Reddit AMA September 30th

It’s more of because the population continued to decrease to the point now is at the 200 range, it’s so low that even with the fixes it will not see a meaningful spike of players, thus we are “expendable”.

We are now a tiny minority.

From my experience in life, once you’re a minority, your words hold no weight or influence. It’s no longer worth the extra work or resources to improve the quality of life on so few people when the same resources could be spent elsewhere to please a greater amount of people to reap better rewards.

Battleborn on the PC front is on a constant downward spiral. I don’t like to see it, but no one ever said reality was meant to be nice.

There are more than 200 people playing Battleborn - current player stats are not the same as total number of players (though I suppose it’s possible there are a handful of players spending all their time ingame).

I’m definitely not denying that this doesn’t affect my game. But I really don’t see any evidence that this has made us ‘expendable’, or that we don’t hold weight or influence. You list evidence of the kind of experience you’ve had in life in general, but I’m interested here in what evidence you have that Gearbox no longer cares about our ideas, or isn’t putting in effort to improve the PC version?

I think we as a player base have to be careful when making assumptions about what Gearbox’s attitudes are. Like you said, we have to deal with reality here: what we actually know. The best evidence I have of this is what I find on the Dev Tracker on these forums, which shows nothing but commitment.

2 Likes

Then I pray that you’re accurate in your assessment. Not about the commitment part, I do know that GBX is hard at work due to passion or legal litigation reasons, but how their commitment will prove to be fruitful at the end.

I’m going to be really skeptical that GBX welcomes our ideas because any good ideas regardless of the platform it comes from, even from one at a 200 range population, will help Battleborn. Whether those 200ish people live long enough to receive those benefits is another story.

This is assuming Battleborn can survive in the contested arena that is the PC market.

If you’re just trying to prove to me that GBX cares and how I don’t have any evidence, the writing on the wall, in my eyes, is that the PC community cannot be revived adequately at this point -unless by some drastic miracle in the not so near future. October 13th will not have the population jump from 200 to anywhere in the couple of thousands range. I see GBX in the dilemma of “Damned if you do it and damned if you don’t”.

Then you may ask, “Riv, you know that there is commitment from GBX, why are you not reassured?” Well, the answer is that I don’t think I will live long enough to see it. I will play all the upcoming content because I paid for the DDE, but I doubt that I would be around long enough to experience it in the way it was meant to be played.

I haven’t enjoyed this game since early September.

This content drought has been exhausting to me when it comes to retention for Battleborn.

If given the option to wait until Battleborn is in optimal operation or spend $80 on Civilization 6 Deluxe, I’m very tempted to spend the $80, in spite that I live in a cardboard cutout of a box, so I can be adequately entertained.

Maybe I feel better thinking that I’m disposable and cast aside, so at least I could let go of the hope and lower my expectations to avoid further disappointment.

I’m not sure I’m making an assessment, other than that apart from the communication we’ve had from the devs here (Battleplans, dev tracker) I have no information about how Gearbox views its PC player base.

I’m not trying to prove that Gearbox cares. I was just confused by your assertion that they don’t, because if you knew that i.e. had evidence of it, I would like to be in on that.

Could you explain a bit more about the link between the struggle to get Battleborn players up, and this ‘writing on the wall’ about the dev’s commitment and how they think we’re ‘expendable’? I do think it’s possible that they are really committed but that the game has its own problems (sorry for being obtuse). I can’t say its future… but in terms of tangible milestones, I am looking forward to this next patch (and barring any serious incidents hope I will be alive to see it!)

1 Like

The latter part of your post is easy to explain.

To disclose, this is just all my opinion.

The PC population, in my eyes, is doomed. There are far too many games coming out in rapid succession that Battleborn would be washed by the tide that is holiday season releases. This is only the newest wave of problems that Battleborn already faces.

Although GBX is committed to Battleborn, their efforts will not have the PC community see a helpful rise in the population. It’s not that we’re deliberately being classified as expendable, but GBX will see the least amount of impact from their hard work on the PC platform. This is a very discouraging situation.

The writing on the wall I was referring to is the PC population. It will take a miracle of some sort to remedy this. And I don’t think the October 13th update will provide enough life to help it. When Battleborn was started to struggle, the best time to get a lot of the issues addressed was in June. But there was too much to do and not enough time, and when the critical timing passed everything began to decline even quicker.

It’s kinda like Battleborn suffered from a stroke, but GBX took over 4 hours to admit the patient to the hospital that deals with strokes. If you don’t know what happens after the golden 4 hour mark, well, the hospital will reject the acceptance because it is way too late and the patient will suffer from irreversible damage.

That’s how I see Battleborn.

While the AoE characters will be nerfed (who are mostly ranged), the melee characters will be buffed with more hp. Guess it evens the playing field a little bit for the ranged vs melee debate in PvE. I think it will be a good change overall.

1 Like

[quote=“Yellow, post:46, topic:1547519, full:true”]While the AoE characters will be nerfed (who are mostly ranged), the melee characters will be buffed with more hp. Guess it evens the playing field a little bit for the ranged vs melee debate in PvE. I think it will be a good change overall.
[/quote]
What debate? In PVE all heroes work together, not against each other. And when a hero or a group of heroes have issues, they (issues) aren’t solved by nerfing others.

Melee heroes don’t need to even the playing field in PVE by nerfing ranged heroes, their issues have nothing to do with whether ranged heroes are strong or weak. HP buff is welcomed, but it will only solve a tiny bit of those issues.

To be honest, the game is MAINLY PVP, story missions are there to have a story and a mode for the mainly pve players and be a fun relax mode to also gain gear from (in my eyes at least)

2 Likes

Melee characters are at a disadvantage to ranged. They are more affected by knock back, have a harder time critting enemies, are more often body blocked, are more susceptible to bomber enemies, and must move towards enemies while being shot at before they can even hurt them. I have never had a hard time with a ranged character in PvE whereas it is quite annoying to play as a melee sometimes.

I wasn’t trying to imply that ranged characters should be nerfed to make melee better. The nerfs to AoE are not going to be hard enough to make them ineffectual. If anything, this will create some incentive to use other helixes.

2 Likes

The core of the game is PvP.

Heroes MUST be balanced for PvP as a priority over PvE.

It may not be ideal for PvE focused players but PvE is not the primary concern for balance.

That and a ToC similar to a Wikipedia/FAQ. Fantastic job btw! I’ll admit I ended up staying up late last night, reading the whole original thread, defs not an easy thing to do after the fact and defs not from a phone XD

Community Lore Bible huh… I need get mine up and running :S It is actually already up on my website, I just haven’t linked to it yet as there are a few navigation kinks I need to iron out first and I’ve been having a lot of fun with the new Destiny update (Iron Banner this week too) :wink:

Just hope these PVP changes don’t ruin our first experiences with the DLC.

Your whole “debate” point is about it. A debate is when two sides are against each other. But they are not. Not in the least. In PVE all heroes work together to get their common goal. If a melee player experiences some issues, he won’t feel better just because his ranged teammate recieved a nerf. Your list of issues is correct, but your conclusion is plain wrong. Look at it once more:

None of these issues are caused by ranged heroes. And they won’t go away after any change ranged heroes could recieve because they have no cause-and-effect connection.

If both melee and ranged heroes suffer equally in PVE, it is not an “even field”. It’s an overall poor state of the whole gaming mode. Even field is when all heroes are equally comfortable to use. And you can only reach it by solving melee heroes’ problems, because, as you confirmed, ranged heroes don’t have them.

[quote=“cadecampbell, post:48, topic:1547519, full:true”]
To be honest, the game is MAINLY PVP, story missions are there to have a story and a mode for the mainly pve players and be a fun relax mode to also gain gear from (in my eyes at least)[/quote][quote=“Ginger_greninja, post:50, topic:1547519, full:true”]The core of the game is PvP.

Heroes MUST be balanced for PvP as a priority over PvE.

It may not be ideal for PvE focused players but PvE is not the primary concern for balance.[/quote]
Don’t try to convince me that any changes, even if they are bad for PVE, are OK if they help PVP and we have to silently accept it. I won’t buy it unless developers state this. Paid content can’t be just a “happy side effect” or a side mode that can be sacrificed for PVP’s sake.

You probably don’t even realise there are ways to compensate PVP-caused changes in PVE.

1 Like

We are getting legendaries 100% pve orientated. Maybe thats will compensate it!

2 Likes

If the runs are shorter, will you be able to get enough shards to activate a legendary?

Idk, but probably yes. There are always enough shards for 5 players using 3 legendaries exept the library, you need to wait 10 min to get giant shards again :confused:

But indeed there are ways to get 3600+ shards in each missiom

In the pax preview, the gamer didn’t activate gears because of possible challenges / missions that required some shards. And if you you don’t complete side missions, you don’t get the new points which gives you access to packs (with skins and possibly new legendaries).

In the Reddit AMA, it was revealed that, although short, we will be able to reach lvl10 during the Story Ops.

1 Like

If you need all your shards to complete side missions, why did they create PVE legendaries? Why would you want them?

Shard generators with -building?

No, it’s not. I was merely commenting on the fact that choosing between melee and ranged would be easier. As for the debate part, I’m talking about debating in the selection screen whether you want, say, El Dragon or Whiskey Foxtrot. Once again, I was not trying to say that ranged should be nerfed to make melee better.[quote=“maskerader, post:53, topic:1547519”]
None of these issues are caused by ranged heroes. And they won’t go away after any change ranged heroes could recieve because they have no cause-and-effect connection.
[/quote]

Never said that they were.[quote=“maskerader, post:53, topic:1547519”]
If both melee and ranged heroes suffer equally in PVE, it is not an “even field”
[/quote]

Ranged do not suffer in PvE and they will not suffer after the AoE nerfs. The nerfs will not be hard enough to make them ineffectual.[quote=“maskerader, post:53, topic:1547519”]

Even field is when all heroes are equally comfortable to use. And you can only reach it by solving melee heroes’ problems, because, as you confirmed, ranged heroes don’t have them.
[/quote]

I agree. I feel like you’re reading too much into my statements.

1 Like