M.A.G.

[BallPtPenTheif]

Looks interesting, but the command system will be a screw up i recon because people don't care about there squads or support them in my experience, (2142, Bf 2).

just have XP points distributed by the squad leader. if you don't listen to the squad leader, then you don't get XP. then you could have the success or failure of the team determine the XP cap for all team members.

so like if you won, then each member gets an XP cap of 100. from their the squad leader could determine if you get the full 100 or less for not following orders.

if they also implement a peer review system on squad leaders, that would go along way as well. that way if you boot up and log in with a squad with a leader who has a 1 out of 5 rating, then you know he's a douche sack and you can leave before the match starts.

ovbiously my suggestions have no relevance to the game, but my point is that the team dynamics will only work if incentives and penalties are managed well and protected from exploitation.

 

[Bowstring]

Looks interesting, but the command system will be a screw up i recon because people don't care about there squads or support them in my experience, (2142, Bf 2).

just have XP points distributed by the squad leader. if you don't listen to the squad leader, then you don't get XP. then you could have the success or failure of the team determine the XP cap for all team members.

so like if you won, then each member gets an XP cap of 100. from their the squad leader could determine if you get the full 100 or less for not following orders.

if they also implement a peer review system on squad leaders, that would go along way as well. that way if you boot up and log in with a squad with a leader who has a 1 out of 5 rating, then you know he's a douche sack and you can leave before the match starts.

ovbiously my suggestions have no relevance to the game, but my point is that the team dynamics will only work if incentives and penalties are managed well and protected from exploitation.

Human nature gives me the feeling that that system wouldn't work at all. Look at the xbox live feedback system - Constantly abused, just because people can.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

This game won't be a nightmare. The squads of 8 will chat not the whole team. So you will then be able to round the boys together and do what you have to do. Also from my experience if people don't talk they sometimes do a decent job just by doing what the game tells them too. Take ET: QW for example. A lot of people don't chat but even if they don't chat most people will take orders well.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

This really reminds me of Planetside.

Wonder if Sony took some of the developers from that... it was SOE, afterall.

The spiritual successor to Planetside may get me to buy even something as crazy as the Virtual Boy.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Human nature gives me the feeling that that system wouldn't work at all. Look at the xbox live feedback system - Constantly abused, just because people can.

well, i'm not proposing my specific system. my point is simply that via incentives and penalties you can corral the player base into an ideal fashion of gameplay. CoD4 established that FPS players will grind away like they were on WoW even for the dumbest camouflage upgrade.

militaries themselves were created from random people as well, that is how their hiearchy and structure even came into play. so why not give privlidges to higher ranking players? why not have an minimal RTS waypoint function unlock for high ranking squad leaders in order for them to make point based objective locations?

if i was a squad leader and i throw 50XP points at a barrack, my team is going to scramble to that barrack because they want their red colored beretta.

none of this is black magic, its basic game design. you distribute XP/points based upon the desired or intended player performance. Wolfenstien ET, did a very good job of handling team incentives and getting people to work together in that game wasn't hard at all.

 

[Jumplion]

I like your idea PenTheif i really do it sounds awesome, but the system would be abused by people giving their friends all the XP, giving the people that pissed them off no XP even if they did a good job, and so on and so forth.

I mean, Sony and Zipper have to have a plan that would make this thing work, they should know that they would hvae to make people listen to other people somehow.

 

[Dante_Alucard]

Maybe we need an escapist team to get things looking good or something. Like playing online games together instead of like acting like a bunch ofass holes and doing whatever each person wants.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

I like your idea PenTheif i really do it sounds awesome, but the system would be abused by people giving their friends all the XP, giving the people that pissed them off no XP even if they did a good job, and so on and so forth.

yes, my system would be horribly abused. i was just trying to demonstrate how social interactions can be manipulated by incentive based game design. the solution for something like MAG would have to be far more robust and thurough than my rough sketch of an idea.

but basing points on cooperative gameplay and not kills, would be a great start. i mean, in the military, you don't become a captain by killing 50 men.

 

[Quiotu]

A RTS game from a FPS perspective has been done before to an extent. In simpler circumstances, that's what C&C: Renegade was. It wasn't the greatest of single player experiences, but I've yet to see online modes in modern games that required tactics like that one.

Buildings that served a purpose, where losing it would cause a perk to be gone. Medics that could mine, bomb, and heal everything... including vehicles and buildings. Have that on a grand scale, with the potential to bring in reinforcements or raids that can easily sway the battle one way or the other, and I could dig that a lot. Only problem with C&C: Renegade is that once a side started to lose, you pretty much lost. If they brought tactics to the table without it turning the game cheap, I might just start liking multiplayer again.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

I like your idea PenTheif i really do it sounds awesome, but the system would be abused by people giving their friends all the XP, giving the people that pissed them off no XP even if they did a good job, and so on and so forth.

yes, my system would be horribly abused. i was just trying to demonstrate how social interactions can be manipulated by incentive based game design. the solution for something like MAG would have to be far more robust and thurough than my rough sketch of an idea.

but basing points on cooperative gameplay and not kills, would be a great start. i mean, in the military, you don't become a captain by killing 50 men.

In Planetside this didn't occur either, but officers would accrue officer XP as well as player XP. When they have a sufficient officer level they would gain new abilities (air strikes, resources, whatever), plus the group generally followed the officer's orders to get to the killing/objective and get XP for that. Either way the grunts got benefits for following the officers' orders, even if it was indirect.

EDIT: After rereading, I didn't like the tone of what I posted. I agree with you that in game mechanics can fix social gaming problems, just citing out an existing mechanic that was more or less hands off to the issue.

 

[Jumplion]

I dunno about this one. Squad combat is all well and good, but your average gamer isn't one for following order after order dished out by some higher-up. I've always thought multiplayer was more about improvisation- seeing an opportunity and exploiting it before you've even had a chance to think the consequences through properly. Listening to some higher-up bark orders at me sounds to much life real life in the army. I play games to be the hero, not the grunt.

And Indigo, you really should check out RvB. It's not just a fantastic machinima, it's a fantastic comedy full stop.

Your mistake is in thinking that the average Ps3 owner is the same as the average 360 owner. I'm not gonna say they're better, but on the 360, everyone says you here constant annoying vocals that add nothing, as well as clusterfucks. On the Psn, from what I've seen, tactical warfare is common in Team play. Speech is rare, only used when necesary, and players manages to lead by example.

I should note that this kind of behaviour is ONLY on 1st party or exclusive games. On multiplatform games, you bet your sweet ass that there are going to be assholes on no matter what the game.

Though from what i've seen, PS3 owners don't have very good mics (including myself)

 

[Lazy Lemon]

The only way it would work is if you didn't get points for kills, you only got them for working as a team to complete objectives. Personally, I don't see why people feel the need to play for points/to increase their rank, but that's the way it is.

 

[Jumplion]

Holding up PS3 gamers (especially 'exclusive' gamers, Jumplion) as a paragon of tactics and restraint over the general unwashed is just asking for trouble.

Probably should have said "most of the time" instead of "ONLY" but "most of the time" on any multiplatform title i've played on (CoD4 mainly) I always encounter the voice changer idiot atleast once every couple dozen of rounds. They're not to frequent, but when they come OH BOY it's hell.

This is also true with 1st party titles, i'm assuming, but i have yet to actually meet someone on Warhawk or MGO that is truely annoying that isn't due to a bad headset.

Generally i've had good experiences with PSN, unlike with XBL whith my 5th time playing online in XBL when my friends and I were playing a small round of Halo 3 and a random kid said "you suck". We laughed so hard that time, but aside from that one small annoyance, i've had some other weird events on XBL.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I'm sorry Inners, but if you think PS3 owners are somehow more tactical than 360 owners, I fear you are sadly mistaken. Perhaps you've been fortunate in who you've played with and against, but the truth is that in the end both PS3 and 360 gamers are average shmucks like you and me. Some of them are college guys who like a round of multiplayer before they go out, some are kids who can't go 5 seconds without seeing an explosion... whatever platform, they are the same. Holding up PS3 gamers (especially 'exclusive' gamers, Jumplion) as a paragon of tactics and restraint over the general unwashed is just asking for trouble.

And what experience do you have with PS3 gamers? Most have a IQ high enough that'll you only need to lead by example. Seriously it happens A LOT on first party games and occasionally on third party but it still happens fairly often. Not like 360 where all I usually see is everybody for themselves.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I'm sorry Inners, but if you think PS3 owners are somehow more tactical than 360 owners, I fear you are sadly mistaken. Perhaps you've been fortunate in who you've played with and against, but the truth is that in the end both PS3 and 360 gamers are average shmucks like you and me. Some of them are college guys who like a round of multiplayer before they go out, some are kids who can't go 5 seconds without seeing an explosion... whatever platform, they are the same. Holding up PS3 gamers (especially 'exclusive' gamers, Jumplion) as a paragon of tactics and restraint over the general unwashed is just asking for trouble.

And what experience do you have with PS3 gamers? Most have a IQ high enough that'll you only need to lead by example. Seriously it happens A LOT on first party games and occasionally on third party but it still happens fairly often. Not like 360 where all I usually see is everybody for themselves.

As this is the internet, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if you are, thats actually right. We (and by we I mean I) all realise that we'll never manage to win alone, and all just gravitate towards the person who seems to show the best mind for tactics.

Yeah its like a system. Everybody flocks to a leader that doesn't need to run his mouth to get people to do stuff. Read the art of war hell even that guy knows this.

 

[The Wooster]

Both fail in comparison to the all mighty organized PC Team Fortress 2 Team.

On topic. M.A.G stupid name, good looking game.

Throw in mouse and keyboard support and I'll play it.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Both fail in comparison to the all mighty organized PC Team Fortress 2 Team.

On topic. M.A.G stupid name, good looking game.

Throw in mouse and keyboard support and I'll play it.

MAG is a place holder title I believe not the actual title name I believe.

 

[The Wooster]

Both fail in comparison to the all mighty organized PC Team Fortress 2 Team.

On topic. M.A.G stupid name, good looking game.

Throw in mouse and keyboard support and I'll play it.

MAG is a place holder title I believe not the actual title name I believe.

Oh thank god. All we need is a game with a title like that and all will descend into chaos. We'll end up with games like

'Totally awesome shooter 2: The better than halo chronicles'

 

[The Wooster]

Both fail in comparison to the all mighty organized PC Team Fortress 2 Team.

On topic. M.A.G stupid name, good looking game.

Throw in mouse and keyboard support and I'll play it.

Can you think of a more accurate title?

And now imagine what that TF2 would look like without Ventrillo

Ventwhato?

Looks it up. Nah guys get on fine without mics. I've seen some players use the ingame commands to great effect.

 

[The Wooster]

Both fail in comparison to the all mighty organized PC Team Fortress 2 Team.

On topic. M.A.G stupid name, good looking game.

Throw in mouse and keyboard support and I'll play it.

MAG is a place holder title I believe not the actual title name I believe.

Oh thank god. All we need is a game with a title like that and all will descend into chaos. We'll end up with games like

'Totally awesome shooter 2: The better than halo chronicles'

Remember a game called Gun?

Yeah that was pretty bad. Game wasn't too terrible though.