73 replies to this topic

[marvalis]

One of the 'exuses' anet came up with when selling the idea to the public that they would be adding 80 levels to the game was that it would take on average just as long to get from level 79 to 80 than it would from 39-40. The fact that there are 80 levels is obviously not a coincidence, it was done to satisfy all the WoW-fanboys. In other words, it was a strategic marketing decision. It is my understand that this was a bad decision.

For any given time to level to 80, a linear curve is actually going to be worse than a linear one. Therefor I think that it would have been better to opt for less levels, and to use a exponential (or similar) experience curve.

To explain a little better what scenario I am talking about, lets discuss the constant and variables.

Constants:

* Power curve. In this scenario we assume a constant power curve. That means that, for example, a level 80 character will be 10 times more powerful (damage, health, ...) than a lvl 1 character. I assume the game company designs a power curve, and then sticks with it during these tests.
* Time to max level. We assume that the company decides how long it should take until the players has reached maximum level, and then sticks with this during all the scenario's outlined below.
* (edited) We also assume developer time is limited. That means there is only so much time they can work on adding new zones, and that the time spend on developing the game is the same for all scenario's outlined below.

Variables

* Time spent in each zone. Is this a constant or a variable? It depends on the design of the game: How large is each zone withing a level bracket? How are the level brackets distributed? This is variable because it depends in part on the leveling curve.
* Leveling curve. This is what this article is about, our main variable.


 pic1gw.jpg   29.14K   266 downloads
Picture:
For each given level and time spend M, there is a curve that illustrated the time needed for each increase in level.
Curve 2 shows us a linear model similar to GW2. In the beginning of the game you level faster, but then it becomes a line with inclination.
Curve 1 shows us a more exponential curve for the same level and time.
Curve 3 shows us an exponential curve for a lower level but the same time.

Curve 1
* shows us average zones per level and average level brackets.
* Leveling speed and zone size remains relatively constant.

Curve 2
* Would need more or lager zones than curve 1 at higher level because leveling speed is slower.
* Leveling speed in the early game would be fast, and continue to be fast for longer than curve 1 and 3. This would mean that the zones for these levels would be relatively smaller and fewer in between than for curve1.

Curve 3
* Early game leveling speed is fast but similar to curve 1, so there is no need to create more low level zones.
* Leveling speed and level spread is lower, so there will be more zones of the same level compared to curve 1, or these zones would be larger.

Conclusion

An exponential curve with less levels would allow for more zones of the same or similar level. If you believe this is a good thing (more zones for high level players to use), then an exponential leveling curve is better than a linear one.
For any given amount of time to reach maximum level and an exponential leveling curve,  the less levels there are the larger the zones would have to be, or there would have to be more zones for any give level bracket. This again gives the players more choice at higher level.
At the same time, there is no real disadvantage to slow leveling, considering that the time to reach maximum level is constant.

tl;dr A more exponential leveling curve allows max level players to enjoy more zones.

Just because the time to reach max level in GW2 is shorten than in WoW does not give anet a good excuse to use a leveling curve that is worse.


Attempt to summarize some of the arguments from players who posted in this thread.

Dahk, on 27 November 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

[there is] a large variety of dungeons available to max level that are challenging and engaging.

Dahk, on 27 November 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Also, the speed and pace of leveling in GW2 felt perfect to me, whereas in other games, the later levels felt absolutely grueling.

FoxBat, on 27 November 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

you're going to lose granularity on the ability to gate people off. Much easier to keep people out of places 10 levels above them than 5 levels above them.

Edited by marvalis, 29 November 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[blindude]

How could an exponential curve allow for more zones for smae levels.The content that they manage to create is a constant and what changes is how they distribute the levelling process of a character amongs the zones.More areas with similar levels means less areas with different level requirements.That doesnt have to do anything with the curve.They could make it so that starter areas would have content for 4-5 levels and higher level ones for 1-2.The experience remains the same.The only thing that speeds up is the earlier progression but that is already fast.

You probably want to say that they should advance more of their areas in the 70-80s and make up for the xp while increasing the xp in lower levels which would make the curve indeed exponential as long as the content in each remains and is consumed at the same rate.
But what im trying to say is that they could put an exponential curve and deliver the same epxerience that you get with the current linear one just by making higher level zones have smaller distributions of required level (like or 18-20 as i said above)
Its not the curve the your problem

Edited by blindude, 27 November 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[Craywulf]

* leveling...They should've done away with it all together. It's a relic from the old AD&Ds days that really has no business in a computer game. All the math can be done behind the scenes and players can still feel progression without seeing those fancy numbers. Just look at the way GW2 PvE downscaling works, your level is pretty much a non-issue.

[Icy Indica]

Not to be picky but what you call an "exponential curve" looks like a curve of log(x).

http://www.intmath.c...exp-log-fns.php

[marvalis]

blindude, on 27 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

How could an exponential curve allow for more zones for same levels. [...] More areas with similar levels means less areas with different level requirements.

You just answered your own question. When leveling becomes much slower, players will visit more zones before leveling up. Therefor the amount of zones for that particular level bracket will be larger.

blindude, on 27 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

They could make it so that starter areas would have content for 4-5 levels and higher level ones for 1-2.The experience remains the same.The only thing that speeds up is the earlier progression but that is already fast.

It all depends how long it will take for reaching these levels. If it takes equally long to go from level 1 to 5 as it takes from level 79-80 then these zones could be roughly the same size.

blindude, on 27 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

they could put an exponential curve and deliver the same epxerience that you get with the current linear one just by making higher level zones have smaller distributions of required level (like or 18-20 as i said above) Its not the curve the your problem

I clearly stated that the power curves is a given constant. That means that increase in power would have a fixed distribution, lets assume it is linear (as you level you become linearly stronger).  With an exponential curve, leveling slows down at high level. This has the benefit that these zones are very similar to each other since the power difference between lvl 75 and 79 is relatively small. So a level 80 player would have more zones that he can visit that have a similar power /difficulty /loot table to lvl 80 zones.

Icy Indica, on 27 November 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

Not to be picky but what you call an "exponential curve" looks like a curve of log(x).

It is an exponential curve flipped upside down.

Edited by marvalis, 27 November 2012 - 07:53 PM.

[blindude]

Icy Indica, on 27 November 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

Not to be picky but what you call an "exponential curve" looks like a curve of log(x).

http://www.intmath.c...exp-log-fns.php

you fellow math geek are almost correct.But he probably means the xp required to level has an exponential curve which means that the time to level if you get xp with the same rate is the reverse of it so a log(x)

[Vysander]

The number of maps for a given level range is ~4. LvL 1-15 there are 4 maps, LvL 15-25 there are 4 maps, 25-40 there are ~4 (slight variation in 25-45 min/max maps). There might be an extra 50-60 map, with then 70-80 and 80+ having 5 maps with the addition of lost shore.

What im getting at, is that the perception that there is a lack of lvl 80 maps is caused by players. The events in malchors, frostgorge, and straights are now what, 10 karma less then in cursed shore? Plus those maps have always dropped higher lvl armor, and with he changes to expand the level based loot more maps are worth it for high lvl play. Even more so given the changes to frequency of events in cursed shore.

While you may be talking about having half the available map for high lvl play, most people i see complain about lack of maps say that cursed shore is the only "viable" map. Which after the recent changes has become even less true.

Also, if you want to get nitpicky and use your model, then it does take longer to lvl in later lvl's because the level variation goes from 15 to 10 to 5 as you get closer to 80 while having the same number of maps (of which you need to do ~1/2 to get to 80). Which can either be seen as a leveling curve, or that they gave more maps to higher lvl content ;P

Edited by Vysander, 27 November 2012 - 08:38 PM.

[sty0pa]

It doesn't really make sense to me that they have a "flat" leveling curve, but in fact simply increased the xp kill reward and the xp-to-level at the same rate.  Right now (using made up numbers) it might take you 50xp to get from level 1 to 2, a same-lvl monster gives you 2 xp, an event gives you 10.
At lvl 80, it takes 50,000 xp, same lvl monster gives you 2000 and event 10000.


This would make sense if you didn't have downleveling, but with it, it's really strange.

Why so complicated?  Wouldn't a real "flat" level system say that it takes X xp to gain a level, any level whether it's 1 to 2, or 67 to 68.
Monsters of your lvl are worth X.  Monsters of 3 levels below you are worth 50% of X., etc.
Since you're downleveled to old content, but you have better gear/abilities, etc., perhaps a downleveled toon gets an additional 10% xp penalty, if you really want one.

Seems like a true flat system would be much simpler and consistent than what they have.

[Dahk]

marvalis, on 27 November 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

*snip*
tl;dr A more exponential leveling curve allows max level players to enjoy more zones.

Just because the time to reach max level in GW2 is shorten than in WoW does not give anet a good excuse to use a leveling curve that is worse.

Great post with a well explained argument and data to back up claims, but I disagree.  I don't feel that there is a shortage of max level zones, largely because of how players are scaled for lower level content.

Part of this may also be because we such a large variety of dungeons available to max level that are challenging and engaging.

Also, the speed and pace of leveling in GW2 felt perfect to me, whereas in other games, the later levels felt absolutely grueling.

[marvalis]

Dahk, on 27 November 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

largely because of how players are scaled for lower level content

Yes, you make an interesting point. However, I have gotten the impression that arenanet feels that their scaling system is not working sufficiently. One of the issues that people bring up is loot: Lower level zones don't have loot that scales. This problem could partly be mitigated by having an exponential leveling curve (as explained above). You can also change the loot table to drop higher level gear. This is the choice arenanet made: They promised they will 'fix' drops in lower level zones. We will see how they handle that.

Your point, however, still stands: What about the experience of the player who has to wait long to level up? The answer will depend at least for some part on the player itself. Some people have a larger tolerance than others. A good balance has to be found so that the time to level does not increase to fast to keep all players engaged. Each system clearly has pro's and cons. Thank you for pointing that out.

I would like to think a moment about the psychology of these reward schemes. For example, this article ( danielbayn.com/network-psychology/deep-magic-of-behaviorism/ ) talks about fixed and variable ratio schedules. I tried to find a good source that has studied the time between rewards in fixed ration schedules but didn't find one. It will differ from person to person, but there must be some general trend in this. I'll see if I can get some scientific data on this.

Edited by marvalis, 27 November 2012 - 09:31 PM.

[blindude]

But i still dont see a point on changing the curve.Its like finding the most complicated way you could think to increase the rewards of all the areas 60+..So you say if we cannot up the rewrads then make those areas have lower level difference so that essentially 60 -80 becomes 75-80 areas (75-76 ,76-77 etc..).
It doesnt matter how much is the difference in the level of an area compared to an other when you still have a hierarchy and theres always a better area to farm.If you dont want that then just make the other areas rewards scale better.If you want more level 80 areas then blame arenanet that didnt create more or that they made the design choice to include more options for lower levels.But again the curve is not the problem

[Dahk]

Yea, the loot is an interesting point because you could make loot scale up with level, but then what if a level 80 player needs some mid level crafting materials?  They would only be able to get this from the trading post (or playing an alt) and the prices would surely go through the roof from lack of supply.

[marvalis]

All those level 75-80 zones might have more Orichalcum Ore, more places to farm Vial of Powerful Blood, and so on.
Ofcourse they could just release more area's and create more zones, but in the examples above we assume that developer time is limited.

Again, this can be fixed by allowing players to find Orichalcum Ore anywhere (I think that would require some editing of the code since I believe that each player has individual nodes that spawn on the same place and are of the same type for all other players?). So this can be fixed but that is not how it is right now.

However, as you point out, the entire post I made will become moot when anet released more and more lvl 80 zones and dungeons.

Dahk, on 27 November 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

Yea, the loot is an interesting point because you could make loot scale up with level, but then what if a level 80 player needs some mid level crafting materials?  They would only be able to get this from the trading post (or playing an alt) and the prices would surely go through the roof from lack of supply.

Holy crap I didn't even think about this. So maybe it is not so 'easy' to fix after all.

Edited by marvalis, 27 November 2012 - 09:52 PM.

[FoxBat]

In GW2 levels exist primarily to pace/guide your progress through content, i.e. keep you from just strolling into arah right off the bat. If you pick an exponential system that shoves more areas near the top, you're going to lose granularity on the ability to gate people off. Much easier to keep people out of places 10 levels above them than 5 levels above them. And all of this to benefit the minority that didn't quit the game once they finished the personal story anyway.

We also keep hearing more and more rumblings about level cap going up with expansions, so even having a good number of 80 zones is a temporary solution that would quickly be undone. Adjusting scaling is the better way to go about this in the system they have developed, then you don't eff around with reward progress and gating for the sake of the hardcore few that want some more variety in their daily grind.

[marvalis]

FoxBat, on 27 November 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Adjusting scaling is the better way to go about this in the system they have developed.

Could you elaborate what you mean by adjusting scaling? I am not sure I understand what kind of scaling you are referring to.

Edited by marvalis, 27 November 2012 - 10:42 PM.

[FoxBat]

marvalis, on 27 November 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

Could you elaborate what you mean by adjusting scaling? I am not sure I understand what kind of scaling you are referring to.

Getting level 80 rewards on your level 80 toon playing in a level 60 area with an effective level of 60, etc. I thought that term was already used in this thread...

Ori is also a special case, because there are already people who hit every single ori node on a server in a day, and then do it on other characters. Adding more zones with ori (or scaling ori to drop from more places) is going to change that dynamic. Better would be to somehow limit ori as a daily account-based reward, but let players pick it up near anywhere.

Edited by FoxBat, 27 November 2012 - 10:57 PM.

[marvalis]

blindude, on 27 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

you fellow math geek are almost correct.But he probably means the xp required to level has an exponential curve which means that the time to level if you get xp with the same rate is the reverse of it so a log(x)

I don't think that y=log(x) is the same as y=n^x turned upside down.

The graph of the logarithm function logb(x) (blue) is obtained by reflecting the graph of the function bx (red) at the diagonal line (x = y).
http://en.wikipedia....nctiontoexp.svg

I could be wrong, my math needs brushing up. Not that it really matters, the functions are just used as a general model they don't need to be mathematically exact since we are not discussing calculations here.

[blindude]

marvalis, on 27 November 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:

I don't think that y=log(x) is the same as y=n^x turned upside down.

The graph of the logarithm function logb(x) (blue) is obtained by reflecting the graph of the function bx (red) at the diagonal line (x = y).
http://en.wikipedia....nctiontoexp.svg

I could be wrong, my math needs brushing up. Not that it really matters, the functions are just used as a general model they don't need to be mathematically exact since we are not discussing calculations here.

But its not y=n^x turned upside down what you draw on the original post.
If the need of xp to level up rises exponentially and if you get xp at the same rate then you will end up with a logarithmic function of time to level.
Thats what you draw on your original post you just moved it up and left by adding constants to your variables  so that zero time equals zero level.
The truth is that in games you also get increase on the rate you get xp as well as you level.But as long as its not exponential or stronger itself you will always get logarithmic like graphs

edit:now that i look at it again you might have used an upside -down nad left -righted y=n^x to draw it i cant tell
but you should have used a logarithmic one

Edited by blindude, 27 November 2012 - 11:45 PM.

[Nephele]

Switching the leveling curve around to get more max level content vs. lower level content is kind of moot considering level scaling in GW2. I mean what difference does it make if we have more level 60-70 zones and fewer level 20-30 ones? We get scaled down no matter where we go. The issue lies more with the rewards for doing lower level content. There's little incentive.

Furthermore, it's pretty obvious that level 80s spend time in two places, Orr and Frostgorge. Both are level 80 areas. It wouldn't matter if there were more level ~70 areas than level ~20 areas, because people would still be clumped into two places, Orr and Frostgorge. So it's even more of a moot point.

A real solution would be removing levels altogether. Characters start with a set of decent quality gear and enough skills unlocked that they can kill stuff in the first "newb" area. You'd grind for new skills and upgraded gear instead of levels, and we'd only need one "tutorial" area easy enough to complete without knowing very many skills. That allows for >90% of the content in the game to be designed with a maxed out character in mind. But this pretty much crushes the character progression aspect of modern RPGs, so it's not exactly a perfect solution. Just radically different from a standard MMO.

[Featherman]

Nephele, on 28 November 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

A real solution would be removing levels altogether. Characters start with a set of decent quality gear and enough skills unlocked that they can kill stuff in the first "newb" area. You'd grind for new skills and upgraded gear instead of levels, and we'd only need one "tutorial" area easy enough to complete without knowing very many skills. That allows for >90% of the content in the game to be designed with a maxed out character in mind. But this pretty much crushes the character progression aspect of modern RPGs, so it's not exactly a perfect solution. Just radically different from a standard MMO.

I like the idea of eliminating levels, but I don't think it would crush character progression. If they made progression tied to traits and gear, a la WvW, and made them obtainable via objectives there would be some vertical and a lot of lateral progression. Players would have to freedom and incentive to explore and they would be getting stronger in doing so, thus preserving character progression. The one glaring drawback I see with this type of system would definitely be harder to balance and design than the current one.

[mavx]

I don't think the leveling choice in GW2 has as much to do with character progression as it does with content gating. While playing I found that the leveling curve felt right for what the game has to offer. It's not just about having areas to go to at higher levels, but also the way they spread the personal story missions across the entire length of the game. If we were to have an exponential leveling curve it would mean unlocking personal story missions slower and slower as you progress in the game. Unfortunately this would make the latter levels feel like much more of a chore, requiring more grinding just to make a little more game progress.

[Ualtar]

I like the linear curve as the game moves into the future.  Anet could add 20+ levels and if they follow the same curve then gaining those levels is not an onerous task.  With exponential curves gaining levels becomes a horrible chore a few expansions into the game.

I do agree that there should be some sort of reason for higher level people to repeat maps.  I don't know if crafting nodes is the answer, that will just encourage high levels to run from node to node rather then actually participating in the zone.  Maybe something could be done with the hearts, like adding levels to them where you could do hearts multiple times.  Possibly give increasing karma rewards for each run through the hearts, along with higher level crafting materials or things like that.

[I'm Squirrel]

Craywulf, on 27 November 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

* leveling...They should've done away with it all together. It's a relic from the old AD&Ds days that really has no business in a computer game. All the math can be done behind the scenes and players can still feel progression without seeing those fancy numbers. Just look at the way GW2 PvE downscaling works, your level is pretty much a non-issue.

This.

One of the strong points about GW1 was that the max level was 20, and you could reach that level in a day or two(with factions). This made alts really fun to make, unlike in GW2 where you have to level all 5 of your alts all the way to goddamn lvl 80 to enjoy the other areas of the game. Definitely not alt-friendly.

[Life_Infusion]

The level scaling in general is broken due to level 80 gear having exotics, below  60 gear having rares.

Even the drop system is borked unless you go in a 60+ zone with a level 80, although it seems the last patch fixed it (you can get level 60 gear in level 2 zone it seems).

The game shouldn't have been designed with 80 levels in general. The empty maps before level 65ish zones are a testament to that. Basically you have populated starter zones and high level zones... which means there's a ton of wasted content. Even the dunegeons are messed up with Ascended items and the fact that dungeons tokens give rares and not exotics. Exotics take less time investment than dungeon tokens.

Just look at the trading post and you will see the difference...

Update - 15 November 2012 said:

• The drop rarity of Rare and Exotic weapons from certain places in the world (champions, veterans, and players in WvW) has been increased. Rares and Exotics should be much more likely to drop and every champion should be guaranteed to drop loot. This was to ensure that world loot drops were not a significantly worse way of acquiring rare and exotic items than crafting and running dungeons.
  
• The amount of loot that drops for downscaled players has been increased. You should now be able to receive level-equivalent loot until you are fighting at a downscaled level that is less than 2/3 of your actual level. You should also receive loot a greater percentage of the time as well as receiving a greater percentage of experience, gold, and karma. For level 80 characters, this means level 55+ areas will be able to drop level 80 gear and give about 75% or so of the other rewards. Previously, these areas would give level 77 gear at best and closer to 60% or so of your rewards.

Edited by Life_Infusion, 28 November 2012 - 03:52 AM.

[Trei]

Past level 80, we are in fact still "leveling up".
The only thing that arbitrary number 80 means, as far as I am concerned, is an end to character-based stats and traits progression;

But, we are still getting 1 skill point each time we fill the golden bar up, post level 80, and skill points are used to purchase more than just skills beyond max level.
So unless you meant exponential only up to level 80 (and linear after that), it is simply not what GW2 is built around.

Simply put, you can remove this number from my UI right now without changing anything else, and I would still be able to start an alt up just the same as before.  
I don't really need to know what my level is, but I know it is there as a progressive stats/skills/traits points distributor, and a gear-limiter.

Instead of forcing you to grind say Leather Armor skill just to wear a level 67 leather armor with level 67 stats, at the same time making you grind trait point challenges over and over for trait points, and yet another set of challenges for skill points, and stat points and.... etc  .... the levelling mechanic is basically the universal "currency" for progression.

You just work on this one bar, and all those progressions are granted to you naturally.
To me, this is reducing necessary grinds.

That said, I do have issues of my own with the current implementation of the leveling system, indirect ones.


The whole idea of down scaling to me, meant one most important thing:
The concept that my scope of play in the world gets increased the higher level I go, since low level zones would still stay relevant no matter what level I am.
In contrast, relevant zones decrease in worlds without down scaling because players have no reason to return to low level areas rewards-wise.

Therefore, I do not understand why I cannot get true-level-equivalent gear loots at level 80 if I'm at say a level 5 zone. Why is there this loot level cap if down leveled to less than 2/3 true level?
It literally means I will never get level 80 gear in any zone graded below level 55.

Why?

I get the frequency decrease in level-equivalent drops for areas above 55, that's fine.
Why can't the same be done for ALL zones? I am downscaled to 4 in that level 5 zone after all, its not as if I am rolling through it at zero risk here, one-shotting every mob.
Make level 80 gear drop less for me at newbie zones to prevent me from exploiting my full complement of traits and skills and gear power to farm, that's okay. At least I know they can drop.

That alone would remove one major psychological barrier players may have when deciding to return to zones they grossly outleveled.

Edited by Trei, 28 November 2012 - 05:17 AM.

[Ritualist]

Dahk, on 27 November 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

Yea, the loot is an interesting point because you could make loot scale up with level, but then what if a level 80 player needs some mid level crafting materials?  They would only be able to get this from the trading post (or playing an alt) and the prices would surely go through the roof from lack of supply.

Don't salvage kits/harvesting tools influence this? I mean, if a lvl 80 character uses a lvl 10 pick, you don't get high-tier mats, do you? And couldn't the same principle (unless it already is) be implemented for salvage kits - low-level kits = low-level mats?

Slightly more on-topic:
I wish a lot of the time that was spent on starter options was spent on end-game ones instead. What I mean by that is that I'd rather have one or two tutorial areas, I'd rather have one personal story, I'd rather have less classes, I'd rather have less races ... because those are all options that you lose access to once you make a choice that actually allows you to play the game. A.Net simply ran out of resources to expand on their rich starting structure - instead of the amount of content having the shape of a rectangle (4 starter areas, 4 middle area, 4 late-game areas), I'd rather see an upside down triangle (1 starter area, 3 middle areas, 8 late-game areas).  You still have the same amount of content, it's just spread out better.

[Heart Collector]

Protoss, on 28 November 2012 - 05:54 AM, said:

Slightly more on-topic:
I wish a lot of the time that was spent on starter options was spent on end-game ones instead. What I mean by that is that I'd rather have one or two tutorial areas, I'd rather have one personal story, I'd rather have less classes, I'd rather have less races ... because those are all options that you lose access to once you make a choice that actually allows you to play the game. A.Net simply ran out of resources to expand on their rich starting structure - instead of the amount of content having the shape of a rectangle (4 starter areas, 4 middle area, 4 late-game areas), I'd rather see an upside down triangle (1 starter area, 3 middle areas, 8 late-game areas).  You still have the same amount of content, it's just spread out better.

In retrospect, maybe this would have indeed been better - though they would have needed a massive crapload of overflow servers for those first few crazy days! And what I miss is zone context. I would love it if in the first expac they added "zone story quests" (available at every other level between personal story quests depending on the zones level) that do not revolve around our character but give us insight into the lore and current state of each zone, and what's at stake. This in addition to new and more zone-changing DEs would add hugely to replayability in the open world IMO.

[raspberry jam]

marvalis, on 27 November 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Curve 1 shows us a linear model similar to GW2. In the beginning of the game you level faster, but then it becomes a line with inclination.
Curve 2 shows us a more exponential curve for the same level and time.
Curve 3 shows us an exponential curve for a lower level but the same time.

Am I the only one to look at the picture? The description for curves 1 and 2 should be swapped

Anyway, while I agree with Craywulf in that leveling should be removed altogether, I also agree that if levels must be implemented, they should follow an exponential curve. Having just a single (ok, two if you count the new dungeon) endgame area is a problem, especially since scaling doesn't work like promised and the focus on reward driven gameplay causes there to not be any reason to visit other areas anyway.

[Robsy128]

Add more level 80 areas/elite areas.
Scaling needs sorting out so that level 80 players get level 75-80 gear when in lower zones.

It's not the curve that's the problem or the levelling system. People were unsatisfied with level 20 in Guild Wars. They wanted a big number to show off to people. Arenanet allowed that to happen.

[Tenicord]

I agree, the leveling in guild wars 2 is a mistake.