Level cap - GW2

If you followed all primary quests and missions (and didn't just run to sanctum cay), you hit 20 after augury rock- the so-called "ascension." You'd be hard pressed to do otherwise unless you are simply running through missions without killing anything.

Your forgetting that ascending used to only give you a max of 2000 exp, not the now buffed 50 000 exp.

Well, I've never played wow, and since I'm 43 I 'hope' I've grown past the immature stage.

Do all of you that are completely against raising levels just stop playing your characters after they complete a chapter and reach lvl 20?

I have a favorite character that I play, and if the lvl # was a true indication of the xp she's accrued. I couldn't even begin to guess her lvl (over 100 I'm certain).

There are those here who are advocating unlimited power and level, there's nothing wrong with wanting that, but I've always stated in my posts that all I want is a true indication of the xp my char has accumulated. Maybe it's because I'm from the old pen & paper D&D days.

There's been some real good discussion on this subject and some 'immature' rants. In the end, A-net will make the game they want to make. Some of us will be happy, some will be content, some will not be happy, and some will angrily leave the franchise in search for a game that is more to their liking.

The OP asked what we thought the lvl cap should be and why. To label people for their opinion, I believe, shows a lack of maturity on your part.

Cant believe this is still being discussed, they should just open up a limitless level cap, and give it a Fury-ish system where level doesnt matter in pvp, all it does is give you access to more abilities. Or they could do a Warhammer ish system where as soon as you enter a PvP zone it automatically scales your level to the average level of the players in the zone (ie. a lvl 10 enters a zone where 50 lvl 30-40's are already participating, it automatically scales you to 33-35), or they could just do to the PvP zones what they have stated that they are going to do with GvG, as soon as you enter that zone, be it at lvl 1, 2, 50, 100, 1000, your automatically adjusted to a set level, say 50, and battle commences. There are so many ways to properly allow World pvp that can accompany a limitless level-cap. Just remember World PvP doesnt mean you can PvP anywhere in the world, it just means there are areas in the world that arent instanced where you can partake in pvp. I think they should also introduce the pvp flagging system for non level capped areas, cause you know we're gonna wanna flag up when someone runs up and steals your minerals you were camping the spawn for.

What I still think is hilarious, is that people constantly worry about GW2 turning into a WoW clone. There were already tons of games out before WoW was ever conceived that had higher levels etc.
It really is silly to keep comparing GW(2) to WoW and talk about things that are not specific to WoW.

In this case the higher level cap we are expecting for GW2 is not specific for WoW. As I said most games, if not all, have a higher level cap. So yes, you can say that a higher level cap is more like other fantasy games out there, but not specifically "like WoW". For that it is too general a feature.

As far as the level cap for GW2 I am for an approach where there is no level cap and at some points the levels become honorary levels that only reflect xp gain and no longer give bonuses to the character. Also I feel that at some point higher levels should give less bonuses than the lower levels.

All in all it is hard to say much about it, because in the end, more levels will have an effect on how skills and attributes work in game and we know too little about GW2 to really know what they are doing with that. So I will see what they've made of it when it comes out and decide then whether I like it or not...if indeed feel I want to pick up and play GW2 at all. Time will tell

No. There is a large difference. The previous things you mention were things that you could do in the endgame, but they weren't promoted as THE endgame (PvP was). Today titles and HoM ARE the endgame promoted by Anet.

Again...changing your best is good...

Which is basically true. Anything static will eventually become easy and grindable to somebody. Of course that isn't the type of grind we are talking about in this thread, but still. The only things that don't become that way are dynamic (like say PvP).

There could be. But they will never get back the people they boned (at least not many of them). It remains to be seen how good their choices will be.

It is known more widely as a lot of other things ("I AM MORE UBER THAN U"). Besides, what is said in this thread just shows my point that these numbers DO mean something to people.

The comparison is legitimate. WoW is basically one of the most successful games in history at this point. Every MMO from here on out will be compared to it, and there will be a lot of wannabe clones released trying to copy the formula. Anything Anet does to make Guild Wars more like WoW will be commented on because Guild Wars at release was almost exactly the opposite of everything else out there (including WoW). I think it is completely legitimate to compare anything to it from here on out.

Too much optimism killed AoC and Spore.

Anet mentioned that lower leveled players in a group would be temporarilly buffed to higher levels.

The comparison to WoW is being used because that is what GW2 is pounding like. Remember the key features that made GW unique?

No level grind? Skill > time played? Party with others or alone with henchmen and heroes?

Now add level grind. Make skill = power which is relevant on how long you play for. Remove the brilliant H/H system and ability to customise your own group however you like.

GW2 just lost everthing that I liked about GW1 which made it unique, and went ahead and added features that made me quit playing other MMOs after getting fed up of grinding.

It doesnt matter how they implement more levels, if you have to grind for levels, you arent playing Guild Wars, you are playing a typical WoW clone.

We probably have had no more information yet on GW2 because Anet realised they made a huge mistake and are rethinking about adding more levels and keeping H/H. If you had a brilliant and unique game model that was only ruined by your own careless game changes and updates, why not try and go back to what was initially great about the game? The problem is they cant because this is an MMO, and all MMOs need grind to keep people playing.

If Anet really want to change GW2 so much from GW1 into a game with typical MMO features, that doesnt make me optimistic about the game, it just makes me think WTF are Anet doing?

I actually kind of like the idea of no level cap, provided there is a power plateau at a relatively low level (50 would be fine, 20 or so would be ideal). It would be kinda fun to show off your "would-be" level, as sort of a plus for those of us who ARE willing to pour hours upon hours into playing the game.

I find it funny when you're saying that GW2 lost everything GW1 had when we don't have anything to judge it for. And the reason why Anet would abandon the formula that made GW a winner for another WoW wannabe format is way beyond me. I think you people started panicking for no reason when they said we'd lose the permanent instanced areas (even if not all) and you'd have the ability to solo. We have no idea how those things will be implemented, it might even be better than what it is now.

All it would do is bring level discrimination to GW. The 'OMG, you are a low level, that makes you a noob, I R high level and that makes me pro' kids would overrun the game.

People that enjoy the merits of the current level cap and old skill > time features... Oh why do I even bother, they've already left the game ages ago.

Go ahead and make GW2 another typical level grind game, the players that used to enjoy GW1 will be long gone by then.

I am speaking in a hypothetical sense that if such changes were made, that is how I would feel about the game. My suggestions are based purely on Anet saying that GW2 will have more levels, no more heroes and hench, and be soloable with a companion. Sorry, but running around solo with a pet in GW would defy the whole fun that is H/H. I absolutely adore the H/H system. I couldnt care less if it would be soloable or not, without my own customised party of AI characters, it will in no way whatsoever be anything like GW1 to me, it will instead be exactly like soloing in WoW, Lotro, or AoC, in other words, hi boring WoW clone.

I have tried just about every MMO on the market, nothing is as fun as being able to use H/H is. Running around solo is just boring in comparison, the only game that it is enjoyable in is The Elder Scrolls series.

GW = Grind free level cap for all, and H/H for immense enjoyment of PVE. If just those two features get removed, GW is dead for me personally.

Do you ever see a game where PvP was promoted as "an endgame?" When you're done with the story component, what else is there to do in a game besides participate in the online matches? You can say this of every single game with multiplayer attached, all the way from Doom to Neverwinter Nights and then some.

The problem? Not everyone likes PvP and not everyone likes to play with others, and their only choice is to play something else. However more developers are starting to take note of this, largely Epic with Gears of War 2's Horde and bots-only modes. It's meant less to shift focus away from one to the other and more to broaden your focus and attention to a wider variety of players.

So to correct a statement:

...for those who have no interest in PvP. The PvP is still there. The problem wasn't in the direction, it was in the performance.

And now again, two of the same:

Apples and oranges. The same great taste doesn't stay great for everyone. Some people get bored of the same thing, some don't. Some will shun an artist for experimenting, others won't.

Also, their choices will only be "bad" if they're performed bad. I'd have nothing against ANet wanting to make a racing game as long as it's a good racing game. I'll appreciate any direction they take as long as the performance is solid. Broken record, gooooooo.

But (SUP BROKEN RECORD) not for the same reasons. What we don't know is which view ANet is taking in mind when implementing these higher levels: A Blizzard way or a Bioware way? An EQ way or an Oblivion way?

I've been showing that not everyone wants higher caps for the same reasons. Some people indeed just see it as nothing but a number.

That's only if they make it to where you have to grind for those levels, though. Unless you consider long time to reach = grind, in which case Oblivion is apparently an off-line WoW clone.

That I didn't know. Shame, the first thing that comes to my mind when I think about GW is the party system and the whole teamwork. I was wondering how that would work in GW2, but must have missed that line in wich Anet said they would remove H/H from the game. Kinda sad really.

But still, I stand by my point. The fact is we have nothing to judge the game for even from what they've told us, in the end we can get a good product there. I've been playing for quite a while and have all campaigns, and I love GW how it is now.... If it does turn out to be a WoW clone then I definitly won't play it. But I'll give Anet and GW2 the benefit of the doubt and I'll be following the game very close, might even buy it if I like what I see from the first impressions after the open beta/release.

Yes, many...including Guild Wars.

Who's problem? The players who bought the game hoping it was something else? Surely its not Anet's problem. They created a game where the players got more than enough for their money. Is it the job of every single player or PvP game with no monthly fee to continually add new content?

That is fine...but in this case it was a complete shift in focus rather than just a broadening of horizons.

What do you mean the performance? I see no problems with the performance...I see problems with the direction.

Fine. But if I don't like oranges why did I buy an orange expecting an apple, and then complain to the orange producers that they should make apples instead?

Of course. I agree with what you are saying, but what does that have to do with the direction of the Guild Wars franchise? If I don't like a certain type of game, I don't care how good it is, I still won't like it.

We don't know how Anet is going to do it, but we can make educated guesses.

But on your other point...if level is nothing but a number, then why the need to raise it!?!?!?! Why not make it as insignificant as possible (since it is just a number)? This want to track your progress doesn't fly with me. It is bad logic to say that the number means nothing and then proceed to say it should be raised with no valid reasons for raising it.

The mention of games with competitive multiplayer stating it was their "endgame" was more a point to show that it goes without saying. There's *always* going to be that "endgame" if competitive multiplayer of any sort is supported, and stating such is essentially redundant (and as shown is causing some unforeseen complications).

In terms of their focus, has ANet ever officially stated that "this is the endgame now"?

The rest of the above passage gets more or less replied to below:

And then there are people who don't see a problem with the direction and then you get stuck (see: this thread).

"GW would be fine if ANet just was able to not suck ass with their performance."
"ANet wouldn't need to improve their performance if they just didn't go down this road."
And it goes on...

I'd say "welcome to online RPGs". If you want a 100% chance of never getting dicked over then your best bet is to stay as far away from them as possible, because they are always changing.

Showing that what they're doing isn't "bad". They just want to try something different.

And this goes exactly, directly back to the saying of "wait and see" - because until we get our hands on that game, nothing is certain.

It will be bad judging by their past actions? Only if they fail to recognize their mistakes. They fail to recognize them? That's why we're seeing GW2. Record, go.

You know what I'm going to say here, and since you and I both know that we have complete opposite and opposing views on it, it's going to go nowhere, i.e. an impasse.

Some believe that if the level is so meaningless, erase it. Others believe that because it's so meaningless you can do whatever you want with it. There are implications/advantages with both.

Given all that happened because of the party system, it's understandable for ANet to not want to have to tinker with something like it again. But just because it will no longer have those mechanics doesn't mean that GW2 won't be interesting, especially since it's been stated how much more open-ended it's going to become.

Not in those exact terms, but basically yes. Besides, its not like they have to...its pretty obvious.

But if the performance was good, those same people wouldn't have had a problem if the direction remained the same. If the direction changes, all you do is piss a lot of people off who enjoyed the previous direction. You don't really gain much and you risk performance being worse.

There is a big difference between making changes to a game and completely changing the direction/philosophy of a game.

Which is "bad" if the previous something was "good".

Both on some levels. What is certain is what has been announced, and what Anet has done (and is still doing) in GW1.

Ok let me try to explain my problem. Yes there are people as you describe, but there are many more who aren't that way. If you believe level is meaningless and that you can do whatever you want with it (like raise it), there has to be a reason behind it to satisfy the people who think you can't do what you want with it (like me). There are even more people (probably multiple times over) who believe the level DOES mean something and want the level raised for that reason. I have problems with both of those.

How is oblivion a wow clone?

1) You can play through the whole game at level 1 thanks to level scaling with no pressure to level up.

2) Leveling up happens as you simply play the game and use your skills

3) you can reach level 30 in the vanilla unmodded game in just 2 days as I can.

4) If you want to start the game at level 50 with no grind whatsoever, open up the console and use the Advskill and Advlevel commands.

There is no grind in oblivion at all if you choose not to play it.

One feature that I thought would be good in GW2 is to make extremely rare and powerfull PVE skills difficult to find and aquire. Rather then grinding for levels, you could instead choose to grind for something like Pain Inverter if you want to aquire the skill. Then the differences between players wont be based on level, but on who has which skills. Also to compliment such an idea, they could have epic bosses that rather then requiring a high level to defeat, actually require the use of some of these PVE skills. So instead of grinding for titles and levels, you could instead be doing quest chains and raids to aquire these rare skills or powers.

Something like Gandalf having had to have adventured to and fought the Balrog in Moria before becoming Gandalf the White and gaining new powers.

The thing about the Arena series: Daggerfall, Morrowboring and Oblivion is that you really have to take minors as your majors if you don't want to levelup too fast and enjoy the whole game. It's way too easy as you stated to get to level 30 or more in just a couple of days as using your majors levels you up a lot faster than using your minors. But, still the whole series is great except for Morrowboring...I just never could get into that sorry combat system it used. Daggerfall an Oblivion have the best combat system of the series.

I find it really amazing that people can talk about something as vague as a "level" without having any information at all about what leveling up will give, how the game will play, or anything really relevant to the success of a game. No game has ever become a success or failure because players judged it as having too many levels. If I could ask NCSoft a single question about Aion, then I sure as heck would not ask them if they could limit levels in the game.

However, I can say that when players max out their levels too quickly (in Guild Wars, you can max out a character in a single day if you wanted), some players do get pretty upset and start to grumble about feeling cheated. Yes, some of my friends walked away when they hit Level 20 and felt like they couldn't get any more powerful. The convention in RPGs is to make leveling-up a big deal. There's a certain satisfaction in doing it, and if it wasn't important, then why bother implementing a level-up system at all. Guild Wars should have just used no XP entirely, made everybody Level 20 from the start, and changed the system so the game offered Skill Points as quest rewards.

Finally, I like how this thread talks about keeping the sanctity of Guild Wars, as if Guild Wars wasn't a flawed model in the first place. People will quote about how this game is "skill over time played", but then other threads will talk about how broken the PvE game is with PvE skills, consumables, and/or total lack of skill it takes to kill monsters is in the whole game. In the PvP spectrum, people complain about the lack of skill balance, the leeching, the bots, and how things like /rank emote and cape trim don't even equate to player skill anymore. In fact, I can't think of a single thing in Guild Wars that doesn't have a people heavily complaining about it. Dye on clothing. Quest rewards. Armor designs. Mission length. Hall of Monuments. In short, I find it amazing how people talk about how Guild Wars is some kind of gaming ideal, but immediately afterwards, another thread will whine about how terrible and busted it is. Looking over Guild Wars Guru, I think the latter seems to be more prevalent.

Guild Wars wasn't the conventional RPG. That was kind of the entire point.

It wasn't.

I could go into detail on each and every thing you brought up, but let me make it short and sweet. Every single thing you mentioned is examples of things that moved away from that sanctity and originality of the game. The broken PvE game removes skill>time. The lack of skill balance moves away from the sanctity of the game's previous balance (not to mention makes PvP unplayable for many people). Don't get me started on HoM and titles. I think the raising of levels is just another example of moving away.

How many of those games have a full lifetime outside the first 6 months to a year. Most ppl I know that play games like Halo, COD, Battlefield, Supreme Commander, etc. Games of all genres that rely solely on PvP as its lifetime usually don't last long. Players who've played halo moved on to halo 2, then halo 3, now they've moved on to newer games. Guild Wars is a game that is designed to have a longer life than the average game, like all online RPGs, and most of those rely heavily on increased PvE & cooperative play, NOT PvP. Left 4 Dead is one, if not the MOST, popular online action right now. What makes it popular, team-based PvE, NOT PvP. I've been in charge of servers for BF2, BF2142, COD4, COD5 over the last 2 years and NONE of them have lasted with high popularity for more than 7-8 months. Yeah, a lot of ppl stil play many of those games, but not the numbers that used to and an online RPG, Free to play or Pay to play, will not last when it loses great numbers like that.
Only a few games, that aren't MMOs, have broken this cycle - CS source, to name one, uses mods to extend it's lifetime and Diablo 2, which is primarily team-based PvE.

So yes, maybe PvP was what GW1 had for its endgame originally, but it won't sustain it. I believe that is why ANet has put more focus on PvE and less on PvP.

I'll wait for your response(braces for another "I'm right, you're wrong" post).

No level cap at all.

Every time you level up, you get 10 extra hp, but you and your skills are balanced to where you're playing

i dont come around here often anymore and didnt read the entire monster thread, but the title cough my eye.

the poster im quoting is right. leveling and grinding for something actually keeps the players busy and motivated to keep playing the same game.

i was playing a different game with my rl boyfriend, we were super addicted to it, grinded to level cap 80. now, the big flaw of this game was lack of content beyond level 80, only a few bosses to hunt and 1 dungeon to run. all that became very old after 2 weeks, and pvp only was simply not satisfying enouth to not start looking for a new game.

now we play Lineage 2. level cap is 85, but seems it takes a long time to level, make money to get equiped etc.

do i need to say some people in our clan have been playing for over 5 years? and are still interested in the game play since there are still unachieved goals in PvE, while PvP is kind of on the side of the game. it is there yet it is not mixed in the PvE aspect.

Well, I feel there should be an end to a game, be it long and far away. GW gave me the feeling there was a lot to explore and do when Prophecies came out. Level 20 seemed perfect for it.
Then, just as I had finished props with 4 different characters, Factions came, and there was more content. The downpart is that old characters are already level 20 and well equipped enough to have little trouble with factions nowadays. Back then it was a challenge though. They did well with the starter stuff on an isolated island.
Same with Nightfall. So basically level 20 is perfect for GW.

But my main now has about 7.777.000 XP, and I'm not sure what level that would equal if there was no cap, but I feel that a higher level cap is an incentive to play more with a character, if the areas get more difficult as well as you advance.
Not too high though, as I said: a game needs to have an ending that can be reached by all if you play long enough, including jobs/school/RL. You don't want no-lifers owning the game, showing off their stuff and level all over the game, knowing you'll never reach that because of your day-job. That imo is demotivating.

Calculate what your level would be in GW with about 5 mil XP, round it off to a nice number and make that the cap for a game with about as much content as GW1 alltogether. (Although I hope GW2 will be much bigger than the complete GW1 game).

You arent comprehending the problem here.

GW was a game that initially became successful by having a grind free, low level cap, and skill > time played model. These were the characteristic features that set GW aside from your standard RPG's and MMO's, with the largest game following the standard RPG system being WoW, which is why WoW is used as a comparison. Anet then gradually began to remove these characteristics from the game, firstly by adding titles to add grind, then by altering and ruining PVP in Heroes Ascent, and finally by adding power creep with unnessesary PVE skills and consumables. This made people who have enjoyed the game since the first day relese and prior to the release of Factions increasingly unhappy with the way GW was changing to cater for grindaholics, power addicts, and people who wanted a pish easy game and a stroll in the park through all of the elite areas. The game has changed drastically over the last 3 years, more so then any other MMO, and has caused a lot of long time fans to become disappointed. This however doesnt affect some players, and of course, people who are new to the game are unaffected as well.

Anet's next step in the development of GW is to remove the unique absence of level grind that is a key distinguishing feature ofthe game and add a raised level cap. Then they are removing the highly successful hero and henchmen system and instead implementing a solo / pet model, just as there is in every single other MMO on the market. Heroes and henchmen were another key unique feature that the majority of people playing this game enjoy, imagine if Anet were to remove them from GW1, the game would die overnight. However, they are changing the mechanics of GW2 so drastically as to not have to require H/H anymore, so what features in GW2 can be expected to feel anything like GW1 does, or have a similar gameplay experience? The game is far from release yet, but if you remove everything from a game that once made it unique and original, and implement the same features found in every other game within that genre, you are losing the quality that originally made that game what it is.

For a simple and easier to understand comparison, you cannot make a sequel to an apple by growing an orange tree, or make a blueberry pie if you change the blueberry filling to cherry. I am not in anyway looking forward to, or optimistic about GW2 if it is simply going to remove and destroy the unique features that made GW1 such a stand out game. You dont make a sequel to a brilliant and unique game by taking out what makes the game unique and implementing features from every other game out there.

Here is a question, would a higher level cap lead people to focus playing more with just one character? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

just have say, level 20 (42)

(42) being your virtual level, akin to skill points we have now.

i think the low level cap is a really good idea, as content is easier to balance then, and encourages multi chacater play aswell.

most of my chars have "only" 1million or so exp, roughly even those with 3 protector titles, some of them havent gone thru gwen yet, but still...

nearest i have to a "main" has 3.9million or so

Wouldnt a higher level cap lead to more focus of just playing one character since you have to spend more time on them?

The reason why people dont like playing more then one character in GW isnt due to the level cap, it is due to the game not being interesting enough to want to play through over again. GW is one of those games that is fun once with no replay value. Lets say that you removed the level cap in GW1 and added 80 levels, this still wouldnt motivate people to play the boring aspect of PVE all over again.

To make players want to play more then one character, the whole PVE experience needs to be changed, and yes, besides the H/H system, GW is one of the worst PVE games available to play, the true experience lies in PVP.

yes i think it would lead to more 1 char play, and i think it would be a bad thing, more ignerence of other classes, and more repitition and possibly selfishness, as your more likely todo a mission or quest if one of your characters needs it aswell, if someone asks you for help...

stuff like skill balances will be reacted far more bitterly aswell

For me, I already focus most of my time on my first, and fav, char. I have 8 chars, 2 have been mostly ignored since they hit lvl 10, the other 6 are lvl 20 and I'm proficient with them.

if my group needs an ele, necro, monk, etc, I can jump on a different char to help the team. if I have my choice though, I play my female warrior. She's named after a fighter/mage I played in D&D so she gets the majority of my time.

For some, playing styles might change, but I think for most of us, our styles are set, then we rally around the cause that fits our style.

P.S. I've played through each campaign at least twice. While I wouldn't do it 20 or more times, I believe the story does have replay value.

I'm right you're wrong! In all seriousness though, if the PvP in a PvP game can't sustain the game, then PvE in a PvP game sure as hell won't be able to. All PvE breeds is the constant need for new content to survive, and this is especially true in Guild War's case with the marketing model Anet has chosen. So yes PvE might be able sustain Guild Wars if Anet releases new content forever. There isn't many good long lasting PvP games that need to release much new content (if any).

Very well put.

Those PvP games you're talking about, like CSS, may not have any official new content, but how many of them are sustained primarily by mods? Most of them. CSS is sustained almost entirely by mods today, as is COD4 & Half-Life 2. The only MMO I know of that has lasted a full MMO lifetime w/ out losing a large portion of players is EVE online & even they release new content EVERY 4-6 months (for free, too). In addition, EVE's PvP is the ENTIRE game. You're fighting other players for control of everything, from the market to entire star systems and regions. If an Online RPG or MMO is going to rely on PvP as its primary source of play, they are going to have to take a few hints from EVE. The game has lasted longer than ANY current popular MMO (been out since 2002 or 2003 and was a board/card game before that). If GW2 will follow a PvP gaming standard, then it needs to be more than a series of arenas and tournaments. That was GW1's biggest PvP flaw, it seemed too much like the PvP was separate from the world (just like a Single-player's MP mode) and it needs to be integrated into the world to work.

In addition, there's a reason EVE, while popular and consistent in it's player numbers, isn't as popular as WoW or GW. People simply don't care for PvP that much. Many people that play PvP games online just want to do it in their leisure time and aren't willing to commit the resources needed to play a MMO pvp game. Let's face it, GW1 and GW2 are still a form of online game that require you to continue buying expansions/campaigns to get the full worth, whereas most PvP game players are content to buy a game once and use free updates and mods to extend their play time - something you wont find on MMOs, p2p or f2p.

Um...what are you talking about? In Prophecies and Factions the PvP was almost completely integrated. From what we have heard about GW2, I suspect it will be nothing like that.

Ok we need to get one thing straight...no game population can be compared to WoW. WoW consumes just about every other game combined. Saying other games aren't as popular because they don't have as many players as WoW is ridiculous.

And what you said about people wanting to play PvP games in their leisure is true...for ALL GAMES! The casual gamer (ie: the money makers) are the ones who play PvP OR PvE in their leisure. To say that somehow PvP doesn't have this and PvE does is also ridiculous.

Lastly, you say that you won't find free updates and mods to extend playtime on MMOS. Well that is somewhat true (except for the free updates). Guild Wars doesn't have mods or user created content which is definately a downside. Still, PvP could have easily sustained Guild Wars for much longer than PvE has. Not that PvE is bad, but Guild Wars 2 is indication that Anet needs more content and users crave more and different content. Yes we can sit here and say PvP didn't have X, but the bigger problem is that Anet removed Y.

You're right here about comparing WoW's numbers to other games as an indication of whether or not a game is or isn't popular. That said, from what I've read and understand about WoW, it IS popular because it isn't as hardcore as many MMOs and yet isn't too casual as other games. That, in addition to it's enormous numbers, says something about what the larger gaming community is looking for, even if there are a lot of people that don't play WoW.

My point is, most PvP players play PvP FPS, RTS, and other such games, because they DON'T want to play a game that requires more than 30min - 1hr of play every FEW days. Even GW requires more than that amount of play. In addition, most people don't want to HAVE to PAY for more content, be it in monthly fees or Expansions. Period. Yes, GW and other MMOs have free content, but it is very few and far between. Most new content comes in the form of expansions you have to pay for. People don't like the sound of that.

As for a leveling system not matter, Grind not being there, etc. GW IS an RPG, RPGs have ALWAYS been about CHARACTER development since the day they became popular. From D&D to Final Fantasy to Dragon Warrior to Baldur's Gate - CHARACTER GROWTH AND STORY. Skill is great and all that, but skill is relative, what you are skillful at someone else might find a cheap trick, EVEN IF IT ISN'T. Guild Wars' skill>time is all and good, but it requires that skill to come from choosing a few select skills that work together well and utilizing that. Not everyone is good at that and as such, for them, the skill>time argument goes out the window, because now those players that aren't skillful in that area & they DO have to spend A LOT of TIME to find the right skill set by randomizing or checking PvXwiki. THAT'S NOT SKILL ANYMORE THAN GRINDING TO HIGH POWER/LEVEL. Increasing, decreasing, or taking away level isn't going to change that.

Finally, in the level argument, most players, including me, that want a higher level cap has to do with PvE and NOT PvP. I don't know why I should have to say this, but PvE = Player versus ENVIRONMENT. I could careless about how powerful the player next to me is - I'm not fighting him/her, I'm fighting the computer. I want my character to continue growing in strength through my entirety of play. My favorite part about most SP RPGs is that the level cap is set at a point where you usually CANNOT reach it just by going through the story, but it's also NOT needed. The only NEED and WAY to get the max level in those games is to do ALL the optional stuff. The point is that it gives the player a continuing sense of accomplishment and increases their overall power - it gives the player a reason to keep playing.

What are you using to back up your claims?

With Xbox Live--which has no player mod support--the most-played online game in 2008 on the Xbox 360 is Halo 3 followed shortly by Call of Duty 4. I guarantee that nobody is playing COD4 for its co-op mode as it practically has none as the single-player campaign can be beaten from start to finish in two days (at most) anyway. If you look at Xfire, the hottest online games for the PC are World of Warcraft followed by an entire slew of PvP FPS games.

As for Left 4 Dead, you must have never visited a single page of the official forums. That game is heavily sold on Versus Mode, because after a while, killing bots becomes very routine. Like Guild Wars (or any game for that matter), you can learn the weakness in the A.I. and know how to counter it. The forums talk heavily about Versus Mode, because that's what fans want. They want MORE of the scenarios converted to Versus Mode (as opposed to the default two). Prior to the patch, the PC game forum was nothing but rant as people insisted on fixes of many of the terrible bugs and exploits that would break Versus Mode. It's rare that people talk about the co-op play because that's just "noob play"--no different than Guild Wars where most elitists call PvE "noob play".

There is nothing wrong with leveling in games. It just shouldn't be the main focus. Too many MMOs nowadays act like more level grinding = more content.

The actual level makes little difference to me, but as long as we are having a long game with lots to do and the leveling happens in a logical progressive manner then i can care less

I never said those games weren't popular or that they aren't the most played online games. My point comes back to the fact that MMOs, like GW, WoW, EVE, EQ, FFXI, etc are designed to last 3+ years in service. Halo 3, COD4, COD5, and other FPS games rarely last their full popularity or play time after the first 3-4 months and, while still popular, drop even more after a year. GW, WoW, EVE, etc are designed to keep players occupied much longer than that. For example, COD4 came out in 2007, it is still popular, but nowhere near as much as it was when it first came out and even less so now that COD5 is out. COD6 comes out later this year, if anything that tells you one thing - Activision feels that to keep their player base happy, they need to keep releasing new content. In their case its in the form of new games, but with GW or Wow or EVE they have to release NEW content while in the context of the existing game and in a way so that existing characters can enjoy it and find it a challenge. Now, to me, new content cannot always be just new skills, equipment, locations and quests (especially when the equipment is just a skin update). It needs to be totally NEW. That new can be in strength, or in way something is utilized. But I want my character to grow with the game.

Besides, you're comparing FPS games to an RPG - PvP is far more popular than Co-op in that genre. PvE is what RPGs were made for. Been that way since D&D - people play together to help each other through the game and work together not against one another.

Of course. But I fail to see how this has anything to do with Guild Wars being a PvP focused game. It could easily have that casual/hardcore mix.

Time investment is required in any game if you want to be good at it. How is this different from any other game?

And most new content in PvE games comes from expansions you have to pay for....so I think people like the sound of that far more than you realize. Very few PvP games get new content from pay for expansions as new content isn't needed as much. In fact PvP expansions are something many players don't like as it is often a requirement to continue PvP properly.

Of course its skill and not grind...you don't have to spend time to make your character strictly better. You have to spend time to make YOURSELF strictly better. Big difference. If not everyone is good at that, then a skill>time game is probably not for them. And I also fail to see how character growth and story requires a bigger number.

Because once Anet has your money, they care about how much you play?

But putting that point aside, you can't just say you care less about how powerful the player next to you is and then put it aside like it isn't a problem. Elitism comes to mind (and could probably have its own thread). But moreso its a HUGE problem in Guild Wars...a game that is team oriented. The ideal situation is when players of similar levels team up to beat a level that recommends the level they are at. I already think its a problem when a level 20 can go to the early stages of the game and roll through the game for level 1s. Imagine a level 90 rolling through the entire game.

Now even if Anet managed to work around that problem, how the hell are they going to balance their game? They are already having major problems balancing their game when everybody is the SAME LEVEL! The game is going to be stupidly inbalanced if they have characters of widely varying power levels roaming around. As it stands they are balancing the game around how good the player is. If they have to move to balancing the game around how powerful the characters are, they are going to have some sick problems.

Simply put, ANet DOES care if ppl still play the game after they get your money b/c they HAVE to maintain interest in the game by it's current players to successfully keep the game going with expansions and new content. With games like Guild Wars 1 & 2, where neither micro transactions or monthly fees are used to gain revenue, they have to make sure their player base is still interested enough to buy the expansions, especially since expansions are the only way GW would gain future revenue. GW may not be your typical MMO, but like all others, it is designed to last a lot longer than the average game. 2-3 years longer, you can't do that if there is no new content and you cant get the new content sold if your players don't want keep playing.


There are successful ways of preventing this. The most successful I've seen require that parties where the experience is determined by the highest lvl character in the group (I.E. if a lvl 10 is in a party with lvl 7s, but they are fighting a level 4 enemy - normally the lvl 7 would still get some xp, but in this mode the lvl 7 gets none b/c the lvl 10 is in the party) or I've seen it where the higher lvl character is "level-synced" to the lower levels, allow all the lower levels (and the higher lvl) to gain XP, but restricting the higher lvl's HP, Energy, stats, skills, and even reducing the equipment's stat temporarily to keep the party from rolling through the entire game easily.

Even with all that said, the ONLY way to remove such an issue entirely is to completely remove all the character development, equipment, and attributes. Would balance the game greatly, but then the game is no longer a MMORPG/CORPG or RPG at all for that matter - it becomes an action game like all other general Online/multiplayer mode games.

Balancing is ALWAYS an issue in games - you fix one thing, the player will find another way around it. You can't make everyone the same strength and maintain a true RPG style game. Like I said before ALL RPGs have been focused around Character Development since their creation. You know - stats, equipment, skills, even creation in many cases.

Sure you can remove levels and still have an RPG, but how would you handle the character development that has been inherent in Video Game RPGs since they were created?