Discussing differences in Marketplace and Game

FullyGrimFully Fing Grim22m
devyn_stroud:
Why would it get worse? Balance right now is pretty even overall. Most of the issues are due to map design and matchmaking taking time to figure out peoples Hidden Elo score. No one complains in Black Ops 3 when a balance patch comes that the nerfed weapon can no longer be used effectively in the Campaign.
Sorry, I clearly didn’t explain what I meant by “worse” adequately, the OP was covering PVP nerfs affecting PVE. There will be more changes in the future due to feedback from PVP, these will inevitably increase once the competitive aspect comes into play. People will become more vocal, and aggressive in their complaints, this would be a by product of there being more at stake when playing. If you lose a hand of poker where no money is involved, who cares, if you lose a hand of poker where money is involved, you care, that’s what I mean by more at stake, not money per se (before you latch onto that.).

Balance being pretty even overall…this would be your opinion I think, not one shared by many others. I don’t PVP, so I couldn’t say. But given the inconsistency throughout the PVE content, I find it hard to believe they have managed to perfectly balance 25 characters for PVP play, and from the posts I have read, it would appear they haven’t.

As for the call of duty thing, I don’t see this as being relevant. Call of duty is a completely different kettle of fish, how many playable characters do you have in the campaign? How many different game style approaches are there to cater for? Did they make these changes within the first fortnight of the games release, or after 12 months when hardly anyone played the campaign anymore? Are you sure no-one complained, not a single person, coz I find that extremely hard to believe.

Re. Your second paragraph, you raise some interesting points, I might start another post as it is something I have been pondering over the last day or so.

Reply
Reply as linked Topic

devyn_strouddevyn_stroud@yahoo.com9m
To continue the discussion regarding other people saying X is weak or Overpowered, in most Multiplayer games you have the majority of people sitting within a Bronze to Gold rank in a ranking system. Why? Because most people are average. Average in life, average in thinking, average in whatever they do. That is not a bad thing at all because vast majority lay there.

Then you have the people who excel and understand whatever the game/sport/activity/job is at a much much higher level. These people of course are a minority compared to the Bronze/Silver/Gold players (basing off of a Bronze/Silver/Gold/Plat?Diamond/Master ranking system used in most games) but they understand the nuances of the game, the characters, weaipons, abilities, map. All of that.

As a game developer, who do you listen to? The Majority of people who are getting steam-rolled by easy to play characters like Galelia and Rath because those characters are easy to carry a team with against average players or do you listen to the people who are at the highest of the skill brackets who understand the game you have created?

Bases the question: Do you listen to the English professor who has a PHD when he gives feedback about your paper or do you listen to the student who has a C in English and use their feedback? Seems easy to me about who you listen too.

Reply
Reply as linked Topic

FullyGrimFully Fing Grim1m
Can you pull this off onto a new post? I tried, but am on iPad and couldn’t work it out. It kinda detracts from the OP but I’d like to discuss further.

@FullyGrim

I have no idea about the context here

Sorry, just copy and pasted from a different Thread so he and I could continue our discussion. Pretty much we are discussing how Gearbox should balance their game? By listening to the majority of players who are average at the game or the minority of players who understand the game at its whole. As well, do you listen to the smaller community of PVErs or the bigger community of PVPers

2 Likes

Thank you this helps a lot. Let’s see what a conversation develops here :slight_smile:

2 Likes

So I have no idea who I’m kicking in the shins here or why, but this is a false analogy. The developer is the English teacher with PHD providing all the “study” material, probably listening to neither the A grade students (good players) or the C grade students (average/gold players).

As you can see, even like this the analogy doesn’t really hold up. And it’s probable the dev’s listen as much to the majority as the good players. Whether that is a lot or a little remains to be seen, but we’ve already seen some nerfs that seem to follow the trends of the forum.

The thing is with an analogy, it really needs to be catered to the intended audience, the objective is to convey a complex message in a shared language that is easily understood by the involved parties. For example if my little brother asked me a question that had a complex answer I would probably relate it to beer.

In the context of the conversation we were having I fully understood what was meant by the analogy, but it is not a surprise that someone else reading it might not.

I asked to move the conversation to another post as we were moving away from what the OP was about, which ironically is now what has happened here.

Ye, it popped up right at the top of “general discussion” I would’ve moved it to a more obscure section of the forum. Anyway, I apologize for going off-topic. I’ll keep quiet from here on.

I think there are 2 things from our other convo I was thinking about,

How should gearbox make Battleborn into the best gaming experience that it can be?

And

How should gearbox treat it’s consumers (PVP and PVE) as a whole?

I agree with what you have said regarding the first point, for balancing the game and general improvements it would be best to get the advice/opinion of the people who understand the game and games of its type the best. Best person for the job. But as this game incorporates two very different styles of gameplay, you would need to listen to the elite from both camps, both PVP and PVE.

When it comes to catering to the majority due to them wanting to make money, I don’t think it is as easy as saying PVP vs PVE. In the short (medium) run, you could imagine that gearbox would cater to the PVP crowd more. In order for competitive multiplayer/esports they will need to make sure the game is well balanced and populated, so they will cater to the PVP crowd in order to keep them happy and playing the game. Meanwhile the number of PVE players will drop off, which is natural, there’s not a vast amount of content to keep them engaged like in an MMO. So it’d make sense to take that approach.
On the other hand, In the long term, gearbox might be better served prioritising the happiness of their PVE consumers. These are the consumers who have borderlands 1+2 on last gen, borderlands collection on current gen who are going to be buying the next borderlands game, buying the Battleborn expansions (which are PVE targeted I believe), even to an extent the people who own homeworld remastered and DOK. The point being, people who like moba type games, the people who invest the time and effort to be good at those types of games are generally not the people who buy/play lots of other games. In my opinion battleborns existence proves this point…gearbox want to draw in consumers from that genre of gaming, and also have an esports presence as it can be extremely lucrative.

Of course gearbox will say that they are committed to delivering the best possible product to all of their consumers, they have to, it would be ridiculously stupid to say anything else. I have no idea, but maybe even would face legal ramifications if they did.

Common consensus is that they have a loyal dedicated community. Some might say they are morally obliged to look after loyal existing consumers over new consumers, but this is naive, you only need to go to your local mobile phone shop to see that a company will offer a new consumer a better deal than their existing consumers are entitled to. At the end of the day they are a business and their aim is to make money. Sorry to say, but behind the company we love and adore are business persons whose 1 aim is to get as much money out of the consumer as is feasibly possible.

So back to the question, how should gearbox treat it’s consumers, PVP and PVE. Well I’d say they should treat them equally, they should cater to both, listening and fixing in response to feedback from both sides. Of course this is easy to say, but maybe not so easy in practice. I personally think they should be very careful with the changes they make in the first couple of months, during which time they should be taking into consideration both the way the changes impact both PVE and PVP. They have said they are using analytics to improve the game, well it should be quite easy to see when the PVE player base has tailed off. Once this has happened then they could start to prioritise the PVP side of things and be a bit more blasé about the impact to PVE because realistically PVP will be the legs of the game. The thing is, by then they would not even need to make that call, because the PVE feedback would have dried up with the player base.