Level cap - GW2

This is somewhat true...which is why unlocks and the PvE barriers to PvP (like gold) have always been a big blow to the game and most players have always complained about them.

Time spent playing is not part of time>skill though, as long as the time spent increases skill or is spent trying to increase skill. The very definition of grind is that there is no skill neccessary...it basically becomes mechanical repetition.


I see nowhere were it says it is restricted to PvP.

True and this is a good thing. So why change it?

If this is true, I am so glad I am not buying the game.

The problem is that the very definition of skill>time means grind shouldn't exist. Grind is the exact opposite of skill>time. It is time>skill.

You are right about the free online play part though. Brilliant marketing by Anet...but its flaws have obviously been exposed over time.

dreamwind you would need the judgment of solomon to define grind

www.dictionary.com

Soloman has spoken. Anyways I'm out of this thread for a while, be back to telling people on the internet they are wrong after the holidays!

The problem with that is that the Gaming industry (or any industry for that matter) doesn't always follow the dictionary when it classifies game genres and features. I.E. If the gaming industry followed the dictionary's definition of Role-Playing game, then ALL video games would be classified as such since you're always taking on some sort of role, but instead the gaming industry created it's own definition of RPG and made it into a specific Genre.

Same can be said for grind. My exact definition of grind and it's effects on a game are probably different from yours. And as the definition gives NO specific definition of grind in a Gaming world, then you can't try and limit it. I've seen the dictionary argument used before ( in the case of GW being an RPG and how having/not having character development affects that) and it simply doesn't work if the said game, developer, or player base follows that definition.

There is no "skill" in PvE by most players standards. Since the foes are static it is just a matter of learning what skills the monsters use, bringing the proper counters and taking the correct path through the mission/quest/dungeon. Once you learn this it is exactly the same every time.

Yes there is some skill for those that create the first builds and the most efficient builds. IF they never shared that knowledge maybe others would be forced to work a bit harder to find a means of completing PvE. The fact is once the first few people are through the game they tend to post builds on forums, and too offer help to those in need.

Skill in GW has always been relegated to the PvP side of the game, where your opponents skill bars are random and unpredictable as well as live and not repetative.

The topic of Time vs Grind doesn't even belong here since we have no idea of the ratio between levels and work required to achieve them.

What we could disscuss are the goals of PvE. Is the main goal to reach max level or to complete the story line? How are those two linked together?

Another question we can't answer yet is just how much will a players level effect the characters power/performance. Will the foes we fight in game be tied to their location (as in GW) or tied to the level of character fighting them?

There is just far too much that we do NOT know about GW2 for anyone to make a solid argument one way or another.

My guess is, based off earlier interviews & information, is that they'll be tied to location since ANet is aiming for a primarily persistent world. It'd be very difficult to set enemy strength to level if you've got ppl from a wide range of levels in the same persistent location at the same time

it should never stop so i can become immortal muwahahahahaha!

Theres grind in a lot of games that have skill.
Doesn't matter.

You dont take your level 18 character into Pvp and expect your going at full performance.
However the fact that the level cap is easy to meet means that
1) It does not take long for everyone to be at an even playing field.

Which is good because in many games, not only is the level cap high, the exp you get is ridiculously low.
If anything pve should just slightly ready you for pvp.
So if theres grind, it's for good reason.

2) Skill > Time, doesn't mean you don't need to put in time.
Some will disagree with my examples but say.
Gunz online, a good person can get their shots, k style well, dodge the shots.
A skilled person can beat a less skilled person with higher levels. However levels make you better in terms of equipment.
If your skilled you'll win (unless the difference in skill is low), but time will make you even better.
If you want GW to be like your out of the box console/PC fps, where you just get in and play, well good for you, but that doesn't keep the average person interested for long. Which is why a balance in where time is required (if your a pve character, or for skill unlocks in pvp) but not overcentralizing, and that skill can prevail, is necessary.

Sorry if my sentence structure is horrible.

Because doing the millions of hours of grind doesn't get you anything and you don't miss out on anything when you don't do it. Ursan's situation was different.

I put an emphasis more on the gameplay itself. As long as you can't beat everything within the campaigns without any thought or actual builds - replacing that instead with "grinded up titles and stats - I'm good. As long as it still requires actual input and coherent build organization to complete the most challenging and difficult areas in the game, I'm fine.

What Ursan did was completely change what was required of you to succeed in the game. Good games require skill, and Ursan promoted little: it completely threw out team and profession organization, was linked to a title putting a *very* huge emphasis on "time", and overall required little knowledge besides "don't pull big groups".

I don't see the introduction of all this new "grind" terribly damaging because there was already "grind" at the start with high-end armors and rare weapons, and the "grind" that's been implemented into Guild Wars is pretty much the same as those achievements in a lot of those 360 games.

I don't find titles to be a problem because they a very short extension for the game for a segregated and selected group of players, while Ursan provided a different and drastically simpler way to play the game in its entirety. Ursan changed the gaming landscape, titles added more to that landscape.

You claim Guild Wars is different from those other games because they didn't change. That's because most of them couldn't change, at least not in the way Guild Wars is able. Super Smash Bros Melee and Brawl included a trophy system, but the previous Smash titles didn't. XBox Live didn't implement achievements until the 360 came out. These games did in fact "change".

As you've already stated, it's the fact that Guild Wars has changed - period - that's of concern. Not that it changed into something good, not that it changed into something bad, but that it just changed. Not only that but it was implied that ANet would never implement any of these types of systems - and this brings us to the subjective matter of interpretation.

Like Lucky? Unlucky? Sweet Tooth? Party Animal? Oh noes, tha game is ruind.

Meanwhile, the HoM is recognizing non-goldsink related tasks - completing any of the campaigns, collecting rare suits of armor, earning numerous mini-pets, etc.

"Grind" according to whom? You? Not everyone is going to have the same definition.

Over the holidays, one of my good friends from my horde guild in WoW was asking about GW. He asked if it had the same form of grind WoW had, with all of the rep grinds and etc. I told him that yes, there was a system very very similar to WoW rep grinds with the Factions and EOTN groups. But then I mentioned the fact that all gear and weapons are equal, regardless of rarity and whatnot. After I gave him a long description and explanation of how gear works in GW, he easily said "oh...but that's not grind".

"Grind" to him meant having to do exceedingly tedious tasks repeatedly in order to get to the "good stuff". An example of that would be requiring you to be a Sunspear Castellen before you're even allowed to leave the starting isle in NF.

Then here: Why leave the level cap at 20?

If it's because "it works" then what specifically about it "works", and why wouldn't a higher cap work just as well? How would that imply that a higher cap wouldn't work?
If it's because it didn't want an emphasis on leveling, then why have a level at all?

There are just as many reasons for having a level 20 cap as there are for having an X cap. Pretty much all of them subjective and dependent on how it's set up.

A lot of people here are saying they want the level cap to be high and to take a while to max. Why they want that isn't fully shown, but it's unfair to assume they all want it to "take longer to grind out". Some might just want it as a marker to show how long and far they've progressed through the game.

I wouldn't mind if they removed the leveling mechanic altogether and purely focused on zone design.

I am certainly not opposed to this idea, but how would you integrate character development without levels?

Would every character start off with "max stats" and only aquire new skills as they progressed through the story?

I tend to think that the 'no level' aproach would blur into the 'infinate' level aproach.

Hasn't this question been answered already? The earlier you reach the level cap relative to the end of the game, the more content is available to actually play in once you have completed the tutorial/leveling up part of the game.

You're right, we have been over this - to which I said, that would be assuming way too much.

It's all about how it's set up. When you played Baldur's Gate or Nights of the Old Republic, was your thought always "I need to get to the cap to experience the actual game"?

Like Zwei said, the level cap doesn't matter if they make the game start at 1. This is what we saw in Proph and saw abandoned in the later releases due to so many people already at level 20.

And have you played kotor or bg more than 3 or 4 times? Games like no replay value because they are built around the progression. GW on the other hand lets you do play the same missions an unlimited amount of times because it is built on being repeatable. You're suggesting taking a superior model and reducing it to the level of traditional rpgs.

No, not really. You again are assuming too much.

I merely brought up KotOR and BG as examples where leveling shouldn't be a priority. If everything's done right, if everything is set in place, we shouldn't even care about leveling at all.

That said, I don't see how Guild Wars contains more "replayability" than the previously mentioned RPGs.

I have to agree with Bryant in one aspect.

When you have a high level cap that can be attained it doesn't mean you must in order to finish the game. Take a look back at almost all of the Final Fantasy games. The higher your level the easier it became to complete the game, but you never had to reach max as the only option to completing the game.

When the level cap becomes a nessassary goal in order to complete the game then it is GRIND, and that is something GW is trying to avoid.

In Prophicies you could complete the game without ever reaching level 20. That is the model that many wish GW2 to follow, regardless of whether the cap is at 20 or 200.

Sure, why not. The entire leveling mechanic becomes obsolete as soon as players hit level 20 content, which is pretty early. There's no reason enemy strength can't be scaled by skillbar quality and the level concept removed entirely. For the most part, difficulty changes weren't linked to levels but to other modifiers in GW1 anyway.

Maybe, but I know which of the two is simpler.

There is a reason that no levels is simple. This looks very much like the formula of a First Person Shooter. Your only change to the character you play is the weapons/skill you have equiped.

If skills/items are only awarded as mission completion rewards then you would have a game that is entirely focused upon completion of the story.

So in fact characters would still have levels, just no number representing that level for others to see. Your level would be equal to what skills/items you had for that character.

Im all for lvl 50 caps with factions capping. But I am also for lowering the rewards for gaining in level.

I don't think that saying a gaming model that provides for a couple of hundred hours worth of enjoyment rather is inferior to one that is still fun after six thousand hours.

Guildwars has more replayablity because difficulty is static - this allows for player driven goals rather developer driven goals. In kogor or bg2 the only thing to do is to overcome the obstacles provided by the developer. If I go into a gw dungeon twice it is the same difficulty which means I have the ablity to build my own goals in terms of beating other players or even my own times - leveling in any form kills that totally because any two attempts at the same task are incommensurable.

No it doesn't, it means that someone with 10 hours a day to spend playing should not be able to gain any concrete stat advantage over someone who plays for a couple hours a week. Guess what, that's how the game was released, and that's still how the game is today, at least in PvP. No matter how much you grind, you can't make your character "more than max", and max is easily achieved for everyone relatively quickly, certainly faster than it takes to learn how to play well. The inference from "skill > time" to "no grind anywhere, even optional grind" simply does not hold; that is your interpretation of it, but it clearly was never ANet's. FoW armor always existed, rare max weapons with perfect mods were absurdly expensive and hard to get from the beginning, and the vast majority of players used either collector gear or non-perfect crap for the first year of the game's life. Really, barring PvE skills and consumables, the core of the game - items, runes, weapons, etc - has grown even more casual-friendly as the game has progressed, what with the inclusion of rune traders (which ended up bringing prices down considerably), the introduction of insignias and inscriptions, and other various upgrades.

im with you partially, PvP must stay fair and consistent.

But i dont want to have to play for more than a month to get to the max level. The way it is now is amazing. But then again I know they are trying to attract more players, but if Anet would have made the improvements to Guild Wars 1 (you people playing since launch know what I mean) we could retain some of the players we lost. So I think a 50-60 level cap is ok if that's really what will get more people to play but it is all relative and unnecessary. Just make sure there is a cap and pve and pvp should integrate flawlessly just like it does now.

The massive amounts of skill unlocks can really hurt a player going to PvP, though.

The 20 level cap has been a good feature. I can see up to 100 level cap, so long as the benefits per level were reapportioned. Say, 2 attribute points per level, and slower health gain. Say start health at 100, and add 5 health per level (600 max at 100th level). This would also be accompanied by a fast level gain. Make an average 1,500 pts required for each level with early levels only requiring 500, and final levels requiring 2,500 each. The experience from monsters would be recalculated in a similar manner, (no exp from monsters 26 levels below you and maxed gain for those 25 above and up).

I understand the skill system will be radically different, so I am not sure how to allot skill acquisition. But if the system retains similarities in the above areas then that is what I would hope to see something like.

Should the max HP/Energy be adjusted? Do we need an exact pallel with GW?

What if GW2 max HP was 2000? Would that give them more room to make adjustments with weapons and spells?

I don't know if this is true for all players. Grinding is fun at first but as the game goes on, it get boring and tedious. I had played WoW for quite some time now (around 6 months) at first it was exciting trying to reach a new level to get higher up for each of my characters. But as time goes on with each level increase that I gotten. I grew tired of fighting mobs after mobs of enemies just to move up one level. Even with the newest expansion, the level cap at 80 has me cringe with the thoughts of countless questins and fighting.

Even if GW2 has a increase level cap. Hopefully GW can space out the amound of grinding u have to do to reach the top of the cap.

But does it work out? I see no difference in grinding 10 hours a day for better gear or spending 10 hours a day to obtain skills and learn to use them. In both cases the one who spends most time on it will be te best.

That's a strange statement...What that's saying is that Guild Wars has more content because it doesn't: I'm confused as to how you can't have player driven goals in addition to developer driven ones?

What it sounds like, though, is that the preferred method is to provide your own content. Given the high demand for DLC, the ever consistent numerous difficulty settings, and especially all the complaints you see right here on the Guru for GW's "lack of content", that may not be the case.

Not more content, content that is more versatile. Take BG2 for example, there's no replayablitity to the de'Arnise castle because every time you do it you're at a different level and have different gear. Even if you use the same savegame for replayablity, there's no way to compare performances with other players - the only way to experience the content is "complete the quest". By comparison something like Sepultre of Dragimar can be replayed hundreds of times because every time you start you are at level 20 you have max gear and most importantly everyone else does too - this opens up dynamic goals because your able to compete against everyone else in the world.

Level 20, maybe 30. Please Anet....don't sellout and make a game like WoW. I can tell you right now I (and a lot of other people) won't be playing (buying) GW2 if it has a high level cap. I chose GW over WoW for a reason!

The level total is arbitrary - we should be more concerned with how long the leveling process is, and how much benefit it grants.

That said, considering the bulk of Guild Wars content is max level, as well as essentially 100% of PvP, I still don't mind the idea of completely throwing out the level concept entirely and replacing it with something else. Granted, there's no need to fix what isn't broken, but there's room for innovation in that direction.

Raising the level cap, especially if ANet intends to keep an easy parity at max level, just seems like an unnecessary complication. I do hope they don't try something like PvP having a set level/stat for all characters while PvE levels above that, since that could just cause extra confusion for newer players.

I believe Anet already stated that PvP would have a set level, it would only make sense that it was max.

It's untrue that GW content is mostly for max level characters, or at least it didn't begin that way. In fact Prophicies had only UW and FOW for max level content at time of release. (you could enter both with less than max characters but it had a difficulty level set for max level characters)

Factions changed that completely by sliding the bar way down, allowing players to reach max level before they were 50% through the game.

Personally I liked Prophicies flow much better as I never felt like I had to stop and grind up levels in order to complete anything. In Factions you could get by for a while with a lower level character but many PUG's would avoid non max players after a certain point in the game. Thus forcing grind upon players in order to complete the game.

Leveling should be optional, not mandatory!

Who care about the level? The important is if he'll be easy to get capped

But, I can say the same thing about people that will be buying GW2 if some of the design is like WoW. There's players ready to leave WoW just like there are players that have already left GW. They want a no monthly fee WoW and hopefully (and from reading about the things they have told us about GW2) GW2 will bring that to us/them. As always first and foremost nobody cares if you buy GW2, all that is cared about is that GW2 sells more copies or at least the same as GW1. And making a no monthly fee WoW would certainly do that. And I'm all for it. All for no level cap either and lots of phat loots and time time time consumption. The devs have already said they weren't making a WoW Clone, but, that does not mean they won't be taking some key word some of the aspects of WoW and implementing them like the grind titles we have now. I'd bet a plug nickel to $100 there's title grind in GW2. And I'm all for it.

before you jump onto the 'WoW clone #(insert number here)" band wangon, please bear in mind exactly what WoW has done to each and every generic WoW clone (with perhaps the exception of LotrO).

RIP TR, V:SoH, AoC, etc. . .etc . . .

remember: with a no monthly fees model - it would be a near miracle to out-WoW WoW.

i like 20 worked fine so far. and i dont want to have to play forever just to be able to start playing.

Pretty much everything Desert onwards was balanced around lv20 characters - sensible, as the Desert missions are where they let people into tombs originally.

I'd wager that most players in Proph put more hours into playing on their level20 characters than the lowlevel zones, which were really more of a transitional part of the game (newb to somewhat educated newb). Factions and NF showed that ANet leaned towards an increase in level 20 content.

We look at Proph with nostalgia, but the lowlevel zones probably get the least replay value out of the entire campaign. If ANet wants to make their content as rich as possible, they want to have as much of the game highly replayable as possible. Again, the level system as it is isn't broken in any way, but with such an overwhelming emphasis on X20 characters, the arbitrary number could in theory be dropped. In that case, you'd get the greater replay of the entire game being balanced for your character, but eliminate the troublesome 'necessary grind' of leveling your character quickly that may have been present in Factions/NF.

It's just an idea, I suppose.

They already have that in GW1 actually. A player with max EotN titles and PvE only skills is more powerful than a PvP player. They just use the EotN (and SS & LB) titles to boost your character instead of "levels". The only difference is that the "level" boosts in PvE depend upon where you are (what campaign, expansion) and are not permanent.

Is there any official words on if A-Net will make level cap go higher for GW2?

Well, I've been against PvE skills since before their conception due to the fact that by nature of being restricted in use, they'd have to be outside the standard balance level. Personally, it always seemed like a band-aid fix for poor PvE design, which means they will almost certainly be used in GW2 -_-

Anyways, I think the real question about levels, beyond the system ANet uses, is whether they can create a balance of max character replayability and difficulty curve.