Curse

JoJ · Apr 13, 2007, 04:20 PM // 16:20

1. Capping a max number of levels or leaving levels uncapped

Cap it, definately. Uncapped levels would create another form of elitism that us casual players don't need. I don't want all of PvE to become like HA, but if levels got uncapped I can already see the Whammo's "Group lf more, must be lvl 60+"

2. How your outlook on #1 impacts or enhances things like overall game balance, the replayability of content, the development of future content, etc.

I think having a capped level actually leads to more replayability. I know that personally I wouldn't have half as many characters as I do if I knew I'd have to grind them up to lvl 60 as soon as I get to the crystal desert/Mainland.

3. When does leveling turn into grinding?

When just playing through the game at a normal pace isn't enough to be at the 'minimum' level for the current area in the story.

4. When does gaining character levels become inane?

after 20? j/k. Idk, GW is my first mmo, so I've never really experienced the 'fun' of level 21+, therefore I won't pretend to have an answer for this question.

Caith-Avar · Apr 13, 2007, 05:27 PM // 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

It was a good thing (IMO), but perhaps not understood by the majority of RPGers.

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by beanerman_99

Well, I just don't think alot of people who play Guild Wars ever bought into that. They still cannot just LET GO of the Leveling mentality. They need to feel like they are constantly gaining something by the hours they are playing. Its sooooo ingrained into us that accomplishment=what level we are that I think that's why Anet is adding the no level cap for GW2.

QFT and totally agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

But old players don't need time at all - to them, leveling up their Dervish or Paragon is a chore.

I have to mildly disagree here, as I personally find it rather helpful to have a low-level area to train the specifics of a new class without being confronted with the full complexity of its possibilities (which would, as far as I see it, also include that you are required to embrace the full complexity and apply it from the start). But I have to agree that someone who has actually played the game already and thus has some understanding of the basic mechanics requires much less time to learn as he only has to learn the specifics of the new class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Hopefully, Guild Wars 2 will find some balance where people can just play the game, and not worry about getting to a certain level. How they will do it, I have no idea.

Same here, but as I already stated: In ANet I trust.

Mordakai · Apr 13, 2007, 05:36 PM // 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoJ

1. Capping a max number of levels or leaving levels uncapped

Cap it, definately. Uncapped levels would create another form of elitism that us casual players don't need. I don't want all of PvE to become like HA, but if levels got uncapped I can already see the Whammo's "Group lf more, must be lvl 60+"

Uh, if the level is capped at 100, it will have Elitism anyway. There's already Elitism with the level 20 cap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoJ

2. How your outlook on #1 impacts or enhances things like overall game balance, the replayability of content, the development of future content, etc.

I think having a capped level actually leads to more replayability. I know that personally I wouldn't have half as many characters as I do if I knew I'd have to grind them up to lvl 60 as soon as I get to the crystal desert/Mainland.

What if you realized there was no max level at all? Would that stop you from making new characters? If you take away the incentive to grind...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoJ

3. When does leveling turn into grinding?

When just playing through the game at a normal pace isn't enough to be at the 'minimum' level for the current area in the story.

Agreed. I'd even take it a step further, and want to see places in the game where there's a role for everyone, no matter your level. The huge PvP world wars sound like they will accomplish that, but it will be harder in a Mission based area.

When I played City of Heroes, the main goal is to gain levels, to get more powers. The powers were what made your character, and the goal was to be able to fly, shoot laser beams from your eyes, or be industructable, or whatever. Of course, the best powers were only available to the highest level characters, which leads to grind (ie, I want to be able to fly now (or soon), not 60 hours into the game).

Guild Wars turns that whole system on it's head: As long as you have a cap on the maximum number of attribute points, it doesn't matter what level you are. Skills are (mostly) available based on your physical location in the game, not what level you are (some of the PvE exclusive skills are based on Rank, which is like a level).

As long as I feel like I'm not substandard from other players, a no level cap will be fine. Hell, as long as there is a decent solo system, level caps in PvE might not really matter at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caith Avar

I have to mildly disagree here, as I personally find it rather helpful to have a low-level area to train the specifics of a new class without being confronted with the full complexity of its possibilities (which would, as far as I see it, also include that you are required to embrace the full complexity and apply it from the start). But I have to agree that someone who has actually played the game already and thus has some understanding of the basic mechanics requires much less time to learn as he only has to learn the specifics of the new class.

Yes, I agree, some learning time is nice with the new professions. But, at the same time, during the sneak peaks people jumped right into PvP with level 20 Dervishes and Paragons and had fun. They had never played those characters before, I largely had to rely on pre-builds. Did that make the game less fun?

I want Guild Wars 2 to be the best game possible for the most amount of people. That means pleasing the levelers, the PvEers, the PvPers, the soloers, the role-players, etc.

It may be impossible, but I want Anet to at least try.

beanerman_99 · Apr 13, 2007, 05:56 PM // 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

When I played City of Heroes, the main goal is to gain levels, to get more powers. The powers were what made your character, and the goal was to be able to fly, shoot laser beams from your eyes, or be industructable. of course, the best powers were only available to the highest level characters.

See, this is what I was trying to get at. This type of play has been the "standard" every since RPG-type games have been introduced to video games. Is it a broken system? No, not really. But it is the system that people just plain expect when they pick up a game like Guild Wars. And as you go on to say....

Quote:

Guild Wars turns that whole system on it's head: As long as you have a cap on the maximum number of attribute points, it doesn't matter what level you are. Skills are (mostly) available based on your physical location in the game, not what level you are (some of the PvE exclusive skills are based on Rank, which is like a level).

Agreed. They are trying to break out of the "normal mode" and say what most GW fans know already "its not the character level that determines how good you are, the the choice of skills and how you use them that defines your worth".

I, for one, LOVE this idea. I think it a new and refreshing approach to the whole leveling thought process.

One thing that I think needs to be addressed in GW2 is armor. When/what will define when/how/where a character can wear better armor? In Prophecies they set up a pretty good system, you got higher armor as you went on to new areas. BUT players found a way around that by buying run's to Droknars Forge and getting the highest armor and then going back to the starting areas. Fine and dandy...until they showed up in PVP areanas with an unfair advantage. So, GW tried to have armor and weapons not dependent on level but maybe they should have made it a tad bit dependent on Attributes.

Quote:

As long as I feel like I'm not substandard from other players, a no level cap will be fine. Hell, as long as their is a decent solo system, level caps in PvE might not really matter at all.

Agreed. Like I stated earlier, I hope its merely a cosmetic-type thing to prance around with lvl 123 under your character. I sure hope that you don't keep getting progressively stronger with each level or I think the game will go down the tubes.

Ensign · Apr 13, 2007, 06:15 PM // 18:15

1) A level cap essentially sets a goal, 'get to this level before you're done leveling and can (ostensibly) start the endgame'. An unobtainable or uncapped game instead makes leveling up an essential gameplay element. It's simply a design issue of where you want to place emphasis in your PvE game.

2) Neither way really promotes game balance, you simply have to design things a bit differently - you balance more things for endgame in a capped game, but otherwise you're balancing for the progression that you expect characters to go through. All it means is that players need to have content available for their level, regardless of speed or steepness of the leveling curves.

As far as replayability goes, leveling content is almost by definition not replayable, unless you have a really shitty game that requires you to replay content while leveling just to gain more levels. That's bad pacing. Future content is simply developed for the model - with a level cap that people are at, you design content for people of that level. No cap, you keep creating new areas to further progression.

3) Grind is reasonably defined as 'having to do something you don't want to do in order to do what you do want to do.' Leveling becomes grind as soon as you have to start repeating content to further level in order to pass the next encounter. That's usually a symptom of bad pacing.

That's really only true in games where leveling in a peripheral goal. In leveling to level games, you don't really have 'level grind' of the same degree because leveling is the goal.

4) That's pretty simple, leveling becomes inane once you have access to and can complete all game content with a character of your level. Any levels after that simply make that content easier.

Peace,
-CxE

Mordakai · Apr 13, 2007, 06:19 PM // 18:19

Well, beanerman, it sounds like levels will make some difference.

This was posted on Gamona, a German game site. (Thanks to Caith-Avar for sending it to me!) Here's the link:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Weekes

Hey all,

I thought I'd drop in here and point you to an interview on German site Gamona. Yes, I know what you're thinking ... but no, there's an English version as well that's good reading. Included is some clarification of the level cap situation.

Quote:

gamona: We heard some rumors about the level cap, which is said to be much higher in Guild Wars 2 than in Guild Wars (150 instead of 20). Why did you decide to raise the level cap that drastically and how is character development going to look like after reaching the cap?

Arena.net: We know that there are some quite "precise" numbers ("Level 150") floating around. First of all, I'd like to say that there has been no final decision about the level cap yet. The numbers you heard should rather illustrate the fundamental idea of the "new" level system. What is sure by now is that we will have a much higher level cap in Guild Wars 2 than in Guild Wars or even won't have a cap at all. The reason for this is that in Guild Wars, the game does not really start until level 20. But after reaching the level cap - although there are so many ways in developing your character - Guild Wars is lacking public recognition of character development, because the level does not increase any more. That's what we're going to change in Guild Wars 2 by rising the level cap a lot. At the same time, we're flattening the power curve, so the difference between a level 50 and a level 100 character would be much bigger than between a level 100 and 150 char. This increases freedom in character development without making Max-Lvl-Characters too strong.

So, yes, this looks like a step backwards. But, it's still early, and we don't know all the details, so I'm withholding judgement (for now!)

As for armor, I hope it's like Hero armor where it's just based on your level, but is then capped at a point. Otherwise, I'll just walk around in "beginning" armor until I get to the Max place, which always seemed silly to me.

EDIT: Great points Ensign, as usual. May I ask specifically what you think about Guild Wars 2 having no level cap, and if you think it will "ruin Guild Wars", as some allege?

Do you think Guild Wars 2 will have scalable monsters to counter high/no level limits?

jkyarr · Apr 13, 2007, 06:28 PM // 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by beanerman_99

An opposite example would be the Legend of Zelda series. Wow, what a good set up this game has if you really stop and think about it. Firstly, NO LEVELING. Everything that you need to make you stronger is found along the natural procession of the story. You find Heart Containers along the way to give you more life. You find your weapons along the way as well. Usually you gain the weapon in preparation for the next boss you will fight. But that weapon usually allows you to gain access to other items you need as well...like more Heart Containers. I just love the how these games flow. There is very little feeling of "STOP YOUR NOT WORTHY YET".

I hate to nitpick... but LoZ used geography and event triggers to graduate the content. It's the same mechanism that Leveling is used for, but it's not a level-centric system. I agree with you that I like that type of system much better than the "no non-level-20-characters may enter the fissure of woe" approach. But I felt the need to post a reply because I think it's important that we realize that every game has to implement some system of content graduation. To me the most smooth-flowing, organic, natural means of doing this is event triggers. In most implementations event triggers have been connected with geographic progression or combat encounter progression. Guild Wars does this type of thing when you finish a mission and it automatically map travels you to an area you couldn't previously reach. It important to realize that this kind of progression is actually plot progression more than character progression, unless it's paired with things like loot drops (in LoZ) or XP rewards (in GW missions) that effectively bring the character, his/her armor, weapons, skills, attributes, etc. up to par for the upcoming encounters. The downside of geography and event trigger progression is that once the game is documented (as with our GW wiki) walkthroughs can make the game more like a maze to run (run out to point A, make trigger B fire by killing target X, pull lever Y to drop the bridge and you're out). Untalented, unlearned players can successfully run the maze and get the rewards without ever being much good at playing their characters.

So what if we had to, for example, use Protection Prayers Spells and Enchanments repeatedly in order to earn an attribute increase in Protection Prayers? What if Attribute points were awarded for every X number of target foes you cast them on? Would that force a higher level of compitency and an increase in talented players? Or would it turn character progression into a dull grind? I'm sure there are people that feel both points of view are true.

Bottom line... DOWN WITH LEVEL-CENTRIC GAME DESIGN! There are better ways to let your players experience character progression.

King's Spectre · Apr 13, 2007, 06:31 PM // 18:31

1. Capping a max number of levels or leaving levels uncapped

Uncapped, but a pretty steep diminishing return curve after a certain point.

2. How your outlook on #1 impacts or enhances things like overall game balance, the replayability of content, the development of future content, etc.

I think this should work something like hard mode will in Tyria. One fully done pass through the game will get you into the "nominal" max level - call it 70-85. With the diminishing returns curve, characters at lvl70 would be able to play effectively in the same areas that a lvl95 would (the lvl95 may have a bit more flexibillity or be able to do "fringe" builds at the 70 could not). Replay is addressed by unlocking hard mode at the end where all the content becomes lvl70+.

3. When does leveling turn into grinding?

Leveling would be a grind after you complete the game. You should have a fully capable character and any additional levels would give you decreasing benefits.

4. When does gaining character levels become inane?

For forming groups in high-level areas, lvl70-80. After that it's mostly worn like a title.

jkyarr · Apr 13, 2007, 06:49 PM // 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arena.net

Arena.net: We know that there are some quite "precise" numbers ("Level 150") floating around. First of all, I'd like to say that there has been no final decision about the level cap yet. The numbers you heard should rather illustrate the fundamental idea of the "new" level system. What is sure by now is that we will have a much higher level cap in Guild Wars 2 than in Guild Wars or even won't have a cap at all. The reason for this is that in Guild Wars, the game does not really start until level 20. But after reaching the level cap - although there are so many ways in developing your character - Guild Wars is lacking public recognition of character development, because the level does not increase any more. That's what we're going to change in Guild Wars 2 by rising the level cap a lot. At the same time, we're flattening the power curve, so the difference between a level 50 and a level 100 character would be much bigger than between a level 100 and 150 char. This increases freedom in character development without making Max-Lvl-Characters too strong.

Sounds like they feel the need to appeal to the superficial appearance of character progression for marketing purposes... I find that disappointing but understandable... I still maintain that they could have the stat "character level" without developing the game design around the usage of it. That's the best of both worlds.... Appeal is important... pair the appeal of apparent character progression by using a level number (poor design and not representative of player ability IMO) together with a more organic, less level-centric content graduation methodology and everybody wins!

beanerman_99 · Apr 13, 2007, 07:17 PM // 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkyarr

I hate to nitpick... but LoZ used geography and event triggers to graduate the content. It's the same mechanism that Leveling is used for, but it's not a level-centric system. I agree with you that I like that type of system much better than the "no non-level-20-characters may enter the fissure of woe" approach. But I felt the need to post a reply because I think it's important that we realize that every game has to implement some system of content graduation. To me the most smooth-flowing, organic, natural means of doing this is event triggers. In most implementations event triggers have been connected with geographic progression or combat encounter progression. Guild Wars does this type of thing when you finish a mission and it automatically map travels you to an area you couldn't previously reach. It important to realize that this kind of progression is actually plot progression more than character progression, unless it's paired with things like loot drops (in LoZ) or XP rewards (in GW missions) that effectively bring the character, his/her armor, weapons, skills, attributes, etc. up to par for the upcoming encounters. The downside of geography and event trigger progression is that once the game is documented (as with our GW wiki) walkthroughs can make the game more like a maze to run (run out to point A, make trigger B fire by killing target X, pull lever Y to drop the bridge and you're out). Untalented, unlearned players can successfully run the maze and get the rewards without ever being much good at playing their characters.

I understand what your saying. I was just trying to give an example of a game where there were no arbitrary level numbers that limited you on what you did in the game. Geography does play a big part in games that have no levels. Another one may be Shadow of Collossus. They character you start with is basically the same that you end with (with exception of the strength bubble).

Mordakai's quote from Anet guy on levels in GW2 re-emphasizes the point that, for most gamers, the whole concept of character level, leveling, and the steady increasing of some sort of benefit you gain with each successive level is soooooo ingrained in us that (most players) cannot seem to let go of. It just doesn't make sense to them at all. Why play the game if your not progressively getting stronger? It is not their fault though

Quote:

So what if we had to, for example, use Protection Prayers Spells and Enchanments repeatedly in order to earn an attribute increase in Protection Prayers? What if Attribute points were awarded for every X number of target foes you cast them on? Would that force a higher level of compitency and an increase in talented players? Or would it turn character progression into a dull grind? I'm sure there are people that feel both points of view are true.

Isn't this kind of like how Dungeon Seige played out? You got better at something ONLY if you consistently did it? Like, If you used a sword your strenght increased and power increased. If you casted a lot of spells...well your magic stats went up. And so on.

Now, I remember when I started playing this I just didn't like it. It upset me. I wanted to pick a warrior class, use swords, and get stronger by a set leveling system. Or I wanted to pick a spell caster and go that route. It seemed odd to me to start with a "blank slate" character and make him into whatever I wanted. The main reason being that I thought I would try to have him prorficient in everything, which would actually make him weak in everything. It took some time but I got used to the new system and grew to like it.

Same goes for the level 20 cap system that ANET introduced with Guild Wars. Yes, it was different. Yes, I initially thought it was stupid and a bit wonky. Yes, I complained about it. BUT the more I played the more I finally began to understand what Anet was trying to do to the whole leveling mind-set that gamers have. I loved it and embraced it and learned to have more fun with it. GONE were the shackles of grinding for XP. RELEASED from the bondage of being tied to a number of levels gained system of getting stronger. FREE I tell you. Anet FREED all of us!!

But sadly, as stated in the article, Anet has rolled over and given in to the masses an are giving us a new leveling system to quiet the disgruntled masses who just don't get it.

jkyarr · Apr 13, 2007, 07:34 PM // 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by beanerman_99

But sadly, as stated in the article, Anet has rolled over and given in to the masses an are giving us a new leveling system to quiet the disgruntled masses who just don't get it.

Dwayna save us! I hope what you say is not the case.... I must still hold out hope that Anet, while obviously seeking to appeal to... um.. those folks, will stay true to their origins and move away from a level-centric gaming model.

Caith-Avar · Apr 13, 2007, 08:15 PM // 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Well, it sounds like levels will make some difference.

This was posted on Gamona, a German game site.
So, yes, this looks like a step backwards. But, it's still early, and we don't know all the details, so I'm withholding judgement (for now!)

I still hold hope in the term "flattened power curve". While it has been interpreted otherwise, I read the part you marked bold (in the quote) like this:
Difference(50-100) > Difference(100-150) (For those not familiar: The Difference (between level 50 and 100) is greater than the Difference (between level 100 and 150).)
It doesn't matter for that example how powerful level 50 or level 100 is, the point is that the levels above 100 (to 150) are much less "more powerful" than those before, in comparison. I see the example as comparing differences between two sets of levels, rather than comparing two levels to each other.
I draw this conclusion from the image of the flattened curve. Starting out almost vertically, then "lowering" into almost horizontal. The part before that turning point is obviously steeper, there is more ascension, more gain, than after that turning point. So, to me the example doesn't mean anything else than "Level 20 will be much stronger than level 1, but level 40 will have much less advantage over level 21 than that." would.
At least, that's how I read it. I still hope they will figure out some good "breaking point" for levels, some average level to reach and a good way to easily reach it, with diminishing returns afterward.

Mordakai · Apr 13, 2007, 08:26 PM // 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caith-Avar

I draw this conclusion from the image of the flattened curve. Starting out almost vertically, then "lowering" into almost horizontal. The part before that turning point is obviously steeper, there is more ascension, more gain, than after that turning point. So, to me the example doesn't mean anything else than "Level 20 will be much stronger than level 1, but level 40 will have much less advantage over level 21 than that." would.
At least, that's how I read it. I still hope they will figure out some good "breaking point" for levels, some average level to reach and a good way to easily reach it, with diminishing returns afterward.

I hope your right...

My fear is that since "the difference between a level 50 and a level 100 character would be much bigger than between a level 100 and 150 char," that means a level 100 character would be much, much more powerful than a level 20. (!)

Of course, there would be an average level of players that we don't know yet, but regardless, as a casual player the threat of being left behind does exist!

It's only my faith in Anet that keeps from worrying too much. Over and over they've said they're making a game that will reward players the way they want to play it, and so I take them at their word, that they will not purposely screw over the casual player.

Ecklipze · Apr 13, 2007, 08:44 PM // 20:44

If you ask me they should have just stuck with the previous Lv 20 max system...

beanerman_99 · Apr 13, 2007, 08:59 PM // 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

I hope your right...
It's only my faith in Anet that keeps from worrying too much. Over and over they've said they're making a game that will reward players the way they want to play it, and so I take them at their word, that they will not purposely screw over the casual player.

Agreed. Its all wait and see at this point. But I seriously doubt that Anet would abandon their stand of Skill over Time invested type game play.

And really I think this discussion has been more than just what Anet will do with GW2. I think it also has to do with future games made by others that we will play. Leveling has got to be a very central point that game developers wrestle with each time they develop a game. I don't envy them at all. As seen in some games, if you go to far from what players consider normal, they will not buy, play, or support the game. I wonder if Anet worries about this and is trying to find the "middle ground" where they are pushing the boundaries but slowly and incrementally so as not to scare away potential buyers and players of their games.

Good and interesting discussion. thanks everyone!

Caith-Avar · Apr 13, 2007, 08:59 PM // 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

I hope your right...

My fear is that since "the difference between a level 50 and a level 100 character would be much bigger than between a level 100 and 150 char," that means a level 100 character would be much, much more powerful than a level 20. (!)

I hope that I am right as well. However, if I follow the logic of the curve, it would mean that the highest gain per level would be from level 1 to 2, the lowest from 149 to 150 or wherever the cap would be (without cap it would be somewhere between infinite-1 and infinite, or maybe the curve would actually flatten out to be straight horizontal at some point).
Thus meaning: So: The gain from 1-50 would actually be the greatest, followed by 50-100... and 100-150 (and so on) trailing behind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Of course, there would be an average level of players that we don't know yet, but regardless, as a casual player the threat of being left behind does exist!

I believe to be a casual player myself, and I sure know your worries. But I hope for an average level that is quickly reached. So let's take 150 as cap, 75 as breaking point. So by playing you advance quickly and without feeling that you have to level (pacing is the key) up to level 75, which you reach shortly before completing some major point in the story/game/whatever (as without a story like in GW1, being "through" the game will likely not exist), at completing it or shortly after. And from then on, the game is fully open to you. You will still gain levels, but slower, and with less benefit per level, but you won't require them.
That's how I'd sketch what I think they will do. No guarantees on that, however, just me thinking loud here.

As for casual gamers... the market is finite. ANet knows that. On the hardcore market they would have to compete with all the other, established MMOs. I don't think they want that. They have already made their attempts to appeal to casual players - because that is a type of players that still remains largely untapped by MMOs. WoW, for example, also tried to tap into new "player types" - they used their Warcraft franchise to tap into a new player type besides the hardcore MMO-Gamers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecklipze

If you ask me they should have just stuck with the previous Lv 20 max system...

Would have been fine with me as well.

Ensign · Apr 13, 2007, 09:52 PM // 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

May I ask specifically what you think about Guild Wars 2 having no level cap, and if you think it will "ruin Guild Wars", as some allege?

It depends on what Guild Wars is to you. I'd imagine that having no level cap will make Guild Wars even better for a majority of the playerbase. Otherwise, why would they make the change?

Personally, what attracted me to Guild Wars was the strong de-emphasis on character leveling and progression, and a lot of emphasis on build choices and execution. My game of choice before Guild Wars was Magic; as far as video games went, I was on the downhill slope of Unreal Tournament (I could feel my speed, reflexes, and precision sliding away slowly), and I was mostly having fun playing with the limits of Diablo 2 1.08. Standard Diablo II was insipid - very addictive, carrot on a stick + slot machine gameplay - that stole more of my time than I'd like to admit during college, before I started to be disgusted by boring gameplay that just fed my inherent obsessive-compulsive tendencies with immediate rewards. What kept me interested in Diablo II was how moddable it was, and how easy it was to hack up offline characters. Going into sandbox mode, the game was a lot more interesting - you could roll up a character, play it for a couple hours, then move all the skills around and make new equipment and play a different character for a while, see how that played out, make tweaks. With hacks I could really explore the depths of their skill system, see what was good, what wasn't...and after that, start tweaking the game to see what the limits were. What could be dealt with, what couldn't, etc. Character progression was pretty meaningless, but it was an interesting puzzle of choices and consequences that really appealed to me.

So of course Guild Wars comes along, and offers the idea of a game that takes out the boring elements (character progression) and puts even more emphasis on system depth and bredth, where you didn't spend all your time trying to build the known uber template but instead sorted through all the options available to figure out what the good templates were and why...and then, presumably, you add a bunch of different environments with different conditions. It was presented as this great puzzle game, of figuring out how to build your characters and teams to beat different obstacles, and that was all kinds of appealing. Ultimately the game slid backwards a bit, had to make a bunch of compromises, and had enough different visions that it couldn't be exactly what I wanted it to be...but it accomplished probably 10% of what it could have, which is pretty good.

Guild Wars 2 and an uncapped leveling system? Bluntly, that sounds like more of the same regurgitated shit every MMO has been thus far. That being, carrot-on-a-stick progressive gameplay with lots of shinies to substitute for gameplay. What I'd really want from GW2 is PvP characters in *PvE*, the ability to roll up whatever I wanted to try and accomplish goals - and PvE designed with that in mind, to really push the limits of the combat system. GW2 sounds like it's taking the opposite approach, of simplifying the combat system and replacing accomplishments with carrots. Not that there's anything wrong with that model - hell, if I was a MMO developer and I wanted to make truckloads of money that's what I'd design too. But as a player, that gametype is insipid and I'd rather spend my time doing flash puzzles than trying to kill rats, not because killing rats is interesting, but because killing rats gives me XP and gold.

Maybe I just got old too fast, but giving me a gold star for doing something easy is not something I want to waste my time on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Do you think Guild Wars 2 will have scalable monsters to counter high/no level limits?

I really hope not. Those games end up being matters of 'can you get your character to progress faster than the monsters do', introduces effective de-leveling...and honestly it takes away the entire point of leveling in the first place. Scaling world RPGs are really levelless RPGs made by companies with conservative finances and emasculated design teams. Perfectly good games for shaving hours off of your day and days off of your life, if that's what you're into.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caith-Avar

As for casual gamers... the market is finite. ANet knows that. On the hardcore market they would have to compete with all the other, established MMOs. I don't think they want that. They have already made their attempts to appeal to casual players - because that is a type of players that still remains largely untapped by MMOs.

As long as they're committed to their financial model of no monthly fees, they absolutely have to appeal to the casual gamer. The key to their business is making licence sales, not heavy playtime per player or even constant player retention.

Put another way - spending a lot of time developing extensive, time intensive endgame scenarios is a waste of their time. Their financial department should rip them apart if they tried to do that. Hardcore players that demand a ton of endgame content are a minority of your player base, and you don't even make any extra money off of them - they aren't paying a monthy fee that makes keeping players engaged month to month paramount. They aren't in the business of heavily replayable content, they're in the business of lots of new content, which they can sell as a new game. That means accessable content, expanding the franchise, being easier for new players to get into.

If you want a really deep, repeatable endgame for power users, you want a game with a monthly fee, to support player retention and to keep providing content for those users. It's not about the principle of monthly fees being good or bad; it's about charging users for what you want to provide. If you charge for one thing and provide another, you inevitibly start to slide towards what you're actually getting paid for. The speed just depends on how clued in your business guys are and how much sway they have.

Peace,
-CxE

Loviatar · Apr 13, 2007, 10:08 PM // 22:08

for all of you still hoping to keep the level 20 system while making *cosmetic* level number increases i refer you to the following if you havent seen the article yet.

there will be a strong sidekick system which will allow a friend 10 (or more) levels lower than you to join your group and get enough benifits which will and i quote

Quote:

* allow the lower-level player to sufficiently keep up with their higher level buddy*

that says even 10 levels will make a big difference not a little difference.

and if the higher levels flatten out some that does not mean all those 75?+ levels you had to get through do not count.

MSecorsky · Apr 13, 2007, 10:21 PM // 22:21

Maybe something else needs to be considered... let's say ANet does have a cap at 100 (ugh)... and let's say that the level 100 is much more powerful than the level 20. It seems to me like they're going to make it so that regardless, the level 100 will not be able to harm the level 20. Even in the world PvP with mixed levels, the level 20 buddies with the level 100 and
winds up much more powerful. PKing will never be a factor. This could be marginably tolerable.

However... I could forsee a problem with level 100s having a massive PvE advantage, which would blow goats.

Back on topic... we level out of habit, that's it. Sadly, it's such an ingrained habit that it's extremely difficult to envision a substitute.

jkyarr · Apr 13, 2007, 10:48 PM // 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

for all of you still hoping to keep the level 20 system while making *cosmetic* level number increases i refer you to the following if you havent seen the article yet.

there will be a strong sidekick system which will allow a friend 10 (or more) levels lower than you to join your group and get enough benifits which will and i quote

that says even 10 levels will make a big difference not a little difference.

and if the higher levels flatten out some that does not mean all those 75?+ levels you had to get through do not count.

I think you miss the point of whats really behind leveling... Who cares if the number is kept in the game and increases over 20? The design is the important factor. Sidekicking and the significance of the relative strength of each level number in progression are symptomatic sidebar discussions. What lies beneath the number? Why write the game with dependencies on the number that we call character level when there are more significant stats of off which to base the design? I for one... want more from the experience of playing the game than to be judged by the players and the game design logic based on a number that I can manipulate without the actual talent to play the game well. Judge me for how well or poorly I play... not for what the number next to my name says. Graduate my access to new content in the game based on how well I play... not on what the number says.