I would like the idea of a mode where the match ended by killing the opposing team, as long as each team was able to revive its own members. So there would be strategy in keeping your "medics" alive and eliminating the other teams medics. That way there is at least a chance you can get back into the match and you might not die seconds into a match and have to wait until the entire opposing team was eliminated, or for some other match condition to be completed.
MAG
- Thread starter patsu
- Start date
I would like the idea of a mode where the match ended by killing the opposing team, as long as each team was able to revive its own members. So there would be strategy in keeping your "medics" alive and eliminating the other teams medics. That way there is at least a chance you can get back into the match and you might not die seconds into a match and have to wait until the entire opposing team was eliminated, or for some other match condition to be completed.
yea GRAW, GoW, and CoD4 does that as well.. not to mention there are "Spawn and no spawn " modes in GR and CoD4 so you can choose. but those are 8 and 12 man games; a little more tollerable waiting than 256.
I'd imagine they will go with respawns for the main MAG game and if lucky offer no respawns as an optional game mode
yea GRAW, GoW, and CoD4 does that as well.. not to mention there are "Spawn and no spawn " modes in GR and CoD4 so you can choose. but those are 8 and 12 man games; a little more tollerable waiting than 256.
Yeah... spawn/no spawn or, in more general form, max. number of lives are staple these days. I have seen it in all modern shooters, including RFOM, UT3 and MGO -- depending on game types.
I was hoping they make it no spawn but slightly harder to die by bullet wounds, so people can counteract in most cases. If the gameplay is fast paced like RFOM, it can become chaotic and reactive.EDIT:
Ah! I think this violates the Geneva Convention (assuming you care).
I bet its going to be respawn on timer, like in the battlefield series. Its the only sensible thing to do.
Make the respawn timer modifyable in game, then you can choose how tactical game you want by increasing the respawn time. Longer the timer, the more the player cares about not dying. Im not so sure if "no-respawn" makes the game much more tactical, there is a lot of tactics involved in both.
Make the respawn timer modifyable in game, then you can choose how tactical game you want by increasing the respawn time. Longer the timer, the more the player cares about not dying. Im not so sure if "no-respawn" makes the game much more tactical, there is a lot of tactics involved in both.
Indeed it does
That would work well as a system. Although you'd need some balancing. You woudn't want everyone playing a medic reviving each other! A fixed number would be needed.
No respawn will encourage camping for the defending team, which requires very little tactics compared to attacking.
I like the idea of a persistent battlefield like Planetsite has. Give each side half of a huge map and give them a week to try and conquer the other side. When the week is over, the side who has the most bases or has defeated the other side wins.
I like the idea of a persistent battlefield like Planetsite has. Give each side half of a huge map and give them a week to try and conquer the other side. When the week is over, the side who has the most bases or has defeated the other side wins.
I have been thinking about the respawn option.
I was completly addictid to CS in 1.3 days having own clan server and being the clan leader. Tacticts where very important due to the fact that once you were dead that was it. Unless of course you could complete your objective before everyone died (I.E. dying after defusing/or bomb going on depending ct/t sides).
So how to apply this type of thing to MAg with 128 people. You simply cant have it so that they wait until all 128 people are dead as this would take to long.
Therefore my idea is this.
On squad based objectives your dead until the squad based objective changes.
In other words winning your objective means means that you will have a new objective(hold for reinforments). And fall back for reinforcments for opposing sides. Once this is done dead people spawn in the appropriate places.
The new objective might then be to hold the objective, opposing side regain objective. Or completly new objectives for both sides.
A timer can be used to achieve objectives. FOr example for the attacking side a 4 minute timer is set, if you don't take the objective before that time then the defender wins, once this happens the reinforment objective takes place as the new objective for defenders are hold for reinforments, and retreat to the failing attackers.
Obviously if all of one side dies they lose and would be a completly new squad put back in the war and lose ground just as if they had to retreat if they lost the objective for not meeting the target time.
This would work for small squad based battles.
In larger based battles another type of mechanic comes in.
Thinking how the CG battle played out. Lets say the whole 128 objective is to succesfully hold a building for two rounds. (seeing as in war usually you must have at least 2 to 1 odds in order to capture a defensive place.).
For the attacking side the conditions are that you must beat the defenders in two rounds. In addition you must have over 20 percent survivers as these would be needed to hold the building after a win. Lastly a timer might also be in play.
So what happens is for the attackers if they run out of time or there is less than 20 percent personel left the defenders automaticly win that round.
New objectives would be give to the survivers of the attack (i.e. assist in the new round in this case a air drop of reinforments over building). And those that died would be respawned as an airdrop.
The defenders may have had the reinforments arriving to help the surving winners of holding off the first assault with objective of assisting to defend.
I really tnik this type of method combines the exitment of once your dead your ofut of the battle for a while and cannot influance the outcome further. While knowing that you will have the oportunity to join the game soon in order to help with the next objective.
I think that this would impress on the need for tactics as there would be a consequence of dying straight out. whilest using tactics to complete objectives would be beneficial due to the fact that once the objective is complete the dead players revive and you can continue to the next phaze.
I was completly addictid to CS in 1.3 days having own clan server and being the clan leader. Tacticts where very important due to the fact that once you were dead that was it. Unless of course you could complete your objective before everyone died (I.E. dying after defusing/or bomb going on depending ct/t sides).
So how to apply this type of thing to MAg with 128 people. You simply cant have it so that they wait until all 128 people are dead as this would take to long.
Therefore my idea is this.
On squad based objectives your dead until the squad based objective changes.
In other words winning your objective means means that you will have a new objective(hold for reinforments). And fall back for reinforcments for opposing sides. Once this is done dead people spawn in the appropriate places.
The new objective might then be to hold the objective, opposing side regain objective. Or completly new objectives for both sides.
A timer can be used to achieve objectives. FOr example for the attacking side a 4 minute timer is set, if you don't take the objective before that time then the defender wins, once this happens the reinforment objective takes place as the new objective for defenders are hold for reinforments, and retreat to the failing attackers.
Obviously if all of one side dies they lose and would be a completly new squad put back in the war and lose ground just as if they had to retreat if they lost the objective for not meeting the target time.
This would work for small squad based battles.
In larger based battles another type of mechanic comes in.
Thinking how the CG battle played out. Lets say the whole 128 objective is to succesfully hold a building for two rounds. (seeing as in war usually you must have at least 2 to 1 odds in order to capture a defensive place.).
For the attacking side the conditions are that you must beat the defenders in two rounds. In addition you must have over 20 percent survivers as these would be needed to hold the building after a win. Lastly a timer might also be in play.
So what happens is for the attackers if they run out of time or there is less than 20 percent personel left the defenders automaticly win that round.
New objectives would be give to the survivers of the attack (i.e. assist in the new round in this case a air drop of reinforments over building). And those that died would be respawned as an airdrop.
The defenders may have had the reinforments arriving to help the surving winners of holding off the first assault with objective of assisting to defend.
I really tnik this type of method combines the exitment of once your dead your ofut of the battle for a while and cannot influance the outcome further. While knowing that you will have the oportunity to join the game soon in order to help with the next objective.
I think that this would impress on the need for tactics as there would be a consequence of dying straight out. whilest using tactics to complete objectives would be beneficial due to the fact that once the objective is complete the dead players revive and you can continue to the next phaze.
Lots of ideas showing up in this thread on how they will do it, anybody know anything about when Sony/Zipper might talk about this again?
Also 2-1 to take a defended position? Hmmmm when I was in the infantry they told us 4-1, maybe because we where supposed to defend against the Russians
Also 2-1 to take a defended position? Hmmmm when I was in the infantry they told us 4-1, maybe because we where supposed to defend against the Russians
Need 2 Know
Regular
Just a quick update here is some info and footage of MAG in real time.
http://kotaku.com/5027992/playstation-3s-mag-in-real+time
What do you think
http://kotaku.com/5027992/playstation-3s-mag-in-real+time
What do you think
Too small and limited to talk visual quality yet. Still, at least we know some people will be parachuting in, which is...um...interesting. Floating gently down into a cloud of enemy fire doesn't normally do much for one's complexion.
Well, I wouldn't want my avatar in Home to be tried for war crimes against virtual humanity.
Respawn timer is the way they'll go in the main game modes, for sure. That's just the standard and it keeps everyone playing. If the maps are big they'll probably have a spawn system somewhat similar to battlefield.
Perhaps when you respawn you don't magically appear back on the front, but you have to be dropped in, hence the parachutes. Seems like an easy way to die immediately after respawning though.
It would be really cool if there was a battle commander on each side, like in Battlefield2, and that commander was able to place where the players respawn. Maybe have a few different methods of transporting them back into the fight like a drop ship or an armoured truck.
Perhaps when you respawn you don't magically appear back on the front, but you have to be dropped in, hence the parachutes. Seems like an easy way to die immediately after respawning though.
It would be really cool if there was a battle commander on each side, like in Battlefield2, and that commander was able to place where the players respawn. Maybe have a few different methods of transporting them back into the fight like a drop ship or an armoured truck.
Tricky business indeed. I think it depends on how realistic they want to make the game, and whether replicating reality makes the game more immersive or exciting.
Lots of ideas showing up in this thread on how they will do it, anybody know anything about when Sony/Zipper might talk about this again?
Also 2-1 to take a defended position? Hmmmm when I was in the infantry they told us 4-1, maybe because we where supposed to defend against the Russians
Yap ! It was (is ?) 3-1 over here.
Doesn't that give a dreadful feeling for the defending team ? ...until the attacking guys start to die left, right and center without proper planning.
I can see the strategic element (e.g., including deciding the ratio of medics vs regular soldiers), especially for no/limited spawn. I can't help but bring out the Geneva Convention because according to Ambrose and the soldiers he interviewed, medics are (some of) the most respected soldiers in WWII. They are needed most in the worst scenarios. Everyone could hunker down but they not only had to move to reach out to the screaming injureds, but to squat *up* with their back facing the enemies (so that they could see the large red cross) in the middle of a gunfight or ambush.Yeah I was thinking that this game really needs to take a page out of Battlefield's book. A hierarchal structure of commander->squad leaders->squad members really helps keep things managable with lots of player, and also adds a lot of strategy possibilities.
I don't think just respawning is the answer though I really think more thought needs to into it if they want a decent game.
There needs to be a way to push enemies back and get satisfaction for doing something for your side. Endless respawns really diminishes this feel. I really think that if they do respawns it needs to be part of the mission breif to simulate warfare more accuratly.
If the defending side beats a ground assault and paratrooper assault for example then the next "wave" of respawn really needs to be pushed way back and new objectives been given to both sides so that the defenders can push into enemy territory and the attackers are forced to have defence objectives against the winning side.
It would just be so cool if all your teams completed objectives so that in the end you can go for a crucial site e.g. towns etc. That way you can have cool mini squad type battles that if done right will end up with a big 128 a side battle.
The more objectives the sides done the better equiped, more respawn waves, better tactical position, more time on last mission etc. in the final fight the winning team should be.
I just dont like the idea of waves and waves of respawning soldiers running to attack/defend the same place all the time. Not unless again that is the scenario (128 wave respawns are meant to emulate huge waves of soldiers on either side fighting for an important position).
There needs to be a way to push enemies back and get satisfaction for doing something for your side. Endless respawns really diminishes this feel. I really think that if they do respawns it needs to be part of the mission breif to simulate warfare more accuratly.
If the defending side beats a ground assault and paratrooper assault for example then the next "wave" of respawn really needs to be pushed way back and new objectives been given to both sides so that the defenders can push into enemy territory and the attackers are forced to have defence objectives against the winning side.
It would just be so cool if all your teams completed objectives so that in the end you can go for a crucial site e.g. towns etc. That way you can have cool mini squad type battles that if done right will end up with a big 128 a side battle.
The more objectives the sides done the better equiped, more respawn waves, better tactical position, more time on last mission etc. in the final fight the winning team should be.
I just dont like the idea of waves and waves of respawning soldiers running to attack/defend the same place all the time. Not unless again that is the scenario (128 wave respawns are meant to emulate huge waves of soldiers on either side fighting for an important position).
Trying to play BF:BC is giving me nightmares on how this game will turn out. Not techincally but due to the simple fact that, f'in morons make up 80% of your team.
This is BF:BC in a nutshell. A group of 3-4 will actually be playing. The rest of the team is sniping and worried about their k/d ratio. What a mess. If they really want to encourage teamwork, remove the importance of k/d and put it all towards objective based scoring. I'd give 1 point for a kill and 20 points for an objective completed.
BF2 on the PC was progressing towards that but this is a step backwards. MAG needs to look at the BF2 formula and take it even further with the importance of teamwork. Otherwise, it'll be more frustrating than fun and quickly a turn off.
This is BF:BC in a nutshell. A group of 3-4 will actually be playing. The rest of the team is sniping and worried about their k/d ratio. What a mess. If they really want to encourage teamwork, remove the importance of k/d and put it all towards objective based scoring. I'd give 1 point for a kill and 20 points for an objective completed.
BF2 on the PC was progressing towards that but this is a step backwards. MAG needs to look at the BF2 formula and take it even further with the importance of teamwork. Otherwise, it'll be more frustrating than fun and quickly a turn off.
Thats very true, sadly. If people find they are no longer ranking up fast enough by just killing, it will force them to do the objective's. Resistance 2 should be another good example for things MAG might want to use or avoid. In one of R2 MP videos you see someone gaining a lot of experience fast just by being near the objective. Something like that should be good for MAG and Battlefield BC.
I have my doubts on these reward schemes since they didn't solve the problems for BF2 by various accounts ? I know I won't adhere to the rules because I am just looking for (cheap) trills when playing FPSes. As long as I can shoot and kill people, I don't really care about K/D ratio or game objectives for a few games. I followed the rules mostly because I like the GAF clan, that's all. My selfish behaviour may proceed to ruin the experiences for 255 people x number of bad games, but I don't feel the pain at all.
They may very well have similar schemes, but should rely on other fundamental gameplay changes to "force" people to coopoerate by default, reward or no reward.
They may very well have similar schemes, but should rely on other fundamental gameplay changes to "force" people to coopoerate by default, reward or no reward.
