Curse

xyke · May 08, 2008, 01:59 PM // 13:59

if there is NO lvl cap i wont play gw2 anyway

MithranArkanere · May 08, 2008, 02:03 PM // 14:03

A level cap is irrelevant.

In GUild Wars, Level is not synonym of Power.
We already know that once you hit a certain level, you will not gain much more power that the previous one, that when joining parties, power will be 'averaged' so everyone in the party is mostly the same, and that in PvP everyone will be completely equal, regardless of level.

So who cares about level? Someone stuck with the old ways, like WoW and his 'level 70' crap.

Turtle222 · May 08, 2008, 02:25 PM // 14:25

Actually, as long as there is no level requirements for doing certain things then its ok. I.e: cannot use mount until level 40, cannot eat watermelon until level 23...it gets that ridiculous.

u personally don't really mind either way. As long as i don't see players looking for groups with xxxx amount of experience etc ("lfp 3000000xp+ only with cons). Do you see what i am saying? i don't want to have to resort to my main as his/her experience is the highest just to get into a group who believe prestige is gained by how much experience you gain wiht a character.

Lest121 · May 08, 2008, 02:48 PM // 14:48

I voted yes. lvl 20 is fine by me just add more content, content is better than grinding level 100 or 200.

lyra_song · May 08, 2008, 02:54 PM // 14:54

Character development does not require a higher level cap. It never had.

IRL, Trying to measure something like a person's development and growth by empirical methods such as numbers like IQ, or Grade, etc is not aways accurate or smart.

imo a person is best measure by their deeds and actions and abilities, and the bonds and relationships they form with people.

So, in a RPG, i think this is what should matter most and their gaming equivalences would be WITHOUT being simply a measure of time spent.

garethporlest18 · May 08, 2008, 03:35 PM // 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius-NZ

Also, if the whole egalitarian low-level-cap thing is so good, why not take it to extremes and have a level cap of 1? No character development at all, you just play through the game and against others as-is, like an FPS.

Yes if you want Guild Wars 2 to have a max play time of 8 hours and a replayability of 1 month at most. NO. GW 2 shall not ever be like that or it will face suckage.

JR · May 08, 2008, 03:41 PM // 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by garethporlest18

Yes if you want Guild Wars 2 to have a max play time of 8 hours and a replayability of 1 month at most. NO. GW 2 shall not ever be like that or it will face suckage.

Not that I entirely agree with the person you quoted, but that statement makes no sense. Think about the percentages of play time per level. I'd guess about 96-99.99% of an average characters play time happens after reaching level 20. There is no more advancement in level to reach for, but that doesn't stop people playing.

Another person who has fallen into the trap of thinking levels = content.

MoreArrows · May 08, 2008, 03:47 PM // 15:47

Yes, there should be a level cap. GW is skill based - thats why it is the best mmo around. The level cap should be easy to get to as well like it is currently. I don't mind what the cap is, as long as it is not challenging to acheive. Currently 90% of the game is played at level 20, probably even 95%.

Divine Xan · May 08, 2008, 03:52 PM // 15:52

If there isnt some form of cap on levels or gains of abilities (ie hp/energy etc..) then GW2 will just be a grind-fest to be 'good' like other (bad) MMO's like WoW or RS... Which would kill my interest in the game,as many have said should be a skill based game, not a amount of time based game... (basically as most of the above.. lol..)

garethporlest18 · May 08, 2008, 03:53 PM // 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Not that I entirely agree with the person you quoted, but that statement makes no sense. Think about the percentages of play time per level. I'd guess about 96-99.99% of an average characters play time happens after reaching level 20. There is no more advancement in level to reach for, but that doesn't stop people playing.

Another person who has fallen into the trap of thinking levels = content.

No no no. I said that Guild Wars being like an FPS would totally suck. I think Guild Wars 2 should have no levels, but a different form of character development. I want Guild Wars to stay an RPG, it doesn't need levels to do so. FPS' have also not been known for garnishing a lot of content. I want Guild Wars 2 to have so much content that boredom doesn't' come for 4 years. But that probably won't happen.

Kyp Jade · May 08, 2008, 04:11 PM // 16:11

Not many different forms of character development actually work. Leveling is used because it works. Other development forms, such as attribute advancement through use, is a terrible failure. One need only look at Final Fantasy 2 to see the disaster of that leveling scheme.

Sleeper Service · May 08, 2008, 05:02 PM // 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyp Jade

Not many different forms of character development actually work. Leveling is used because it works. Other development forms, such as attribute advancement through use, is a terrible failure. One need only look at Final Fantasy 2 to see the disaster of that leveling scheme.

not a terrible failure according to Morowind.

BlackSephir · May 08, 2008, 05:15 PM // 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyp Jade

Not many different forms of character development actually work. Leveling is used because it works. Other development forms, such as attribute advancement through use, is a terrible failure. One need only look at Final Fantasy 2 to see the disaster of that leveling scheme.

What
Look at Ultima Online, which doesn't have any levels. Terrible failure? I don't think so.

Nazar Razak · May 08, 2008, 05:20 PM // 17:20

I want a level cap.
(not sure if this has been mentioned, im certainly not going to read 15 pages :P). But even if after a certain amount of levels, you stop getting bonuses, just think about how the people are going to look for level 134234+ anyway. Elitists, we allready have it with Titles, please dont make the next game have it too.

snaek · May 08, 2008, 05:27 PM // 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by garethporlest18

No no no. I said that Guild Wars being like an FPS would totally suck. I think Guild Wars 2 should have no levels, but a different form of character development. I want Guild Wars to stay an RPG, it doesn't need levels to do so. FPS' have also not been known for garnishing a lot of content. I want Guild Wars 2 to have so much content that boredom doesn't' come for 4 years. But that probably won't happen.

yesh, because games like counter-strike get no playtime at all
(though cs is kinda dying/dead and bein replaced by teh new fps games)

i would really like to see gw move even moreso into a widespread tournament/competitive play scene

games like street fighter 2 still get tons of play (by fighting game fans)
simply for the fact that there r tons of tournaments for it

competitive play creates an everlasting longevity for a game

pve is not competitive at all
so how do u create everlasing pve gameplay?
creating more and more content continiously is unrealistic

and a high lvl cap only delays the end
and no lvl cap does not mean infinite amount of content
so dun think that jus because u can get to lvl 934, that levels 20-934 will be any more fun than if it were jus capped at lvl20

~~~~

wut kind of character development r u talkin bout?

the only way a high-level can mean any kind of 'prestigious' status is this:
beat a difficult quest/challenge/mission = lvl up
beat a progressively more difficult quest/challenge/mission = next lvl up
etc.

and not:
grind 109,598 easily defeated foes = lvl up
grind 2,095,109 easily defeated foes = next lvl up
etc.

garethporlest18 · May 08, 2008, 05:56 PM // 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

yesh, because games like counter-strike get no playtime at all
(though cs is kinda dying/dead and bein replaced by teh new fps games)

i would really like to see gw move even moreso into a widespread tournament/competitive play scene

games like street fighter 2 still get tons of play (by fighting game fans)
simply for the fact that there r tons of tournaments for it

competitive play creates an everlasting longevity for a game

pve is not competitive at all
so how do u create everlasing pve gameplay?
creating more and more content continiously is unrealistic

and a high lvl cap only delays the end
and no lvl cap does not mean infinite amount of content
so dun think that jus because u can get to lvl 934, that levels 20-934 will be any more fun than if it were jus capped at lvl20

~~~~

wut kind of character development r u talkin bout?

the only way a high-level can mean any kind of 'prestigious' status is this:
beat a difficult quest/challenge/mission = lvl up
beat a progressively more difficult quest/challenge/mission = next lvl up
etc.

and not:
grind 109,598 easily defeated foes = lvl up
grind 2,095,109 easily defeated foes = next lvl up
etc.

Hard reading that but I know FPS games get play time, the majority do because they're online versus other people. But if you play them single player, the time it takes to beat the game and replay-ability drop big time. Take a look at Halo series. It takes 5-10 hours to beat the campaign. They give you a bit more selection with difficulty modes increasing play time, but most people don't go back and play the campaign on a difficulty they beat multiple times. They usually go on to multiplayer vs mode or online. I don't want Guild Wars 2 to be like that, I want the PvE to last a long amount of time.

Random Scrubinator · May 08, 2008, 06:59 PM // 18:59

Level cap or not, there is going to be the same amount of content. The only way to increase replay value through levels, holding the amount of content constant, is grind.
Let's say I had to play area A 8 times to be able to go to area B. After doing the same exact thing 3 times, I'll get bored and end up paying a runner to do the mission for me 5 more times. Later on, area A is too uninteresting to replay with the current character due to being overleveled
However, if there is an quickly achieved level cap, it might still be worthwhile to replay area A after beating area B. There is actually more replay value when most of the content is still interesting as opposed to the last 10% of the content being interesting.
Grind also discourages creation of multiple characters, which is also another form of replay value.

Edit: I might also add that replay time is not equivalent to replay value. In fact, I'd say that time spent on unnecessary grind is a net loss of value, as I could have used the time to do something else more interesting

warcrap · May 08, 2008, 09:44 PM // 21:44

i vote for the lvl cap being 100.

prism2525 · May 08, 2008, 10:55 PM // 22:55

I opt for no cap in PvE in a non-broken way.

I always felt it was unfair other NPCs could rock the hell beneath your feet and you're stuck with lava font >.>

HuntMaster Avatar · May 08, 2008, 10:56 PM // 22:56

Another alternative to character levels is skill levels and item levels.

Break skills down into a few groups.
Active= You click to use them.
Passive= They work all the time.

Now we can keep the 8 skill bar for active skills and have an internal skill bar for passive skills. Passive skills can raise our life, energy, armor, damage and so forth.

Then we have item levels.
Weapons gain levels which gives more damage, added special effects like conditions or hexes.
Armor gains levels which gives more defense, life, energy and added special effects like condition protection and hex protection.

You could then max every skills and item level, or just max those skills and items you use daily. Just another idea on its way to the toilet I thought I'd share.