MAG
- Thread starter patsu
- Start date
You`ll find very few good Valor players playing the vehicle maps. Most Valor play Sabotage ,with a good Obj C to defend and Ravens C easy to take,plus they get the Contract XP bonus there.. Their Acquisition map is hard to defend and Ravens map is hard to take. Thus most Ravens play that mode. SVER plays mostly Domination because of similar reasons.
Zipper promised map fixes with the next patch so maybe the players will mix up better finally.
So for an easier start you should play more Sabotage. If you think it`s hard you have no idea what a new Raven player has to go through...
Play more Sabotage and you'll run into me someday. I play it about 80-90% of the time.I already told everyone Raven's base is like an open shopping mall. Playing as Raven on that map reminds of that Mall Cop movie. I still
the game though.That's awesome ! I'll try to look for my ranking. Have to count from behind since I lost many Sabo games.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
I rank up extremely slow, since I'm not great at shooters. I played almost 12 hours straight to increase a rank. I have never gotten more than 280 points in a game. I've seen people with over 1000 points! I feel like I'm a bad player. I have a lot of fun though, until the scores come up at the end.
I have a lot of fun though, until the scores come up at the end. Just to say that I play MAG extensivly for the B*R Burning Rangers Valour Clan. We have lots of fun.
I agree that Ravens C is probably the worst out of the lot however I dont know why they dont push down and defend from the road up rather than just inside C because your inviting people to attack you just staying at C.
On Sabo Valours A and B are extreemly easy to take out if Valour defend from behind or inside the objectives. The only way to protect them is to push Raven or Sevr back as far as possible fighting at least at the first sandbag parimiters.
While Ravens A and B are easier to defend in and around the objective. Simlar to Sevr however Sevr A is probably the toughest objective to attack for the whole of the Sabotage maps.
Aquasition wise both Raven and Sevr are beasts to try and get through. Sevr has a line of bunkers that are elevated and can cover each other (even bomb placment points). The front line is stupidly hard to attack.
Ravens is a little easier with some teamwork you can take the front gate and the left bunker allowing the APC's and two squads on foot to try to break through to get the vehicle. However Ravens guns can also support each other with the two squads coming under fire from three chainguns and if properly defendid can be very very hard to take down.
Valours map is the worst map in the game IMO. It actually benefits the attacker more than the defender, With some turrest unable to see huge portions of maps due to walls or trees. Most of the bunkers turrets cannot suport each other, and the bunkers are isolated by walls etc.
After the front line is gone its all downhill for the attackers with no cover at all to defend the ultimate objective in fact walls are placed in such a fashion that there is a huge advantage for the attackers as well as the gates being so far away from the objectives its impossible to defend both the last gates and the objective at the same time. Which is the complete opposite of the other maps.
On domination Raven has the weakest map, with large holes in the maps and easy to get to AAA. Its also very easy to ninja through the valors domination map with both Raven and Valour suffering from bunkers that are to isolated. Sevrs bunkers are once again set up to protect each other and have no real "weak" point at the front lines. In addition attacking the final letters of Sver is much harder due to the funneling effect of the tunnels, allies or having to brave lmg sniper fire by going over surrounding high walls.
I love MAG and I am totally addicted to be honest. Just some of the map imbalances and bugs (grenade freezing for example) drive me a little potty at times.
Look me up if you ever play for Valour!
By the way if you want me to share any general advice on tactics, loudouts, stratergies for various classes I would be more than welcome to share my experiance (level 60 with nearly 3000 leadership points!).
I agree that Ravens C is probably the worst out of the lot however I dont know why they dont push down and defend from the road up rather than just inside C because your inviting people to attack you just staying at C.
On Sabo Valours A and B are extreemly easy to take out if Valour defend from behind or inside the objectives. The only way to protect them is to push Raven or Sevr back as far as possible fighting at least at the first sandbag parimiters.
While Ravens A and B are easier to defend in and around the objective. Simlar to Sevr however Sevr A is probably the toughest objective to attack for the whole of the Sabotage maps.
Aquasition wise both Raven and Sevr are beasts to try and get through. Sevr has a line of bunkers that are elevated and can cover each other (even bomb placment points). The front line is stupidly hard to attack.
Ravens is a little easier with some teamwork you can take the front gate and the left bunker allowing the APC's and two squads on foot to try to break through to get the vehicle. However Ravens guns can also support each other with the two squads coming under fire from three chainguns and if properly defendid can be very very hard to take down.
Valours map is the worst map in the game IMO. It actually benefits the attacker more than the defender, With some turrest unable to see huge portions of maps due to walls or trees. Most of the bunkers turrets cannot suport each other, and the bunkers are isolated by walls etc.
After the front line is gone its all downhill for the attackers with no cover at all to defend the ultimate objective in fact walls are placed in such a fashion that there is a huge advantage for the attackers as well as the gates being so far away from the objectives its impossible to defend both the last gates and the objective at the same time. Which is the complete opposite of the other maps.
On domination Raven has the weakest map, with large holes in the maps and easy to get to AAA. Its also very easy to ninja through the valors domination map with both Raven and Valour suffering from bunkers that are to isolated. Sevrs bunkers are once again set up to protect each other and have no real "weak" point at the front lines. In addition attacking the final letters of Sver is much harder due to the funneling effect of the tunnels, allies or having to brave lmg sniper fire by going over surrounding high walls.
I love MAG and I am totally addicted to be honest. Just some of the map imbalances and bugs (grenade freezing for example) drive me a little potty at times.
Look me up if you ever play for Valour!
By the way if you want me to share any general advice on tactics, loudouts, stratergies for various classes I would be more than welcome to share my experiance (level 60 with nearly 3000 leadership points!).
I wonder how much the maps are truly imbalanced, because there a lot things people don't have to do in other games that must be done in MAG. And since MAG isn't going to teach them, they simply don't get done.
Sver's Acquisition map becomes a lot easier if you take down the bunker turrets, keeping them from providing cover fire for each other. But nobody is going to spend the 5 skillpoints on it because they have no idea of how effective it is.
Bunker gets destroyed, and nobody is going to take an APC back to it. Even though it's right there next to the spawnpoint, it gets you back faster, and you might even be able to provide some cover fire with it's gun for the guys repairing it.
Helicopters aren't getting shot by rockets either. The APC's are used like tanks. People are running around with repair kits in Sabotage.
Everything that isn't immediately obvious is, IMO, too quickly written of as an imbalance. And once a map has a name for being imbalanced, people will quit as soon as the game starts. Making it more difficult for the remaining players to win.
I'm not saying there isn't an imbalance, just that the current situation makes it a little difficult to see.
Sver's Acquisition map becomes a lot easier if you take down the bunker turrets, keeping them from providing cover fire for each other. But nobody is going to spend the 5 skillpoints on it because they have no idea of how effective it is.
Bunker gets destroyed, and nobody is going to take an APC back to it. Even though it's right there next to the spawnpoint, it gets you back faster, and you might even be able to provide some cover fire with it's gun for the guys repairing it.
Helicopters aren't getting shot by rockets either. The APC's are used like tanks. People are running around with repair kits in Sabotage.
Everything that isn't immediately obvious is, IMO, too quickly written of as an imbalance. And once a map has a name for being imbalanced, people will quit as soon as the game starts. Making it more difficult for the remaining players to win.
I'm not saying there isn't an imbalance, just that the current situation makes it a little difficult to see.
Whether it's imbalanced or poorly instructed, it comes to the same thing. Zipper plain screwed up in their design. Was on yesterday in a defense of Valor. I had no idea where to go, what to do. There's no way to practice. There's no direction. I had to protect the gates but couldn't see any gates to protect. One of the few people with a headset was giving instructions like "get the APC to cover such-and-such." I didn't know where the APC was, and when I stumbled upon one, didn't know where such-and-such was. Even if I did, I didn't know the route to get there. Eventually he grumbled there's no teamwork, which is true. Most players don't know what's going on, aren't playing roles, and thus the game design is flawed at the level of providing a game that players can actually play.
It was quite fun the first couple of hours when my friend was in the room with me, calling advice, helping me spot people, etc. Coop is more fun with real people in the room. Playing online, I had one fun moment with an MG on a bipod, hid in a hut gunning down the enemy. It's basically a lucky break I picked the bipod, because there's no chance to try out stuff. Otherwise, the game has been kinda crap, extremely annoying, and I'm gonna sell it. Just as I've abandoned JRPGs for all their design flaws, I'm giving up on trying shooters. Devs can only write games for hardcore gamers it seems, and those of us just wanting fun are being ignored.
It was quite fun the first couple of hours when my friend was in the room with me, calling advice, helping me spot people, etc. Coop is more fun with real people in the room. Playing online, I had one fun moment with an MG on a bipod, hid in a hut gunning down the enemy. It's basically a lucky break I picked the bipod, because there's no chance to try out stuff. Otherwise, the game has been kinda crap, extremely annoying, and I'm gonna sell it. Just as I've abandoned JRPGs for all their design flaws, I'm giving up on trying shooters. Devs can only write games for hardcore gamers it seems, and those of us just wanting fun are being ignored.
I feel much the same. I really want to like this game, but it's just not very fun the more I play. More frustration than fun. I liked the BFBC2 demo, and was surprised I got into some games where people did play well, and together -- even without talking over their headsets. It could be because of the simple "mark this enemy" feature they have.
Imagine if Zipper and DICE could have collaborated...
That is MAG's biggest problem. They really need to add in some proper training missions, firing range, stats for every weapon, option to explore the maps outside of online games. And do it yesterday.
If your squadleader was doing his job right and Frago'd the gate, it's icon becomes highlighted on your map, and even in the screen if your looking in it's direction.
I actually consider MAG a breath of fresh air in the ever more casual becoming online FPS genre. To each his own I guess.
If your squadleader was doing his job right and Frago'd the gate, it's icon becomes highlighted on your map, and even in the screen if your looking in it's direction.
I actually consider MAG a breath of fresh air in the ever more casual becoming online FPS genre. To each his own I guess.
It sounds like you were playing an Acquisition mode game which can be a bit confusing as the objectives are not clearly defined. Maybe try Sabotage next time, the objectives are pretty simple - you either attack/defend buildings A,B or C.
I agree with most if not all of what Terarrim mentioned. Sadly, I also got addicted to the game. Have been playing it non-stop this weekend.
Shifty, like what minimoke mentioned, you can try Sabotage first. Even with just Sabotage maps alone, there are a lot to learn and specialize. This is because the opposing team always come up with new tactics to counter my current move. So the game changes after a few days.
I am just starting to get into Acquisition and Domination at level 50+. I am not very good at recognizing the military targets too. So it's easy to get lost in a map. But I fight much better these days.
Shifty, like what minimoke mentioned, you can try Sabotage first. Even with just Sabotage maps alone, there are a lot to learn and specialize. This is because the opposing team always come up with new tactics to counter my current move. So the game changes after a few days.
I am just starting to get into Acquisition and Domination at level 50+. I am not very good at recognizing the military targets too. So it's easy to get lost in a map. But I fight much better these days.
That's my usual game. I've only tried Acquisition or whatever the vehicle one is twice. It doesn't change the fact there's no leadership or teamwork beyond medics fixing people. And most importantly, I shouldn't be receiving advice on how to play and find fun in this game! It should be self-evident. What incentive is there for me persevere and learn the ropes etc.? It's not worth my time and money. I want games that are fun to play from the moment I put them in, so that I can make use of my recreation time. I dare say that's true of a lot of older gamers, whereas developers seem to still be thinking of a teenage market that'll game 5 hours a day and designing around a week's training before they get anywhere. The market has moved on, but the thought processes of developers are backward.
It's particularly bad design, in my opinion, when a game doesn't factor in the possibility of new users coming into the game long after its initial release. I can see a purposeful design reasoning tied to marketing and offering incentives for day-one purchase, but that also risks shortening the long-term sales of a game.
I can't decide if this "feature" is purposefully built-in to some online only games, or if it's just simply a lacking design and was never considered by designers/developers.
Clearly, there are some games that are better than others at accommodating new users -- or even users who return to the game after a long hiatus. Since I'm a relatively new-comer to all things 360 and PS3, I'm usually on the late / low ranking side of online FPS games. It's humbling to be the only Private in a game full of Generals.
I agree with this and Shiftys perfect matchmaking system could do this for us. Ie group together people with similar ranks/lvls in different games. And for Dom and Acq on MAG it should be easy enough to setup a noob platoon attacking vs a noob platoon defending if there is not enough people playing to have seperate noob/leet games.
I'm always late to the party, often playing the last greatest thing. eg. I've been on Uncharted 2 while everyone who wanted MAG started. This is in part to me waiting for feedback on games from players. eg. Had I bought Borderlands on potential, I'd have been disappointed because it's buggy. I don't trust developers to release working games any more. Thus I'll always be a noob in a land of veterans. And besides, some people prefer genres, so anyone who's played lots of shooters will have a significant edge on me as a non-shooterer.
I can't really think of any game I've played that has got it right. Warhawk did eventually offer ranked servers, although transitions were painful. But again you could do your own thing if you wanted. We could play split-screen to learn the ropes for going online. Uncharted 2 throws everyone in together, and it's not uncommon to see low rated players drop out of a game. Again, it's only coop that had me playing. If U2 was competitive multiplayer only, I wouldn't have bothered. Wouldn't have bought the game even for the great single player experience. I've decided I'm only going to play team vs. bots games from now on, expecting every competitive multiplayer experience to be a hash job, save maybe Starhawk because I hope they've learned their lesson and I was reasonably competant at Warhawk in the end. And maybe StarWars Battlefronts if it's ever released, as the PS2 titles were wonderfully simple that you could just jump in and enjoy without vets having advantages.
Edit: A specific point with MAG though is that by design it is broken IMO. By design, the game needs leaders, and if those leaders aren't there, it'll never play as it should. Terrarim's suggestion of pushing forwards on Valor's Sabotage map defense is exactly the sort of strategy required, but there's no-one calling those shots or coordinating events. There's just 32 players trying to protect A and B by running around shooting. Having used a bipod MG now, I can see it'd be ideal to post a couple of gunners covering entrances, with support to keep them active, but it'll never happen in a game as you can't coordinate people or even trust you'll have gunners available. The game just asks too much of people regards teamwork, doesn't provide the structure to create and implement plans (prior to an encounter, plans and roles should be dished out. "Alpha squad secure the entrance with two or three LMGs on the right hill. Beta hang back on mop-up duty. We want three snipers on the tower with a medic..."), and it can only work as intended with carefully coordinated clans of serious gamers.
I can't really think of any game I've played that has got it right. Warhawk did eventually offer ranked servers, although transitions were painful. But again you could do your own thing if you wanted. We could play split-screen to learn the ropes for going online. Uncharted 2 throws everyone in together, and it's not uncommon to see low rated players drop out of a game. Again, it's only coop that had me playing. If U2 was competitive multiplayer only, I wouldn't have bothered. Wouldn't have bought the game even for the great single player experience. I've decided I'm only going to play team vs. bots games from now on, expecting every competitive multiplayer experience to be a hash job, save maybe Starhawk because I hope they've learned their lesson and I was reasonably competant at Warhawk in the end. And maybe StarWars Battlefronts if it's ever released, as the PS2 titles were wonderfully simple that you could just jump in and enjoy without vets having advantages.
Edit: A specific point with MAG though is that by design it is broken IMO. By design, the game needs leaders, and if those leaders aren't there, it'll never play as it should. Terrarim's suggestion of pushing forwards on Valor's Sabotage map defense is exactly the sort of strategy required, but there's no-one calling those shots or coordinating events. There's just 32 players trying to protect A and B by running around shooting. Having used a bipod MG now, I can see it'd be ideal to post a couple of gunners covering entrances, with support to keep them active, but it'll never happen in a game as you can't coordinate people or even trust you'll have gunners available. The game just asks too much of people regards teamwork, doesn't provide the structure to create and implement plans (prior to an encounter, plans and roles should be dished out. "Alpha squad secure the entrance with two or three LMGs on the right hill. Beta hang back on mop-up duty. We want three snipers on the tower with a medic..."), and it can only work as intended with carefully coordinated clans of serious gamers.
There are 2 issues here:
(1) Noobs getting owned by experienced players with perks. This seems to be a general design trend. Most if not all the popular shooters have it now.
(2) Not enough team work. This is made worse by the lack of high level training aids. Would have loved it if MAG shows me what exactly a sensor array looks like in addition to marking it on the map. The in-game marker does the basic job, but it does not hand hold new comers enough (because the battlefield can get very confusing).
As for why play MAG, for me it's down to the gunplay and preferences. I think the game probably has lost more players than it should due to (2). But after a few days, the core gunplay is fun and addictive enough for me to retry. I also like the feeling of taking over Objective C successfully (I took my first Obj C personally in my last game ^_^). At first it was rare, but now it's not uncommon anymore. At this moment, it's the opposing teams and their tactics that kept the game interesting.
I like how the enemies throw new ideas at me, and I have to figure out how to workaround/counter their moves on the spot.
EDIT: I think the training aid should focus on team work. Explaining and marking out elements like Sensor Array more clearly is very basic, and doesn't really advance the gameplay much.
I research and survey the maps more often now (e.g., watching quietly from behind how and where enemies get dropped onto Raven map during the Objective C phase). I am going to experiment with ways to disrupt enemies when they first parachute down.
(1) Noobs getting owned by experienced players with perks. This seems to be a general design trend. Most if not all the popular shooters have it now.
(2) Not enough team work. This is made worse by the lack of high level training aids. Would have loved it if MAG shows me what exactly a sensor array looks like in addition to marking it on the map. The in-game marker does the basic job, but it does not hand hold new comers enough (because the battlefield can get very confusing).
As for why play MAG, for me it's down to the gunplay and preferences. I think the game probably has lost more players than it should due to (2). But after a few days, the core gunplay is fun and addictive enough for me to retry. I also like the feeling of taking over Objective C successfully (I took my first Obj C personally in my last game ^_^). At first it was rare, but now it's not uncommon anymore. At this moment, it's the opposing teams and their tactics that kept the game interesting.
I like how the enemies throw new ideas at me, and I have to figure out how to workaround/counter their moves on the spot.
EDIT: I think the training aid should focus on team work. Explaining and marking out elements like Sensor Array more clearly is very basic, and doesn't really advance the gameplay much.
I research and survey the maps more often now (e.g., watching quietly from behind how and where enemies get dropped onto Raven map during the Objective C phase). I am going to experiment with ways to disrupt enemies when they first parachute down.
If the seasoned players actually lead and supported, I'd agree! It'd also be nice if there were taem perks for high level players. But also you need fair distribution. If your party is all noobs any you're pitted against a party of vets, it's no fun.
I'll add that in theory, MAG could have been great. If there really was effective leadership and players following instructions to win or lose a fight, I'm sure I'd really enjoy MAG.
I'll add that in theory, MAG could have been great. If there really was effective leadership and players following instructions to win or lose a fight, I'm sure I'd really enjoy MAG.
Well there are good leaders who will tell u what to do, where to go , will mark frago acc to team's need, talk a lot & squad's position and at the same time use their special abilities like UAV, Airstrike etc.
when I become a leader I always make sure that I do all these stuff...and I can see that doing this makes my squad effective
when I become a leader I always make sure that I do all these stuff...and I can see that doing this makes my squad effective
