[guide] Battleborn: A Beginner's Guide


(James) #41

Thank you @jacksfields! I am a recent player myself( started playing about two weeks ago) and have loved it. I had friends so I didn’t really need to learn how to PvE but I keep finding myself horrible at PvP, but this guide has answered all my problems. My mistake was thinking this game, like other competitive fast paced online PvP is that kills is everything, and I wasn’t really focusing on the game at hand. So thanks again, this was super helpful and I know that plenty of players like me will find this helpful!


(Undead1) #42

Very informative and helpful.
Just picked the game up a couple days ago an am currently plowing my way thru the PVE to get a grip on the game.
This is was very helpful an ill feel much more confident the nxt time i pick up my controller.
Thank you!


(GT: Eldritch Arcana) #43

Slightly misleading, imo. For example, Orendi is probably one of the best starting characters for people who just picked out the game.

Also, it’s relevant to say that the character tags are nigh upon meaningless or straight up unhelpful/detrimental.


Tag System - Issues, Solutions and Definitions
(Collin G) #44

agreed. Orendi or OM IMO


(Jacksfields) #45

It depends imo. If you’re familiar with leading your target, Orendi is relatively easy to pick up. On the other hand, if you’re not you’re going to struggle to figure out the feel and timing. As this is a beginner’s guide, I chose to err on the side of caution as she can be very hit or miss, depending on your previous experiences.

As for the tags: I’ve never felt that they were that bad, but that could also just be the way different people interpret them. ‘Sniper’ for example means ‘able to hit accurately at long range’ to me, while to others it means ‘stay far back and take pot shots’, and I can see how that could lead to confusion/frustration when looking at Thorn for example. These things are the reason why I added the list in the first place, as I’ve been able to state with every tag that a character has ‘yea, I can see that being important’ with these definitions. But, as we don’t have any official definitions from GBX, anything we come up with will just be subjective interpretation.

However, besides these two (minor?) things, any comments/improvements on the rest?


(GT: Eldritch Arcana) #46

The tags are glittering generalities. They don’t really tell you what to do with a character, or how you fulfill the given role it puts the character in. The most glaring one being Thorn is a Sniper, as you mentioned. (but you’re right, it’s all about interpretation)

For example ISIC and Boldur are both “tanks,” but they don’t tank in anywhere near the same way. ISIC defends himself from harm with lots of damage absorption abilities, and Boldur defends others from harm with his shield. The “disruptor” tag is on characters who don’t do much disruption. The “brawler” tag translates to “melee controller.” “Pusher” seems to refer to wave clear or AoE attacks, rather than acually leading a push.

Kleese and Reyna are both “shielders,” but they don’t shield with similar effects or even with similar skills.

S&A is a “stealth initiator” character, when they play more like a “tank skirmisher.”

Montana is an “controller initiator” when he is more of a “tank pusher.”

Ghalt is a “controller” when he is more of an “assassin.”

Marquis, Toby, Galilea, and Kleese are all “territorial” despite little to no connection in how these characters play.

Deande is an “assassin” when she is more of a “controller” or a “disruptor.”

Miko is a “combat” which is nigh upon meaningless.

ISIC is a “disruptor” when he is more of a “pusher.”

Phoebe is a “brawler” when she is a “skimisher.”

Toby is an “adorable” when is he is actually “F*CKING PISSED.” (real talk, he should be listed as “Sniper.”)

…and the difficulty(?) system is laughably inaccurate.

Attikus, El Dragon, and WF are all “easy” when they should be "advanced."
Galilea is “complex” when she should be "easy."
S&A, Pendles, ISIC, and Alani are “complex” whey they should be "advanced."
Reyna, Marquis, Caldarius, and Thorn are “advanced” when they should be "easy."
Montana, Benedict, and Deande are “advanced” when they should be “complex.”

That means 15 out of 27 characters have their difficulty listed incorrectly, and some by a great deal.

But hey, I haven’t mastered all the characters yet, so I could be wrong about some.


(Cast Iron Chef) #47

Easy, Advanced, and Complex don’t refer to the difficulty of playing a character, but how their helices interact. An Easy character’s helix has little to no interaction, while an advanced has some, and a complex has the most. For example, Montana’s kit includes the ability to control the heat generation of his mini-gun and benefit from the lack of heat through health regen OR he can equip flame bullets and gain health regen or accuracy the hotter his gun is and can have the gun never overheat but hurt him instead. He’s not complex because these don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand: you can go with a “cool” build Montana, but still take the high-heat health regen and/or the never overheat option. We could use a tag for the relative difficulty of a character though.


(GT: Eldritch Arcana) #48

Ah. The names are just misleading, then


(Cast Iron Chef) #49

Yes they are. Advanced and Complex make sense, but Easy needs to be changed I think. I can’t think of anything else to change it to at the moment though.


(GT: Eldritch Arcana) #50

“Simple” or “Straight-Forward” would probably work


(Creator of the Battleborn Discord) #51

Easy has one star. Complex has 2 stars. Advanced has 3 stars. Yet I often see people ordering them as Easy > Advanced > Complex.


(Maskerader) #52

OMG, I just checked in the game and you are right. But in that case it makes even less sense, not to say the wording turned out to be even worse. Maybe they just mixed those two icons?


(Jacksfields) #53

I think they just misjudged how people would intuitively order them. And to be completely honest, I only agree with them half the time going by the definitions I gave in the OP. And they always will be a little off, as they’re quite subjective by their very definition.


(Maskerader) #54

But it really doesn’t make any sense by any definition to rate Marquis 3 stars for complexity/difficulty/whatever. Or Caldarius. Or Montana. Or Thorn.

I suppose it just shows this rating is completely useless for anybody, no matter if it’s a new player or experienced. Especially if it’s a new player, yeah…


(<Deep Space Planet Future Gun Action>) #55

The star rating - while horribly counterintuitive - is actually somewhat precise in regard of possible Helix options.
Marquis might be pretty straightforward to play/skill with Sniping as the main focus. But his star rating comes from the possible configurations of his owls and timebubble (and the not really used enhanced scope).

To compare this to other Battleborn, take a look at Ambra or Kleese. Both are rated ‘Complex’, because both have a highly customizable, territorial skill (Sunspots/Rifts) that requires good tactical positioning.

Now, Marquis has his owls, to which the same criteria apply. In addition, his time field (while on the lowest end of difficulty in aiming and actual use) is also customizable to a fair amount. Also, I believe the options for his Rifle enhancements (Helix level 3) add to this, bringing him up to ‘Advanced’.


Maybe I’ve given this a bit too much thought, but I believe most of those ‘tags’ are precise on a descriptive level. They are however not that easy to decipher - like with differentiating between ‘Agile’ and ‘Mobile’. It does make sense once you get it, but for the first time player those are downright synonymous terms.

Also, it only lists the most important tags for each character: Ambra would be ‘Territorial’, if she wasn’t classified ‘Versatile’.

In general, this just means the tag system works. It just doesn’t work very good as a tutorial basis, to give you a quick overview what to expect from the character.


(Maskerader) #56

[quote=“Sm0kerCrew, post:55, topic:1541455”]The star rating - while horribly counterintuitive - is actually somewhat precise in regard of possible Helix options.Marquis might be pretty straightforward to play/skill with Sniping as the main focus. But his star rating comes from the possible configurations of his owls and timebubble (and the not really used enhanced scope).

To compare this to other Battleborn, take a look at Ambra or Kleese. Both are rated ‘Complex’, because both have a highly customizable, territorial skill (Sunspots/Rifts) that requires good tactical positioning.[/quote]
So it’s basically the amount of different effects you can add to your skills?

I still don’t get it. I compare Caldarius’ 3-star helix with WF’s 1-star helix and don’t see they differ this much, by 2 stars.

  1. It doesn’t work for new players.
  2. Experienced players don’t need it, especially those who get the feeling of what these tags mean.
  3. Even the majority of experienced players are confused with what these tags mean.
  4. They used confusing wording for 2-star and 3-star tags.
  5. They used not just confusing, but straight wrong term for 1-star tag, calling “easy” something that is not a level of difficulty and is very far from easy sometimes.
  6. Level of skills customization affects almost nothing and doesn’t mean 3-star heroes are able to adapt to a situation better than 2-star or even 1-star heroes.

Does this look like “it works”? For me it looks like they failed with nearly every aspect.


(Jacksfields) #57

Disregarding Easy/Advanced/Complex (however you want to order them), the tags do make sense to me and do work as intended. However, I can see how they can be confusing if you interpret them differently.

Is the system perfect? No, absolutely not. Is it dysfunctional to the point of being unusable? Again: no, absolutely not. Aside from the E/A/C tags (which I think are just horrid by default), the tags aren’t that bad at all. I might not agree with their usage/placement half of the time, but I can see why they’re placed there.

One thing could’ve easily avoided all this, and that’s a hover-over option for the tags giving an explanation of what they’re supposed to mean. As I said earlier: there are no official definitions from GBX so we’re left at our own interpretations. If we had those, than the actual term wouldn’t matter because we know what the devs intended.

I’m thinking about creating a separate thread for this to make it easier for the devs to find this issue and we as a community could help with finding solutions and sharing definitions.


(Maskerader) #58

For a minority of players. And what is most important, new players aren’t part of them.

Since you, too, mixed 2-star and 3-star rating, I feel it does make sense to you but not to “it works” degree:

[quote=“jacksfields, post:1, topic:1541455”]Advanced. The character’s skills/helix augments have some synergy/dependency, but not nearly as much as Complex does. Does NOT mean harder to play.

Complex. A lot of the character’s skills/helix augments depend on each other to be effective. Does NOT mean hard to play.
[/quote]

[quote=“jacksfields, post:57, topic:1541455”]One thing could’ve easily avoided all this, and that’s a hover-over option for the tags giving an explanation of what they’re supposed to mean.
[/quote]
I agree.

Good thing)


(Jacksfields) #59

Those are the ones that I have the most issue with, and my statement on the system as a whole is made ignoring those three. I agree, they’re horrible, unclear, subjective and misleading. But the rest of the system works pretty much ok. I’m not writing off a whole car just because the tires are fitted poorly.


(Maskerader) #60

Ah, yes) I was only talking about these easy/complex/advanced tags in that discussion.