Level cap - GW2 - Page 22 - Guild Wars Forums

Bryant Again · Jan 18, 2009, 10:38 AM // 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Or don't implement it and don't sacrifice anything...

Sacrifice a minor point of longevity that a few may enjoy, while still keeping themselves indefinitely unique by implementing major timesinks that don't offer anything besides personal satisfaction? I'll take it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Yea...because what you said was so ridiculous it barely deserves discussion. I'm surprised you even said it.

Sure thing, bro.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The problem with your theory is this falls right back in to "don't like it don't use it". And we know where that ends up. The reason it is so terrible is because we are talking about game health, not the selfish experiences of each individual.

As for who draws the line, well that would be Anet of course. The problem here is that they drew the line then blatantly stepped over it, not that they moved the line.

Firstly: again, we're not dealing with numbers, we're dealing with colors. DL;DU is iffy here because of how non-factual the situation is. That's why that line is so hard to draw, it's fuzzy as hell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

There was some bad in GW1, but I'm betting Anet would give anything to have the same amount of success...

And that's why this passage is cut short.

We have "official word" on features that we've only heard of, and seeing how much everyone here skews what ANet says it's just showing you to always await to judge the final product.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Sure Anet is allowed to try new things. The problem here is that the leveling system was a key feature in 1 that they are going to change in 2. They didn't trash it in later releases, they simply IMPROVED IT! Level is supposed to mean nothing in Guild Wars! I can pull out several official statements that say that. So yes, in reality there is not much point to levels as they don't mean anything. This isn't a flaw in the game, it is a PART of the game.

You pretty much got it right there in the middle, but only applied it to Guild Wars' in its current state: Levels don't mean anything in Guild Wars, but also in the best RPGs. Baldur's Gate? Won't care. Oblivion? Not a biggie. KotOR? Well there is the lust for your lightsaber but that's about it. The rest is on you.

When game progression is done right, you can put any level cap you want in there: 5, 50, 5,000,000, doesn't matter. You've got a game that scales to it that's also amazing.

And those who do like the look of a high level? They get their cake, too. Those who don't? Remember, it doesn't mean anything.

Interesting tidbit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

By changing it in Guild Wars 2, they are making it seem like a flaw because it isn't like "those other games", when in reality it was the entire point of this game to begin with.

Where did they say it was a flaw?

DreamWind · Jan 18, 2009, 11:19 AM // 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Sacrifice a minor point of longevity that a few may enjoy, while still keeping themselves indefinitely unique by implementing major timesinks that don't offer anything besides personal satisfaction? I'll take it.

No...sacrifice the entire game philosophy (and points of longevity) by implementing non-skill based timesinks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Firstly: again, we're not dealing with numbers, we're dealing with colors. DL;DU is iffy here because of how non-factual the situation is. That's why that line is so hard to draw, it's fuzzy as hell.

Using your logic, I can say everything is colors. I think Ursan had positive effects...its not factual that it was negative!! Of course it would be stupid to say that. It would also be stupid to say that additions to Guild Wars didn't cause it to change drastically, and if you are looking from a purist or consumer point of view, the changes were for the worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

We have "official word" on features that we've only heard of, and seeing how much everyone here skews what ANet says it's just showing you to always await to judge the final product.

We have them on record saying no monthly fees, world PvP, higher level caps, etc etc. Unless you think they will change their mind? When it comes to level caps, based on the idea alone a solid judgment can be made that they are changing the direction of the franchise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

When game progression is done right, you can put any level cap you want in there: 5, 50, 5,000,000, doesn't matter. You've got a game that scales to it that's also amazing.

And those who do like the look of a high level? They get their cake, too. Those who don't? Remember, it doesn't mean anything.

The problem here is that most of the people who want higher level caps would not get their cake in your example, and the people who don't want higher level caps would hate it. The entire reason for wanting a higher level cap is for it TO MATTER MORE. Meaning it MEANS SOMETHING. If I have level 888999, I want to be more uber than a level 100000. It took work to get there. All of these things are the exact opposite of Guild Wars 1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Where did they say it was a flaw?

By the very idea of higher level caps, they have abandoned their old system and original idea. If it wasn't flawed, why change it?

Bryant Again · Jan 18, 2009, 05:57 PM // 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

No...sacrifice the entire game philosophy (and points of longevity) by implementing non-skill based timesinks.

Skill>time is still prevalent in gameplay. You cannot grind your stats and solo everything in the game. The only thing close to that is the benefit you gain from title-based PvE skills, but the additions are by far and large minuscule - even moreso with the patch including the nerf to Ursan.

It's not that they want against anything, the game simply changed from having it to not having it. How it was against their philosophy is entirely open up to interpretation.

In regards to "points of longevity", is this about Guild Wars being a PvP-based endgame?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Using your logic, I can say everything is colors. I think Ursan had positive effects...its not factual that it was negative!!

It simplified the game in a nonsensical manner. Not only did it throw out profession/build/party requirements, but it was also implemented to make the game easier - which makes zero sense when you have two difficulty modes to tune. If players are having a difficult time in an area you make the entry level more accessible, not the difficult level. If you want players to improve you don't prohibit their learning.

It goes back to the BFG9000 example: when you have the possibilities for all this gameplay, why limit it?

And I'm not ignoring the fact that Guild Wars changed, I'm taking note of the fact that due to how largely subjective and personal it is, we're not in any position to say it changed as a whole for better or worse. Just us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

We have them on record saying no monthly fees, world PvP, higher level caps, etc.

And that's about all we know.

How will each of these work together? How will each of these work alone? How will the game evolve? 0 idea.

Wait and see before final judgment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The problem here is that most of the people who want higher level caps would not get their cake in your example, and the people who don't want higher level caps would hate it. The entire reason for wanting a higher level cap is for it TO MATTER MORE. Meaning it MEANS SOMETHING. If I have level 888999, I want to be more uber than a level 100000. It took work to get there. All of these things are the exact opposite of Guild Wars 1.

And that's just one of many bad ways to introduce a higher level cap. If you go the way of Mass Effect and Baldur's Gate you do in fact become stronger, but so do those around you. Because of that you really might as well just start at level 1 and stay there.

And fortunately, not everyone wants a higher level cap to "be more uber".

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

By the very idea of higher level caps, they have abandoned their old system and original idea. If it wasn't flawed, why change it?

For something new, remember? Not everyone wants to play the same game with better graphics.

Age · Jan 18, 2009, 11:24 PM // 23:24

When it comes to a level cap if there is going to be a GW 3 then yes if not then no.This is so this gives the devs time to work on both games GW and GW2

DreamWind · Jan 19, 2009, 10:50 AM // 10:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Skill>time is still prevalent in gameplay. You cannot grind your stats and solo everything in the game. The only thing close to that is the benefit you gain from title-based PvE skills, but the additions are by far and large minuscule - even moreso with the patch including the nerf to Ursan.

It's not that they want against anything, the game simply changed from having it to not having it. How it was against their philosophy is entirely open up to interpretation.

No its not. Sigh...I can see this is not going to get through. Please read the Prophecies box. Then please explain to me how adding things that are time>skill is not completely against the skill>time philosophy. Regardless of how much skill>time is still in the game, adding time>skill that is completely against the philosophy is not open to interpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

In regards to "points of longevity", is this about Guild Wars being a PvP-based endgame?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It simplified the game in a nonsensical manner. Not only did it throw out profession/build/party requirements, but it was also implemented to make the game easier - which makes zero sense when you have two difficulty modes to tune. If players are having a difficult time in an area you make the entry level more accessible, not the difficult level. If you want players to improve you don't prohibit their learning.

It goes back to the BFG9000 example: when you have the possibilities for all this gameplay, why limit it?

And I'm not ignoring the fact that Guild Wars changed, I'm taking note of the fact that due to how largely subjective and personal it is, we're not in any position to say it changed as a whole for better or worse. Just us.

You said this before, and I'll answer the exact same way. Adding a grind based endgame did exactly everything you just mentioned about Ursan. So how can anybody say that Ursan changed the game for the worse while a grind based endgame changed it for the better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And that's about all we know.

How will each of these work together? How will each of these work alone? How will the game evolve? 0 idea.

Wait and see before final judgment.

I can judge based solely on the annoucement. No matter how they implement it, I don't like a higher level cap (and world PvP but thats another thread).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And fortunately, not everyone wants a higher level cap to "be more uber".

Besides you, I have seen zero good reasons for it in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

For something new, remember? Not everyone wants to play the same game with better graphics.

I don't either...but I want it to have the same philosophy and mechanics. Instead it seems as if the entire franchise has changed.

Bryant Again · Jan 19, 2009, 11:27 AM // 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Please read the Prophecies box. Then please explain to me how adding things that are time>skill is not completely against the skill>time philosophy.

All that "time-spent" grants next to no benefit besides your own personal achievement (broken record GO). To beat the game and it's hardest areas, you have to have a broad understanding of the game. You can't grind out your specs or void that skill required simply by doing a mundane task.

Because of that, it still shines far above the MMO crowd. I don't put much emphasis on the things that all that "time" gets you because they just alter your appearance. Because of this, I still hold the "skill>time" philosophy true (save for actual game-affecting benefits, but at least that's been partially remedied).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Yes.

If ANet wanted a solely based PvP endgame they wouldn't have provided so much PvE replayability (for it's type) or much PvE at all. Point this out as ANet's greatest "fault", not in providing more to their playerbase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You said this before, and I'll answer the exact same way. Adding a grind based endgame did exactly everything you just mentioned about Ursan...

So it completely voided the need to learn the game, the professions, the areas, the skills, the uh everything?. I had absolutely no idea.

It makes the game better via supplying for those who want to spend a lot of time in the game while not disadvantaging those who don't, and recognizing achievements by players of all types via HoM.

PS: You now copy-paste from this post here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I can judge based solely on the annoucement. No matter how they implement it, I don't like a higher level cap (and world PvP but thats another thread).

What you personally want and desire is a bit safer to judge by, but not their success or how each and every feature will work with one another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Besides you, I have seen zero good reasons for it in this thread.

Very few have given any, not that there's much of a reason to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I don't either...but I want it to have the same philosophy and mechanics. Instead it seems as if the entire franchise has changed.

Oh hai BG and ME and like every other good RPG.

Numbers are meaningless, although that doesn't appear to be the case for you.

DreamWind · Jan 19, 2009, 12:16 PM // 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

All that "time-spent" grants next to no benefit besides your own personal achievement (broken record GO). To beat the game and it's hardest areas, you have to have a broad understanding of the game. You can't grind out your specs or void that skill required simply by doing a mundane task.

Because of that, it still shines far above the MMO crowd. I don't put much emphasis on the things that all that "time" gets you because they just alter your appearance. Because of this, I still hold the "skill>time" philosophy true (save for actual game-affecting benefits, but at least that's been partially remedied).

Here is my problem with your "interpretation". If skill is supposed to determine your path (as it says on the box), then why implement things where skill doesn't matter? Frankly it doesn't matter what non-skill related things get you. What matters is that non-skill related things have been added in a game where skill was supposed to mean everything. There is no need to grind out your specs because there is no skill required! The endgame has become the grind!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

If ANet wanted a solely based PvP endgame they wouldn't have provided so much PvE replayability (for it's type) or much PvE at all. Point this out as ANet's greatest "fault", not in providing more to their playerbase.

They could have easily provided more PvE while keeping the game a PvP game...but I don't want to go into this. We've been over it about 10 million times and it gets complicated. But yes, it is Anet's greatest fault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

So it completely voided the need to learn the game, the professions, the areas, the skills, the uh everything?. I had absolutely no idea.

Arguably yes. That is basically the definition of grind...it is simply in the endgame where many people will have already learned those basic things. One thing isn't questionable...it simplified the game and made it easier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

What you personally want and desire is a bit safer to judge by, but not their success or how each and every feature will work with one another.

True, but what if I don't like the features to begin with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Very few have given any, not that there's much of a reason to.

Uh...that was the original point of the thread. We had a bunch of people saying they want a higher number with no reason or a bad reason (and those bad reasons where the original reason I entered this thread). I could say I want level 10 gazillion, but if I give no reason for wanting it then I'm an idiot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Numbers are meaningless, although that doesn't appear to be the case for you.

Meaningless to who? Apparently not to the people who want higher numbers.

pumpkin pie · Jan 19, 2009, 12:21 PM // 12:21

DreamWind <3 Bryant, Bryant <3 DreamWind?

Cap skills, weapon dmg, armor level but not the character's level.

mrvrod · Jan 20, 2009, 11:48 AM // 11:48

I personally like to no level-cap idea.

From what I've read, no level-cap does not mean no end to character power (it's supposed to be a curve with diminishing returns).

For me a characters level has always been about showing me at a glance how much time and effort I put into a character. i mean, why even accrue (only one c?) experience with your lvl 20 char if you can't step beyond lvl 20?

I don't care if everything else (dmg done, health, energy, etc) stops at lvl 20, 200, 10, or even 2, I still like to see the char level ring up one more as experience is earned.

To put it another way; I don't want my car's odometer to stop ringing up miles at 70k just because my warranty is up.

Perth68 · Jan 23, 2009, 04:00 PM // 16:00

No level cap sounds interesting to me, I don't know how it would be implemented but I like the idea in theory. But I don't want to feel like I have to do something that I don't want to do in order to get to stuff that I do. Ideally I find by about 40-60 hours in a game I want access to all end game style content with a reasonable ability to succeed at it. If those are compatible I'm all in. Other then that that actual level number is just a number.

Avectius · Jan 23, 2009, 09:51 PM // 21:51

well GW 2 Will be:

An Non-Instanced Game ( Just Like GW )
With the same goal of spending a thousand hours making your character better.
A Game set to be runed on Mid-Range Computers But with much better Visuals Than GW.
The EXPLORE EVERYTHING Concept ( wich means No Loading Screens ( I think it hasnt been confirmed yet ) ) Able to travel EVERYWHERE!

Thats All I Know About GW 2 But i would like them to add:

More Player to Player Contact

You know... not just make us feel this is just a game

Making a game in wich we wouldnt focus so much on ourselves. A Game that would keep getting new Content Every Month Or Year.

PS: Its bad :/ Because if GW was a game like this they wouldnt need to create a new Game just for us to see new things. New Content Every Month would rock!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrvrod

I personally like to no level-cap idea.

From what I've read, no level-cap does not mean no end to character power (it's supposed to be a curve with diminishing returns).

For me a characters level has always been about showing me at a glance how much time and effort I put into a character. i mean, why even accrue (only one c?) experience with your lvl 20 char if you can't step beyond lvl 20?

I don't care if everything else (dmg done, health, energy, etc) stops at lvl 20, 200, 10, or even 2, I still like to see the char level ring up one more as experience is earned.

To put it another way; I don't want my car's odometer to stop ringing up miles at 70k just because my warranty is up.

Well, if we would step beyond lv 20 Things would mostly Be endless... And Loads of grinding doesnt fit my thoughts or anyone??s for that matter... after lv 20, our character is finally full powered

And ready to go into the Competition Part of Guild Wars

In Other Games we would most Likely spend months and months just focusing on ourselves than contacting with players and batteling etc

And then lets say.... on a PvP Match Someone would be stronger than us cuz he or she would be like level 90 and we would only be lv 70. Therefore having a lv 20 Cap makes People being even alot easier! So that the Victorious one isnt determined by the level.... but by its skill, by its build, byt its techniques and Team Work

This is why i call GW... LEGENDARY! Its the game that Re-Defines The Way MMOs Are Played

Bryant Again · Jan 24, 2009, 03:06 AM // 03:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Here is my problem with your "interpretation". If skill is supposed to determine your path (as it says on the box), then why implement things where skill doesn't matter? Frankly it doesn't matter what non-skill related things get you. What matters is that non-skill related things have been added in a game where skill was supposed to mean everything. There is no need to grind out your specs because there is no skill required! The endgame has become the grind!

That's not the problem here since "non-skill related" things have been in existence since the start of the game: FoW armors, elite armors, rare weapons, etc. They've been a focus for many since release. The only problem I can surmise here is that they added "too much" of these non-skill related things, and "too much" is a very, very hard thing to define.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

...But yes, it is Anet's greatest fault.

In performance, yay. In direction, nay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Arguably yes. That is basically the definition of grind...it is simply in the endgame where many people will have already learned those basic things.

Eh? So it's not that the "grind" requires skill and more that it doesn't increase the threshold? Or is it that you consider learning the game on so many levels "basic"?

Granted, there are quite a lot of skills that do require and understanding of the game. Some not so much, though, but a few of those may be admired due to the patience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

True, but what if I don't like the features to begin with?

You're boned, simply put. Just how like musical artists can't be blamed for choosing a different direction. They can be blamed, however, if they screw up in that new direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Uh...that was the original point of the thread. We had a bunch of people saying they want a higher number with no reason or a bad reason (and those bad reasons where the original reason I entered this thread). I could say I want level 10 gazillion, but if I give no reason for wanting it then I'm an idiot.

...Or you take into note how much it doesn't matter (just like Perth up there) - because honestly, it really doesn't. It's not the numbers that shape or define the game.

DreamWind · Jan 24, 2009, 04:48 AM // 04:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That's not the problem here since "non-skill related" things have been in existence since the start of the game: FoW armors, elite armors, rare weapons, etc. They've been a focus for many since release. The only problem I can surmise here is that they added "too much" of these non-skill related things, and "too much" is a very, very hard thing to define.

Meh I already responded to this. Yes they were in the game, but there is a big difference between something merely existing and something being added and promoted as endgame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

In performance, yay. In direction, nay.

Because changing your direction away from your greatest performance is a good idea. It might be, but its very risky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Eh? So it's not that the "grind" requires skill and more that it doesn't increase the threshold? Or is it that you consider learning the game on so many levels "basic"?

Grind doesn't require skill. The reason its grind is because its easy to repeat. Grind by its mere existence completely voids the need to learn the game on various levels or get better. Thus the skill threshold doesn't increase and the original point of the game goes bye bye. I'm saying that the fact that many people who grind have learned the game is irrelevent, because the grind has become the endgame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You're boned, simply put.

Now we're getting somewhere. Now how many people do you think Anet boned?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

...Or you take into note how much it doesn't matter (just like Perth up there) - because honestly, it really doesn't. It's not the numbers that shape or define the game.

Ok fine. So why do so many people want bigger numbers? Perhaps the number does shape or define the game in some way to them?

mrvrod · Jan 24, 2009, 11:34 PM // 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avectius

Well, if we would step beyond lv 20 Things would mostly Be endless... And Loads of grinding doesnt fit my thoughts or anyone??s for that matter... after lv 20, our character is finally full powered

And ready to go into the Competition Part of Guild Wars

In Other Games we would most Likely spend months and months just focusing on ourselves than contacting with players and batteling etc

And then lets say.... on a PvP Match Someone would be stronger than us cuz he or she would be like level 90 and we would only be lv 70. Therefore having a lv 20 Cap makes People being even alot easier! So that the Victorious one isnt determined by the level.... but by its skill, by its build, byt its techniques and Team Work

This is why i call GW... LEGENDARY! Its the game that Re-Defines The Way MMOs Are Played

Maybe you didn't understand my point. I'm fine with a characters 'power' being capped at some point. I just like the idea of the lvl # being an accurate account of the char's total experience. i don't like that every time my fav char rolls over the xp bar the lvl stays at 20 and I only have an extra skill point to show that milestone was achieved.

It's not like I want lvl 100 to mean I have 2x the health of a lvl 50, that's no my focus at all, it's just an xp counter for me.

Crom The Pale · Jan 25, 2009, 02:44 AM // 02:44

I think this has been mentioned several times already but I shall bring it up once more.

The actual number doesn't matter. What matters is how long it takes to reach that max level, whether it be 20 or 100. Will you reach it after completing 50% of the game? 100%? Will you need to play through multiple times plus do lots of extra grind to reach it?

What I think most people want, and I could be way off but it is what I have heard from other players, is this.

Completion of all primary quests and missions = 80 - 90% of max level.
Completion of all secondary quests and dungeons = 90 - 98% of max level.
This leaves players with 2% of grinding to reach the maximum level, whatever that number should be. Players will still be able to grind up levels and max out long before reaching the end if that is their choice.

Am I way off or does this not make sense?

shoyon456 · Jan 25, 2009, 03:20 AM // 03:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Completion of all primary quests and missions = 80 - 90% of max level.
Completion of all secondary quests and dungeons = 90 - 98% of max level.
This leaves players with 2% of grinding to reach the maximum level, whatever that number should be.

By primary quests and missions, I truly hope you do not mean finishing the game. That'd be a big change from GW, and when trying to finish the game you'd get unnecessary level discrimination. Level discrimination is inevitable with a high cap, but everything should be done to keep it out of trying to just beat the storyline.

Secondly, dungeons will probably be geared for multi-player play, from what I can grasp, and they should not be factored into trying to achieve max level.

Optimally, it will be like GW where there is a general area that allows you to get very close, if not max level before you start the bulk of the storyline. Of course if there is no max level, the area should allow you to get around the level # where the power curve starts to even out.

Of course, this is all making the big assumption there even is a gw2, but thats for the other thread...

Bryant Again · Jan 25, 2009, 03:39 AM // 03:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Meh I already responded to this. Yes they were in the game, but there is a big difference between something merely existing and something being added and promoted as endgame.

And elite armors and new weapons weren't promoted and added at every expansion as well, and it *wasn't* such a wildly supported form of "endgame"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Because changing your direction away from your greatest performance is a good idea. It might be, but its very risky.

It's their best *and* their first. It doesn't mean it's their last.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Grind doesn't require skill. The reason its grind is because its easy to repeat...

That's a pretty rusty definition because that means eventually at some point, anything and everything in a game will become grind. Rest of my reply to this would pretty much redirect right back at my first paragraph.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Now we're getting somewhere. Now how many people do you think Anet boned?

Number of people boned = X. There could be just as many people upset at ANet making a much more similar game as there are people for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Ok fine. So why do so many people want bigger numbers? Perhaps the number does shape or define the game in some way to them?

Bigger numbers can be a bit more specific to track in terms of progress and journey.

bhavv · Jan 25, 2009, 03:55 AM // 03:55

The reason for a higher level cap is to attract immature players from other MMORPGs that think only having 20 levels that you can max in a single day is 'ghey' (in the words of an anonymous player in some other MMORPG).

Anet want more players so they are aiming to turn GW2 into more of a wow clone, based on the information we have so far - raised level cap, no heroes or hench, play the game solo with a pet or with others, ZOMG sounds like WoW!

Yawgmoth · Jan 25, 2009, 04:52 AM // 04:52

I have big hopes in GW2 having completely unique levelling model.

It can have a completely different design than any other MMO out there, so don't be so closed-minded, thinking high levels = wow clone.

If they do it right there can be high levels and there can be no strict max level and no strict power cap at all (strict caps suck, drop them please), and still keeping the no-grind policy and having the game almost as friendly to casuals and players who join after a year since release and free of discrimination as GW1 is. Win-Win.

You can have more than half of the game as content for levels 80%-100%+ (it doesn't really matter what number is the level 100%, can be 40, 50, 60, 100, 150, anything) content and elite areas level 95%+ and levelling doesn't have to stop at level 100%!
Go above the 'max'! for coolness, elite status and slight power gain too, so the great feeling of progress and character improvement never ends. (just properely balance things, a lv105% for example shouldn't be able to do things an lv100% can't).

So drop your WoW-minds, a character 10 levels higher doesn't have to be godlike in comparison. He can just be 10% more efficient in GW2, nothing gamebreaking!

Crom The Pale · Jan 25, 2009, 04:55 AM // 04:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoyon456

By primary quests and missions, I truly hope you do not mean finishing the game. That'd be a big change from GW, and when trying to finish the game you'd get unnecessary level discrimination. Level discrimination is inevitable with a high cap, but everything should be done to keep it out of trying to just beat the storyline.

Secondly, dungeons will probably be geared for multi-player play, from what I can grasp, and they should not be factored into trying to achieve max level.

Optimally, it will be like GW where there is a general area that allows you to get very close, if not max level before you start the bulk of the storyline. Of course if there is no max level, the area should allow you to get around the level # where the power curve starts to even out.

Of course, this is all making the big assumption there even is a gw2, but thats for the other thread...

Actually this would not be a change at all from GW. Prophicies was in fact laid out exactly like this. If you followed all primary quests and missions then when you completed Hell's Precipice you would be around lvl 17-19. Secondary quests and/or FoW and UW could be used for the final bit of of exp. Later they made changes so that only lvl 20 chars could enter FoW/UW and added Sorrow's Furnace which had many high exp quests that people used for leveling up via runners.

While there was some level discrimination it was very uncommon. Keep in mind my numbers were just ball park and didn't take into account any farming, something just about every player has done at one time or another.

We still have no clue how a characters level will tie into the characters power at all. For all we know the power of a character could be completely tied to what skills it has equiped/used and the level will only be used as a key for unlocking doors to new areas.

Jan 19, 2009, 12:21 PM // 12:21	#428
pumpkin pie Furnace Stoker Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: behind you Guild: bumble bee Profession: E/	DreamWind <3 Bryant, Bryant <3 DreamWind? Cap skills, weapon dmg, armor level but not the character's level. Last edited by pumpkin pie; Jan 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM // 12:26..

Jan 20, 2009, 11:48 AM // 11:48	#429
mrvrod Guest01 Join Date: Jul 2006	It matters to me, but not why you think. I personally like to no level-cap idea. From what I've read, no level-cap does not mean no end to character power (it's supposed to be a curve with diminishing returns). For me a characters level has always been about showing me at a glance how much time and effort I put into a character. i mean, why even accrue (only one c?) experience with your lvl 20 char if you can't step beyond lvl 20? I don't care if everything else (dmg done, health, energy, etc) stops at lvl 20, 200, 10, or even 2, I still like to see the char level ring up one more as experience is earned. To put it another way; I don't want my car's odometer to stop ringing up miles at 70k just because my warranty is up.

Jan 18, 2009, 11:24 PM // 23:24	#424
Age Hall Hero Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: California Canada/BC Guild: STG Administrator Profession: Mo/	When it comes to a level cap if there is going to be a GW 3 then yes if not then no.This is so this gives the devs time to work on both games GW and GW2

Jan 23, 2009, 04:00 PM // 16:00	#430
Perth68 Academy Page Join Date: May 2005 Guild: Sacred Blood Profession: R/	No level cap sounds interesting to me, I don't know how it would be implemented but I like the idea in theory. But I don't want to feel like I have to do something that I don't want to do in order to get to stuff that I do. Ideally I find by about 40-60 hours in a game I want access to all end game style content with a reasonable ability to succeed at it. If those are compatible I'm all in. Other then that that actual level number is just a number.

Jan 25, 2009, 02:44 AM // 02:44	#435
Crom The Pale Furnace Stoker Join Date: Nov 2006 Guild: Ageis Ascending Profession: W/	I think this has been mentioned several times already but I shall bring it up once more. The actual number doesn't matter. What matters is how long it takes to reach that max level, whether it be 20 or 100. Will you reach it after completing 50% of the game? 100%? Will you need to play through multiple times plus do lots of extra grind to reach it? What I think most people want, and I could be way off but it is what I have heard from other players, is this. Completion of all primary quests and missions = 80 - 90% of max level. Completion of all secondary quests and dungeons = 90 - 98% of max level. This leaves players with 2% of grinding to reach the maximum level, whatever that number should be. Players will still be able to grind up levels and max out long before reaching the end if that is their choice. Am I way off or does this not make sense?

Jan 25, 2009, 03:55 AM // 03:55	#438
bhavv Furnace Stoker Join Date: Sep 2006	The reason for a higher level cap is to attract immature players from other MMORPGs that think only having 20 levels that you can max in a single day is 'ghey' (in the words of an anonymous player in some other MMORPG). Anet want more players so they are aiming to turn GW2 into more of a wow clone, based on the information we have so far - raised level cap, no heroes or hench, play the game solo with a pet or with others, ZOMG sounds like WoW!

Jan 25, 2009, 04:52 AM // 04:52	#439
Yawgmoth Furnace Stoker Join Date: Apr 2005	I have big hopes in GW2 having completely unique levelling model. It can have a completely different design than any other MMO out there, so don't be so closed-minded, thinking high levels = wow clone. If they do it right there can be high levels and there can be no strict max level and no strict power cap at all (strict caps suck, drop them please), and still keeping the no-grind policy and having the game almost as friendly to casuals and players who join after a year since release and free of discrimination as GW1 is. Win-Win. You can have more than half of the game as content for levels 80%-100%+ (it doesn't really matter what number is the level 100%, can be 40, 50, 60, 100, 150, anything) content and elite areas level 95%+ and levelling doesn't have to stop at level 100%! Go above the 'max'! for coolness, elite status and slight power gain too, so the great feeling of progress and character improvement never ends. (just properely balance things, a lv105% for example shouldn't be able to do things an lv100% can't). So drop your WoW-minds, a character 10 levels higher doesn't have to be godlike in comparison. He can just be 10% more efficient in GW2, nothing gamebreaking!