577 replies to this topic

[Serris]

as the title asks, do you think the maximum level cap should have been level 20 in guildwars 2?
you'd get to level 20 at the same rate you get to level 20 now. only all maps past level 20 are scaled to fit for level 20s.

i think it would have made a lot of sense, and given a greater sense of "endgame is what you do while you're levelling". it would also fix looting, since you'd have almost a whole world to explore and do DEs in, instead of now orr and dragons.

what are your thoughts?

[Strawberry Nubcake]

Nooooope!

Believe it or not, some of us don't live in Orr or camp dragons.  There is actually a whole world to explore and Anet has been trying to make the loot more appealing.

[Just Horus]

Strawberry Nubcake, on 18 February 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

Nooooope!

Believe it or not, some of us don't live in Orr or camp dragons.  There is actually a whole world to explore and Anet has been trying to make the loot more appealing.

Yes but would having the lvl cap be reduced to 20 reduce your enjoyment of exploring the world?

I can understand the OP's arguement that it would make players feel as though endgame is essentially all the content but I can also see it hindering the sense of progression other players enjoy.

Mind you, I feel that lowering the lvl cap to quasi-equalize loot quality across the world is a lazy way of going about it. ANet has shown some headway in balancing loot between maps. They have upcoming plans to further this so I'll hold my judgment till then.

[chullster]

Yes.

Leveling has always been the most boring part of GW1 and 2 and still is. No matter what they do, they cannot change the fact I don't have all my attribute points or maximum stats available before 80, so there's no point planning any build, anything looks wise or buying/crafting nice armour until you're 80, thus it's a waste of time.

[Noob On Steroid]

If you really want to do away with leveling, give people the option to create a lvl80 character straight away.
People who want character progression, can still do so. People who want to start with gearing up for a final build straight away, can also do just that. It would fit into their "play the game to have fun now"-philosophy. Although I don't know how much of that philosophy still stands.
You'd still have to run your toon to where you want it, and they might have to look at level- and lootscaling a bit more, but it's a valid option.

[Ritualist]

If 20 was max level, I'd be playing GW2 right now instead of bitching about it on the forums.

But seriously, my fondest memories of GW2 were in areas where my character was down-levelled. Playing there allowed me to just focus on the game instead of constantly looking at the level of the foes - I was in locations that I wanted to be in for as long as I wanted to be in them, rather than being stuck in certain locations because some number prevented me from being able to move forward.
And it wouldn't be just levels - it would mean less gear to worry about, it would mean faster access to dungeons, it would mean faster access to WvW, ... it would completely open up the game. And with the lack of content in it - this is exactly what the game needs.

[Killyox]

Noob On Steroid, on 18 February 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

If you really want to do away with leveling, give people the option to create a lvl80 character straight away.
People who want character progression, can still do so. People who want to start with gearing up for a final build straight away, can also do just that. It would fit into their "play the game to have fun now"-philosophy. Although I don't know how much of that philosophy still stands.
You'd still have to run your toon to where you want it, and they might have to look at level- and lootscaling a bit more, but it's a valid option.

Guess i am happy you are not GW2 designer.

[Waar Kijk Je Naar]

Yes.

Downscaling is/was a nice experiment, but I think, in the end, a lvl-20 cap would've been better. For the loot, difficulty, balance and so on.

[Wordsworth]

I'd play on an "every zone is upscaled to 80" server.

[I'm Squirrel]

Yes. There's a reason why GW1 wasn't a huge pain in the ass. GW2's leveling from 1-80 is just as boring as 90% of MMORPGs out there, a huge grind. whether you're grinding events, crafting xp, or mobs, its very tedious.  

Also, if the level cap had been left at 20, there would be MUCH more room for challenging events, dungeons, etc.

We get downscaled every fudging time anyways, there's no absolutely no point to higher level caps. Well, except for requirements, but even those could be substituted by getting to certain points in the storyline or could be removed completely.

Edited by I'm Squirrel, 18 February 2013 - 11:09 AM.

[Xsiriss]

I, on 18 February 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Yes. There's a reason why GW1 wasn't a huge pain in the ass. GW2's leveling from 1-80 is just as boring as 90% of MMORPGs out there, a huge grind. whether you're grinding events, crafting xp, or mobs, its very tedious.  

Also, if the level cap had been left at 20, there would be MUCH more room for challenging events, dungeons, etc.

We get downscaled every fudging time anyways, there's no absolutely no point to higher level caps. Well, except for requirements, but even those could be substituted by getting to certain points in the storyline.

^This, just this. With scaling it's pointless anyway, seems the levels are an excuse to draw attention away from lack of decent content. They also should've stuck to instances, there were nearly as many dungeons in EoTN as there are now for frick sake.

Balance is a popular defense for higher numbers, but frankly it was a bit better off in GW1 (especially in terms if game stalling bugs) and this seems like a cop-out thing to say.

[JHCinSC]

Wow.  I am torn on this one.  I kinda like the grind to level 80 and the sense of accomplishment, but I also feel that downscaling isn't that great and the rewards for a high level suffer in a lower level zone.  A level cap of 20 as in GW1 would have eliminated most of the issues with downscaling.  However I have bigger issues with the game than max levels.

[Macha]

I just think that lv 80 is too high, for now. I understand it's for character progression and story chapters - but right now some parts of the story feel rushed anyway. Besides, too little lv 80 zones to really enjoy being lv 80 (Orr, Southsun Cove and Frostgorge Sound are what come to my mind atm...) outside of WvW.
In short, the lv cap should have been thoroughly thought before being introduced.

[Lordkrall]

A rather fun thing here is that if they had left it at lvl 20, people would complain about the lack of progression.
No matter what they do there will always be people that don't like it.

I for one don't really care, I did not play to level, I leveled while I played, didn't even think about it most of the time.

[Serris]

Strawberry Nubcake, on 18 February 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

Nooooope!

Believe it or not, some of us don't live in Orr or camp dragons.  There is actually a whole world to explore and Anet has been trying to make the loot more appealing.

yes, they've been trying. it's not up to standard yet, and i don't think they'll ever get the loot of <80 zones up to level 80 zones loot :\

Xsiriss, on 18 February 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

^This, just this. With scaling it's pointless anyway, seems the levels are an excuse to draw attention away from lack of decent content. They also should've stuck to instances, there were nearly as many dungeons in EoTN as there are now for frick sake.

Balance is a popular defense for higher numbers, but frankly it was a bit better off in GW1 (especially in terms if game stalling bugs) and this seems like a cop-out thing to say.

i'm not quite sure i understand what you're saying. you mean there were as many dungeons in EotN as there are now, but that's a bad thing? EotN was the 3rd expansion, so it seems like it's a GOOD thing there are already quite so many dungeons in.

Lordkrall, on 18 February 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

A rather fun thing here is that if they had left it at lvl 20, people would complain about the lack of progression.
No matter what they do there will always be people that don't like it.

I for one don't really care, I did not play to level, I leveled while I played, didn't even think about it most of the time.

well, i thought about that too. right now, you can get enough skill points from levelling alone to nearly complete all your non-elites. if the cap was at 20 (with the repeating levelling like gw1), you'd be unlocking long after you hit max-level, ie you'd have progression past max level.

[raspberry jam]

Yeah, it should have been level 20, with the entire world (almost) as max level areas. That model was perfected in GW1 and then abandoned for some reason, at the same time as when ANet invented a way to make lots of areas attractive.

Thrown away potential if you ask me.

[Zan7]

The level cap should have been 1.

[Sandpit]

I have wondered if the game should have levels at all. It never takes that long to get to level 80 and once you are there there is just the game. So what if we did away with this altogether. You could still have some levels harder than others, and you can still have skill unlocks and equipment progression (quality). The whole map as end-game content, by design.

BTW Getting to l;evel 20 was easy and fast in factions/nightfall, but level 20 in prophesies was a good game progression of it's own. An alternative to having no levels it to have a really really long progression, one that takes years. The level 80 in GW2 is a bit pointless as it is so easy to get.

[Zylo]

It takes all of 2 or 3 weeks to get to 80 if you're doing it correctly. Having the level cap at 80 ensures that players will actually be adjusted to their class and have semi-decent gear before they start attempting to do high level content. If the maximum level were 20, I would feel compelled to do gear checks before going into dungeons, but because the level is 80, I don't feel like I need to.

[Ritualist]

Sandpit, on 18 February 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

The level 80 in GW2 is a bit pointless as it is so easy to get.

By "easy" I hope you mean "it takes no skill" rather than "it takes no time".

[Lordkrall]

Ritualist, on 18 February 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

By "easy" I hope you mean "it takes no skill" rather than "it takes no time".

Since when does easy have anything to do with the time required?

[Nabuko Darayon]

I like higher numbers so lvl 80 is something that's fits my boots. Even higher level increasements n future are very much welcomed because let's face it, higher numbers are cool. Seeling a lvl 160 walking around is cool

[Resolve]

Strawberry Nubcake, on 18 February 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

Nooooope!

Believe it or not, some of us don't live in Orr or camp dragons.  There is actually a whole world to explore and Anet has been trying to make the loot more appealing.

I don't understand this at all. A level cap of 20 would have actually made it better for those people who don't "live in Orr or camp dragons" because all the other zones would have been properly adjusted for the new level cap. So the player can go to any zone without it being a complete breeze and get relevant rewards for playing.

[Serris]

Zylo, on 18 February 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

It takes all of 2 or 3 weeks to get to 80 if you're doing it correctly. Having the level cap at 80 ensures that players will actually be adjusted to their class and have semi-decent gear before they start attempting to do high level content. If the maximum level were 20, I would feel compelled to do gear checks before going into dungeons, but because the level is 80, I don't feel like I need to.

in the OT, i meant that levelling stopped at 20, and the gearcap would be level 20 exotics/ascended. it'd be pointless to remove 60 levels from the curve, but keep the gear progressing, since that would gate you from maps either way.

[raspberry jam]

Sandpit, on 18 February 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

I have wondered if the game should have levels at all. It never takes that long to get to level 80 and once you are there there is just the game. So what if we did away with this altogether. You could still have some levels harder than others, and you can still have skill unlocks and equipment progression (quality). The whole map as end-game content, by design.

BTW Getting to l;evel 20 was easy and fast in factions/nightfall, but level 20 in prophesies was a good game progression of it's own. An alternative to having no levels it to have a really really long progression, one that takes years. The level 80 in GW2 is a bit pointless as it is so easy to get.

Not only is the level 80 pointless, but levels in themselves are pointless - instead of just making everyone have the same stats, ANet decided to simulate it by allowing people to level all the way up to 80 and then scale them down depending on what area they are in (not that it matters, because the players who do it for the rewards tend to play in high-level areas anyway, and those that pretend that they do it for exploration would explore and so on anyway too). All in all it would definitely have been a better idea to not have levels.

[matsif]

I'd much rather it be level 20 than 80, or even the above of dropping levels all together.  Leveling to 20 in Prophecies was fun because all you had to do was go through the missions/main quests between the missions, and you were 20 by the time you left the crystal desert.  The game then took you right to Droks for max armor and such.  Factions and Nightfall were even better from a leveling perspective as you could easily hit 20 (and were encouraged to) before you left Shing Jea/Istan.

Leveling to 80 by just playing GW2 is boring and it doesn't actually feel like I'm progressing through a story like in GW1.  Hearts are essentially the same as the old "gather this, kill this" quests from other mmos, events are nice the first 5 times you do them, then are just essentially a repeatable quest that is boring and grindy and only useful for finishing the daily.  crafting I view the same way as the quick level method after EotN was released by taking your character into the one dungeon with a triple xp scroll and hitting 80 in like 2 hours of total game time.  Switching the character in at the end of AC explorable runs is annoying and only 1 or 2 party members can do it, but it's honestly the best way to level a character in the game.  You come out of 50 levels in AC with full exotic weapons (multiple sets) and armor and probably enough karma to get at least a few exotic trinkets from orr temples, and you've made money the whole time instead of spending it buying new armor, porting all over the world for the PS, and such.

[Lordkrall]

And if we did not have levels, the very same people would complain about how people didn't get "rewarded for playing the game"

Levels are seen as a status symbol by some people.
It is also a rather good way to see if someone at least have some experience with their profession. Removing levels would mean people would make it more or less impossible to find pugs, since most people wouldn't want to risk doing a hard dungeon with someone that started playing 2 hours ago and don't have a clue about their profession.

[raspberry jam]

Lordkrall, on 18 February 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

And if we did not have levels, the very same people would complain about how people didn't get "rewarded for playing the game"

Levels are seen as a status symbol by some people.
It is also a rather good way to see if someone at least have some experience with their profession. Removing levels would mean people would make it more or less impossible to find pugs, since most people wouldn't want to risk doing a hard dungeon with someone that started playing 2 hours ago and don't have a clue about their profession.

So let me get this straight here: playing for rather limited amounts of time for two weeks and then leaving the game alone for six months and then coming back and picking up your character (which still is level 80 of course) means that you have a better idea of what you are doing than someone who is on their 9th alt but happens to be level 60 because they just started over?

Wait let me think about it for a while.







Ok, I've thought about it, and I came to the conclusion that you are wrong. Levels as an indicator of actual skill is completely meaningless. Only some sort of braindead *ing retard would consider levels a status symbol.

"Check it out, I'm level 80"
"Heeeeyy me too."
"Yeah but my levels are better than your levels"

Edited by raspberry jam, 18 February 2013 - 01:36 PM.

[Lordkrall]

It is more likely that someone with lets say a Mesmer at lvl 80 have at least a bit more understanding about the Mesmer profession than someone that have a Mesmer at lvl 10 yeah.
There are of course exceptions, but there are exceptions to everything.

[cyclopsje]

Hope they stick to 80 on expension beceause orr is well ugh and that was that for endgame areas well the new area is fail so dont even count that 1