MAG

[betan]

I don't see how they can manage small armies without reprimands and rewards, as in RL. If an objective would be served by a player camping in a defensive spot, and they don't want to, how are they to be controlled? Should they be?! It's a game after all, they should be allowed to have fun, right?

You can make the same argument for R2 as people are given random objectives as opposed to doing what they would want to do. Yet it works pretty decently.
Why do we assume there won't be any rewards or reprimands? I don't know about reprimands but rewards will be there, most definitely.

Typically bad players can get kicked. Managing 128 on your side is going to be hard! Perhaps squad leaders can award ranking points to team-members? Nice in theory, but favouritism will play a big part I'm sure. Maybe leader-points can be awards by the rest of the team also. But then you'll get miffed players who were rubbish and gett no team points from the team leader who will reciprocate unfairly.

They can come up with other ways to control players without or in addition to "giving orders". Squad leader/commander can move spawn points. They can issue "mandatory recalls".

I can't see it working. At least maybe not with my pesimistic view of online gaming. Even in a team, get lumbered with a bunch of wazzocks and it's no fun. This is true from KZ to LBP - the players you're with can make or break the fun of the game. If the game is seriously team-based, that becomes even more important. In WH, you can go solo and have fun even if your team are a bunch of morons (and note, I can be a prize moron in WH with my lousy skillzorz!).

Again class based R2 coop works very good unlike most other class based games. I think the trick is minimizing the need for verbal communication and embedding flexible objective system (including tasks specific to player's abilities) into the game instead. As for human pride problem against following orders, all they have to do is to come up with generous rewards and fun objectives.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

More Info on M.A.G.

I grabbed this from Blu-ray.com:

We looked at the number of different camera options for the game, and settled on FPS primarily because of the scale of MAG," Bodewin remarks. "Some of our previous games were third-person, and it was well suited to [managing] teammates and AI quadrates as well. But for a game of this size we really wanted to make it the most immersive and the most intense large-scale game that we could. There's really no better way to do that than to sink you right into the action and look at things through a first-person perspective."

-2 to 256 Players
-Dedicated servers with new network architectures to help reduce lag
-Streamline matches to reduce need to wait.
-All audio cues (planes flying by, air raid sirens) are actual players causing it or player triggered actions. This can happen in other regions and you can hear in distance.
-PunkBuster quality cheating detection. System tests for things like rate of fire/movement/damage to keep things in check
-First Person view (better sense of scale and immersion into game)
-20 years in future, 3 major PMCs bid for war. The power struggle of these 3 dubbed Shadow War
3 Factions, only 2 announced now: Raven(high tech weapons, most trained soldiers on planet. Will appeal to Halo/Resistances fans). Sver(fierce fighters from middle east/central Asia area. Battle harden warriors)
-256 Domination mode. Attackers and defenders. Out layer of defense and inner layer. Once gone through the out layer 'hell breaks loose'. Anti-aircraft and radar are vulnerable. If your faction wins alot it gets the contract for that game mode and gets XP bonuses and perks.
-3 other game modes: Acquisition(128 player escort-style mode. Steal 2 prototype armored transports and bring to extraction zone). Sabotage(64player, control 2 points for X time then a demolition objective is revealed which must be destroyed). Suppression(64 player team deathmatch)
-Customize face, voice, armor.
-No soldier class system, but has a free-form kit creation. Can save 3 different load-outs. Depending on your choice of weapons, it can be told by looking at you so others can tell. Change your load-out to match how the battle is going.
-Snipers can get more than normal XP for killing people in designated areas of importance
-Ranking up gives access to new weapons/perks/leadership positions.
-Recognizes issues with large scale maps and the traveling.

-8 player into a squad, 4 squads into a platoon, 4 platoons into a company (US Military)
-Certain goals for each squad/platoon etc. Have 2ndary goals like blowing bridges.
-Veteran ranks can enlist into leadership roles, give orders to squad, then platoon, then the company(OIC)
-Officer only communication channel to help organize the battle


-Want to be approachable to casual yet have alot of features for the hardcore.
-Been running 256 player tests since Nov. 08 and plans to have closed/open betas.

It sounds like they put plenty of thought into this (thank goodness). I'm starting to get a little pumped for this!

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

The information above came from GameInformer.

Pic of the two factions.

Better quality screenshot

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Well, there's a game mode in MGO, where you don't respawn once you die !

There are plenty of games that dont offer respawns in multiplayer, but none with 256 players at once...

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

MAG Interview (Part 1)

You’ve revealed that players will be divided up into 8-player squads, with one player leading each squad. Will any player be able to adopt the role of ‘General’, overseeing and co-ordinating the whole battle?

In the 256 player battles, each side has an Officer in Charge (OIC). The OIC’s job is to coordinate the actions in battle by communicating with his platoon leaders. He also has the ability to call on “Strategic Maneuvers,” which affect all players on one side or the other in battle. These abilities include things like satellite recon sweeps (reveal enemies), enemy blockades (slow enemy reinforcements), signals jamming (blocks enemy command abilities), etc. These are the means by which the OIC enhances his team’s ability to wage war, or suppresses his enemies’ abilities. At the same time, however, the OIC is still a guy on the ground with a gun. In MAG, leaders lead from the front.

Online gaming has changed and advanced hugely since Zipper first developed SOCOM. What have been the most significant changes for you? Has it been a challenge to keep your games at the forefront?

With so many great games on the market, it’s a challenge for any developer to stay on the forefront. However, that’s what keeps things interesting! For Zipper, we’ve always led with technology. For SOCOM it was bringing tactical MP shooters to the PS2. For MAG, it’s developing the technology to support the scale we bring as well as creating compelling gameplay unique to such scale. Going from 32 or 64 players to 256 is a huge leap…the old tried and true game modes just don’t scale to full army sized battles. It’s been a big shift in mindset, but a very rewarding one, to start thinking about our levels and game mechanics on real world scale rather than a small analogy to real world combat.

We’d imagine that a 256 player game might take some time to fill up. Will players be able to play smaller-scale games on smaller maps if they prefer?

They certainly will. From day one we’ve made choices to ensure our matchmaking is as fast and streamlined as possible. But should folks want a quicker experience, we have games ranging from 64 players to 256. The smaller battles are intended to be quick in / quick out experiences, and include both team deathmatch and objective based gameplay.

There is much more to this interview via the link above.

 

[patsu]

That helps clarify a few things. I suspected they will expand player action beyond plain shooting for a 256 player game. It sounds like a lot of commitment and work on the player's part though. In KZ2, people complained a lot about bad Tacticians who often break games.

It would seem that people without headset cannot be officers in charge since they won't be able to coordinate well with other sections/platoons.

 

[Delta9]

I grabbed this from Blu-ray.com:





It sounds like they put plenty of thought into this (thank goodness). I'm starting to get a little pumped for this!

Those details sound great

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

MAG: The Massive Interview (Part 2)

There is plenty of info on how Zipper plans on controlling the massive action (see link).

How is the game structured? Is it lobby-game-lobby-game-lobby-game like most online games? Or do battles flow into each other somehow as part of a campaign?

MAG games are similar to the lobby-game system we’re familiar with. However, after each game players are put back into the matching system. This keeps new games kicking off, keeps our squads and platoons balanced, and gives folks a change to change loadouts, buy new skills, invite friends, etc. between battles. It also lets players see the results of their battles on their faction’s overall strength in the ongoing Shadow War.

Is it a challenge to balance the rewards you’re giving the player – to ensure that he has incentives to be a useful team player while still earning personal rewards and progression?

This has actually been something we focused on early, and as such it seems to be playing out well so far. Our incentives are all based on letting players play how they want, but giving them added experience bonuses for doing these things in support of the squad. For example, a sniper type player may just want to shoot people in the face from 200 yards away. He can do this all day and have fun. But, if he shoots guys that are next to a bunker the squad is trying to assault, he’ll get significant bonus experience. In addition, many of our upgraded gear items provide passive bonuses not just to the soldier, but to his squad.

It’s been revealed that one of the classes in MAG will be a demolition specialist. Will this be for specific, set targets? Or can this class (and other classes with explosives) destroy scenery, thereby altering the layout of the map in an improvised way?

We don’t have traditional classes in MAG. We follow more of a loose system of skills, which the player can mix and match as he sees fit. If you spend most of your skill points in demolitions, we will identify you as a demo expert, but that’s because you chose those skills, not because you chose that class. This gives players more freedom like one would expect from real soldiers. You could be a recon specialist who cross trains in medical skills, or a heavy weapons expert who is well trained in electronic warfare. It’s up to you to play how you see fit, with certain tradeoffs of course…

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Hands on Preview

Joystiq has done a hands-on impression of MAG. It includes a video trailer.

Speaking of lone wolf players, the game will allow you to run off and do whatever you want and won't punish you for it. But players who stick close with their squads and platoons will find they get a bevy of bonuses, including things like faster reload times, the ability to run faster, or maybe increased accuracy. In-game, this was a fantastic way to make you want to stay with your squad, since the benefits are quite tangible (though not powerful enough to threaten the balance).

It should come as no surprise to fans of Zipper's SOCOM series to learn that the company is serious about its military games -- in fact, many of the developers at the studio came from the military, where they'd work on sims used to train soldiers. That sort of experience permeates all aspects of the game. Though set twenty years in the future, the game is still grounded in realism (if a slightly exaggerated realism -- still gotta have fun!). The guns look and feel fantastic, packing the right amount of punch and the battlefield itself feels chaotic and dangerous. Forget SOCOM: Confrontation -- this is the next-gen SOCOM, only taken to a whole new level.

Much more info on this is available via the link above. Joystiq seems to really like MAG, so far.

Also, here is the architecture interview on Gametrailers.

 

[Acert93]

That is a very pleasant and exciting preview from Joystick! It makes me want to play the game and see if they can address the concerns of naysayers.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

That is a very pleasant and exciting preview from Joystick! It makes me want to play the game and see if they can address the concerns of naysayers.

This impression of MAG comes from your neck of the woods. It talks a little bit about how they are achieving such a large number of players online smoothly. Also, the writer mentions his visual impression, etc in a few posts at the bottom of the article.

Their goal is at least 30 FPS of online data at all times under most high speed network connections and they have been hitting it. They have multiple server farms around the world with dedicated servers with help from Sony on the PlayStation Network. The secret to MAGs online mastery is that it is based on all server to client interaction with absolutely no peer to peer data that can cause bottle necks and lag from losers. This makes your online data frame rate based on your personal connection to the PlayStation Network. So if some dork in your squad wants to play MAG and his roommate is downloading Pr0n over Bittorrent on the same router it is not going to affect your game one bit. In fact it will help you since he will have a crappy laggy response while experience will be silky smooth...

...The lighting shading may look like iffy on pause but it is very convincing and fluid on a real PS3. It is not going to be out until Novemberish but it currently looks damn good in person. Plays great.

Other impressions:

G4TV: "The battle we played in was lag-free, and, although I can’t say for sure, seemed to live up to Zipper’s stated goal of at least 30 FPS – at no point did game play feel stuttery, disjointed or interrupted. It was smooth. Of course, we were playing the game under optimum conditions – in Zipper’s studio and with only half of the player cap."

Destructoid

Gamespot (8min video interview, too)

1UP

IGN

 

[Scott_Arm]

Sounds cool. Definitely high on my radar. I'd still like to see impressions of a full 256 player match to see how it works

 

[Mobius1aic]

Looks like a more arcadey BF2. Funny how in the these console games, the devs try to control player spawning as to prevent overcrowding, but it doesn't seem to work out too well..........why not just let the people spawn and let the battle work itself out? Worked well for Call of Duty 1 and 2, especially on larger maps. And while yes, BF2 does have control spawn points and squads, you're not forced to choose one or the other, (hell you don't have to be in a squad unless those who run the server demand it).

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Looks like a more arcadey BF2. Funny how in the these console games, the devs try to control player spawning as to prevent overcrowding, but it doesn't seem to work out too well..........why not just let the people spawn and let the battle work itself out? Worked well for Call of Duty 1 and 2, especially on larger maps. And while yes, BF2 does have control spawn points and squads, you're not forced to choose one or the other, (hell you don't have to be in a squad unless those who run the server demand it).

Im sure this has more to do with preventing spawn killing than overcrowding.

Overcrowding is rarely a problem in console games, but many many people complain about spawn killing. (It might be overcrowding in this game thought, 256 players is a lot)

I would prefer them not do anything to prevent spawnkilling, and let the battles play out by themselves, only noobs has problems with spawnkillers. (Please, dont post here saying that your not a noob and spawnkilling is a problem - then your simply a noob in denial.)

 

[obonicus]

I would prefer them not do anything to prevent spawnkilling, and let the battles play out by themselves, only noobs has problems with spawnkillers. (Please, dont post here saying that your not a noob and spawnkilling is a problem - then your simply a noob in denial.)

I don't know, good players can get around spawnkill protection and shutdown an enemy team anyway.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, it depends on the game, but it's certainly possible to hem in a team in some games no matter how good they are and subject them to 20 minutes of misery. If you're going to allow spawn killing, you're going to need suitable get-out opportunities for the noobs to learn, such as 'don't spawn back there again then, stupid. Pick a different spawn point' Also if its allowed, maje sure the noobs aren't subjected to it until they've experienced fun games, and appreciate there'll be a way out. Any game that rejects the needs of noobs should fail on account of not wanting to attract a large audience! Make sure matchmaking puts like-skilled people into the same game, and then everyone can be kept happy.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Make sure matchmaking puts like-skilled people into the same game, and then everyone can be kept happy.

This is harder said than done, i have never seen a matchmaking system that actually does this effectively.

Most matchmaking stuff i see, generally try to match players by some obscure ranking system or by xp rank (most popular).

Xp rank matching doesn't work at all, because there is no relation to skill and your xp rank. Sure, higher xp means youve played more, but play time is barely correlated with skill.

I guess a matching system that would put people with similar K\D*Kills per minute brackets may work. Atleast K\D and kills per minute is far more explanatory variables for skill then playtime is..

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Yes, it depends on the game, but it's certainly possible to hem in a team in some games no matter how good they are and subject them to 20 minutes of misery.

What games would this be? I have never played a FPS game where one team can subject the other to 20 minutes of misery without being better than the other team.

Tbh, i have never played a fps game where i have had any problems with handling spawn-camping at all.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What games would this be? I have never played a FPS game where one team can subject the other to 20 minutes of misery without being better than the other team.

I'm thinking Warhawk here, which isn't an FPS but has the same issue. Some maps have you start in a corner, and if the enemy press you in, there's absolutely no way out and it's a kill fest. It doesn't matter how good you are, you can get penned in. Much depends on how good your team is at the start in securing key spawn points and maintaining air superiority long enough (dependent entirely on chance who you get on your time) to ground the opposition. This is quite different to FPSes without aircover though, but then you never said FPSes

I seriously disagree with the idea that the better team should be 'allowed' to pen the other team in for long durations though. The game should be fun for whoever plays it, not for whoever is best at it. Even noobs should find opportunities to feel success. Getting killed over and over again without the chance to do anything is no fun for anyone, so why have it as an option? The only reason is as a 'reward' for a stronger team for those people who think shooting fish in a barrel is a fun pasttime, but personally in Warhawk I'd always give people a chance to escape and try to make a difference because how know how pissed they get when they can't do anything. Now if the other team are strong and you've fought brilliantly to push them back and pen them in, that's different, although 20 minutes of murder is overkill IMO.

Let em ask, if you were playing a game and got penned in and there was no way out, would you be comfortable to keep spawning and getting killed for 20 minutes? You say there's always a way out, which is a necessary design requirement to circumvent this problem. I would say that tthese ways out shouldn't be so cryptic that only a few seasoned players know them, instead that everyone has a chance. KZ2's many routes are good for this. Bad for me knowing where the heck I'm going, but good for avoiding hopeless situations

 

[Delta9]

I'm thinking Warhawk here, which isn't an FPS but has the same issue. Some maps have you start in a corner, and if the enemy press you in, there's absolutely no way out and it's a kill fest. It doesn't matter how good you are, you can get penned in. Much depends on how good your team is at the start in securing key spawn points and maintaining air superiority long enough (dependent entirely on chance who you get on your time) to ground the opposition. This is quite different to FPSes without aircover though, but then you never said FPSes

R1 can be like that in breach mode but I found it to be awesome having a 40 man team at the door of the enemy base

Here is a interview talking about all the ways you can spawn.

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/6...-Game-Design-Meets-Massive-Player-Counts.html