Titanfall matches will have up to 48 combatants at once

Respawn Entertainment explains the thinking behind the FPS, which will feature 12 human players in matches.

Matches of Titanfall will contain up to 48 combatants at any one time, Respawn Entertainment has confirmed.

The developer shocked some players earlier this week when it announced that only 12 human players would feature in each match of the hotly anticipated shooter, or six on each side.

If you're worried about having things to shoot, well, Respawn Entertainment doesn't think that will be a problem. Each human player can be accompanied by their robotic Titan, Respawn Entertainment explained to Polygon, and there can be an additional 12 AI characters padding out the ranks on each team.

Lead designer Justin Hendry explained that having six human players on each side was, ultimately, a result of fine-tuning the game during testing. "The higher the player count, the more uncomfortable the game gets," he said.

"Unlike in most games where you can sit there and guard the two ways in, in Titanfall the guy can come in through the window right behind you, he can come from the window to your left, he can come from straight ahead, he can come in from the stairway and he can come in from the doorway, or whatever. Essentially there are five directions you can get killed from and the higher that player count, the more likely you are to get killed from behind and the more difficult it is to kind of manage your surroundings."

Titanfall started with 12 players on each side at the beginning of its development, but the number was slowly whittled down as the developers tried to create the right balance and feel. At one point, the number was even fewer than six-a-side, but Respawn eventually came to believe that having 12 human players was the "number that felt best" for the game it was trying to make.

"When people start playing Titanfall like Titanfall, the player count becomes a non-issue," Hendry added.

Titanfall will be released for the Xbox One, Xbox 360, and PC on March 11.

Written By

Hi! I'm Martin, for some reason or another I have managed to convince the people who run GameSpot that I am actually wor

Want the latest news about Titanfall?

Titanfall

Titanfall

Follow

Discussion

543 comments
zpluffy
zpluffy

They just don't want to waste more money in development

tustevev
tustevev

bigger isnt always better said no girl ever.

idk95
idk95

I really think that they are sleeping on this games potential for a single player campaign. The back story seems interesting enough.

rawkstar007
rawkstar007

I was kinda bummed that this wasn't coming to PS4. Not so much, lately.

Evanduil
Evanduil

Also, the fact that they justify having less human players and more AI just means the AI are already a step stupider than real people, otherwise they'd still have the same problem.

Evanduil
Evanduil

I want to know more about the AI. I've never played a multiplayer game that wasn't Gears of War that had bots in multiplayer matches along with real people. Do we decide anything about them? Do they actually kill people or are they just default fodder for the other team to shoot at?

omar_q
omar_q

I don't mind 6v6 but I'm worried how the AI will work. If people can farm stats from just killing AI, this is going to be a disaster. 

kenbladex
kenbladex

i THOUGHT THEY  SAID "CAN" NOT "WILL"

Cronyk
Cronyk

Some of the most fun experiences I have ever had were 4v4 halo matches. I prefer those to 32 v 32 any day. There is more team cohesion, and if someone killed me from behind its because they flanked and earned the kill, not just because there are so many damn players its bound to happen....


And sure Battlefield can have some very fun 32 v 32 moments, but as the developer stated, the maps and player movement work VERY differently in this game. 


AND quit bitching about bot AI cuz they already stated that this will be done via cloud processing, so no one knows how good or bad this will be. 

Kickable
Kickable

why can't they just have the option to limit players?  more likely a tech issue than game balance.  some people do like huge chaotic battles.

MondasM
MondasM

"Unlike in most games where you can sit there and guard the two ways in, in Titanfall the guy can come in through the window right behind you, he can come from the window to your left, he can come from straight ahead, he can come in from the stairway and he can come in from the doorway, or whatever. Essentially there are five directions you can get killed from and the higher that player count, the more likely you are to get killed from behind and the more difficult it is to kind of manage your surroundings."


ahem, battlefield, anyone??? :D

GrenadeLauncher
GrenadeLauncher

Damage control two months before release? Not good, Respawn. Looks like Titanfall will be dominating a lot of "most disappointing game" lists in 2014.

peanut-butter
peanut-butter

To be honest, I'm starting to prefer smaller player counts in shooters.  The razzle dazzle of 64 players has started to wear off of me, usually because it boils down to a large cluster of mindless action (which isn't always terrible). But with such high player counts, you don't usually feel like you are contributing to the greater outcome of the match and conflicts tend to play out in small encounters in a section of the map anyway.  Titanfall's bot count is on the high side, but I welcome the 6v6.

wizardboyus
wizardboyus

won't be able to tell until i see the ai for myself in action, but it's a cool concept. good to see someone shakin up the fps genre, will have to play for pc tho..

nikon133
nikon133

I guess it's only me, but I do like battles as big as I can get.

I enjoyed a lot 64 players in BF3, and I enjoy even more massive battles in Planetside 2. I think the biggest ones I took part in had around 200 players, rough estimate.

What I'd like to see from this game is scaling, in terms of having small battles in reduced size maps, but also as big games a possible on full size maps (and maps big enough to cater for both scenarios). Game looks much faster than PS2 with all that jetpac-ing around, but I did take part in PS2 battles where decent chunk of 48-player platoon would switch to light assault (class with jetpacs) and try to flank digged-in enemy from unexpected angle (rooftop entrance or something) while rest of platoon was digging in across the battlefield for good old-fashioned trench affair... all spiced with dozen flyers and more than handful of ground vehicles on both sides, trying to make infantry's life as miserable as possible.

Epic.

In my opinion, small player-count games will almost always turn out to be more arcade, run & gun affairs, while increase in players will lead to more strategic warfare, and having both options in one game would increase variety of what game offers. 6 vs. 6 players with one mech on each side, and 64 vs 64 players with 10+ mechs on both sides? - I'd buy this in an eyeblink.

As it is... wait and see, for me at least.

ceaseless
ceaseless

If consoles have to have a 12 player max for their comfort zone, I can understand that due to matchmaking and that's what they are used to + however the game's engine was configured in the realm of consoles, but I was hoping for dedicated servers and an option to have at least 12 vs 12 human players that maybe replaces some of the other AI on the map as an option for PC. I enjoy the option on CoDWaW PC to be able to have 24 player servers as well as 16 or other amounts. I can understand that there are some limitations so I wouldn't say add something like 64 players, but just dedicated servers and a 24 player limit or something within. Server options (and servers period) are what CoD is severely lacking these days since MW2 on PC.

Ha2e
Ha2e

Do people really want that many bots running around their multiplayer match? This is a turn off for me. I didnt mind the 12 player count but 36 AI characters running around is ridiculous I want to win because i killed players not computer controlled characters.

thatonedork
thatonedork

HAHAHAHA 12 AI PLAYERS PER MATCH. What a terrible decision. So either you're going to have complaints from few that the bots are too good or complaints that people are farming the AI for points.


My personal opinion is that in an arena style game like this, having AI be a liability in whether you win the match or not is no bueno.

Janpieterzun
Janpieterzun

Smart balancing is welcome. Please do not give in to player pressure, deliver the vision uncorrupted.

megamatics
megamatics

This seems interesting. Looks like they want to have a war already going on and enlist players to be apart of that and steer the tide of battle.      

kangsta1111
kangsta1111

The only way this will work is through a similar system like LoL, Dota and other MOBA type games, where creeps aka the bots are not a real threat, but still require to be pushed back, or pushed with against enemy positions.


The problem you have is in a shooter type game where health is of course very low, time to kill is in the miliseconds whilst LoL, Dota and others you upgrade health, have average health in the 5-10 seconds range. What would you do with creeps aka bots in a shooter? Reducing bullet damage would be ridiculous, reducing accuracy could be possible but highly unrealistic.


Bots in todays gaming world are a very average feature, call of duty has great bots, very smart but at the same time have the flaws a bot will always have which the top comment mentioned, which is either make them have flawless accuracy, or dumbed down to the point which can be manipulated. 


In my opinion gaming on a multiplayer stage is player vs player with bots having a minimum effect on the outcome, merely as important as the map itself, many dont play single player anymore due to the fact that it simply isnt as satisfying or fun knowing your playing with 10-15 other people.


6v6 is pretty weak, let alone for a game of this generation. Star Wars battlefront 2 was like 9v9 from what I can remember and that was in 2005, that was 9 years ago, in 9 years you would expect there to be significant progress when looking at say how far and fast a PCs specs can change in as little as a year.


It will be very difficult to knock Cod and Battlefield of the top contenders list for first person shooters, even if they are somewhat very repetitive now. Most shooters out there are clone copies of each other with little to no difference other then weapons, game speeds, maps and other aesthetics.



skullflower
skullflower

This game has actually got be excited for an upcoming FPS... Which hasn't happened in years.

BlackBaldwin
BlackBaldwin

If the ai players can camp in corners liike a lot of the human plays do in fps games I think titanfall will be ok lol.

Gravity_Slave
Gravity_Slave

So wait...everyone gets a Titan?  You don't have to earn them?  Lame.

Gen007
Gen007

That actually sounds interesting and finally like something new and interesting for the fps genre. I mean do we really want another typical shooter?  Mobas tend to only have 5v5 supplemented with tons of AI and people love those maybe they can pull the same thing off with an FPS.

YukoAsho
YukoAsho

Soooo... It's a multi-player only game that only supports six-on-six matches?  Yeah... This is the CoD killer... SUUUUUUURE...

lostn
lostn

If it can handle this many 'combatants' surely it can handle this many players?

thehollowones
thehollowones

Haha, my God, how many times have I read: "From what I've READ... *insert negative comment*" And then anyone who has actually ever PLAYED this game, has nothing but good praise for it. Now jeez, I wonder which person I should be listening to?


I hate massive MP FPS games, its just so much of a cluster fuck where you take two steps and get shot from behind on smaller maps and then on all maps, no one EVER goes for the objective. Why would they? There's so many people in-between you and that objective its much easier to just camp in one place and rack up kills to level yourself/a gun. In the end, fuck everybody else, and fuck the objective, if you had the chance to get a 50 to 3 KD, why wouldn't you? What's one loss in comparison to 2 straight levels and 3 gun unlocks? The more people there are, the quicker it turns an objective based game into a TDM cluster fuck.I didn't pay for an MMO and I don't want one. Having DOTA style bots to shoot at while looking for the real threat (the other player) is something I'd love to see incorporated. Having it play out as an FPS ARTS hybrid would possibly be the bossest thing ever.

Logan303
Logan303

I agree. As a previous Xbox 360 Battlefield 3 player, I originally thought that the idea of 64 player matches in Battlefield 4 on Xbox One sounded awesome, and in a more COD-ish, frenetic action way, it is. What has surprised me, though, is how sometimes it all becomes too much and I find that in some ways fewer players was actually better. A lower player count created "space" to think tactically and to take time to pull off a tactical surprise without being overwhelmed by masses of enemies in the process.

That said, Battlefield is still miles better than the favorite game of the hyperactive, short attention span set, Call of Duty.

Evanduil
Evanduil

@MondasM I would argue that battlefield is slower. It is a FPS and yes twitch reflex helps a lot, but in games where 3 dimensional awareness is required, it's not because you're constantly afraid a player is going to jetpack through the window behind you. 

Carpetfluff
Carpetfluff

@ceaseless You seem to have missed the point. The balancing of player numbers is entirely based on how the game feels to play. They tried it with way more, and less, and this seems optimal to them. I have no reason to suspect there's some underlying technical reason here, so unless they PC version magically arrive with more players in a match, then I'll take their word for it that it's the most fun in this configuration. You're also completely disregarding the hugeness of the Titans and that they'd need drastically different level design to make large numbers work at all. It's not just a case of ramp up the player count and everything would still work.

Pilgrim117
Pilgrim117

@Ha2e They don't give the same amount of points. It's a single-multi game hybrid, most people don't like changes in their TDM, too difficult to adapt. Better stay with Cod.

rob9999991
rob9999991

@thatonedork Suuuure, and if all of a sudden they said they would release the exact same game for PS4 you would be dancing in the streets saying how awesome this game will be... Whatever Sony troll.

franken_stein
franken_stein

@thatonedork  Whats so funny? Other than the fact that some people will always find things to complain about you really don't have a case there. I have never ever seen a FPS game where players have complained about the bots being too good.  And both teams have bots so unless some player finds a way to get all the enemies bots to come to him I don't see how one could farm them efficiently to any degree with much ease without over exposing themselves and getting killed.


And in games with large player pools it's actually easier to get a bunch of friends in a server and boost all day as opposed to a game with limited players and bots you cant physically control. Players will always find ways to boost or farm either way in any MP game.


And the playing field is equal with both team having bots so there is no bot liability on winning matches. We don't even know if a bot kill or death will count towards score. And the simple solution is to make killing a bot worth 0. That'll be the first patch coming in if players find some way to farm bots. It is like the saying goes " Don't knock something, Until you try it".

franken_stein
franken_stein

@kangsta1111 I don't think as time passes that we have to see a increasing player pool to enjoy a game. The more players in a match the less overall fidelity in the game due to latency.  I think the mistake would be to suggest that the future of FPS is more and more players vs more and more players. Certainly is cool to have the option of massive warfare on that scale but not all engagements are in full scale war, what about the smaller more intricate close fought battles that don't have a person walking or driving miles to find someone. I think it is a balance and we need both styles of games.

shingui5
shingui5

@Gravity_Slave 

Why is that lame? The entire game is built around those Titans. Withholding them would be bloody stupid. 

kidnatural
kidnatural

@YukoAsho Soooo... nowhere does it say it supports only six-on-six matches. Moreover, I had more fun [overall] playing Halo 2, four-on-four Team Hardcore/Skirmish matches than I did playing 64-player matches in Battlefield 3. It wasn't about the player count, it was about the overall experience. There is a time and a place, and not every game must heed the same features and style. 


I wish more games used destruction like Battlefield has since Bad Company. That doesn't mean I think every game that hasn't used it since Bad Company's release sucks, or just automatically less fun.

fatee
fatee moderator moderator

@YukoAsho Call of duty kind of killed itself at this point :P

Gen007
Gen007

@lostn Its not a limitation but a design choice. They could easily make it have more human players of course. I think people really need to reserve on judging the game by its player count though. It sounds like they were testing different player counts for the game and 6v6 was the sweet spot. People on hear have nothing but negative things to say when they haven't even played the game. Its sad to see so many people judge a game based on the player count.

razrabbit
razrabbit

@thehollowones Its all speculation right now on both sides.  Though its nice to see the Call of duty kids getting so restless at the mere thought of something de-throning their game.   (Which i'm guessing it won't, but its nice to have variety)


Its sad that the humans are always the 'real threat', and that AI hasn't quite advanced enough to give people a 'real' match.  (Even more sad that this is often on purpose in order to make a game 'fun' and move more product.  Consumers don't like the thought of not being better than a machine.  The game is obviously broken if they can't beat it/get the perfect score/complete it without dying)


Also that the Call of duty mindset will basically cover this game like a cancer, basically fucking over any nifty ideas for 'game modes' as you were saying, and replacing it with the same bunny hopping, kill ratio worshipping kids as the rest of FPS games are filled with.


I'll still be playing the hell out of this though.  It looks pretty fun.  :D

ceaseless
ceaseless

@Carpetfluff I didn't miss the point at all. This is why I said somewhere around 24 or under on a DEDICATED SERVER ON PC. I understand that's the sweet spot on consoles and probably the sweet spot in general for them. It was the same number on PC also and though we don't have bots (can be done with mods, etc), we have the option to have 24 player servers if that's what WE feel, even on the maps designed, I know there are titans on the map and I understand how they designed the maps. They designed it with that size in mind from the beginning instead of making them a bit bigger, but anyways, my point is with dedicated servers, it would be our choice whether that's good or bad. 

If we like 24 or 18 human players and removed some bots, then that would be cool as an option, not a personal preference because you can always still play 12 player SERVERS and it harms no one. The post was spoken with dedicated servers and PC in mind. It would only be understood from that area. CoD4's limit was 6 vs 6, but that didn't mean we had to be stuck there on PC. Lots of different servers to choose from. We probably won't get dedicated servers (who knows at this point) and 6 on 6, they feel, is probably most optimal on consoles with everything that's going on in the game and p2p or cloud service.

Ha2e
Ha2e

@Pilgrim117 Hopefully the AI doesn't affect the outcome of games and leaderboards too much but 36 AI seems like a lot to me

Ha2e
Ha2e

@franken_stein @thatonedork Have you ever played an FPS where theres that many more bots than players though? Every FPS I've played religiously SOCOM, Halo, CoD etc. didnt have any. I hope this is some type of genius I cant understand

lostn
lostn

@Gen007@lostn Would you still like it as much if it turned out 1v1 or 2v2 was their sweet spot?

If 12v12 was too sweet or not sweet enough, they could adjust the maps or game to accomodate it. 

CobaltAlien
CobaltAlien

@Gen007 @lostn Not sure how you know it's a design choice, normally your player limit is simply a technical consideration and you balance the gameplay around this. Still if it's not a technical reason then I see no barrier to them giving people the choice of game size as some people may prefer the larger scale stuff. Why cap it at 6V6... give people the choice as it will add variety. It may be amazing at 6V6 but from my experience Bots will not be a nice addition so hopefully you can turn them off.. with the 36 bots gone why not have a few more proper adversaries?

ceaseless
ceaseless

@ceaseless Edited sentence because of words left out: It is the same number "for CoD4" on PC also and though we don't have bots (can be done with mods, etc), we have the option to have 24 player servers