By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - MAG 128 SVER players Meet up for mass destruction

Onyxmeth said:
Reasonable said:
Onyxmeth said:

Did this have to be planned though? For those that own the game, how common is this occurrence? I ask because it's obvious this is what got people excited about the game in the first place, just using this small thread as an example, and it seems the game was purposely designed to avoid this from happening, which I don't get.

It takes a little planning so far as I could see from Beta.  The game aims to encourage splitting forces by objective or role, as did Resistance 2 with 64 players, however so far as I could see there's nothing actually stopping this either, you've just got to make it happen.

Clearly it would be mayhem to have oddles of players in close proximity all the time, but it does make for a nice experience when it plays out correctly - but it doesn't seem sustainable for long periods.

For some reason the annalogy that comes to my mind is the big pie fights in Laurel and Hardy, which would actually be a pretty hilarious mod if this was on PC - 256 gamers engaged in a standup pie fight at the same time.

I think it's clear there was a market for this imaginary version of MAG though, and possibly a larger market. Look at how many people just in this thread saw that video and now want the game. This also is extremely anecdotal, but I frequent Craigslist everyday and I noticed that on my local section there are a lot of copies of MAG being sold for $40-50 used. The only other two games I've seen in the first weeks getting sold back so quickly were Tony Hawk's Ride and DJ Hero. The excuse is always the same that it just wasn't their type of game, which lends me to believe that when people bought a shooter advertised as 256 player battles, they were expecting something far more larger in conflict and hectic than what Zipper created. I think there's a big market out there for a game that does the Saving Private Ryan version of chaotic large scale battles, and some people got duped into thinking MAG was that game. 

I think that's very likely.

Some form of 'beachead' mode and some maps around 128 attacking with 128 defending built around chaotic battles would be welcomed I'm sure.  The maps would likely have less objectives overall and instead focus more on one team steadily pushing back the other to win.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Around the Network

bomb them all at once



Ill pass way to chaotic for me!



Long Live SHIO!

that was actually pretty cool. i hope zipper adds a 128 vs 128 warzone mode, where there's no objective other then killing the opposing team in a team deathmatch skirmish battle with commands WOULDNT THAT BE SWEET???!!!!



almcchesney said:
i joined up with raven, and regret it, its weird SVER is way more organized than the other two factions, allowing stuff like this to happen :P
on Raven i barely ever hear from my platoon leader or squad leader..........

they arent more organize. when it comes to communication and obedience they are like any other faction, it's their maps and gear imbalancement that gives them the upper hand. i seen my bro play a few games as sver and it was no different then playing as raven or valor it just their maps and my bro agreed when i said 'it's the sver maps'.



Around the Network
Onyxmeth said:

Did this have to be planned though? For those that own the game, how common is this occurrence? I ask because it's obvious this is what got people excited about the game in the first place, just using this small thread as an example, and it seems the game was purposely designed to avoid this from happening, which I don't get.

This was planned.  Basically the Officer in Charge of SVER told everyone to meet in one spot when there were 5 minutes left in the game.  Obviously, people listened to him.  I'm not sure if the OIC can speak directly to everyone, or if orders had to filter down from platoon leaders to squad leaders to the soldiers.

The reason the game is designed to avoid something like this is that it's a massive clusterf*ck.  When is the last time you've seen US soldiers bunching up in such close proximity to each other like this?  Hell, I bet this never even happened in WW2, except in the rare circumstance (D-Day where tons of soldiers were working on limited beach space).  You are just asking for a mortar, grenade or artillary round to kill and wound dozens of soldiers by bunching together like this.

The nice thing that this video demonstrates, is that if the soldiers/squad leaders/platoon leaders ARE willing to listen to the OIC, then the OIC has some flexibility in how they approach the battle.  If one squad is struggling to take their objective, he can ask another squad whose "default" attack objective is somewhere else, to help out the struggling squad.  So even though the game defaults to each objective having 2 squads attacking and defending it, an OIC can shift units around at will and to where they are most needed.  During the beta, I can't tell you how many times my squad would take our objectives, and just sit there while every single other objective couldn't get taken (half the time other squads couldn't even secure the burnoff towers).  If we had an OIC giving us commands, he could have told one of our squads to help out another objective.



heaven for the opposing teams snipers :p



bobobologna said:
Onyxmeth said:

Did this have to be planned though? For those that own the game, how common is this occurrence? I ask because it's obvious this is what got people excited about the game in the first place, just using this small thread as an example, and it seems the game was purposely designed to avoid this from happening, which I don't get.

This was planned.  Basically the Officer in Charge of SVER told everyone to meet in one spot when there were 5 minutes left in the game.  Obviously, people listened to him.  I'm not sure if the OIC can speak directly to everyone, or if orders had to filter down from platoon leaders to squad leaders to the soldiers.

The reason the game is designed to avoid something like this is that it's a massive clusterf*ck.  When is the last time you've seen US soldiers bunching up in such close proximity to each other like this?  Hell, I bet this never even happened in WW2, except in the rare circumstance (D-Day where tons of soldiers were working on limited beach space).  You are just asking for a mortar, grenade or artillary round to kill and wound dozens of soldiers by bunching together like this.

The nice thing that this video demonstrates, is that if the soldiers/squad leaders/platoon leaders ARE willing to listen to the OIC, then the OIC has some flexibility in how they approach the battle.  If one squad is struggling to take their objective, he can ask another squad whose "default" attack objective is somewhere else, to help out the struggling squad.  So even though the game defaults to each objective having 2 squads attacking and defending it, an OIC can shift units around at will and to where they are most needed.  During the beta, I can't tell you how many times my squad would take our objectives, and just sit there while every single other objective couldn't get taken (half the time other squads couldn't even secure the burnoff towers).  If we had an OIC giving us commands, he could have told one of our squads to help out another objective.

While it's not necessarily realistic, it does seem to be something people wanted, which is all that matters. I think there was a lot of confusion as to what 256 players entailed, and the finished product wasn't nearly as exciting as the imagination of gamers thinking they would possibly be playing this. I think at the end of the day, designers need to understand that if they create games for themselves, or for small markets, they're only going to get a certain cut of the market in response interested. Just look at the most popular FPS on the PS3, and look at which modes are most popular, Free For All and Team Deathmatch. For the small market that wanted MAG as it is, I'm sure this game is fantastic, but it's obvious there was a holy hell of a lot of folks that thought they were getting something grander in scale. That probably much larger group is not being serviced by MAG at all.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Onyxmeth said:
bobobologna said:
Onyxmeth said:

Did this have to be planned though? For those that own the game, how common is this occurrence? I ask because it's obvious this is what got people excited about the game in the first place, just using this small thread as an example, and it seems the game was purposely designed to avoid this from happening, which I don't get.

This was planned.  Basically the Officer in Charge of SVER told everyone to meet in one spot when there were 5 minutes left in the game.  Obviously, people listened to him.  I'm not sure if the OIC can speak directly to everyone, or if orders had to filter down from platoon leaders to squad leaders to the soldiers.

The reason the game is designed to avoid something like this is that it's a massive clusterf*ck.  When is the last time you've seen US soldiers bunching up in such close proximity to each other like this?  Hell, I bet this never even happened in WW2, except in the rare circumstance (D-Day where tons of soldiers were working on limited beach space).  You are just asking for a mortar, grenade or artillary round to kill and wound dozens of soldiers by bunching together like this.

The nice thing that this video demonstrates, is that if the soldiers/squad leaders/platoon leaders ARE willing to listen to the OIC, then the OIC has some flexibility in how they approach the battle.  If one squad is struggling to take their objective, he can ask another squad whose "default" attack objective is somewhere else, to help out the struggling squad.  So even though the game defaults to each objective having 2 squads attacking and defending it, an OIC can shift units around at will and to where they are most needed.  During the beta, I can't tell you how many times my squad would take our objectives, and just sit there while every single other objective couldn't get taken (half the time other squads couldn't even secure the burnoff towers).  If we had an OIC giving us commands, he could have told one of our squads to help out another objective.

While it's not necessarily realistic, it does seem to be something people wanted, which is all that matters. I think there was a lot of confusion as to what 256 players entailed, and the finished product wasn't nearly as exciting as the imagination of gamers thinking they would possibly be playing this. I think at the end of the day, designers need to understand that if they create games for themselves, or for small markets, they're only going to get a certain cut of the market in response interested. Just look at the most popular FPS on the PS3, and look at which modes are most popular, Free For All and Team Deathmatch. For the small market that wanted MAG as it is, I'm sure this game is fantastic, but it's obvious there was a holy hell of a lot of folks that thought they were getting something grander in scale. That probably much larger group is not being serviced by MAG at all.

I agree.  The second MAG was introduced and they mentioned 256 players with a chain of command structure, I knew that this game was NOT going to be a big hit.  It was always going to have a fairly niche appeal, and probably going to have a smaller fanbase than SOCOM.



KylieDog said:
Onyxmeth said:
Tanstalas said:

The idea of having a chaotic game does entice me more then the game they designed. Perhaps they could attempt to add in some new levels to be more similar to the one in this trailer eventually, which might lead to people wanting to play the game..

Someone (on this site I believe) mentioned making a map for MAG like the zombies maps for COD:WAW and have 3 people be the zombie hunters and have the other 253 people be zombies.  I would definatly buy that map lol.

There was a game we used to play on COD4 where we would have one zombie and three survivors. Survivors could use a pistol. Zombie had to use the knife. If the zombie killed a survivor, the survivor switched sides and now there were two zombies and two survivors, so on and so forth. I think it would be awesome to have a MAG mode like that where it starts off with one zombie and he infects more, who infect more until there's only one person left.

 

If you like that you may like the Aliens vs Predator game releasing in a few weeks.   One of the multiplayer modes starts with 1 Alien and the rest Marines, everytime a Marine dies the player become an Alien too, until finally all Marines are dead and game ends.

It's on my radar, although it's worrying me with how little I hear from it. I'm a fan of the Jaguar original. I would love it if they got the spirit of that campaign into this game.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.