test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Battlestar Galatica Online is an OPEN PvP Hit

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited February 2012 in Ten Forward
Well - looks like BattleStar Galatica Online ( BSG ) is a Open PvP Hit. ( both sides have 3 systems that r NOT PvP for learning the game). The other 100 systems - its Game ON baby. Not to mention the graphic look a bit better too.

They have various versions of the following:
Strike Craft ( vipers and raiders )
Escorts
Line Ships ( like Battleships )


STO needed Open PvP from the beginning. ( If you remember - the ORIGINAL developers wanted to add it in )

Only thing missing in BSG is developed missions. Ill give STO that - good quests/missions which still feel
like a single player game.

Take a look at BSG and you see how they got PvP to work.

come on STO get with the program. Open this game up to a Real war like in BSG - trust me - it works.
In BSG when i see them coming and i feel the odds r not in my favor - i FTL ( warp ) out.

Other times i goto Cylon space to look for trouble. i kill a few yes, but in a matter of minutes, there buddies
show up and alot of times i dont make it out - but when i FTL just as a nuke is about to hit me - I FEEL THE RUSH of war. You get that "YES " feeling that i jumped out before that nuke could finish me off !!!

Most of you guys have no idea what your missing.

This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies. ~Alecto
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    I've been playing BSGO for 2 years now and believe me, STO is waaaayyy better.

    BSGO lacks content in a big way. The visuals do look good but not as good as STO. I know of several BSGO players that have come to STO and are amazed at the visual effects. They've all agreed that the shield effects are stunning. The only thing i prefer on BSGO is the open PVP. You're right, they should have put that in STO from the start. Someone on the forum mentioned having a neutral zone where open PVP could take place. I like that idea of chopping in and out of combat when i want rather than being stuck in a PVP arena with rules and timer's.

    Ooooh that reminds me, i've got a huge wing battle at 12 today. Must go buy some nukes and red tip ammo. lol
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    joeharney wrote: »
    STO needed Open PvP from the beginning. ( If you remember - the ORIGINAL developers wanted to add it in )

    Looks like you're playing the wrong game. You should go and play BSG online since you enjoy it so much more. STO with its lack of open pvp will get along just fine without you.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    STO and PVP don't exactly go together unless you're a competitive PVPer and an active subscriber to the OrganizedPVP channel.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    It generally works if the game is centered around PvP.

    I prefer my PvP in a PvP centric game.
    I prefer my PvE in a PvE centric game.
    They don't blend.
    joeharney wrote: »
    STO needed Open PvP from the beginning. ( If you remember - the ORIGINAL developers wanted to add it in )
    I just have to ask... Where are the doctored pictures of them showing it? :D:p

    joeharney wrote: »
    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies. ~Alecto
    And by this statement we learn that the majority of players are apparently PvE'ers.
    Now what would open PvP do for them? Other than driving them away and leaving the 10% of PvP'ers dangling. ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Well, in fact I must say that BSGO, while not at all a depiction of the BSG universe, has its benefits. Their open PVP is built in a way that any character of any level can be of use in a battle - low-level fighters shoot down missiles directed at the big ships, etc. I really would like to see such massive mixed-level fleet combat in STO, too. Such stuff makes a game very enjoyable even on the long run.

    But still, I must say that the space combat in STO is much more fun to me than anything BSGO has to offer, even ignoring that there is much less (but not no) mission content in BSGO. I have even stopped playing BSGO when STO became F2P. STO at least partially transmits the feeling that this could be happening in the source material, too, although at a slower pace. BSGO ships repair as fast as STO ships, but, you know... in Star Trek, this is plausible, with replicator technology and shields etc. In BSG, that just doesn't fit the source material at all.

    But I suggest that anyone who wants to see how good PvP can be done tries out BSGO.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    freelancer has a good PvP and PvE envionment for as long as it lasted, shame microsoft took that game to the scrapheap, could been so much more, still it beats PvP in almost all space games so far released and i sure miss those days playing that game smuggling cardi from S17 to New Berlin :P.

    BSGO on the other hand, its rubbish tbh thats why i am here, lesser of two evils for now. focusing purely on PvE.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Chat wrote:
    It generally works if the game is centered around PvP.

    I prefer my PvP in a PvP centric game.
    I prefer my PvE in a PvE centric game.
    They don't blend.
    [...]

    I fail to see how setting up a few systems or maybe a sector block as open PvP would not fit well within STO? Please explain.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    I ve played BGO for 6 month. And i can tell you, if you look behind that system, there are so many cheaters and hackers. Especially players from russia. And there are some admins who give information to her fleet....for example when and where does the next water asteroid spawn...

    Thats the reason why i quit with BGO. I played on Libran / EU.

    So my advice for everyone..fly with programms like fraps or hypercam to prove what you see.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    sophlogimo wrote:
    I fail to see how setting up a few systems or maybe a sector block as open PvP would not fit well within STO? Please explain.
    Stats are not differentiated.
    You make a change to a skill in PvE>It does the same in PvP. Vice versa.

    Like when they changed the various STF sets.
    PvPers complained because it nerfed this and that.
    PvE'ers complained because it nerfed that and this.

    PvE and PvP can rarely co-exist in the same biome. One exist peacefully and the other complained a lot when I sniped them with my TR. :p
    Guild Wars did it right with their differentiating stats/skills. And they are close to a 50/50 mix of PvP and PvE.
    I prefer my PvP with at least a minor semblance to balance.


    So by all means. Make a new sector just for open PvP.
    But as long as PvP is the forgotten stepchild it wont work.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Chat wrote:
    It generally works if the game is centered around PvP.

    Considering the Klingon faction was PVP based from the get-go, someone didn't get the memo?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Uus wrote:
    Considering the Klingon faction was PVP based from the get-go, someone didn't get the memo?
    STO was centered around PvP.
    STO is centered around PvP.
    One of these is wrong.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Klingon PVP would work quite fine if the queuing system was stream-lined. It's incredibly inefficient as it is now, really.

    As it is, they cap out the number of queues you can join at three, and there's a ton of queues you can potentially join. PVP queue caps count towards PVE queues too, since the game just looks at the number of queues you're in, not the two activities seperately, too. As it is, even if you want to play a PVP match you have to keep checking the queues to make sure you're in an active one, and basically take time from playing the game to monitor it. Which doesn't help Fed or KDF activity since a lot of people don't like to bother with that.

    I'm of the opinion that a ton of problems would be solved if they just narrowed all of the various match types down to queuing for each match type alone instead of having queues for KlingVKling (assault map 1), FedVKling (Assault 2), FedVFed (Assault 1), etc, etc.

    Add in a check to make sure that Feds or Klings don't always queue together via a timer that lets them pop the queue, and you've successfully reduced queue times by combining the various queues together in a way that ensures that all the people joining the current queues are in lists together, widening the number of players in each new queue.


    There's supposedly been open PVP in the works for awhile now in the form of sector control. Not sure what the status of that is.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    joeharney wrote: »
    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies. ~Alecto
    EVE Online -> this way.
    But probably a bit too hardcore for the likes of you. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Chat wrote:
    STO was centered around PvP.
    STO is centered around PvP.
    One of these is wrong.

    Guess we know what team you are playing for then.

    No one joins the Klingon side for all the fun and exciting things to do... it's all bout killing feds in queues.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Uus wrote:
    Guess we know what team you are playing for then.

    No one joins the Klingon side for all the fun and exciting things to do... it's all bout killing feds in queues.
    Actually you don't. But thanks for trying. ;) *pinches cheek* :p

    I play PvP on both sides here. Just very very casually between friends.
    My main PvP action is taken someplace else. In games where I don't have to suffer PvE changes. :)


    *edit* +1
    Let me put it like this.
    Why would I play PvP here in it's current relatively broken state?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Klingon PVP would work quite fine if the queuing system was stream-lined. It's incredibly inefficient as it is now, really.

    As it is, they cap out the number of queues you can join at three, and there's a ton of queues you can potentially join. PVP queue caps count towards PVE queues too, since the game just looks at the number of queues you're in, not the two activities seperately, too. As it is, even if you want to play a PVP match you have to keep checking the queues to make sure you're in an active one, and basically take time from playing the game to monitor it. Which doesn't help Fed or KDF activity since a lot of people don't like to bother with that.

    I'm of the opinion that a ton of problems would be solved if they just narrowed all of the various match types down to queuing for each match type alone instead of having queues for KlingVKling (assault map 1), FedVKling (Assault 2), FedVFed (Assault 1), etc, etc.

    Add in a check to make sure that Feds or Klings don't always queue together via a timer that lets them pop the queue, and you've successfully reduced queue times by combining the various queues together in a way that ensures that all the people joining the current queues are in lists together, widening the number of players in each new queue.


    There's supposedly been open PVP in the works for awhile now in the form of sector control. Not sure what the status of that is.

    Well said!

    To me, queuing belongs in FPS games not in MMOs. Having to wait to fight is really close to being a game-breaker for me still.

    I'd rather there was Open World PVP with real estate to fight over instead of the easy-mode instancing devs favor now-a-days.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Chat wrote:
    Stats are not differentiated.
    You make a change to a skill in PvE>It does the same in PvP. Vice versa.

    Please, how does that answer my question?
    So by all means. Make a new sector just for open PvP.

    Actually, I would habe thought Eta Eridani is perfect for this.
    But as long as PvP is the forgotten stepchild it wont work.

    You will have to elaborate on that if you want to be understood.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    joeharney wrote: »
    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies. ~Alecto

    Why waste time on the minority, and remember time is money, when they can do content for the majority and make even more money. Remember this is a money making enterprise first and foremost not a charity.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Chat wrote:
    Actually you don't. But thanks for trying. ;) *pinches cheek* :p

    I play PvP on both sides here. Just very very casually between friends.
    My main PvP action is taken someplace else. In games where I don't have to suffer PvE changes. :)

    I understand your need to get your PVP fix elsewhere. 5v5 is not massively multiplayer nor appealing to me. Haven't been decently PVPing since Shadowbane went kaput, tbh. The odd matches I manage to get into are not going to sustain me and my credit card's interest for too long. Hope the supposed rumors of Open World PVP/ territory control pans out to be more.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    sophlogimo wrote:
    Please, how does that answer my question?
    I answered why it doesn't fit in my view of STO.

    sophlogimo wrote:
    Actually, I would habe thought Eta Eridani is perfect for this.
    If using a current sector it would have to be made optional. So a brand new sector would probably be best.
    Like I said. PvP and PvE does not mix well. Especially their crowds. Just look at Kerrat.
    sophlogimo wrote:
    You will have to elaborate on that if you want to be understood.
    What is there to elaborate? PvP has been forgotten by the devs here.
    Or have you seen any additions to PvP lately? So whilst the goal was to have a PvE faction and a PvP faction it has become something akin to a PvE faction and a PvPvE faction.

    Uus wrote:
    I understand your need to get your PVP fix elsewhere. 5v5 is not massively multiplayer nor appealing to me. Haven't been decently PVPing since Shadowbane went kaput, tbh. The odd matches I manage to get into are not going to sustain me and my credit card's interest for too long. Hope the supposed rumors of Open World PVP/ territory control pans out to be more.
    I used to do a whole lot more PvP here. When Klingons was a bit more forced to do it. Back then it felt like PvP had a reason and the more PvE they add to them the less PvP feels important.
    Like why should I engage in name calling and heavy usage of ship consoles when I can just do a simple PvE missions for better xp?
    Lineage 2. Now that was a painfully fun PvP experience for me. As was GW(I was the crazy scythesin.).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Uus wrote:
    Well said!

    To me, queuing belongs in FPS games not in MMOs. Having to wait to fight is really close to being a game-breaker for me still.

    I'd rather there was Open World PVP with real estate to fight over instead of the easy-mode instancing devs favor now-a-days.

    Thanks!

    Supposedly the open world PVP content is coming.

    Anyways, queuing systems work best when they're "fire and forget". The system we have now is more then likely part of the reason why KDF is so barren at times, and PVP isn't something a lot of people queue for comparatively against the overall population.

    If they fixed that, I think you'd see quite a bit more PVP in instances, at the very least. Nevermind a jump in KDF population.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Chat wrote:
    I answered why it doesn't fit in my view of STO.

    So you just repeated that you dpn't hthink it works, but you did not explain why or how.
    If using a current sector it would have to be made optional.

    I see no reason for that, as long as the Klingons get another path to Orellius sector block.
    What is there to elaborate? PvP has been forgotten by the devs here.

    That does not matter at all.
    Or have you seen any additions to PvP lately?

    Well, Dan Stahl mentions additional war zones in his latest interview. I found that encouraging.


    Personally, I don't think that the rather artificial scenarios of Arena and Capture And Hold give a good MMO experience. With 8 or 10 ships in the battle, it is but a skirmish under very rare circumstances. Usually, you should have one side with more ships at the site, you have actual, sense-making objectives like in the PvE missions or especially in Ker'rat. In my humble opinion, that is the way to go. The queues are for emulating sports, but Ker'rat and hopefully more war zones in the future are for emulating an actual war.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    sophlogimo wrote:
    So you just repeated that you dpn't hthink it works, but you did not explain why or how.
    PvP and PvE stats being dependent on each other is not a good enough reason as to why I do not support the addition of more PvP just yet?
    sophlogimo wrote:
    I see no reason for that, as long as the Klingons get another path to Orellius sector block.
    You are forgetting the Devidian FE. So if they use Eta Eridani they would have to move and rewrite the whole arc.
    New zone is best because there isn't a zone that doesn't have some kind of PvE in it. However the overall view of the map doesn't leave much space for a zone that is between the Fed and KDF.
    sophlogimo wrote:
    Well, Dan Stahl mentions additional war zones in his latest interview. I found that encouraging.
    Estimated timetable for most things.
    Might come sooner, might come later. But I would prefer a balance pass before more PvP is added.
    sophlogimo wrote:
    Personally, I don't think that the rather artificial scenarios of Arena and Capture And Hold give a good MMO experience. With 8 or 10 ships in the battle, it is but a skirmish under very rare circumstances. Usually, you should have one side with more ships at the site, you have actual, sense-making objectives like in the PvE missions or especially in Ker'rat. In my humble opinion, that is the way to go. The queues are for emulating sports, but Ker'rat and hopefully more war zones in the future are for emulating an actual war.
    I'll agree to some extent on this.
    Arena and CaH is just for quick PvP. Doesn't have a feel of PvP progression.
    Kerrat is just best forgotten. It's just awful.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    ivarST wrote:
    EVE Online -> this way.
    But probably a bit too hardcore for the likes of you. :rolleyes:

    The problem with every mmo with a strong PvP element is that the PvP players never stop crying about how they should be allowed to attack the PvE players anytime anywhere. Many PvPers don't even want to fight each other because that takes skill and hard work. They'd prefer to harass PvE players and claim that denying them that right is a blasphemy against the MMO gods.

    Eve online is perfectly built around PvPers making PvEers cry. It works fine if you build a game around that mechanic from the ground up. But an mmo usually dies if you add open pvp later on just because some whining PvPers think they should have carte blanche to kill other players who want nothing to do with them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Chat wrote:
    Stats are not differentiated.
    You make a change to a skill in PvE>It does the same in PvP. Vice versa.

    Like when they changed the various STF sets.
    PvPers complained because it nerfed this and that.
    PvE'ers complained because it nerfed that and this.

    PvE and PvP can rarely co-exist in the same biome. One exist peacefully and the other complained a lot when I sniped them with my TR. :p
    Guild Wars did it right with their differentiating stats/skills. And they are close to a 50/50 mix of PvP and PvE.
    I prefer my PvP with at least a minor semblance to balance.


    So by all means. Make a new sector just for open PvP.
    But as long as PvP is the forgotten stepchild it wont work.

    This makes me wonder: has any game ever explored the idea of two sets of stats for every item - one for PvP and one for PvE?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    i still think space pvp, especially at lower levels is excellent in this game. there is just not enough incentive to play it, not enough maps and game types to make it interesting and re-playable and not enough people playing it to cut down on the boredom between queues.

    tier 3 space pvp between two equally good teams is tremendous fun as its not too quick or slow. shuttle pvp at any level is fantastic. t

    its a shame pvp did not get improved early on as i think it could have become a big feature in the game, but its just been left to die. even little things like unique rewards, leader boards a new map here and there would have done wonders.

    i tried battlestar briefly and it did not appeal to me.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Chat wrote:
    It generally works if the game is centered around PvP.

    I prefer my PvP in a PvP centric game.
    I prefer my PvE in a PvE centric game.
    They don't blend.

    Of course they do.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Grafico wrote:
    This makes me wonder: has any game ever explored the idea of two sets of stats for every item - one for PvP and one for PvE?
    Guild Wars is the best example for that.
    A skill that gives a 75% to block will also heal you in PvE. In PvP the heal portion is removed.
    (I really don't remember the name of that skill. but I know it's an assassin skill)
    Of course they do.
    Not in mine selcouth and bedazzled world. *throws some glitter* Weee.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Too bad the game sucks, has virtually 0 content, its completly pay to win unless you wanan spend a year to get anything, even upgrading your ships gear costs cash shop currency. Upgrades on most gear has way to little of an effect for the costs least on strikes, the game is boring too, farming asteriods all day is no fun, the game needs some actual missions you can do to earn stuff, I don't mean the dailies I mean actual missions. I think the game has maybe 3 actual missions tops? and they are pretty much tutorials. Pvp combat for the most part is unrewarding there is no real point to it what so ever, holding more systems over the enemy offers no real advantage at all, and pvping just ends up costing you a fortune for very little if any return. The only qualifying thing BSGO has really is the fact its quite pretty for a browser mmo. But other than that the game really has nothing else to offer thats worthwhile.

    I'd suggest you just skip bgso there are far better less cash shoppy games out there with open pvp, that have much much more content that bgso can. SOrry but I dob't feel like I need to work my *** off all day farming astriods just to afford one measly upgrade that really doesn't do all that much. They introduced a aoe scanner for asteriods while it sounds nice, they didn't say the ammo it uses and the itemself is a cash shop item, So there you go even more losses. Combat between non-strike ships is also fairly boring, since these ships are really to slow to move they bascally just sit in 1 spot firing at each other and whoever spent the most in the cash shop is who wins always. Fights between strikes on the other hand rely heavily on player skill, due to upgrades not really making much of a diffrence. at lv 15 I took out a lv 40 in a strike vs strike pvp fight, was epic. I won due to better piloting skill, the lv 40 was probally a cash shop baby who bought everything by buying cubits and had actually little skill at the actual game.

    Would be nice if strikes could say attack the enemy ships engines, or weapons which knocks them offline for like 10-20s, would bring some stragety and make strikes actually useful in large scale engagements.

    Overall my 2 main problems with BGSO is 1: its way to cash shop based, 2: its quite frankly boring due to a lack of anything to do in the game thats actually ya know fun.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Chat wrote:
    Guild Wars is the best example for that.

    This feature was also added to CoH long before Cryptic sold it to NCSoft (around the time Arenas were introduced iirc) and since both CO and STO are evolutions of that engine it should still be possible, unless they pruned that code while developing CO/STO.
Sign In or Register to comment.