So Gearbox is doing what to Battleborn?

So I’m a little confused about what this whole Battleplan means and I hope someone can clear some of this up.

We pick between Casual or Competitive and Gearbox tells us which game mode and map we’ll be playing? I prefer Meltdown, can I no longer queue just for Meltdown?

Do we even have a map choice anymore? The “Most popular” maps as they call them are not my favorite maps, they’re the worse maps of the 2 choices in each game mode in my opinion and I always vote against them.

Anyway this is what I took away from this week’s Battleplan and it doesn’t appeal to me. Just left me with questions.


@Cicero Casual mode you can pick any map/mode you like.

Ranked mode you can play any mode but can only choose the top maps that the community plays the most which is meltdown paradise, incursion overgrowth and capture outback.

So they are limiting our choices as the player.
I want to play against good players, how else are you to get better at the game than play against good players but forcing maps and modes makes Competitive not worth it. 25% bonuses aren’t even worth it.

1 Like

Idk this is what the competitive community has been asking for for a while. On XB1 the main competitive mode seems to be Incursion so I imagine that is what will be voted for most of the time. Incursion is what is played in all of the Xb1 tourneys, etc.

I love that they have added a competitive playlist, however I can understand the frustrations of not being able to pick your game mode, but I don’t think splitting the queues even further would make sense, but there might be a better way to do it somewhere out there.

I imagine picks/bans and gear bans will be coming next to the competitive playlist. Can’t come fast enough.

1 Like

I feel like if they made the mode and map completely random it would help a bit. RIght now its going to be whatever the community favorite is 100% of the time, which can get old.

While this doesnt please everyone, its best option they have to please both crowds of players (the ones who want quick matches and the ones who want balanced matches). Its actually almost identical to a post i made a few weeks ago.

I really like the idea of Competitive but I don’t like the game mode and map choice being taken away. I don’t play much Incursion. I’ve never really had good teams every time I’ve tried it with randoms. To make it worse if it is a pregame vote on which game mode you play then Incursion will be voted majority of the time, and it’ll always be the same boring map.
I guess only time will tell. Hopefully it’s better than I imagine it to be. I’ve gotten my $60 out of BB, so there is that if it is how I imagine.

1 Like

It’s not an attempt to limit your choices. It’s an attempt to please the majority, which is much safer.

However, as more gamemodes and maps are added, they’ll probably do what CS:GO does and put them in seasonal rotations.

You can still vote on the mode you want to play. I really doubt incursion will be played near 100%. I feel like it may be closer to 60%. We will see.

And again, there really isnt a way to keep the modes separate like they are now, it creates too many playlists, which leaves smaller groups of player, which leads to longer waits and worse games.


Since they’re doing it the only thing I can hope for is that you don’t vote for the game mode pregame. A 33% chance at a game mode is better than 60%.

I get the playerbase is split up three ways right now and it makes finding a match hard right now. I don’t know a solution to the problem but I have my fears for this solution.

@timtoborne I think that’s where my mindset differs from others. I don’t see a point in playing in Casual. I like that it is an option because I know many will enjoy it, but I’ve always believed that to get better you must play against better players than yourself. I don’t see that happening in Casual for me. So I’m sided toward Competitive, where my reservation is.

I’m not sure that I even mentioned casual. I just said that they are attempting to please the majority, and that other maps will probably be put in a map rotation.

I don’t really get why the maps are random in casual, but not competitive. I’m with you. The “popular” ones are my least favorites. Not sure why they’re so popular.

@timtoborne I used the word others instead of saying “the majority”. Basically I was describing why I don’t think I agree with the majority here if the majority believes this is the fix all and I gave my reasoning behind my statement. Sorry, I should have worded it more appropriately.

Ah, fair enough.

This solution is not perfect, they never said that it was, however, it does offer a useful compromise within the constraints they had available to them.

First and foremost, no matter what they did, someone would disagree with it. That’s the nature of reality, and it is impossible for them to make a change to the basic mechanics of the game that will please everyone.

Given that, they had to look at the problems.

  1. People hate to wait for games. In the case of PC users, that wait can sometimes be very, very long.
  2. People want to play against people of their own ability levels.

Unfortunately, these two problems (both of which have been voiced loudly) are in direct conflict with one another.

In order to get better matches, you have to force people to wait longer.

In order to get shorter waits, you have to loosen up ELO matchmaking.

Now that they understand their problem, they have to find a compromise that while not making everyone happy will “increase the total level of happiness in the system.”

What they choose (and only time will tell if they were right), is to give people the choice between getting “better matches” or “quicker matches.”

So far, so good.

Unfortunately, on platforms where population is low, they would go from a queue that looks like this (numbers all made up):

Meltdown: 300
Incursion: 300
Capture: 300

to one that looks like this:


Meltdown: 150
Incursion: 150
Capture: 150


Meltdown: 150
Incursion: 150
Capture: 150

It would actually look even worse than that, because the “Competitive” mode would be further segregated via ELO. It’s entirely possible that there would only be a handful of people in your particular ELO-bracket to play at any given time (especially if you’re on a platform with a small number of players).

This would mean that players would be waiting hours to play the same handful of people over and over again.

This is, on the face of it, bad.

As a result, they needed a compromise that:

  1. Increased the size of player pools.
  2. While maintaining the goal they set out initially (giving players the choice between “better” and “faster” matches).

The best available compromise right now, is limiting map choice.

This is not by any stretch perfect, but it’s better than currently available alternatives.

GBX is also asking us for feedback, and I think we would do well to offer them some.

Right now, I would say that offering players a 5-10 grace period after the vote to decide to drop out would be helpful. That way the team could be refilled rather than starting a game one or two persons down.


My only concern is the people that quit because they didn’t get the map/mode they wanted.

1 Like

Offering a several second grace period to leave before a match would be a good addition.
I understand why they’re trying this(besides the map exclusion) and it won’t stop me from playing, but I’m wary of the restrictions. I like as much freedom in a game as possible so the sudden absence of 3 maps (which are my favorite maps) and the game mode dictation scares me a little. I don’t like Incursion and it seems to be the majorities favorite game mode, which means majority of the time it’ll be forced on me and my friends unless we play Casual where less challenge is less fun.
Give us several seconds to leave if something comes up you absolutely hate, and randomized game modes so it isn’t voted on will help some.
The only thing that just makes zero sense is the exclusion of maps, do people really hate maps so much they’ll just leave on that alone? I prefer Echelon and Coldsnap, that doesn’t mean I’ll leave if they aren’t picked.

1 Like

I’m not a huge Coldsnap fan, but I love Echelon.

I don’t see why anyone would leave for map choice.

I like the idea of random queue instead of voting, but I think that just pushes the problem to Character Select, where people will leave en masse for being “forced” to play X-mode.

I do not know what they did but I cannot even find a match either competitive or casual and I am on Xbox one.

I’ve gotten 2 competitive matches so far. Around a 60 second wait time for each. 1 Incursion 1 Capture so far.

By far the biggest concern is whether or not players are going to drop out of ‘Competitive’ matches if they don’t get the mode they prefer.
I’m almost exclusively a meltdown player.
I played capture to work on Ghalt’s first-blood lore, but that is it.
Incursion is OK, and I’ve played it a few times, but just don’t enjoy it as much.

I’m personally not the type of player who will quit just because Meltdown isn’t selected, but unfortunately I can see a lot of players doing that. (Especially if someone is short on time and wanted to get in a 10-12 minute Capture game and Incursion is voted on)

The biggest issue with the idea of having a ‘grace period’ where players can leave if they don’t get the mode they want is that I don’t see much difference between that and breaking up the playerbase into the 3 modes.

It will end up coming down to what percentage of gamers are going to leave if they don’t get their mode.

If we allow a grace period and 50% of players who don’t get their mode end up using that grace period to quit, then that will increase queue times for the other players as they wait to find another person.
This increase in queue time due to drop-outs would not exist if the players had already selected the mode they wanted to play in.
Whether or not the increase in queue time due to drop-outs is less (if a grace period is implemented) than the time it would have taken to get a game going when the queues were split between the 3 modes would have to be monitored. If the total queue time doesn’t change much…then it probably would not have been worth the development effort to implement the grace period. Of course if the rate of 5v4 matches jumps up significantly, then they might have no choice but to try and implement such a system and then monitor it to see if it is better than breaking things out into the 3 different modes.

Right now the major factor GB needs to keep an eye out on is queue times (Old vs. New) and then factor in 5v5 match-up % (Old vs. New).
If Queue Times are reduced by 40% with this update, but 5v5 matches drop from 95% to 60%, then this change will be a failure. (I say 5v5 but really it would be XvX as opposed to XvY…as a 4v4 would be equally competitive)
But if the 5v5 % only dips a little bit, while greatly increasing Queue times they could stick with this implementation for a while…until the playerbase grows some more.

Anyway, I’ll roll with the new changes, but I’m sure that GB is going to really be monitoring queue times and player drop-outs, to see if there is faster queue times overall while maintaining solid 5v5 gameplay.