MAG BETA- Thoughts and bitching!

samurai6966

I've been playing the Beta for a few day now and I've got a few problems that I would like ya'll opinion on. First is team balance. I play as Raven who have good aim (supposedly) but low damage. Sever is suppose to be the opposite with shitty aim (cough) and high damage. However, I've picked up their guns before and when head hunting, killing 5 in a row with headshots. Most Ravens are staying away from Domination mode as Sever maps provide great cover for them and force attackers to either run in the open or bunch together to be grenade'd. Kicking teamkillers is great but I've come across the problem of their being only one person being voted on. If the teamkiller can get a vote on someone before they vote him then he is safe. I know its a Beta but the problems are already making me not to want the final produce. Whats your take on the beta and whats some of the things you might like to see? Do you plan on getting the game?

Mr.Brick

This is the only thread I could find about this game. (I might be clinically retarded though).

Seems there are new beta files in the Playstation Store (NA only). Apparently the game has gone gold. You can DL the beta now and it unlocks on the 4th and goes to the 10th. Im looking forward to trying this. Could be fun!

Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo

Satsumomo

Having the two opposing teams in a competitive FPS have different abilities/stats is retarded game design.

Dehumanized

I got a key for this back at PAX (during closed beta) and played it for a bit. It was fun, but I can't say it really clicked with me. They didn't have any of the 256-player maps open, though, so I probably should reload the client and give some more of the content a try.

Morkath

Dehumanized wrote: »

I got a key for this back at PAX (during closed beta) and played it for a bit. It was fun, but I can't say it really clicked with me. They didn't have any of the 256-player maps open, though, so I probably should reload the client and give some more of the content a try.

Aren't the 256 player maps pretty much exactly the same, you just have all the players playing their own games in the background?

Dehumanized

I dunno, they weren't ever opened when I was in the beta.

And I didn't really care enough about the game to go look it up for myself.

DiscoZombie

Satsumomo wrote: »

Having the two opposing teams in a competitive FPS have different abilities/stats is retarded game design.

It's not necessarily retarded game design, but it is definitely very hard to balance.

Zombiemambo

Satsumomo wrote: »

Having the two opposing teams in a competitive FPS have different abilities/stats is retarded game design.

*Cough*Natural Selection*cough*

Mr.Brick

I didnt know the different teams had different stats. Thats a bit stupid.
I was hoping for a good solid shooter with some fun objectives. Something battlefield like. Maybe ill stick with 1943 + Bad Company 2

Satsumomo

DiscoZombie wrote: »

Satsumomo wrote: »

Having the two opposing teams in a competitive FPS have different abilities/stats is retarded game design.

It's not necessarily retarded game design, but it is definitely very hard to balance.

Then again, we have Alien Vs. Predator multiplayer coming up and that looks pretty sweet. It just feels that in this game it's going to be an endless stream of whining from one of the sides.

Fawst

Funny, I was just gonna go dumpster dive for a thread about this. I'll begin by saying "Hmm, ~200mb download for this? Cool, I'll check it out." I'll finish by saying that when I went to play it for the first time about 20 minutes ago, my next thought was "Huh, a 1.83 GIG 'update' file. Fuck YOU, MAG. Fuck YOU."

BladeOfSanjuro

When I was in the Qore beta and checked the qore beta boards, most of the complaints were in regards to maps being more/less defensible than each other, not so much weapon balance. I tried all three sides(most of my time was spent on SVER, then Valor, and Raven in that order). The guns don't have a huge difference. MW2's weapons have more disparity among them than MAG does.

The game does an above average job at handling the sheer latency involved with 256 people, and most of the people then were pretty good at teamwork/getting offensives or defensive shifts rolling. I'm sure the public beta and actual release will completely fuck that factor over when GIFT takes its toll.

cooljammer00

Servers aren't up yet, right? Cause I wanna give the beta one last try, considering I said "fuck this" to the massive in-game update that you can't background download.

Hillean

Thoughts?

I spawn in, look around to see where I am... blam blam blam, I'm dead.

Waiting on respawn.

Bitching?

No reason to do so, I deleted the beta after about 8 straight rounds of this, and have pretty much written the title off.

Dashui

I was interested in this due to the player count, but after watching some video previews and other footage, it just looks clunky and visually a slightly sharper PS2 game. With Modern Warfare 2 out and Bad Company 2 around the corner, I don't know if MAG will be on my multiplayer shooter list.

cooljammer00

I guess it might be more fun if you could play with some PA people? I wasn't even aware the servers were back up yet.

elliotw2

Yea, the servers come up on the 4th, so I'll judge then

Zek

Can't say I find the idea of a game whose sole selling point is the number of players in a server to be that appealing, does it have any other noteworthy features?

UncleSporky

I thought the scale of the battles was interesting, squads moving around the field for different objectives with an overall battle map showing how each front is going.

But at the same time, you're still just shooting mans. This is just in an MMO sort of setting.

Mr.Brick

Whats the pricing like? is it a cheaper PSN game?

Chance

I thought in terms of gameplay and technology it was perfectly competent, but the title suffers from a complete lack of personality. I won't be renting it or even buying it used on the cheap.

Spoit

Chance wrote: »

I thought in terms of gameplay and technology it was perfectly competent, but the title suffers from a complete lack of personality. I won't be renting it or even buying it used on the cheap.

By the time you'd find it cheap, it will probably be hard to find 256 people games going.

It's a shame that the beta came at the same time as the BF:BC2 one, because it did a few interesting things, but there's no way that I'd buy the game for anything more than, say, $20. At which point ^.

cooljammer00

Yeah really, without a point to any of it, it's basically 256 mans shooting at each other. I guess PC gamers have been doing that for a while (Tribes was a PA Gabe fave) but really, I just don't see a point to a mindless shooter in a sea of shooters with a point. A multiplayer only game? I like the idea but not how it has been executed, and not at 60 bucks (I assume.)

FuriousJodo

I was very unimpressed. I played it for about an hour to try and give it a chance, the combat was bland, I didn't really find anything very worthwhile in the game. I suppose it would be more fun with a group of friends all in the same squad or something, but the thing is, that wouldn't be the game being fun - it'd just be my friends that were fun.

Won't be renting/buying and won't recommend it to anyone.

Chance

I feel a little bad for Zipper - they're doing something very ambitious and unique and just kinda... messing up the execution. Not the mechanics or the technology, I mean, but the presentation. The game's just not interesting.

Mr.Brick

Yeah- the more I look into this game the less interested I am.

I get that they are going for online only action and wanting to really push the size of the battles- but I feel like they forgot to take a step back and think about what would make this game interesting. With such a large player count the really could have some up with some interesting mechanics- but its looking too run of the mill to me right now. Maybe I'll rent it when it comes out or something just to frantically shoot at people.

Mr.Brick

I kind of thought it would be like Enemy Territory x more missions on the map + 256 people for $20-$40 or something. Didnt realize it was a full on $60 game.

Klyka

Sometimes I'm really sad that my skepticism towards "new,groundbreaking" things usually pays off.

Ah well,I'm sure lots of people will enjoy it and buy it to support their platform.

samurai6966

I was really sad how dull the game is. I would like to see team rewards like if a squad destroys an enemy's satellite communication controls while holding key areas they would get an airstrike or a tank dropped from a plane. Or winning the same battle gives your side ownership of it so you would start defending it instead of attacking. The game needs work before I'd buy it.