Curse

Skyy High · Dec 29, 2008, 06:59 AM // 06:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The problem is that the very definition of skill>time means grind shouldn't exist. Grind is the exact opposite of skill>time. It is time>skill.

No it doesn't, it means that someone with 10 hours a day to spend playing should not be able to gain any concrete stat advantage over someone who plays for a couple hours a week. Guess what, that's how the game was released, and that's still how the game is today, at least in PvP. No matter how much you grind, you can't make your character "more than max", and max is easily achieved for everyone relatively quickly, certainly faster than it takes to learn how to play well. The inference from "skill > time" to "no grind anywhere, even optional grind" simply does not hold; that is your interpretation of it, but it clearly was never ANet's. FoW armor always existed, rare max weapons with perfect mods were absurdly expensive and hard to get from the beginning, and the vast majority of players used either collector gear or non-perfect crap for the first year of the game's life. Really, barring PvE skills and consumables, the core of the game - items, runes, weapons, etc - has grown even more casual-friendly as the game has progressed, what with the inclusion of rune traders (which ended up bringing prices down considerably), the introduction of insignias and inscriptions, and other various upgrades.

Srak Scream · Dec 29, 2008, 09:09 AM // 09:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epic Monkey Battle

as long as everyone is the same level and has equal gear in pvp i don't care.

balance > shiny pls

im with you partially, PvP must stay fair and consistent.

But i dont want to have to play for more than a month to get to the max level. The way it is now is amazing. But then again I know they are trying to attract more players, but if Anet would have made the improvements to Guild Wars 1 (you people playing since launch know what I mean) we could retain some of the players we lost. So I think a 50-60 level cap is ok if that's really what will get more people to play but it is all relative and unnecessary. Just make sure there is a cap and pve and pvp should integrate flawlessly just like it does now.

Avarre · Dec 29, 2008, 03:48 PM // 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

and max is easily achieved for everyone relatively quickly, certainly faster than it takes to learn how to play well.

The massive amounts of skill unlocks can really hurt a player going to PvP, though.

Fitz Rinley · Dec 29, 2008, 05:24 PM // 17:24

The 20 level cap has been a good feature. I can see up to 100 level cap, so long as the benefits per level were reapportioned. Say, 2 attribute points per level, and slower health gain. Say start health at 100, and add 5 health per level (600 max at 100th level). This would also be accompanied by a fast level gain. Make an average 1,500 pts required for each level with early levels only requiring 500, and final levels requiring 2,500 each. The experience from monsters would be recalculated in a similar manner, (no exp from monsters 26 levels below you and maxed gain for those 25 above and up).

I understand the skill system will be radically different, so I am not sure how to allot skill acquisition. But if the system retains similarities in the above areas then that is what I would hope to see something like.

Crom The Pale · Dec 30, 2008, 01:41 AM // 01:41

Should the max HP/Energy be adjusted? Do we need an exact pallel with GW?

What if GW2 max HP was 2000? Would that give them more room to make adjustments with weapons and spells?

Sir Skullcrasher · Dec 30, 2008, 03:41 AM // 03:41

I don't know if this is true for all players. Grinding is fun at first but as the game goes on, it get boring and tedious. I had played WoW for quite some time now (around 6 months) at first it was exciting trying to reach a new level to get higher up for each of my characters. But as time goes on with each level increase that I gotten. I grew tired of fighting mobs after mobs of enemies just to move up one level. Even with the newest expansion, the level cap at 80 has me cringe with the thoughts of countless questins and fighting.

Even if GW2 has a increase level cap. Hopefully GW can space out the amound of grinding u have to do to reach the top of the cap.

Pandora's box · Dec 30, 2008, 11:49 AM // 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

No it doesn't, it means that someone with 10 hours a day to spend playing should not be able to gain any concrete stat advantage over someone who plays for a couple hours a week. (snap)

But does it work out? I see no difference in grinding 10 hours a day for better gear or spending 10 hours a day to obtain skills and learn to use them. In both cases the one who spends most time on it will be te best.

Bryant Again · Dec 30, 2008, 07:52 PM // 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellardweller

I don't think that saying a gaming model that provides for a couple of hundred hours worth of enjoyment rather is inferior to one that is still fun after six thousand hours.

Guildwars has more replayablity because difficulty is static - this allows for player driven goals rather developer driven goals.

That's a strange statement...What that's saying is that Guild Wars has more content because it doesn't: I'm confused as to how you can't have player driven goals in addition to developer driven ones?

What it sounds like, though, is that the preferred method is to provide your own content. Given the high demand for DLC, the ever consistent numerous difficulty settings, and especially all the complaints you see right here on the Guru for GW's "lack of content", that may not be the case.

cellardweller · Dec 31, 2008, 12:16 AM // 00:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That's a strange statement...What that's saying is that Guild Wars has more content because it doesn't: I'm confused as to how you can't have player driven goals in addition to developer driven ones?

What it sounds like, though, is that the preferred method is to provide your own content. Given the high demand for DLC, the ever consistent numerous difficulty settings, and especially all the complaints you see right here on the Guru for GW's "lack of content", that may not be the case.

Not more content, content that is more versatile. Take BG2 for example, there's no replayablitity to the de'Arnise castle because every time you do it you're at a different level and have different gear. Even if you use the same savegame for replayablity, there's no way to compare performances with other players - the only way to experience the content is "complete the quest". By comparison something like Sepultre of Dragimar can be replayed hundreds of times because every time you start you are at level 20 you have max gear and most importantly everyone else does too - this opens up dynamic goals because your able to compete against everyone else in the world.

Dr Imperial · Dec 31, 2008, 05:46 AM // 05:46

Level 20, maybe 30. Please Anet....don't sellout and make a game like WoW. I can tell you right now I (and a lot of other people) won't be playing (buying) GW2 if it has a high level cap. I chose GW over WoW for a reason!

Avarre · Dec 31, 2008, 06:55 AM // 06:55

The level total is arbitrary - we should be more concerned with how long the leveling process is, and how much benefit it grants.

That said, considering the bulk of Guild Wars content is max level, as well as essentially 100% of PvP, I still don't mind the idea of completely throwing out the level concept entirely and replacing it with something else. Granted, there's no need to fix what isn't broken, but there's room for innovation in that direction.

Raising the level cap, especially if ANet intends to keep an easy parity at max level, just seems like an unnecessary complication. I do hope they don't try something like PvP having a set level/stat for all characters while PvE levels above that, since that could just cause extra confusion for newer players.

Crom The Pale · Dec 31, 2008, 11:56 AM // 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

The level total is arbitrary - we should be more concerned with how long the leveling process is, and how much benefit it grants.

That said, considering the bulk of Guild Wars content is max level, as well as essentially 100% of PvP, I still don't mind the idea of completely throwing out the level concept entirely and replacing it with something else. Granted, there's no need to fix what isn't broken, but there's room for innovation in that direction.

Raising the level cap, especially if ANet intends to keep an easy parity at max level, just seems like an unnecessary complication. I do hope they don't try something like PvP having a set level/stat for all characters while PvE levels above that, since that could just cause extra confusion for newer players.

I believe Anet already stated that PvP would have a set level, it would only make sense that it was max.

It's untrue that GW content is mostly for max level characters, or at least it didn't begin that way. In fact Prophicies had only UW and FOW for max level content at time of release. (you could enter both with less than max characters but it had a difficulty level set for max level characters)

Factions changed that completely by sliding the bar way down, allowing players to reach max level before they were 50% through the game.

Personally I liked Prophicies flow much better as I never felt like I had to stop and grind up levels in order to complete anything. In Factions you could get by for a while with a lower level character but many PUG's would avoid non max players after a certain point in the game. Thus forcing grind upon players in order to complete the game.

Leveling should be optional, not mandatory!

Kronos Ledaloth · Dec 31, 2008, 12:00 PM // 12:00

Who care about the level? The important is if he'll be easy to get capped

Master Knightfall · Dec 31, 2008, 12:46 PM // 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Imperial

Level 20, maybe 30. Please Anet....don't sellout and make a game like WoW. I can tell you right now I (and a lot of other people) won't be playing (buying) GW2 if it has a high level cap. I chose GW over WoW for a reason!

But, I can say the same thing about people that will be buying GW2 if some of the design is like WoW. There's players ready to leave WoW just like there are players that have already left GW. They want a no monthly fee WoW and hopefully (and from reading about the things they have told us about GW2) GW2 will bring that to us/them. As always first and foremost nobody cares if you buy GW2, all that is cared about is that GW2 sells more copies or at least the same as GW1. And making a no monthly fee WoW would certainly do that. And I'm all for it.

All for no level cap either and lots of phat loots and time time time consumption. The devs have already said they weren't making a WoW Clone, but, that does not mean they won't be taking some key word some of the aspects of WoW and implementing them like the grind titles we have now. I'd bet a plug nickel to $100 there's title grind in GW2. And I'm all for it.

vaxmor · Dec 31, 2008, 12:57 PM // 12:57

before you jump onto the 'WoW clone #(insert number here)" band wangon, please bear in mind exactly what WoW has done to each and every generic WoW clone (with perhaps the exception of LotrO).

RIP TR, V:SoH, AoC, etc. . .etc . . .

remember: with a no monthly fees model - it would be a near miracle to out-WoW WoW.

TSS · Dec 31, 2008, 03:00 PM // 15:00

i like 20

worked fine so far. and i dont want to have to play forever just to be able to start playing.

Avarre · Dec 31, 2008, 03:00 PM // 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

It's untrue that GW content is mostly for max level characters, or at least it didn't begin that way. In fact Prophicies had only UW and FOW for max level content at time of release. (you could enter both with less than max characters but it had a difficulty level set for max level characters)

Pretty much everything Desert onwards was balanced around lv20 characters - sensible, as the Desert missions are where they let people into tombs originally.

I'd wager that most players in Proph put more hours into playing on their level20 characters than the lowlevel zones, which were really more of a transitional part of the game (newb to somewhat educated newb). Factions and NF showed that ANet leaned towards an increase in level 20 content.

We look at Proph with nostalgia, but the lowlevel zones probably get the least replay value out of the entire campaign. If ANet wants to make their content as rich as possible, they want to have as much of the game highly replayable as possible. Again, the level system as it is isn't broken in any way, but with such an overwhelming emphasis on X20 characters, the arbitrary number could in theory be dropped. In that case, you'd get the greater replay of the entire game being balanced for your character, but eliminate the troublesome 'necessary grind' of leveling your character quickly that may have been present in Factions/NF.

It's just an idea, I suppose.

Quaker · Dec 31, 2008, 05:37 PM // 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

I do hope they don't try something like PvP having a set level/stat for all characters while PvE levels above that, since that could just cause extra confusion for newer players.

They already have that in GW1 actually. A player with max EotN titles and PvE only skills is more powerful than a PvP player. They just use the EotN (and SS & LB) titles to boost your character instead of "levels". The only difference is that the "level" boosts in PvE depend upon where you are (what campaign, expansion) and are not permanent.

Sir Skullcrasher · Dec 31, 2008, 05:51 PM // 17:51

Is there any official words on if A-Net will make level cap go higher for GW2?

Avarre · Jan 01, 2009, 04:52 AM // 04:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaker

They already have that in GW1 actually. A player with max EotN titles and PvE only skills is more powerful than a PvP player. They just use the EotN (and SS & LB) titles to boost your character instead of "levels". The only difference is that the "level" boosts in PvE depend upon where you are (what campaign, expansion) and are not permanent.

Well, I've been against PvE skills since before their conception due to the fact that by nature of being restricted in use, they'd have to be outside the standard balance level. Personally, it always seemed like a band-aid fix for poor PvE design, which means they will almost certainly be used in GW2 -_-

Anyways, I think the real question about levels, beyond the system ANet uses, is whether they can create a balance of max character replayability and difficulty curve.