MAG will not Score or Play Well!

Yeah I doubt MAG will be any good at all. The beta just disappointed me completely. Most shooters should give you some sort of satisfaction when you land some kills. This game just felt so weightless with the gameplay that there really wasn't any elements to it that made me feel like it was fun. The visuals are very muddy and choppy, and overall it's not a game that seems like it will look good or play good.

Perhaps I've been spoiled with the Bad Company 2 beta... Now that online was amazing. I even though it was better than Modern Warfare 2's online.

The MAG beta is fun especially ounce you unlock demolition mode at level 10

MAG is great.. i thought the same thing when i first played it because its not a arcade pick up shooter like MW2 where you can run around with dual shotguns and own everyone.. It takes skill and stratregy and its honestly a breath of fresh air. I love the game now and has a much more deeper leveling system than MW2. I predict AA here

Kennysolidsnake

played private beta hated it but open beta= win

Personally I feel there's a fatal flaw in a large number of players like that.

Take something like TF2 for example, which has a maximum of 32 players. While the objectives are very clear you'll quite often find two groups of players. Those trying to acheive the goals, and those playing deathmatch, i.e, standing around not doing anything towards the objective, or to help the team. This is because they feel that "someone else" will take care of it. Now, if you look at that same game with a smaller amount of players you'll see everyone has to pull their weight or face the consequences of slacking off (dying a lot, losing the objectives etc).

Apply this to a game with 256 players (and correct me if I'm wrong but those players are spread across various games?) and you get a lot of people wanting the top score rather than achieving the objective. The best way to combat this is to make the achieving the objective more rewarding, encourage players to go for the objective rather than each other. Encourage players to help each other etc. Granted, I haven't actually played MAG, but it seems as if there's no reason or reward to do anything other than deathmatch.

DigitalExile

Ya know, warhammer 40,000 (yes, I know it's a table top game and not a video game, but games are games) had this same exact problem. it used to be you got points for killing enemies, and points for securing objectives. But it was always easier to just sit there and shoot down the enemy than to risk your neck for an objective. So no one ever grabbed the objective and every game ended up being a giant deathmatch.

So, in the new edition, they just dropped points for causing casualties. The game is now simply decided by who has control of the objective at the end of the time limit. all of a sudden, people stopped camping and now the game is very action packed with units running and flanking all over the place. At first everyone thought that the game would just end up with no one fighting, but it wasn't long before people figured out that dead men can't hold objectives. :P

Imagine an online FPS that didn't reward exp points for killing, but instead for grabbing objectives.

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

Personally I feel there's a fatal flaw in a large number of players like that.

Take something like TF2 for example, which has a maximum of 32 players. While the objectives are very clear you'll quite often find two groups of players. Those trying to acheive the goals, and those playing deathmatch, i.e, standing around not doing anything towards the objective, or to help the team. This is because they feel that "someone else" will take care of it. Now, if you look at that same game with a smaller amount of players you'll see everyone has to pull their weight or face the consequences of slacking off (dying a lot, losing the objectives etc).

Apply this to a game with 256 players (and correct me if I'm wrong but those players are spread across various games?) and you get a lot of people wanting the top score rather than achieving the objective. The best way to combat this is to make the achieving the objective more rewarding, encourage players to go for the objective rather than each other. Encourage players to help each other etc. Granted, I haven't actually played MAG, but it seems as if there's no reason or reward to do anything other than deathmatch.

goblaa

Ya know, warhammer 40,000 (yes, I know it's a table top game and not a video game, but games are games) had this same exact problem. it used to be you got points for killing enemies, and points for securing objectives. But it was always easier to just sit there and shoot down the enemy than to risk your neck for an objective. So no one ever grabbed the objective and every game ended up being a giant deathmatch.

So, in the new edition, they just dropped points for causing casualties. The game is now simply decided by who has control of the objective at the end of the time limit. all of a sudden, people stopped camping and now the game is very action packed with units running and flanking all over the place. At first everyone thought that the game would just end up with no one fighting, but it wasn't long before people figured out that dead men can't hold objectives. :P

Imagine an online FPS that didn't reward exp points for killing, but instead for grabbing objectives.

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

Personally I feel there's a fatal flaw in a large number of players like that.

Take something like TF2 for example, which has a maximum of 32 players. While the objectives are very clear you'll quite often find two groups of players. Those trying to acheive the goals, and those playing deathmatch, i.e, standing around not doing anything towards the objective, or to help the team. This is because they feel that "someone else" will take care of it. Now, if you look at that same game with a smaller amount of players you'll see everyone has to pull their weight or face the consequences of slacking off (dying a lot, losing the objectives etc).

Apply this to a game with 256 players (and correct me if I'm wrong but those players are spread across various games?) and you get a lot of people wanting the top score rather than achieving the objective. The best way to combat this is to make the achieving the objective more rewarding, encourage players to go for the objective rather than each other. Encourage players to help each other etc. Granted, I haven't actually played MAG, but it seems as if there's no reason or reward to do anything other than deathmatch.

II_Seraphim_II

Ya know, warhammer 40,000 (yes, I know it's a table top game and not a video game, but games are games) had this same exact problem. it used to be you got points for killing enemies, and points for securing objectives. But it was always easier to just sit there and shoot down the enemy than to risk your neck for an objective. So no one ever grabbed the objective and every game ended up being a giant deathmatch.

So, in the new edition, they just dropped points for causing casualties. The game is now simply decided by who has control of the objective at the end of the time limit. all of a sudden, people stopped camping and now the game is very action packed with units running and flanking all over the place. At first everyone thought that the game would just end up with no one fighting, but it wasn't long before people figured out that dead men can't hold objectives. :P

Imagine an online FPS that didn't reward exp points for killing, but instead for grabbing objectives.

Then stop giving out exp for kills. Make kills worth nothing. Make only objectives worth exp. You can't grab an objective without killing (you really can't) and you can't get exp without grabbing objectives.

Problem solved.

I liked the beta when i could actually play, but it does need some work. gernade damage mod, damage moding for guns. more guns and unlocks. some of this might be different in the final product. it does read that this does not reprensent the final game in the opening. because 256 player matches in mag feel like the tactical standoffs i had in killzone 2 and even COD can't even get close to that level of epic

a game like this should be really on the pckidcool189

I thought It was pretty fun, but I'd rather play mw2 or kz2 or any other shooter like you said

I cant put my finger on it,but for some reasion im enjoying the beta.

I cant put my finger on it,but for some reasion im enjoying the beta.

finalfantasy94

Heh, I can't even get connected to a game, screw mag.

lemms spend alot of bandwidth hating on MAG. and its really not that bad of a game, it plays alot like COD TBH.InfiniteBlak

Maybe I just logged on at a bad time, but the three times I've attempted the beta it times out so I got sick of it and did something else.

[QUOTE="InfiniteBlak"]lemms spend alot of bandwidth hating on MAG. and its really not that bad of a game, it plays alot like COD TBH.sensfanVone

Maybe I just logged on at a bad time, but the three times I've attempted the beta it times out so I got sick of it and did something else.

[QUOTE="Arctic_Grillz"][QUOTE="racing1750"]I feel like i'm the only one who enjoys the game :(craftieman05

Me three. It's not as good as Killzone 2 or Modern Warfare 2, but I still find a lot of enjoyment in it. Plus, no lag for me, which is very surprising since my internet connection sucks.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

I cant put my finger on it,but for some reasion im enjoying the beta.

racing1750

Yeah, I had my first "MAG Moment" last night. The enemy had taken Objective B (we were defending) and none of my teammates were able to get up there. They either kept chucking grenades up top or got killed trying to breach. One guy covered me as I ran in. I killed all 3 guys up top AND had time to disarm the bomb. Bunch of XP. Sadly, my PS3 froze right after that :(

In all fairness, it had been on playing games for most of a day.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="goblaa"]

Ya know, warhammer 40,000 (yes, I know it's a table top game and not a video game, but games are games) had this same exact problem. it used to be you got points for killing enemies, and points for securing objectives. But it was always easier to just sit there and shoot down the enemy than to risk your neck for an objective. So no one ever grabbed the objective and every game ended up being a giant deathmatch.

So, in the new edition, they just dropped points for causing casualties. The game is now simply decided by who has control of the objective at the end of the time limit. all of a sudden, people stopped camping and now the game is very action packed with units running and flanking all over the place. At first everyone thought that the game would just end up with no one fighting, but it wasn't long before people figured out that dead men can't hold objectives. :P

Imagine an online FPS that didn't reward exp points for killing, but instead for grabbing objectives.

goblaa

Then stop giving out exp for kills. Make kills worth nothing. Make only objectives worth exp. You can't grab an objective without killing (you really can't) and you can't get exp without grabbing objectives.

Problem solved.

You guys DO know that XP is very low for kills in MAG, right? You get more points for completing objectives and you get bonus points for kills if it's defending or attacking an objective. You get 5XP for killing an enemy, but you get an additional 5XP if it's defending an objective. You can get anywhere from 15XP to 30XP for completing an objective. I killed the 3 guys defending a bomb they armed and disarmed it and got 45XP (10XP per kill then 15XP for the objective). It would've taken me 9 regular kills to get that much XP otherwise.

The game really DOES reward focusing on the objective. If you push forward and your squad or teammates pushes with you then you also get Leadership Bonuses.