Oh I understand that role all too well, it helps bring out more ideas so hopefully gearbox will take note. It might encourage people to play on PS4, but it’s clearly making others reconsider the purchase on other systems. 1 system gets more sales but two drop. More than likely that won;t even out. And they don’t know if they have a larger base on those systems, it’s not like they have an open beta to keep current numbers going and acquire accurate data. Personally I feel they project this game to be unpopular and not very successful, so they are taking the easy money instead of investing.
Gearbox have invested more into Battleborn than they did for BL1 and BL2 combined. I really don’t know where you’re getting such info from.
No it’s not. Different doesn’t mean better. NOWHERE have I even indicated that. More variety = more strats. Strats win MOBAS. Even if the character is garbage, it still can win a clutch play that the other team doesn’t have them. I’m not sure how you’re even considering yourself to have a rational point with a “what if.” Pound for pound, a team that has money will have a tactical advantage than a team who doesn’t. That’s not a skill based game competitively, it’s pay to win.
Hey. Take a minute to read the forum rules before you question my rationality.
I think the reasoning is just that potential new characters could have better synergy in certain team comps, not necessarily that the characters themselves are amazing. Unfortunately, I don’t think team balance is that easy to get right during development, but I’m not worried about it being a problem personally. Don’t think the observation is meant to attack GB for anything, just voice a concern that may or may not prove to be baseless.
I totally called that months ago.
Interview with Randy P, podcast regarding the chat with Penn Gillett. I can find in when I’m back at the PC. But you could always take my word for it. Incidentally I’m a moderator here. I wouldn’t risk my reputation making stuff up.
Did you read the rules yet? Please don’t comment here until you’ve done so.
Would you mid telling me what you’re “warning” me about? I have read over the rules, I’ve broken no policy.
You’re questioning my rationality. That’s not polite.
In a rational argument it is, I’m asking what the logic and rationale is behind your argument. I see none and have requested what it is.
Which bit are you needing clarification on?
And no, it’s not polite. Despite what you think.
And to repeat: it’s a temporary freebie on one platform. Ultimately it will favour (if there is. as you suggest, an advantage) beta testers over non-beta testers…for a brief period. I think we could compromise on calling it ‘take part in an open beta (for free) to have a little extra choice’.
I’m paying money for a game that I’ve been hyped for, which I consider a “win”…I’m paying…to win…whatever
I’m not too passionate about the early access either but I don’t consider it a competitive edge on the PvP side, as everyone likes different types of characters, and if people who don’t get early access to the extra character show interest in it, it gives them incentive to be excited for the character when it releases to everyone. One can only assume the character will be free for everyone
How your hypothetical responses via “what if” are anything productive. You’ve been ignoring the fact I’m saying more variety has a distinct advantage, or at best waving it off by stating that they might not have “better” abilities. It’s not about the abilities, it never has been. Variety grants more strats. Through and through. When one side has less options to draft with, they are at an automatic disadvantage.
It would be impolite to wave off your statements and not have constructive arguments in a debate by using fallacies, along with “warning” you I was a mod because I’ve been called out swinging my weight around. That is incredibly rude. Ban me if you will, but if anyone’s owed an apology it’s me, however I don’t really want it. This topic should be about the imbalance implications not about our personal mistaken feelings which by default is also my fault.
Also please stop editing your comment it’s hard to keep up.
That’s like a Politically Correct way of saying pay to win. Call it what you will, the advantage in variety remains.
To summarize: you’ve welcome have as many concerns as you like. You’re not going to convince me to share them given the current info that we have. And that’s okay.
Also: if you have any concerns about moderation you’re welcome to pm me or any other mod. The rules do suggest that you don’t discuss such issues on the forum. Maybe you missed that bit.
To clarify a bit for you, the details on the 26th Battleborn are still very much up in the air at this time. The plan as it stands now is to offer this character to players who participate in the PS4 beta free of charge at some point after launch. That doesn’t mean that it will be PS4 exclusive.
I appreciate the response! If you do ever find out (and this thread isn’t forcefully closed) could you let us know what plans are in a pro scene? would all the characters be available or would they have to be purchased to play? If you don’t know that’s fine too, but any update would be great, as the topic at this point is more about paying to have more variety and potential team imbalances in drafting. Thanks again!
I appreciate your insight.
I see what you did there
It’s not really anymore about the one character, it’s having to pay to increase your drafting pool in competitive. If this was Just another Borderlands game that would be fine, as it’s co-op/solo. But this is a versus game as well, and having a bigger selection to strat with versus individuals/teams who don’t make it arguably unfair.
At the end of the day I just want Battleborn to be a hit, with additional to content in the later months of it’s release probably