MAG Catch-All.

Pages

At the Suggestion of 1dgaf I have scrapped the original post text and moved it down to my first response in this thread. I'm now going to use the OP to be a description of Monday Night MAG and link to some valuable resources brought up by the community.

Monday Night MAG

Our weekly MAG game night is currently scheduled for 8PM Central Standard Time (9PM EST) on Monday night. All that is required to join is a current SVER character, and to be in the GWJ clan or my XMB friends list. If you would like an invite to either of those please post in this thread.

At approximately 7:50PM CST I'll start organizing online players into groups and will attempt to launch the first game of the night at 8:10PM. If you join late send me a message and I'll let you know how long until the current game ends and will try to place you in a group before the next game starts.

Resources
There are a lot of cool resources out there to help you get the most out of the game. I'll post a list of those found by folks in this thread here and I'll try to update it as new resources become available.

MAG wiki - A growing group of articles about various aspects of the game. Of particular value is this list of rules for new players.

MAG Game Tools - a solid set of tools if you want to toy with loadouts or skill tree options without actually having to respec. Also the trophies list gives a pretty good idea of what not to do.


MAG Developer Tips
- A series of US PlayStation Blog posts with solid tips straight from the game's developers.

AmazingZoidberg wrote:

Certainly there are very real concerns that need to be addressed. It doesn't look jaw dropping.

Really? I think it looks okay.

Also the experience will only be as good as it's servers.

I think a more important thing will be how the game deals with griefers especially considering you have (the last time i looked) a command structure and squads will spawn on their leader.

I don't have a PS3 so i'm not really bothered about the game but if it brings anything like a decent scaled down, modern day version of pre-expansion Planetside then it should be awesome.

I'm with you on the skirmish mode of Resistance 2. I really like having changing objectives over the course of the match. It helps cut down on repetition and keeps the match interesting. Even Killzone 2 is fun with the random rotation of gameplay types over the course of the match. The other thing Resistance 2 does really well is it focuses your squad to specific areas against another squad so you are always in the action; I think that is the thing it does best.

If the whole command structure works out on this I think it could be pretty cool. Also curious if the map is going to dynamically scale based on the number of players. A huge map would be cool with a full group of 256 but what happens when you are well under that? Having all of those objectives are cool but if there's not a way to force (or at least strongly encourage) specific squads to go after/defend different objectives the whole thing could feel a little pointless.

Color me interested though. I think it has the potential to be pretty cool if it all comes together.

I'm pretty generous about giving points for ambition or being intriguing, so I'm going to check out MAG regardless of how it turns out, even though I'm not particularly great at this sort of thing. This game may or may not make the system work, but eventually, some game will. It'll be cool to be able to say "Well, back in the day..."

Dreaded Gazebo wrote:

A huge map would be cool with a full group of 256 but what happens when you are well under that?

interview[/url]]
When a 256 game starts, we queue people up and you won’t be stuck in a lobby with a list of names (you can tool around in the UI, work on your character etc.). when enough players have signed on to that game (we have a % for each gametype) the game will launch. Jason, our guru of all things complicated, is working on a system to make this as painless as possible.

AmazingZoidberg wrote:

As for spawns, it seems like squads spawn on the most forward spawn point their side has captured not on leaders.

Ah, seems like they possibly changed this. I read an EDGE article where the designers stated that to keep squads together they would spawn in or near their squad leaders. The interview i linked above only mentions the spawning of squads... but what happens when one player from a squad is killed in an engagement and the rest live on? Do they get transferred to a different squad? What happens to the old squad, do they get weaker and weaker as time goes on until they're all dead and what happens if the commander dies?

Seems like there's some information missing here.

It looks nifty, but man is that horribly dumb name ever distracting.

Duoae wrote:

Also the experience will only be as good as it's servers. in.

I'd say the game will only be as good as the servers and how many asshats there are running around being dumb.

Duoae wrote:

Ah, seems like they possibly changed this. I read an EDGE article where the designers stated that to keep squads together they would spawn in or near their squad leaders. The interview i linked above only mentions the spawning of squads... but what happens when one player from a squad is killed in an engagement and the rest live on? Do they get transferred to a different squad? What happens to the old squad, do they get weaker and weaker as time goes on until they're all dead and what happens if the commander dies?

Seems like there's some information missing here.

Watch the E3 live demo video. They explain how the whole thing is going (supposed) to work. It sounds rather well thought out and if it works I think this game will be excellent.

Duoae wrote:

Questions about squad management

All I have to go on is the two videos I linked to, I did not read the EDGE interview. In the second video it looked as if spawns would occur at predetermined spawn points, possibly based on proximity to your squad. But the guy playing was also playing as a squad or platoon leader, so that may simply be the rules as they apply to leaders. Low level grunts might spawn differently.

Well, the first wave of beta invites went out tonight. Anybody get lucky? If you're in the beta any chance you'll be able to talk about the experiences without breaking an NDA?

I'm in but there's been some issues with downloading. I'm hoping to be able to play a bit tonight.

I'll do my best to relate experiences without violating the NDA which I, of course, didn't even read. I'll have to reread it and find out just how vague I can be.

I got in the beta as well, will be downloading tonight. Play is limited to specific times, though, so I don't know how much time I'll have to check it out. As for the NDA, I guess I usually don't worry about it too much If they want to kick me out for posting a few impressions on a forum so be it. Mostly they just don't want people getting stuff to the press and having articles published based on uncontrolled beta impressions.

Besides the stupid name, I don't understand the hate. Planetside was a FPS MMO and it was a blast during its heyday. People (not people here) seem quick to dismiss and write off MAG as a gimmick. I think it's the horrible name.

I'm anticipating the game, but I'm done with betas. I got in the Fat Princess beta and then never played it. I got in the LBP beta and played it once. This time, I didn't even try.

I'll just wait until the game comes out, buy it, and play it.

Any word on whether they are going to offer a PSN version? I bought SOCOM on disk and regretted it ever since, although I do like the headset.

TheCounselor wrote:

Any word on whether they are going to offer a PSN version? I bought SOCOM on disk and regretted it ever since, although I do like the headset.

I don't have SOCOM at all, but was intrigued by your statement of disc vs. PSN. I'll admit, I've found myself flopped in the chair, controller in hand thinking "what to play" then ending up playing either downloaded content or whatever happened to be in the drive since I was too lazy to get up and change the disc. Is that the reason or is it also due to better (shorter) load times and smoothness overall for the game?

I personally still have some reservations about no disc, but that bends and changes depending on the price - that is, if the digital only version is priced what I feel is a fairly set lower price, I may buy that over the physical copy. Generally, we've gotta be a decent amount lower though, not just $5.00. However I haven't looked at any prices for PSN versions vs physical media on PS3 games.

Cymbrogi wrote:
TheCounselor wrote:

Any word on whether they are going to offer a PSN version? I bought SOCOM on disk and regretted it ever since, although I do like the headset.

I don't have SOCOM at all, but was intrigued by your statement of disc vs. PSN. I'll admit, I've found myself flopped in the chair, controller in hand thinking "what to play" then ending up playing either downloaded content or whatever happened to be in the drive since I was too lazy to get up and change the disc. Is that the reason or is it also due to better (shorter) load times and smoothness overall for the game?

I personally still have some reservations about no disc, but that bends and changes depending on the price - that is, if the digital only version is priced what I feel is a fairly set lower price, I may buy that over the physical copy. Generally, we've gotta be a decent amount lower though, not just $5.00. However I haven't looked at any prices for PSN versions vs physical media on PS3 games.

In the past I believe they were $10 cheaper. I know Warhawk was $10 or $20 cheaper, but the boxed copy came with a headset. I do buy Steam games frequently at full box price, but that's because I like how steam operates. PSN would have to incentivise me.

Cymbrogi wrote:
TheCounselor wrote:

Any word on whether they are going to offer a PSN version? I bought SOCOM on disk and regretted it ever since, although I do like the headset.

I don't have SOCOM at all, but was intrigued by your statement of disc vs. PSN. I'll admit, I've found myself flopped in the chair, controller in hand thinking "what to play" then ending up playing either downloaded content or whatever happened to be in the drive since I was too lazy to get up and change the disc. Is that the reason or is it also due to better (shorter) load times and smoothness overall for the game?

I personally still have some reservations about no disc, but that bends and changes depending on the price - that is, if the digital only version is priced what I feel is a fairly set lower price, I may buy that over the physical copy. Generally, we've gotta be a decent amount lower though, not just $5.00. However I haven't looked at any prices for PSN versions vs physical media on PS3 games.

The PSN version has traditionally been the same price as the disk only version. Also, with SOCOM, they made you install the whole game to the HD, but you still needed the disk in the drive to play it.

And it's totally for convenience reasons. It's just easier to be able to jump into a game if you see friends playing if the game is sitting on the HD waiting for me, rather than having to go pull the disk off the shelf and stick it in the drive. Also, I keep most of my games in another room, so that lessens the incentive for me.

Tried the game out for 45 min or so late last night. I wasn't expecting a whole lot but the little bit I played was really a lot of fun. It was a 64v64 match in a CTF style mode. What I liked, though, was how "organic" the whole thing felt. Instead of capturing flags, one team is trying to get into the other team's base and drive away with two armored vehicles. Already I think that is a pretty cool take on the normal CTF game play.

There are a couple of main gates into the base that the attacking team can blow up which gives them easy access in and is probably necessary to get the armored vehicles out. If the gates get blown the defending team can repair them, so that becomes a pretty big choke point. There's also an AA gun in the base which, if the attackers blow up, their commander can start calling in air strikes until the AA gun is repaired.

I really liked those mechanics because they all just kind of "make sense" given the setting. The objectives help focus the action and what you are trying to attack/defend feel more real than just capturing flags or trying to hold generic points on a map.

Like every FPS these days you earn XP which can be spent on upgrades. There were a ton of different upgrades. Some were just new weapons, others were boosts like faster reload times or faster weapon switching. You can equip your guy however you want; there's a point buy system so you can only carry so much gear. Not sure if that value is static or goes up over time.

My only real complaint so far is that you have to get into a queue for a game and apparently wait for enough people to fill it before it kicks off. I'm not sure what the parameters are for that and of course this is the beta but still, sitting around for 5 min waiting for a game to kick off is a bummer. Also, the game is pretty overwhelming when you first jump in. The map is pretty big and there are icons all over the place (at least it feels that way) so it takes awhile to parse through it. Having a good squad leader helps, though, as they will set up objectives for your squad to help focus you on a part of the map. I think good leadership on the team will really make a huge difference. Teamwork certainly seems essential.

I'm planning on spending some more time with it tonight. Really liked the feel and overall flow of the game from the bit I saw.

(Yeah, yeah, NDA, I know. This is all pretty much info we knew already anyway, but if you guys want me to take it down I will.)

Sounds good DG. I finally finished the download last night and was about to hop in but the server was down.

I'll definitely look for you when you're on. Maybe we can take turns starting a squad in different games so we can get the feel of the squad commander controls.

If I get a chance to play, it will probably be weeknights between 8:00pm and 12:30am as I'm on baby duty and that's when I aim to have him asleep in his crib by.

FSeven wrote:

Sounds good DG. I finally finished the download last night and was about to hop in but the server was down.

I'll definitely look for you when you're on. Maybe we can take turns starting a squad in different games so we can get the feel of the squad commander controls.

If I get a chance to play, it will probably be weeknights between 8:00pm and 12:30am as I'm on baby duty and that's when I aim to have him asleep in his crib by.

That's generally when I'll have time to play as well. The play hours are pretty limited, which is a bummer, but I suppose they need to focus people as much as possible to have enough online at a time to make the game work.

Played some more last night and I'm really digging it. I'm pretty bad but still having a lot of fun Finally got to play as the attacker a few times and it was pretty surprising how much of the map I hadn't seen. Even the areas I knew took on a completely different feel as the attacker.

The game also takes a slightly different mindset from other shooters. You might hear the computer voice say "our AA gun has been disabled." In most games your instinct would be to run over there immediately but here you really need to stay focused. Odds are there's another squad already in charge of dealing with that! I think the squad leaders, platoon leaders and the commander have extra chat channels for communicating so I'm guessing that having good leadership and coordination is going to be pretty key.

Leveled up enough to become a squad leader but didn't get selected for the position. Really curious to see how that works out!

Fun stuff though. I can easily see myself sinking a lot of time into it, especially once all the game modes and maps are available.

Dreaded Gazebo wrote:

Like every FPS these days you earn XP which can be spent on upgrades. There were a ton of different upgrades. Some were just new weapons, others were boosts like faster reload times or faster weapon switching. You can equip your guy however you want; there's a point buy system so you can only carry so much gear. Not sure if that value is static or goes up over time.

I really hate XP systems for shooters. It totally discourages a casual player like myself, because it's not bad enough that my skills are generally lacking, but now I also have to deal with all the "upgrades" the 133t players have. How is that going to be fun for me when I'm totally outclassed not only in skill level, but also in equipment? If I don't buy the game on day 1 and play constantly, I'll probably never have a chance to even compete.

If I didn't just get a new car, this title would have been the one to get me on the PS3 bandwagon.

Thanks for the impressions, DG. I'm pretty curious about this one, and it's good to hear that my curiosity may not be misplaced.

syndicatedragon wrote:

I really hate XP systems for shooters. It totally discourages a casual player like myself, because it's not bad enough that my skills are generally lacking, but now I also have to deal with all the "upgrades" the 133t players have. How is that going to be fun for me when I'm totally outclassed not only in skill level, but also in equipment? If I don't buy the game on day 1 and play constantly, I'll probably never have a chance to even compete.

It's a tough balance, I agree. From the little bit I've seen I think that the enhancements aren't necessarily put you way over the edge in terms of advantage. You might get a better scope or new guns but I don't know how much "better" they are. Also, there's a point buy system for your gear and I can only imagine the good stuff costs more, meaning you have less money to equip yourself with other stuff. Finally, with 64-128 players per team, no individual is going to tip the balance. I suppose a low-level player in a game completely full of veterans might be frustrating but I can't comment on that yet.

From what I have seen, though, I will say it seems like MAG is not designed for casual play. It's pretty complex and I don't know that someone casually playing it will really get much out of it.

Dreaded Gazebo wrote:

From what I have seen, though, I will say it seems like MAG is not designed for casual play. It's pretty complex and I don't know that someone casually playing it will really get much out of it.

That's unfortunate, because it sounds really cool. I love tactical, teamplay shooters.

This seems a lot like BF2 on the PC, which is awesome in my book. This game could be the one to get me to plunk down 300 bucks for the PS3. I love the commander/squad based organization and I really hope they pull it off. I'm pulling for the game. Massive online battles sound sound fun to me.

Shoal07 wrote:

Besides the stupid name

And it's not even really the name. "Massive Action Game", as far as I can see, appears nowhere on the official site or the playstation.com page for the game. Not even in the trademark fine-print at the bottom of either, it's only "MAG":

fine print wrote:

MAG is a trademark of Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. ©2008 Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc.

"PlayStation", "PLAYSTATION" and "PS" Family logo are registered trademarks of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.

I can't remember the last time I actually saw something that said "Massive Action Game" on anything official.

Book marked!

Agree with most things DG said.

This game is a teamplay-aholic's wet dream. You will get nowhere going it alone. Squads who work well together will steamroll everyone. This is the kind of game where a leader that acts as a true leader to his squad will dominate. It brings to mind Cap. Winters in Band of Brothers when his superior couldn't believe that he got through Bastogne without firing a single shot. As a Squad Leader in MAG there is so much to keep track of that you can easily focus on directing your squad, tracking your movement on the map, planning your route, and spotting enemies for your teammates while transmitting your orders over voice comm.

To start off with, you have 3 preset loadouts you can customize and choose from at the beginning of the game and during every respawn. I think most people will go with 3 different loadouts judging by the equipment offered. First, there are 3 types of armor; light, medium, and heavy. Then there are 3 types of "main" weapons; assault rifles, sniper rifles, and machine guns. Secondary arms consist of pistols. Extra equipment consists of healing guns, repair guns, and different types of grenades. There are also anti-armor weapons.

That's it for starter weapons. There are more available however they are tied in with the skill system.

For every level you gain, you receive skill points, usable in the skill system. I don't know if gaining levels will be hard in retail, but in one 15 minute match I gained 2 levels.

So the skills are broken down by tiers. Tier 1, Tier 2, etc. And on each tier are "categories". For Assault Rifles there are 3 skills you can unlock which affect the accuracy, stability, and reload speed. Same for machine guns and sniper rifles. Once you gain 1 skill in Tier 1, Tier 2 unlocks and you can put points into Tier 2 skills. As you unlock higher Tiers, not only accuracy/reload/stability skills are available, but you gain access to new and better weapons for that category type as well as category specific stuff (better scopes for sniper rifle category, grenade launchers for assault rifles, etc.). Hope I made that easy to understand.

Aside from the main weapons, there are also categories every tier for sidearms (one of the upgraded tier sidearm weapons is a P90), physical category (upgraded stamina, etc.), covert category (ability to detect enemies at greater range, ability to hide from enemy radar while crouching, etc.), equipment category (personal land mines, etc.) and a few others. There's definitely enough of a diverse selection where you can really customize what equipment you want to have with some proper skill point planning. A player who randomly selects skills every level will be far less effective than someone who really plans out their skill tree. I could be tier 5 but still only have access to tier 1 assault skills because I never put a single point into Assault skills.

So at this point, my recommendation would be for a person to choose exactly what type of character they want to play - sniper, heavy assault, assault, squad leader, support - and focus on spending every skill point on skills that will complement your play style. If you go willy nilly and put a point into sniper rifles, one into machine guns, etc. you won't be very effective.

Also, I think folks who play a support role will be very valuable. I noticed in the category for healing/repairing, I think it was the 2nd or 3rd tier, there was a skill that allowed you to revive players that have been incapacitated (when you lose 100% health you don't die - you lay there and can be revived. If no one is near, you can choose to hit X to "bleed out" and respawn).

MAG seems to have adopted things that have worked well in other games. The radar in CoD4: Modern Warfare for instance. If you are walking around and not firing, you will not show up as a red blip on your enemies radar. The minute you fire an unsuppressed weapon however (another unlockable accessory), you will show up on the enemies radar - however only the enemies within a certain radius of you. If you want to be able to detect enemies at a larger radius, you can unlock a skill for that too.

In fact, there is quite a bit that MAG has in common with COD4 in regards to the unlockables too. Getting to a certain level unlocks your ability to lead a squad. There are medals you can unlock. Weapons, skills, and other equipment.

If I had to compare it to anything, I'd say it's the skill/weapon/unlockable system of CoD4 with the gameplay/fighting/vehicle and mounted gun usability/and large scale server battles of BF2.

All in all a very fun game and I'm eager to get into a game with other GWJers and play in the same squad. I think this game is going to be a prety big hit. It might not have initial success but as word gets around it will. Although if they let everyone who wants to in the public beta, it might easily be a top seller.

By the way, public beta will be September 7th. You can mark it in your books.

FSeven wrote:

If I had to compare it to anything, I'd say it's the skill/weapon/unlockable system of CoD4 with the gameplay/fighting/vehicle and mounted gun usability/and large scale server battles of BF2.

I'm getting really hyped for this game. Time to think about making space for a PS3 in the rack.

Thanks for the thoughts, guys! I'll keep my eye on it! Lots of games coming out this Fall (Uncharted 2, NSMB2, maybe CoD:MW2...) that I'm watching, so I'll probably hit up some MAG action after that. From what I'm seeing, the release date is January 26, 2010. By then, I should be ready for some more action!

Pages