We're letting you shape the game's future. Click here to vote!
Shadow war Is a great idea... But still as a Zipper staff already stated about sabotage a faction neutral setup allows you do modify more freely the maps: like adding an extra map, instead of having to set up for other three maps.
Besides that there's also the problem of game balance: it's virtually impossible to make three maps equally difficult to attack (or defend). This way the three neutral maps can be customized more without having to keep the balance: that may open up to more original solution as to organize the various element of a domination.
Ah, and hopefully that may reduce some whines in the forum (even if I still think that ppl will find other things to whine on).
So I'm up for the faction neutral, but I won't cry if the vote won't pass (domination already rocks )
Zipper, if you change Dom to Faction-Neutral you will ruin the game, because it will take away Faction loyalty a little bit, the worth of Extra character slots will go down, it will take away the Faction defending their maps thing, and it will eventually lead to changing everything to faction-neutral. If you change it I will leave mag on the shelf, forever, tell people not to buy it, and say it's crap to every1.
for **bleep** sake you give us no polls to deleberate for ages and then suddenly you pull this crap out? If you had payed attention to the forums you will have realised we've discussed this and the affects it would have.
Zipper when will you wake up and see these smoke signals that the community is sending up. Listen to what is put in the general discussion area for christ sake because there's so many good idea's floating around at the moment. All you have to do is read and flick through 2 maybe 3 pages.
On topic: no
I think this is a very bad idea. It weakens the culture of MAG, slows the process of refining MAG, and is simply an "easy way out."
I get why a developer would want to make this choice, after all. If everyone can play every side of the battlefield, then no one can compain, right? This will solve all of the game-balancing issues for that game mode! I completely disagree and here's why.
1) Removing our permanent "home-bases" weakens the culture of MAG.
Perhaps you've noticed, but there are MAG players who are extremely loyal to their PMC. Part of this has to do with identifying with the storyline ideals of that faction, but it is also further supported by the sense of home and belonging that they feel when they defend a certain base. When you're in a PMC (especially when first starting MAG), your home base is the first thing you are able to make a mental map of. Foreign places are much more difficult, but the places that you can explore more safely become more familiar faster, and the more comfortable you feel. This feeling of comfort at home is related to our sense of belonging and loyalty to the group. A faction-neutral domination mode would destroy this experience for new players, and in turn destroy the creation of culture that's so important in the MAG community. If you whole-heartedly agree that domination should be faction neutral, there's an incredibly high chance that you are simply an experienced MAG player who is bored. You must think about the new players and the creation of the MAG culture.
2) Faction-neutral domination maps slow the process of refining MAG.
One important reason why game issues surface is repetition. The combination of performing the same task over and over in addition to knowing your map very well goes a long way towards identifying and solving problems. Right now, no one knows about the problems with APCs driving straight to the center of their dom map better than Valor (and of course, those who exploit it). Because Valor is forced to deal with this every time they defend their home, they are very vocal about this and demand change. So how would this go if domination was faction-neutral? People might end up saying, "Well everyone can do it so it's fair." But that's just an excuse for the problem. The fact of the matter is that no matter who is defending Valor's map, it's not fair that certain barricades are not in place. This is a problem with the game that needs to be solved no matter what. Having the excuse of "everyone can do it" in addition to the lack of people being forced to deal with problems slows the progress of identifying and solving actual problems with MAG.
3) It's simply an "easy way out" for the developers.
Other video games are not like MAG, obviously. It's a standard in FPS games to be able to attack from any side of a map at any time. Why is this? Game balance. No one can complain if everyone gets the same thing. There's one notable difference however -- scale. MAG's maps don't have 2 or 3 choke points like your standard FPS, more like several dozen. And yes, there are problems with some of these choke-points and ways to exploit other parts of the map, etc., and there always will be. MAG is absolutely too big to ever make perfect. So what is the better choice: continuing to tweak the map and perfect the game, or sweep the problems under the rug and allow the game to always favor one side in a certain situation. Back to the Valor example:
"Oh great, we're stuck defending Valor's G and H platoon. We're just gonna have to watch these APCs drive past us and get pushed back to our letters as they destroy our mortars and attack is from behind.... BUT THAT'S OKAY! These 30 minutes of failure are JUST DANDY considering that I get to do the same thing back to them sometime!!"
No. That's not how people think, that's not how a game should be played, and that's not how responsible developers allow their game to be played.
Vote NO on making Domination Faction-Neutral.
God **bleep**ing no! I can't begin to describe how horrible of an idea this is!
No! This is too far Zipper, the story behind this game is getting too complicated. With Sabotage it made a bit of sense, a faction is trying to eliminate information that could be catastrophic if left in the hands of the enemy. Supression also made sense because it's kind of like the Factions getting together for a Training Excersize, but it was still pushing the envoloppe.
Domination does not make ANY sense WHATSOEVER to become neutral, give me an instance where it would make sense to you Roper. I dare you. I will counter it and there's not one argument you could make.
"Oh, but it makes it ballenced."
No, Zipper, you're totally wrong on this one. The maps as they are, all but SVER Aqui are PERFECTLY fine they way they were in 1.00 and 1.01. Except for Raven didn't have any decent Dom objective roofs and Valor's F Wall. This would be HEAVEN for SVER because they are masters at defending, they have heavy-set weapons that have enough recoil to topple a horse, perfect for defending objectives. If I was attacking FBT and SVER was defending I don't think you could ever win because of how fast they can drop you in medium range.
Raven wouldn't be able to defend Valor Dom because the Bunkers are too far away and it's hard enough with our low acuracy weapons to hit someone going through FBT bunkers. I thought Raven was supposed to be "precise and accurate" Roper? Why can't I hit a guy standing still at 30-60 scale metres with a **bleep**ing AR?
"It's the variety people need, it keeps it fresh."
Two words: Character Slots.
If someone is getting a bit bored of playing Defending on Certain maps why do you think you brought multiple CS into the game? They can pay the .99 cents that YOU GUYS OBVIOUSLY NEED to go play a different way.
"It helps us test how good our maps are, whether it's just the guns."
It is the guns, TRUST me it's the guns. But it's not SVER's guns that need damage nerfs. It's Raven's weapons that need accuracy boosts and Valor's that need Range boosts. The maps were perfectly fine, and in original game my win/loss counts for each map were about 50/50, the way it should have stayed...
Give me any other argument you want guys, Zipper staff included.
But I promise you one thing:
If this comes to retail, I'll be heading to the nearest Video game store and selling my copy of MAG.