Do you think MAG's supposed squad leadership is actually good?

[mrhappyface]

I LOVE Resistance 2. Not only because of the very creative and cool weapons, but because of the SIZE of the games. They're fun because 1. They're big and 2. They're chaotic and unpredictable. There doesn't have to be order in the game for it to be fun. At one moment, it could be an intense street battle with miniguns firing and grenade explosions happening every second, or become a super far distance sniper engagement within a minute. There are squads, but to me, very few people actually work together other than some snipers who all share one camping spot. But MAG tries to make people actually WORK together. This idea seems completely ludicrous in my opinion. About the only time people ever work together online is either if they are friends, or in CoOp. I've played it a little, and I didn't like it, for people just did what they always did: Run off in a bazillion different directions and start doing there own things. It just seems like a very mediocre version and generic version of a game that I love accompanied with a half-baked leader system. I don't know if it's just me, but what do you think?

 

[Korten12]

yes its good. it didnt want to be a game like MW2 where everyone is a super soldier rambo.

people who do act like they are rambo are the ones that refuse to work together. Even when people use mics (my clan and random players) people will ignore the orders. its not the games fault its the stupid players fault.

No one seems to understand...

Working together = win

 

[black lincon]

there's a reason the army doesn't put teenagers in charge, were idiots. we have no experience leading an army, let alone a a battalion, or whatever the correct term is for the number of people, and penalizing you for not flowing the orders of some idiot isn't a good way to play a game. and I often do play in a tactical way when my friends are with me, but I don't have 128 friends with a PS3.

 

[Korten12]

there's a reason the army doesn't put teenagers in charge, were idiots. we have no experience leading an army, let alone a a battalion, or whatever the correct term is for the number of people, and penalizing you for not flowing the orders of some idiot isn't a good way to play a game. and I often do play in a tactical way when my friends are with me, but I don't have 128 friends with a PS3.

holy crap. if they could have 2 128 person clans against each other that everyone worked together that would be prue epiciness!

 

[sephiroth1991]

One time i was playing and our platoon leader gave us orders to flank a building with another squad. It was cool cos it worked

 

[Volafortis]

As long as you don't have morons in your squad, it works out well enough, at least between members with mics, so I like it.

 

[mrhappyface]

But it seems very strange for me when people spawn together and run away to every point of the compass...Why do they do that?

 

[Ethereal]

I think games where teamwork is required you need a way to penalize un-cooperating players, not just reward the good players.

The reason for this is, there are many, MANY, stupid people who play video games.
People who just have NO IDEA why going Rambo in a game where you have to work together, hurts not only yourself, but your team.

Maybe something like getting insta-killed when you stray too far away from your squad leader or having longer respawn timers when you died without team mates around.

Now, I have not personally played MAG specifically, but I have played several team oriented games, and I know that good cooperation can make or break the game experience. So why then, not take every measure to ensure that players are playing the game as intended?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Well, if you follow orders and stick with the squad you get double experience when near the objective that needs to be defended/destroyed, and several bonuses when near your squad leader. Most people notice that this is a great idea to actually go to the objective, so they do. Throw in a few guys in the same clan and all the better. Also, they way you can die extremely quickly if you have any more than one guy shooting at you, going off alone is very stupid

What the leader to the MAG-clan said.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I think games where teamwork is required you need a way to penalize un-cooperating players, not just reward the good players.

The reason for this is, there are many, MANY, stupid people who play video games.
People who just have NO IDEA why going Rambo in a game where you have to work together, hurts not only yourself, but your team.

Maybe something like getting insta-killed when you stray too far away from your squad leader or having longer respawn timers when you died without team mates around.

Now, I have not personally played MAG specifically, but I have played several team oriented games, and I know that good cooperation can make or break the game experience. So why then, not take every measure to ensure that players are playing the game as intended?

Because that doesn't sell.

Not my words. Those are the words of the publishers.

 

[Tortoisepower]

i havent played mag yet (going to buy it i a minute which is why im here doing some research) but even if the game doesnt work im glad they tried this. its different. that what we need different game methods see which ones work and run with it. Though i have to say the idea of 256 people if worrying since it takes a will on MW2 to get 18 people together let alone 256 and also lag sounds like it could be an issue but ill trust the designers worked that out

 

[Hobo Joe]

I've not played it but according to my friend it just has the age-old problem of all the children wanting to be lone wolves and subsequently running off and getting killed.