But the maps arenāt even close to symmetrical, like a DOTA or Paragon map.
I disagree. The maps are symmetrical, they are mirrored along the latitudinal axis precisely in the middle of the map. At least Paradise, Echelon, that-one-ice-map-no-one-ever-plays and Overgrowth.
If there is ELO they should save it until higher levels where everyone has enough experience, because a player at level 5 could possible have the same W/L ratio as a level 40 player.
ā¦which would mean he would lose, thus not giving him the same w/l. The system works, even though I can see why itās bad and why we need a proper ranking system.
I understand he would lose, thatās why I said they should save ELO for closer to max level. Until that time, players should be put up against other players of the relatively same CR, rather than ELO. Itās a fair assumption that players should have the same experience and therefore strategic skill.
This is probably not already in place because Gearbox thinks the player base would rather wait a few minutes for a game than 10 or 20.
Yes rush!! Battleborn!!
Go to e-sport!!!
Then we need watch mode??
Other major moba devs have been playing the crap out of battleborn and are giving gearbox pointers. No doubt in my mind they will have an esports scene.
Pc numbers are kinda low on a daily basis though 
nothing like other Mobas or anything. Infact Battleborn and DayZ SA have the same number of players on pc
I keep saying pc but come on, lets be realā¦ most competetive gaming is on pc.
Is ELO based on win loss ratio? No wonder I play with noobs all the timeā¦ im at 125 games with 103 winsā¦ so any rank 2 with a single win could get paired with me huh? Laame
Sort of. Elo awards you points for wining, and takes away points for losing. Winning against high point players gives you more, and the opposite is also true.
However, Elo is a terrible system for team-centric games, as it was originally designed for chess. But, itās all we have, unless someone conceptualizes a new system.
There are plenty of games that are not on pc that have competitive gaming.
Is it possible to standardize gear for just things like tourneys and what not? I kinda like having gear choices in the standard game.
Really? Where did you hear this? Iām rather curious to hear what they have to say. 
I donāt know why they wonāt just straight up standardize gear altogether, meaning remove the rng element to what stats your gear gets when you obtain it and give every named item definitive stats that are shared with every drop of that same piece of gear.
I hope they donāt remove gear from competitive play because gear is part of what dictates your play style, especially legendary gear. Gearbox just has to figure out a way to standardize gear to make it a fair, non-rng-dependent playing ground.
I wouldnāt mind if they standardized the numbers on the legendary gear. Itās weird having two copies of the same legendary with the same cost but to have one have like 0.2% more of a given bonus than the other.
Thatās whatās irritating. I donāt see the point in obtaining gear (especially legendary) if its almost certain to not be the best stats that it should be. Thereās no reason in adding this rng to the game if it only holds back the gameās potential.
I donāt think the gear is a problem at all, Iāve never thought to myself that I could have won or would have killed that person if it wasnāt for their gear, itās always been me making a bad move or them making a good one, if they have better gear than me it means they put in the time to fight the loot system and got the gear that they wanted, thatās a good thing for them they worked for it and got a slight edge and if wanted to play super conpetivly then Iād do the same thing, and Iāve seen a lot of low levels do better than the higher level players
I have seen a lot of things talking about how games that cost money to buy never break into e-sports (for reasons) with a good number of them actually having their online game modes die out. Now i love this game but gearbox is going against a juggernaut known as blizzard coming out the same month as overwatch. I am not trying to compare the two it is just i doubt many people are planning to buy both these games because either can satisfy a similar itch. So i can see a lot of hurdles and trials that battleborn will have to get through before they can establish themselves as an e-sport. From what i have heard from gearbox is that they will follow the player base (i am unsure if that really is a strong commitment to try and strive out into the e-sport area to begin with) so only time will tell. To be fare i think the only reason overwatch will become anything is because blizzard will push their game into that slot and dish out tons of their own money to make it into one.
I think we focus on what in the game needs to be changed or adapted to make it an e-sport but we have to see the outside factors, such as money (from sponsors and being poured into the game by players), commitment and performance from gearbox, staying power from players, all these and more are what will determine battlebornās fate.
Destiny had an initial large player base, before everyone returned it, and it was never an esport because of the constant unbalance
The multiplayer also wasnāt that enjoyable, atleast for me, I donāt know anyone that would spend their time just watching someone play it, it didnāt have its own unique thing in the multiplayer, it was like call of duty with supers which call of duty actually kinda has now in the latest one
Until this game gets better numbers on PC, the odds of it becoming an eSport is exactly zero. It hinges entirely upon that, since itās not possible to get a console game recognized as one.
Iād love to play battleborn conpetivly with teams, if te players started arranging matches themselves I think the developers would see that people really wanted this to happen