MAG

[theCMNDER]

While i think im being finicky with the scale inscrease=/=tactics increse thing ive got to say i disagree with you on 2 counts.

1) I might see where your coming from but i dont see how the ability of a team to lose a player or two means a game is more tactical - surely that carelessness shows a lack of importance, and therefor tactical value. In, say a 8v8, "every unit counts".

2) I dont think MAG will attract all the COD fans, or is even looking at that audience - COD has focused battles and thats what makes it so damn good, that wont really carry over to a 256 player game. If COD was single player only then i could understand but that game is played for the multiplayer and that is leaps and bounds in a different direction to MAG. One thing that is very evident in the game industry is that when scale goes up detail goes down, it has to technically, so MAG will not be able to capture this 'gritty realism' IMO. Instead MAG is aiming for the BF players, which you may aswell have said with that last line.

I will agree that maybe my idea that it wants to get CoD4 players was a bit far-fetched, it is definitely more aimed at BF2 players. But I can't see CoD4 being more tactical than what I imagine MAG will be, especially not any of the CoD4 matches i get joined to anyway. ^^
I think maybe I should have chosen my words better, MAG has a greater capacity for tactics than CoD4 does, I think that's what I was trying to get at. Also when I said about 1 man meaning less so it is more tactical, I wasn't thinking of when they die, I was thinking more about the very good players. Being an amazing FPS player matters less when there are 128 enemies, and the way you play and your tactics matter more.

EDIT: sorry for double post!

 

[WolfLordAndy]

MAG is NOT an MMOFPS, it is merely an FPS with a HUGE player count. 256 in one match at one time.

Doesn't MMO Stand for Massively Multiplayer Online? So isn't it a MMOFPS?

and

MAG is NOT an MMOFPS, it is merely an FPS with a HUGE player count. 256 in one match at one time.

You better change the Wikipedia article then.

I ment it's not an MMO in the way people normally think of them, as it seemed a few people above my post were taking it in a World of Warcraft MMO way. But you are absolutely right it is technically an MMO because it is massive and multiplayer and online.

Yes and no. While MMO stands for that, the general definition given to it is that it requires a persistant world, like Planetside had. Its more just big matches rather then a classical MMO.

Its sad that its coming out for PS3 tho, as what I've found from playing online on consuls is its all about the kills and stuff, and while certain servers on PC are like that, you can pick and choose ones from differnet places that have a more or less mature audience that you seek, thus "forcing" you to play as a team. I know my clan's BF2 server always had good tactics going thanks to the group of regular players and clans that used it.

I truely hope the game is a success however as it could breath life into the halfdead genre, and make SOE think again about bringing out Planetside 2. (Or atleast MAG for PC)

 

[SinisterDeath]

The way they explained it at E3, and that other expo, was that its 128 vs 128, split up into 16 squads of 8. With each of the 16 squads doing different things from recon, attacking points, defending, ect. Escentially the way they explained it. There are 256 people on the map, but you won't be seeing all 256 people all at the same time. Instead its more likely that you'll have 1 squad vs 1 squad. And from what I also understand the 'commander' over it all, is an AI, who assigns duty's to all 16 teams every time an objecstive is complete. Similar to the R2 skirmish multiplayer. And if you complete said objectives (or at least attempt them) you gain more 'experience/points/whatever' to go up in rank.

 

[Avida]

I will agree that maybe my idea that it wants to get CoD4 players was a bit far-fetched, it is definitely more aimed at BF2 players. But I can't see CoD4 being more tactical than what I imagine MAG will be, especially not any of the CoD4 matches i get joined to anyway. ^^
I think maybe I should have chosen my words better, MAG has a greater capacity for tactics than CoD4 does, I think that's what I was trying to get at. Also when I said about 1 man meaning less so it is more tactical, I wasn't thinking of when they die, I was thinking more about the very good players. Being an amazing FPS player matters less when there are 128 enemies, and the way you play and your tactics matter more.

EDIT: sorry for double post!

Yeah that makes much more sense.. not sure what else to say here... err...

*leaves*

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

You also have to take into consideration map design, since the maps would have to be huge. Unless they work REALLY hard to make some nice enviroments, it will just look like BF2 outdoor wilderness maps, which just slap hills and open spaces with little cover and generic buildings.

 

[DirkGently]

Unless of course the PSN maintains it's current level of mic-usage and it's maybe a dozen or so people per teams with mics, giving orders and trying to keep everyone working together while the people without mics don't really listen because you can't hear anyone through the TV. Or they turn down the TV so they don't have to listen to the voices coming through the TV.

Yes, I know this isn't exactly accurate.

I have a MIC and a PS3 and I think this is pretty accurate, I hardly ever have the VOIP turned up. Don't sell yourself short - when you're right, you're right.

Hopefully they'll be loads of block functions - Can't join server because 1 of the 255 people is on your blocklist. Boo.

Still, I hope it's done well so I'll it.

I was just saying that because I have found games where people do have mics and do talk, but they aren't exactly common matches. I still don't get why the PS3 doesn't come with a mic.

Uh, thank you, I guess. I wish it had been for something witty I had said, but whatever.

Well I like to say hilarious/retarded things to my friends and inject my tabletop gaming with bizarre phrases. Oh there WILL be an NPC in my D&D campaign that requests the heroes "bring the rape" to something.

While it's good to know that I'll have legacy, I just wish it was a bit more sophisticated than "bring the rape".

 

[Zersy]

Is anyone like me getting excited about this game? I think it has a really neat idea when it comes to shooters. It'll HOPEFULLY make shooters much more strategic and less full of X kills/X deaths ratio we deal with in CoD4 and other games. I just hope they pull off the game right, not making it some sub-par shooter with online capabilities.

well i have no idea whats it going to be like

cause think about it

1.its a shooter meaning that your Gun is the most inportant thing

2.256 players i'm still trying to figure out how the hell are you going to do that

3. again that insanely large number creates so many new factors like maps classes vehicles and so on

4. i have a PS3

5. when they first announced it i was hyped

6. now i'm going to do what i always do before bying a game and thats wait till the reveiw

7. although i still think that 256 players is KICK ASS AWESOME

 

[MrGFunk]

Unless of course the PSN maintains it's current level of mic-usage and it's maybe a dozen or so people per teams with mics, giving orders and trying to keep everyone working together while the people without mics don't really listen because you can't hear anyone through the TV. Or they turn down the TV so they don't have to listen to the voices coming through the TV.

Yes, I know this isn't exactly accurate.

I have a MIC and a PS3 and I think this is pretty accurate, I hardly ever have the VOIP turned up. Don't sell yourself short - when you're right, you're right.

Hopefully they'll be loads of block functions - Can't join server because 1 of the 255 people is on your blocklist. Boo.

Still, I hope it's done well so I'll it.

I was just saying that because I have found games where people do have mics and do talk, but they aren't exactly common matches. I still don't get why the PS3 doesn't come with a mic.

I was agreeing with it because I have a MIC for the PS3 and I barely use it. Maybe because i'm not used to it or I don't really have a game where it's a appropriate. Also, when I have tried to use it, my friends don't have one which means I talking at them. Which is a horrible feeling.

e.g.Burnout Paradise
If you want to do a challenge reverse.
Player reverses.
Okay, lets do some challenges
Lame.

I agree the Headset should be standard because people don't automatically buy one. They should, but they don't.

 

[TheMatt]

Is it bad that I opened up this forum fully expecting to be discussing Mag'Theridon?

Thank god I quit WoW.

 

[Merciless.Fire]

I dont believe the 256 players in a game because it is crazy and imagine all the kids singing over the mics. *crawls into a corner and rocks gently back and forth sobbing*

I don't think you'll actually see 256 players on the map, nor hear them. The reason it'll be broken down to 8v8 squad based fights is to split it up and not have a massive slosh of spraying bullets.

 

[Merciless.Fire]

Is it bad that I opened up this forum fully expecting to be discussing Mag'Theridon?

Thank god I quit WoW.

Yes it is bad you thought that. Shame on you.

 

[DirkGently]

Unless of course the PSN maintains it's current level of mic-usage and it's maybe a dozen or so people per teams with mics, giving orders and trying to keep everyone working together while the people without mics don't really listen because you can't hear anyone through the TV. Or they turn down the TV so they don't have to listen to the voices coming through the TV.

Yes, I know this isn't exactly accurate.

I have a MIC and a PS3 and I think this is pretty accurate, I hardly ever have the VOIP turned up. Don't sell yourself short - when you're right, you're right.

Hopefully they'll be loads of block functions - Can't join server because 1 of the 255 people is on your blocklist. Boo.

Still, I hope it's done well so I'll it.

I was just saying that because I have found games where people do have mics and do talk, but they aren't exactly common matches. I still don't get why the PS3 doesn't come with a mic.

I was agreeing with it because I have a MIC for the PS3 and I barely use it. Maybe because i'm not used to it or I don't really have a game where it's a appropriate. Also, when I have tried to use it, my friends don't have one which means I talking at them. Which is a horrible feeling.

e.g.Burnout Paradise
If you want to do a challenge reverse.
Player reverses.
Okay, lets do some challenges
Lame.

I agree the Headset should be standard because people don't automatically buy one. They should, but they don't.

God, that's horrible. I remember when my friend's mic broke and we had to communicate via him writing things on the walls in bullets, which shortly developed into Morse Code, which was pretty darn funny. But we eventualyl got fed up with that ended up trying to communicate in AIM and XBL, and it still didn't work well. He eventually found a cellphone hands free thing; it's the same plug as an XBL wired headset, and you've probably got one lying around your hosue. Don't ask me why Sony didn't think to include that in their controllers.

 

[Valiance]

Its not like tactics just pop out of the ground when the player count goes up - some new options are available, but some old ones are not, its simply a matter of scale.

Now thats out of the way, MAG worries me, ive never been a fan of larger scale battles in FPSs as they always tend to lead to more screwed/easy kill situations, moreover im worried about connects and hit detection because while SOCOM 2 was possibly one of my favorite games of all time the aforementioned issues were HUGE and the sequel only got worse. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMun4dcQPE]

Good point, you express my own skepticism of MAG. It is a great concept that, if it works, could make for a great game...But I can't help but feel that it won't work out. I've seen so many shooters on consoles with higher numbers of players that, even with dedicated servers, were completely unplayable. I'm looking at you, Frontlines. I rented it within the first week and the lag and hit detection was so awful that the online was unplayable. I don't know if they ever fixed it, never revisited the game.

But, even if it doesn't work well and they manage to fix it, you get SOCOM: Confrontation syndrome: It is a pure multiplayer game and, because the online was so terribly unstable for the first several weeks, you just bought a $60 paperweight.

...And, sadly, I must admit that scale =/= more widespread use of tactics. Sadly, 98% of gamers just do not like working together, and rather go off on their own for their own score's sake. The ideas like the command system and tactical squads in MAG will force the use of teamwork and tactics IN THEORY, but in practice, this rarely works. Look at Battlefield 2. It uses a less advanced and complicated version of the command system, but all the Battlefield players still just go off on their own to boost their rank and stats. Because of this, tactical and teamwork-based shooters often fail...Because gamers are too wrapped up in their own little world to worry about other gamers, or indeed even the concept of actually winning the match, because that matters little if they are still able to get a good K/D ratio and enough experience to rank up and unlock that shiny new M82.

Those who DO try to get everyone to work together do it through yelling and cursing like "FAGGOTS!!! GO CAPTURE ALPHA OR WE WILL FUCKING LOSE YOU FUCKING USELESS ****** FUCKERS!!!" which makes the rest of the team cooperate even less just to piss Mr. I-Take-Things-Too-Seriously off. On the other side of the fence, I could imagine your team leader giving orders and some screaming 13 year old yelling things like "FUCK YOU! I don't need to listen to you!" and run off on his own to get quickly mowed down by an MG emplacement.

So, while I think MAG has some awesome ideas...I must sadly admit that most of them probably won't work out like they were meant to because gamers have this obsessive fear of working together. We can talk about game design ideas that supposedly force teamwork until Jesus Christ comes to take us all away, but gamers will always find a way to work around this and play only to boost their own rank and stats.

This post sums up why this game will be terrible.

However, I get the feeling that if people had a leader they really thought was capable and intelligent, they might actually rally behind him. But then again, I doubt you'll find a good commander and good squad leader..Let alone eight of them.

But that's the optimist in me, hoping that it does well. In reality, I know it will fail.

 

[Merciless.Fire]

I dont believe the 256 players in a game because it is crazy and imagine all the kids singing over the mics. *crawls into a corner and rocks gently back and forth sobbing*

I don't think you'll actually see 256 players on the map, nor hear them. The reason it'll be broken down to 8v8 squad based fights is to split it up and not have a massive slosh of spraying bullets.

Thats not how its actually supposed to work. Suppoisedly, the Squads will be given their own objectives, like destroy the supply road, rig the wall, capture the base, etcetera, so that each can have their effects felt across the map.

I know, that's what I meant.

 

[Merciless.Fire]

I dont believe the 256 players in a game because it is crazy and imagine all the kids singing over the mics. *crawls into a corner and rocks gently back and forth sobbing*

I don't think you'll actually see 256 players on the map, nor hear them. The reason it'll be broken down to 8v8 squad based fights is to split it up and not have a massive slosh of spraying bullets.

Thats not how its actually supposed to work. Suppoisedly, the Squads will be given their own objectives, like destroy the supply road, rig the wall, capture the base, etcetera, so that each can have their effects felt across the map.

I know, that's what I meant.

Fair enough, I thought you were saying it would be skirmish warfare.

I wouldn't rule it out, there's going to have to be some different game modes inside the fight. Destroy opposing squad to gain control of point B, meaning armor support, something along those lines, or modify it: Gain control of point B and hold until armor support arrives, that sort of thing.

Makes me all tingly thinking about it.

 

[sneakypenguin]

O dear having seen no gameplay I can only speculate, but I have a feeling this wont end well. With that many people on one map your going to get WTF deaths from snipers you can't see or vehicles that blow you up. If the 8v8 squad element is going to be the main thing then really whats the point of having 256 on a map? Also you will never get even half of the 128 on your team to listen/co-op/follow a strategy etc. I assume combat will have to be pretty slow, and the graphics pretty plain to handle that many people in one area. It seems like a good idea but I feel it will end up a laggy slow buggy mess.

 

[slipknot4]

Since there is no story in the game there is no reason to give it a creative name, giving it a name that is game play related would be retarded... "Flooded ******* Battlefield"

 

[Sarcastic Chimp]

Unless of course the PSN maintains it's current level of mic-usage and it's maybe a dozen or so people per teams with mics, giving orders and trying to keep everyone working together while the people without mics don't really listen because you can't hear anyone through the TV. Or they turn down the TV so they don't have to listen to the voices coming through the TV.

Yes, I know this isn't exactly accurate.

I have a MIC and a PS3 and I think this is pretty accurate, I hardly ever have the VOIP turned up. Don't sell yourself short - when you're right, you're right.

Hopefully they'll be loads of block functions - Can't join server because 1 of the 255 people is on your blocklist. Boo.

Still, I hope it's done well so I'll it.

I was just saying that because I have found games where people do have mics and do talk, but they aren't exactly common matches. I still don't get why the PS3 doesn't come with a mic.

Uh, thank you, I guess. I wish it had been for something witty I had said, but whatever.

Well I like to say hilarious/retarded things to my friends and inject my tabletop gaming with bizarre phrases. Oh there WILL be an NPC in my D&D campaign that requests the heroes "bring the rape" to something.

While it's good to know that I'll have legacy, I just wish it was a bit more sophisticated than "bring the rape".

How about: "Bring the sex that one of the participents hasn't agreed to"?

 

[SilentHunter7]

*casts Life2 on thread*

I've read a preview in Game Informer about this game, and I must say, if it goes weel, I'm going to be REAL tempted to go out and get a PS3.

The way the developers handled the massive amount of players is they took a page from the US Armed Forces (The resident expert on "making order out of complete chaos", as GI put it), and set up an actual chain of command. There will one Supreme Commander who commands up to 4 platoon leaders, who control up to 4 squad leaders, who lead 2 8-man teams. The Supreme Commander designates objectives to the platoon leaders, who manipulate their squads into getting the job done. Basically the higher echelons play out like an RTS.

Each player in a leadership position gets their own togglable private connections to their subordinates, superiors, and fellow officers so that they don't send other players information that is useless to them.

This game seems like an assload of fun. The only thing that can cock it up is how leadership roles are selected. Putting a jackass in there can potentially kill the whole team.

Personally, I think they should have a copy Sun Tsu's The Art of War, as a special edition bonus

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

MAG stands for Massive Action Game, a PS3-exclusive MMOFPS that will use a new server technology to include up to 256 players in online matches. Also, it's by the people who made SOCOM, I think. That's about all I know.

MMOFPS? Why not.

256 players in online matches? Uhm.....Well good luck whit that SOCOM dudes.

The SOCOM dudes hes talking about are the ones who did the real games Zipper Entertainment, not Slant Six that did Confrontation.

I'm kinda iffy about this game because some people won't want to work in a group, they will just want to do whatever. That is what is known as the cluster fuck syndrome.