Curse

cebalrai · Apr 24, 2008, 12:09 PM // 12:09

No level cap... I'm a casual player that likes to play multiple characters. I hope leveling isnt a huge deal or all my characters will be very low level.

JR · Apr 24, 2008, 01:28 PM // 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by furanshisuko

i hope anet will cancel gw2 like the 4th campaing cause they are really just killing your characters ,killing gw1 people will be busy leveling and getting new titles in gw2 and forget about gw1 this will make me cry

ill miss my ranger and everything in gw1 when people no longer play it

...or you could recreate you Ranger in Guild Wars 2!

EDIT:

I'm definately not a fan of no level cap, though as Jeff said they are just toying around with that idea.

If you remove the level cap then you remove that goal of maxing your character. Of course in theory it gives a particular character much more longeivity, but it's takes a way a lot of the fundamental motivation to play that character at all.

Ravious · Apr 24, 2008, 02:22 PM // 14:22

I think its how they define level. A level does not always equal more power. Like I think I would be fine with a logarithmic curve that flattens out. Let people get to level 255 since the difference between level 50 and level 255 is slight.

I think Blizzard messed up by keeping mostly a linear curve between 60 and 70 the same as the curve between 1-60.

I am glad that at the very least A.Net is looking in to things. I don't expect the "we don't want the majority of our game to be leveling like other games"-mantra will change in the development of GW2.

Bryant Again · Apr 24, 2008, 03:20 PM // 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

No level cap... I'm a casual player that likes to play multiple characters. I hope leveling isnt a huge deal or all my characters will be very low level.

Of all the things ANet has held true to, a lack of emphasis on level requirements has been one of them. How they'd incorporate infinite leveling into GW2 would be a very interesting thing to see.

They could be going the route that many RPGs are shooting for these days: scaling dungeons and the like relative to player level (Oblivion, Mass Effect, etc.) It would fix a lot of things, most notably the famous "just outlevel them" strategy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

If you remove the level cap then you remove that goal of maxing your character. Of course in theory it gives a particular character much more longeivity, but it's takes a way a lot of the fundamental motivation to play that character at all.

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't". Two different crowds: those who want a finish line and those who want to keep running. Which one is bigger? /shrug. Either way, it'll probably do good. I just hope character development is a bit more deep, but that's just moi.

HawkofStorms · Apr 24, 2008, 04:20 PM // 16:20

Welcome to last year everybody.

Move along.

Balan Makki · Apr 24, 2008, 04:51 PM // 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

They could be going the route that many RPGs are shooting for these days: scaling dungeons and the like relative to player level (Oblivion, Mass Effect, etc.) It would fix a lot of things, most notably the famous "just outlevel them" strategy.

This was actually a very cool idea, and one I was plugging at GW Online forums, in a similar thread, until someone pointed out that it is exactly the same thing as having No Levels. Being that the numbers are always balancing upward -- Player Vs Environment. Why have number/stat creep if it means virtually nothing in relation to the environment. It was at that point that Dynamic Instancing became nothing more than Smoke and Mirrors, a silly illusion of progress, unless the game is very heavily gear dependent such as WoW, Oblivion or Hellgate: London. As well it would segregate players from each other, putting them in different level strata.

Endless levels may be represented by endless professions. A single character chooses 'one' primary profession at a time, and levels to max title/rank (Lvl 20), then chooses another primary profession to level to max rank, (lvl 40) and another (Lvl 60) etc. . . Being that new professions will be added with each new expansion, a single character could be developed endlessly, via an endless level cap. Don't need a power curve for this. Depending on the profession your character is sporting, appearance could be influenced slightly. If you choose to quest as a warrior your character looks like they've been spending time at the gym, or iron mines. Play a ranger and their appearance morphs slightly into more of a long distance runner. . . Armor and equipment could be stored on profession templates, thus no need for a butt load of storage.

My hope is that player progression is truly environmental, that players will progress through the game via Missions and primary storyline, and at each juncture a large piece of the persistent world becomes unlocked for that character. Each environmental unlock adds a wealth of new content and features. There could even be a parallel instance to the PvE world called the Mists; an identical pseudo instance that players can enter and leave at will, separating PvP and PvE, but putting them in exactly the same world and place, PvE players would never see the mayhem unless they choose to view the Mists, then the spirits of battle would be visible. PvP players would see nothing but PvP players, and the carnage that it breeds. The Mists could even have multiple server cross-over. When a player enters the Mists from the PvE environment, they enter a multi server PvP environment.

Instancing could be so layered that players in private/personal instances of the greater world could see Boss events bleeding over from the persistent world into their private instance, and then choose to participate by simply assisting the battle. Once the battle ends, they can just quest on their merry way back into their private instance as the epic battle and all attendees fade away into their own private instance. . . This feature could propagate from both PvE and PvP. Skies the limit.

Players on your friends list would bleed into you private instances making instances variable and pseudo persistent, allowing you to run into only players on your list, or guild or alliance if you choose, or you can run your instances as wide open . . .

So much can be done with instancing, the MMO genre hasn't even scratched the surface.

As well, levels have never really deviated much from the formula stat/level grind. It may be that Arena Net feels it is time for a change.

a-kyle · Apr 24, 2008, 05:09 PM // 17:09

I just dont want to see this game turn into a wow ripp off or a ff11 spin off or something gay like that

Bryant Again · Apr 24, 2008, 05:17 PM // 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balan Makki

Why have number/stat creep if it means virtually nothing in relation to the environment. It was at that point that Dynamic Instancing became nothing more than Smoke and Mirrors, a silly illusion of progress, unless the game is very heavily gear dependent such as WoW, Oblivion or Hellgate: London. As well it would segregate players from each other, putting them in different level strata.

You make it sound like those games are bad ; )

That said, it's the evolution of your character that people may tend to enjoy. Leveling up to grow more powerful could be good incentive, that's true. But just seeing your character change and grow into something different, acquiring different and tougher weapons and abilities along the way, is a very core aspect of many RPGs.

And keep in mind that awesome side-kick system they're hoping to implement, which boosts lower-leveled people up to your own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balan Makki

As well, levels have never really deviated much from the formula stat/level grind. It may be that Arena Net feels it is time for a change.

Only if it's set up as a grind. If you felt like you were "grinding" through Neverwinter Nights or Morrowind, I don't think you were enjoying the game.

Balan Makki · Apr 24, 2008, 05:41 PM // 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You make it sound like those games are bad ; )

That said, it's the evolution of your character that people may tend to enjoy. Leveling up to grow more powerful could be good incentive, that's true. But just seeing your character change and grow into something different, acquiring different and tougher weapons and abilities along the way, is a very core aspect of many RPG

Not really a bad thing. I've enjoyed many games that use this tried and true system, but it's really getting old and dated, and frankly, to me it is the most boring feature of every newly released MMO. It is why Guild Wars is a breath of fresh air.

A character that grows more powerful in a game that dynamically alters the level of instances and dungeons is an illusion, smoke and mirrors, a simple trick to fool you into thinking you are tougher. Nothing changes if the environment stats are buffed along with your power curve. You gain power and the evironment gains equal power, then what is the point? Might as well have no levels, and a GW1 style of post lvl 20 gameplay, with a difficulty/reward slider.

Dynamic instancing makes sense when your entire game engine is level/stat based. I seriously doubt GW2 is headed in that backward direction.

Bryant Again · Apr 24, 2008, 05:52 PM // 17:52

The point? I just gave you the point: To see your character grow. To see him change. To have more fun. I said that "being tougher" was *one* of those incentives and I agree, you're not becoming tougher than other baddies when they're leveling with you.

If this was such a poor idea than ME or Oblivion wouldn't have done so great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balan Makki

Dynamic instancing makes sense when your entire game engine is level/stat based. I seriously doubt GW2 is headed in that backward direction.

ANet already went backwards quite a bit with GW:EN, and sadly I don't think it hindered their success but strengthened it.

zamial · Apr 24, 2008, 06:33 PM // 18:33

ummmm, late breaking news, ford announces the production of the model A.
ooooooooooo ya that was not anything new but old news.

pppfffffffffffffffftttttttttttttt

kade · Apr 24, 2008, 06:35 PM // 18:35

old thread is old...