MAG © 2013 Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc.. MAG developed by Zipper Interactive. “PlayStation”, “PLAYSTATION” and “PS” Family logo are registered trademarks of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. The PlayStation®Network Logo is a service mark of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. The Sony Computer Entertainment logo is a registered trademark of Sony Corporation
PlayStation.com - Terms of Use // Privacy Policy // Comment Policy // PlayStation.Blog is Powered by WordPress.
turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Tek465 wrote:
KAGEHOSHI- wrote:
- Maps:More variety would be nice, Snow, night, urban, mountain, jungle, destroyed areas, African villages, slums, wastelands and whatever combination of these environments look cool. There should be more maps per game mode, this could be done by reusing the same maps for different modes.
- Contract system: Maps should be tied to contracts,
My dream would be a new way of designing maps. I think different maps are the life blood of games, but seamless balanced maps are expensive to produce and become repetitive to players.
What if the map wasn't always completely balanced? Or changed physically depending on contracts? What if it was divided into smaller portions that developers could remove or fix a section that didn't work and let you download new parts? What if you never saw the same map twice but it looked awfully familiar?
My idea is for pseudo-random maps. Maps that are divided into smaller pieces that could be made to fit together in dozens or hundreds of ways like a puzzle. (Maybe each PMC has a different set of pieces or divided by geography. Pieces could be odd shapes and sizes so you could have streams, gullys, or ships across the map. Whatever they want.) You could start with basically a blank grid that could be filled like a Tetris game. The game console would hold the actual pieces but the server would hold the master list of how they go together. Different modes could have different sized grids or pieces designated for that mode.
Maps that absolutely do not work could be filtered out, but the individual pieces might still work perfectly in other map combinations. Maps could be tailored to contracts or the shadow war without seeming utterly repetitive. New map pieces could be downloaded and added over time to add new challenges.
Is that too crazy?
Your dream is epic, I approve.
Here are some other dreams of MAG 2 by some other MAG players i found in the forums. Zipper, if you are reading this, click the links and read the comments in the other threads to see what else people want.
MADDOGdb7's dream. http://forums.mag.com/t5/MAG-Discussion/A-formula-
MADDOGdb7 wrote:Here some added things to considers:
- Destructible Environments
- I like two PMC idea.
- Shared weapon arsenal (Both PMC's have the same weapons to choose from).
- Add a plethora of weapons (like BFBC2) at least 5 for every weapon time.
- More and More vehicles (Helicopters, Tanks, APCs, Jeeps)
- For fire support - gas shells (napalm from artillery) and Tactical drop off
- Blowing stuff up should just involve shooting it using explosives.
- Make Rocket launchers more powerful.
- Less drop for rocket launchers and grenade launchers
- Add slight bullet drop and leading shots should be given for all weapons
- Less bullet resistance (again only slightly).
- Make everyone buy into there class (i.e. you can't get an AGVK before you buy a S98) the tier system only for guns though
- OiC's shouldn't be limited to their squad (respawn able throughout a map) same with PLs but only respawn around there platoon.
- Customizable CONTROLS!
- Add detonatable explosives along with timed explosives
- NO invisible walls free roam until you hit some kind of mountain.
- Add ghillie suits
- More open range maps (even larger)
- Make more perceivable and believable distances (ex. the Domination maps say they are only 700m across... they are way bigger than that.)
highermindset's dream http://forums.mag.com/t5/MAG-Discussion/MAG-2-Fant
highermindset wrote:I often imagine, if ever Zipper made a sequel to MAG what it would look like how it would differ. Bearing in mind it would be released on a next generation console i.e PS4!
Well, for me, MAG 2 would have a game mode like Domination but with 1024 players on maps 4 times bigger then what they are now (that's 16 platoons each side).
6 different factions (the original factions in MAG remaining for the loyalists).
Graphics on par with Uncharted 2 (if not better).
Variable weather conditions depending on the general weather conditions of that specific location and timing of the year (snowy levels, night matches, rain etc).
5 new game modes including the existing ones. Some new game modes could be; escort the VIP to safety. Maybe have rescue missions where you would have to rescue hostages being held by the opposing faction. Protect engineers would be a game mode where you would have to defend x amount of miners as they worked on asset sites. A game mode where all 6 factions fight it out.
Air and sea (coast) battles with full naval support.
A plethora of new guns. Variable in fire rate. Also customizable guns and skins.
A way to play your own music whilst playing. Music would lower itself whenever commands are being read.
Fully customizable characters. From height, weight, face even to having a voice record feature to match the characters voice with your own! (who knows what the next gen consoles will be able to do?)
What do you think should be put into it if ever they make a sequel to MAG?
MarcusSoul's dream http://forums.mag.com/t5/MAG-Discussion/Do-We-Need
MarcusSoul wrote:The player count is dropping fast if you all havent been noticing and eventually people will stop playing. It might take a year, maybe even 2 but it will happen. I think Zipper needs to make a sequel, one that will atract more people and have more maps with slightly better graphics. Zipper also said they could have had more people in the game, so why not in MAG 2. A story mode might also get more people to buy it. If they made a story there would be 3 different campaigns which would keep people busy for a while. Now I dont want MAG 2 to come out like next week, but in 2 years or so. In order to keep MAG alive a sequel is NEEDED.
Thanks for reading. Leave a comment.
Azure-Edge's dream http://forums.mag.com/t5/MAG-Discussion/IF-MAG-2-e
Azure-Edge wrote:I really hope Zipper takes a few things from MAG, I was one of the strongest supporters of this game for the longest time but I have been put off by the way Zipper has gone about MAG as well as plain boredom with it because of repetitiveness. Zipper, I know you guys aren't going to read this but these are things I think you guys need to take in to account IF you guys make MAG 2.
The PMCs- I'm sort of divided on this issue. On the one hand, I know that many players have gotten greatly attached to their PMCs and that could bring people back in to once again fight for their favorite PMC. On the other hand though, one of the bad things about MAG's design is that friends got split up among the PMCs and couldn't play together. Like I said, I see good and bad to keeping the PMCs designated or making it random so that you randomly are a different PMC each game.
Weapons- Overall I'd say this was one of the areas where Zipper did an ok job of. It impresses me that even though the PMC's weapons are different that overall they are 'somewhat' balanced. The problem though with having one PMC be high accuracy low damage and the other being high damage low accuracy is that in this game, if you want to be an objective player, you have to get in close. I've played a lot on SVER and I have no issue picking off guys at medium and long ranges. Look at the attachments, ALL of them are designed to help accuracy. Raven doesn't need a light accuracy boost when they have nothing to increase their damage.
Am I asking for all weapons to be neutral in stats? In a way. My idea is that each PMC has PMC specific attachments to counter their weaknesses so that when given the proper attachments weapons of the same type and tier will end up being the same. This is an easy balance but also gives the PMCs some uniqueness in the customization. For example, when on Raven, instead of having the option of a grip and reflex sight, those are already set in but you can set in some kind of new ammo that has better armor penetrations. Then on SVER, they already have the firepower but have to put in for the grip/sight. This idea isn't perfect but has potential.
Maps- I swear, if there was one hot button issue in MAG it was maps. Balance and variety being the two most sung problems relating to the issue. In my opinion, where Zipper went wrong was that they specified maps to PMCs. Which, I'm sorry, is ignorant. This creates two problems. One is that if one map is better or worse then it upsets balance. The other problem is that all the maps in MAG just rotate between three themes and designs. When I'm on Valor's Dom map I feel like I could walk down the street and be at their Acq map.
I think Zipper should embrace the idea of a PMC (they have no loyalty to a specific country or area. They go where they're hired to go.) and in such a manor create maps in different variety and style. It's sad because when I look through the concept art, it looks like there was some variety of maps. The PMCs should be fighting all over the world, not just Alaska, Central America, and the Middle East. With maps not being tied to PMCs the devs could be free to get creative with maps. Maps in urban environments, on mountains, islands, at night, in the snow, etc. This would also mean modes wouldn't need a set number of maps in increments of three. Plus, if some maps were better or worse, then they would effect all the PMCs equally as well as giving more variety to the game. Because as we have all seen, people don't like vetting after trophies are earned.
Gameplay/Modes- First off, keep all the modes we have now including the DLC ones. What's nice about MAG is that each of the modes we have now are unique to themselves and the gameplay changes among them. This is a good thing. Especially with the DLC modes since they drop the defend/attack scenario that becomes static after a few games. Although, some things about the modes need to change.
Acq should be made so that the two sides have more interaction and make it so that a vehicle has to be taken from both sides. Oh, and PUT BACK THE PMCS ESCORTS! It's so stupid to see the same 'experimental vehicles' being made identical by three warring factions. While on that subject, put back in the voiceovers, I think everyone misses those deeply. It helped out the attitude and style of the PMCs.
Esc should be made so no one can go to objective D until it's opened and the A/B/C objectives should be closed off once D is active. This is a King of the Hill mode but people often don't play it as one. OR, another idea is to make it so that there is only one objective BUT the objective changes locations throughout the game like in Uncharted 2. That makes it so one side can't ever completely stay in control and the mode doesn't become a constant camp fest.
Oh and for Acq and Dom, I think one of the main things that needs changing in MAG is that once a Bunker or the AA is destroyed, it should remain destroyed for the remainder of that match. Now before anyone tries to crucify me, just let me explain. The reason I say this is for one, map balance, and two for the gameplay. I hate matches that stay at the bunkers all game, wether I'm attacking or defending. It's boring. I love games where we are fighting over fuel pumps or at the vehicle containers. It's more fun and, unlike mortars/sensor arrays etc, bunkers and the AA drastically affect how the game progresses. In Dom, when you destroy the burnoff/cooling towers or A/B in sabo they can't be brought back up because they progress the gameplay. So do bunkers and the AA. Unless those are destroyed, the gameplay remains at the frontlines. Also, this would make bunker and AA attacks/defenses more intense and meaningful. Destroying a bunker means nothing if it's back up. I think this would help balance and also make the game more fun in general.
New Modes- This makes perfect sense, new game new modes. What I would like to see is Zipper change up the gameplay with some new modes. For example, maybe have some modes with smaller player amounts. I know what MAG stands for but smaller games with interesting modes can be great fun. For example, a mode where one squad tries to stealthily infiltrate an enemy building/base or something and steal something or blow something up. This could have corridor style, indoor matches. Personally I just want to see Zipper step away from the stagnant attack/defend formula or at least change it up a little bit. We could also have maybe a caravan style game on a train or something of that nature. MAG could use some variety.
These are the ideas I have collected and thought out in this almost year of MAG and think these in general could improve the game immensely.
EDIT:
A few things I forgot to add. IF Zipper keeps the CP and Skill trees the way they are, which I think they should because it works nicely. If they keep them as is, they should definitely allow us to bank respec points again. It sucks when you are trying to experiment on what works for you but have to stick with stupid mistakes for a long period of time. And we should either be allowed 10 loadouts OR be able to change our loadouts during a game. You gave us a ton of variety in what we can have but we can't utilize it effectively.
Lastly, I ask that they fix the electronics. Let the Motion Sensor be useful again and the Sensor jammer should go back to only doing what it did originally. Being able to cloak oneself from sensor sweeps/UAVs is a great skill that is under appreciated in my book and should have nothing to do with sprinting.
SSTAGG1's AMAZINGLY ORIGINAL dream http://forums.mag.com/t5/MAG-Discussion/Idea-Incre
SSTAGG1 wrote:Keep in mind this is primarily for a MAG sequel, as I don't think it would work well with the current MAG.
I read a post in one of the "MAG 2???" threads about how Zipper should just drop the whole PMC concept and let it be clan based... This got me thinking:
What if, instead of PMCs, clans functioned like their own private armies? Just like the PMC based game-play, each clan could get a bonus if they do well in certain modes.
Imagine that every player is a mercenary, and by joining clans, players form their own private armies.
This could be possible with the introduction of several things.
1: A Clan Skill Tree
Clan skills could affect the entire clan. Clan members could vote for skills they would like, and the Clan Leader could pick skills based off those votes. Clan skills could be awarded either by the number of members of the clan, or just by the combined experience of each clan member.
Clans should be rewarded for having many members, but these advantages should not make clanless players incapable of competing with them.
Some skill ideas are:
-Ability to provide an "aura" (like the Leadership Roles) to clan mates. Would be strongest with the Clan Leader, and weaker with the Clan Officers (clan members would have no aura, but could still get the bonus by being near the Leader / Officers)
-Ability to set Fragos while Jammed
2: Clan Traits
Each clan could choose one specific trait which improves some aspects of their characters, while weakening others. This decision could be changed (respecced) after enough Clan Points are earned.
3: Clan Warfare
The clan system would have to be highly developed if this were to work, as each clan could probably grow to exceed 300 players. Clans could form alliances with other clans, or declare war on each other. Clans in alliances would always be on the same team and near each other, while clans at war would always be against each other (or on opposite sides if on the same team).
4: Game Mode Design
Game modes could remain the same as the current modes. Clans could join whichever games they want, and join just like how it is currently. The only difference would be that clans could always either defend or attack on a map (or both, if new game modes are made). Clanless players could also join normally, and could play with clans just like how it is currently.
There could also be modes where multiple groups vie for control of an objective, so there could be 4 teams, all an entire platoon in size, fighting it out on a giant map. There could be multiple objectives, where holding one gives you points, but the only way to win would be by aquiring as many objectives as you could afford to retain control of. The team with the most points at the end, or the team that reaches a certain point limit, would win. Each base could have certain structures, like mortors or motor pools to help out the team that owns the objective. Aquring more bases would also give you more tactical abilities, making each base worth the price to take it.
Also, every map should not just be attacking or defending. There should be a mode where two mercenary groups are given the task of taking control of some strategic location. The objective could be a base with defenses able to be operated by the group that controls the base. Bases around the objective could contain useful tools to help win the game (like a motor pool, mortar cannon, etc...). This would be similar to Escalation, only there would only be 2 teams, and emplaced devices could change allegiance depending on who controls the bases.
5: Campaign Mode (With optional multiple player involvement)
There should be the option to play through a campaign where the player is part of some mercenary company, only to be outcast and forced to fend for themselves in a world ruled by PMCs. Players could enlist a group of combatants they meet during their journey (each with their own specific skills and advantages / disadvantages), or could invite friends to play with them as a cooperative story mode.
This would be especially useful for players that either don't have online, don't like online, or just feel like playing a MAG campaign.
Last words
These ideas are just for a MAG sequel (too game-changing to be a DLC).
I will think of some clan skills and traits while playing MAG, and will post them later. If you think of any, just reply with your idea.
Also, if you want to voice your opinion on what I've written, go ahead. I don't always have the best ideas, so tell me what you think. I know there won't be another MAG for a while, but it's still fun to propose new ideas and see how they are received.
Sounds good.
I think MAG2 will manage to have a 320 player version of Domination, though (10 man squads) and graphics.
I imagine they'll also take some pages out of competitor playbooks with things like Playercards, more than a lame-ass 5 loadouts, tangible benefits to Veteran mode play, et cetera.
The most exciting thing, in retrospect, is they'll probably retain the MAG skill system, which is head-and-shoulders above competing character improvement/development mechanics. Screw perks and kill streaks, let me master my assault rifle and make its recoil my bish.
I think MAG2 will manage to have a 320 player version of Domination, though (10 man squads) and graphics.
I imagine they'll also take some pages out of competitor playbooks with things like Playercards, more than a lame-ass 5 loadouts, tangible benefits to Veteran mode play, et cetera.
The most exciting thing, in retrospect, is they'll probably retain the MAG skill system, which is head-and-shoulders above competing character improvement/development mechanics. Screw perks and kill streaks, let me master my assault rifle and make its recoil my bish.
Update
Skills: Skills should be equitable, and there should be limits on how many skills a player can have on their loadouts. This means after buying a skill with skill points, you have to chose which ones to equip in each loadout, so you can't use all your skills at once. This is because the current skill system gives high levels too many advantages.
KAGEHOSHI- wrote:Update
Skills: Skills should be equitable, and there should be limits on how many skills a player can have on their loadouts. This means after buying a skill with skill points, you have to chose which ones to equip in each loadout, so you can't use all your skills at once. This is because the current skill system gives high levels too many advantages.
great idea
