Curse

Bryant Again · Dec 21, 2008, 04:56 AM // 04:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Uh...no it wouldn't? I'm not saying GW is bad...in fact originally it was a great concept. I'm saying the game changed to something less unique because people apparently weren't satisfied with the original game.

I agree half-way. You're right when you say "it's less unique" in the fact that it's copying the 360 in terms of achievements, but I wouldn't hold ANet too much at gunpoint for something so pointless to the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Again, there is a big difference. People buying those games EXPECT those things to be in the game, because they are in the game and advertised to be in the game from the beginning. People buying Guild Wars (skill>time PvP endgame etc etc) should not have expected what the game is today. You think a company changing its entire core philosophy is harmless? Yea...maybe to those who either like the new philosophy or don't care one way or the other. Personally I wouldn't buy from a company who changes their core beliefs like rolling a dice.

I consider developers making harmless decisions to their game harmless. I consider it interesting when a developer decides not to include such an undamaging optional mechanic into their game. I consider it smart when a developer realizes the lack of consequences in adding something nearly akin to achievements and implements it into their game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Because releasing fresh and new expansions isn't fresh and new anymore, despite the fact that they had the existing playerbase as potential buyers and new players as potential buyers as well?

If it makes a completely different game, yes. Expansion packs are exactly what they sound like: they expand upon a game, they don't create a new one. The new campaigns brought us different locales to experience and play in, but that gameplay within was essentially the same.

I would say that creating new content for PvP does have the potential to drastically change the environment, but it also has a greater potential to break it. GW and Dawn of War are good examples, although I don't know how balanced DoW was at the beginning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

No it doesn't. The idea of skill>time is that the games entire philosophy is skill>time, not time>skill when people want time>skill. SKILL>TIME thats IT. The point is that skill>time was everything. Time meant NOTHING. Levels meant NOTHING. Now people want time to mean something and levels to mean something. Bye bye Guild Wars franchise as we knew it?

In terms of GW1, time still means *nothing* besides ANet saying "good job". Besides the recognition, you get nothing else for all of that grind. Good, thumbs up, gogo ANet. It's been the same way for high-end weapons and armors for years.

In terms of GW2, we'll wait and see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Interesting you left out the mention of the endgame changing...

Because it's kind of hard to deny that those players exist. But I can't complain about any sort of PvE endgame in a game that doesn't necessarily have it. You could say that this is what many consider endgame, but I don't think many players would pay the $15/mo fee if all WoW gave you were the achievements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Again...because you are in the majority. You just don't see it. I speak for a lot of people who don't speak here or just flat out quit the game already.

Also, just look at every single post between ours. They all want higher level caps of course. Now look at their reasons for wanting that higher cap (WoW, longer and harder to get, etc etc). I think my "assumptions" on the playerbase still stand. In fact, you are probably one of the only people in this thread to give decent level cap suggestions. Everybody else simply wants a bigger number for other reasons.

The "majority" wouldn't even acknowledge it.

I'm in a minority that sees it and doesn't see the harm - because there isn't. Skill still matters in the game, the time still doesn't.

Yes, I care about the game. I just see no reason in not only giving a few options to cater to another subsection of players, but also see no harm in why we were so distastingly against them in the first place. Grind is only harmful when you *have* to go through it to play the game. Otherwise, you get 360 achievements.

Unfortunately, the OP doesn't really ask for much. All that we've been hearing has been only that they want a higher and longer to reach level cap. Most haven't really stated what else they'd want.

Normally I'd share your concerns, but given what I've seen in other games, how Bioware shows you can have "high levs and leet lewt" without killing what matters in a game, and what's ANet has shown us in GW1 and told us about in GW2, I'm looking forward to it all.

DreamWind · Dec 21, 2008, 05:47 AM // 05:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I consider developers making harmless decisions to their game harmless. I consider it interesting when a developer decides not to include such an undamaging optional mechanic into their game. I consider it smart when a developer realizes the lack of consequences in adding something nearly akin to achievements and implements it into their game.

I would agree with you, but your point assumes that the changes were harmless and had no consequences, both of which I disagree with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

If it makes a completely different game, yes. Expansion packs are exactly what they sound like: they expand upon a game, they don't create a new one. The new campaigns brought us different locales to experience and play in, but that gameplay within was essentially the same.

Don't you think each successive stand alone (they aren't expansions remember) would have HIGHER sales? Each successive game has the current players and new players as potential buyers. This is especially true in Guild Wars which was an unknown franchise at the time of release (which should cause lower sales in the beginning). Doesn't each new game in the franchise having lower sales show anything?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Because it's kind of hard to deny that those players exist. But I can't complain about any sort of PvE endgame in a game that doesn't necessarily have it.

It did have an endgame...nevermind we've been over that point with no resolve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I'm in a minority that sees it and doesn't see the harm - because there isn't. Skill still matters in the game, the time still doesn't....

...In terms of GW2, we'll wait and see.

If you don't see how time has overtaken skill in Guild Wars just by stepping back and looking at the big picture, I honestly don't think I'm ever going to be able to explain it to you. You MUST be able to at least see a shift in how much each matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Grind is only harmful when you *have* to go through it to play the game.

Disagree. Grind to me is ALWAYS harmful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Unfortunately, the OP doesn't really ask for much. All that we've been hearing has been only that they want a higher and longer to reach level cap. Most haven't really stated what else they'd want.

Look at almost every other post. Get back to me when you see the REASONS for people wanting a higher level cap. Think about reasons why people would want it and tell me.

Bryant Again · Dec 21, 2008, 08:43 AM // 08:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I would agree with you, but your point assumes that the changes were harmless and had no consequences, both of which I disagree with.

360 franchises are untouched by the achievements, Mass Effect still stood out to be one of the best RPG's in recent history, Oblivion and Morrowind are some of the most widely celebrated RPG's of all time - all which can provide to the "grinder" as much as GW1. Unless you can show me how "awful" those games are, or if this is your first RPG ever, then I don't see the damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Don't you think each successive stand alone (they aren't expansions remember) would have HIGHER sales?

Hype affects sales a lot, and this is shown especially well in the MMO industry (AoC is a shining example). With Guild Wars it was advertised and claimed to be the first "*free to play* online RPG", something uncommon near it's release.

Being the first in the series (and what many would claim to be "the best"), it's going to be pretty hard to beat the bar Prophecies has set. It's not unnatural for sales to be in a steady decline, it's unnatural for a franchise to be in the exact opposite.

And I consider the new campaigns "expansions" because I don't consider expansion packs simply being stand-alone a new game, although I do recognize that feature. I'd only consider them new games if they introduced much more than they currently offer. This isn't to say I'm disappointed with what they created but that they'd have to make something not Guild Wars. Fortunately, that's not what I wanted: I wanted more Guild Wars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

If you don't see how time has overtaken skill in Guild Wars just by stepping back and looking at the big picture, I honestly don't think I'm ever going to be able to explain it to you. You MUST be able to at least see a shift in how much each matters.

What I do know is that I still can't be a better player (these days only very slightly) simply by grinding a title and that I don't need to do any of the current grind to experience anything else in the game.

What I don't know is the number of players grinding their lives in GW and the % they make up of the players who have enjoyed Guild Wars, and - most importantly - if all those players "grinding" would have found other means to satisfy themselves in the game. If a player is set on doing something, he'll do it. If he's not, he won't. Given how much you can "grind" even without the titles, I think they'd still be here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Look at almost every other post. Get back to me when you see the REASONS for people wanting a higher level cap. Think about reasons why people would want it and tell me.

To "make it take longer" is the only reason I can see, and the reason for that has largely been "to make it more meaningful"...which is impossible, because the number next to your character name is always going to be entirely meaningless. The only thing it shows is to give an indication of how far your character has progressed in the game, something they did pretty well in Prophecies: You saw a level 20 and thought "ka-snap, he's seen the desert, yo". In all of the later releases they pretty much abandoned that: Max your character in the starting zone, boot 'em to the "real game!".

Unless ANet wants to pull a "bad move" - given how many mistakes they made in the prequel it'd be kind of hard to to not learn from them - there's not much they can do to make levels "mean something".

DreamWind · Dec 21, 2008, 12:20 PM // 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

360 franchises are untouched by the achievements, Mass Effect still stood out to be one of the best RPG's in recent history, Oblivion and Morrowind are some of the most widely celebrated RPG's of all time - all which can provide to the "grinder" as much as GW1. Unless you can show me how "awful" those games are, or if this is your first RPG ever, then I don't see the damage.

Those games aren't awful, but those games weren't changed. The damage in Guild War's case is the fact that it changed the game and alienated a chunk of the playerbase while not even completely satisfying another chunk. Guild Wars was never meant to have grind...hell it arguably wasn't even an RPG. Well...it was an RPG, but not in the traditional sense. It was a competitive game first and an RPG second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

With Guild Wars it was advertised and claimed to be the first "*free to play* online RPG", something uncommon near it's release.

It was also advertised as a skill>time competitive game. Besides, it wasn't free to play and it wasn't uncommon for that reason. There are tons of free online RPGS online. It was uncommon for the previous reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's not unnatural for sales to be in a steady decline, it's unnatural for a franchise to be in the exact opposite.

Its natural for it to decline in the manner Guild Wars has? I bet in a global poll people would say that each release of the game has gotten worse and worse, which is an interesting thing really. I have no doubt Anet is trying to do what is best for them, but is it really best for the franchise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

This isn't to say I'm disappointed with what they created but that they'd have to make something not Guild Wars. Fortunately, that's not what I wanted: I wanted more Guild Wars.

I wanted more Guild Wars as well...Guild Wars how it used to be. Not Guild Wars how it is today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

What I do know is that I still can't be a better player (these days only very slightly) simply by grinding a title and that I don't need to do any of the current grind to experience anything else in the game.

If a player is set on doing something, he'll do it. If he's not, he won't. Given how much you can "grind" even without the titles, I think they'd still be here.

You aren't seeing my point here and we are going in a bit of a circle. The fact that more grind opportunities exist (in the form of titles or potentially in higher level caps) is a bad thing for the game in my opinion. By adding more grind potential or non skill related activities, you simply have more players who don't give a damn how good they actually are because there is enough other stuff to take up their time. Skill does not matter to them.

Now sure you are always going to have those types of people and that is fine by me. The problem is that Guild Wars was built on the idea that if you were playing the game skill was EVERYTHING. It was THE determining factor in your gameplay. But, Anet has now essentially widespread and supported the idea that skill no longer matters whereas before it was their main goal with the game. Skill>time philosophy is no more.

And you are right that those types of people will still be here regardless...they would find something to do if they liked Guild Wars. AND THAT IS THE POINT! Why change your game that everybody already likes into something that alienates a population when meanwhile the other population would have probably been happier with the previous incarnation of the game? In regards to this thread, give me legit reasons to increase the level cap when the current cap works just as intended. I haven't seen ANY in this thread. We know the cap is increasing, but we don't have any good reason why it is increasing. Hell, we barely have any good reasons why it SHOULD be increased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

To "make it take longer" is the only reason I can see, and the reason for that has largely been "to make it more meaningful"...which is impossible, because the number next to your character name is always going to be entirely meaningless. The only thing it shows is to give an indication of how far your character has progressed in the game, something they did pretty well in Prophecies...

Unless ANet wants to pull a "bad move" - given how many mistakes they made in the prequel it'd be kind of hard to to not learn from them - there's not much they can do to make levels "mean something".

I agree with you...so why increase the cap again?

Bryant Again · Dec 21, 2008, 01:03 PM // 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Its natural for it to decline in the manner Guild Wars has?

You think StarCraft is still selling as well as near its release?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You aren't seeing my point here and we are going in a bit of a circle. The fact that more grind opportunities exist (in the form of titles or potentially in higher level caps) is a bad thing for the game in my opinion. By adding more grind potential or non skill related activities, you simply have more players who don't give a damn how good they actually are because there is enough other stuff to take up their time. Skill does not matter to them.

Now sure you are always going to have those types of people and that is fine by me. The problem is that Guild Wars was built on the idea that if you were playing the game skill was EVERYTHING. It was THE determining factor in your gameplay. But, Anet has now essentially widespread and supported the idea that skill no longer matters whereas before it was their main goal with the game. Skill>time philosophy is no more.

And you are right that those types of people will still be here regardless...they would find something to do if they liked Guild Wars. AND THAT IS THE POINT! Why change your game that everybody already likes into something that alienates a population when meanwhile the other population would have probably been happier with the previous incarnation of the game? In regards to this thread, give me legit reasons to increase the level cap when the current cap works just as intended. I haven't seen ANY in this thread. We know the cap is increasing, but we don't have any good reason why it is increasing. Hell, we barely have any good reasons why it SHOULD be increased.

Fortunately, the most sought after titles require the most knowledge about the game. So no need to worry there.

Aside from that you claim "time is a determining factor" in one's gameplay, yet point to nothing? Do you mean in terms of what determines one's gameplay, i.e. changes one's gameplay experience? If so, that never happens because, as stated numerous times, the grind doesn't need to be done. At all. In any way, shape or form.

Lastly, how has ANet alienated players by introducing something into the game that they don't even need to touch? Something just as "damaging" as the high-end item crowd? Unless it goes back to ANet being so firmly against such a harmless thing, which beckons the question of why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I agree with you...so why increase the cap again?

Why not?

Levels are meaningless. If they want just a bigger number...Okay.

Crom The Pale · Dec 21, 2008, 02:05 PM // 14:05

The skill level of players really only matters in PvP, as most PvE aspects can be accomplished by a complete novice. Yes some Elite Zones require planning and some team work but on the whole anyone can play the game and beat the PvE portion.

So the real question is, how will a high level cap affect PvP?

Since we do not know the specifics of GW2's PvP yet we can only speculate based on what we know of GW. Originally PvP was divided by level and location, except for PvP only characters and GvG. (to do HoH you had to ascend and reach the Dragon's Lair) Then they changed it to the Battle Islands and created some small skill building to divide the PvP. You had to win in the single arena to unlock team, win in team to unlock Hero's Ascent.

So from this we can guess, and it is just a guess, that GW2 will have multi-tyred levels for PvP. At the lowest levels anyone can play and at the highest only those that have earned entry via skill rather than just getting to a location via PvE will be allowed in.

Amu Hinamori · Dec 22, 2008, 02:19 AM // 02:19

I heard they're thinking about making it up to 100 or infinite...

They said level wont effect strength or anything..So it wont make a difference.

DreamWind · Dec 22, 2008, 02:43 AM // 02:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You think StarCraft is still selling as well as near its release?

Uh...the last time Starcraft released anything was 10 years ago. The last time Guild Wars released anything was about 1 year ago. Bad example. Not to mention Starcraft has sold about twice as many copies as all the Guild Wars combined...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Aside from that you claim "time is a determining factor" in one's gameplay, yet point to nothing? Do you mean in terms of what determines one's gameplay, i.e. changes one's gameplay experience? If so, that never happens because, as stated numerous times, the grind doesn't need to be done. At all. In any way, shape or form.

Lastly, how has ANet alienated players by introducing something into the game that they don't even need to touch? Something just as "damaging" as the high-end item crowd? Unless it goes back to ANet being so firmly against such a harmless thing, which beckons the question of why.

Sigh...if my previous post didn't explain it I don't think I'll ever be able to explain it. All I'm saying is, you are essentially falling back on DLDU because I KNOW I am right about what happened to this game and I KNOW it is less unique today than it used to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Why not?

Levels are meaningless. If they want just a bigger number...Okay.

If people want the level cap higher they have to answer the "why" question which hasn't been done sufficiently in this entire thread. As far as I can tell, the current level cap works perfectly as intended. If you are going to say "why not", I can say that to ANYTHING! Give me a skill that does 10 billion damage in GW2 WHY NOT?!?!? This is going directly back to the point of those Ursan threads as far as I can tell.

Crom The Pale · Dec 22, 2008, 03:55 AM // 03:55

I think a large number of people associate a higher level cap with larger PvE content.

Prophicies was laid out, at first, so that by the time you reached Hell's Precipice if you had completed every quest and mission you would be very close to level 20 with out any grind/farming of exp.

Factions changed that drastically, taking players to lvl 20 very quickly leaving over 70% of the game to complete as a level 20 character.

I believe that most people want GW2 to flow a bit more like Prophicies. They want the character development to continue throughout the entire game rather than be condenced into the first 1/3 of the game.

The actual number of levels isn't what is important but the ratio of game completion : character level is.

Wild Karrde · Dec 22, 2008, 04:06 AM // 04:06

No cap is good for all the people who love to grind hardcore and farm and such and like to make their epeen MASSIVE, but it sucks for anyone else who cares about balance and for anyone who wants to have fun on a more casual game play.

No cap/high lvl cap = Larger epeen

lower Cap = more balance and more qq from farmers...

DreamWind · Dec 22, 2008, 04:18 AM // 04:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

I think a large number of people associate a higher level cap with larger PvE content.

I believe that most people want GW2 to flow a bit more like Prophicies. They want the character development to continue throughout the entire game rather than be condenced into the first 1/3 of the game.

The actual number of levels isn't what is important but the ratio of game completion : character level is.

See I agree with you here. Higher level does not mean more content. If people wanted the game to flow like Prophecies that would be fine...but the problem is that we have so many people saying they just want a bigger number without any legitimate reason why. Using "to make it more like other games" is a fairly common (and sad) answers. Hell Anet hasn't even given us a reason why they are raising the cap!

The Last Windseeker · Dec 22, 2008, 05:00 AM // 05:00

I could care less on what the level cap is as long as more grind than necessary isn't created. If it is high it is fine as long as all the needed benefits from leveling are obtained early and any more leveling is just for show. In the end, I just don't want Guild Wars to turn into any more of Grind Wars than it already is.

cellardweller · Dec 22, 2008, 05:16 AM // 05:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

I think a large number of people associate a higher level cap with larger PvE content.

... when infact the inverse is true. In prophesies only 2 of the 6 areas are playable with the presear->desert being relegated to "tutorial" type zones due to creatures being too low level and group sizes being too small. Factions by comparison gives us way more content because 80% is non-trivial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

360 franchises are untouched by the achievements, Mass Effect still stood out to be one of the best RPG's in recent history, Oblivion and Morrowind are some of the most widely celebrated RPG's of all time - all which can provide to the "grinder" as much as GW1. Unless you can show me how "awful" those games are, or if this is your first RPG ever, then I don't see the damage.

I'm picking this quote in particular, but I'm using it to point out the basic flaw in your stance. There is a huge difference between "achievements" in the 360 games and the reputation titles in GW1/Hypothetical infinite level in GW2. Any achievement you achieve in 360 land is an acknowledgement of your acheivements and do not affect your ability to play the game, where as the in the latter case, you have to complete the grind in order to play game.

Its good you brought up the more traditional RPG's as it highlights the big difference between the appeal that they give compared to the enjoyment delivered by GuildWars.

Baldur's Gate 2 is probably my all time favorite Traditional RPG but I've only played it through normally 2 or 3 times. Why? Because doesn't have the replayablity of a structured limited game. It has lasting appeal only in the form of the "speed clear" (where you start the game with a new character and reach the end as fast as you can) because that is the only method of playing that provides the gamer with a way to measure and compare performances.

Guildwars by contrast gives the player hundreds of playgrounds where there are well defined starting and finishing lines - once you pass the tutorial areas you are at max level and have max armour/equiment and that is the aspect that makes puts its PvE content head an shoulders above any other game that I've played (including mmo's like war and wow). If the level cap in GW2 takes hundreds of hours to reach or requires months of grinding before the best equipment is obtained, then all this work must be done before the enjoyable part of the game can begin.

Lady Lozza · Dec 22, 2008, 05:20 AM // 05:20

The more I think about this, the more I read this thread I really would like for there to be no levels. Health, energy, attribute points can be gained by questing. Since quests often do not form a part of the definition of grind it would be nice to see e-peen (in the form of levels) removed from the game.

A greater number of levels (dare I say infinite levels) will be a problem. We all know it. Even if the levels don't mean anything. Get rid of them I say, and get rid of all "non-achievement, pure grind" based titles. (IE keep things like explorer, protector, guardian, get rid of alliance, koabd, th/wisdom, etc)

Bryant Again · Dec 22, 2008, 09:05 AM // 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Uh...the last time Starcraft released anything was 10 years ago. The last time Guild Wars released anything was about 1 year ago.

Where's your source for something so overassumptious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Sigh...if my previous post didn't explain it I don't think I'll ever be able to explain it.

All you need to do is show me how farming vanity titles is anymore harmful than farming for high-end weapons and armor.

If it's because ANet went against their "original premise": Not only would you have to convince me why ANet was so fully against something so pointless in the first place, but you'd also have to tell me how they didn't break it at the start with the time it took to earn all of those rare weapons and armors.

All ANet did with GW1 was add more of the same: pointless bullcrap that only needed to be done for your own satisfaction. It's still Guild Wars: You cannot beat the game simply by devoting time to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

If people want the level cap higher they have to answer the "why" question which hasn't been done sufficiently in this entire thread.

I already showed you that the level cap has nothing to do with the gameplay and more how the gameplay is spread across those levels. It's just as easy to keep the game consistent and not full of crap with 10 levels as it is with 10000.

As to why ANet would do something like this? To further satisfy and get cash from an already easy-to-please crowd. That's not to say that the posters in this thread all for a level cap are "easy to please", but rather that there are people who take level caps hilariously seriously. It's easy to cater to them while still keeping your game intact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellardweller

I'm picking this quote in particular, but I'm using it to point out the basic flaw in your stance. There is a huge difference between "achievements" in the 360 games and the reputation titles in GW1/Hypothetical infinite level in GW2. Any achievement you achieve in 360 land is an acknowledgement of your acheivements and do not affect your ability to play the game, where as the in the latter case, you have to complete the grind in order to play game. "why" question which hasn't been done sufficiently in this entire thread.

Fortunately, we're not given any indication that this is how it will turn out in GW2, and it's not inevitable for it to end up as you fear. There's a lot of routes ANet can take, and what you've theorized would be one of the wrong ones.

cellardweller · Dec 22, 2008, 09:23 AM // 09:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Fortunately, we're not given any indication that this is how it will turn out in GW2, and it's not inevitable for it to end up as you fear. There's a lot of routes ANet can take, and what you've theorized would be one of the wrong ones.

They've all but stated that it will killing the PvE game in order to appease grinders
(translated from german)
"For Love of the e-sports and as an alternative to the loose-PvP worlds, there are again fighting Guild (GVG). In order for this mode is fair, all the participating players to temporarily put the same level. It thus receives all the talents, skills and equipment to communicate with his team and his opponents on equal terms."
If character strength does not progress as they go up in levels then there would be no need to scale characters for GvG.

(translated from german)
"Equipment is a much more important role in Guild Wars 2. There are lots of cool objects, which really in the nature of development efforts. Why in the Guild Wars 1 or otherwise, was just that we are entirely on the PvP the skill of the player has designed. Nobody should be at an advantage, just because you have more time spent in the game than others. The problem we solve in Guild Wars 2 simply different: In the PvP worlds will be the players in the equipment level and clearly differ from each other - that's totally okay so. GVG In the same character values, talents and equipment of the players, however, accordingly, so that all have the same opportunities. That is also the e-sports tournaments costly entitlement for secured! As player-versus - Player struggles once again come very fair, we can also objects to the way steam."
Again if the hard to obtain items in the game do not provide a direct advantage to the characters weilding them then there would be no need to scale equipment for GvG.

Bryant Again · Dec 22, 2008, 09:53 AM // 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellardweller

If character strength does not progress as they go up in levels then there would be no need to scale characters for GvG.

Again if the hard to obtain items in the game do not provide a direct advantage to the characters weilding them then there would be no need to scale equipment for GvG.

Good, solid evidence is something this thread's needed for a long time.

But we're still assuming a bit too much here. While we've been given that there's going to be a bit more emphasis on PvE development, it's still on the fence of which route it's heading. I won't deny that I've raised an eyebrow, but I'm still holding out for a judgement call, i.e. playing the game.

DreamWind · Dec 22, 2008, 09:54 AM // 09:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Where's your source for something so overassumptious?

You need a source for that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

All you need to do is show me how farming vanity titles is anymore harmful than farming for high-end weapons and armor.

If it's because ANet went against their "original premise": Not only would you have to convince me why ANet was so fully against something so pointless in the first place, but you'd also have to tell me how they didn't break it at the start with the time it took to earn all of those rare weapons and armors.

Personally I think they are both harmful to the original premise, but what we have today is far far worse not only because it was later added intentionally against the original premise, but also because what we have today is a title farming/grinding endgame in preparation for Guild Wars 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I already showed you that the level cap has nothing to do with the gameplay and more how the gameplay is spread across those levels. It's just as easy to keep the game consistent and not full of crap with 10 levels as it is with 10000.

I agree with you...but I have a sneaky suspicion that people want a higher level cap for other purposes. Not to mention...the 20 level cap spread across Prophecies just fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

As to why ANet would do something like this? To further satisfy and get cash from an already easy-to-please crowd. That's not to say that the posters in this thread all for a level cap are "easy to please", but rather that there are people who take level caps hilariously seriously. It's easy to cater to them while still keeping your game intact.

The first bolded is an understatement. The second bolded is true...except for the keeping the game intact part.

Bryant Again · Dec 22, 2008, 10:06 AM // 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You need a source for that?

Hm. I'll get back to this as I misread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Personally I think they are both harmful to the original premise, but what we have today is far far worse not only because it was later added intentionally against the original premise, but also because what we have today is a title farming/grinding endgame in preparation for Guild Wars 2.

That had little to do with the passage you quoted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I agree with you...but I have a sneaky suspicion that people want a higher level cap for other purposes.

No shit. Not everyone wants a higher level cap for the same reason, not everyone wants a higher cap for a healthy reason.

Doesn't matter how well spread it was in Proph. Some people, for whatever reaosn, just want to see a bigger number.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The first bolded is an understatement. The second bolded is true...except for the keeping the game intact part.

@1st bolded: Look at all ANet's had to do for GW1 to keep people more preoccupied. So much effort, right?
@2nd bolded: Mass Effect, Oblivion, 360 achievements, Steam achievements, PS3 Trophies, blah blah blah....

DreamWind · Dec 22, 2008, 12:36 PM // 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That had little to do with the passage you quoted.

I thought I answered it...but I'll requote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

If it's because ANet went against their "original premise": Not only would you have to convince me why ANet was so fully against something so pointless in the first place, but you'd also have to tell me how they didn't break it at the start with the time it took to earn all of those rare weapons and armors.

Uh...you need to be convinced that skill>time isn't pointless?

I really don't get what you're trying to say...but if that is what you are saying then lol.

And yes of course there was things that required time to get in the beginning, but those were more throw people a bone activities as opposed to being the main point of the game and the entire endgame. Not to mention the game being harder back then (despite all these new "elite" areas), but thats beside the point. The point is that the game changed from mostly skill>time to mostly time>skill and thats all that matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

No shit. Not everyone wants a higher level cap for the same reason, not everyone wants a higher cap for a healthy reason.

Doesn't matter how well spread it was in Proph. Some people, for whatever reaosn, just want to see a bigger number.

If everyone (including Anet) had legitimate healthy reasons for raising the cap, I wouldn't be in this thread. Instead we have terrible reasons and no reason from Anet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

@1st bolded: Look at all ANet's had to do for GW1 to keep people more preoccupied. So much effort, right?
@2nd bolded: Mass Effect, Oblivion, 360 achievements, Steam achievements, PS3 Trophies, blah blah blah....

You keep comparing Guild Wars to those games for some reason which is very faulty. You also keep assuming that Guild Wars as we knew it is still intact which is also very faulty.