Yeah, Skag Den, CoL, Torgue Cross, MoD all work with IB.
The game feels designed around a Normal playthrough.
Mayhem mode is literally designed the same way as guns - create some components and then just let the system create #randomnessIsFuN. The issue with Hollow Point should illustrate how little time was spent on testing end game vs how polished the Normal story playthrough is (in terms of gameplay).
Gearbox is notoriously bad at overlooking scaling issues. The good news is that the dev team this time appears to be -very- responsive vs previous games. I can basically guarantee they’re working on improving Iron Bear in Mayhem. It might just end up being some health/damage inflation, but they’ll do something.
Honestly, the biggest issue is that action skills are practically gear independent (max health modifiers do impact Iron Bear - which is hilarious with the -75% health Luck relic). Something like Iron Bear is even more problematic, since you stop using guns/shield/etc. Too strong and you just walk into max difficulty and farm due to your action skill, rather than needing to improve your gear.
Borderlands 1 had artifacts, which was a crude system (find once and you’re good forever), but it was at least a way of improving action skills via drops. It wouldn’t be bad to consider a way of revisiting and updating that idea.
“MOST players of BL as a series are not only going to play it multiple times but will farm endgame” .
Respectfully, that’s you projecting your experiences onto society as a whole. You’re not the first or last to do that, so I’m not saying that as an insult, just something for you to be aware of. Honestly any time folks say “the majority” or “most” or “commonly” or any qualifier which relies on an appeal to popularity, they’re pulling stuff out of nowhere, and it is worth taking a step back and asking yourself “what am I basing this on?”
Now certainly Borderlands has different markets and play experiences than a stock “average” game, but it warrants analysis on that basis, as well as the specific data we have for it. Let’s take a look:
As you can see, most players are not finishing video games. Now, Borderlands 3 is a new game, so we don’t have any way of anticipating how many players are still working their way through at their own pace, but how have folks fared so far?
From what it appears, tracked gamers are on average between “Lair of the Harpy” and “Cold as the grave”, with 35% having finished the game, and 25% having reached level 50.
Again, it’s very new. So how about Borderlands 2?
According to that, 42% of tracked players of Borderlands 2 have finished the game, and 29% of them reached the original level cap. 70%+ of players never reached the endgame. Again nothing against you, but you’re not typical of the average gamer. Most gamers don’t post on message boards, don’t finish games, don’t reach the endgame, and certainly aren’t spending extended periods of time farming said endgame. That’s borne out statistically. So as much as them focusing on early game balancing is not optimal for you, it certainly makes sense from a time spent vs overall benefit gained perspective.
As with DankRafft, not saying I agree that it’s a justification for failing to properly balance end game content. Just saying some perspective is warranted, hope no offense is taken
I stuck with the game. my first win was not until after they released new characters. stats posted later in this thread support that many players dont finish the game but still play. one might even say the majority
“Most gamers don’t post on message boards, don’t finish games, don’t reach the endgame”
Yep, stopped reading there.
Gamers or casuals - there is a difference.
Your argument is still weak, because some people don’t play endgame it means they shouldn’t have play tested it?
Get out of here with that crap.
You should have kept going, you were just a few sentences away from this. I am NOT saying that they should not play test or balance endgame. I’m simply saying that from a game design standpoint, it makes more sense to put more effort into balancing the beginning than the end. Ideally both will be balanced beautifully. But keep this in mind:
- The 70% of people who bought it, played it, and didn’t finish it, are still potential customers for DLC and future games, and are still spreading their opinions far and wide regarding it to their friends and family. You want people to have a good experience no matter how little time they invest in it.
- When people start playing, they start at the beginning. This is obvious, but relevant in today’s era with the reality of patches and the internet. If something is horrible at the start, not only will Everyone see it, but they’ll all see it right away. If something needs work at the end, not only will not everyone see it, but those that do will “trickle in” to that area of content, and you have more time to fix or adjust that while minimizing the amount of people impacted by it.
- Those “hardcore gamers” who are your vocal minority, the message board users, the endgame farmers, etc, are typically also those who will be sticking around the longest. One of the reasons someone might only play a game halfway then move on is because there’s thousands of games out there well worth playing. If someone fully intends to be around for months or years playing the same game, well, frankly you’ve got months or years to get it right. Also, changing things up, attempting to modify the formula, and ensuring the gameplay experience is not stagnant for that entire time period can be a positive thing.
All of this is why it just makes sense, not only from a business standpoint and a development standpoint, but from a logical standpoint and a long term strategy standpoint. Get the beginning as good as it can be, make sure the end is at least ok, release it, and over time you’re devoting resources to getting the end to be everything it can be for those who are still around, and fixing the area of gameplay they’re actually experiencing. You can also then listen and see what They want, and ensure you’re catering to those who are actually playing, rather than some theoretical. Sorry for the wall of text.
Thats true of literally all games tho, thats my point. Achievements for finishing the campaign once in 90% of games are abysmally low, bc most ppl dont finish the games they buy. But there is a core playerbase and thats who you keep tuning the numbers for.
And don’t forget that Moez is slow AF… When i sprint and move around other classes can walk side by side hahaha… And the annoying thing that her action skill i useless compared to all the other classes 2… They spend time on nerfs and buffs on everything else but noting to make Iron bear viable… That makes me hesitate a bit to spend more time to this game actually… And one more thing… If they say that they have to prioritize other flaws… Well at least for example fl4ks action skill works and skale prity good compare to moze IB action skill…
So the numbers for BL2 and BL3 are quite similar in that ~70% of people that play through the story continue playing until at least level 50.
I fully understand the reason to focus on the Normal playthrough when development time was up against release deadlines. The number of endgame things overlooked stands out a bit (not so much particular builds), but they aren’t leaving the game without patches for years on end so I find it pretty easy to overlook minor gripes.
It would have been okay, if the game isn’t developed for 7 years or so!
IMO, game testing is something very lacking in game development. I am from Automotive development & testing is taken very seriously. We do not have the luxury to fix stuff post launch. Any fix post lauch is massive cost on us.
I think the idea that they can fix issues post launch make gaming developers complacent in QA and testing.