Level cap - GW2 - Page 24 - Guild Wars Forums

EagleDelta1 · Jan 27, 2009, 08:14 AM // 08:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Yes, many...including Guild Wars.

How many of those games have a full lifetime outside the first 6 months to a year. Most ppl I know that play games like Halo, COD, Battlefield, Supreme Commander, etc. Games of all genres that rely solely on PvP as its lifetime usually don't last long. Players who've played halo moved on to halo 2, then halo 3, now they've moved on to newer games. Guild Wars is a game that is designed to have a longer life than the average game, like all online RPGs, and most of those rely heavily on increased PvE & cooperative play, NOT PvP. Left 4 Dead is one, if not the MOST, popular online action right now. What makes it popular, team-based PvE, NOT PvP. I've been in charge of servers for BF2, BF2142, COD4, COD5 over the last 2 years and NONE of them have lasted with high popularity for more than 7-8 months. Yeah, a lot of ppl stil play many of those games, but not the numbers that used to and an online RPG, Free to play or Pay to play, will not last when it loses great numbers like that.
Only a few games, that aren't MMOs, have broken this cycle - CS source, to name one, uses mods to extend it's lifetime and Diablo 2, which is primarily team-based PvE.

So yes, maybe PvP was what GW1 had for its endgame originally, but it won't sustain it. I believe that is why ANet has put more focus on PvE and less on PvP.

I'll wait for your response(braces for another "I'm right, you're wrong" post).

Holly Herro · Jan 27, 2009, 08:53 AM // 08:53

No level cap at all.

Every time you level up, you get 10 extra hp, but you and your skills are balanced to where you're playing

Maria The Princess · Jan 27, 2009, 09:42 AM // 09:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

How many of those games have a full lifetime outside the first 6 months to a year. Most ppl I know that play games like Halo, COD, Battlefield, Supreme Commander, etc. Games of all genres that rely solely on PvP as its lifetime usually don't last long. Players who've played halo moved on to halo 2, then halo 3, now they've moved on to newer games. Guild Wars is a game that is designed to have a longer life than the average game, like all online RPGs, and most of those rely heavily on increased PvE & cooperative play, NOT PvP. Left 4 Dead is one, if not the MOST, popular online action right now. What makes it popular, team-based PvE, NOT PvP. I've been in charge of servers for BF2, BF2142, COD4, COD5 over the last 2 years and NONE of them have lasted with high popularity for more than 7-8 months. Yeah, a lot of ppl stil play many of those games, but not the numbers that used to and an online RPG, Free to play or Pay to play, will not last when it loses great numbers like that.
Only a few games, that aren't MMOs, have broken this cycle - CS source, to name one, uses mods to extend it's lifetime and Diablo 2, which is primarily team-based PvE.

So yes, maybe PvP was what GW1 had for its endgame originally, but it won't sustain it. I believe that is why ANet has put more focus on PvE and less on PvP.

I'll wait for your response(braces for another "I'm right, you're wrong" post).

i dont come around here often anymore and didnt read the entire monster thread, but the title cough my eye.

the poster im quoting is right. leveling and grinding for something actually keeps the players busy and motivated to keep playing the same game.

i was playing a different game with my rl boyfriend, we were super addicted to it, grinded to level cap 80. now, the big flaw of this game was lack of content beyond level 80, only a few bosses to hunt and 1 dungeon to run. all that became very old after 2 weeks, and pvp only was simply not satisfying enouth to not start looking for a new game.

now we play Lineage 2. level cap is 85, but seems it takes a long time to level, make money to get equiped etc.

do i need to say some people in our clan have been playing for over 5 years? and are still interested in the game play since there are still unachieved goals in PvE, while PvP is kind of on the side of the game. it is there yet it is not mixed in the PvE aspect.

Sjeng · Jan 27, 2009, 10:51 AM // 10:51

Well, I feel there should be an end to a game, be it long and far away. GW gave me the feeling there was a lot to explore and do when Prophecies came out. Level 20 seemed perfect for it.
Then, just as I had finished props with 4 different characters, Factions came, and there was more content. The downpart is that old characters are already level 20 and well equipped enough to have little trouble with factions nowadays. Back then it was a challenge though. They did well with the starter stuff on an isolated island.
Same with Nightfall. So basically level 20 is perfect for GW.

But my main now has about 7.777.000 XP, and I'm not sure what level that would equal if there was no cap, but I feel that a higher level cap is an incentive to play more with a character, if the areas get more difficult as well as you advance.
Not too high though, as I said: a game needs to have an ending that can be reached by all if you play long enough, including jobs/school/RL. You don't want no-lifers owning the game, showing off their stuff and level all over the game, knowing you'll never reach that because of your day-job. That imo is demotivating.

Calculate what your level would be in GW with about 5 mil XP, round it off to a nice number and make that the cap for a game with about as much content as GW1 alltogether. (Although I hope GW2 will be much bigger than the complete GW1 game).

bhavv · Jan 27, 2009, 11:49 AM // 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coraline Jones

I find it really amazing that people can talk about something as vague as a "level" without having any information at all about what leveling up will give, how the game will play, or anything really relevant to the success of a game.

You arent comprehending the problem here.

GW was a game that initially became successful by having a grind free, low level cap, and skill > time played model. These were the characteristic features that set GW aside from your standard RPG's and MMO's, with the largest game following the standard RPG system being WoW, which is why WoW is used as a comparison. Anet then gradually began to remove these characteristics from the game, firstly by adding titles to add grind, then by altering and ruining PVP in Heroes Ascent, and finally by adding power creep with unnessesary PVE skills and consumables. This made people who have enjoyed the game since the first day relese and prior to the release of Factions increasingly unhappy with the way GW was changing to cater for grindaholics, power addicts, and people who wanted a pish easy game and a stroll in the park through all of the elite areas. The game has changed drastically over the last 3 years, more so then any other MMO, and has caused a lot of long time fans to become disappointed. This however doesnt affect some players, and of course, people who are new to the game are unaffected as well.

Anet's next step in the development of GW is to remove the unique absence of level grind that is a key distinguishing feature ofthe game and add a raised level cap. Then they are removing the highly successful hero and henchmen system and instead implementing a solo / pet model, just as there is in every single other MMO on the market. Heroes and henchmen were another key unique feature that the majority of people playing this game enjoy, imagine if Anet were to remove them from GW1, the game would die overnight. However, they are changing the mechanics of GW2 so drastically as to not have to require H/H anymore, so what features in GW2 can be expected to feel anything like GW1 does, or have a similar gameplay experience? The game is far from release yet, but if you remove everything from a game that once made it unique and original, and implement the same features found in every other game within that genre, you are losing the quality that originally made that game what it is.

For a simple and easier to understand comparison, you cannot make a sequel to an apple by growing an orange tree, or make a blueberry pie if you change the blueberry filling to cherry. I am not in anyway looking forward to, or optimistic about GW2 if it is simply going to remove and destroy the unique features that made GW1 such a stand out game. You dont make a sequel to a brilliant and unique game by taking out what makes the game unique and implementing features from every other game out there.

Crom The Pale · Jan 27, 2009, 11:50 AM // 11:50

Here is a question, would a higher level cap lead people to focus playing more with just one character? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

pingu666 · Jan 27, 2009, 11:52 AM // 11:52

just have say, level 20 (42)

(42) being your virtual level, akin to skill points we have now.

i think the low level cap is a really good idea, as content is easier to balance then, and encourages multi chacater play aswell.

most of my chars have "only" 1million or so exp, roughly even those with 3 protector titles, some of them havent gone thru gwen yet, but still...

nearest i have to a "main" has 3.9million or so

bhavv · Jan 27, 2009, 11:54 AM // 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Here is a question, would a higher level cap lead people to focus playing more with just one character? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

Wouldnt a higher level cap lead to more focus of just playing one character since you have to spend more time on them?

The reason why people dont like playing more then one character in GW isnt due to the level cap, it is due to the game not being interesting enough to want to play through over again. GW is one of those games that is fun once with no replay value. Lets say that you removed the level cap in GW1 and added 80 levels, this still wouldnt motivate people to play the boring aspect of PVE all over again.

To make players want to play more then one character, the whole PVE experience needs to be changed, and yes, besides the H/H system, GW is one of the worst PVE games available to play, the true experience lies in PVP.

pingu666 · Jan 27, 2009, 12:00 PM // 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Here is a question, would a higher level cap lead people to focus playing more with just one character? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

yes i think it would lead to more 1 char play, and i think it would be a bad thing, more ignerence of other classes, and more repitition and possibly selfishness, as your more likely todo a mission or quest if one of your characters needs it aswell, if someone asks you for help...

stuff like skill balances will be reacted far more bitterly aswell

mrvrod · Jan 27, 2009, 04:22 PM // 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Here is a question, would a higher level cap lead people to focus playing more with just one character? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

For me, I already focus most of my time on my first, and fav, char. I have 8 chars, 2 have been mostly ignored since they hit lvl 10, the other 6 are lvl 20 and I'm proficient with them.

if my group needs an ele, necro, monk, etc, I can jump on a different char to help the team. if I have my choice though, I play my female warrior. She's named after a fighter/mage I played in D&D so she gets the majority of my time.

For some, playing styles might change, but I think for most of us, our styles are set, then we rally around the cause that fits our style.

P.S. I've played through each campaign at least twice. While I wouldn't do it 20 or more times, I believe the story does have replay value.

DreamWind · Jan 27, 2009, 06:35 PM // 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

So yes, maybe PvP was what GW1 had for its endgame originally, but it won't sustain it. I believe that is why ANet has put more focus on PvE and less on PvP.

I'll wait for your response(braces for another "I'm right, you're wrong" post).

I'm right you're wrong! In all seriousness though, if the PvP in a PvP game can't sustain the game, then PvE in a PvP game sure as hell won't be able to. All PvE breeds is the constant need for new content to survive, and this is especially true in Guild War's case with the marketing model Anet has chosen. So yes PvE might be able sustain Guild Wars if Anet releases new content forever. There isn't many good long lasting PvP games that need to release much new content (if any).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

GW was a game that initially became successful by having a grind free, low level cap, and skill > time played model. These were the characteristic features that set GW aside from your standard RPG's and MMO's, with the largest game following the standard RPG system being WoW, which is why WoW is used as a comparison. Anet then gradually began to remove these characteristics from the game, firstly by adding titles to add grind, then by altering and ruining PVP in Heroes Ascent, and finally by adding power creep with unnessesary PVE skills and consumables. This made people who have enjoyed the game since the first day relese and prior to the release of Factions increasingly unhappy with the way GW was changing to cater for grindaholics, power addicts, and people who wanted a pish easy game and a stroll in the park through all of the elite areas. The game has changed drastically over the last 3 years, more so then any other MMO, and has caused a lot of long time fans to become disappointed.

Very well put.

EagleDelta1 · Jan 27, 2009, 06:58 PM // 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'm right you're wrong! In all seriousness though, if the PvP in a PvP game can't sustain the game, then PvE in a PvP game sure as hell won't be able to. All PvE breeds is the constant need for new content to survive, and this is especially true in Guild War's case with the marketing model Anet has chosen. So yes PvE might be able sustain Guild Wars if Anet releases new content forever. There isn't many good long lasting PvP games that need to release much new content (if any).

Those PvP games you're talking about, like CSS, may not have any official new content, but how many of them are sustained primarily by mods? Most of them. CSS is sustained almost entirely by mods today, as is COD4 & Half-Life 2. The only MMO I know of that has lasted a full MMO lifetime w/ out losing a large portion of players is EVE online & even they release new content EVERY 4-6 months (for free, too). In addition, EVE's PvP is the ENTIRE game. You're fighting other players for control of everything, from the market to entire star systems and regions. If an Online RPG or MMO is going to rely on PvP as its primary source of play, they are going to have to take a few hints from EVE. The game has lasted longer than ANY current popular MMO (been out since 2002 or 2003 and was a board/card game before that). If GW2 will follow a PvP gaming standard, then it needs to be more than a series of arenas and tournaments. That was GW1's biggest PvP flaw, it seemed too much like the PvP was separate from the world (just like a Single-player's MP mode) and it needs to be integrated into the world to work.

In addition, there's a reason EVE, while popular and consistent in it's player numbers, isn't as popular as WoW or GW. People simply don't care for PvP that much. Many people that play PvP games online just want to do it in their leisure time and aren't willing to commit the resources needed to play a MMO pvp game. Let's face it, GW1 and GW2 are still a form of online game that require you to continue buying expansions/campaigns to get the full worth, whereas most PvP game players are content to buy a game once and use free updates and mods to extend their play time - something you wont find on MMOs, p2p or f2p.

DreamWind · Jan 27, 2009, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

If GW2 will follow a PvP gaming standard, then it needs to be more than a series of arenas and tournaments. That was GW1's biggest PvP flaw, it seemed too much like the PvP was separate from the world (just like a Single-player's MP mode) and it needs to be integrated into the world to work.

Um...what are you talking about? In Prophecies and Factions the PvP was almost completely integrated. From what we have heard about GW2, I suspect it will be nothing like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

In addition, there's a reason EVE, while popular and consistent in it's player numbers, isn't as popular as WoW or GW. People simply don't care for PvP that much. Many people that play PvP games online just want to do it in their leisure time and aren't willing to commit the resources needed to play a MMO pvp game. Let's face it, GW1 and GW2 are still a form of online game that require you to continue buying expansions/campaigns to get the full worth, whereas most PvP game players are content to buy a game once and use free updates and mods to extend their play time - something you wont find on MMOs, p2p or f2p.

Ok we need to get one thing straight...no game population can be compared to WoW. WoW consumes just about every other game combined. Saying other games aren't as popular because they don't have as many players as WoW is ridiculous.

And what you said about people wanting to play PvP games in their leisure is true...for ALL GAMES! The casual gamer (ie: the money makers) are the ones who play PvP OR PvE in their leisure. To say that somehow PvP doesn't have this and PvE does is also ridiculous.

Lastly, you say that you won't find free updates and mods to extend playtime on MMOS. Well that is somewhat true (except for the free updates). Guild Wars doesn't have mods or user created content which is definately a downside. Still, PvP could have easily sustained Guild Wars for much longer than PvE has. Not that PvE is bad, but Guild Wars 2 is indication that Anet needs more content and users crave more and different content. Yes we can sit here and say PvP didn't have X, but the bigger problem is that Anet removed Y.

EagleDelta1 · Jan 27, 2009, 07:42 PM // 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Ok we need to get one thing straight...no game population can be compared to WoW. WoW consumes just about every other game combined. Saying other games aren't as popular because they don't have as many players as WoW is ridiculous.

You're right here about comparing WoW's numbers to other games as an indication of whether or not a game is or isn't popular. That said, from what I've read and understand about WoW, it IS popular because it isn't as hardcore as many MMOs and yet isn't too casual as other games. That, in addition to it's enormous numbers, says something about what the larger gaming community is looking for, even if there are a lot of people that don't play WoW.

Quote:

And what you said about people wanting to play PvP games in their leisure is true...for ALL GAMES! The casual gamer (ie: the money makers) are the ones who play PvP OR PvE in their leisure. To say that somehow PvP doesn't have this and PvE does is also ridiculous.Lastly, you say that you won't find free updates and mods to extend playtime on MMOS. Well that is somewhat true (except for the free updates). Guild Wars doesn't have mods or user created content which is definately a downside. Still, PvP could have easily sustained Guild Wars for much longer than PvE has. Not that PvE is bad, but Guild Wars 2 is indication that Anet needs more content and users crave more and different content. Yes we can sit here and say PvP didn't have X, but the bigger problem is that Anet removed Y.

My point is, most PvP players play PvP FPS, RTS, and other such games, because they DON'T want to play a game that requires more than 30min - 1hr of play every FEW days. Even GW requires more than that amount of play. In addition, most people don't want to HAVE to PAY for more content, be it in monthly fees or Expansions. Period. Yes, GW and other MMOs have free content, but it is very few and far between. Most new content comes in the form of expansions you have to pay for. People don't like the sound of that.

As for a leveling system not matter, Grind not being there, etc. GW IS an RPG, RPGs have ALWAYS been about CHARACTER development since the day they became popular. From D&D to Final Fantasy to Dragon Warrior to Baldur's Gate - CHARACTER GROWTH AND STORY. Skill is great and all that, but skill is relative, what you are skillful at someone else might find a cheap trick, EVEN IF IT ISN'T. Guild Wars' skill>time is all and good, but it requires that skill to come from choosing a few select skills that work together well and utilizing that. Not everyone is good at that and as such, for them, the skill>time argument goes out the window, because now those players that aren't skillful in that area & they DO have to spend A LOT of TIME to find the right skill set by randomizing or checking PvXwiki. THAT'S NOT SKILL ANYMORE THAN GRINDING TO HIGH POWER/LEVEL. Increasing, decreasing, or taking away level isn't going to change that.

Finally, in the level argument, most players, including me, that want a higher level cap has to do with PvE and NOT PvP. I don't know why I should have to say this, but PvE = Player versus ENVIRONMENT. I could careless about how powerful the player next to me is - I'm not fighting him/her, I'm fighting the computer. I want my character to continue growing in strength through my entirety of play. My favorite part about most SP RPGs is that the level cap is set at a point where you usually CANNOT reach it just by going through the story, but it's also NOT needed. The only NEED and WAY to get the max level in those games is to do ALL the optional stuff. The point is that it gives the player a continuing sense of accomplishment and increases their overall power - it gives the player a reason to keep playing.

Coraline Jones · Jan 27, 2009, 08:29 PM // 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

How many of those games have a full lifetime outside the first 6 months to a year. Most ppl I know that play games like Halo, COD, Battlefield, Supreme Commander, etc. Games of all genres that rely solely on PvP as its lifetime usually don't last long. Players who've played halo moved on to halo 2, then halo 3, now they've moved on to newer games. Guild Wars is a game that is designed to have a longer life than the average game, like all online RPGs, and most of those rely heavily on increased PvE & cooperative play, NOT PvP. Left 4 Dead is one, if not the MOST, popular online action right now. What makes it popular, team-based PvE, NOT PvP. I've been in charge of servers for BF2, BF2142, COD4, COD5 over the last 2 years and NONE of them have lasted with high popularity for more than 7-8 months. Yeah, a lot of ppl stil play many of those games, but not the numbers that used to and an online RPG, Free to play or Pay to play, will not last when it loses great numbers like that.
Only a few games, that aren't MMOs, have broken this cycle - CS source, to name one, uses mods to extend it's lifetime and Diablo 2, which is primarily team-based PvE.

So yes, maybe PvP was what GW1 had for its endgame originally, but it won't sustain it. I believe that is why ANet has put more focus on PvE and less on PvP.

I'll wait for your response(braces for another "I'm right, you're wrong" post).

What are you using to back up your claims?

With Xbox Live--which has no player mod support--the most-played online game in 2008 on the Xbox 360 is Halo 3 followed shortly by Call of Duty 4. I guarantee that nobody is playing COD4 for its co-op mode as it practically has none as the single-player campaign can be beaten from start to finish in two days (at most) anyway. If you look at Xfire, the hottest online games for the PC are World of Warcraft followed by an entire slew of PvP FPS games.

As for Left 4 Dead, you must have never visited a single page of the official forums. That game is heavily sold on Versus Mode, because after a while, killing bots becomes very routine. Like Guild Wars (or any game for that matter), you can learn the weakness in the A.I. and know how to counter it. The forums talk heavily about Versus Mode, because that's what fans want. They want MORE of the scenarios converted to Versus Mode (as opposed to the default two). Prior to the patch, the PC game forum was nothing but rant as people insisted on fixes of many of the terrible bugs and exploits that would break Versus Mode. It's rare that people talk about the co-op play because that's just "noob play"--no different than Guild Wars where most elitists call PvE "noob play".

Apollo Smile · Jan 27, 2009, 08:57 PM // 20:57

There is nothing wrong with leveling in games. It just shouldn't be the main focus. Too many MMOs nowadays act like more level grinding = more content.

super strokey · Jan 27, 2009, 09:18 PM // 21:18

The actual level makes little difference to me, but as long as we are having a long game with lots to do and the leveling happens in a logical progressive manner then i can care less

EagleDelta1 · Jan 27, 2009, 09:38 PM // 21:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coraline Jones

What are you using to back up your claims?

With Xbox Live--which has no player mod support--the most-played online game in 2008 on the Xbox 360 is Halo 3 followed shortly by Call of Duty 4. I guarantee that nobody is playing COD4 for its co-op mode as it practically has none as the single-player campaign can be beaten from start to finish in two days (at most) anyway. If you look at Xfire, the hottest online games for the PC are World of Warcraft followed by an entire slew of PvP FPS games.

As for Left 4 Dead, you must have never visited a single page of the official forums. That game is heavily sold on Versus Mode, because after a while, killing bots becomes very routine. Like Guild Wars (or any game for that matter), you can learn the weakness in the A.I. and know how to counter it. The forums talk heavily about Versus Mode, because that's what fans want. They want MORE of the scenarios converted to Versus Mode (as opposed to the default two). Prior to the patch, the PC game forum was nothing but rant as people insisted on fixes of many of the terrible bugs and exploits that would break Versus Mode. It's rare that people talk about the co-op play because that's just "noob play"--no different than Guild Wars where most elitists call PvE "noob play".

I never said those games weren't popular or that they aren't the most played online games. My point comes back to the fact that MMOs, like GW, WoW, EVE, EQ, FFXI, etc are designed to last 3+ years in service. Halo 3, COD4, COD5, and other FPS games rarely last their full popularity or play time after the first 3-4 months and, while still popular, drop even more after a year. GW, WoW, EVE, etc are designed to keep players occupied much longer than that. For example, COD4 came out in 2007, it is still popular, but nowhere near as much as it was when it first came out and even less so now that COD5 is out. COD6 comes out later this year, if anything that tells you one thing - Activision feels that to keep their player base happy, they need to keep releasing new content. In their case its in the form of new games, but with GW or Wow or EVE they have to release NEW content while in the context of the existing game and in a way so that existing characters can enjoy it and find it a challenge. Now, to me, new content cannot always be just new skills, equipment, locations and quests (especially when the equipment is just a skin update). It needs to be totally NEW. That new can be in strength, or in way something is utilized. But I want my character to grow with the game.

Besides, you're comparing FPS games to an RPG - PvP is far more popular than Co-op in that genre. PvE is what RPGs were made for. Been that way since D&D - people play together to help each other through the game and work together not against one another.

DreamWind · Jan 28, 2009, 09:17 PM // 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

You're right here about comparing WoW's numbers to other games as an indication of whether or not a game is or isn't popular. That said, from what I've read and understand about WoW, it IS popular because it isn't as hardcore as many MMOs and yet isn't too casual as other games. That, in addition to it's enormous numbers, says something about what the larger gaming community is looking for, even if there are a lot of people that don't play WoW.

Of course. But I fail to see how this has anything to do with Guild Wars being a PvP focused game. It could easily have that casual/hardcore mix.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

My point is, most PvP players play PvP FPS, RTS, and other such games, because they DON'T want to play a game that requires more than 30min - 1hr of play every FEW days. Even GW requires more than that amount of play. In addition, most people don't want to HAVE to PAY for more content, be it in monthly fees or Expansions. Period. Yes, GW and other MMOs have free content, but it is very few and far between. Most new content comes in the form of expansions you have to pay for. People don't like the sound of that.

Time investment is required in any game if you want to be good at it. How is this different from any other game?

And most new content in PvE games comes from expansions you have to pay for....so I think people like the sound of that far more than you realize. Very few PvP games get new content from pay for expansions as new content isn't needed as much. In fact PvP expansions are something many players don't like as it is often a requirement to continue PvP properly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

As for a leveling system not matter, Grind not being there, etc. GW IS an RPG, RPGs have ALWAYS been about CHARACTER development since the day they became popular. From D&D to Final Fantasy to Dragon Warrior to Baldur's Gate - CHARACTER GROWTH AND STORY. Skill is great and all that, but skill is relative, what you are skillful at someone else might find a cheap trick, EVEN IF IT ISN'T. Guild Wars' skill>time is all and good, but it requires that skill to come from choosing a few select skills that work together well and utilizing that. Not everyone is good at that and as such, for them, the skill>time argument goes out the window, because now those players that aren't skillful in that area & they DO have to spend A LOT of TIME to find the right skill set by randomizing or checking PvXwiki. THAT'S NOT SKILL ANYMORE THAN GRINDING TO HIGH POWER/LEVEL. Increasing, decreasing, or taking away level isn't going to change that.

Of course its skill and not grind...you don't have to spend time to make your character strictly better. You have to spend time to make YOURSELF strictly better. Big difference. If not everyone is good at that, then a skill>time game is probably not for them. And I also fail to see how character growth and story requires a bigger number.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

Finally, in the level argument, most players, including me, that want a higher level cap has to do with PvE and NOT PvP. I don't know why I should have to say this, but PvE = Player versus ENVIRONMENT. I could careless about how powerful the player next to me is - I'm not fighting him/her, I'm fighting the computer. I want my character to continue growing in strength through my entirety of play. My favorite part about most SP RPGs is that the level cap is set at a point where you usually CANNOT reach it just by going through the story, but it's also NOT needed. The only NEED and WAY to get the max level in those games is to do ALL the optional stuff. The point is that it gives the player a continuing sense of accomplishment and increases their overall power - it gives the player a reason to keep playing.

Because once Anet has your money, they care about how much you play?

But putting that point aside, you can't just say you care less about how powerful the player next to you is and then put it aside like it isn't a problem. Elitism comes to mind (and could probably have its own thread). But moreso its a HUGE problem in Guild Wars...a game that is team oriented. The ideal situation is when players of similar levels team up to beat a level that recommends the level they are at. I already think its a problem when a level 20 can go to the early stages of the game and roll through the game for level 1s. Imagine a level 90 rolling through the entire game.

Now even if Anet managed to work around that problem, how the hell are they going to balance their game? They are already having major problems balancing their game when everybody is the SAME LEVEL! The game is going to be stupidly inbalanced if they have characters of widely varying power levels roaming around. As it stands they are balancing the game around how good the player is. If they have to move to balancing the game around how powerful the characters are, they are going to have some sick problems.

EagleDelta1 · Jan 28, 2009, 10:52 PM // 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Because once Anet has your money, they care about how much you play?

Simply put, ANet DOES care if ppl still play the game after they get your money b/c they HAVE to maintain interest in the game by it's current players to successfully keep the game going with expansions and new content. With games like Guild Wars 1 & 2, where neither micro transactions or monthly fees are used to gain revenue, they have to make sure their player base is still interested enough to buy the expansions, especially since expansions are the only way GW would gain future revenue. GW may not be your typical MMO, but like all others, it is designed to last a lot longer than the average game. 2-3 years longer, you can't do that if there is no new content and you cant get the new content sold if your players don't want keep playing.

Quote:

I already think its a problem when a level 20 can go to the early stages of the game and roll through the game for level 1s. Imagine a level 90 rolling through the entire game.

There are successful ways of preventing this. The most successful I've seen require that parties where the experience is determined by the highest lvl character in the group (I.E. if a lvl 10 is in a party with lvl 7s, but they are fighting a level 4 enemy - normally the lvl 7 would still get some xp, but in this mode the lvl 7 gets none b/c the lvl 10 is in the party) or I've seen it where the higher lvl character is "level-synced" to the lower levels, allow all the lower levels (and the higher lvl) to gain XP, but restricting the higher lvl's HP, Energy, stats, skills, and even reducing the equipment's stat temporarily to keep the party from rolling through the entire game easily.

Even with all that said, the ONLY way to remove such an issue entirely is to completely remove all the character development, equipment, and attributes. Would balance the game greatly, but then the game is no longer a MMORPG/CORPG or RPG at all for that matter - it becomes an action game like all other general Online/multiplayer mode games.

Quote:

Now even if Anet managed to work around that problem, how the hell are they going to balance their game? They are already having major problems balancing their game when everybody is the SAME LEVEL! The game is going to be stupidly inbalanced if they have characters of widely varying power levels roaming around. As it stands they are balancing the game around how good the player is. If they have to move to balancing the game around how powerful the characters are, they are going to have some sick problems.

Balancing is ALWAYS an issue in games - you fix one thing, the player will find another way around it. You can't make everyone the same strength and maintain a true RPG style game. Like I said before ALL RPGs have been focused around Character Development since their creation. You know - stats, equipment, skills, even creation in many cases.

Sure you can remove levels and still have an RPG, but how would you handle the character development that has been inherent in Video Game RPGs since they were created?

Jan 27, 2009, 08:53 AM // 08:53	#462
Holly Herro Jungle Guide Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Kangaroo-land. Guild: Blades of the Dingo [AUST]	No level cap at all. Every time you level up, you get 10 extra hp, but you and your skills are balanced to where you're playing

Jan 27, 2009, 10:51 AM // 10:51	#464
Sjeng Desert Nomad Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: in my GH Guild: Limburgse Jagers [LJ] Profession: W/	Well, I feel there should be an end to a game, be it long and far away. GW gave me the feeling there was a lot to explore and do when Prophecies came out. Level 20 seemed perfect for it. Then, just as I had finished props with 4 different characters, Factions came, and there was more content. The downpart is that old characters are already level 20 and well equipped enough to have little trouble with factions nowadays. Back then it was a challenge though. They did well with the starter stuff on an isolated island. Same with Nightfall. So basically level 20 is perfect for GW. But my main now has about 7.777.000 XP, and I'm not sure what level that would equal if there was no cap, but I feel that a higher level cap is an incentive to play more with a character, if the areas get more difficult as well as you advance. Not too high though, as I said: a game needs to have an ending that can be reached by all if you play long enough, including jobs/school/RL. You don't want no-lifers owning the game, showing off their stuff and level all over the game, knowing you'll never reach that because of your day-job. That imo is demotivating. Calculate what your level would be in GW with about 5 mil XP, round it off to a nice number and make that the cap for a game with about as much content as GW1 alltogether. (Although I hope GW2 will be much bigger than the complete GW1 game).

Jan 27, 2009, 11:50 AM // 11:50	#466
Crom The Pale Furnace Stoker Join Date: Nov 2006 Guild: Ageis Ascending Profession: W/	Here is a question, would a higher level cap lead people to focus playing more with just one character? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

Jan 27, 2009, 11:52 AM // 11:52	#467
pingu666 Jungle Guide Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: guildhall Guild: [DETH]	just have say, level 20 (42) (42) being your virtual level, akin to skill points we have now. i think the low level cap is a really good idea, as content is easier to balance then, and encourages multi chacater play aswell. most of my chars have "only" 1million or so exp, roughly even those with 3 protector titles, some of them havent gone thru gwen yet, but still... nearest i have to a "main" has 3.9million or so

Jan 27, 2009, 08:57 PM // 20:57	#476
Apollo Smile Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Jan 2008 Guild: [LORE] Profession: E/Mo	There is nothing wrong with leveling in games. It just shouldn't be the main focus. Too many MMOs nowadays act like more level grinding = more content.

Jan 27, 2009, 09:18 PM // 21:18	#477
super strokey Krytan Explorer Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Soviet Canuckistan Profession: N/	The actual level makes little difference to me, but as long as we are having a long game with lots to do and the leveling happens in a logical progressive manner then i can care less