6-on-6. It wouldn't bother me one bit if they did like Halo or CoD, offering the Big Team Battle alternative, but I would hate having to play all of my matches in a huge world like Battlefield 4 wants.

 

[Doppel]

AI cannot be removed, it's integral to the game.

Look at every real time strategy game ever. You have AI (very darn simple), but scripted behavior that dictates actions of your units, just as a commander in battle's success relies on actions of his people. He guides them but doesn't control their minute behavior.

 

[DeadFred]

That's close to what my point is. I don't necessarily want to be in a setting where a single talent can carry a team, but I want to be in a setting where teamwork is possible. In Battlefield 4, what are the odds you're working with 25% of your team (8 people) towards a common goal? 50% (16 people)? 100% (32 people)? Anyone who has tried LFR in WoW can attest to what I'm getting at, I think.

LFR gives you a 25-man raid that's incredibly easy, but it's built almost entirely out of random players. There is little incentive to try hard or pay attention, because the game's not that difficult in that setting. However, when you get 25 people barely trying, simple things become difficult, and you have something that could be done in a drunken stupor become difficult, just because no one has any sense of teamwork or strategy. You get 3 or 4 people in the group trying to implement their own strategies for the same thing, and it's a nightmare.

In that same vein, I don't like this idea of "epic" matches in Battlefield. I just don't have much faith in the random people on the Internet, to be frank. It's annoying having 1 or 2 people drag you down in Halo or Call of Duty or Counter-Strike (I'm admittedly the one doing the dragging in that game). If you get into Battlefield, and you have 10 people playing like idiots, it's just too much to tolerate. I haven't played BF AT ALL (the entire franchise), beyond a few matches on the BF4 beta on 360. It was OK, but it was also a scaled-down version of the game. I don't tink I could happily tolerate objective-based games where I have to trust in the performance of 31 strangers. If I play poorly, I can tolerate that, but I can't tolerate performing well and getting annihilated because I got a team where 20 of my 31 teammates are YouTube trolls who like to act like idiots.

That's why I can happily deal with Titanfall's 6-on-6. It wouldn't bother me one bit if they did like Halo or CoD, offering the Big Team Battle alternative, but I would hate having to play all of my matches in a huge world like Battlefield 4 wants.

The bolded part above, along with your previous CoD fanboi comments tell me all I need to know about your opinions. You havent played any BF4 64 player PC matches, yet you know its awful. :hmm:

Halo or CoD, offering the Big Team Battle

I would hate having to play all of my matches in a huge world like Battlefield 4 wants.

IMO, both of those statements are laughably untrue. Twenty four people in CoD4 (last decent CoD, BTW) was just a spam/spawnkillfest, or you were constantly being shot in the back. Whereas most BF4 maps are actually too tight for 64 players. Hell, some maps (Dawnbreaker for example) are nearly too tight to turn jet, and they can go beyond land vehicle and foot soldier boundaries.


I agree with Vulgar, 6v6 is fine if the maps are appropriately sized, but anything AI controlled has no business in a competitive FPS.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Ai in fps games is just too random. One second it will be completely stupid the next it reels off 5 headshot kills in a row.

This just simply is not a problem in the RTS games people keep mentioning in favor of AI in titanfall. I could be wrong and the game may be great. It was never going to be a preorder day 1 buy for me long before the 6v6 news came out.

Waiting for reviews.

 

[Lil Frier]

The bolded part above, along with your previous CoD fanboi comments tell me all I need to know about your opinions. You havent played any BF4 64 player PC matches, yet you know its awful. :hmm:

IMO, both of those statements are laughably untrue. Twenty four people in CoD4 (last decent CoD, BTW) was just a spam/spawnkillfest, or you were constantly being shot in the back. Whereas most BF4 maps are actually too tight for 64 players. Hell, some maps (Dawnbreaker for example) are nearly too tight to turn jet, and they can go beyond land vehicle and foot soldier boundaries.

The fact you used the bolded phrase tells me all I need to know: You think anyone who plays CoD is a "fanboi" (ridiculous spelling and term, by the way), and don't care to make an attempt at legitimate discussion on the matter.

You seriously are trying to defend Battlefield, while saying yourself "maps are actually too tight for 64 players?"

I don't even know where I can take this "discussion" when all you want to say it "CoD fanboi," despite the fact that I'm nothing of the sort. I mean, whenever I read a reply and hear someone call me a "fanboi" of any kind, I just want to facepalm and move on, because it means that the person wants to go to insults and not actually read or comprehend what I'm saying.

The whole issue I have with big games is the lack of teamwork. simply put, I don't trust ANY game to give me THREE competent teammates (like in Halo), let alone 31 (for Battlefield). You can say it's about whatever helps you sleep at night, but my issue is 100% about the fact that I don't trust 31 people I KNOW to play intelligently in these games, let alone 31 stranger.

Yeah, I know it's awful trying to coordinate gameplay with 31 strangers because a decade-plus of playing games online (mostly Xbox, but quite a bit of PC in the past month or two) has taught me that the majority of people in games aren't there to win--they want to pad stats.

But again, you made no actual argument or point in your statement, because you wanted to call me names instead. So whatever, moving on.

 

[Lil Frier]

Ai in fps games is just too random. One second it will be completely stupid the next it reels off 5 headshot kills in a row.

This just simply is not a problem in the RTS games people keep mentioning in favor of AI in titanfall. I could be wrong and the game may be great. It was never going to be a preorder day 1 buy for me long before the 6v6 news came out.

Waiting for reviews.

Same here. I haven't pre-ordered a game since 2008 (Guitar Hero: World Tour or Rock Band 2), there's just no point. I haven't purchased a game on the day of release since MLB 2K12, I think, and I haven't purchased a non-baseball game on the day of release since probably those same music games.

I agree, as well, that AI can be too random to trust in competition. however, we also haven't really seen this style of AI (optionally controlled or commanded by the player) much before, so it's hard to figure out the quality of it. When you have something like Xbox Live Compute (not sure if it'll power the AI at all), you open yourself to more-realistic/intelligent AI, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

That, and like people have said, CoD has been FULL of terrible AI (among other things) for years now, and it's played competitively. If the CoD solution is to remove Killstreaks, why can't the Titanfall solution be to remove mechs for competitive play?

 

[Doppel]

Same here. I haven't pre-ordered a game since 2008 (Guitar Hero: World Tour or Rock Band 2), there's just no point. I haven't purchased a game on the day of release since MLB 2K12, I think, and I haven't purchased a non-baseball game on the day of release since probably those same music games.

In quite literally this millennium I have pre-ordered only one game, Bioshock Infinite. I won't do it again. The pre-order bonus is crap (to be kind). I knew that game would be very good, but there's just point in pre-ordering these days. I am an avid review reader of all products and consumer items. I rely on other's wisdom, and a pre-order makes it hard.

 

[Lil Frier]

I now remember, it was Guitar Hero: World Tour that I pre-ordered. It was one of the last instances, because I wanted to make sure I got the instrument bundle (with a PoS guitar and a drum set that was cool, but not durable). Rock Band 2, I actually drove 45 minutes to pick up at 2 AM on the night of release, just because.

However, I'm sure there are quite a few I pre-ordered this millennium. I pre-ordered a few of the MLB 2K games, I think, though I might have only pre-ordered one or two of them (though I'd ALWAYS get them on release day, except for 2K13, which I skipped for being a 100% copy of 2K12, but without online leagues). Halo 3, I pre-ordered it because I got the Legendary Edition (NOT worth $130...). I pre-ordered the Collector's Edition of Halo 2 as well.

Now, all pre-orders get upgraded to the Limited Edition, it seems. That's because they know that there is NO reason to pre-order otherwise. There is never a shortage of supply with software, especially since most games can be purchased digitally. I think that's part of where the "Early Access" trend is coming from, because it's not like it used to be, where no pre-ordering meant you might not get something. Shortages ONLY exist in the forms of hardware, because even Limited Edition releases seem to be in great abundance now.

 

[DeadFred]

The fact you used the bolded phrase tells me all I need to know: You think anyone who plays CoD is a "fanboi" (ridiculous spelling and term, by the way), and don't care to make an attempt at legitimate discussion on the matter.

You seriously are trying to defend Battlefield, while saying yourself "maps are actually too tight for 64 players?"

I don't even know where I can take this "discussion" when all you want to say it "CoD fanboi," despite the fact that I'm nothing of the sort. I mean, whenever I read a reply and hear someone call me a "fanboi" of any kind, I just want to facepalm and move on, because it means that the person wants to go to insults and not actually read or comprehend what I'm saying.

The whole issue I have with big games is the lack of teamwork. simply put, I don't trust ANY game to give me THREE competent teammates (like in Halo), let alone 31 (for Battlefield). You can say it's about whatever helps you sleep at night, but my issue is 100% about the fact that I don't trust 31 people I KNOW to play intelligently in these games, let alone 31 stranger.

Yeah, I know it's awful trying to coordinate gameplay with 31 strangers because a decade-plus of playing games online (mostly Xbox, but quite a bit of PC in the past month or two) has taught me that the majority of people in games aren't there to win--they want to pad stats.

But again, you made no actual argument or point in your statement, because you wanted to call me names instead. So whatever, moving on.

Not a fanboi.... and does not like the cool spellage of the term. Roger that. Sorry I couldnt tell it from your posts but I now have it duly noted.

Moving along. So now you are telling us how you know everything there is to know about BF4 on the PC because you've been playing multi player games online with whiny pre-teens on the xbox for over a decade. Come squad up with some ATOT'ers or perhaps join a mature clan then give us your opinion.

 

[Doppel]

Okay ign now has an article up talking about the challenge of marketin this without single play. I didn't realize it has NO single play.

Now I genuinely worried. There is truly one reason you don't put in single play: time/money. Even the preiminent multiplayer shooters throw a few hours of single play in--and the COD single is generally pretty fun. A multi only experience is going to affect sales and I dare say significantly.

 

[smackababy]

Okay ign now has an article up talking about the challenge of marketin this without single play. I didn't realize it has NO single play.

Now I genuinely worried. There is truly one reason you don't put in single play: time/money. Even the preiminent multiplayer shooters throw a few hours of single play in--and the COD single is generally pretty fun. A multi only experience is going to affect sales and I dare say significantly.

I highly doubt it will affect sales much. When you think about these types of games, how many hours are put into the multiplayer compared to the single player per user? At some point it becomes a waste of resources to continue with the single player experience. If they are considering this to be a competitive multiplayer game, why not spend all their resources on that? I did the campaign in COD1, 2, and 4. I have not even started a single one in every other COD I've played (which is all of them except Blops 2 and Ghosts).

 

[DeadFred]

I highly doubt it will affect sales much. When you think about these types of games, how many hours are put into the multiplayer compared to the single player per user? At some point it becomes a waste of resources to continue with the single player experience. If they are considering this to be a competitive multiplayer game, why not spend all their resources on that? I did the campaign in COD1, 2, and 4. I have not even started a single one in every other COD I've played (which is all of them except Blops 2 and Ghosts).

Agree, besides the latest big FPS single player campaign forays (BF, CoD, MoH) have been mediocre at best and totally lame at worst.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I already have BF4 if I care to go online in an fps and it is plenty for me already. That is just me though. I do however, feel that there is probably quite a few people who won't buy it but might if it had some single player.

 

[Doppel]

I highly doubt it will affect sales much. When you think about these types of games, how many hours are put into the multiplayer compared to the single player per user? At some point it becomes a waste of resources to continue with the single player experience. If they are considering this to be a competitive multiplayer game, why not spend all their resources on that? I did the campaign in COD1, 2, and 4. I have not even started a single one in every other COD I've played (which is all of them except Blops 2 and Ghosts).

I found a slightly older article (summer last year) on IGN saying the same thing, and comments were almost uniformly against it. However, given the derision this game has received on many points from many people, it could just be haters hating, so who knows, maybe it won't affect sales too much. It would make a person like me less inclined to buy it, but if it has a wicked multiplay experience I'll get my PC up to snuff anyway just to play it.

 

[Juncar]

Agree, besides the latest big FPS single player campaign forays (BF, CoD, MoH) have been mediocre at best and totally lame at worst.

Mostly because AIs are horrendous in FPS. There is no significant improvement in that area since its a limit of technology. Most of the time, they simply increase reflex and give the bots 100% aim accuracy to compensate.

When some people play shooting games a lot and get very good at it, there is no challenge or fun in playing with AI. Decent human players are the only options. All the CoD games, MW and up, I have finished the campaign in 4-6 hours on the highest difficulty. BF, even less time.

When they can make truly challenging AIs without needing to buff them at all (same stats as human players) then we will see. Otherwise, including AIs in real competitive games are jokes. There is a reason why you don't see AIs in tournament matches.

 

[12andy]

It's a sight to behold seeing multiple Outfits/ random squads coordinate amongst themselves during Planetside 2 daily alerts.

It all boils down to the maturity of the playerbase. I can't recall the last time I've read/ heard an insult thrown at someone in a game of Planetside 2, whereas it happens every 10 seconds in BF4.

Point being, higher numbers doesn't necessary correlate to poorer teamplay.

 

[Lil Frier]

Not a fanboi.... and does not like the cool spellage of the term. Roger that. Sorry I couldnt tell it from your posts but I now have it duly noted.

Moving along. So now you are telling us how you know everything there is to know about BF4 on the PC because you've been playing multi player games online with whiny pre-teens on the xbox for over a decade. Come squad up with some ATOT'ers or perhaps join a mature clan then give us your opinion.

Keep taking my statements of opinion, claiming they're begin presented as fact, and enjoy the results of twisting words.

I never claimed to know everything about Battlefield ANYTHING. I said that I don't like the idea of 32-on-32 because I don't trust strangers to cooperate, and I've played enough games (and don't take "primarily Xbox" to mean "entirely Xbox," though I know you like to deal in absolutes) in 4-on-4 settings to know that I don't like putting TOO Much trust in strangers. If I am 1/32 of the team, I am putting 96.875% (31/32) of the match into the hands of strangers, and I just don't trust that. My ENTIRE POINT is that I don't like massive games because I don't like playing with swarms of strangers.

Heck, playing WoW in a guild (for the record, never done the clan thing in shooters, I just don't like it), I didn't like trusting the people I played with. We'd do a 10-man raid, and we'd have folks be terrible at their jobs (and this is from someone who was never all that great at the game himself). Playing TF2 in a 12-on-12 setting, I'd get frustrated when 50% of the team was a Sniper or a Spy (and I recognize that a lot of those instances are console gamers taking advantage of the F2P existence of TF2 now). It's just a matter of strangers have proven time and time again to be untrustworthy, so I don't care for a massive game where my contributions can mean so little.

But I guess since I don't play Battlefield in a competitive clan, I'm not entitled to an opinion, in your world.

 

[Lil Frier]

I found a slightly older article (summer last year) on IGN saying the same thing, and comments were almost uniformly against it. However, given the derision this game has received on many points from many people, it could just be haters hating, so who knows, maybe it won't affect sales too much. It would make a person like me less inclined to buy it, but if it has a wicked multiplay experience I'll get my PC up to snuff anyway just to play it.

IDK, it's really going to take a launch to sort the opinions out. People might complain about the lack of campaign, but they also complain about the lack of length and quality of Battlefield and Call of Duty campaigns, and quite a lot of people never even PLAY those campaigns (I personally beat the campaign of every CoD game I got, but that's me).

I think this is one of those things people will cry about, but ultimately won't care about.

 

[Dumac]

Campaigns are a good way to get used to game and weapon mechanics. Without a campaign, you are forced to jump into the MP blind. Especially with a whole 'new' experience like Titanfall.

I don't think the 6v6 play matters - multiplayer at that level can be extremely fun. However, I think the game will be mediocre anyway. Titanfall's hype is some of the more artificially constructed hype I've seen. Shows you the power of marketing.