Curse

Celestial_Kitsune · Oct 10, 2007, 11:49 PM // 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Phinney

Give players deeper options for character advancement. We knew this would be the most controversial of our new goals. Could we do this without creating a game full of grind? As avid fans and players of RPGs, massively multiplayer or otherwise, we saw many untapped opportunities for making this work.

Source

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Strain

First of all, I'd like to say that there has been no final decision about the level cap yet. The numbers you heard should rather illustrate the fundamental idea of the "new" level system. What is sure by now is that we will have a much higher level cap in Guild Wars 2 than in Guild Wars or even won't have a cap at all. At the same time, we're flattening the power curve, so the difference between a level 50 and a level 100 character would be much bigger than between a level 100 and 150 char. This increases freedom in character development without making Max-Lvl-Characters too strong.

Source

I was wondering how that curve would look like and tried some calculations.

f(x) = A * log(x) + C

A can be a scaling factor or, if we want to flatten the curve, -log(x), 1 < base < 2
C will vary depending on the attribute. For example, it can be equal to health at level 1.

Let us try to model health.

f(x) = 200 * log10(x) + 100

L1 = 100hp
L20 = 360hp
L100 = 500hp
L200 = 560hp

We can flatten the curve by giving less benefit to higher levels.

f(x) = (-log1.1(x) + 200) * log10(x) + 100

L1 = 100hp
L20 = 319hp
L100 = 403hp
L200 = 432hp

High level cap is imminent. How level should be related to attributes in your opinion? How much difference would you like to see between high and low levels?

Omniclasm · Oct 10, 2007, 11:56 PM // 23:56

I want there to be no difference between level 20 and level 200.

Even with no difference, there will still be discrimination. Example: r9+ groups in HA. r1 and r9 are mathematically just as good as each other, but one will never find a group.

If there is even a slight difference, then there will be horrible discrimination. I mean, try to find a group for an end game mission at level 19.

Now imagine if the max level was 200, and you was level 59. Goodluck ever finding a group.

o m g pizowned · Oct 11, 2007, 12:00 AM // 00:00

once it turns into WoW a lot of people will quit, and a lot of people will join. it happens

Sleeper Service · Oct 11, 2007, 12:21 AM // 00:21

nice job there C.Kitsune. Seeing as Anet devs have discovered that a lot of people like grind i suspect that the level curve would start easing out at around level 50, heck maybe even Lvl 100.

Seeing as they have advanced the idea of infinite leveling i doubt that attributes would be linked to it.
the difference between a lvl 1 and a lvl100 should be huge. After 100 i reckon every 10 levels gained should be equivalent to the power difference of ONE level before 100.
It should also be increasingly difficult to level after 100...making it unreasonably long and hard to reach anything after oh say...200.

either that or make the exp necessary to lvl up exponential.

Aeon221 · Oct 11, 2007, 12:39 AM // 00:39

After 20, it should just be vanity.

Kalendraf · Oct 11, 2007, 12:42 AM // 00:42

I'd be happy to see them ditch levels entirely.

The concept of levels was introduced into RPGs long before computer RPGs existed in order to help make some of the book-keeping easier. With computers, there is no such necessity.

Players tend to view levels as an oh-so-holy yardstick to describe overall prowess, but the units of that yardstick are entirely non-standardized between games (and thus essentially meaningless). A game with 20 character levels is no better or worse than one with 60, or none at all. Levels don't really describe anything interesting about a game, unless the whole point of the game is to gain levels (which implies grind, and likely sucks as a result).

When scrutinized, levels don't even make sense, especially when trying to describe anything remotely real. Is real-world John a 15th level Engineer, or is real-world Sally an 18th level Accountant? Definitely not. So why do we put up with the nonsense of John's character being an 15th level Warrior, or Sally's being an 18th level Necro? Character levels are a legacy from the early RPG days, and they are something that nextgen RPG designers should have the courage and foresight to drop.

Levels are nothing more than an arbitrary measure for something that can and should be tracked in entirely different ways. In a skill-based game like Guild Wars, the things that really define a character tend to be attributes, health & energy. There's no reason that those numbers need to be linked to some arbitrary measurement called a level. For example, what if instead of levels, characters gained attribute points and health 1-by-1 at much faster rates tied directly to experience?

Omniclasm · Oct 11, 2007, 12:47 AM // 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalendraf

I'd be happy to see them ditch levels entirely.

The concept of levels was introduced into RPGs long before computer RPGs existed in order to help make some of the book-keeping easier. With computers, there is no such necessity.

Players tend to view levels as an oh-so-holy yardstick to describe overall prowess, but the units of that yardstick are entirely non-standardized between games (and thus essentially meaningless). A game with 20 character levels is no better or worse than one with 60, or none at all. Levels don't really describe anything interesting about a game, unless the whole point of the game is to gain levels (which implies grind, and likely sucks as a result).

When scrutinized, levels don't even make sense, especially when trying to describe anything remotely real. Is real-world John a 15th level Engineer, or is real-world Sally an 18th level Accountant? Definitely not. So why do we put up with the nonsense of John's character being an 15th level Warrior, or Sally's being an 18th level Necro? Character levels are a legacy from the early RPG days, and they are something that nextgen RPG designers should have the courage and foresight to drop.

Levels are nothing more than an arbitrary measure for something that can and should be tracked in entirely different ways. In a skill-based game like Guild Wars, the things that really define a character tend to be attributes, health & energy. There's no reason that those numbers need to be linked to some arbitrary measurement called a level. For example, what if instead of levels, characters gained attribute points and health 1-by-1 at much faster rates tied directly to experience?

I agree with this, just do away with levels. Then we can have more content to play in. Instead of getting to level 20, and only having 10% of the game to play in, just do away with levels completely, and leave 100% of the content playable for everyone.

However, removing the level system would possibly move this game into strategy/action.

thunderai · Oct 11, 2007, 01:13 AM // 01:13

Given that I have played GW for such a long time; having a level cap higher than 20 would just feel wrong. That is not the conversation here though, given that there may be no level cap in GW2 it makes me really wonder how you can retain the GW feel in a universe so fundamentaly changed.

My main toon has 4,403,362 exp

Assuming you gain levels every 15,000 exp after level 20 you would haved already gained level 304 on your way to level 305. That would be almost 6,900 health given the health increase we already gain up to level 20. Thats an obsured amount of health.

The fundamental problem is making the game have a balanced difficulty. I have trouble understanding the benefit additonal levels provide, save one. The single benefit I see allows the developer to better fine tune different zones for certain level toons rather than others - but that has limits to sanity.

If we want to have unlimited levels then you have no choice but to seperate the health and energy from the equation because at some point the asymptote of the limit will make the next level pointless to obtain establishing a limit anyway.

Sleeper Service · Oct 11, 2007, 01:26 AM // 01:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalendraf

I'd be happy to see them ditch levels entirely.

The concept of levels was introduced into RPGs long before computer RPGs existed in order to help make some of the book-keeping easier. With computers, there is no such necessity.

Players tend to view levels as an oh-so-holy yardstick to describe overall prowess, but the units of that yardstick are entirely non-standardized between games (and thus essentially meaningless). A game with 20 character levels is no better or worse than one with 60, or none at all. Levels don't really describe anything interesting about a game, unless the whole point of the game is to gain levels (which implies grind, and likely sucks as a result).

When scrutinized, levels don't even make sense, especially when trying to describe anything remotely real. Is real-world John a 15th level Engineer, or is real-world Sally an 18th level Accountant? Definitely not. So why do we put up with the nonsense of John's character being an 15th level Warrior, or Sally's being an 18th level Necro? Character levels are a legacy from the early RPG days, and they are something that nextgen RPG designers should have the courage and foresight to drop.

Levels are nothing more than an arbitrary measure for something that can and should be tracked in entirely different ways. In a skill-based game like Guild Wars, the things that really define a character tend to be attributes, health & energy. There's no reason that those numbers need to be linked to some arbitrary measurement called a level. For example, what if instead of levels, characters gained attribute points and health 1-by-1 at much faster rates tied directly to experience?

i am 100% behind this. the problem is finding an alternative.

To take an example S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (FPS free roaming type game) has a real rpg feel to it yet no levels or leveling per see in it. However it does manage that feeling of accomplishment or "leveling up" through permitting access to certain areas or hardware via quests (random or not).

Instead of a big "YOU HAVE GAINED A LEVEL" you actually get some hardware or find a cache with stuff which then enables you to advance.

Yes i know its action. but maybe if RPGs would solely base themselves on SKILLS available and not the levels of said skills it would be better.

arcady · Oct 11, 2007, 01:32 AM // 01:32

I made a MUD in 1991 that had no levels. Number one question I got, over and over, every day, was:

So what's the point, how do I advance?

Even though I had a rapid point based advancement scheme where you spent those points to gain spells, skills, and stats.

Level based games feel very artificial for immersion focused players, but for 'gamist' players they are great - it is a very easy to grasp solid concept of advancement. Level based games simply make better -games- than non level based, even though non level based makes better roleplay. Better roleplay often makes for a lesser game.

Clone · Oct 11, 2007, 01:32 AM // 01:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aeon221

After 20, it should just be vanity.

It should, but it won't be. Omniclasm has it dead on. Even if a 20 is completely identical to a 200 for stats, the 20 will be the red headed stepchild of GW2, passed over for any group. This would be more of the fault of the community than Anet, but hopefully Anet realizes that if you implement an arbitrary marking of "I'm better than you because I've killed the same mob of snowmen 1000 times!" the community will use it.

thunderai · Oct 11, 2007, 01:54 AM // 01:54

That is my fear, the community killed the GW star

Molock · Oct 11, 2007, 02:10 AM // 02:10

Me and many friends all agree... if they make the level cap higher than 40 we just won't play. What we like about GW is the low level cap.. we absolutely despise grinding.

Anyway, all I can imagine with the infinite level cap is discrimination... If anet decides that they are gonna proceed with the idea fine by me but they will lose some loyal fans.. all that for a few extra dollars.. don't you just love capitalism

arcanemacabre · Oct 11, 2007, 02:14 AM // 02:14

I don't think there will be as much discrimination as people think. They have mentioned that along with high levels, there will be a kind of "sidekick" system like in City of Heroes/Villains. In other words, there may be some good benefits for a high level to team with a low level and vise-versa. I dislike the idea of high-level grind as much as the next GW player, but I think we should withhold criticism until we find out more, or until open beta to find out how it works.

Omniclasm · Oct 11, 2007, 02:19 AM // 02:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

I don't think there will be as much discrimination as people think. They have mentioned that along with high levels, there will be a kind of "sidekick" system like in City of Heroes/Villains. In other words, there may be some good benefits for a high level to team with a low level and vise-versa. I dislike the idea of high-level grind as much as the next GW player, but I think we should withhold criticism until we find out more, or until open beta to find out how it works.

Not criticizing, just saying what will happen. And if there is a benefit for taking a low level, then it will simply be...."Lv167 lf Lv5 to level"

thunderai · Oct 11, 2007, 02:22 AM // 02:22

a quick serch of the city of heros forum didnt yield any tangable results, what does the sidekick system do in that game as opposed to what may happen in GW2?

arcanemacabre · Oct 11, 2007, 02:24 AM // 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omniclasm

Not criticizing, just saying what will happen. And if there is a benefit for taking a low level, then it will simply be...."Lv167 lf Lv5 to level"

How do you know the benefits come in the form of xp? The benefit could be more loot, extra quests, buffs, titles, etc. Besides, no matter the system, or how good it is, there will be players that party solely for it. Is it such a bad thing to have an incentive to party, though?

EDIT: To thunderai - here is an explanation of CoH's sidekick system:

Quote:

A hero can establish a Sidekick -- a lower level character whom he or she aids and mentors. The sidekick's effective level is then boosted up to 1-3 levels below the mentor (the exact number is based on how much difference in level there is between the mentor and sidekick).

The sidekick's damage, Hit Points, Defence, and Accuracy are all increased to this new level. Enhancements continue to provide the same level of effectiveness. However, the sidekick gets no new powers or abilities due to being sidekicked. The sidekick's earned experience is modified as if they were still fighting foes near their actual level -- which means you can't "powerlevel" via sidekicking.

This is taken from http://cohvault.ign.com/faq/index.php?category=3#3_0_11

Again, they are likely not taking the exact system from CoH, but something akin to this. It effectively removes the level limit for those who party, which isn't too bad. Kind of a good idea, IMO, and may be tweaked to be a good thing in GW2.

Crom The Pale · Oct 11, 2007, 02:24 AM // 02:24

One idea I've seen in at least one other game was the concept of a skill growing rather than the char.

The idea in that game was that each time you used a certain skill a counter ticked off, you never saw the counter nor knew about it untill you used the skill after it had evolved to the next lvl. Then you began to use that skill more, or to lvl up other skills.

Now this is still a Time>player skill problem but at least it creates more diversity. Take 2 players with 1000hours in the game and they will have totaly different skill bars with each skill being at a differnt lvl. While this would certainly limit the current multi-build concept of GW chars it would add a new form of customizing a char and learning how to use your skill bar to its utmost.

Crazy idea or workable???

Antheus · Oct 11, 2007, 02:38 AM // 02:38

Quote:

Me and many friends all agree... if they make the level cap higher than 40 we just won't play. What we like about GW is the low level cap.. we absolutely despise grinding.

Cap will be at least 80 or there won't be any cap. So much has been made clear.

Sidekick system will be used to fix the problems with levels. Kinda like: make a broken system, then add a system to fix that.

Quote:

Again, they are likely not taking the exact system from CoH, but something akin to this. It effectively removes the level limit for those who party, which isn't too bad. Kind of a good idea, IMO, and may be tweaked to be a good thing in GW2.

I played CoV for exactly 10 hours. Then decided that next 30 levels will be exactly the same as last 10, and cancelled the account and never looked back.

Same reason why I personally find WoW insanely boring. No matter which level you are, everything is exactly the same. No matter which class you play, they are all the same. Skills are also the same.

Cacheelma · Oct 11, 2007, 02:44 AM // 02:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunderai

a quick serch of the city of heros forum didnt yield any tangable results, what does the sidekick system do in that game as opposed to what may happen in GW2?

I don't know about GW2's system, but here's how the sidekick system of CoH/CoV works:

http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/index.php/Sidekick

Ignore the bit about Exemplar though; that's another system and it works differently (although I'd say it's great to have both).