Curse

zwei2stein · May 07, 2008, 02:28 PM // 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilderness

And this is why you don't (I hope) make games.

Bigger numbers don't have to be time > skill. And a leveling system doesn't even need to have external numbers about it. Just because you can't think outside the box doesn't mean they won't be able to.

First, made made quite clear what their level system is gonna be. And its definitely not based on thinking outside the box.

Second, I think that its you who needs to think out of box. First step is to remove notion that you need levels of any kind at all.

Edit: Your hope is misplaced. Sorry.

wilderness · May 07, 2008, 02:30 PM // 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

First, made made quite clear what their level system is gonna be. And its definitely not based on thinking outside the box.

It's not even alpha, nothing is concrete. Saying this I've not read up recently, perhaps you could link something for me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Second, I think that its you who needs to think out of box. First step is to remove notion that you need levels of any kind at all.

There you go, we're getting somewhere

But as I said, numbers don't have to be external. The leveling system doesn't have to be obvious. Perhaps altering character appearance as you gain xp (aging, hair/beard growth, some kind of evolution)? I'm not a designer, I'm not practised at this and I'm aware the previous idea might not be suitable for a GWs game but I'm sure there'd be a way to implement some kind of open level system without it being time > skill.

Perhaps someone could link me to the statement that details the level system for GW2 and that it's set in concrete? I'd be interested to read.

Moonlit Azure · May 07, 2008, 02:35 PM // 14:35

Seeing that the basis of the pvp was around a set level then improved strategy, I dont see it happening. If I go into ra in gw2(supposing its there), i want everyone to be the same level as me. I dont want someone 30 levels higher towering over me and killing me thusly.

;_;

JR · May 07, 2008, 02:37 PM // 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonlit Azure

Seeing that the basis of the pvp was around a set level then improved strategy, I dont see it happening. If I go into ra in gw2(supposing its there), i want everyone to be the same level as me. I dont want someone 30 levels higher towering over me and killing me thusly.

;_;

Anet has stated that regardless of PvE level cap, PvP will have a fixed cap.

Moonlit Azure · May 07, 2008, 02:38 PM // 14:38

Ah so I'm rendered obsolete.

(._.")

Lady Callingwell · May 07, 2008, 02:39 PM // 14:39

voted yes, stay with the current cap @ 20. One of the things I really enjoyed about gw and missed in every other mmorpg I ever played is the possibillity to ask "Ok what profession do you need for that mission?" and just come with that one instead of having only one real main character.

zwei2stein · May 07, 2008, 02:44 PM // 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilderness

It's not even alpha, nothing is concrete. Saying this I've not read up recently, perhaps you could link something for me?

I'd say best and most illustrative example is this: There will be buddy system. Or at least, buddy system is planned. Articles are, of course, one year old ATM. However, for this kind of design you need to plan early and commit to design otherwise you waste resources (whole world needs to be planned and back storied with level progression on mind, skill designers, item designers, etc ... they need to have clue what target is, otherwise company is just wasting resources. We know that izzy is already busy with GW2 skillset.)

That means that:
* Levels are going to matter enough to make this feature necessary. Which means either flat power scale with lots of levels or steep one with less.
* Levels are gained rather than earned.
* Developers expect people to meet highlevel characters to play with them often enough to make this feature worthwhile. This means that lowlevel character could get highlevel equipment, so either equipment would matter little or it would be level-restricted or level-scaling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilderness

There you go, we're getting somewhere

Bingo, now you understand.

Btw: Fable did that aging thing. It worked well. However, in MMOs that system is not that good. Think about it, changing how your character looks by playing? If people don't like "older" looks, they would hate it. This is, of course, example. Other vanity stuff can be attached to how long you have played. GW1 this already (minipets for example.) and they explored whole vanity thing with Armors and weapons and titles. Works quite well when is it just vanity.

HayesA · May 07, 2008, 02:49 PM // 14:49

Yes AND no. Yes in that attribute points (for magics/skills/earth, fire, swords, axes, etc etc) are capped at a reasonable level. Say 20, or 30 or w/ever. But you can level, and continue to gain experience after that. Like a never-ending title; at periodical achievements. One at 5, then 10, then 20, then 25, then 30, then 40, 45, etc etc in that pattern, with each its' own title. Like forum titles at a certain post count. You will always have people who play for e-peen titles, and you will always have people who play for skill, or fun. This way everyone is rewarded.

wilderness · May 07, 2008, 02:53 PM // 14:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

That means that:
* Levels are going to matter enough to a point to make this feature necessary.

/fixed. The rest is assumption.

NEdemar · May 07, 2008, 02:55 PM // 14:55

I've always seen GW as a very different game when it comes to the subject of level capping. I like a level cap, in that it defines a sense of where you need to be to do "end game" things, but at the same time, I'm not against a new concept of how you level up or reach that endgame. So if there was no level cap implemented, I'd be interested to see how that would work out.

Tyla · May 07, 2008, 03:10 PM // 15:10

Keep it level 20.
Sub level showing how many levels you would of gained via experience.

Kusandaa · May 07, 2008, 03:16 PM // 15:16

Where's my pudding? or cookies?

If attribute points are capped much like the current GW system, won't care for levels so to speak - my lv40 character won't be better than some other guy's lv67, and IMHO would be the good thing to do.

If they're not capped, I vote something like "max level by zone" to avoid possible issues... or anything to avoid possible level-related issues.

If they use the same GW system, gonna be okay anyways.

Therefore... I don't care much, I'll adapt.

Nukey · May 07, 2008, 03:42 PM // 15:42

No cap would just be ridiculous. I'd like to see a cap a bit higher than it is now, no higher than 100 for sure. I don't want to have to spend 500 hours getting a character leveled up. Where's the fun in that?

RiceCream · May 07, 2008, 03:52 PM // 15:52

Personally I like the low level cap right now. GW is unique for this as it allows you to get right into the game instead of grind grind grind moar xp plox stop killing my mobs. the more like GW GW2 is the more likely i may consider purchasing it. If GW2 get turned into WoW (raising the level cap is one step towards it) i'll find something else to do kthnx

Thecrocodile · May 07, 2008, 03:54 PM // 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keekles

That would be a reason for me never to play GW2.

Skill > time invested imo. LvL cap, yes please.

borinnngg then why dont people from WoW play gw2 then?

Mentos · May 07, 2008, 03:58 PM // 15:58

I personally believe that there should be a level cap, but I suppose that reaching a 'plateau' after level n (20, in the current game) where each level is the same distance apart and you don't actually gain anything aside from skill points (if this system is retained in GW2) and a number when you level up could work. This would mean editing the experience formula slightly, though, so that you would continue to gain experience when you reached a high level, but you could also end up with elitists who believe they are better than somebody else simply because they are further along the plateau than somebody else.

Hara Makoto · May 07, 2008, 03:58 PM // 15:58

i know what i'd like to have : no levels , make the game skill based , not have to progress through endless levels and endless quests to achieve something . for me one of the appeals of guild wars is that you only have to progress up 20 levels , instead of WoW which is 70 , soon to be 80 . anet needs to think about some of the appeals of GW1 , see what people liked about it , and work from there , and for me , and i'm sure many other people , low level cap atm is one of the best things about guild wars .

SharonC · May 07, 2008, 03:58 PM // 15:58

I like the low level cap. It means I had to actually learn how to use the skills, and how to set up parties so that we had the proper mix to handle the monsters. A slightly higher level cap would be fine, but too high and I don't know that I would want to play much. Right now I have 15 characters. I play whatever I am in the mood to play, swapping sometimes among 3 or 4 characters in one evening. It is fine with me to do that because they are all level 20 now. If I had to work to get a much higher level, I wouldn't feel as free to change my character based on what I want to do at the moment, because it would take so much longer to get my character to max level.

Balan Makki · May 07, 2008, 04:01 PM // 16:01

Depends on how they handle levels. If levels mean nothing more than attribute points for each profession learned by a single character. And those attribute points cap at around 200 (see GW1) then endless levels because of endless professions (perhaps a character can learn multi primary professions in GW2) this would be fine with me.

If levels mean advancement through stats and Evercrack styled gameplay I won't be playing GW2.

x_fiddle · May 07, 2008, 04:07 PM // 16:07

lvl 20...the higher the cap the harder it is to balance the game and the more the game shifts from casual player to hardcore.