Level cap - GW2

I like the idea of capless.. It means they can make some seriously intense elite missions. Have extremely rare item drops in high areas.. They can also create greater money sinks for armor/weapons/mats.. etc. Also it will promote quest completion to increase your own level.. This will also allow for more indeapth skill ballancing. SB's in accordance to areas and developement of attributes in enemies. More bad guys like EotN that have multiple skills from different professions. I also like the idea that they can add more and more onto the game and it will always be difficult.

This wouldn't make rare weapons go away, because eventually you reach the top and everyone will get the same max damage weapons eventually. It just means it takes alot longer to get there, so having an account with 6 max level characters is actually a serious accomplishment. And so it should be. I've also read that you're actions affect the game (See IGN GW2 report), so hopefully this means that each characters progression through the game can be significantly different from the last. Also, having higher level caps means having more areas to get through, which means more outposts. In turn more quests.. Missions... Armor.. Weapon types... So all of a sudden a higher level cap means you can expand everything about the game 10 fold. Larger arenas and mission maps for higher levels. More areas, more different types of armors and weapons...

In the end, a higher level cap will benefit the PVE aspect of the game hugely, and the PvP not quite as much....

PvP you get to have more lower level arenas, where people may design builds and sets of armor/weapons/skills specifically for a particular level. So there would be more diversity in PvP in the respect of more attention to detail on attribute point spread...

Just a few thoughts.
ex Diablo 2 player. (high levels are godlike, GRIND ON!)

Note: I refuse to read 25 pages of comments.

Their theory of capless will probably be like how GW is right now. Attribute gets capped at a certain level (probably around level 20 again) but they'll put a number to each "level" we obtain afterwards.

But instead of how many skill points our characters have being of any indication of how much we've played, it'll be replaced with an actual level visible for all to see.

I like a fairly low level cap (like 20) because it gives us a bigger focus on developing our skill sets. Now, I've never played WoW, so I'm not really sure how much of an impact level difference has in the game, but I do agree with Blizzard's increasing the level cap in WoW as expansions [not necessarily campaigns (if ANet uses the campaign scheme again)] are released. That's something I'd like to see incorporated in GW2.

what i would do it have a base level cap where your toon can not get any stronger but have your level go higher so it gives the benifit of both worlds

I disagree. It actually benefits Anet to NOT include wanted features so that they can sell them in the next release. All Anet has to do is make people want the next expansion...that is the path they have taken. They could care less if you are playing the current one as long as you buy the next one.

Whos definition of RPG are you using? That surely isn't my definition. Besides, Guild Wars ALREADY has character development, equipment, and attributes, but it isn't enough for some people. The entire point of this cap on all those things was for balance (and PvP) reasons. In other words, the cap works AS INTENDED but people want the franchise to be something other than intended.

The same way it was handled in Guild Wars 1 (successfully).

I wonder how many people would be happy with that. Levels would essentially be just another title. Interesting thought.

Unless you point out to ANet saying "we want you to do only this now", then the "endgame" is fueled by naught but personal theories and experiences.

That would have to be under the assumption that the change of direction is the cause of all the problems, and all those people were just as content with the direction seen today compared to what it used to be.

Which goes right back to the mess of interpreting what that philosophy is/was.

Only if you don't want that something to change. That's always a problem artists will face: there's going to be just as many people wanting them to change as there are those against it (copy-paste).

Not only does that still not give us much (insert "wait and see" here), how accurate is it to staple ANet as a whole being in the reins of GW1, given how few are left to monitor it and how so many are focused with GW2?

That's why there's the standstill: it's hard to give a reason for something that's so subjective and personal but technically meaningless. Not only that but we still don't have our hands on the final product.

In regards to those who like to feel "uber", I don't think ANet can help the fact that those people are so easy to please. If you're trying to combat these type of people, the only way you're going to accomplish anything along those lines is to make everyone 100% the same 100% of the time.

On the simple basis that it has a high and/or hard to reach level cap (ymmv). But as you've realized it's not the number that shapes the game and rather how the game is shaped, and that's something we won't know until we actually get our hands on GW2.

Uh...well its impossible to point that out because Anet would never say it. They would only take actions with their game to show us. I think its pretty clear that the HoM is something they really want a lot of players to pursue, as it will give both the players and Anet "benefits" in the next release.

You are basically saying "what if I don't see any problems". Fine...but it has to be acknowledged that other people see problems today that are a direct result of the direction.

It was never a mess. We have evidence of Anet's previous philosophy and Anet's current philosophy through various dev and rep quotes and also game actions.

And yet, I bet if there were a global poll, people would say the game was better in Prophecies or even Factions. Why were these changes made again?

I think it is extremely accurate to judge a company by how they managed their ONLY game when the entire company was focused on it. You also have to think that many of Guild Wars 1's current decisions are being ok'ed by people in charge of Guild Wars 2 as well. If I think the management was piss poor (which I do), I will be much less likely to think the management will be better in the next release. "Wait and see" does not cut it for me, for I have already seen. If I have already seen, I would be stupid to spend money again and hope for the best. Fortunately all Anet needs is people who want to "wait and see".

Which is basically what they had with 1. All indications are a move away from combatting it in 2.

With the benefits, it's another "wait and see". I wouldn't consider a party hat to be very beneficial.

Aside from that, I see just as much "evidence" as it being a "shift away from" as well as "in addition to".

Which is probably the biggest problem of these, well, problems: YMMV.

Then why do I still consider the philosophy largely intact while you consider it entirely broken?

The only problem is that that'll show next to nothing. You'll need reasons. That's why we have this forum and threads, not just yes or no's.

In other news, Dreamwind can time travel.

And no, all ANet needs isn't people who "wait and see". They just need their game to be free to play. No matter what happens in Guild Wars, that's always going to be the chief reason why it's so paramountly popular.

sup /rank + lots of money + elite armor + rare weapons.

Even when everyone was "the same", there were those who still acted with an air of superiority i.e. elitists.

You can't combat it, you can only attempt to kill it. Unfortunately doing so sacrifices far too much, and even then you'll still have a few people running their mouths.

That doesn't matter. All that matters is there a ton of people pursuing endgame grind because of the announcement that their accomplishments will be displayed in 2.

Man you have got to be kidding me. All I can say is, if you don't see it you don't see it. I'll never be able to explain it to you.

I'm not even talking about the old philosophy being intact (which I don't think it is but lets put that aside for a moment). I am talking about them completely CHANGING the philosophy. There is evidence of Anet stating their philosophy in the beginning and stating a completely different one more recently.

Do people need reasons? We need reasons for a higher level cap because it is a future change, and we require reasons for changing. We don't need reasons to say that we used to like the game more if changes made it worse, because the game will never go back.

They need people with a wait and see mentality to buy their game to see if its good. After that they need nothing....they have already got the money. Free to play is just another way to grab these people.

Adding a higher level cap is going to solve the problem? It is going to make it 10x worse. Instead of having a game where skill matters, we could potentially have a game where level matters. It makes me cringe even thinking about it.

A level 20 cap again would be stupid. I'm in favor of 40+. More time to focus on the content and have an incentive to go through it. Also I hope they don't make the gear totally equal endgame, because then it just becomes another rock/paper/scissors game where pros and noobs alike share gear which IMO isn't fair.

People were perusing grind before at the start of the game. Now they're being a bit more recognized. Other then that we'll need to see some numbers, but that's quite impossible. Not to mention that there are numerous "non grind" ways to deck out your HoM.

Sorry bro.

You will for that poll, because not everyone will share your view (I kind of feel like I shouldn't have had to say that). If all we needed were numbers we wouldn't need forums.

Fortunately, if this was all that was needed, we wouldn't see developers striving to make good games. Although we have yet to see how far "free to play" can carry a bad game, so I'll give you that.

First. Running into elitists has always been a largely varied experience. Not only does not everyone run into them, not everyone treats the encounters the same. So basing any game design limitations off of that can raise a few eyebrows, even more so if people are still acting elitist when you try greatly to limit it.

Second. Sidekick system, another thing we know very little about.

Also, I'm glad you put in the keyword "potential". You're right when ANet could go all "HURR DURR" and make a game where level is the emphasis, or it could be done in one of the "good" ways I listed earlier. Or they could pull out with something else entirely unique.

Now they're being more supported by Anet is what you are saying. You essentially agree with me you are just saying it different. As for the numbers...well more on that later.

What DO you need? No we don't have numbers, but if we did have numbers it still wouldn't be enough. All the evidence that Anet has completely changed their philosophy and their game is there. This is as bad as denying gravity to me.

The only thing that can even be questioned is how many people enjoy the new direction compared to the old direction, and in that situation a very well educated guess is that people who played in the old days enjoyed it more. Does that mean the game today is bad and that people don't enjoy it? Not neccessarily...but I suppose thats all opinion. The facts still remain though.

You know there are a ton of free to play games right? Free to play is a just a gimmick Anet uses to help sell their game. They are basically saying "our game is good enough to be a pay to play game but it isn't pay to play". They aren't just saying "our game is free to play". They have to live up to that expectation.

Basing a game design to increase it raises even more eyebrows.

They could! *laughs out loud heavily!!!!* Ok I didn't really laugh...I suppose we will have to wait and see...just like we will have to wait and see if I die from jumping off this building.

But I don't see it as a problem nor going against what I consider the core of the game since "grinders" have been supported since the beginning.

Non biased or nostalgia flavored discussion. If you just say "this is bad" to someone you're not giving them any direction in how to correct it. Then again, that's entirely dependent on self: some believe that they shouldn't have to give directions.

There is change, I already said I can't deny it. But I don't consider all of it for the worst. The facts remain, but we don't have everyone's collectives thoughts about those facts - which is vital, and also very hard to get.

Not only is that something I've been saying for years, you've just shown that ANet has even more incentive to make a quality game.

It has the potential to, but with what I've just said about the sidekick system and the fixed scaling of PvP, my hopes turn to the best.

But I'd much rather have the chance (chance!) to experience an elitist as opposed to completely abandoning any way of marking progress or development (which is probably the only thing that's actually going to put a dent in elitsts).

All in all, it depends on how much of a damper - if any at all - elitism puts on your gameplay. Since that too is massively varied it's seldom taken into account.

We've been over this already...no they haven't. But enough of this topic.

Ok then we have our positions. It is factual that there was change. The opinion is whether or not the change is good. As I said...some changes to the game can be good. Others when they go against the entire framework of the game are bad.

They have more incentive to make a game that more people want to buy. That doesn't neccessarily mean its quality. Example: I think WoW is a terribad game.

I'd argue that progress and development are in Guild Wars....

You ever wonder why one of the most common reasons people say they hate PvP is elitism? I find it humorous that people now want higher level caps in PvE thus leading to more PvE elitism.

If you two are going to continue to argue between yourselves, take it to PMs.

Stay on topic, or this will be closed.

We mostly have been on topic...there have only been a couple of side discussions. It isn't our fault that other people aren't posting.

Awaiting the wall of text response...

I don't really want anything higher than a level 20 cap. I get bored of classes very quickly and I tried WoW for a month, but I was never dedicated to one character long enough to do anything with them. In GW, I have been able to get a lvl 20 of every class so i can do whatever i want instead of being tied down to one character.

IMO the lvl 20 cap is one of the best things about GW. Changing it for a higher cap in GW2 would be one more in the list of things which make it more and more a wannabe WoW clone, which of course, I will not buy.

when the GW characters begin to look more like cartoons that should be running around the WB lot saying 'helo nurse!', THEN you can call it a WoW wannabe!

Considering that Anet is yet to release a screenshot of GW ~2+ years after announcing it, I haven't ruled out that possibility.

sup guild wars alpha.

I've learned to love the level 20 cap in guild wars, but I wouldn't mind if guild wars 2 had a high level cap. As long as there's incentive to reach high levels, and as long as leveling up to a high level doesn't feel super grindy, then I'm fine with it.

Besides, hasn't ANet said that the high level cap in GW2 isn't really going to be that significant?

Sounds pretty fair to me.

Has it occurred to any of you that perhaps, just MAYBE, ANET might be making a leveling system that is so exponential at higher levels, that leveling from 20-30 doesn't give you that much of a benefit, and is inconsequential?

They are not fools, despite what you might think. You bought their game and expansions, as did millions of others. They created a game with a level 20 cap to alleviate the need to grind to be success in the game. Many gamers like higher levels. An uncapped exponential system would allow those that like to focus on gaining EXP and leveling to do just that, while keeping their characters in check.

Drinking and driving is bad, we can all agree. Well, so is posting without thinking. Avoid it.

Addition: And to you PvP naysayers.... did you honestly think ANET would make it so that a lvl140 Mesmer could just waltz into a GvG battle against the other team which consists of lvl30s, throw backfire on their monk, and watch him explode in one cast? Artificial level and attribute systems are already in place in GW1, and work well. GW2 will be no exception. Don't get your panties in too much of a bunch.

In terms of what, the grind? In such a case I'd agree, only if they didn't include rare weapons and elite armor at the beginning. But you're right, enough of this topic.

Hence the elitism. That wasn't the point of what I said, though. I'm saying that in order to completely stamp it out you're going to need to kill *every* form of progress in your character. But even then you're not likely to stop it.

Still, much is based upon how they develop the sidekick system. If it scales well and does indeed make your sidekick equal then the problem won't lie in how the level cap is built and more the mentality of the elitists, something ANet can't be held at fault for.

If it's done poorly, though, then gg ANet.

Lvl 20 max thx don't fix it if it aint broke.
If the "can i haz carrot on a stickz?" grind people want's a higher number typed in after their char name, let them have a option to type whatever lvl they want in (as long as it is cosmetic..).

Does anybody else see a problem with this? If there is a plateau of power, why the need for a side kick system? Also the question is not whether high level characters get a disadvantage, but whether low level characters get an advantage.

There is a lot more than that they went against...

No you're not...but that isn't my major problem with the whole idea. I've stated all my problems throughout...elitism was just a minor one that will be expanded. Thoughts on sidekick system above.

There's no such thing as an inconsequential power difference.

There shouldn't even be levels. ;D

We dunno when that "plateau" gets reached, and it could also be to help those facing nit-picky groups by boosting minor gaps in character power. But we really dunno still. Could be just to average it out like in Warhammer or put them *exactly* at their terms of level and gear. I'm still waiting for more info.

Same things for how lower level players get an advantage, but I consider not having to worry as much about my level an advantage at itself (same for me, as a higher level player, not thinking "zomg a lowbie" as much).

Well...all I can say is that is a lot of speculation. All we know is that the level cap is increasing, and at least some of the problems generally associated with a high level cap are bound to come along with it.

It's all we got. Wait and see.

Wait and see...but make educated guesses based on information we have.

lvl 20 is high enough i dont want a lvl 80 Necromancer casting shadowbolt for 8000dmg

There will be no such a thing as 10k+ dmg hit (I hope)

But one fact is true, as long as there is a cookie only for high level, players will keep on exp farm.

I'd prefer to see what else we'll learn so as to make further and even more in depth educated guesses. But I can't stop anyone who wants to shoot it out now.

What is the point of this thread (or this forum for that matter) if we are just going to wait and see? With what little information Anet has given us, we can do nothing but make those assumptions.

To talk about things that are already here, and to discuss how things *might* go. None of us are in any position to say how things will go, because anyone is capable of change at any moment of time. This thread easily shows how little we know of ANet's direction. The only thing fueling both of our theories is belief.

We can't only talk about things that are already here, because since the annoucement of Guild Wars 2 there has been basically nothing new in Guild Wars 1. We have to talk about Guild Wars 2 and what might happen.

That being said, I honestly don't know how you can say the only thing fueling my theories is belief. If we take the entire past of Anet and the directions they have ALREADY taken, I can make some serious guesses right there. The best predictor of future behavior is past (and current) behavior. Now look at the majority of games and their takes on higher level caps (barring the few you have mentioned as good examples) and you have another serious guess. I am simply putting 2 and 2 together. Do I KNOW what will happen? No. Would I place a bet on what will happen? Absolutely.

See why this doesn't go anywhere?

You see what ANet has presented to us in their game and see it in one fixture. I look at what ANet has given us and see another.

There's not a single thing that's going to change that. Anything you say I can say the exact same time. "HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT!?" Well right back at you. Not a single thing is going to change that and not one thing will make either of us think otherwise, so there's 0 point in attempting to explain especially when everyone has lost interest in this thread.

GW1's best aspect is the level cap, the quickness of the game and changeability so you do not have to restart that character you have spent months on just 'cause of a minimum mistake, present in most MMORPGS. Getting to level 20 can be accomplished in a week and a half, without even finishing the storyline. Mastering the game requires much more experience and strategy than just reaching level 20. Enough good points, now the bad one: GW's developers have thought that a skill point is valuable and would motivate people to keep leveling and caring about exp. But particularly or not, I have NEVER been missing a skill point and needed to level up to be able to buy a skill, actually my skill points are always above 15 or so, you really do not need to buy dozens of skills, you buy the ones that fit in your build and some others you just wanna try.

Now finally the suggestion: PLEASE, ANet, don't take this really good feature of GW out! After getting to level 20, there should be a real motivation to keep caring for experience other than maybe titles, something that does not end, something you can keep training up and up, getting better and better, but still do not create disadvantages. Maybe each level higher after 20, you get some kind of point you can spend to access something of your choice, this way the advantages of keep leveling beyond level 20 are not gradual but of your choice. I mean, you won't get each level more powerful or have more items or anything like that. You can spend your extra levels just as it is done with faction currently, but not to unlock skills, heroes or items, but to unlock locations and PvE exclusive facilitative stuff like faster ways of moving around maybe as map travels if they aren't included on GW2, or shortcuts from a point (town/oupost) on the storyline of one campaign to a equivalent point on another campaign (a Ascended Prophecies character would expend some of these hypothetical extra level points to teleport to the equivalent outpost on another campaign (Weh no Su on factions or having "Hunted!" quest on night fall completed). This would minimizate problems like the dificulty to get to an outpost which is far from the port city of the campaign.

Also, expansions and additional campaigns should include higher levels... I mean: for example you start a Prophecies character, get to level 20 and to the port city, then you go to another campaign or EoTN and then you will level up in your second storyline up to level 30 then you will choose your third storyline and level up to 40 and finally the last sotryline and level 50. Maybe it is a bit confused, I will try to get to my point another way: let's consider GW2 will have five paralell storylines (five campaigns/expansions), when you create a new character, you would be able to choose one of the five stories to start from. When you get to level 20, you will probably have gotten to the port city already, where you will choose your second story, do a quest to go to the other continent and start doing the primary quests there, until you get to level 30 and to the outpost that will let you choose your next story to go. Access to other continent while this not being the one you want to be your next storyline would be allowed, just because would be non sense you buy 4 extra campaigns and have to wait to use what you bought... I am considering "storyline" here as the sequence of primary quests and missions and not the secondary quests. Getting from 1 to 10 should be as quick as getting from 11 to 20, 21 to 30 and etc...

Summing it all up:

* Leveling up beyond level 20 and maximum cap level would give each level a small amount of points which you can use for PvE exclusive stuff, and still give the skill points it currently does.
* The sorylines should be used one as continuation of the other, on the sequence the player may want while not blocking access to secondary quests and outposts, areas, etc of the continent where you aren't yet playing its storyline.
* The first storyline you play should get you to level 20 and to port city, the two requirements to play additional storylines you have bought.
* Each additional storyline you play, provides a increase on maximum level cap of 10, so the level cap would increase along with the stories you buy and play.
* Leveling shouldn't get longer on higher levels; leveling from 1 to 10 is as fast as leveling from 51 to 60 (if this level can be reached)


Why this could work

* Would keep the special and unique feature of GW of changeability and quickness.
* Would REALLY motivate to keep leveling
* Players would have much more to do other than getting to maximum level caps and finishing storylines, there would be locations paralell to any storylines, or even little storylines paralell to the main one.
* The game in my opinion would be almost perfect(i think there should be the option to do something like scrimmage (on GH) but on PvE areas, with your friends which are not from your guild or ally)

Why this may not work

* Anet isn't planning to have so much of a storyline, but according to Gaile it will have a more 'sandbox' environment.