Why do we Level? a discussion in the philosophy behind leveling

The purpose of this thread is to examine the mechanism of "Leveling", the purposes it serves in game play, and problems/advantages with the concept that make it difficult or easy to implement in a game in an "uncapped" fashion.

Please contribute to this thread by briefly stating your ideas about:
1. Capping a max number of levels or leaving levels uncapped
2. How your outlook on #1 impacts or enhances things like overall game balance, the replayability of content, the development of future content, etc.
3. When does leveling turn into grinding?
4. When does gaining character levels become inane?

I do NOT purport to be an expert on these matters, but I'm certainly good for a decently educated opinion, which I will render as a RE to this post.

I've been thinking the same thing sometimes, Imo you could drop the 'level' concept altogether and just gain Attrib points and health based on expirience gained, or become 'leveless' when you hit the 20 mark.

Altho this could post problems with 'endgame' places and missions with nonmax attrib players.. but anyway on to ye questions:

1. Capping a max number of levels or leaving levels uncapped
- I think 'uncapped' would be the best, but keep the 'level 20' as attributional max. I find leveling to be fun in most games, atm in gw its kinda sad to see the exp rise but your still just the lvl 20 guy youve been for the last 2yrs.

2. How your outlook on #1 impacts or enhances things like overall game balance, the replayability of content, the development of future content, etc.
- Upcapped but stats limited, I would see nothing changed really, except 'Legendary heroes' could make name of themselfs with epic levels of 100+ d;.

3. When does leveling turn into grinding?
- Imo grind comes to play when you need something to do something (not wanting to do something!), so aslong as you can do things you need to do unhindered, 'grind' aint a problem.

4. When does gaining character levels become inane?
- Never really, some ppl like big numbers, let them have 'em.

This is a question that has long perplexed me, since leveling a character is something that I both enjoy and hate depending on it's implementation in the game. Let me start by saying that I've been around long enough as an avid online gamer to have experienced a decent variety of leveling systems in a respectable number of MMOs.

So to follow my own format:

1. I have found that I am able to more thoroughly enjoy the content of the game when the leveling has finished. I look at leveling as a necessary thing, but feel from experience that it has a limited purpose and should end at the point where the plot gets engaging. Leveling CANNOT be a substitute for plot or content or from a design perspective we lose replayability. For these reasons I am ALL FOR a level cap.
2. By implementing a level cap in games you build in a ready-made means of balancing the gameplay. When designers sit down and create foes one of the questions they have to ask is "how strong/tough/formidable of a foe is this NPC in relation to the player characters that frequent this area?" This has (since the days of pen and paper D&D) been expressed in terms of character levels. As a character advances from level 1 to 20 in traditional D&D, we lose replayability of the same encounters because the difficulty of the encounter is inversely proportionate to the number of levels the party of characters has. As a consequence 30+ years of refinement to the D&D system has unconsciously (or perhaps consciously) mandated a charater level cap, if not explicitly termed such (after all there are epic level characters) then at the least it's an implicit reality (what do level 40+, god-like characters fight in AD&D?) due to lack of content. This has an immediate affect on the development of future content (returning to video games) because the franchise wants to keep its existing playerbase interested, yet the maximum level has likely been achieved by many of it's players. ENTER ARENA.NET to save us all. The beauty of Arena Net's system is that the vast majority of the content takes place after the leveling has completed. Practically the entirety of their expansions (minus tutorials) have been plots and content for level 20 characters. The ingenious reason for playing the content is to get what? NOT XP, NOT Levels.... SKILLS! Chicks only dig guys with good skills, right Napoleon? LONG LIVE ARENA NET!! Someone finally found an enjoyable system whereby players can enjoy content and achieve measurable results without the number of levels even being part of the equation. THIS IS A HUGE BREAKTHROUGH IN GAMING! Please don't revert back to tried-and-failed methods like scaling foes levels to the character's level (I'm talkin about you Oblivion!) or leaving the character level virtually uncapped (any SOE MMO you can name).
3. Any time the player's focus turns from the plot/content of the game to the acquisition of an item/title/level/skill. One may argue that by changing the focus from levels to skills post level 20, all Arena net did was to make the game a skill grind, but to me the paradigm is different. Maybe it's all in my head, or maybe not. I also believe that all skills should be questable, hence returning to plots and content as a means of acquisition rather than grinding.
4. As soon as game balance is compromised or it (leveling) overwhelms the focus of the plot/content in the players' behavior. (I.E. those people who death level in pre-searing). Did they do that because they enjoyed the storyline? I am willing to recognize that there are some players who judge their enjoyment/success of any given game by how well they can level their characters and then lose interest in their characters after they achieve the max level in the game. For me personally I feel like there is no help for such folk. They should stick to a game like a word typing game where you have to type the words that appear faster and faster to get to the next level. Since its all about the number that represents the level for them, why go to the effort to give them plot or content? I for one, want content and plots over mobs, farming, grinding and leveling.

Since this is a philosophic thread,

In PvE you have to spend time to level your underpowered characters for them to be at par and ready to face level 34 monsters with ridiculously powerful skills.

Thus leveling is a sign of inherent imbalance in PvE. QED.

I'll assume you are Referring to GW2's reported plan to have much higher-possibly unlimited level cap idea as I answer.

1. Both are possible in spirit. In the PCGamer article about GW2, the reference to higher caps (and possibly uncapped) was based on the idea that many players just wanted *some* form of recognition for the amount of time they've spent playing. In theory the could essentially cap the game at 20 even if the cosmetic numbers keep going up as you only gain additional skill points. If they can balance traditional 'high end PVP' in an uncapped level setting I can't wait to see how they do it, but I've some doubts.
My preference is: whatever as long as the game is cool

2: It sounds like the global pvp will be cool, and level will be less of an issue for that, but level caps could impact balance for traditional pvp (GVG). One possible workaround that I can think of off the top of my head is that in GVG all combatants become normalized to a fixed standard level/attirbute point #. This would be fairly simple to implement I'd think, and one could actually do it behind the scenes. If characters instead of having attribute points to spend just had slider bars (30% here, 43% there...) the pvp normalization wouldnt even require players to retool for GVG.

3: Subjective, for me though never, since if it feels like grinding I'll go do something else until it doesnt.

4: Subjectively dependant on the answer to #3. In my case irrelevant since if it's not fun I don't do it.

I love the current system in that all of the grinding is by choice, none is necessary. I'm going to assume that Anet will make every attempt to keep this alive in GW2, while giving some titular recognition to players who have 13 million exp... (easy to do now though, just by adding a title based on # of experience points).

The one thing i dont understand about level caps and other games is armor.

In gw you have an armor system where:

20 means +50%dmg
30 means +37,5%dmg
40 means +25%dmg
50 means +12,5%dmg

60 means +-0%dmg

70 means -12,5%dmg
80 means -25%dmg
100 means -50%dmg
120 means -75%dmg
140 means -100%dmg

What i ask myself is:

In guild wars its ok to have such a system, because even when you have lower armor then 60 it takes only a little to get to it, so you wont suffer too much from more damage.

But in other games like WoW, where you have differences like 20 and 2000 armor, how is there a system in that?

I would honestly prefer that 'leveling' in the traditional sense did not exist. I know some people like the sense of achievement, or I'd say power fantasy that comes with it, but I just find it too limiting.

For example:

Leveling means I can't play with my friends unless we schedule our play time so one of us doesn't outpace the other. Similarly, my ability to find players to group with is limited, because the overall population is stratified into isolated groups which are segregated by power level.

Leveling means I am arbitrarily limited in what content I can do. Some content becomes trivial, and it's boring to do it because I've become too powerful for the NPCs I'm facing to threaten me. Other content isn't available to me, not because I don't have the skill to do it, but because I haven't invested X time into the game.

Leveling means old content becomes useless to 90% of the players in the game over time. This means that development time spent on all zones geared to players below the level cap is going to be 'wasted' at some point. Imagine how much more efficient it would be if players could be shunted back to the 'low level' areas throughout their lifespan? New players would constantly have contact with experienced players. Zones would constantly be used, and not turn into ghost towns inhabited by one or 2 newbies who get turned off and quit playing because the world feels empty. Development time is used more efficiently, as zones are reused constantly, instead of being forgotten.

I understand that people who play RPGs want a sense of advancement, but I think this should be in the form of customization, fluff perks such as armor skins, housing, ownership of towns and forts, character flexability, and so on - not just "I got bigger numbers now."

I think RPGs need a huge dose of common sense. No matter how much time you spend killing zombies or spiders or whatnot, you're still a squishy guy with soft skin and crunchy bones - that guy with the club, or that black bear over there? They should still break your head if you don't fight smart, even if you are like level 2,034,189.

We level because we're used to levelling, that's it. It's the way games started, it's how people expect them to be. Nothing more, nothing less. Even regular old video games progress you through what as you go on? Levels. Actually, you can blame these old video games a lot... if you're playing Space Invaders, for example, you want to get through as many levels as you can before losing.

Levelling is nothing more than an addiction. GW had started to break the addiction, until they caved in to the junkies with GW2.

I'm going to break your format, and list some pros and cons of leveling.

Pro

Makes getting experience worth something. Currently, once you reach level 20 in Guild Wars, gaining XP means very little, unless you are short on skill points (in which case, Anet's system is actually broken, because you are forced to "grind" for skill points)

Rewards players who play the game longer / or more often. This is also a con for casual players like myself.

Cons

Could force grind if not implemented correctly.

Will lead to Elitism (also, could be a pro, because I will be able to avoid such elitists by just telling them my level! )


It really all boils down to how it is implemented. If I ever feel like I'm being "held back" by my level, that's not a good sign. If, however, I hardly notice my level (much like I hardly notice my XP now), then it won't be an issue.

1. A high cap (100+) and unlimited levels are pretty much equal. Actually, if it's going to be over 100, it might as well be unlimited. That way, without a cap, there is no "rushing to the end", because there is no end.

2. Well, future content can never be exclusively for a particular level. Now, you could have limited "elite" areas for level 100+ (much like DoA, which I have never and probably will never visit). But those should be rare, and the majority of the game should be at least accessable (even if challenging) to all levels.

3. Leveling = grinding only when you are forced to do it. People should never feel like they have to level (or, as I said in the point above, only in rare instances should level restrict content).

4. I agree with you, that when leveling becomes the end all, it's reached it's limit. Which is why I'd rather have no level cap than a very, very high one. The worst idea would be to have levels increase with Expansions. That's a double whammy: It incites people to rush through the game (I'm level 70 first! Woot!) and forces you to buy the expansion to remain competitive. If Anet does that (I sincerely doubt they will), they can kiss my money goodbye.

Final point: As long as the game remains fun to play as a casual player, I will support it. I fully believe that a game should be as much as it can to as many as possible. If somebody likes to level, and that's what floats his or her boat, who am I to argue? I just want the most people to be happy, and as long as high levels don't make the game unplayable by casual players, I see nothing wrong with them.

1. Capping a max number of levels or leaving levels uncapped
The whole concept behind "leveling" is the idea of growth. Through understanding of gameplay, we grow not only in experience but also in skill, action, and precision. By adding a "level cap" to a game, you limit the characters who play in that world. This, however, is not necessarily a bad thing. It is merely a matter of interest when it comes to, "what does one find amiable when playing a video game?"
However, since the idea of amiability differs from person to person, perhaps the question should be, "what does the majority find amiable when playing a video game?" I think this best fits.
As an example, once a Guild Wars character has reached level 20, they are expected to "know" how to play the game with a sense of intelligence and understanding. It is understandable to see a level 12 Monk using Mending to keep the entire party healed, but as a level 20, they should understand the idea of "energy management".
Another example is a World of Warcraft character. A level 70 is an "adult" in the world set before them. They understand the game fully and have experience with all that they are given.
In the end, the question of, "is a level capping a good idea?" is no longer the question you should be asking yourself. What one should ask is, "what is my final goal in making such a game?"

2. How your outlook on #1 impacts or enhances things like overall game balance, the replayability of content, the development of future content, etc.
Balance is purely opinion. In the end, there is "just" sense of balance. Any change in power will always hurt a given party of individuals and will change gameplay, but that does not mean the majority will be able to adapt to the change. One must based a sense of "balance" on whether the majority adapts or not.
Replay, just like balance, is opinion as well. However, there is a difference between repetition and replay.
Development of future content can act as many different things: addition of replay, change of balance, extension of level cap. All can either make or break a game.

3. When does leveling turn into grinding?
"Leveling" turns into "grinding" when the learning ends and the experience begins. Once again, neither is a bad thing. It just depends on what you are looking for in a game.

4. When does gaining character levels become inane?
"Leveling" becomes pointless only when you feel you do not need to learn anymore. As humans, we thrive on learning. As computer characters, however, we can grow tired of it. In order to prevent "pointless" leveling, it would be wise to make sure that once a majority reaches a point of understanding, the act of experiencing begins.

1. A cap is good if uncapped gives you advantages as you reach higher levels. That degrades the game into "who plays longer=better", and I refuse to play a game in which time playing is rewarded over skill.

2. Games are, in my opinion, better when based on gameplay, not character development. I don't want to spend the whole game bringing my character to "max" level, I want to spend the game playing for fun! Maybe making new builds, new strategies, etc., but certainly not to level up and gain an increase in power. IMO, no level system increases replayability. You could roll a new profession and, although armor and attributes may not be max, you don't have to go through the game waiting for your character to grow.

3. Leveling turns into grinding when you have to do things you wouldn't do without a level up reward. If levels were out of the factor, would you be doing what you are doing now? If "no", then I consider that grind.

4. Gaining levels is good for newer players, as they get to start off as weak characters with limited skill access, limited attribute access, etc. It creates a learning curve. Other than that, I consider levels a waste of time.

O me likey what you said there on #4 Series! It got me thinking, why even have something called character level? Why not award new skills and attribute points based on which quests and missions the player has completed? Isn't that where the designers want us getting our XP from anyway? As long as enough quests and missions are implemented to provide players with variety for their characters (so that we aren't all cookie cutter classes (SOE SWG)) why have a character level? Instead of players saying "I'm a level 73" they'd say, I've acquired 145 monk skills, 74 mesmer skills, and I specialize in playing a self-energy-managing prot bonder! Sounds like a much more enjoyable organic system... As others have said... all leveling really is, is a system of graduated content. So what are some other ways to graduate the content of a game that arent level based and still appeal to the playerbase? Then we could keep the number that some players are so fascinated with and it wouldn't be such a determinant to the gameplay.

jkyarr - I apreciate your concerns, but don't you think this point is moot?

GW2 will have levels. It's too much an accepted part of RPGs.

Would it be great to have a game without levels, or even professions or skill points?

I mean, if we're getting rid of one part of "grind", why not get rid of all of it.

You make a character, you pick your skills, and the only thing that separates you from joe blow is the skills you picked and how you use them?

It's the ultimate in "skill" vs "time played." Everything else is just a compromise.

1) No cap, no levels either except steady and fast power gain thoughout tutorial. While players do enjoy getting higher numbers and hunting carots, I dont. I want to "finish" character, be able to know that he is maxed out in some way.
There is way bigger feeling of achievent if you can say: Yep, i did it, this is max, now I am gonna just have fun with experiemnting with this char without worying AS well as there is frustration with non cap/insane levels - goals you will never, ever achieve - why even bother starting?

2)
Ballance - obvious, you can ballance while world, have harder piece in here, easy somewhere else. you have simple baseline, little can go bad.
Replayability - as you can skip most parts of game (no leveling zones), you find new sceneries after years as you wander to area noone forced you to enter before, on your own. Same with quests - if you dont "have to" do quests, you will skip some only to discovere them much later.
Future content - no brainer, you know how to ballance new content, since new content wont obsolete old content. some new content people will like, some people wont, but since it wont be required.

Basically - as soon as there is no required content to go though and when game stops to hold your hand and walk you through areas on preconcived tracks like its themepark, it gets better.

IT also gets scarier for some people (what am i supposed to do now???), and unplayable for other (i want game to set goals for me to hunt em, i dotn want to set my own goals ...)

3)
As soon as you lean about fun content wich you cant access because there are hours of unfun areas inbetween which require you to go through and spend time there.

4)
When you realize that .... its just a damn number ... when you realize it cuts you both of past areas and of future areas. ... when you realize that there is more to RPG than just being munchkin.

When you compare GURPS to AD&D

I keep pushing this image throught: http://www.zweistein.cz/mmorpg/levels.png (basically, GW acts like imperfect No-level game - some areas get obsoleted )

Why we level? Answer is simple... yet deep.

It is because we feel powerless in the world, that you feel lack of "things" (by that could mean lots things, like love, friendship, money, family, body, social standing, etc) That is why such mechanics (the leveling) are often found in a Fantasy RPG, an escapist game, since those people tend to want to be someone else. Leveling provide an illusion that they are becoming more and more powerful, gaing more of what they lack in real life. And because it is relative an easy thing to do, usually with long hour of clicking (unlike what you have to do in real-world to gain power), thus those people are easily addict to it. (else you would be out climing a mountain or something, instead of playing a game) The games and their maker, in their attempt to attrach more players, so to sell more copies for their own gain, are willing to give player this sensation of satisfaction, yet only in conditions, like tangling a carrot in front of a donkey. In ways, they are selling the a form of drugs.

Thats why there are leveling, and why people are so willingly follow this imaginary number.

1. I like the idea of uncapped, but with lvl 20 as attribute cap.
2. More levels=More replayability. Reason to do stuff more.
3. When you something repeatedly for no reason other than clearing x.
4. When it takes over a week to gain 1 level at 12 hours a day.

Mordakai- Of course GW2 will have levels, that was hardly my point. My point was to examine the paradigm that the number is used for in current gameplay and brainstorm some alternatives. Examining it from a game design perspective I think Arena Net has already moved towards a model that decentralized the importance of character level by capping at 20 and focusing on skill builds from there on out. To keep the value of the alternative they already implemented and better it for GW2, I maintain that they need to further dissociate the importance of character level from the logic they use to provide graduated content. Quest chaining could be such an alternative (if multiple chains were implemented for variety's sake).

Displaying a character level to the player or even to other players could remain an option, but why build it into the mechanics of the game as a fundamental determinant for plot or storyline progression, like it currently is for Ascension, or access to the FOW or UW? If the underlying factors (like number of attribute points and variety of skills) are established with the predominant importance they should have, then what more does character level even mean?

Research ORIGIN of "level" in RPGs - both pean and paper and how it translated to computer ones. You will find answer.

Interesting thread!

I think people love leveling because it gives them a sense of accomplishment. Unlike in real life, they put in the time, and the reward always comes. Plus it gives everyone a goal to reach, which once reached can be bragged about and shown off, which people love as well.

It would be interesting to see how people would react to having infinite leveling (no level cap).... there would be some conflict here because even though you would get constantly rewarded (by leveling) as you put in time, because there's no cap, you don't ever get the feeling of having reached "the top". I think being able to reach "the top" is important because, for one thing, it means no one else has a higher level than you - I think that's psychologically significant.

Come to think of it... didn't Dungeons and Dragons have levelling, and doesn't that pre-date computer games?

Um... that's kind of precisely why I mentioned it above... There's probably an earlier example of a level in a gaming system than good old TSR... anybody name one?.... Anyone?.... Bewler?

Well this is a stretch, in sporting competitions the podium is organised into "levels". The guy on top is lvl3 and hence better than the guy on lvl2 and 1. LoL.

We level because it's something to do. It's a sense of achievement when you level and it's a way of measuring your progress through a game. It becomes tedious and a grind when you have to farm things over and over to level up for minimal or unecessary gain.

I am afraid it not, there were no roleplaying games as we know them before that ... only wargames which didnt use levels, nor were they about player growth - but which had familiar aproach to combat (rolling dices, hit points...)

I did a google search on leveling and came up short. The wikipedia entry on D&D mentions leveling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experie...ed_progression

One note of interest: "Experience levels fell out of vogue during the late 1980s and most of the 1990s, but began to come back with the 2000 release of D&D 3rd Edition and the d20 System."

I'm not sure exactly what they are referring to... although the World of Darkness RPGs by White Wolf (Vampire, Werewolf, etc.) didn't have levels per se, they still had "story points" that you could use to pump up your character. In Vampire you could even kill a Vampire older than you, and get significantly more powerful ("leveling up" if I ever heard so).

Of course, there are games that do away with these elements like Amber, Sorcerer (an indie RPG with no levels), etc. I've played them, and they have their charm, but there is certainly something intrinsically appealing about "leveling". It gives a sense of accomplishment for finishing a certain quest or task, and rewards you accordingly. It gives a reason to continue to play the same character, and not just "re-roll".

Are there cons to leveling? Of course, many are listed here in this thread. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater... we need to understand why leveling is so attractive before we can decide what to replace it with.

EDIT: [slaps nemo] WAKE UP! This is good stuff, believe it or not...

Is it a fair summary to say the appeal of the number is "people like it"? What other value is there to leveling other than the euphoria it pretends to deliver to the power seekers?

Baby out with the bathwater? More like "Demon Troll of Outdated Game Design +4" I cast Augmented Smite Evil upon thine profane flesh! +2 bonus for catching thee flat-footed. +4d6 Sneak Attack damage for my multiclassed Rogue secondary. DIE demon DIE! :-P

ok...ok... kidding... keep the number for the sake if its appeal... just design the game mechanics without it!

Let's hear more opinions... back to the original format... last time I posted a summary it ended the discussion on the thread... let's keep it going!

I believe the main reason levelling is introduced is because of some of the reasons people play online games in the first place. People like to be better than other people. It's built into us. Whether it's killing someone in PvP or being one of the first to have a certain title in PvE. 'Elitism' carries a lot of mostly justified negative connotations but it's also one of the driving forces of a successful (but not necessarily good) online game. A player level offers a simple unified index of 'progression' for players to compare. It encourages competition, even if indirectly, which keeps people playing. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, and in fact I'd like to believe that it applies less to GW players as a whole than others.

None of that addresses levels as a useful game mechanic. If levels represent 'experience' (not skill), it also offers a useful index for cooperation. But that doesn't tackle why character power is tied to level. I suppose it's another incentive to keep playing. The problem is games have to get harder. If enemies get harder via intricate systems of advancing AI and more complementary skill bars, how do you abstract that to a simple to understand scale/index? Equally, if the enemies get harder the player has to get better. But some people are bad. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to finish a game, they buy games for recreation after all. They shouldn't be forced to dedicate their life to the exquisite art of Guild Wars to finish the PvE campaign. So if player skill alone can't be relied on to match increasing enemy difficulty, what do you have left? Statistically improving characters tied to level.

Levelling is a social construct. By having levels, you are able to communicate capabilities, that may not have been understood on the basis of a name alone. I'm reminded of Monty Python's Holy Grail, where a group of knights encounter the fuzzy white bunny, thinking they could make a stew out of it; if only they knew his troo level was twice theirs! Then they could've brought more heal potions.

There's also a psychological aspect to having levels. I believe that many people may be using levels to compare their accomplishments across different games, and I am supposing that this is the reason why ANet wants to say that GW2 has un-capped levels. To these people (who I myself used to be like), a game with 9 levels is less appealing than a game with 90 levels. It's just psychologically affective; "there's only 9 levels? I'm gonna get bored fast! But this one with 90 levels, there must be a lot to do there--probably everything that the 9-level game has and more."

This leads me into what I'll put forth as "grinding". For the most part, I would agree with what people have been saying. I'll add that grinding levels could be ones where you gain no skills, e.g. you get a skill at level 85, then don't get another skill until level 90. Those in-between levels are just grinding. Of course, a cheap way to eliminate this appearance, is to make non-linear level
progressions (which GW has). If you're gaining skills every level, then I'd say there was a reason for making you game have that one more level.

interesting points bbb... I don't mean to dominate this thread with too many responses, but I did want to bring up a tangible example that is somewhat contrary to what you were saying about skills, PvE, and leveling.

I think its a very difficult line to walk as far as content creation goes in the sense that (as you said) you have to make the content challenging enough to the point where it's entertaining and an overall satisfying experience to the customer who paid for it, yet you can't make it so challenging that people have requirements imposed on them about how often they have to play or how good they have to be to succeed. But let's look at the reality of my experience playing Prophecies. I got down to the fire Island chain and spent months trying my damnedest to beat those 3 missions with practically every combination of player that came through that sequence of missions during that time (ok hyperbole)... It didn't matter what group of players we put together, on the whole we sucked so bad that we couldn't finish! (insert jabs like "sounds like a personal problem" here). It wasn't until Heroes were introduced and I had equipped them with good weapons, runes, insignias and skills (bought the PvP Unlock packs for all 3 games) that I was able to solo the last 2 missions (with just Heroes and Henchmen).

My point is "level" is inane, since the number can be achieved without gaining any mastery of the gameplay. Every player I teamed up with proved that over and over for months... Including myself. If the underlying components that add up to be "character level" (attribute points, Skills, HP, Energy etc) are rewarded in such a way that gameplay mastery is taught more prevalently (perhaps by making them rewards for mission or quest completion, (not unlike the current Basic, Expert, Master rewards in Nightfall)) then the number that we cling to as the index for "how good" a player is can be more meaningfully supplanted by the prestige of in game accomplishments.

Of course there is some argument to be made about whether or not completing X mission and thereby gaining W skill(s) or Y Attribute point(s) equates to gameplay mastery... That would depend in part on how the quests are designed and how lucky and learning-challenged the player is. Some could stumble through a mission or 10 successfully and still come away with no techique, but wouldn't it be a more organic system to have to learn through the school of hard knocks before the skills/AP were brazenly tossed around for the ideal that "a something-th level character should have X attribute points and Y skills" because they SHOULD BE that good by the time they reach that level". If we disassociate level and skills/AP in the mechanics of the game or make level the side-affect of the achievements in the other categories, what do we lose? Or is it all semantics? Call it "character level" or "Achievements" or "skill list" or "AP total"... aren't they all the same thing? A means to graduate the content of the game??

One way to handle this is to have no levels and that you just gain skills and attributes. You still can become very strong, yet have no grind like... whew just 732,984 exp to level. I played WOW for a year and a half and it grew pointless to fight so long just for the sake of leveling since there was never an end of the game or a large sense of completion.

Obviously, this idea of mine is not without it's weaknesses, but it does reward work without assigning a leveling system.

i hate levelling.....i wish i could make a level20 pve char

Levels:

Purpose
-to ease transition of players from typical games where level is an issue
-to provide a benchmark for whether someone has gained 100k+ experience

Problems
-"running" missions for a fee gives easy experience
- mindless "grinding" to max level instead of doing missions/quests
- Power leveling players leads to false levels
- Solo Farming leads to severely inflated levels


In my opinion levels should be capped low (20-30) or eliminated as a benchmark. Completion of missions/quests should be used since it is a better benchmark of knowledge of the game and eliminates grinding for levels.

A low cap allows for development of multiple characters.
A low cap allows for more missions/quests that involve storyline rather than upping the experience points of the player. See: Fedex/slay everything in sight quests typically in beginning before level 20, like the Audience with Master Togo Shing Jea ones.

Balancing around a low level cap is easier, since the max level is only a small amount larger than than from the start. This means that there is less mindless slaying of mobs for powerleveling.

Sorrow's Furnace is an example of level irrelevance. People that get run to Sorrow's furnace without completion of the storyline on that character generally have less knowledge of tactics and skills. It doesn't matter if they did it on another character as each character has a different playstyle.

Leveling is not grind. Grind is defined as repetitive tasks. Given a higher level cap, grind inevitably follows if there are not enough missions and quests that jump the player up experience levels. Oftentimes players grind after they finish the storyline, not doing quests.

There are both Story and pyschological aspect towards the thought of levels.

As the general terms defines MMORPGs, though multiplayer, it after all have to have a storyline which defines the Roleplaying experience which is played out through a central playable character whose identity you either asumme(in a single player RPG) or create in (in MMORPG). All RPGs in the traditional sense usually have the player assume a new character as a youngling to the world and take on progessively more difficult encounters towards a great Ultimate goal. The use of levels in the story allows the player to gauge how far their characters have progressed and also to used to gauge the challenge of their next task by comparing the levels of their opposing encounters to their current levels. Hence it also serves as a form of feedback for the player so they can tell if the area/mobs are appropriate for their characters at that specific point of time. However with the introduction of MMOs, much of this has changed and will be discussed in the next part of the psychological aspect of leveling.

Firstly to cover the notion of Grouping and leveling. With the introduction of MMORPGs, other than the focus on the storyline in single player RPGs, there includes the elements where other players are involved as part of your gaming experience. That is to say one will realise that your character is no longer the centre of attention to the story and that accomplishments through challenge can be a shared experience instead. But due to general bussiness model of how MMOs work as compared to single player games, MMOs stay in business by giving players incentive to play much longer than they would normally would with a single player game and they do this with levels as well. However the evils of this method is the implementation of grind inorder to enjoy some of the late content in the game. However most MMOs cope with this by implementing ways for players overcome this as part of a group (eg guilds or partying) since people help keep other people playing the game, this is the essence of MMOs, without interaction and enjoyment that comes through playing the game with others, there will be no incentives for players to play and pay for a MMO than to play a single player RPG.

Now as for the notion of self and leveling in MMOs. As many are already aware, players tend to see their online character as extention of themselves and hence enjoy the possibility of both gaining more control over the the game environment than they could in real life and also communicating with their peers in the game. In this case, leveling serves as an incentive to both allow their characters to excess more content more quickly in the game then they normally would if they didnt put in the time, as well as providing the player with a sense of accomplishment as the magical number appear larger.

In all sense, the balance of leveling and grinding should be considered carefully. In the worse case scenario, a game that has huge amount of grind or allowed players to gain 100 levels a day are not ideal. Ideally progession of levels should be fast enough such that someone who plays the game through the storyline will find enough experience to progress their characters to the next stage of play in the content of the story/quest but slow enough to keep them from going bored to keep playing and "paying". This is usually difficult and hence the most common method most developers use is to make play in the game multicentric either with social play such as fishing/crafting or PvP (with its own balancing issues).

The science of MMOs and player response and behaviour is relatively young as witnessed by the rapid spawning of both new and old genre of MMOs flooding the consumer market with an excess of choice. But none so far has been perfect as per say. Even the largest MMO to date World of Warcraft with 8 million subscribers worldwide is not without its own problems. Ultimately when it comes to leveling in any game, the most important factor is the element of enjoyment while you are at it more than anything else. Fun not frustration is the key.


__________________________________________________ ____
Find the game of your dreams and you will never level a day in your gaming life.

I don't think levels denote expertise. They denote time spent playing the game.

As I said in my first post, a possible side-effect of higher levels will be "elitism." But those who judge my skill based on low level are people I don't want to associate with anyhow. So, this could actually be a good way to identify and ignore elitists.

Other than that, it really is just a number. As long as there are things to do, and the game doesn't become boring no matter what level you are, do levels really matter?

It is, of course, all psychological. I'm sure many people ignored Guild Wars because of the 20 level cap. Perhaps those people will come back (and probably be the elitists I ignore, but I can't blame Anet for trying to make more money).

Anet is trying to make a game that will appeal to as many people as possible. Raising the level cap, IMO, will appeal to more than it will turn off. Of course, only time will tell if Anet's choice pays off.

I think leveling is a "natural" thing.
In real life, there is much difference between someone who is well trained and experienced (level 20 in gw for exemple), and someone who is a beginner (level 1)
A max level is a nice thing since every man has +/- the same capacities (in sports, differences between 2 athletes are tiny).
But the cap should be more difficult to achieve, for exemple:

every one could be level 20 (like actually)
then, depending on the XP (2.000.000, 4.000.000, etc etc, that's just an exemple) we should have a few more levels and skillpoints. It should be normal, for exemple, that a 2.000.000 XP monk, who has more experience, would be "rewarded" by having more skillpoints, rewarding the same way the player who has taken the time to reach these XP's. With a max level not very high (22, 24 ?). Again, let's see that as a reward, regarding to people's spent time playing the game.

IMO actually players who spend time playing, killing, questing, helping, are not enough rewarded.

Or, maybe, instead or higher level cap, a new title, depending on the XP ?
I'm proud of my monk beeing protector of the three games. But i'm more proud of the XP, because it's the XP who says "this player has spent lot of time completing quests and killing mobs by helping his guildmates"

Kaiser - I have no doubt that you are a very accomplished player, however the amount of XP you have isn't proof of that. Unfortunately there are (IMO) stupid and easy ways to farm XP in the game that do not contribute to the player mastering the game. Take Death Leveling in pre-searing for example. The players took an area of the pre-searing game and did something with it that was certainly never intended from a design or content perspective by camping & death leveling their way to level 20. This kind of activity in no way contributes to those players abilities to play the game well. Anet decided to take the approach of "let the players play the way they want to" and didn't nerf the ability to death level. That's all fine and good, but you see my point is that I can't tell the difference between an accomplished player who knows how to play well and someone who was power leveled by a fellow guild member or death leveled their way to 20 and has little understanding of how to play their character. This is because no other representation of ability is present in the game other than Level.

For people who like to run up XP, sure they should get their own title track so that there is some recognition, but how is the XP, loot, and gold that you get by raiding with your guild not adequate reward for your efforts? What more would you suggest that you deserve?

I am worried what it will mean for my character if they raise the level cap with "eye of the north" If I'm remembering correctly there was mention of that in the PCGamer article. My problem is that by raising the level cap they either have to ignore the XP that I have already gained beyond level 20 or level me all the way to Level 58 as my XP would require. As a level 58 I can't earn a single point of XP for killing ANYTHING in all the expansions. Even if I soloed Shiro. They can change this paradigm for GW2, but if they bump the cap even to 40 for Eye of the North, I can kiss my monk's progression goodbye.

One final note -- I don't believe it should be the XP that says "this player has spent lot of time completing quests and killing mobs by helping his guildmates"... I think they should implement an intra-guild title system that can be awarded at the guild's discretion to players that meet the criteria. Wouldn't it be more meaningful coming from your guildmates anyway?

In PCGamer, James Phinney says the first goal of Eye of the North is to "extend character development beyond level 20". But, it's unclear if that means characters levels are going up, or if there's some other "development".

I hope they don't do that... Guild Wars should remain level 20 cap. Guild Wars 2, I'm more open to changes, as it's a brand new game.

I have always thought of leveling in gaming as a numerical measure of character growth similar to how we in reality develop. As we live life and experience different trials we (ideally) learn more about ourselves and grow stronger and wiser as an individual. Games use a numerical system because of its simplicity. A true organic "leveling system" such as we live goes beyond the purpose of gaming and even perhaps into the realm of AI.

Currently, I see 3 leveling systems in Guild Wars: character levels, title levels (some titles denote experience such as cartographer titles), and player skill. None of these titles are entirely related to the other. For example a player may be extremely skillful but hold no titles because they do not desire such "leveling". The counter is also true.

I would love to see a game that removes the numerical leveling scheme once and for all. Instead of steadily gaining power through experience points, the avatar gains abilities through how they are played. For example, a player like to play as melee with a non melee "class". Normally this would be asking for trouble but under a system without levels, the character would evolve to become a combat class with all the usual toughness associated with such classes.

Now lets say the player gets tired of close combat over time. Using the same character the player would then be able to retrain that character through spell casting or ranged attacks over time. The close combat skills would dull in the process as well.

Generally, I would like to see a system that allows a character to learn and relearn abilities with some carry overs (such as the close combat strength working in favor of bow usage) through how that character is played. Of course, such a system can lead to excessive grind if handled poorly.

levellin is retarded whatver point u look at it.
especially once u levelled allready 1 char through the campiagn.....havin to level another char through the same storyline again is nothing but a nuisance.
some masochists and no lifers might love levelling all their chars from srat countless times....but a normal human being will not.
if ppl wanna relevel each char....let them do it....but give choice to ppl that dont wanna waste that sorta time to create a level20 pve char.

Personal I like a leveling system,and even in the old days of D&D you had to gain levels to be able to fight main foes in the game.One thing that I have noticed in Guild Wars is the even though there is a lvl cap of 20 it doesn't do anything for your charter.Yes at lvl 20 you have attributes 170,but you still had to do other quest to get the other 30.Ok once you have all 200 atributes it still didn't help yoour charter.

Why do I say that,well your half way through the game and unless you know where to put the right number of attributes it did not matter if you was lvl 20 or lvl 10 because the mob could kill you either way.

Ok say you do know where to put the attributes,the mob still can kill you because it's not your lvl that mattered,or where your attributes are or what skill you have.it's what kind of team build you have.

So where am I going with this?I like the way it was in the old days when you leveled the skills refleck your level.Like it should,yes a lvl 20 is stronger than a lvl 10 as it should be,and lvl 30 is stronger than a lvl 20.Now no matter what your lvl,your charter is a stong as you have made him/her or how ever much time it took to get him/her that far in the game.

Now don't get me wrong,I believe you should not be able to power lvl your way to these high numbers.Or even farm your way to them,but that maybe to much to ask for.So I think,like in some of the games I have played once you have hit lvl 20 for every 5 lvl in exp you only gain one lvl.With that lvl you gain certin skills or attributes and so on,that way the lvl system means something as you gain lvls.

Now on how to gain the experice for the lvl is a totaly diffrent ball game.I like how in Guild wars you gain exp for killing stuff,but maybe the amount experince you gain was to much.Instead of giving you 168exp for killing a troll,if you are lvl 20 or higher you should get 15xp or maybe none at all.That way people who farm to pay for there charters don't get rewarded with power.Like in the old D&D didn't the number of exp double with each lvl. Lvl 1 was 15,000 xp and lvl 2 was 30,000xp and so on,instead of ever 15,000xp you gain a lvl.

Ok that said,what I mean about skills refleckting your lvl is:instead of useing attributes for how strong a skill is,I think the lvl of the charter should determin how storng a attack should be,not where I have a certin number in my profile.If my charter is maxed out I want to do max dammage -armour alignment of course or any saving throws or whatever.

I hope I am not the only one that feels this way.Not all of us that play GW understands game machanics or how if you use skill X with skill Y you can do uber dam on monster A.I guess some people use lvl as a way to measure acomplishment,but It doesn't mean anything if the charter is weak because the person that plays him/her isn't that good to begin with.

So if GW is going to make the lvl cap 100+ or with no cap at all.The best posible way to do it is by ingame exp from missions and quest.instead of your charter lvling to 20 right away to be able to fight the monster content ingame,make it takes the whole game to get to lvl 20.That means by the time you are lvl 20 you have did something,even if it means you road other players coat tail to get there.

I hope I didn't get off topic.