Curse

carnage-runner · Jan 28, 2009, 11:10 PM // 23:10

I like the idea of capless.. It means they can make some seriously intense elite missions. Have extremely rare item drops in high areas.. They can also create greater money sinks for armor/weapons/mats.. etc. Also it will promote quest completion to increase your own level.. This will also allow for more indeapth skill ballancing. SB's in accordance to areas and developement of attributes in enemies. More bad guys like EotN that have multiple skills from different professions. I also like the idea that they can add more and more onto the game and it will always be difficult.

This wouldn't make rare weapons go away, because eventually you reach the top and everyone will get the same max damage weapons eventually. It just means it takes alot longer to get there, so having an account with 6 max level characters is actually a serious accomplishment. And so it should be. I've also read that you're actions affect the game (See IGN GW2 report), so hopefully this means that each characters progression through the game can be significantly different from the last. Also, having higher level caps means having more areas to get through, which means more outposts. In turn more quests.. Missions... Armor.. Weapon types... So all of a sudden a higher level cap means you can expand everything about the game 10 fold. Larger arenas and mission maps for higher levels. More areas, more different types of armors and weapons...

In the end, a higher level cap will benefit the PVE aspect of the game hugely, and the PvP not quite as much....

PvP you get to have more lower level arenas, where people may design builds and sets of armor/weapons/skills specifically for a particular level. So there would be more diversity in PvP in the respect of more attention to detail on attribute point spread...

Just a few thoughts.
ex Diablo 2 player. (high levels are godlike, GRIND ON!)

silv3rr · Jan 29, 2009, 12:03 AM // 00:03

Note: I refuse to read 25 pages of comments.

Their theory of capless will probably be like how GW is right now. Attribute gets capped at a certain level (probably around level 20 again) but they'll put a number to each "level" we obtain afterwards.

But instead of how many skill points our characters have being of any indication of how much we've played, it'll be replaced with an actual level visible for all to see.

Shewmake · Jan 29, 2009, 03:19 AM // 03:19

I like a fairly low level cap (like 20) because it gives us a bigger focus on developing our skill sets. Now, I've never played WoW, so I'm not really sure how much of an impact level difference has in the game, but I do agree with Blizzard's increasing the level cap in WoW as expansions [not necessarily campaigns (if ANet uses the campaign scheme again)] are released. That's something I'd like to see incorporated in GW2.

lietzaum · Jan 29, 2009, 03:32 AM // 03:32

what i would do it have a base level cap where your toon can not get any stronger but have your level go higher so it gives the benifit of both worlds

DreamWind · Jan 29, 2009, 08:18 PM // 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

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.

I disagree. It actually benefits Anet to NOT include wanted features so that they can sell them in the next release. All Anet has to do is make people want the next expansion...that is the path they have taken. They could care less if you are playing the current one as long as you buy the next one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

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.

Whos definition of RPG are you using? That surely isn't my definition. Besides, Guild Wars ALREADY has character development, equipment, and attributes, but it isn't enough for some people. The entire point of this cap on all those things was for balance (and PvP) reasons. In other words, the cap works AS INTENDED but people want the franchise to be something other than intended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

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?

The same way it was handled in Guild Wars 1 (successfully).

Quote:

Originally Posted by silv3rr

Their theory of capless will probably be like how GW is right now. Attribute gets capped at a certain level (probably around level 20 again) but they'll put a number to each "level" we obtain afterwards.

But instead of how many skill points our characters have being of any indication of how much we've played, it'll be replaced with an actual level visible for all to see.

I wonder how many people would be happy with that. Levels would essentially be just another title. Interesting thought.

Bryant Again · Feb 01, 2009, 07:27 AM // 07:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Not in those exact terms...

Unless you point out to ANet saying "we want you to do only this now", then the "endgame" is fueled by naught but personal theories and experiences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

But if the performance was good, those same people wouldn't have had a problem if the direction remained the same.

That would have to be under the assumption that the change of direction is the cause of all the problems, and all those people were just as content with the direction seen today compared to what it used to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

There is a big difference between making changes to a game and completely changing the direction/philosophy of a game.

Which goes right back to the mess of interpreting what that philosophy is/was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Which is "bad" if the previous something was "good".

Only if you don't want that something to change. That's always a problem artists will face: there's going to be just as many people wanting them to change as there are those against it (copy-paste).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Both on some levels. What is certain is what has been announced, and what Anet has done (and is still doing) in GW1.

Not only does that still not give us much (insert "wait and see" here), how accurate is it to staple ANet as a whole being in the reins of GW1, given how few are left to monitor it and how so many are focused with GW2?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Ok let me try to explain my problem. Yes there are people as you describe, but there are many more who aren't that way. If you believe level is meaningless and that you can do whatever you want with it (like raise it), there has to be a reason behind it to satisfy the people who think you can't do what you want with it (like me). There are even more people (probably multiple times over) who believe the level DOES mean something and want the level raised for that reason. I have problems with both of those.

That's why there's the standstill: it's hard to give a reason for something that's so subjective and personal but technically meaningless. Not only that but we still don't have our hands on the final product.

In regards to those who like to feel "uber", I don't think ANet can help the fact that those people are so easy to please. If you're trying to combat these type of people, the only way you're going to accomplish anything along those lines is to make everyone 100% the same 100% of the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

How is oblivion a wow clone?

On the simple basis that it has a high and/or hard to reach level cap (ymmv). But as you've realized it's not the number that shapes the game and rather how the game is shaped, and that's something we won't know until we actually get our hands on GW2.

DreamWind · Feb 01, 2009, 08:35 AM // 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Unless you point out to ANet saying "we want you to do only this now", then the "endgame" is fueled by naught but personal theories and experiences.

Uh...well its impossible to point that out because Anet would never say it. They would only take actions with their game to show us. I think its pretty clear that the HoM is something they really want a lot of players to pursue, as it will give both the players and Anet "benefits" in the next release.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That would have to be under the assumption that the change of direction is the cause of all the problems, and all those people were just as content with the direction seen today compared to what it used to be.

You are basically saying "what if I don't see any problems". Fine...but it has to be acknowledged that other people see problems today that are a direct result of the direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Which goes right back to the mess of interpreting what that philosophy is/was.

It was never a mess. We have evidence of Anet's previous philosophy and Anet's current philosophy through various dev and rep quotes and also game actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Only if you don't want that something to change. That's always a problem artists will face: there's going to be just as many people wanting them to change as there are those against it (copy-paste).

And yet, I bet if there were a global poll, people would say the game was better in Prophecies or even Factions. Why were these changes made again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Not only does that still not give us much (insert "wait and see" here), how accurate is it to staple ANet as a whole being in the reins of GW1, given how few are left to monitor it and how so many are focused with GW2?

That's why there's the standstill: it's hard to give a reason for something that's so subjective and personal but technically meaningless. Not only that but we still don't have our hands on the final product.

I think it is extremely accurate to judge a company by how they managed their ONLY game when the entire company was focused on it. You also have to think that many of Guild Wars 1's current decisions are being ok'ed by people in charge of Guild Wars 2 as well. If I think the management was piss poor (which I do), I will be much less likely to think the management will be better in the next release. "Wait and see" does not cut it for me, for I have already seen. If I have already seen, I would be stupid to spend money again and hope for the best. Fortunately all Anet needs is people who want to "wait and see".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

In regards to those who like to feel "uber", I don't think ANet can help the fact that those people are so easy to please. If you're trying to combat these type of people, the only way you're going to accomplish anything along those lines is to make everyone 100% the same 100% of the time.

Which is basically what they had with 1. All indications are a move away from combatting it in 2.

Bryant Again · Feb 01, 2009, 09:48 AM // 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Uh...well its impossible to point that out because Anet would never say it. They would only take actions with their game to show us. I think its pretty clear that the HoM is something they really want a lot of players to pursue, as it will give both the players and Anet "benefits" in the next release.

With the benefits, it's another "wait and see". I wouldn't consider a party hat to be very beneficial.

Aside from that, I see just as much "evidence" as it being a "shift away from" as well as "in addition to".

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You are basically saying "what if I don't see any problems". Fine...but it has to be acknowledged that other people see problems today that are a direct result of the direction.

Which is probably the biggest problem of these, well, problems: YMMV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

It was never a mess...

Then why do I still consider the philosophy largely intact while you consider it entirely broken?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

And yet, I bet if there were a global poll, people would say the game was better in Prophecies or even Factions.

The only problem is that that'll show next to nothing. You'll need reasons. That's why we have this forum and threads, not just yes or no's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

..."Wait and see" does not cut it for me, for I have already seen. If I have already seen, I would be stupid to spend money again and hope for the best. Fortunately all Anet needs is people who want to "wait and see".

In other news, Dreamwind can time travel.

And no, all ANet needs isn't people who "wait and see". They just need their game to be free to play. No matter what happens in Guild Wars, that's always going to be the chief reason why it's so paramountly popular.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Which is basically what they had with 1...

sup /rank + lots of money + elite armor + rare weapons.

Even when everyone was "the same", there were those who still acted with an air of superiority i.e. elitists.

You can't combat it, you can only attempt to kill it. Unfortunately doing so sacrifices far too much, and even then you'll still have a few people running their mouths.

DreamWind · Feb 01, 2009, 10:36 AM // 10:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

With the benefits, it's another "wait and see". I wouldn't consider a party hat to be very beneficial.

That doesn't matter. All that matters is there a ton of people pursuing endgame grind because of the announcement that their accomplishments will be displayed in 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Aside from that, I see just as much "evidence" as it being a "shift away from" as well as "in addition to".

Man you have got to be kidding me. All I can say is, if you don't see it you don't see it. I'll never be able to explain it to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Then why do I still consider the philosophy largely intact while you consider it entirely broken?

I'm not even talking about the old philosophy being intact (which I don't think it is but lets put that aside for a moment). I am talking about them completely CHANGING the philosophy. There is evidence of Anet stating their philosophy in the beginning and stating a completely different one more recently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The only problem is that that'll show next to nothing. You'll need reasons. That's why we have this forum and threads, not just yes or no's.

Do people need reasons? We need reasons for a higher level cap because it is a future change, and we require reasons for changing. We don't need reasons to say that we used to like the game more if changes made it worse, because the game will never go back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And no, all ANet needs isn't people who "wait and see". They just need their game to be free to play. No matter what happens in Guild Wars, that's always going to be the chief reason why it's so paramountly popular.

They need people with a wait and see mentality to buy their game to see if its good. After that they need nothing....they have already got the money. Free to play is just another way to grab these people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Even when everyone was "the same", there were those who still acted with an air of superiority i.e. elitists.

You can't combat it, you can only attempt to kill it. Unfortunately doing so sacrifices far too much, and even then you'll still have a few people running their mouths.

Adding a higher level cap is going to solve the problem? It is going to make it 10x worse. Instead of having a game where skill matters, we could potentially have a game where level matters. It makes me cringe even thinking about it.

Wretchman Drake · Feb 01, 2009, 05:16 PM // 17:16

A level 20 cap again would be stupid. I'm in favor of 40+. More time to focus on the content and have an incentive to go through it. Also I hope they don't make the gear totally equal endgame, because then it just becomes another rock/paper/scissors game where pros and noobs alike share gear which IMO isn't fair.

Bryant Again · Feb 01, 2009, 08:55 PM // 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

That doesn't matter. All that matters is there a ton of people pursuing endgame grind because of the announcement that their accomplishments will be displayed in 2.

People were perusing grind before at the start of the game. Now they're being a bit more recognized. Other then that we'll need to see some numbers, but that's quite impossible. Not to mention that there are numerous "non grind" ways to deck out your HoM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Man you have got to be kidding me...

Sorry bro.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Do people need reasons?

You will for that poll, because not everyone will share your view (I kind of feel like I shouldn't have had to say that). If all we needed were numbers we wouldn't need forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

They need people with a wait and see mentality to buy their game to see if its good. After that they need nothing....they have already got the money. Free to play is just another way to grab these people.

Fortunately, if this was all that was needed, we wouldn't see developers striving to make good games. Although we have yet to see how far "free to play" can carry a bad game, so I'll give you that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Adding a higher level cap is going to solve the problem? It is going to make it 10x worse. Instead of having a game where skill matters, we could potentially have a game where level matters. It makes me cringe even thinking about it.

First. Running into elitists has always been a largely varied experience. Not only does not everyone run into them, not everyone treats the encounters the same. So basing any game design limitations off of that can raise a few eyebrows, even more so if people are still acting elitist when you try greatly to limit it.

Second. Sidekick system, another thing we know very little about.

Also, I'm glad you put in the keyword "potential". You're right when ANet could go all "HURR DURR" and make a game where level is the emphasis, or it could be done in one of the "good" ways I listed earlier. Or they could pull out with something else entirely unique.

DreamWind · Feb 01, 2009, 10:58 PM // 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

People were perusing grind before at the start of the game. Now they're being a bit more recognized. Other then that we'll need to see some numbers, but that's quite impossible. Not to mention that there are numerous "non grind" ways to deck out your HoM.

Now they're being more supported by Anet is what you are saying. You essentially agree with me you are just saying it different. As for the numbers...well more on that later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You will for that poll, because not everyone will share your view (I kind of feel like I shouldn't have had to say that). If all we needed were numbers we wouldn't need forums.

What DO you need? No we don't have numbers, but if we did have numbers it still wouldn't be enough. All the evidence that Anet has completely changed their philosophy and their game is there. This is as bad as denying gravity to me.

The only thing that can even be questioned is how many people enjoy the new direction compared to the old direction, and in that situation a very well educated guess is that people who played in the old days enjoyed it more. Does that mean the game today is bad and that people don't enjoy it? Not neccessarily...but I suppose thats all opinion. The facts still remain though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Fortunately, if this was all that was needed, we wouldn't see developers striving to make good games. Although we have yet to see how far "free to play" can carry a bad game, so I'll give you that.

You know there are a ton of free to play games right? Free to play is a just a gimmick Anet uses to help sell their game. They are basically saying "our game is good enough to be a pay to play game but it isn't pay to play". They aren't just saying "our game is free to play". They have to live up to that expectation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

First. Running into elitists has always been a largely varied experience. Not only does not everyone run into them, not everyone treats the encounters the same. So basing any game design limitations off of that can raise a few eyebrows, even more so if people are still acting elitist when you try greatly to limit it.

Basing a game design to increase it raises even more eyebrows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Also, I'm glad you put in the keyword "potential". You're right when ANet could go all "HURR DURR" and make a game where level is the emphasis, or it could be done in one of the "good" ways I listed earlier. Or they could pull out with something else entirely unique.

They could! *laughs out loud heavily!!!!* Ok I didn't really laugh...I suppose we will have to wait and see...just like we will have to wait and see if I die from jumping off this building.

Bryant Again · Feb 01, 2009, 11:35 PM // 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Now they're being more supported by Anet is what you are saying. You essentially agree with me you are just saying it different.

But I don't see it as a problem nor going against what I consider the core of the game since "grinders" have been supported since the beginning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

What DO you need?

Non biased or nostalgia flavored discussion. If you just say "this is bad" to someone you're not giving them any direction in how to correct it. Then again, that's entirely dependent on self: some believe that they shouldn't have to give directions.

There is change, I already said I can't deny it. But I don't consider all of it for the worst. The facts remain, but we don't have everyone's collectives thoughts about those facts - which is vital, and also very hard to get.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You know there are a ton of free to play games right? Free to play is a just a gimmick Anet uses to help sell their game. They are basically saying "our game is good enough to be a pay to play game but it isn't pay to play". They aren't just saying "our game is free to play". They have to live up to that expectation.

Not only is that something I've been saying for years, you've just shown that ANet has even more incentive to make a quality game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Basing a game design to increase it raises even more eyebrows.

It has the potential to, but with what I've just said about the sidekick system and the fixed scaling of PvP, my hopes turn to the best.

But I'd much rather have the chance (chance!) to experience an elitist as opposed to completely abandoning any way of marking progress or development (which is probably the only thing that's actually going to put a dent in elitsts).

All in all, it depends on how much of a damper - if any at all - elitism puts on your gameplay. Since that too is massively varied it's seldom taken into account.

DreamWind · Feb 02, 2009, 12:47 AM // 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

But I don't see it as a problem nor going against what I consider the core of the game since "grinders" have been supported since the beginning.

We've been over this already...no they haven't. But enough of this topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

There is change, I already said I can't deny it. But I don't consider all of it for the worst. The facts remain, but we don't have everyone's collectives thoughts about those facts - which is vital, and also very hard to get.

Ok then we have our positions. It is factual that there was change. The opinion is whether or not the change is good. As I said...some changes to the game can be good. Others when they go against the entire framework of the game are bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Not only is that something I've been saying for years, you've just shown that ANet has even more incentive to make a quality game.

They have more incentive to make a game that more people want to buy. That doesn't neccessarily mean its quality. Example: I think WoW is a terribad game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

But I'd much rather have the chance (chance!) to experience an elitist as opposed to completely abandoning any way of marking progress or development (which is probably the only thing that's actually going to put a dent in elitsts).

I'd argue that progress and development are in Guild Wars....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

All in all, it depends on how much of a damper - if any at all - elitism puts on your gameplay. Since that too is massively varied it's seldom taken into account.

You ever wonder why one of the most common reasons people say they hate PvP is elitism? I find it humorous that people now want higher level caps in PvE thus leading to more PvE elitism.

fenix · Feb 02, 2009, 12:49 AM // 00:49

If you two are going to continue to argue between yourselves, take it to PMs.

Stay on topic, or this will be closed.

DreamWind · Feb 02, 2009, 01:07 AM // 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

If you two are going to continue to argue between yourselves, take it to PMs.

Stay on topic, or this will be closed.

We mostly have been on topic...there have only been a couple of side discussions. It isn't our fault that other people aren't posting.

Kattar · Feb 02, 2009, 02:45 AM // 02:45

Awaiting the wall of text response...

Bobulation · Feb 02, 2009, 03:40 AM // 03:40

I don't really want anything higher than a level 20 cap. I get bored of classes very quickly and I tried WoW for a month, but I was never dedicated to one character long enough to do anything with them. In GW, I have been able to get a lvl 20 of every class so i can do whatever i want instead of being tied down to one character.

faraaz · Feb 02, 2009, 05:01 AM // 05:01

IMO the lvl 20 cap is one of the best things about GW. Changing it for a higher cap in GW2 would be one more in the list of things which make it more and more a wannabe WoW clone, which of course, I will not buy.

mrvrod · Feb 02, 2009, 05:14 AM // 05:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by faraaz

IMO the lvl 20 cap is one of the best things about GW. Changing it for a higher cap in GW2 would be one more in the list of things which make it more and more a wannabe WoW clone, which of course, I will not buy.

when the GW characters begin to look more like cartoons that should be running around the WB lot saying 'helo nurse!', THEN you can call it a WoW wannabe!