StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Anyone heard anything about it one way or another? I'm considering picking it up the next time I find it used at my local EB Games, as an alternative to Modern Warfare 2 (PC), so I'd like to know whether it's more worth my time. Don't have a particular faction preference, but it would be nice to not constantly die all the time as is the norm in MW2 for me. Not sure if I'd be so into Bad Company 2 (for that sort of game I might just play ARMA 2), and at least the PSN connection either way will probably be more stable than MW2 -- where it can be a general Internet connection, a IWNet connection, or a Steam connection failing at any time.

Bad Company 2 and ARMA2 don't seem to have anything in common to me?

MAG seems like it could have a lot of problems structurally, but since I don't own a PS3 I haven't been following it too closely. If the command ideas work it could be very cool.

I played the beta a couple times on a friend's PS3 and I wasn't too fond of it. It handled pretty rough and it's a huge pain to get through the first few ranks since you hardly get any useful equipment at all, while more experienced players will have plenty of better gear to murder you with. I got odd kills here and there. There seemed to be little teamwork; I don't know how much of an issue that might be now, but I rarely noticed anyone who even had a mic in, for all the game's vaunted 128-player teams.

My experience, in short, was that it's clumsy, awkward, and solitary. The game really needs a community to be good and I don't know how much of one there is on PSN. Also, all the weapons look hideous, and have fake names. That might not be important to you but it bugged the hell out of me.

Bad Company 2 and ARMA2 don't seem to have anything in common to me?

I suppose I'm thinking "first person shooter with significant vehicular capabilities."

From what I've since looked up -- apparently MAG is mostly improved over the beta, but there are some balance issues; supposedly the SVER faction is the game's "easy mode" for three reasons:
1) Their weapons supposedly lean more towards power (damage per shot?), while Ravens' lean more towards accuracy, and Valor weapons fit somewhere in the middle.
2) At least in Sabotage mode, the maps where SVER are defending are supposedly the easiest for them to defend, while Raven's defense maps are the easiest to attack.
3) The most damning for the other factions is community-related. The guys who communicate over mic and work as a team? They picked SVER. Apparently Valor is doing alright, but Raven may have some fratricide issues, and judging by anecdotes from the GameFAQs message board for MAG... SVER may right now be holding all of the contracts, and tends to have the players that actually go for the objectives. It's speculated that Valor and Raven will catch up as time goes on, but for now... yeah.

From video I saw of the release version, it actually quite reminds me of a Battlefield 2 that's more meant to reward teamwork and sticking together; for example, each of the three leadership roles has an aura buffing squadmates around him, i.e. shorter reload times, plus as long as the squad stays near a designated objective (i.e. a bunker to be defended), the EXP gained from performing actions is doubled. I'm not impressed with the actual execution of how the character customization is done (both items and skills are bought with your skill points), but the weapon customizing is nice.

So you're saying it's exactly what I expected? One group is going to have mics and organize and actually work together meanwhile everyone else does just goes at it lone wolf?

I played the Beta and wasn't too moved by it myself. It has some good ideas but it's still a very static shooter.

I really think that after BC, it's difficult to play any other "battlefield" style game without much more interactive environments. Such as BC's characteristic destructible terrain. Once you don't have them anymore, you realize how boring the game feels without them.

The BC2 demo has impressed me in pretty much every way on the other hand. They even buffed some of the structures a bit so it doesn't seem like every building is made of balsa wood and Elmer's Glue.

Having been playing the Bad Company 2 PC demo for the last two days I have to agree. The fact I can't start downing tree's with cannon fire to give me a better firing position is distracting. Better still the BC2 takes this into account with it's rush maps. You get in, blow the first "map" to hell then that map becomes the attackers new spawnpoint and the defenders fall back to a new pristine section of the map to defend the next two CP's. Sometimes it benefit the attackers to wreck building, sometimes the defenders.

The simple fact I don't need to bother with doors really gets to me if I load up ARMA or another game. Why must I run all the way over there when I could just blow a hole in the wall here and crawl out? Seeing Frostbite for the first time has ruined other large scale FPS. I can't stand not being able to blow the landscape apart!

General Schatten wrote:So you're saying it's exactly what I expected? One group is going to have mics and organize and actually work together meanwhile everyone else does just goes at it lone wolf?

That's a pretty common PS3 specific issue. It doesn't come with a mic, and most people don't go out of their way to get one.

Not like it matters. I mean, microphones have led to a dramatic increase in self-less, motivated team play on Xbox Live, right?

CaptHawkeye wrote:Not like it matters. I mean, microphones have led to a dramatic increase in self-less, motivated team play on Xbox Live, right?

Xbox has a distinct lack of squad or team based FPS.
And second, you can hear everyone. Nothing kills team work faster and leads to people muting everyone else than being able to hear anyone but your own team.

What games do that? The only game I play that has any sort of team work necessary is Gears, but if they aren't on your team, you don't hear them. And then there is always the option of a private party. Or are you just talking about MAG?

CaptHawkeye wrote:Not like it matters. I mean, microphones have led to a dramatic increase in self-less, motivated team play on Xbox Live, right?

Whilst I agree, PSN and XBL are chock full of lone wolf morons that don't even understand the concept of teamwork. The fact that XBox comes with mics allows you to coordinate with people who are willing to cooperate to win, if and when you can find them.

I picked this up yesterday and found it to be a solid game. So far I've been playing with friends and clans who are coordinated and follow orders, this alone is an improvement over every single fps I have ever played. I haven't seen teamwork of this caliber since the SOCOM games.

I haven't unlocked any command stuff so I can't elaborate on that.

I'm still getting a feel for the game, after playing it more I can add in something useful.

Muffin King, which faction? The balance problem re: demographic is that, as said before, "people who are willing to cooperate to win, if and when you can find them" (General Schatten's words) have gravitated towards SVER.

I haven't been able to get into the PC beta of BC2, otherwise I might have been gravitating towards that; I'd want a good weapons/accessories selection before committing to that though.

Edward Yee wrote:Muffin King, which faction? The balance problem re: demographic is that, as said before, "people who are willing to cooperate to win, if and when you can find them" (General Schatten's words) have gravitated towards SVER.

I haven't been able to get into the PC beta of BC2, otherwise I might have been gravitating towards that; I'd want a good weapons/accessories selection before committing to that though.

I'm currently in the SVER faction. I tried playing as the other two, but losing six consecutive games as each faction forced me into SVER. The teamwork there is really what puts them head and shoulders above the rest. Mediocre and even poor players have a pronounced effect when working as a team, and even they can ensure victory when well led.

I need to get a clan started soon. Hopefully more of my friends pick this up and we can start something.

TheMuffinKing wrote:I'm currently in the SVER faction. I tried playing as the other two, but losing six consecutive games as each faction forced me into SVER. The teamwork there is really what puts them head and shoulders above the rest. Mediocre and even poor players have a pronounced effect when working as a team, and even they can ensure victory when well led.

I need to get a clan started soon. Hopefully more of my friends pick this up and we can start something.

Any word on your end of the Valor player base? I'd really hate to have to go to level 60 and then delete my soldier/start from scratch to really get to play Valor; is it true that you can switch once you hit level 60 without losing all your progress?

FWIW, I'm a US East Coast player on a shared Internet connection (wireless G router).

Edward Yee wrote:Any word on your end of the Valor player base? I'd really hate to have to go to level 60 and then delete my soldier/start from scratch to really get to play Valor; is it true that you can switch once you hit level 60 without losing all your progress?

FWIW, I'm a US East Coast player on a shared Internet connection (wireless G router).

Yesterday morning I would have said they were full of morons, but I think people have picked this up in greater quantities since Friday afternoon and now Valor and Raven are showing signs of improvement. As for switching sides at level 60, I heard of that but haven't looked into how it works. I suppose the official Mag forums would have info on that.

Heh... it could be me, but as of the early of February 28, Raven picked up rather quick, and Valor is highly competitive against the SVER I played alongside. Got into a Domination match where SVER just could not make headway against a single bunker and cooloff tower for a whole half hour.