how would ranked mode kill PC?
Long queue times. The break down on having ~700 players means that you simply won’t find another nine in your rank range.
thats still enough to organise in a 10 bracket system. Or do you mean 700 in total, not all playing?
From what I have read on the forums, it sounds like PC is dead already.
If they add ranked play they should turn PvP into two queues. Ranked and Unranked.
Instead of voting for a map, you vote for a mode, which has randomly selected a map. This cuts 4 playlists down to 2, which should makes things better.
2 Likes
Ranked doesn’t mean much to me. If anything make the only queue be a ranked sort of system. So that playing at all affects your points or whatever. Having a separate queue entirely doesn’t seem to make sense.
That being said, there should be limiters placed. An example would be maybe Command Rank minimum, or number of completed missions in Story before you can use a Battleborn in PvP. Sure the story is nothing like pvp, but at least it forces people to understand how a character works before diving in.
Many people want Ranked Play for many reasons:
No blind picks
Character bans
Legendary gear not allowed
All gear stats normalized
Playing good games against people of equal skill
No surrenders
etc
I think it would be a great addition for the competitive side of the game.
Edit: Normally when people talk about “Ranked Play” it’s really these kind of features that are wanted in the mode.
4 Likes
So why can’t those features be baseline then? :p. Though I’m not sold on banning characters from play =/
Bc some people want a casual experience, which is fine. But I think there needs to be a place to go when you want to play some good matches. I believe separating the two is commonplace in these types of games.
Oh okay then. I guess for me I am happy with how it is because it’s competitive for me now. I never go into a match expecting a free win or bad loss, until the scales tip one way or another in either direction i like how it is.
Im hoping they dont add bans. With how small the roster is and all the characters are relatively balanced, its not really needed and could actually create some problems with not enough characters left to fill a certain roll (like healing).
I dont care if people want to bring legendaries with them. Never had a problem with them. Not really sure what gear normalization means. Make them all max roll? are you going to increase the shard cost then?
Surrenders are fine, as long as its restricted to games that are completly one sided.
This is by far the biggest thing for me. I just to play some fun, balanced games. Not this crap where 4 players go 0-15 on a team with one guy going 35-2.
2 Likes
Most of the tourneys I’ve seen have 2 bans for each team and legendaries banned. Some legendaries are very strong and non competitive. Some combos/characters are pretty strong as well. I’d think it’d be cool to ban Miko, etc. sometimes. Would put a whole other strategy spin on it, especially seeing what the other team is picking as your picking your team you know
edit: yeah all gear would need to be fixed rolls and everyone would have access to every piece of gear. Think this is normal as well. This way everyone has access to the same gear. This is why legendaries need to be banned if they go this route, which I believe in COD, etc. it’s like this. You have access to everything regardless of what you have unlocked.
700 playing.
Considering some are playing PvE (Let’s say 50% for the sake of it) then you split it in two again with ranked and normal, and then into 3 game modes… That’s like 58 players?
That’s of course, not real stats, only assumption, but you get it.
1 Like
I would picture Alani Miko to be banned a lot 
1 Like
That’s pretty much who I would want to ban lol. I think Kleese and Reyna are much more balanced supports.
i respect that. but tight skill based matchmaking ruins the game for those that have a high elo/skill level. i completely understand your desire to play with and against players at your skill level. i do too, but not every single game. with a ranked list we could play those types of games when we choose to, rather than constantly.
Battleborn is the first online multiplayer I’ve ever actually delved into, so can someone clear up the point of character bans? I think they sound terrible
1 Like
It’s common in MOBA’s, you basically remove a character from the hero pool. Either because you don’t want to play against it or to prevent a counter to a certain strategy.
I think that Battleborn’s pool is a bit too small to do bans/picks but we’ll see.
1 Like
It doesnt need to be tight. If I have a teammate go 5 kills and 10 deaths, i dont have a problem with that. I just want people who know how to play the game.
I dunno… I can see how that would work, but I agree with you that the character roster might be too small to implement successfully. I feel like it would take away more tactical gameplay than it would improve/provide.
I think Battloeborn’s hero pool is too small for bans.
Generally bans are used to remove a character from the roster that the community deems overpowered or that someone has a hard time playing against.
Right now I can already tell you 90% of bans would be Galiliea, Alani, Miko, Rath, and maybe Thorn.
The biggest problem I see is
Ban 1 - Reyna
Ban 2 - Alani
Pick 1 - Miko
This leaves Ambra and Kleese to support. Ambra has been nerfed pretty hard and her healing isnt even close to Miko. Kleese can be really easy to shut down, and doesnt get an actual heal to lvl 5 if they choose the helix for it.
The team with Miko has a clear advantage.
1 Like