MAG

[patsu]

It's very difficult to convince the other squads to abandon their objective. They may feel that they have a better chance, or are really close to capture it. At least that's how I felt when someone tried to do the same. I walked over to the other objective to size up our team A/B vs the enemies. Decided to stay.

I think I have only seen one waypoint at any one time.

Would be great if they can improve on the collaboration tools.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Limiting squad spawns doesn't help. Why can't an army decide to attack all on one side? Just make sure the opposition have 'scouts' to keep them informed of where the enemy is coming from. It should, indeed needs, to be possible to launch distractive attacks on one side while the main action happens elsewhere. The game is ideally suited through available skills to support deliberate covert ops. Maybe squads should be divided into roles, with snipers, commandos, troopers, who could be given orders? "We need sniper support from the hills on the west. We'll mount an offensive on these gates here and here. While we've got their attention, Commando squad needs to work from behind to take their AA out." And on the flip side, "reports show the enemy are massed on the west. We need to secure these two gates. That'll leave us open to infiltration from the north, so we're going to need patrols." And then during the game, anyone discovering covert ops or a new offensive could call it out.

As it is, strategy is pretty much forced by spawning local to an area and only being allowed to target a subset of available targets.

 

[patsu]

I think the spawns are there to minimize walking. The players can choose to spawn in another location freely.

The problem in team leadership is authority. Why should people listen to the leader if he's not chosen by us, not in the same clan, or has no known track record ? There has been cases where leaders were kicked because they were ineffective. If people didn't care, they wouldn't bother.

The current setup is inadequate to enforce/encourage teamwork. I don't think there is an easy answer. We have the same problem in real life.

 

[patsu]

Zipper posted the overhead view of all 12 maps on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/sets/72157623847816420/

EDIT: Grr... Raven lost both contracts in Sabotage again.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think the spawns are there to minimize walking. The players can choose to spawn in another location freely.

Freely? You mean out of two options. At least that's lal I ever get. Take Acquisition - I can't choose to spawn on the other side of the map entirely. You can't get all 128 players storming on the same objective at the same time.

In that respect, the Massive aspect of it is a bit pointless. I operate in a subset of the whole experience. I could be playing on a 32 player server with all the other teammates simulated as changes in the battle, and it'd feel the same to me.

 

[patsu]

Freely? You mean out of two options.

I was thinking about the Sabotage map.
I thought you can spawn in more than 2 locations in Domination ?

At least that's lal I ever get. Take Acquisition - I can't choose to spawn on the other side of the map entirely. You can't get all 128 players storming on the same objective at the same time.

You can walk to the same meeting point (The maps are open). Earlier in this thread, I posted a video of 128 men trying to take group photo in MAG. I didn't count all of them though.

In that respect, the Massive aspect of it is a bit pointless. I operate in a subset of the whole experience. I could be playing on a 32 player server with all the other teammates simulated as changes in the battle, and it'd feel the same to me.

Not quite. Besides being able to gather in larger numbers (see above), the action performed by one platoon can affect other platoons because of how the military assets work. You can also join other platoons anytime (just walk over there, or spawn at the right place), but I supposed you won't get any FRAGO points. I do that sometimes -- if our objective is safe, while the other keeps falling into enemy's hands. Even if the leaders don't request for help, sometimes I see myself or other people rushing to the other objective to help out.

By the time the squad leader plead for help, sometimes we may have already concluded that staying put is our best option.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not quite. Besides being able to gather in larger numbers (see above), the action performed by one platoon can affect other platoons because of how the military assets work. You can also join other platoons anytime (just walk over there, or spawn at the right place).

Spawning isn't an option. There are only two spawn points at a thime AFAICS, three including airdrops. In Domination and Acquisition I have two options to begin with. These change with the flow of the game, so further on you'll either just be spawning in the middle of your base, or in the attacking helicopter. But you can't spawn to the other side of the map, and would have to run there to join another platoon.

As for their action affecting the play of the level, my point is that could all be simulated. I played a domination match with no regard for what was happening in the other four compass points because there was enough to keep me busy on my end. Yes, I could have wandered over to the other side of the map, but my experience there would be the same, a couple of waves of enemy beat back or not. And if I die over there, I respawn back where I started! The way the maps are designed, there's perhaps at most 32 attackers fighting 32 defenders, or at least a comparable experience. The gameplay experience could be recreated pretty well with a 32 vs. 32 maximum, with Domination happening in 1/4 the size map with 1/4 the people, and everything else that happens in MAG being represented as AI changes to the battlefield based on how well the 32 are doing, or even just a fairly randomised playout.

 

[Cornsnake]

http://forums.mag.com/t5/MAG-Discus...3-Link-to-Official-Q-amp-A-Thread/td-p/436474

Zipper's new Podcast starts on April 23. You can ask question about MAG that could be answered on the podcast in the linked thread above.

 

[Cornsnake]

Spawning isn't an option. There are only two spawn points at a thime AFAICS, three including airdrops. In Domination and Acquisition I have two options to begin with. These change with the flow of the game, so further on you'll either just be spawning in the middle of your base, or in the attacking helicopter. But you can't spawn to the other side of the map, and would have to run there to join another platoon.

As for their action affecting the play of the level, my point is that could all be simulated. I played a domination match with no regard for what was happening in the other four compass points because there was enough to keep me busy on my end. Yes, I could have wandered over to the other side of the map, but my experience there would be the same, a couple of waves of enemy beat back or not. And if I die over there, I respawn back where I started! The way the maps are designed, there's perhaps at most 32 attackers fighting 32 defenders, or at least a comparable experience. The gameplay experience could be recreated pretty well with a 32 vs. 32 maximum, with Domination happening in 1/4 the size map with 1/4 the people, and everything else that happens in MAG being represented as AI changes to the battlefield based on how well the 32 are doing, or even just a fairly randomised playout.

You can take an APC to the other side, and spawn from there. This may be a bit difficult as long as the bunkers are up, but as soon as those and the AA are down there is no need to abandon them and restrict yourself the forward spawn. You could easily use them to sabotage the other enemy platoons defences, helping the other friendly platoons to move forward. In Domination it doesn't matter which of the letter objectives you attack, focusing your efforts on only a few of them can be a good strategy. The defenders will rarely call for backup from the other platoons. Defenders will spawn in the centre of the map, so any of the letter objectives are within the same walking distance.

Squad and platoonleaders can also use their own airstrikes on different platoons. The attackers will need to have both their own and the other platoons AA down, defenders need to have the mortars up. This can be valuable in Acquisition to help clear the path of an escaping transport vehicle, or to destroy it if your defending.

 

[patsu]

As for their action affecting the play of the level, my point is that could all be simulated. I played a domination match with no regard for what was happening in the other four compass points because there was enough to keep me busy on my end. Yes, I could have wandered over to the other side of the map, but my experience there would be the same, a couple of waves of enemy beat back or not. And if I die over there, I respawn back where I started! The way the maps are designed, there's perhaps at most 32 attackers fighting 32 defenders, or at least a comparable experience. The gameplay experience could be recreated pretty well with a 32 vs. 32 maximum, with Domination happening in 1/4 the size map with 1/4 the people, and everything else that happens in MAG being represented as AI changes to the battlefield based on how well the 32 are doing, or even just a fairly randomised playout.

The assets' special abilities allow players to change the tide of the entire battle. People attack or bring up these assets in certain order. I was in a game where the leader gave explicit instructions not to bring any one of them up until he held 3 of 'em (Can't remember which 3). Then all of a sudden, the defense was up and they complemented each other. In his view, it made the assets easier to grab and defend. If the enemies knew he's going after certain assets, they would dispatch soldiers over to defend his next objectives. There are mind games going on in MAG even if individual soldiers may not notice them.

Unless these special abilities are triggered by the players, a pure simulation will appear rather shallow and cannot be relied on (e.g., KZ2's nuclear blast and U2's tank). As for AI changes, that would be like Resistance 2, which has an AI directing the players. It's a very different game from my perspective. The strategic element is more shallow or missing in R2.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Perhaps it would be more noticeable if I played more Acquisition and Domination? So far though, I don't see the network advance to 256 players as something that makes a difference, and don't think other developers will be chasing this and larger numbers of players.

 

[patsu]

Play with a clan ! T_T

Or join random clan in every game.

I am beginning to think the socializing element would also help to solidify leadership position, and cooperation.

 

[minimoke]

Patch v1.05

Available April 19, 2010 | 41MB (TPPS), 40MB (DLS)

Gameplay

* Improved the automatic Leadership selection criteria to make players with microphones more likely to be selected than those without them (note: this does not prevent players without microphones from being selected as leaders)
* Adjusted automatic Leadership selection criteria to include Leadership point total in preference formula.

Technical

* Repaired bug that prevented players who were incapacitated and then revived from throwing grenades until they reload.
* Fixed issue with the game lock-ups caused by “hanging” black screen following the conclusion of a gameplay round.
* Repaired crash that sometimes occurred after playing more than 15 consecutive rounds.
* Resolved issue with rare game crash that occurred during playback of intro video.
* Numerous localization changes for in-game text.

Weapons

* Adjusted iron sights to give player clearer view for the following weapons: AK-103, M4A1, PKP MG, Apex 100, RTK-74, Boudini 12 Gauge, and T-195.
* Improved accuracy on all iron sights and red dot sights.
* Increased upwards-recoil to all machine guns.
* Slightly increased accuracy for pistols, PDWs, and SMGs.

Finally! LMGs where just way too powerful IMHO!

 

[patsu]

Wahahaha ! I luv MAG updates.

 

[obonicus]

Has anyone tested the LMGs? The last time they were nerfed they still ended up as the best gun in the game (and then in a terrific move, Zipper gave everyone slightly improved MGs with no real cost difference).

 

[JPT]

Patch v1.05

Available April 19, 2010 | 41MB (TPPS), 40MB (DLS)


* Increased upwards-recoil to all machine guns.

Finally! LMGs where just way too powerful IMHO!

To me that might improve the LMG, since its just ingrained into me to aim for center mass, it takes serious conscious action for me to aim for the head. So this means that with the new recoil, I might finish off a 3-5 round burst with 1-2 head hits.

Personally I think there is no way to really balance the LMG, because what the problem with actual LMG is that they are heavy and cumbersome*. Which makes them better as a defending / support weapon than hard charging offensive weapon they are in MAG.
And I don't see how they can implement that in a good way without killing the LMG as a weapon, because we all want action and not stationary field of fire exercises.

*Based on my year in the infantry as an assistant squad leader ie in charge of the 3 man LMG fire team.

 

[Cornsnake]

Has anyone tested the LMGs? The last time they were nerfed they still ended up as the best gun in the game (and then in a terrific move, Zipper gave everyone slightly improved MGs with no real cost difference).

That's because they nerfed the iron sights and red dot sights. So every gun was effected along side of it. If you ask me they should just increase the cc costs to carry an MG.

I'm glad were getting the improve accuracy back for iron sights and red dot sights. It used to be ridiculous how much accuracy you would lose firing from the hips. Slightly increased accuracy for pistols, PDWs, and SMGs, is good too.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

* Repaired bug that prevented players who were incapacitated and then revived from throwing grenades until they reload.

I only posted that bug on the forum a week ago!

I think the real game-killer here is lag. After last night's experience, I think that's basically the principle game-changer. My last round, I killed 22 guys with 7 deaths, two of which were silly end-of-round recklessness on my part. I could aim at a guy and drop him. Yet in rounds prior I had trouble killing anyone, emptying a clip into them and they'd still finish me off. I have the timing of the knife pretty well that I can run out of the trees and finish a guy head on, and yet some rounds I can't hit anyone with it, and even get knifed as they run through me. I know I can aim effectively because some rounds I get high KDR, and unless from round to round my skills change dramatically, the fault has to lie with the game. As such, some rounds it doesn't really matter what you do - you can't play effectively because the game isn't playing fair.

 

[obonicus]

Part of the problem with the LMGs is that most nerfs to it apply to the MMGs too, which aren't nearly as good. The last MG nerf made the MMG significantly harder to handle, I imagine they're much worse now.

 

[minimoke]

If you ask me they should just increase the cc costs to carry an MG.

Great idea! This would mean lighter armour so the player will be forced to use the LMG as more of a defensive weapon rather than a rapid assault weapon.