MAG
- Thread starter patsu
- Start date
http://blog.mag.com/blog/
The new podcast is up. Has some good info. New vehicles are coming, and new maps for those vehicles. More weapons that aren't just slightly improved versions of old ones, and new tech gear.
The existing weapons are also going to be improved upon, in almost exactly the way I wanted it.
Less stability for the MG while running. Reduced cc cost for SMGs, ARs, and the shotguns, to make the MG relatively more expensive. And a more predictable spread for the shotguns.
Teamkilling will also be fixed.
The new podcast is up. Has some good info. New vehicles are coming, and new maps for those vehicles. More weapons that aren't just slightly improved versions of old ones, and new tech gear.
The existing weapons are also going to be improved upon, in almost exactly the way I wanted it.
Less stability for the MG while running. Reduced cc cost for SMGs, ARs, and the shotguns, to make the MG relatively more expensive. And a more predictable spread for the shotguns.
Teamkilling will also be fixed.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is what such a game needs, as it's trying to simulate the battle situation. But with players ignoring orders, it's only half a fix. They'd need to address the whole cooperation and following orders thing. eg. If an officer orders some soldiers to launcha frontal attack that will result in them dying and affecting their KDR, even if vital for overall success, plenty of players won't want to be the pawns.
Perhaps they should do away with the Lone Wolf option, and only award progress when a player does what their officer orders, irrespective of whether it's a good plan or not? And orders would need to cover things like, "You and you, take out that sniper and secure that hillside." Perhaps officers should get no points at al except at the end when their soldiers award them, so that bad officers never get points and don't get commissioned, whereas good officers get highlighted and troops would be more willing to serve under them?
In essence the game wants two different types of gamers - FPS fans to be the troops, and RTS fans to manage the battle.
I was thinking the same thing! If a player's life was more valued then tactics like suppressing fire would become a viable option.
I think the moment you start adding more complex strategies to MAG, the more difficult it's going to become for players to understand and take advantage of those strategies. You might end up with less strategies overall, and players abandoning a too complex game.
I like the FRAGO because it's simple yet effective. Sure there are some down sides to it, like all defending on the FRAGO'd objective might not be the best defence. But it's an easy way to get all eyes pointing in the same direction. If your squad is noticing you making good use of the FRAGO and giving good orders over your mic, they are more likely to follow your orders.
And more complex strategies can still be accomplished with a clan, who you'll know are going follow your orders.
The first thing we need before increasing strategic possibilities, is better training for what we currently have.
If you let random players rate their leaders with points, they are just going abuse the system. Like right now, voting off a good leader because they would rather have the leadership position.
This sounds like a really bad idea. Cooperation should never be forced. For good players, often lone wolf is the only rational choice. On average 90% of all FPS players on consoles act like absolute retards. for anybody that is half decent, being forced to team up with these people only hampers their own progress, and most often also deteriorates your own teams winning chances.
This is a good idea, but can be abused.
I want to point out that if you play in CLAN matches. People are gonna follow orders and cooperate.
Public matches are just random for fun matches, where nobody that is half decent is going to be willing to sacrifice himself for some retarted officer giving bad orders. Forcing this will just cause people to start playing another game.
Last edited by a moderator:
That'd change the tactics considerably, but how would newbies get anywhere? Or what happens if you get unlucky? Basically everyone would be uber-cautious and not DO anything until snipers and covert ops had whittled down the enemy. Everything would come down to a death-match war of attrition.
What I have in mind is a general selecting troops and waypoints. The player would just get an order from a selection, like "secure this point", and have his area marked on his map.
Basically FRAGO's, just settable anywhere and issuable to indivodual soldiers rather than the whole squad. The general wouldn't be playing MAG, but playing an RTS game, seeing the troops, selecting them, issuing orders and following outcomes. Unlike any other RTS, he'd get feedback from the squad leaders what they were facing, which would be kinda cool.
Overall I think it'd work as a game, but you'd never manage to build a game around the idea. Anyone wanting to be a general would have to wait ages before a game came up, and competition would be fierce. Assuming anyone even wanted to play it.
Clans. See point below...
I think this is the crux of the matter for me. As I see it, MAG is a 'professional' FPS for serious gamers. Anyone wanting to just run around and shoot people can play any of a dozen other shooters. If the intention of MAG is proper battlefield maneouvres and strategies, it needs high-level organisation and troops who'll follow orders. Without that, it's just another shooter with a vague user-definable objective system.
As you say, a good Clan leads to a good battle. MAG seems designed for good clans. The developers probably worked in close-knit teams and were anticipating that behaviour. I feel the box should have 'Member of a good clan' listed as a requirement.
I feel the box should have 'Member of a good clan' listed as a requirement.
Minimum requirements and recommended requirements, probably should add great eye hand coordination and reflexes to
One would hope gamers have a degree of those skills as standard.
What I have in mind is a general selecting troops and waypoints. The player would just get an order from a selection, like "secure this point", and have his area marked on his map.
Basically FRAGO's, just settable anywhere and issuable to indivodual soldiers rather than the whole squad. The general wouldn't be playing MAG, but playing an RTS game, seeing the troops, selecting them, issuing orders and following outcomes. Unlike any other RTS, he'd get feedback from the squad leaders what they were facing, which would be kinda cool.
Overall I think it'd work as a game, but you'd never manage to build a game around the idea. Anyone wanting to be a general would have to wait ages before a game came up, and competition would be fierce. Assuming anyone even wanted to play it.
I think this is the crux of the matter for me. As I see it, MAG is a 'professional' FPS for serious gamers. Anyone wanting to just run around and shoot people can play any of a dozen other shooters. If the intention of MAG is proper battlefield maneouvres and strategies, it needs high-level organisation and troops who'll follow orders. Without that, it's just another shooter with a vague user-definable objective system.
As you say, a good Clan leads to a good battle. MAG seems designed for good clans. The developers probably worked in close-knit teams and were anticipating that behaviour. I feel the box should have 'Member of a good clan' listed as a requirement.
I'm not really sure about that one anymore. The potential is there, but the game isn't being played like that. OICs aren't communicating with their platoon leaders other then the occasional tactical refresh coming up. And platoon leaders aren't guiding the squad leaders towards some overall strategy. Giving orders to individual random players probably won't make them work together any more then what we have now. Ordering a whole squad to attack an objective at least has the advantage of there being a good chance of some of them following your orders. And at worst you be going alone but still receiving the FRAGO bonus on anything you do.
I think MAG is more about a reasonable amount of teamwork, while still being accessible for the average gamer, and on a larger scale then most games. Forced teamwork might take some of that accessibility away.
In some ways MAG is a good clan game, but in others it isn't. For a proper clan game I would want custom games for setting up clanwars. And much larger parties. I don't think either of those are going to work too well with MAG right now.
Make it a custom game option.
MAG is no different than any other FPS except for scale and ability to set user defined objectives. Its no more serious and no more professional than any other game.
Again, this comes back to CLAN vs public matches. Take any game, even say MW2, which most people here think revolves around just running around shooting at eachother randomly. (which it does in public matches). Watch a public match. Then watch a clan war. Suddenly, everybody acts like a team, with tactics and strategies and all.
Public matches are just supposed to be about fun. Which means, do whatever you feel like. Clan matches are about winning. Which means people will do what it takes to win.
The "problem" as i see it, is simply that you want MAG to play like it does under clan matches, with teamwork and all. You feel that this is the way MAG is intended to play. You cannot force this in public matches. (see the sucky players vs good players, and playing fun arguments).
Trying to do this, will just remove the fun from public matches, which ultimately will just remove players from the game.
And the solution for you, is to get into a clan, and play with them.
Because that's how it was described and the intentions of the developers, was it not? They added FRAGO's and squad leaders to facilitate teamwork for that very purpose, and there PR campaign talked about leaders changing the tide of the battlefield.
Well I already had a solution - I didn't care enough for the game (or shooters in general) and got rid of it.
However, the 'problem' here is whether a game should target the organised-military style or not. Much of the discussion in this thread has been about how MAG does or doesn't facilitate that, which shows it's important to the game. I certainly don't remember talk on other shooter threads grumbling about players not following orders and objectives not being met and issues with decent squad leaders etc.Finally back with Raven, and their properly accurate guns. Although now I still need to go through the slow process of unlocking everything again. It's very annoying to be being made bad at everything again. I'd feel like huge let down to my team if I wasn't forced to make up for their incompetence. I was going wait with signing up for squad leader until I got the necessary equipment to actually lead the charge. But if they aren't going do a proper job, I might as well take it and get some free points from airstrikes.
In good team-based games, these players are known as bad players.
Welcome back ! I'm fiddling with 3D Dot Heroes now. Will take a couple of days to mob up.
It's difficult to cover for team mistakes alone. Do you yell commands at them ? coz when I played with you guys, you're mostly quiet like me ! ^_^
Here's a good post asking Zipper about MAG's design flaws:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21346098&postcount=6103
Click was one of the best players in GAF RFOM clan. ^_^
Here're the questions he asked Scott Rudi, the designer of MAG Live:
He also asked Byrne some questions in the link, but have not received any answers yet.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21346098&postcount=6103
Click was one of the best players in GAF RFOM clan. ^_^
Here're the questions he asked Scott Rudi, the designer of MAG Live:
He also asked Byrne some questions in the link, but have not received any answers yet.
I put a bit more effort into it if I'm squad leader on Acquisition, at least if I notice they are actually following my orders. I like to change Frago around quite bit, the game will give an automated response to it, and it keeps the squad focused on whatever is most important at moment.
The discussion on the official forums on perks for vetting is usually about whether or not we should get extra skillpoints or cc for it. Some like the idea, others feel it will unbalance the game. The only idea a clear majority likes is, vets somehow having access to the guns from any PMC they have been in. I really hope we get something like that, or this was probably the last time I've switched PMCs.
