Curse

4thVariety · May 12, 2008, 09:41 AM // 09:41

If there are levels, then there is grind. Levels might give you the illusion of getting better, but only in games that rely on levels giving you a numerical advantage battle. Guild Wars makes the players grow by giving them new skills and have them create new builds. Levels are good for nothing in such a system really.

In the end the players also expect the game to get more difficult over time, so if the players get stronger the monsters have to grow even stronger to still cause an increase in difficulty. The character growing stronger is therefore even more of an illusion.

Meanwhile all the content designed for "the low levels" looses all appeal to the players who have "outgrown" it. It has become a waste of development time. Players are no longer in a true open world. They are part of a system of tunnels that funnels them down the direction where the current level still provides a challenge. It might look like you can go into all direction, but you can't. Go to the low-level zones and you are bored in the face of your insane damage. Go to the high level zones and you won't kill anybody because your level does not allow it. The only thing you can do is to follow the predetermined course of area completion.

Besides, why are we only expecting the heroes to get better over time? Shouldn't the bad guys also grow stronger the more I beat on them?

masta_yoda · May 12, 2008, 10:09 AM // 10:09

imo keep level 20......hate level chars........

Zebideedee · May 12, 2008, 10:21 AM // 10:21

I think a higher max level/cap, I know its all about skills but tbh when I started I'm sure one of the trainers in pre searing said there is no right or wrong builds in GW, which is frankly, lies.

CagedinSanity · May 12, 2008, 11:23 AM // 11:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace2001

If you think WoW has a high level/exp curve, try maplestory. AT BEST, I was getting about 5% every 10 minutes at level 50. So that took me... 200 minutes to level up? So that's what, about 5 hours? (And trust me, it was way longer than that, cuz my group didn't win every round of the in-game game we were playing.)

On-topic: I think I'd like a level limit around 40-50. I actually LIKE having a low level cap, and just rellying on skills and builds.

GW needs to stick with what they got right. Low level cap, 8 skills only.
WoW is very rock/paper/scissors, noteable by the fact that everyone can equip 40+ skills. If you click something too late or something, you're done.

I like the low level cap, smaller numbers are just easier to work with.

SirSausage · May 12, 2008, 11:29 AM // 11:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by CagedinSanity

I like the low level cap, smaller numbers are just easier to work with.

True, but it will scare the new players.
They will think:
"Wut? Max lvl is only 20??!!! No thx, <put popular MMO here> is better..."
Most people that play MMOs (excluding GW) are used to the high level system and I think it's necessary to draw new players to the game.

DutchSmurf · May 12, 2008, 12:21 PM // 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirSausage

True, but it will scare the new players.
They will think:
"Wut? Max lvl is only 20??!!! No thx, <put popular MMO here> is better..."
Most people that play MMOs (excluding GW) are used to the high level system and I think it's necessary to draw new players to the game.

But those people are also the ones used to (lots of) grind, which GW used to lack. So maybe, for those kind of people, GW just isn't the game they are looking for. You don't have to appeal to everyone, you just need to stick to your market. With a higher level cap you might draw some players to the game. On the other side, you also lose people who preferred the old situation.

Balan Makki · May 12, 2008, 02:28 PM // 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirSausage

True, but it will scare the new players.
They will think:
"Wut? Max lvl is only 20??!!! No thx, <put popular MMO here> is better..."
Most people that play MMOs (excluding GW) are used to the high level system and I think it's necessary to draw new players to the game.

How bout this for a novel idea: Remove levels so new players don't get scared. Problem solved. Introduce them to something completely new, revolutionary, unique in an industry mired by Evercrack clones.

Level stratification and vertical progression negates content and potential player interaction. And has to be the dumbest feature current Evercrack MMOs have to offer. The MMO genre has yet to discovered fire. New players have been living in the virtual dark ages. . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me

Blizzards Next MMO will be a Guild Wars Clone.

wilderness · May 12, 2008, 02:40 PM // 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balan Makki

How bout this for a novel idea: Remove levels so new players don't get scared. Problem solved. Introduce them to something completely new, revolutionary, unique in an industry mired by Evercrack clones.

Level stratification and vertical progression negates content and potent player interaction. And has to be the dumbest feature current Evercrack MMOs have to offer. The MMO genre has yet to discovered fire. New players have been living in the virtual dark ages. . .

Exactly, or even make a 'leveling' system that has no relation to actual power and ability. Perhaps some kind of bonus system every xxxxx XP gathered, or some kind of aging process? My ideas aren't great, but I'm not a games designer. I'm sure there'd be was to innovate the gathering of xp away from the standard level up.

Bryant Again · May 12, 2008, 02:56 PM // 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balan Makki

How bout this for a novel idea: Remove levels so new players don't get scared. Problem solved. Introduce them to something completely new, revolutionary, unique in an industry mired by Evercrack clones.

It's not just an MMO thing to have levels, it's an RPG thing. But if there's little depth to levels then they might as well not bother, but that's a different matter altogether (and hence why I think this is an iffy and unclear poll).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balan Makki

Level stratification and vertical progression negates content and potential player interaction. And has to be the dumbest feature current Evercrack MMOs have to offer. The MMO genre has yet to discovered fire. New players have been living in the virtual dark ages. . .

I'm still confused how high levels (heck, levels at all) will negate "player interaction" when the sidekick system will make levels not matter? If you mean in terms of elitism or the like then that's inevitable. People will always find something to pick on.

Sniper22 · May 12, 2008, 04:49 PM // 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

when the sidekick system will make levels not matter?

lmao ya right, you know thats a load of crap. Sidekick = epic fail. Why the heck should I go looking for a high lvl player to join my party because my level isn't high enough because I don't have that much time to play or I just don't feel like grinding.

Bryant Again · May 12, 2008, 07:43 PM // 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper22

lmao ya right, you know thats a load of crap. Sidekick = epic fail.

How can you claim something is "epic fail" when no one's even tried it yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper22

Why the heck should I go looking for a high lvl player to join my party because my level isn't high enough because I don't have that much time to play or I just don't feel like grinding.

Now I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious...

lyra_song · May 12, 2008, 07:44 PM // 19:44

He can see into the future!

Bryant Again · May 12, 2008, 07:46 PM // 19:46

Holy bajeesus!

But seriously, the sidekick system looks like nothing bad, besides awesome.

lyra_song · May 12, 2008, 08:01 PM // 20:01

well its interesting what Anet is trying to achieve with the sidekick system.

I see it primarily for players who want to bring their friends to high level areas, but those friends dont have high level chars yet.

Im sure we've all run into this situation before.

"we're doing FoW"
"Can i come?"
"Sure, we need a monk."
"my monk is only lvl 13. :["
"-.-"

Bryant Again · May 12, 2008, 08:04 PM // 20:04

It sounds like they'll also be addressing a similar problem:

"Need a monk for Hell's"
"Hey I got one I can bring"
"Aight map him over"
"Oh snap he's in the desert"
"Weak"

I guess we'll all see how it works out. I guessed that since it would be pretty pointless to have a sidekick system if you're still stuck in the linearity of the campaign, I assumed that dungeons/missions/instances would be based around character level. Interesting how I came to that. (hey, maybe I'll start a thread about it!)

Lwendvel · May 13, 2008, 12:26 AM // 00:26

I’d be happy with no level cap but that the increment of experience required should make a steep incline at higher levels. You don’t need to have tougher monsters/quests to cater for higher levels, just the benefit of requiring less help from henchmen/heroes/other players. That way those people that play casual will still be able to tackle those same monsters/quests only with more help needed. To tackle low levels having too much of an easy time with a high level in their party have it so experience gained on missions/quests and from monsters is decreased or increased based on the accumulated levels of the party. That also has the added benefit of parties willing to take on players of equal or lower level to increase their own experience gain.

Also I like the idea of incorporating a teaching system, where higher levels can help train up lower levels in their profession for a percentage decrease in the cost of experience, based on the level of the learner and that of the teacher. Just making numbers up, say player one at level 20 wants to increase a level but it would cost them 20,000 exp to do it themselves. Player one approaches player two who is level 30 and asks if they would train them up a level. Player two agrees and trains them up to level 21 for a fraction of the experience, say 40% less. If player one was level 25 it might be 20% less or whatever. In turn the teacher also earns experience from the teaching experience. Not sure if this has been done in MMORPGs before but I’ve seen it in MUDs before and it works well.

Shadow · May 13, 2008, 12:53 AM // 00:53

A level cap is essentially meaningless other than the fact it halts growth. It's the mechanics of such that determine everything. So no matter what they cap it at, it doesn't matter. They could cap it at level 5,000 and scale things so it plays exactly like the original Guild Wars prophecies level mechanics. (level 20 by the end/near end, or 5,000 in this case)

I'd be more interested in how the uncapped mechanics of the game would work, but in all honesty, that doesn't seem like a very GW thing to do. Especially if the benefits continue to trickle.

sixofone · May 13, 2008, 03:54 PM // 15:54

That's why content > levels/no levels. Make the game more diverse, add more things to do, since at some point you're going to reach the max level (or have no levels, which makes everyone the same). Either way, what makes you keep playing is if there are new things to do. Specialization keeps things interesting.

Related, but a bit off topic: anyone know how the Age of Conan is going to work? Looks good! I like the specialization trees in the character class concept. I'm more of a RPGer than a gamer. I love to make unusual characters, unique, not cookie cutter. In games where Race makes a difference in terms of professions that get a +/-, I'll play whatever interests me. I don't think, "Oh, but then I'm playing a gimped character because [enter name of race here] have advantages as warrior, but are weak as spell-casters." Tie abilities into more into the choices the player makes as he "levels up".

IDK - looking for GW to provide fresh content when they don't ask for a monthly fee is asking a lot. Maybe too much. But, on the other hand, if they provided new content, more like a persistent world game, they might attract more new players who will say, "Hey! Great game. No monthly fee? I'm there!" It opens up worlds of creativity for the design team. Every few months, say 6 just for argument, and some new threat appears. (This would be PvE, obviously.) The new Boss threat would be god-like, and require the coordinated efforts of a large team - maybe even Guild, or multiple Guilds, to take down. Failure to do so - maybe by district or region? - means some loss to those areas. (I know - "Then I'll just switch to a different district/region where they haven't suffered that loss." I'm just throwing out an idea here...)

Go back to the way Favor of the Gods used to be! Make us work for it! Even though I play PvE H&H, I think these rewards for coordinated team efforts will help the community. Give new challenges, both for the individual as well as the Guild level of play. Otherwise, yeah, once I've done a campaign, simply upping the challenge to HM hardly seems like its going to keep my interest.

Bryant Again · May 13, 2008, 04:04 PM // 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixofone

That's why content > levels/no levels. Make the game more diverse, add more things to do, since at some point you're going to reach the max level (or have no levels, which makes everyone the same). Either way, what makes you keep playing is if there are new things to do. Specialization keeps things interesting.

Or you could go the way of Oblivion, ME, and quite a few other select Bioware games and go the route of scaling encounters based on character level. Always provides something interesting and makes it so no two routes will ever be the same. But that's just something I'd like to see, and would have to be taken into more discussion in order to weigh the pros and cons.

Phaern Majes · May 13, 2008, 04:08 PM // 16:08

Put unsure, but it should be "don't care." Not going to buy it anyways, my GW experiences seem to getting worse and worse with each campaign/expansion they release. Still miss the days when it was just Prophecies... oh well plenty of other games out there :P