Curse

bamm bamm bamm · Apr 02, 2007, 09:21 PM // 21:21

Now that is interesting. I was hoping they would choose a limitless level cap or NO levels. Anything in-between just feels too conservative to me. As I said here, I think they should go limitless, but keep the XP gained formula (or a tweaked version). This means the level cap is essentially a couple of levels higher than the most powerful monster (and more powerful monsters would be introduced in the expansions, effectively raising the cap). Currently you can get 5 or 6 levels higher before they stop dishing out the XP (I think).

So the XP required to level up would get higher per level, the available XP drops as you get higher, and the 'benefits' (whatever they turn out to be) would curve into the ground along with available XP. But it looks like they are going to go with a cap (bah!). I still think limitless but regulated is more elegant than say, oh I don't know, raising it from 60 to 70.

If one thing is clear it's that they are well aware of the issues they face.

Caith-Avar · Apr 02, 2007, 09:36 PM // 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

not what the article says as it states a level 100 will be much more powerful than a 50 but a 150 over a 100 would have less advantage.

I think it was taken as an example, as in the article it also says that there has been NO decision on a "precise" number yet (they are floating around... we'll take the aforementioned 150 as an example... etc). So I take it as exactly that example:
Level 50: 1000 general power (abstract value)
Level 100: 2000 general power
Level 150: 2500 general power
So: Level 100 is much stronger (twice as strong) than Level 50, while Level 150 has much less advantage (only a quarter more) over Level 100. This is just an example of how it is meant. It means, up to a level, you gain BIG TIME. After that, you gain less and less per level, so while up to Level 50 or 100 or whatever that breaking-point-level or average level will be, you may not stand a chance against an enemy 10 levels higher, while someone 10 levels lower will stand no chance against you. Level 100 upwards, that range may be wider, so on Level 120, you might beat an enemy 10 levels higher, maybe even 40 levels higher, as those levels had lesser rewards.

Or, another example: Take GW1 and imagine that for every skill point earned after Level 20 you'd get a formal level (no attribute points, only a level to reflect you have that experience points). That would EXACTLY match the given example except it would be Level 20 instead of 100 (and maybe 10 instead of 50)... It would still be that Level 20 is much stronger compared to Level 10, than Level 40 would be compared to level 20.

It's a double comparison. And it's a general example with numbers taken from the air. As the article says.

*edit* And I reread the article. I don't think they used "would" instead of "will" for nothing.

Mordakai · Apr 02, 2007, 09:39 PM // 21:39

Thanks, Caith. The numbers I chose were bad, but the point I was making is not.

Cjlr · Apr 02, 2007, 09:39 PM // 21:39

So as for that power curve... Instead of boring old X - yeah, so that one's not even a curve, big deal - or (god forbid) X^2, it'll be X^1/2? Or something like that?

And guess what else! It looks like character progression won't be any different... I'll just look different. Because it goes up to 11 now!

Caith-Avar · Apr 02, 2007, 09:58 PM // 21:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cjlr

So as for that power curve... Instead of boring old X - yeah, so that one's not even a curve, big deal - or (god forbid) X^2, it'll be X^1/2? Or something like that?

And guess what else! It looks like character progression won't be any different... I'll just look different. Because it goes up to 11 now!

About so, yeah. I'd rather think they'll take a two (three, if open-ended) phased system leaning on the old. So they set two "cap" levels: Maybe 20 and 50, maybe 50 and 100, 50 and 150, 50 and 200, 100 and 200, I don't know. They do not know either, as far as I know. Not yet.
My guess would be:
You'd have a system much like todays GW1 until you reach the lower limit. So it's easy to gain levels, and every level gives high rewards. So more like x or maybe even x^2. After that lower cap, it will rapidly slow down. Means both: Levels will be harder to acquire, and will bring less benefits. If it is open ended, this will continue until the upper cap (which would be max level if it is not open-ended). If it is open ended and exceeds the upper level cap, the rewards will diminish further (maybe towards almost none, like skill point acquisition in nowadays GW1) while leaving the level-gaining about as hard as it was before.

So, my guess... I'll take the 100 to 200 as example:
Below Level 100 you need, say 10.000 xp for a level and gain 20 attribute points or whatever that will be in GW2.
Above Level 100 you need, let's say 50.000 xp for a level and gain 2 attribute points... estimates, averages. Take it as you want. And it's exaggerated.

Loviatar · Apr 02, 2007, 10:20 PM // 22:20

Quote:

Arena Net, it seems, is trying to tackle many of the biggest drawbacks most current massively multiplayer online games face. Chief among them is level capping. Why, once you top out, should you stick around in a game?
Guild Wars 2 is trying to deal with that issue by using a system with a high level cap once that could be set to 100 or even boundless.
"So there is not a level 20 cap," Strain said. "Either it will be a high level like 100 or unbounded, we haven't decided."

from this quote we can logically get the following.

1. PVE will take more time by far to go up a level than any GW1 chapter as the goal of *the clean slate new game GW2* is being designed to eliminate or greatly reduce the *IVE REACHED LEVEL 20 (THE CAP) SO WHAT DO I DO NOW?* problem.

Quote:

Why, once you top out, should you stick around in a game?

fast leveling defeats this purpose so leveling will be slow like it or not.

2. going up a level will make your character stronger or everybody leveling up will correctly say *whats the point*

3. who says they will stick with attribute points instead of some different method of leveling up?

they may have a whole new system that is just as flexable or even better .......who knows yet?

4. it might take the average player 6 months to a year to hit the cap (if there is one) but if there are things to do along that whole trip who cares?

they will want the game to last until the first GW2 expansion comes out (with higher levels perhaps) not like having all the present farmers yelling that they farm as they have finished the game, dont PVP, so what else is there to do?

Jeremy Untouchable · Apr 02, 2007, 10:21 PM // 22:21

i REALLY like the idea of the lvl limit being tied to the xp gain from monsters...that would be perfect in my veiw.....then like he said expansions add a higher lvl monster, raise the players lvl even more...and it would also mean that if you are Not one of the people that enjoy playing say DOA type areas, you would proably max out at lvl 40ish or something. Us guys that live in FOW/UW...DOA would be 100+....so it would work out well that way i think

NoChance · Apr 02, 2007, 11:11 PM // 23:11

It looks to me that there will be minimal advantage to having higher level (I'll bet the actual advantage will be with some exclusive PvE skills similar to the lightbringer/sunspear skills)...

but I still think this higher level cap is stupid .. it's just Anet pandering to the masses who want to "turn the volume up to 11".

I think if Anet is going this direction, they should just have unlimited level cap, since people will always complain about "no further character development" if they reach the max level

.... on the other hand, people want to have a high level cap so that they can feel accomplished and also show off their high level -- perhaps people would not feel as accomplished if there was no cap, since they didn't "reach the max", and maybe people would even feel uneasy that there may be others walking around of levels much higher than their own (ha ha.. i'll bet people will complain about "level farmers" showing off too much)

anyway, I personally think there shouldn't be levels at all. i would like:

you go into the game at max level (bar a short tutorial a la presearing), and the game focuses on finding/thinking up good combinations of skills to use for the particular PvE situation you're in --- doesn't seem Anet is going in this direction for GW2 though...

we'll see... in a year or so.

Caith-Avar · Apr 02, 2007, 11:11 PM // 23:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

1. PVE will take more time by far to go up a level than any GW1 chapter as the goal of *the clean slate new game GW2* is being designed to eliminate or greatly reduce the *IVE REACHED LEVEL 20 (THE CAP) SO WHAT DO I DO NOW?* problem.

They actually take the point of "the game starts at level 20" and that afterwards you don't recognise most achievements, as it doesn't reflect on level. The clean slate isn't as clean. It has been clearly stated that they do not want to change into the direction of classical mmorpgs.

I quote the Gamona article here:
"The reason for this is that in Guild Wars, the game does not really start until level 20. "
"Guild Wars is lacking public recognition of character development, because the level does not increase any more. That's what we're going to change in Guild Wars 2 by rising the level cap a lot."

This means: Playing at this point starts at level 20, but if 10 level 20 characters stand around they are all taken as "equal", although the one may have beaten all campaigns 50 times, have 10 million xp, own all skills from all classes and all stuff while another just hit level 20 and hasn't seen much of the game. Titles were some sort of try to fix the recognition problem by patch.

Quote:

2. going up a level will make your character stronger or everybody leveling up will correctly say *whats the point*

Recognition of time played. Recognition of achievements. That's why they are flattening down the power curve. Much like titles. And that extra bit of power that you're willing to sacrifice almost 20% of your maximum life for in GW1. And after all, they may be thinking that once you have reached the "lower max level", you'd be so drawn into the story that you just continue. Maybe they'll have half of the whole world designed for level 100 and above, and you'll be able to play almost everywhere on this half from level 100 right away, but getting to Level 150 would make you just that much more powerful to easen those portions up a bit (and lend you recognition for your achievements) and give you access to the last tiny bits that would have been too hard even for Level 100.

Quote:

3. who says they will stick with attribute points instead of some different method of leveling up?

If that is referring to my example, I can edit this right away and change "attribute points" into "power value" or "Kurt Meier" for that instance. It's a variable. Like X. Just something we know from the current game (as a value that enables us to be more powerful), so everybody has an easy time to understand.
As is experience. It's just a well-known term for "something that you get if you slay monsters or complete quests that is somehow increasing in order for you to reach a level cap of whatever kind".

Quote:

4. it might take the average player 6 months to a year to hit the cap (if there is one)

I'm guessing that they do their calculations on an average 2 characters per person, maybe three. The question of Level caps is closely related to the question of moving along in the story or in your quest. It just isn't fun to be restricted to one area to farm over and over again until you are finally strong enough to get to the next area to repeat the whole thing.

Quote:

but if there are things to do along that whole trip who cares?

I don't think they see the purpose of playing GW as reaching level cap. Neither do I. Reaching Level Cap means becoming strong enough to actually play every part of the game. And you play the game to entertain yourself. As far as entertainment is the goal, playing is its own summum bonum, its own last cause and reason.

Quote:

they will want the game to last until the first GW2 expansion comes out (with higher levels perhaps) not like having all the present farmers yelling that they farm as they have finished the game, dont PVP, so what else is there to do?

Agreed on the point that they do it partially in self defense against those that do still think of GW as a smaller classical MMORPG. I guess the new game will resemble the original much more than most of us can imagine - just in a better way and with better arguments against the nay-sayers and classic-fetishists.

I quote the Gamona Article one final time:
"This increases freedom in character development without making Max-Lvl-Characters too strong."

I see it positively combining the best of both worlds (unique GW and classical MMORPG):
A. Guild Wars style gameplay - quickly reaching the level needed to be competitive in/able to access most areas of the game. Lots of content for that phase, and the actual game more or less starting with reaching that level.
B. Classical recognition by level, plus minor rewards for higher levels. Nothing game-deciding, nothing necessary to get into large portions of content... just easening up the present parts (maybe making some of the harder areas more viable to visit with a smaller group). And bragging rights. Of course.

And there you have the logical image of the flattened power curve:
Rising quickly to "operating temperature", then diminishing (compared to before, as given in the 100 to 50 > 150 to 100 example) to a slow rise while you're able to engage in and enjoy the greater part - maybe all - of the content given.

You have to do enough stuff on your trips with random, area-affecting events (dragon example from PC GAMER article) to keep you busy, and you may gain some levels above what you need to access everything along the way - and maybe, every 5th or 10th level, you even get a little bit stronger. Just a little bit. But it's a nice reward to gain "en passant".

But of course, everything is speculation.

Loviatar · Apr 03, 2007, 01:26 AM // 01:26

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caith-Avar

Recognition of time played. Recognition of achievements. That's why they are flattening down the power curve. Much like titles.

here chew on this from the article if you feel levels are cosmetic or little real gain.

they would not need a strong sidekick system if level gains were not important.

Quote:

allow players of different levels to keep interacting in the persistant world-which is crucial, since as of right now, ArenaNet is planning a very high (100-plus), or possibly no level cap.
there are also plans for a strong sidekicking system similar to City of Heroes, which allows a higher-level player to designate a player 10 or more levels below him as his sidekick, bestowing health, stamina, and other benefits that allow the lower-level player to sufficiently keep up with their higher level buddy.

if the levels did not matter the lower level person could keep up without the sidekick system.

got news for you.

they are going after the masses of people and if hardcore GW1 players drop they will be replaced just like the rest of the hardcore groups who left at the start by the masses they look down on.

Mr Jazzy · Apr 03, 2007, 02:22 AM // 02:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper22

Aight, my biggest problem with GW2 is that the gameplay and style will completely change if the cap is at 100 or limitless. Like a lot of skills in GW, they become more effective by their duration when you put in attribute points (ex: stances and snares). Now you can't have skills function that way in GW2 because the duration would just last forever unless you base it on a crappy skill system where you put several skill points into skills to make it better and the skills have a level cap. Also the main problem is the grind issues. People will have to keep leveling to stay competitive with others which is completely what GW was against. The system was based on skill and teamwork, not hours played. I dont want to be in these huge massive battles and see some invincible lvl 100 dude killing a bunch of lvl 50s. It would even be worse if there was no cap limit because then you would feel like you would never be as good as the guys who play 24/7 and you can't create a 2nd character and still stay competitve.

So what do u guys think

Pros:
Gives PvE something to work for
Lets people show off how long they have been playing
May attract more players
Ability to "pwn" lower lvl mbos - (Mordakai)
Gives people something to "do"
Possible side-kick system

Cons:
Gameplay/skill use change
Less skill more grind
Not for a casual player
Creating a 2nd character may make you less competetive with your 1st guy
Limitless cap would completely unbalance the game and make it unfair for others
High lvl mobs/increased gold drops could hurt economy - (Scorpian boy)

The speculation about the upcoming addition to ANet's Guild Wars franchise is a welcome addition to this forum for the sake of discussion, but that is all it merely is; speculation. Before knocking the system, you must know the system. Simply put, Guild Wars 2 has not been released yet, nor have the details about skills and their relative power, so just hold your horses.

To sound like a fanboy (who isn't on this forum?), ANet has done well (in my opinion) with the first 3 Guild Wars games and I expect their trend of high quality products to continue.

Caith-Avar · Apr 03, 2007, 02:22 AM // 02:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

here chew on this from the article if you feel levels are cosmetic or little real gain.

they would not need a strong sidekick system if level gains were not important. if the levels did not matter the lower level person could keep up without the sidekick system.

Never said that level gains are not important. I say: They are important up to a point, and less important afterwards. And for that phase one, sidekicking could have been devised to make parties (maybe friends or something) with varying playing times possible without having one person to turn back and play much too easy stuff or having to not play while he could because the other one cannot.
And I, for instance, am GUESSING here. I am not scyring future like you obviously do (I don't mean to flame or blame or anything you, but I certainly don't like your wording and emphasizing) - I am hoping and guessing.
You sound like you know stuff for sure - and I think, you don't.

Quote:

got news for you.

they are going after the masses of people and if hardcore GW1 players drop they will be replaced just like the rest of the hardcore groups who left at the start by the masses they look down on.

Well, thank you for those news. But, as you think that A.Net is lying about everything I quote, why should I believe your examples from the articles? From here on, discussion is pointless. You have your views, you have your vision of the future, why should I care?
I am a Guild Wars player - I don't know what you are. And I, although doubtful of the future, try to remain full of hope on the new game. If I don't like it - I don't buy it. I suggest you go on planning to do the same. I don't want to get me and everybody else around me miserable by spitting out negative speculations on how ANet is betraying us. I will gladly leave that duty to you.

And I, although I know that you won't believe me, know that there are companies with a different policy than the average mmorpg-producing one (although my main example isn't in the mmorpg business). Those that try to attract loyal fans and conquer a niche, and that fully, instead of compete with other, more established companies on the mainstream. They WILL try to get more mainstream people in, no question. They will try to make those mainstream people already around (WoW is to expensive) happier. Granted. Doesn't mean they betray the rest of us.

As you said: They are doing a new thing. Something that hasn't been there before. Flexible.

I hope it's too good to imagine. Or that it surpasses my best imagination.
You fear it's too bad to imagine. Or that it surpasses your worst imagination.
If you're right, we both lose. I don't know what happens if I'm right, but I certainly hope so. The outcome will most likely afflict us both very similar.
But tell me: Whom of us has the better, whom the harder time waiting?

And no. Pessimism is not to avoid the problem of unfulfilled expectations. It's a way to make everything bad come true by self-fulfilling prophecy.
I, for once, if I was an editor or designer on ANets team, would have no spirit, no inspiration and no fun, no passion in creating a game if the feedback on such preliminary accounts and multiple clarifications was like yours:
Think of everything good they say: "It's a lie" and take every possible bad interpretation of things that can be interpreted as set in stone.

So, congratulations on your logic and deduction skills, but I prefer to believe in some honesty. You may be glad if I finally fall (I, in full honesty, will be if you do, because if that's so it means GW2 turned out to be awesome) but I can rejoice in the fact that I don't have much to lose. And if I lose, I spent the time waiting in hope, not fear and anger.

And yes, maybe I am naive. Maybe I am stubborn. Maybe I am dumb. But maybe I am just open-minded, resilient to doubt, and not as worried or angry as you are. Too much thought in one direction can ruin your day. Or that of others.

Before someone else comes along and says: "You're not bringing evidence for your words, you're just bailing out of discussion!" Believe this, if you want to believe it. I'm tired of bringing examples that are not believed as "lies from the money-grabbing corporation" and countered by brilliant, yet one-eyed deductions from small examples, partially way out of context... or, yeah, by the fact that I used familiar terms for my example, which doesn't fit onto the "clean slate" of the "totally new game", as it might bring "new, totally flexible concepts" - yet, other features mentioned - like sidekicking, are totally bound to be as they are in nowadays concepts. Paradox, isn't it?

So, to me, this is closed more or less. You got your opinion, I got mine. None of us could persuade the other to take up the others opinion. And only time can tell who's right. I know, you think you are. So do I.

I don't mean to offend you, and didn't mean to. I am sorry, in case I did.
Because I think that you are trying to flame me. But maybe I'm just chewing on your posts too much. They are so much news to me.
Sorry, couldn't help that.

Before you ask: I am a guild wars player. A fan of the level 20 cap and the 8 skill bar. Of the brilliant skill system.
I just trust ANet. As I have been asked to.

Loviatar · Apr 03, 2007, 02:37 AM // 02:37

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caith-Avar

I don't mean to offend you, and didn't mean to. I am sorry, in case I did.

none taken and truly none intended or meant to you

Quote:

Because I think that you are trying to flame me. But maybe I'm just chewing on your posts too much. They are so much news to me.
Sorry, couldn't help that.

no flame intended as flames are pointless

Quote:

Before you ask: I am a guild wars player. A fan of the level 20 cap and the 8 skill bar. Of the brilliant skill system.

i have been here since early beta and this will give me not one but two flavors of GW to enjoy

Quote:

I just trust ANet. As I have been asked to.

and i am looking forward to the new directions Anet will take with this game.

to me what they are doing so far sounds wonderful.

however you will still find me with one of my permanent presears dancing and answering questions in the abbey also free runs to here and there

cheers

Caith-Avar · Apr 03, 2007, 03:23 AM // 03:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

none taken and truly none intended or meant to you
no flame intended as flames are pointless

Good. Then we're fine. I'm glad for that, honestly.

Quote:

i have been here since early beta and this will give me not one but two flavors of GW to enjoy

A true veteran, then? Nice! I did sadly miss out on the E3 for everyone event in 2004 by a day, but have been there since World Preview Event 2004. That got me addicted. Planned to make a permanent pre-sear, never got around to it, because of too few character slots (I'm a maniac for finding out stuff and trying and doing everything possible) - but a transfer to my newly (and only for that reason bought) prepaid credit card is underway and one of the four additional (10-13) character slots I'm then sporting will likely be a permanent pre-sear.

Quote:

and i am looking forward to the new directions Anet will take with this game.
to me what they are doing so far sounds wonderful.
however you will still find me with one of my permanent presears dancing and answering questions in the abbey also free runs to here and there
cheers

Well - I hope for the casual and the hardcore gamers alike. What they have done up to now speaks for itself.

Cheers.

Domino · Apr 03, 2007, 03:39 AM // 03:39

A higher level cap is nice, because it gives you a lot more room to advance.

However, I dislike high level caps because you get the problem where you'll have 5 level 100s, and you're level 63 ... and you'll get BS from the rest of them for not being level 100.

High level cap just gives PUGS another reason to discriminate you, if you're already a hated class like mesmer or assassin... forget about it

clawofcrimson · Apr 03, 2007, 04:19 AM // 04:19

i guess gamers in general (like humans in general) just like to have e-status to look down on their peers. It seems it is what the gamer community is looking for. And anet is aiming to please the masses.

Katari · Apr 03, 2007, 04:51 AM // 04:51

A high grind-inducing level cap worries me a little bit, but a few things keep it from bothering me much at all:

1) that these two concepts would be likely to be in GW2
Max level PvP-only characters.
Flexibility in resigning skills and atributes.

2) Who says higher levels need to be more powerful? If you were to count skill points in GW as levels, as it is, my mesmer would be somewhere in the 200s. But skills known have no real impact if, like in GW1 the number of skills currently used are limited. That's just one thought, the key point is, high, if near-unreachable max levels do not necessarily break anything. Have some freaking faith people.

Improvavel · Apr 03, 2007, 04:58 AM // 04:58

So what if now the cap was lvl 25 or lvl 35. Would this make the game "oh so much more grinding and elitiste"?

What matters isnt the number and the power a character can amass. Its the time it takes to do it.

Now we can reach lvl 20 in a few dozen hours. A character with 100 hours under is belt, is probably well equiped and has a very reaseonable collection of skills.

The good about this is that its fast so we can play different classes and experience different gameplays (ppl that have more than one character of each class amaze me).

The flexibility in changing secondary classes helps alot. No nonsense of having to spend 100 hours doing a monk/mesmer and 100 more to doing a monk/elementalist.

The con of this is the way its achieved. You end one chapter, enter another and its easier in the beggining then the previous was in the end.

No sense in progress. You were killing shiro last minute and in the next u are killing some lvl18 insect or lower.

So in the end is all about implementation.
They can increase the time required to achieve the Top Plateau, but if they increase it by too much you will lose the ablility of diversification, and thats bad.

But in the end you will always be playing the end game areas, call it elite missions, call it underworld or tombs, and only revisit the previous areas to go get that green item or to farm for money in a easy spot.

If in GW2 you take too much time to arrive to the equivalent areas of GW elite missions/uw/fow, the previous areas might not contain not even the equivalent of GW greens to make you revisit them (ie, who the hell goes to maguuma jungles except for the odd totem axe? Or nothern shiverpeaks?).

VGJustice · Apr 03, 2007, 05:26 AM // 05:26

The only thing that worries me is a high grind to get that high level.

To me, level grind generally means walking out into a field and killing monsters until the level goes ping. I hate that with such a passion that I generally quit playing those games very quickly. Every Asian MMO I've played has that. And what it does to me is tells me that I have to just randomly kill monsters for the sole purpose of going to another area to randomly kill monsters (and oh maybe complete a little bit more of the story if there is such a thing (and I've played way too many games that had no story at all)). That really breaks up the gameplay. It becomes a quest to kill stuff rather than a quest to accomplish something. I can say right now, when there's more information about GW2, and I find out that 75% of my time will be spent killing monsters for the sake of killing monsters I just won't buy it. I'm tired of that bs "gameplay".

Maybe I'm just crazy, but I want to do something. I want to take an elixer to madame Crazyface. I want to help cure a plague in a specific area. I want to be told to go to some remote speck on a map just to see what's there. I want to feel like there's more to my character than just how many monsters I've managed to kill without going crazy. I like having my explorer title up in the current game. It shows that I'm more than just some guy controlling a semi-random collection of numbers given a pretty graphic. I don't like being told to "Go out and slay 10 [generic monster name here]" without a purpose. I don't like being told that I can't enter a certain area until I've obtained some level. I'm pretty sharp, I can figure out what my limitations are on my own. And I especially don't like being told that I have to build up any amount of anything in order to proceed with the primary story (I'm looking at you, Nightfall).

I still see a great deal of potential for good things with Guild Wars 2. As soon as I can, I will buy that issue of PC Gamer so I can hopefully get some questions answered. And I will wait patiently for the release of both upcoming games. But I won't buy them if I feel that I won't like them. And I know there's quite a few just like me that hate MMOs in general (even WoW) because of pointless level grind.

I think that both groups of people can be pleased, but I'm still waiting to find out if A.Net can pull it off.

cyberjanet · Apr 03, 2007, 05:52 AM // 05:52

Oh dear, I hadn't really thought about many of these issues until pointed out.
Makes me wonder if I want to move to GW2.

I really like the current system of tinkering with builds in order to get a better game. GW1 only really starts at level 20, so the idea of people bailing out when they get there surprises me to my core.

In any case I think there's hidden levelling. People in my guild say it's because we're more experienced players with better builds, but to me it seems that my necro with 1,5 million xp just seems to do more damage than my new level 20 PvP necro.

GW2 won't be out for a couple of years so I guess I have time to make my mind up. But if it's going to to be a WoW clone, count me out. Seriously.