Level cap - GW2

I agree half-way. You're right when you say "it's less unique" in the fact that it's copying the 360 in terms of achievements, but I wouldn't hold ANet too much at gunpoint for something so pointless to the game.

I consider developers making harmless decisions to their game harmless. I consider it interesting when a developer decides not to include such an undamaging optional mechanic into their game. I consider it smart when a developer realizes the lack of consequences in adding something nearly akin to achievements and implements it into their game.

If it makes a completely different game, yes. Expansion packs are exactly what they sound like: they expand upon a game, they don't create a new one. The new campaigns brought us different locales to experience and play in, but that gameplay within was essentially the same.

I would say that creating new content for PvP does have the potential to drastically change the environment, but it also has a greater potential to break it. GW and Dawn of War are good examples, although I don't know how balanced DoW was at the beginning.

In terms of GW1, time still means *nothing* besides ANet saying "good job". Besides the recognition, you get nothing else for all of that grind. Good, thumbs up, gogo ANet. It's been the same way for high-end weapons and armors for years.

In terms of GW2, we'll wait and see.

Because it's kind of hard to deny that those players exist. But I can't complain about any sort of PvE endgame in a game that doesn't necessarily have it. You could say that this is what many consider endgame, but I don't think many players would pay the $15/mo fee if all WoW gave you were the achievements.

The "majority" wouldn't even acknowledge it.

I'm in a minority that sees it and doesn't see the harm - because there isn't. Skill still matters in the game, the time still doesn't.

Yes, I care about the game. I just see no reason in not only giving a few options to cater to another subsection of players, but also see no harm in why we were so distastingly against them in the first place. Grind is only harmful when you *have* to go through it to play the game. Otherwise, you get 360 achievements.

Unfortunately, the OP doesn't really ask for much. All that we've been hearing has been only that they want a higher and longer to reach level cap. Most haven't really stated what else they'd want.

Normally I'd share your concerns, but given what I've seen in other games, how Bioware shows you can have "high levs and leet lewt" without killing what matters in a game, and what's ANet has shown us in GW1 and told us about in GW2, I'm looking forward to it all.

I would agree with you, but your point assumes that the changes were harmless and had no consequences, both of which I disagree with.

Don't you think each successive stand alone (they aren't expansions remember) would have HIGHER sales? Each successive game has the current players and new players as potential buyers. This is especially true in Guild Wars which was an unknown franchise at the time of release (which should cause lower sales in the beginning). Doesn't each new game in the franchise having lower sales show anything?

It did have an endgame...nevermind we've been over that point with no resolve.

If you don't see how time has overtaken skill in Guild Wars just by stepping back and looking at the big picture, I honestly don't think I'm ever going to be able to explain it to you. You MUST be able to at least see a shift in how much each matters.

Disagree. Grind to me is ALWAYS harmful.

Look at almost every other post. Get back to me when you see the REASONS for people wanting a higher level cap. Think about reasons why people would want it and tell me.

360 franchises are untouched by the achievements, Mass Effect still stood out to be one of the best RPG's in recent history, Oblivion and Morrowind are some of the most widely celebrated RPG's of all time - all which can provide to the "grinder" as much as GW1. Unless you can show me how "awful" those games are, or if this is your first RPG ever, then I don't see the damage.

Hype affects sales a lot, and this is shown especially well in the MMO industry (AoC is a shining example). With Guild Wars it was advertised and claimed to be the first "*free to play* online RPG", something uncommon near it's release.

Being the first in the series (and what many would claim to be "the best"), it's going to be pretty hard to beat the bar Prophecies has set. It's not unnatural for sales to be in a steady decline, it's unnatural for a franchise to be in the exact opposite.

And I consider the new campaigns "expansions" because I don't consider expansion packs simply being stand-alone a new game, although I do recognize that feature. I'd only consider them new games if they introduced much more than they currently offer. This isn't to say I'm disappointed with what they created but that they'd have to make something not Guild Wars. Fortunately, that's not what I wanted: I wanted more Guild Wars.

What I do know is that I still can't be a better player (these days only very slightly) simply by grinding a title and that I don't need to do any of the current grind to experience anything else in the game.

What I don't know is the number of players grinding their lives in GW and the % they make up of the players who have enjoyed Guild Wars, and - most importantly - if all those players "grinding" would have found other means to satisfy themselves in the game. If a player is set on doing something, he'll do it. If he's not, he won't. Given how much you can "grind" even without the titles, I think they'd still be here.

To "make it take longer" is the only reason I can see, and the reason for that has largely been "to make it more meaningful"...which is impossible, because the number next to your character name is always going to be entirely meaningless. The only thing it shows is to give an indication of how far your character has progressed in the game, something they did pretty well in Prophecies: You saw a level 20 and thought "ka-snap, he's seen the desert, yo". In all of the later releases they pretty much abandoned that: Max your character in the starting zone, boot 'em to the "real game!".

Unless ANet wants to pull a "bad move" - given how many mistakes they made in the prequel it'd be kind of hard to to not learn from them - there's not much they can do to make levels "mean something".

Those games aren't awful, but those games weren't changed. The damage in Guild War's case is the fact that it changed the game and alienated a chunk of the playerbase while not even completely satisfying another chunk. Guild Wars was never meant to have grind...hell it arguably wasn't even an RPG. Well...it was an RPG, but not in the traditional sense. It was a competitive game first and an RPG second.

It was also advertised as a skill>time competitive game. Besides, it wasn't free to play and it wasn't uncommon for that reason. There are tons of free online RPGS online. It was uncommon for the previous reason.

Its natural for it to decline in the manner Guild Wars has? I bet in a global poll people would say that each release of the game has gotten worse and worse, which is an interesting thing really. I have no doubt Anet is trying to do what is best for them, but is it really best for the franchise?

I wanted more Guild Wars as well...Guild Wars how it used to be. Not Guild Wars how it is today.

You aren't seeing my point here and we are going in a bit of a circle. The fact that more grind opportunities exist (in the form of titles or potentially in higher level caps) is a bad thing for the game in my opinion. By adding more grind potential or non skill related activities, you simply have more players who don't give a damn how good they actually are because there is enough other stuff to take up their time. Skill does not matter to them.

Now sure you are always going to have those types of people and that is fine by me. The problem is that Guild Wars was built on the idea that if you were playing the game skill was EVERYTHING. It was THE determining factor in your gameplay. But, Anet has now essentially widespread and supported the idea that skill no longer matters whereas before it was their main goal with the game. Skill>time philosophy is no more.

And you are right that those types of people will still be here regardless...they would find something to do if they liked Guild Wars. AND THAT IS THE POINT! Why change your game that everybody already likes into something that alienates a population when meanwhile the other population would have probably been happier with the previous incarnation of the game? In regards to this thread, give me legit reasons to increase the level cap when the current cap works just as intended. I haven't seen ANY in this thread. We know the cap is increasing, but we don't have any good reason why it is increasing. Hell, we barely have any good reasons why it SHOULD be increased.

I agree with you...so why increase the cap again?

You think StarCraft is still selling as well as near its release?

Fortunately, the most sought after titles require the most knowledge about the game. So no need to worry there.

Aside from that you claim "time is a determining factor" in one's gameplay, yet point to nothing? Do you mean in terms of what determines one's gameplay, i.e. changes one's gameplay experience? If so, that never happens because, as stated numerous times, the grind doesn't need to be done. At all. In any way, shape or form.

Lastly, how has ANet alienated players by introducing something into the game that they don't even need to touch? Something just as "damaging" as the high-end item crowd? Unless it goes back to ANet being so firmly against such a harmless thing, which beckons the question of why.

Why not?

Levels are meaningless. If they want just a bigger number...Okay.

The skill level of players really only matters in PvP, as most PvE aspects can be accomplished by a complete novice. Yes some Elite Zones require planning and some team work but on the whole anyone can play the game and beat the PvE portion.

So the real question is, how will a high level cap affect PvP?

Since we do not know the specifics of GW2's PvP yet we can only speculate based on what we know of GW. Originally PvP was divided by level and location, except for PvP only characters and GvG. (to do HoH you had to ascend and reach the Dragon's Lair) Then they changed it to the Battle Islands and created some small skill building to divide the PvP. You had to win in the single arena to unlock team, win in team to unlock Hero's Ascent.

So from this we can guess, and it is just a guess, that GW2 will have multi-tyred levels for PvP. At the lowest levels anyone can play and at the highest only those that have earned entry via skill rather than just getting to a location via PvE will be allowed in.

I heard they're thinking about making it up to 100 or infinite...

They said level wont effect strength or anything..So it wont make a difference.

Uh...the last time Starcraft released anything was 10 years ago. The last time Guild Wars released anything was about 1 year ago. Bad example. Not to mention Starcraft has sold about twice as many copies as all the Guild Wars combined...

Sigh...if my previous post didn't explain it I don't think I'll ever be able to explain it. All I'm saying is, you are essentially falling back on DLDU because I KNOW I am right about what happened to this game and I KNOW it is less unique today than it used to be.

If people want the level cap higher they have to answer the "why" question which hasn't been done sufficiently in this entire thread. As far as I can tell, the current level cap works perfectly as intended. If you are going to say "why not", I can say that to ANYTHING! Give me a skill that does 10 billion damage in GW2 WHY NOT?!?!? This is going directly back to the point of those Ursan threads as far as I can tell.

I think a large number of people associate a higher level cap with larger PvE content.

Prophicies was laid out, at first, so that by the time you reached Hell's Precipice if you had completed every quest and mission you would be very close to level 20 with out any grind/farming of exp.

Factions changed that drastically, taking players to lvl 20 very quickly leaving over 70% of the game to complete as a level 20 character.

I believe that most people want GW2 to flow a bit more like Prophicies. They want the character development to continue throughout the entire game rather than be condenced into the first 1/3 of the game.

The actual number of levels isn't what is important but the ratio of game completion : character level is.

No cap is good for all the people who love to grind hardcore and farm and such and like to make their epeen MASSIVE, but it sucks for anyone else who cares about balance and for anyone who wants to have fun on a more casual game play.

No cap/high lvl cap = Larger epeen

lower Cap = more balance and more qq from farmers...

See I agree with you here. Higher level does not mean more content. If people wanted the game to flow like Prophecies that would be fine...but the problem is that we have so many people saying they just want a bigger number without any legitimate reason why. Using "to make it more like other games" is a fairly common (and sad) answers. Hell Anet hasn't even given us a reason why they are raising the cap!

I could care less on what the level cap is as long as more grind than necessary isn't created. If it is high it is fine as long as all the needed benefits from leveling are obtained early and any more leveling is just for show. In the end, I just don't want Guild Wars to turn into any more of Grind Wars than it already is.

... when infact the inverse is true. In prophesies only 2 of the 6 areas are playable with the presear->desert being relegated to "tutorial" type zones due to creatures being too low level and group sizes being too small. Factions by comparison gives us way more content because 80% is non-trivial.

I'm picking this quote in particular, but I'm using it to point out the basic flaw in your stance. There is a huge difference between "achievements" in the 360 games and the reputation titles in GW1/Hypothetical infinite level in GW2. Any achievement you achieve in 360 land is an acknowledgement of your acheivements and do not affect your ability to play the game, where as the in the latter case, you have to complete the grind in order to play game.

Its good you brought up the more traditional RPG's as it highlights the big difference between the appeal that they give compared to the enjoyment delivered by GuildWars.

Baldur's Gate 2 is probably my all time favorite Traditional RPG but I've only played it through normally 2 or 3 times. Why? Because doesn't have the replayablity of a structured limited game. It has lasting appeal only in the form of the "speed clear" (where you start the game with a new character and reach the end as fast as you can) because that is the only method of playing that provides the gamer with a way to measure and compare performances.

Guildwars by contrast gives the player hundreds of playgrounds where there are well defined starting and finishing lines - once you pass the tutorial areas you are at max level and have max armour/equiment and that is the aspect that makes puts its PvE content head an shoulders above any other game that I've played (including mmo's like war and wow). If the level cap in GW2 takes hundreds of hours to reach or requires months of grinding before the best equipment is obtained, then all this work must be done before the enjoyable part of the game can begin.

The more I think about this, the more I read this thread I really would like for there to be no levels. Health, energy, attribute points can be gained by questing. Since quests often do not form a part of the definition of grind it would be nice to see e-peen (in the form of levels) removed from the game.

A greater number of levels (dare I say infinite levels) will be a problem. We all know it. Even if the levels don't mean anything. Get rid of them I say, and get rid of all "non-achievement, pure grind" based titles. (IE keep things like explorer, protector, guardian, get rid of alliance, koabd, th/wisdom, etc)

Where's your source for something so overassumptious?

All you need to do is show me how farming vanity titles is anymore harmful than farming for high-end weapons and armor.

If it's because ANet went against their "original premise": Not only would you have to convince me why ANet was so fully against something so pointless in the first place, but you'd also have to tell me how they didn't break it at the start with the time it took to earn all of those rare weapons and armors.

All ANet did with GW1 was add more of the same: pointless bullcrap that only needed to be done for your own satisfaction. It's still Guild Wars: You cannot beat the game simply by devoting time to it.

I already showed you that the level cap has nothing to do with the gameplay and more how the gameplay is spread across those levels. It's just as easy to keep the game consistent and not full of crap with 10 levels as it is with 10000.

As to why ANet would do something like this? To further satisfy and get cash from an already easy-to-please crowd. That's not to say that the posters in this thread all for a level cap are "easy to please", but rather that there are people who take level caps hilariously seriously. It's easy to cater to them while still keeping your game intact.

Fortunately, we're not given any indication that this is how it will turn out in GW2, and it's not inevitable for it to end up as you fear. There's a lot of routes ANet can take, and what you've theorized would be one of the wrong ones.

They've all but stated that it will killing the PvE game in order to appease grinders
(translated from german)
"For Love of the e-sports and as an alternative to the loose-PvP worlds, there are again fighting Guild (GVG). In order for this mode is fair, all the participating players to temporarily put the same level. It thus receives all the talents, skills and equipment to communicate with his team and his opponents on equal terms."
If character strength does not progress as they go up in levels then there would be no need to scale characters for GvG.

(translated from german)
"Equipment is a much more important role in Guild Wars 2. There are lots of cool objects, which really in the nature of development efforts. Why in the Guild Wars 1 or otherwise, was just that we are entirely on the PvP the skill of the player has designed. Nobody should be at an advantage, just because you have more time spent in the game than others. The problem we solve in Guild Wars 2 simply different: In the PvP worlds will be the players in the equipment level and clearly differ from each other - that's totally okay so. GVG In the same character values, talents and equipment of the players, however, accordingly, so that all have the same opportunities. That is also the e-sports tournaments costly entitlement for secured! As player-versus - Player struggles once again come very fair, we can also objects to the way steam."
Again if the hard to obtain items in the game do not provide a direct advantage to the characters weilding them then there would be no need to scale equipment for GvG.

Good, solid evidence is something this thread's needed for a long time.

But we're still assuming a bit too much here. While we've been given that there's going to be a bit more emphasis on PvE development, it's still on the fence of which route it's heading. I won't deny that I've raised an eyebrow, but I'm still holding out for a judgement call, i.e. playing the game.

You need a source for that?

Personally I think they are both harmful to the original premise, but what we have today is far far worse not only because it was later added intentionally against the original premise, but also because what we have today is a title farming/grinding endgame in preparation for Guild Wars 2.

I agree with you...but I have a sneaky suspicion that people want a higher level cap for other purposes. Not to mention...the 20 level cap spread across Prophecies just fine.

The first bolded is an understatement. The second bolded is true...except for the keeping the game intact part.

Hm. I'll get back to this as I misread.

That had little to do with the passage you quoted.

No shit. Not everyone wants a higher level cap for the same reason, not everyone wants a higher cap for a healthy reason.

Doesn't matter how well spread it was in Proph. Some people, for whatever reaosn, just want to see a bigger number.

@1st bolded: Look at all ANet's had to do for GW1 to keep people more preoccupied. So much effort, right?
@2nd bolded: Mass Effect, Oblivion, 360 achievements, Steam achievements, PS3 Trophies, blah blah blah....

I thought I answered it...but I'll requote:

Uh...you need to be convinced that skill>time isn't pointless? I really don't get what you're trying to say...but if that is what you are saying then lol.

And yes of course there was things that required time to get in the beginning, but those were more throw people a bone activities as opposed to being the main point of the game and the entire endgame. Not to mention the game being harder back then (despite all these new "elite" areas), but thats beside the point. The point is that the game changed from mostly skill>time to mostly time>skill and thats all that matters.

If everyone (including Anet) had legitimate healthy reasons for raising the cap, I wouldn't be in this thread. Instead we have terrible reasons and no reason from Anet.

You keep comparing Guild Wars to those games for some reason which is very faulty. You also keep assuming that Guild Wars as we knew it is still intact which is also very faulty.

In other words yes, my skill no longer matters. I can indeed play through the game and beat and kill everything by simply grinding out my titles and stats without ever having to put together a coherent build. Awesome, okay.

The reason I keep comparing Guild Wars to those games is because they all have the same system Guild Wars has, in one way or the other, and are fine. For Oblivion and Mass Effect it's to show that you can have high and hard to reach levels and still have a meaningful and solid game.

I keep bringing up the achievements for the 360, PS3 and Steam because they are the exact same thing Guild Wars has: large "grinds" that give 0 benefit (TF2 has a bit of a different situation) and that only serve to exist as trophies. Even Nintendo has done this with their games, noteably in Super Smash Bros with all of the collectable trophies and they certainly haven't gotten any shit from it.

I keep bringing all of these things up because all of those games are not in any form of danger. The developers create all this optional "grind" yet aren't shunned for it and their games are held in great regard. They're able to add these systems into their games with no backlash.

Which begs the question: if so many other successful games can have this, why can't Guild Wars? How is it considered a "problem" to have things like this in the game? What makes Guild Wars so different?

And that's just the thing: there isn't any reason for ANet to have this besides to not. It's an optional route of gameplay exactly like what hundreds of thousands of other games have done, and the only thing you'll miss out on is saying "I did such-and-such". That's why I keep bringing up "all dem gamez", because they have the exact same thing.

This could go back to your original claim that it went "against the premise" of Guild Wars, but seeing how there's little point to being against something so wildly insignificant I would question such a stance.

There's nothing wrong with a 20 cap. There's nothing wrong with a 40 cap. There's nothing wrong with an infinity cap. It's all in how the game is built.

There could be numerous reasons for the transition. It's true that you shouldn't fix what's not broken, but is that what's necessarily at the discussion? ANet might just want a change of scenery, maybe they really do want to make a wildly different game. Right nowm though, the problem lies more in the players immediately correlating high levels in MMO's as a step down a bad road.

I play this game as a casual gamer. If I have to grind like every other mmorpg out there to get to the max level, I will be beyond pissed. It took me a month of dedication (obsessive daily playing) to just reach level 44 on World of Warcraft back in High School when I had all the free time in the world, but I'm in college now and have no time for that.

Personally, I want (and hope) that the level cap thing works out something like what we currently have.
It'd be nice if people who grinded their balls off got a reward (like the eotn consumables) for their hard work, but nothing that was permanant or gave their character any advantages over people who stopped at the normal cap. A Title based on experience points would be pretty cool.

Can I make note of something here?
What if neither of you is right. I keep seeing arguments on various GW related forums on how GW2 should be or will be and arguments (a lot claiming the "the majority of players in GW" Argument). That is totally wrong. If you haven't read this by one of the creators of ANet and GW: http://www.guildwars.com/events/trad...7/gcspeech.php
you should - it gives you a lot of insight on how ANet makes their games. And takes serious note of this particular passage:

"Don't assume that most of your players are reading your website and consuming information about your game. Most of your players will never read your website, never visit fansites, and never participate in forum discussions. We are often immersed in the community forums and rants and raves posted to game fansites, and it is easy to lose perspective about the knowledge level of most of our players. Players who participate in fansites and send six-page emails to your community team are experts at your game – they probably know more about it than you do – so it's important to realize that they do not represent the average player. The vast majority of your players are not digging into every detail of every spell..."

Simply put - those of us in the forums are the MINORITY not majority. Our opinions are important, but we DO NOT represent more than maybe 10-20% of the players/fan base.

As for your discussion Dreamwind:

your arguments may have some validity, but your "ANY grind is bad IMO" stance is very, very, VERY selfish and arrogant. You seem, to me at least, to be saying "I don't like a certain aspect of gameplay and so no other players should have the option to play that way either." Hate to say it, but what is SUPPOSED to make ANY MMO great is that there are a variety of ways each player can play (profs and builds don't count as true varieties: PvE, PvP, Farming, Crafting, socializing, etc - those are varieties). GW2 MUST make changes to it's old AND current formula to be successful in the future otherwise ppl playing now will get bored eventually.

I cannot and will not claim to know what NEEDS to be GW2 from a larger perspective since I don't know what the majority enjoys or wants, I can only give my opinions on what I enjoy and would like to see.

Skill over time is actualy a pointless argument its all about time it is now and always has been about the time spent not the skill.
sure player (a) might be more skillful than player (b) but player (a) will need to put in time and effort to stay ahead of the curve to maintain his edge over player (b).
player (b) well he thinks hes already the greatest thing since sliced bread hes so skillful he does not even need to spend time learning any thing

You have a good point Eagle, I think that should be well-noted.

To Bryant and Dreamwind.

I see two sides. Both have great arguments with valid support and reasoning. But the problem I see are the different frameworks of reasoning. According to the Myer's-Briggs Type Indicator I see one person as "Sensing and intuition" and the other "Thinking and Feeling". Correct me if I"m wrong, (I don't mean to label anyone in any condescending way and there's absolutely nothing wrong with these types,) but these types are opposites. I see one side extremely liberal and one side extremely conservative. What I'm trying to say is, no matter how much you two debate, there will always be something hanging between your arguments. There are very well put ideas, concepts, and reasonings, but they're coming from different sides of reasoning. I'm on nobody's side. I thought, if you two aren't aware already, I thought I should just point that out to help be aware. I also say this because I know you both are really trying to convince the other they're right on many points. And I notice the debate has been intense and lengthy.

BTW, I think a nice level cap at 200 would be good, I like grind, and I don't like grind. I'm in the middle

Yep...I agree with you that is sadly the path Guild Wars took.

I've already touched on this several times. Basically the problem is that the game went from a mostly skill>time game to a mostly time>skill game. The game CHANGED, it hasn't been this way since the beginning and that is what makes Guild Wars different.

It isn't just titles we are talking about here (although they are a big part of it), it is the ENTIRE game. Balance plays a key part in this as well...the power creep made the game so much easier. There are many factors. By simply adding more grind opportunities, the game and its players as a whole do not care about skill anymore. You could respond by saying they never cared...but then why change the game?

You are basically saying their original premise is insignificant....which is basically saying that skill>time is insignificant...which I think is dumb.

Because in all likelihood it is a bad road...at least coming from my perspective. Guild Wars in raising the level cap alone is becoming more like other MMOS. What is the need to do it? Yes we could say maybe they just want a change of scenery, but what kind of reason is that when there is an already perfect system in Prophecies? Not to mention, the reasons for players wanting the higher level cap (as shown in this thread) are quite sad.

I have read that, and I have to tell you that it has been picked apart SEVERAL times by various people on the forums. See I agree with most of what he is saying in that article, but the problem is that he has backslid in Guild Wars 1 on several of the things he mentioned. I will have to find the post that completely picks it apart, but I know it is somewhere.

The part that you pointed out is even more telling. He states that people on fansites and those who write long detailed letters about the game might even know more about the game than the creators! And I have to say in this case, that he is absolutely correct. This is ESPECIALLY true in regards to things such as game balance, but other areas as well.

Now this raises the point...why wouldn't you listen to the people who know a lot about your game over the people who are, frankly, clueless? If the knowledge level of the average player is low (as he basically states), then why would you listen to them? Shouldn't you be listening to the people who know what the hell they are talking about? Shouldn't you be listening to the devoted fans who want to make the game better?

The answer from Anet is appparently a resounding NO. They need to listen to the players who don't know anything so they can hit the immediate jackpot. Everybody knows that their marketing model is terrible for long term game longevity, and Guild Wars 1 is proof. The game has gotten worse over time (by most accounts) but Anet has made money! Does that mean all the decisions made were good for the franchise? Nope. Doesn't it mean they should have listened more to the people who knew what they were talking about?

Is it arrogant, or is it truthful? Is any amount of grind good? I don't think so...particularly with Guild War's advertising. If you can get a petition of people that say they enjoy grind, I'd be happy to back down on my stance. Until then I claim that any grind is bad.

And you forget that Guild Wars did not start as a typical MMO as you claim. It was a CORPG. Yep thats right! So my stance is that the game should have remained what it was. Also to say the great thing is all MMOS is the variety is just false. I don't have a lot of time to get into it now, but I think I've gotten my points across for now. Details later if they are requested.

That's how it's supposed to be. It's different when you're better than other players simply because you grinded to get better gear.

alright! SWEET, I'm driving on the ignore road. not a problem, continue. My work here is finished haha.

Hmm...then the question becomes which of us is "sensing and intuition" and which of us is "thinking and feeling". Which one of us is liberal and which one of us is conservative?

Why 200?

Two reasons, both of which are bad.
1) Players saw the oft-mentioned "skill > time" and "no mandatory grind" advertisments, and assumed that you could get anything you wanted in the game with near-zero time investment, possibly even without any kind of skill to speak of.
2) GW often attracts players who are backlashing against traditional MMOs, and any mention of the word "grind" drives these poor souls into fits of hysteria.

Optional grind means that the people who like treadmills can run as much as they want, and the people who don't can get off whenever they like and realize they're still in the same place as the guy on the treadmill. There is no reason to dislike optional grind, achievements, etc. You can argue that they rewarded the wrong type of titles (quest title in place of drunkard/sweet tooth/etc), you can argue that grindy titles should never effect one's strength (ie, GW:EN rep titles and PvE skills) and I wouldn't disagree with you on both points. I think that ANet has, in fact, listened to us quite a bit about these issues (see: title rebalance, GW:EN PvE skill progression being very limited based on title rank, etc) and I hope they design GW2's achievements with these issues in mind. However, demanding that the game contain NO GRIND WHATSOEVER is foolish; not only does that selfishly remove something that can, in fact, be fun for a good section of the playerbase, but it also begs the question, who defines what grind is? For many players, simply playing the storyline a second time through with a new character is a grind, which is why we have so many runners for everything. On the other hand, we had players who completed 100% cartography and mission/bonus for every mission in Prophecies before titles were ever added. How can you design a game "without grind" when players have such differing views on what grind is?

I think you are getting time and skill confused. Take a look at the Prophecies box. You know...the one where "skill determines your path" plastered in big letters across it or something along those lines. If somebody looked and that and thought "gee hopefully I'll be able to do things that only require time and not skill to acquire", well then they're an idiot. The game was marketed as a skill game. Any time you actually spent playing was supposed to be for improving your skill.

From what I can see, GW attracts a lot of people who would be playing those traditional MMOs but won't/can't due to the monthly fee. I suppose the people who are backlashing against those MMOs are a distant second, but to say that Guild Wars players don't enjoy grind is a big stretch...

See this is where the misunderstanding is. What about the people who bought the game because there would be no treadmills in the game? Perhaps treadmills annoy them and they are trying to avoid them? Perhaps they don't want to be associated with a game that has treadmills in it? Instead they bought a game where everybody was supposed to be weightlifting (and it was advertised as a weightlifting game). Adding treadmills, to me, is a betrayal to those people.

Its not foolish at all to demand no grind when the game advertised no grind. So what if it can be fun for a good section of the playerbase? Give us a skill that does 10 billion damage...that would be fun for a good section of the playerbase too. Does that mean it is right to put in the game? And grind is easily defined...in the dictionary.

lolright.

You're either intentionally messing with me or have a very different understanding of what 'optional grind' means. When grind is optional it means you are at no consequence for not doing it. It means having two characters - one who maxed their cartographer titles and one who didn't - be exactly the same in power.

Also, players can "no longer care about skill" when there's something there to replace or make up for it. There isn't.

Incorrect. I'm saying that ANet being against such a form of "grind" is as frivolous as being against the color green.

I'm not sure if everyone would put "mandatory grind" (grind you have to do to progress through the game) in the same boat as optional grind. This goes back to what Skyy recently said and what I touched on numerous posts ago. It's that not everyone's definition of "grind" is going to be the same.

And a little somin-somin:

Comparing apples to garbage.

I just think its funny. In the Ursan threads me and you were together that "don't like it don't use it" was completely stupid, but now I got people all over me using it here.

Yes I am at no consequence for not doing it...in fact it doesn't affect me at all. But it shouldn't be in the game to begin with. If a game advertises no grind, it shouldn't have any grind (or at least very minimal) and it should DEFINATELY not be adding more. If a game advertises skill>time, it shouldn't be constantly adding things that are time>skill. Optional or not does not matter whatsoever to my points. While I am at no consequence, the game as it was known is at consequence.

Yes there is...optional grind where skill isn't needed.

I would agree with you...if the game was this way all along...in which case I never would have bought it to begin with and we wouldn't be having this discussion!

So take out all grind and be done with it.

More like perfectly relevent to this thread. Throughout all I see are people either saying "don't like it don't use it" or "why not". Both are equally as bad. I can say "why not" to ANYTHING. Anything in the world! A more legitimate argument for adding grind or raising the level cap would start with "WHY". "Why not" is a waste of time.

The level cap is fine for well pvp and such, but I believe A-net themselves would prosper better if it was a 50 level cap.

As long as you can create a pvp character, pvp will not have problems.
If you can get to level 50 in say a week and a half 2 weeks, then the grind isn't that bad, and so it's fine, considering theres a story that goes along with you leveling up.
Max weapons should be harder to obtain in pve, as otherwise people are only trading weapons for skins. There should be weapon mods for various things.

but anyways

50 level cap seems fine, as long as their is a make a pvp character thing, it probably means they balanced things around a 50 level cap.

I believe that Anet has already stated that for PvP all players will be auto set at the same level. So the level cap has no meaning out side of PvE.


The concept of Skill over Time was never true, it was very missleading to some from the very start. You MUST spend TIME playing the game, unlocking skills and working with team mates to learn how to be good.

What Anet was trying to say is more like this:

PvP is a level field of battle where a players skill at playing, and that of his team mates, will determine the outcome. Players levels and gear will NOT have a major impact upon PvP.

PvE has an easily achievable maximum level and max items that are availible to everyone.

I believe that in GW2 player skill will only impact PvP and that players levels will only show how far into the PvE aspect they have progressed. As such the level is nothing more than a flag to show how much you have done in PvE and the actual max number, ie 20 or 500, has little or no meaning.

The progression of the character is what matters, not the number over his head.

Thats the oft quoted misinterpretaion of the phrase. Broken pve skills aside I'm as good with the 40hr old warrior on my second account as I am with the 3k hr old warrior on my main - thats skill>time, the difference between any two characters is directly between the chair and the keyboard.

Ok, you need to reread it, cause, while the box DOES say Skill>time, it never says ANYWHERE that there is NO grind. I just went over the box 2-3 times to make sure. Also, you keep assuming that a majority of GW players, old and new, bought the game for that reason. The HUGE advertisement on the box is the "FREE ONLINE PLAY" plastered on every GW campaign/Expansion box, the skill>time advertisement is on the fold-out of the box & most ppl that buy games don't look at those. I'm willing to bet the AT LEAST 60-70% of the ppl that bought the game saw the "FREE ONLINE PLAY" on the box and NOT the Skill>Time statement, which doesn't support the NO grind statement, maybe minimal grind, but not NO grind.

I think that I read somewhere that if they decided to go with a high level cap, they would have its benefits plateau at a certain point near the middle where you would pretty much be gaining levels for the sake of gaining levels towards the end.

The definition of "pretty much" is the point that many people that love GW have issues with. If they were staying true to the first game then "pretty much" would mean that you'd receive cosmetic enhancements, if not then I can only hope that some other franchise moves in to take up the niche that made GW a great game.