Crazy thought: what would happen if they remove annointments?

I would definitely agree! We are the beta testers :laughing:

Huh, people seem to prefer getting content that’s been properly tested instead of untested content with game-breaking bugs…even if it means waiting longer for it. Who woulda thunk it?

“Since it’s all free / optional content we figured we would just share” So just because it’s free content it should be less important that it works as intended and plays nice with the paid for content? REALLY?! :face_with_raised_eyebrow: The “free content” costs us enjoyable play time because of the insane problems.

How are GBX supposed to balance the system that’s in place now? We saw eight guns buffed in the last patch, and all of them were straightforward, MASSIVE damage buffs. But people still don’t bother using them, because it’s still not enough.

Right now, when GBX is considering balance, they need to account for the following:

  • Weapon stat
  • Weapon special effects
  • Character skills
  • Guardian Rank perks
  • Sixty or so different annointments which add a variety of effects, damage boosts that are applied in wildly different ways (this is why bonus element type anoints are far more potent than massive damage increases), and have different triggers that directly affect how viable they are (ASE overshadowing nearly every other trigger effect due to its ease of use)

Removing anointments wouldn’t solve all the problems in this game, but it would make a tough job more manageable. While there’s been a variety of suggestions to make endgame more palatable, they all boil down to paring away options because they’re overwhelming. It’s why no one bothers to “make your own fun!!!” because piecing together an enjoyable experience from the crush of modifiers, health levels, game instability etc. is like finding a needle in a haystack.

3 Likes

More testing before releasing content…some test servers, paying more attention to forum feedback, maybe inquire with some streamers/long-time players…

Point is…they are closer to finding out how to fix the game now, rather than starting completely over. If they removed anointments and started from scratch, that’s loads of work down the drain, which is demoralizing.

THEN, they’d have to figure out how Mayhem would work: what do you buff? What do you nerf? How much health increase do enemies need? What about the players who enjoy anointments, and had to spend months farming them? What about the players that want more of a challenge, and are already dominating Mayhem 10?

A whole lot of questions with very little answers…

I think either this would be the way to go or simply removing them. They would have to rebalance the game a lot but it would be an easier task than they’re faced with now. I would personally love a little less RNG and the assurance that whenever a particularly good/rare weapon drops you can be assured it will be what you want.

If they did remove an annointments they should go through the game and put more emphasis on legendaries make them special again.Make it so only really unique and powerful weapons get to be legendaries and put the rest down to purple maybe some tweeks to the drop rate a bit then buff the weak purples then we good.

1 Like

Imho they should remove all anointments that alter damage and all weapons should receive 100% more damage, like they had an incorporated ase anointment (damage wise it’s the more average boost right now, a good middle ground to start anew without breaking the game’s “balance”).
Shield and grenades ase anointments could remain, since they are not that hard to farm, but they should be reduced to something like 10% damage ( to not break the extra projectile mechanic. Even tho I’m not entirely sure it’s intended, it’s a core mechanic now.)

here is your answer

Or add a new loot level, like pearlescent, and move the best legendaries up to that, and make them rarer to spawn.
Either way, make the best stuff feel special again.

While I’m in support of test servers, the fact that BL3 is essentially an always offline game makes it much harder to set up a PTR than it is for a game where nearly everything is handled by the server like D3, most MMOs…any live service model, really. In addition, while PTRs are great for discovering game breaking bugs and egregarious outliers in balance, their ability to provide useable feedback on balance issues is much less effective, because fewer people play on PTRs, they rarely play for long periods of time, and the quality of play is not the same that is seen in the “full” game (people fool around or lose interest because it’s temporary). Overwatch, a game I play regularly, literally has two seperate testing platforms this year: the PTR is for bugs; the Experimental Card is for balance. That’s a game with a massive player base and near limitless amounts of funding–I sincerly doubt GBX is in a position to develop a test server unless they’ve been working on it in the background since release.

They’ve had the option to listen to forum/social media feedback and content creator feedback since release. They’ve also responded directly to player feedback and introduced those suggestions in their hotfixes and patches. “Listen harder or better” is not particularly useful feedback either, so I’m not sure why you’re suggesting it.

Well, we really only have the impending second half of the Mayhem balancing attempt to look forward too. The concurrent player count on Steam actually dropped after Phase 1/GTD so I don’t think we can consider Phase 1 to be much of a success.

I imagine the player count post Mayhem 2.0 is also demoralizing. Imagine working for months on an endgame overhaul and instead of maintaining your base it halved instead, an update so disasterous you need to spend ANOTHER month working out a 2-step approach to slow the downturn–and THEN the first half of that change has literally no effect on the downward trend. At this point, any change is going to require some tough decisons on GBX’s part.

[quote=“WxndaBread, post:23, topic:4539161”]
THEN, they’d have to figure out how Mayhem would work: what do you buff? What do you nerf? How much health increase do enemies need? [/quote]

They already have to do this with or without annointments. Again, Phase 1 of their rebalance suggests they don’t have a particuarly satisfying answer to any of these questions with anointments in play.

If GBX cared about people who enjoy anointments and farming, we wouldn’t have seen the 300/90 anointment or Yellowcake nerfs.

I’m going to take a wild guess and say that removing damage related anointments would add a lot of challenge for the min/max crowd.

Again–I don’t think throwing out the anointment system would make the game instantly better. What it would do is remove a hugely complicating factor in balancing for the future, so instead of balance patches being deeply unsatistfying they have their intended effect.

1 Like

Harder, not impossible…and it doesn’t have to be for the entire community…can be for a select few players if money’s an issue…I don’t understand their process but its better than the alternative of NOT testing

Never said “Listen harder or better” don’t know why you’re quoting that…I mean to say that things we’ve asked for since release have been ignored…the problems we’re getting now were inevitable, and could’ve been avoided

This is better than starting over…at least there is a chance, and I choose to be optimistic.

Every game that requires balance, from Overwatch, Diablo, Call of Duty, League of Legends, SFV CE etc, goes thru a low point. Players leave eventually…that’s the nature of our community. But let’s say, thru a series of patches and corrections, the game could actually be fixed…Word spreads, and the player base increases again. Isn’t it better to follow thru with the chance of improving things, rather than quit/start over before you’ve had the chance?

Damned if they do, damned if they don’t I suppose…again, they might as well follow thru, less they sacrifice all that work.

Yellowcake was a glitch (but is still MASSIVELY powerful) and 300/90 does suck now, I agree…but the nerfing of one anointment doesn’t imply GBX doesn’t care…what does the buff of the “Next Two Mags” anointment say then?

But might also increase the bullet sponging we have now…people are so sure GBX will mess up future balancing…but are also sure that their removal of anointments would be ok :thinking: that is what I can’t wrap my head around

Id be happier a majority of the player base would be happier.

I have great anointed.m10 gear sick.rolls.yadda yadda.

Idga ratsars current setup makes me unhappy… Cuz no one fkin plays atm ima psychopath who will kill a boss once per minute n do it hundreds of times…for.days. Im 1 outta 10,000 u cant maintain a healthy game like this.

Thats not fun. And i still dont usually find anything good ir what im looking for.

Never had that issue with any borderlands game ever.

Yeah. Annoints are just a weird thing to have in the first place. Legendaries should just be good, instead of having another modifier that can handicap a legendary if it doesnt roll with the right annointment. I feel like legendary guns should, lore-wise, already be considered as annointed/enchanted/special/useful.

1 Like

If Gearbox got rid of anointments, I have a feeling they would also reduce the drop rate of legendary items across the board to compensate, like back to Borderlands 2 levels of rarity.

I seriously doubt they would do this at this stage of the game’s lifecycle.