577 replies to this topic

[raspberry jam]

XPhiler, on 20 February 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Spoiler

And the problem once again boils down to people making the game all about reward. I mean seriously if you're leveling up in WvW prior to level 80 you'll be fighting enemies, doing Events, taking over objectives. After hitting level 80 you'll be fighting enemies, doing events, taking over objectives.

If you're leveling in PvE prior to level 80 you'll be doing Dynamic Events, Hearts, Skill challenges, Jumping Puzzle, Exploring, Gathering, Dungeons, etc... what is this "personal gameplay experience to what it would be in a level-free game." you talk about exactly? This is not WoW once you hit level 80 the game doesnt change to a raid grind to acquire the next tier of armor, What you're doing to level up is identical to what you will be doing once you reach max level.

Unless obviously you're ruled by the reward. In which case you'll find the most profitable content and grind it ... most likely complaining how boring the game is.

So yes, two weeks and then you get to max level... what then? there is yet another 19 zones that need playing and exploring... thats what. at least that how it was in my case.

We've been over this: "exploration" by visiting places that are already marked on your map isn't exploration and therefore boring, hearts are in general boring and while there are a few interesting dynamic events, the majority of them too are boring. As for gahering/crafting and jumping puzzles, those things are boring, but the main flaw of them is that they are minigames. I got GW2 because I wanted to kill monsters and be a hero, not because I wanted to pick flowers or play 3d platformers. If I wanted to do those things I'd get some other game where that is the main gameplay.

I wish people would stop putting minigames in their games. They are literally there because the main gameplay is too boring, and that should ring some warning bells right there.

Playing at max level is the same as playing a level-free game because you will not level up, obviously. Which means that your stats will never change (except by switching gear and such of course).

[Barbieslayer]

It would almost be nice if the game changed once you beat Zhitan* to reflect what happened in the story, and the world get magicaly leveled to 80.  I realise this wouldn't work given the games construction, but if the start and end of the story was the driving force and the level cap perhaps not quite so high, it would maybe be a different story.  If you had a pre-80 set of servers where non-max players were jammed in and could play through the story and world together, it could address some of the world pop issues, and making the rest of the world "end content" for max players would encourage them to go back into the world.  The dynamic events really wouldn't have to change beyond going from dealing with Zhitan to sweeping up the aftermath.

The game works as it is, but the level cap, story and lower level areas (dynamic leveling doesn't really float my boat, but is better than being your current level in a lower zone.), all contribute to players grouping up in certain areas, be it WvW, spvp, Dragon events, Orr or fractals and dungeons, rather than wanting to plod through the world that  feels to me like I've out grown.  If the pace at which you had to learn to play was quickened you wouldn't really need a whole lot of levels.

The problem is, I think, the need to develop with peoples expectations in mind and give the perception of what some people traditionaly want from an MMo, rather than making something to be enjoyed for what it is, not just entertainment, but a form of ineractive art that is supposed to draw you in and stimulate you beyond just being sat there expecting to be entertained..

Also, I'm one of those people who quite like eliments of reality in their virtual expiriences, and player levels and a large gear progression always jars with me slightly anyway.  But I know this is the meat and potatoes for some.  GW1-1 did this quite well by making the leveling about the story rather than about the world, it linked progression and meaning in the context of the world with your level though still acted as a buffer to just running from start to finish, plus the game actually moved you from the main trail and plonked you in the Crystal Desert and then the Fire Islands, using the world to progress your story, rahter than using the world to slow that process down.

TLDR.

It is what it is, but less levels good IMO.

[XPhiler]

raspberry jam, on 20 February 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

How would you rush to the final boss again? I mean, isn't every game really just a rush to the final boss? What stopped people from rushing to the lich in GW1? Certainly not levels, because they'd easily get those while "rushing to the boss".

Glint's Challenge isn't particularly hard, and a level 1 that was attending it would be leveled up to 20 due to Journey to the North. Anyway, that is the point, narrative gating (certain conditions needing to be met, such as the siege of THK in GW1 being required to reach the lich) works just fine.

Restricting by level is not the same as restricting based on actions taken, of course. The difference in your example is that "mission z" can potentially be completed by a player when that player reaches it, or the 1682nd time the player attempts it, if it is up to the player's skill, whereas if it is up to the character's level, "mission z" will be beat around the time the player reaches level 15. Basically, if leveling actually tracked the player's skill, it would be the same, but it doesn't. The worst GW2 player in the world is capable of reaching 80, and the best GW2 player in the world would still be very weak when playing a character that she just created.

Yes, both the gold thing and the word "soulbound" matters, not in themselves but in the obvious fact that they were taken from MMO generica.

What stopped people from rushing the lich in gw1? the various gating the game had. Story gating, Skill gating, level gating, etc...
If there was really no gating people would finish the game in the first 30 minutes of release. As a game designer do you really think this will be a boon for the longevity of the game?

How is narrative gating any different then level gating?, its just less intuitive, hides content and possible worst, blocks content, nothing else. If we're talking no gating, then no gating dont use double standards. Why is level gating so evil while narrative gating is okey? They both share the same issues you're talking about. They block how far ahead you can get. They slow you down. They prevent you from reaching the best rewards. In addition story gating has these additional negatives: you're funneled on a linear path, once past that path you're feel you're done with that segment even though there is like a ton of side missions to do. Areas in front of that narrative is blocked entirely. If you play any other content besides the story you dont progress.

Also you're wrong Glints challenge isnt gated just by narrative and level. If you want to solo that dudess dragon you will also need to acquire 7 heroes, armor them up with the correct runes, you'll need specific skills which in turn means a ton of plat and some skill capturing action. If you had to start a brand new character with the sole intention of fighting glint the amount of content you'd need to play to be able to do that would level a few characters to 80 in gw2 I have no doubt.

Nothing can track people's skill, neither leveling nor narrative. I wonder which is really more indicative though. Beating a specific mission or having played the game for X effort? both can be corrupted. Beating the specific mission can be done by using a premade build, getting an experienced friend along, you npc team etc... Leveling can be corrupted by doing actions not directly related to the challenges ahead like say crafting and gathering. In essence though they're both equally effective. The mission way is a one time exam that tests your skills while leveling is more learning by practice.

What do you mean, that every game should reinvent the wheel and never use established terms and mechanics?
Do you see people praising some crazy MMOs that decided to turn things upside down and mark available quests by putting a scroll on top of NPC heads and completed quests by putting an exclamation mark on people heads? Cause honestly I see those based in reviews. No game is an exclusive world, people are used to MMOs now and they're used to certain standards. Following those standards doesnt mean you dont have your own unique identity it means you're making your game more accessible and easier to get into.

[XPhiler]

raspberry jam, on 20 February 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

Trained soldiers don't shoot harder bullets. They just behave differently, and that bandit didn't behave differently from the ones I killed. She just shot harder.

And yes, it is kind of retarded that the dragons don't just kill us. So much for ANet's ability to create a setting.

Like I said, its a matter of perspective. Trained soldiers dont shoot harder bullets but do aim better which means being shot by a soldier is very likely to cause more damage then being shot by someone who isnt trained making it seem like the soldier bullet is "harder" if though in reality its not.

its all representative.

Which MMO creates a realistic setting? they all sacrifice realism for fun. An MMO where you face only other people and everyone can one shot everyone and the whole game would be if you're lucky enough to hit or not wouldnt really be very exciting in all likeliness dont you think?

raspberry jam, on 20 February 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

We've been over this: "exploration" by visiting places that are already marked on your map isn't exploration and therefore boring, hearts are in general boring and while there are a few interesting dynamic events, the majority of them too are boring. As for gahering/crafting and jumping puzzles, those things are boring, but the main flaw of them is that they are minigames. I got GW2 because I wanted to kill monsters and be a hero, not because I wanted to pick flowers or play 3d platformers. If I wanted to do those things I'd get some other game where that is the main gameplay.

I wish people would stop putting minigames in their games. They are literally there because the main gameplay is too boring, and that should ring some warning bells right there.

Playing at max level is the same as playing a level-free game because you will not level up, obviously. Which means that your stats will never change (except by switching gear and such of course).

We;ve also been over the fact that when I mention exploration I never mean those points marked on the map but rather everything else there is to find thats not marked in anyway.

In the previous post you've talked about realism and now you say "GW2 because I wanted to kill monsters and be a hero, not because I wanted to pick flowers or play 3d platformers." Do you think real life heroes never did anything other then heroic deeds? Anyhow if you want to just kill monsters and be a hero then do just that. Nothing in gw2 is compulsory. You're free to skip content you feel is beneath your character other heroes might feel they're humble enough that if a farmer needs help catching his escaped rabbits they're willing to lend a hand because after all starvation can be as lethal as any bandits gun.

[Serris]

XPhiler, on 20 February 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

I think this is a problem of interpretation, Your interpretation of end game is exclusively level 80 content it seems. for me its any viable content. I cant read Anets mind and this is my personal opinion obviously but the fact they did downscaling and made sure you get reward even for playing in a starter zone at max level what they meant by the entire game is the end game was preciesly that once you reach level 80 unlike every other single MMO other there (excluding gw1) you can decide to play in any zone and arent restricted at lvl 80. Now I understand that for you and others Anet still failed because they didnt do lower level zones enticing enough granted 100% and I am not disagreeing with you, how can I? you are the one who can say how you feel without any doubt. That being said then you say you like exploration and you puzzle me there a bit because how is exploration having you stuck in Lvl 80 maps exactly? Any zone is open to you in that regards, you'll also earn XP, Gold and Karma while you're enjoying doing what you love in any other zone. Sure it will be less then what you'd earn in a level 80 map but the risks are less too and the events go faster as well.

exactly. there's no challenge and less reward. which i think could have been avoided if they'd stuck to their roots more :\

[raspberry jam]

XPhiler, on 20 February 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

Spoiler

Like I said, its a matter of perspective. Trained soldiers dont shoot harder bullets but do aim better which means being shot by a soldier is very likely to cause more damage then being shot by someone who isnt trained making it seem like the soldier bullet is "harder" if though in reality its not.

its all representative.

Which MMO creates a realistic setting? they all sacrifice realism for fun. An MMO where you face only other people and everyone can one shot everyone and the whole game would be if you're lucky enough to hit or not wouldnt really be very exciting in all likeliness dont you think?



We;ve also been over the fact that when I mention exploration I never mean those points marked on the map but rather everything else there is to find thats not marked in anyway.

In the previous post you've talked about realism and now you say "GW2 because I wanted to kill monsters and be a hero, not because I wanted to pick flowers or play 3d platformers." Do you think real life heroes never did anything other then heroic deeds? Anyhow if you want to just kill monsters and be a hero then do just that. Nothing in gw2 is compulsory. You're free to skip content you feel is beneath your character other heroes might feel they're humble enough that if a farmer needs help catching his escaped rabbits they're willing to lend a hand because after all starvation can be as lethal as any bandits gun.

I don't think you have been in a combat situation, nor received any sort of military training, ever.

Also, I'm not talking about realism, but offering a challenge instead of offering a time-based gate.

But actual exploration is only fun if the world that you explore has true value to you already, which in games is obtained by having good, fun gameplay. GW2 fails at that.

Anyway, that is the point: if you skip all the boring stuff, only the things that you claim to be "ruled by reward" is left. If the game had actually fun content, no one would be complaining. But it doesn't, it has fun rewards, but rewards are only fun when you get them, not when you have them.

XPhiler, on 20 February 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

Spoiler

What stopped people from rushing the lich in gw1? the various gating the game had. Story gating, Skill gating, level gating, etc...
If there was really no gating people would finish the game in the first 30 minutes of release. As a game designer do you really think this will be a boon for the longevity of the game?

How is narrative gating any different then level gating?, its just less intuitive, hides content and possible worst, blocks content, nothing else. If we're talking no gating, then no gating dont use double standards. Why is level gating so evil while narrative gating is okey? They both share the same issues you're talking about. They block how far ahead you can get. They slow you down. They prevent you from reaching the best rewards. In addition story gating has these additional negatives: you're funneled on a linear path, once past that path you're feel you're done with that segment even though there is like a ton of side missions to do. Areas in front of that narrative is blocked entirely. If you play any other content besides the story you dont progress.

Also you're wrong Glints challenge isnt gated just by narrative and level. If you want to solo that dudess dragon you will also need to acquire 7 heroes, armor them up with the correct runes, you'll need specific skills which in turn means a ton of plat and some skill capturing action. If you had to start a brand new character with the sole intention of fighting glint the amount of content you'd need to play to be able to do that would level a few characters to 80 in gw2 I have no doubt.

Nothing can track people's skill, neither leveling nor narrative. I wonder which is really more indicative though. Beating a specific mission or having played the game for X effort? both can be corrupted. Beating the specific mission can be done by using a premade build, getting an experienced friend along, you npc team etc... Leveling can be corrupted by doing actions not directly related to the challenges ahead like say crafting and gathering. In essence though they're both equally effective. The mission way is a one time exam that tests your skills while leveling is more learning by practice.

What do you mean, that every game should reinvent the wheel and never use established terms and mechanics?
Do you see people praising some crazy MMOs that decided to turn things upside down and mark available quests by putting a scroll on top of NPC heads and completed quests by putting an exclamation mark on people heads? Cause honestly I see those based in reviews. No game is an exclusive world, people are used to MMOs now and they're used to certain standards. Following those standards doesnt mean you dont have your own unique identity it means you're making your game more accessible and easier to get into.

I think gating is truly irrelevant to the longevity of a good game. As I said elsewhere in this thread, it was possible to complete Morrowind within seven minutes, and people still played that game intensely and for a long time.

Narrative gating is far more intuitive than level based gating. Example: not being able to get past a door because it's locked and you don't have the key, is far more intuitive than not being able to get past it because you don't have X number of abstract points that someone made up and is not part of the in-game world.

As for the funnel into a single line argument, the locked door only gates what is inside/beyond the door, not necessarily anything else, meaning that you can potentially keep the entire rest of the world open for adventure, whereas levels gate everything that is above the level range your character is at (and below it, unless there is downscaling far better than GW2's).

Glint's Challenge isn't about killing a dragon, it's about defending a baby dragon (that for some reason is full grown) from attackers. So I don't get what the "fighting glint" part comes from. Glint isn't even in that mission. Are you talking about Dragon's Lair? It's the only place you can fight her. It's also been soloed by a level 12.
Did you even play GW1?

True, nothing can track people's skill, except of course a record of challenges beat. And narrative gating allows one to build just that. That gimmick builds and running exists are flaws of the game (GW1 had lots of those), not in any way implying that narrative-based gating is a bad way to sort the events of a narrative.

And you learn nothing by leveling.

No, I don't mean that. Where did you derive that from? I mean that you should keep the vocabulary established in a certain franchise.

[XPhiler]

Serris, on 20 February 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

exactly. there's no challenge and less reward. which i think could have been avoided if they'd stuck to their roots more :\

I agree completely that downleveling is just too easy, not arguing with that and definitely should be addressed so dont get me wrong we're 100% on the same page there. That being said this is a balancing issue and nothing else. They have total control on downleveling and if they really wanted to can make a downlevel character even less powerful at a specific level then a real character of that specific level. Its a conscious choice to make downleveled characters strong then characters of that level. I dont agree with that choice personally. Am just happy they already nerfed it once, hope they do it again.

[tfckmk988]

raspberry jam, on 20 February 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

And yes, it is kind of retarded that the dragons don't just kill us. So much for ANet's ability to create a setting.

How would having the dragon kill us make for an enjoyable game? In my opinion it would turn me off from a game very very quickly if im not able to do anything about it and the dragon just swoops down above my head and kills me

as for the cap being level 80 instead of something lower its a change that you KNEW about if you didn't like it you didn't need to buy a game they (I believe and have to leave for work soon so can't look it up to confirm) said early on that it would have a higher lvl cap than GW1, also i think they will continue to work on the dynamic scalling so you feel more like the lvl 6 character you would be if you were playing the zone at intended level i'd except further updates to it in this upcoming patch in fact

[raspberry jam]

tfckmk988, on 20 February 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

How would having the dragon kill us make for an enjoyable game? In my opinion it would turn me off from a game very very quickly if im not able to do anything about it and the dragon just swoops down above my head and kills me

That is why they shouldn't have put in huge enemies that does nothing except stand there and look dangerous until you kill them by spamming 2. Once you actually finish the game you might understand what I mean.

[XPhiler]

raspberry jam, on 20 February 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

I don't think you have been in a combat situation, nor received any sort of military training, ever.

Also, I'm not talking about realism, but offering a challenge instead of offering a time-based gate.

But actual exploration is only fun if the world that you explore has true value to you already, which in games is obtained by having good, fun gameplay. GW2 fails at that.

Anyway, that is the point: if you skip all the boring stuff, only the things that you claim to be "ruled by reward" is left. If the game had actually fun content, no one would be complaining. But it doesn't, it has fun rewards, but rewards are only fun when you get them, not when you have them.

I think gating is truly irrelevant to the longevity of a good game. As I said elsewhere in this thread, it was possible to complete Morrowind within seven minutes, and people still played that game intensely and for a long time.

Narrative gating is far more intuitive than level based gating. Example: not being able to get past a door because it's locked and you don't have the key, is far more intuitive than not being able to get past it because you don't have X number of abstract points that someone made up and is not part of the in-game world.

As for the funnel into a single line argument, the locked door only gates what is inside/beyond the door, not necessarily anything else, meaning that you can potentially keep the entire rest of the world open for adventure, whereas levels gate everything that is above the level range your character is at (and below it, unless there is downscaling far better than GW2's).

Glint's Challenge isn't about killing a dragon, it's about defending a baby dragon (that for some reason is full grown) from attackers. So I don't get what the "fighting glint" part comes from. Glint isn't even in that mission. Are you talking about Dragon's Lair? It's the only place you can fight her. It's also been soloed by a level 12.
Did you even play GW1?

True, nothing can track people's skill, except of course a record of challenges beat. And narrative gating allows one to build just that. That gimmick builds and running exists are flaws of the game (GW1 had lots of those), not in any way implying that narrative-based gating is a bad way to sort the events of a narrative.

And you learn nothing by leveling.

No, I don't mean that. Where did you derive that from? I mean that you should keep the vocabulary established in a certain franchise.

No I never had any kind of military training and short of paint ball was never in any kind of combat situation. With that information can you kindly please elaborate on which part of my statement if false? Do trained soldiers have a worst aim then an untrained person?  Do trained soldiers in a life and death situation try to avoid vital organs to give their enemy a fighting chance or something? Or are you implying that if you end up in a mortal fight your chances of survival between a trained soldier and a civilian are the same? Because at the end of the day in my opinion of someone with no military training there are various factors that will make a soldier deadlier. There is what you're trying to imply. A soldier will find a better tactical position to engage you with better cover etc... But there is also the fact they'll likely have better reflexes due to training and a better aim. Both of these factors have no visual distinct component from a untrained person but both of these factors will still result in a more lethal outcome. In any case you're picking at straws and cheating. You're a game designer come on are you telling me the concept of simulating stuff in a simplified manner is foreign to you? Take a tab targeting game for example. Why does an attack use a random generator + modifiers to decide if that attack hits or not? in real life (well depending on your life phylosofy this might change) there is no random component to say a shooting. Its all skill and reactions. That cannot translate directly in the game so skill is instead simulated by a random number generator with better odds. This is no different. You level 3 bandit is your untrained civilian. you level 80 bandit is your uber experienced veteran soldier. They're still using the same type of weapon but the effectiveness of that weapon improves by the wielder experience and by having access to a better model of the same weapon type. When processing power becomes infinite and it becomes viable it would be great if we remove the simulation trickery and having each npc you fight seek shelter behind rocks, snipe you from a tree or ambush you with swat like precision. And why stop there? a gun should also be fully simulated down to the quantum level so with enough wear and tear we can have them jam and stuff. Can we please discuss stuff objectively rather then trying to twist words?

Fine Gw2 fails to be fun for you. I am sorry about that, I have lots of fun playing it personally. Considering the game population trend is on the rise I guess I am probably not the only one either.

You assumption is nothing in gw2 is fun, I disagree. Most of the game is fun. Not only that but I dont think people focus on reward because there is nothing fun to do, I think people purposefully ignore whats fun because they just want rewards.

Morrowind isnt a good example for several reasons. 1. The game isnt intended to be finished in 7 minutes. A new player cant just walk to the heart and kill. Its more like a cheat. Thats means no doubt people finished the game properly before they even tried the speed run. 2. The speed run itself became a game mode so to speak, a challenge for whom could finish the game quicker most likely done each time by people who not only finished the game but knew it well enough to do stuff blindfolded. Just look at a speed run video and you'll see what I mean people looting stuff, buying stuff, using potions etc.. in the blink of an eye. 3. No doubt not every player who finished morrowind continued playing.  So no the fact that it was possible to finish morrowind in 7 minutes is by no means proof people would happily play all the game once finished.

I strongly disagree. If a new player wants to go to the ring of fire islands for the sake of argument, s/he can spend his/her entire life exploring all of guild wars  s/he will never know why they cannot go there (unless goes through the entire storyline but again nothing will indicate that needs to be done at all to unlock this area. What logical sense does it even make? its not like the islands didnt exist before the specific mission . (obviously goes without saying here we're talking about the feedback the game gives you and how intututive that is. One can go online and find out what they have to do no problem)

On the other hand going by your own example you knew immediately that the reason why that bandit killed you is because you were not high level enough. Not only that but you were still free to roam around as long as you avoided fights.

Answering your specific example itself. If you find a lock door you know you'll need to get the key sure but if thats part of a narrative gate you'll only know that if you're following the storyline. (no gating is an issue if you're following it directly including leveling) Trick is if the door you want to open is something that occurs in mission 12 and you still didnt do any single mission coming across the door has you stuck. You will not know where the key is and you will never be able to acquire it until you do the 12 previous missions even though its most likely the play / npc who has the key is already in game and you can interact with them. How is that more intuitive or not as much made up as an abstract leveling system? One could argue the door itself is an abstract gate. I mean in this game your character can probably cut down dragons and other giant colossal beings yet now a puny door / gate halts his progress because story says so?

Only problem with that argument is such gates and doors generally block far more then just a small hut. in Gw1 for example story blocked entire zones, areas and dungeons. Leveling if anything blocks far less. At level 1 I am still free to get to Orr I just am no match for mobs there but at least I am not physically prevented from getting there.

You're absolutely right, mixed those two missions, Appologies. You fight waves of destroyers not glint in that challenge you're right. The point remains however. The time it takes to prepare one self to take on glint's challenge solo is so large you can level multiple gw2 characters to max level no doubt.

You learn nothing by leveling? in 99% of the time its exactly the same thing. Think about it so we agree narrative gating has you do a particular mission and your ability to beat it is proof you learn the game enough to progress fair enough. What is one actually doing why leveling? hmmm doing missions perhaps?

raspberry jam, on 20 February 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

That is why they shouldn't have put in huge enemies that does nothing except stand there and look dangerous until you kill them by spamming 2. Once you actually finish the game you might understand what I mean.

Zaithan isnt the only dragon in the game. If you play it a bit now and then you might know that.

[DarkGanni]

Personally I prefer the GW1 system it was easier to get max level and max armor and you get to enjoy more high level areas.

70% of GW2's areas are low leveled and the game barely upscales you and literally forces you to play in what? The same 2-4 areas in the WHOLE game and they want to call that a themepark game? GW1 also offered hard mode which in turn gave every area a new challenge where you'd still get rewarded with max damage rare (yellow text) weapons.

Also dungeons in GW1 which I admit they arrived a bit late they provided a challenge and good rewards especially those with rare skinned weapons in them. What does GW2 offer? A boring and unrewarding amount of dungeons that you play them till you get that specific token weapon/armor/item and then you'd forget about it.

Should the cap have been level 20? YES, Definitely. It would have given more space to high level content.

Edited by DarkGanni, 20 February 2013 - 03:10 PM.

[Br0barian]

Unbelievable. So many post complaining about leveling, why are you playing an MMO or any RPG for that matter. No content? There is tons of content: Fractuals, WvW, sPvP, many dungeons  huge zones etc. I guarantee most of the people posting do not even have world completion. Just because your 80 does not mean you are sequestered to Dragons and Orr. Go back to the zones you never even touched on your path to 80. If you don't like leveling, spend $50 buck on gems, exchange them for gold, and craft to 80 in a handful of hours, I have done it on one character. To post that the grind to 80 is boring and a waste of time, go play COD or BF...wait.....those have exp and leveling caps too.....  Incredible!!!!!

[El Duderino]

tfckmk988, on 20 February 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

How would having the dragon kill us make for an enjoyable game? In my opinion it would turn me off from a game very very quickly if im not able to do anything about it and the dragon just swoops down above my head and kills me

as for the cap being level 80 instead of something lower its a change that you KNEW about if you didn't like it you didn't need to buy a game they (I believe and have to leave for work soon so can't look it up to confirm) said early on that it would have a higher lvl cap than GW1, also i think they will continue to work on the dynamic scalling so you feel more like the lvl 6 character you would be if you were playing the zone at intended level i'd except further updates to it in this upcoming patch in fact

Br0barian, on 20 February 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

Unbelievable. So many post complaining about leveling, why are you playing an MMO or any RPG for that matter. No content? There is tons of content: Fractuals, WvW, sPvP, many dungeons  huge zones etc. I guarantee most of the people posting do not even have world completion. Just because your 80 does not mean you are sequestered to Dragons and Orr. Go back to the zones you never even touched on your path to 80. If you don't like leveling, spend $50 buck on gems, exchange them for gold, and craft to 80 in a handful of hours, I have done it on one character. To post that the grind to 80 is boring and a waste of time, go play COD or BF...wait.....those have exp and leveling caps too.....  Incredible!!!!!

Unbelievable. Is there anything you guys want to add to the conversation or do you really believe that everything in Guild Wars 2 is great and shouldn't be changed.

I hope one day I get to find your post that says you think something could be better. Then I can tell you that you didn't need to buy the game either.

Seriously, the "you don't need to play the game" is such a lousy argument. How did that work for Warhammer Online, SWOTR, Aion, etc? Oh yea, they DID have problems and people DID leave and now the games ARE DEAD.

So, yea, I think that just because it exists doesn't make it good - and certainly won't keep it from failure.

[Krazzar]

raspberry jam, on 20 February 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Spoiler

Om yjsy vdr, yraa zr ejsy yjod dsud.

Tactics is an acquired skill and has nothing to do with levels, and levels do certainly not allow you to "choose your challenge", except possibly during leveling itself - but in GW2 you'll hit max in like two weeks and then what?

Where are these personal anecdotes you refer to, by the way?

It doesn't matter what the GW2 equivalent of The Republic is, it is sufficient that it is difficult to understand for an average 7-year-old, and that you should not prevent a 7-year-old that has the rare ability to understand it from reading it. Until you address that issue, you can blab on about reading to your niece all you want, and it won't change anything.

There is plenty of change in motivation in a game with levels compared to one without. The most important one being the imperative to reach max level - ironically enough, since it means converting the personal gameplay experience to what it would be in a level-free game.
And when we talk about "levels" here, we of course mean xp based levels as they work in GW2 and every other MMO, so there is your "structure of the gating, progression". Learning, of course, does not factor in because the amount of xp your character has is no indicator of learning.

Basically, everything you say is either wrong or simply irrelevant. I'd feel sorry for you, if not for the fact that there are so many just like you.

"Om yjsy vdr, yraa zr ejsy yjod dsud." Thank you for such a concise summary of your argument. Things like the "aa" and "yj" remind me of Greek before they added some letters to their alphabet.

Did you ever want to address anything I said or are you limited to just saying "no you're wrong, I know better"?  I don't have much else to say because you're just repeating yourself, claiming I'm wrong with no rationale, and refusing to actually discuss anything.

You are not that 7-year-old that has the rare ability to undstand The Republic from reading it. You have no justification to jump from level 2 to 80. You just played GW1 and think because of that you know everything about GW2. In fact, from your comments you just know better than everyone else in the world. Even if you know everything about your profession in GW2 you can't possibly know everything about every zone in the world, so why do you want to skip the game again? Because you know better than to have fun? Since you know better than everyone else you should lead us all into the golden age of gaming, no rational explaination needed, nevermind how the rest of the world operates and those glaring holes. Don't worry about the critics on your way up, you know better!

You haven't made the slightest effort to show how any game, let alone GW2, would be better without levels. You completely ignore the plain fact that levels are indicative of the other mechanisms in the game and not a stand-alone system, remove levels and you're stuck with the same, or more likely worse, situation. You refuse to even acknowldege without leveling other, more restrictive, gating mechisms are used such as in games in the past. You haven't outlined how to structure a game without levels, besides "it would be free". You haven't made an attempt to show a compelling difference between the motivations and activities with and without levels, you do the same things while leveling as you do after you're level 80, except you can't send all your characters to the same farming spot after ten minutes (which you couldn't do even if there were no or fewer levels). Having a "monkey on your back" related to levels is more of an admission of an obsessive compulsive disorder than a problem with levels. You're in complete denial and that keeps you from actually seeing the true situation, or you have personal issues that keep you from enjoyment. There must be something you're not saying because when the outcome is exactly the same levels can't be the evil oppressor you claim.

Time for personal insults? Seems common when you can't actually address a post. Funny to see such a comment apply more to the poster.

raspberry jam, on 20 February 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

Trained soldiers don't shoot harder bullets. They just behave differently, and that bandit didn't behave differently from the ones I killed. She just shot harder.

Again, they actually do. Not only do they literally shoot bullets that travel faster and have a flatter trajectory (5.56 NATO vs .223 SAAMI) than civilian ammunition, they can also use specialized ammunition such as hardened Uranium-tipped bullets, which are admittedly rarely used because they are AP where most theaters do not see regular armor use. Considering the standard civilian defense load is a soft-point for greater expansion against unarmored targets and the typical soldier will be shooting the standard ball ammunition soldiers literally shoot harder bullets. Comparative civilian ammunition also has a lower grain bullet and less powder, so it has less mass and energy, so the 5.56 couterpart literally hits harder as well. Solders do behave differently as well, since they have access to automatic weapons, aerial and artillery support, armored support, regular access to plate carriers, and crew-served weapons like SAWs, all of which have specialized training, so there's your gear grind. In terms of training civilians can easily become as trained as the average soldier and "untrained" fighters in Afganistan have defeated two world powers and are working on a third as we speak through sheer tactics. Tactics alone in GW2 can't save you beyond 10 levels above your own, but around 7 is a good place to be. Oh, and GW2 was designed to be played with others too, playing solo will gimp you seriously.

Opponents in every tutorial are lame. Before level 20 we don't even see conditions being widely used. Besides that they hit harder so you have to play smarter. There is only so much they can do to make NPCs more difficult. If you improve their actions again and again to increase difficulty you quickly get to the point where it's impossible to win and the more specific you get with actions the more specific players have to get with their builds to counter, so you end up recreating GW1's problem of each zone having its own build that allows players to faceroll the content while everythign else is looked down on and then you recreate the build wars. GW2 could use a tune-up on difficulty in a general sense, especially once you hit level 80 (during leveling is when the game can be the most difficult), but that's another topic.

[Elcee]

Krazzar, on 20 February 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

Again, they actually do. Not only do they literally shoot bullets that travel faster and have a flatter trajectory (5.56 NATO vs .223 SAAMI) than civilian ammunition, they can also use specialized ammunition such as hardened Uranium-tipped bullets, which are admittedly rarely used because they are AP where most theaters do not see regular armor use. Considering the standard civilian defense load is a soft-point for greater expansion against unarmored targets and the typical soldier will be shooting the standard ball ammunition soldiers literally shoot harder bullets. Comparative civilian ammunition also has a lower grain bullet and less powder, so it has less mass and energy, so the 5.56 couterpart literally hits harder as well. Solders do behave differently as well, since they have access to automatic weapons, aerial and artillery support, armored support, regular access to plate carriers, and crew-served weapons like SAWs, all of which have specialized training, so there's your gear grind. In terms of training civilians can easily become as trained as the average soldier and "untrained" fighters in Afganistan have defeated two world powers and are working on a third as we speak through sheer tactics. Tactics alone in GW2 can't save you beyond 10 levels above your own, but around 7 is a good place to be. Oh, and GW2 was designed to be played with others too, playing solo will gimp you seriously..

I think you completely and utterly(and somewhat hilariously) misunderstood the metaphor.

Edited by Elcee, 20 February 2013 - 05:49 PM.

[Fizzypop]

I would've preferred a lower cap. I think 80 is just too big of a jump to have challenging content. If they'd stuck at 20 or gone to 30 they'd be able to make even lower level zones challenging. At 80 there is little challenge that's even more obvious in lower level zones.

[Red_Falcon]

Leveling to 80 was actually the most enjoyement I got out of GW2.
Now they could have made it so instead of getting from 0 to 80 you could get from 0 to 20 doing the same content but it wouldn't change anything beside that number.

I don't have any problems with lvl 80, but I would be disappointed to see level cap increases.
From a poll on the official forums, 80% of voters did not want a lvl cap increase.
Cap increase would be good from a traits perspective but terrible from a gear one as you'd have to re-make all your gear.

Edited by Red_Falcon, 20 February 2013 - 06:26 PM.

[El Duderino]

Red_Falcon, on 20 February 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

I don't have any problems with lvl 80, but I would be disappointed to see level cap increases.
From a poll on the official forums, 80% of voters did not want a lvl cap increase.
Cap increase would be good from a traits perspective but terrible from a gear one as you'd have to re-make all your gear.

Again, according to posters in this thread, ANet intends to continue to increase the level, they also intend to make gear more powerful as well - so the gear you have now will need to be upgraded eventually unless you have legendaries.

[Lordkrall]

El Duderino, on 20 February 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

Again, according to posters in this thread, ANet intends to continue to increase the level, they also intend to make gear more powerful as well - so the gear you have now will need to be upgraded eventually unless you have legendaries.

We do not know that, since it has not been confirmed by ArenaNet I suggest stop stating it as facts.

[tfckmk988]

i think most complaints about the level cap would be solved if they got the dynamic leveling working as intended so you actually felt like a lvl 5-6 (or whatever ) when exploring queensdale for example  as then you could truly say that the entire game world was endgame

[astromarmot]

Greyhounds wouldn't run around that track if the mechanical rabbit stood still...

tfckmk988, on 20 February 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

i think most complaints about the level cap would be solved if they got the dynamic leveling working as intended so you actually felt like a lvl 5-6 (or whatever ) when exploring queensdale for example  as then you could truly say that the entire game world was endgame

But when properly scaled that's not really any different than the Elder Scrolls stuff scaling to your level everywhere in the world...

[KryTiKaL]

How is the leveling a grind in GW2?

I've hit 80 with two characters in 5 days max. It isn't hard at all.

[tfckmk988]

astromarmot, on 20 February 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

But when properly scaled that's not really any different than the Elder Scrolls stuff scaling to your level everywhere in the world...

True just a different way of accomplishing the same thing (as far as I know haven't looked into the elderscrolls MMO at all ) although it does seem that would elminate a destinction in open world from normal game to end game so i'd wonder what they have planned for "endgame" as people love to moan about there not being enough endgame content in a MMO

[Krazzar]

Elcee, on 20 February 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

I think you completely and utterly(and somewhat hilariously) misunderstood the metaphor.

No, I completely understood, see the second paragraph of that post you convienently left out of your quote. To explain it further, since nuance is a mystery to some, there is no way to write out that second paragraph without understanding the metaphor. Also, look up the term "satire". I was just pointing out some members should stick to one topic when they don't know what they're talking about instead of trying to branch out to other topics they obviously also have no clue on. It's rather humorous that "that's not how it works" is exactly how it works so often with that poster.

El Duderino, on 20 February 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

Again, according to posters in this thread, ANet intends to continue to increase the level, they also intend to make gear more powerful as well - so the gear you have now will need to be upgraded eventually unless you have legendaries.

And what's the problem with new gear? How hard is it to get top tier gear since they added Fractals? Most that wanted it got it in a few days. The most restrictive part of getting new gear will be literally getting to the place where you can get crafting materials, or create the gear itself, which is identical to GW1. Exotics weren't hard to get at release, so why would any other tier? Do you plan to buy and not play an expansion pack? That's the only way it could be a problem. Max stat gear isn't a grind now in GW2, why would it be later?

Edited by Krazzar, 20 February 2013 - 07:09 PM.

[El Duderino]

Lordkrall, on 20 February 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

We do not know that, since it has not been confirmed by ArenaNet I suggest stop stating it as facts.

Yes we do. Here is proof:

Quote

Source: http://www.eurogamer...rs-2-loot-grind

"In GW1 we never advanced the level cap through four campaigns/expansions. The game design didn't allow for it. But GW2 was designed without those restrictions, and we've always expected that we will someday raise the level cap in GW2."

If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't post suggesting otherwise.

Are you disappointed that your favorite game that you have defended to the ends of the earth might do something that you don't find particularly exciting? Perhaps you understand our views that, while we love Guild Wars, we think some things could be better? I wonder if you will feel the same when this happens or if you will continue to defend GW2 ad nauseam?


Here's another quote from that same article:

Quote

"We have never said there would be no vertical progression."

Chris Whiteside

Edited by El Duderino, 20 February 2013 - 07:16 PM.

[Lordkrall]

El Duderino, on 20 February 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

Yes we do. Here is proof:


[/font][/color]

If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't post suggesting otherwise.

Are you disappointed that your favorite game that you have defended to the ends of the earth might do something that you don't find particularly exciting?

Can't you at least read the WHOLE quote you posted? "we've always EXPECTED". That is quite clear that they are not saying: We WILL, it is saying we MIGHT.

Also there is nothing in that quote that say anything about how gear and such will work with a higher level cap.

[Krazzar]

El Duderino, on 20 February 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't post suggesting otherwise.

Are you disappointed that your favorite game that you have defended to the ends of the earth might do something that you don't find particularly exciting?

As long as it's backed by content and not grind it's fine. Then again, you don't need levels to pack in grind, in fact, most times there aren't levels there is grind. Considering levels are so open you can do nearly anything to progress through them I'd rather have levels than anything else.

[El Duderino]

Lordkrall, on 20 February 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

Can't you at least read the WHOLE quote you posted? "we've always EXPECTED". That is quite clear that they are not saying: We WILL, it is saying we MIGHT.

Also there is nothing in that quote that say anything about how gear and such will work with a higher level cap.

Reading the article would help you tremendously:

Quote

O'Brien said it was "important" for Guild Wars 2 to have that kind of "gradual" progression. And although "we made some mistakes with the way we introduced Ascended gear", he added, "I don't think they invalidate the fundamental concept that GW2 can have gradual stat progression without being a gear treadmill game".

Sure, you can argue that because they say they expect to do it, they may not ACTUALLY do it; but, if you expect to do something, don't you USUALLY do it?

You are really splitting hairs from a rather weak position over this topic. I suggest you give up because I can find more evidence if you need me to.

[Lordkrall]

El Duderino, on 20 February 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

Reading the article would help you tremendously:

[/font][/color]

Sure, you can argue that because they say they expect to do it, they may not ACTUALLY do it; but, if you expect to do something, don't you USUALLY do it?

You are really splitting hairs from a rather weak position over this topic. I suggest you give up because I can find more evidence if you need me to.

I have read the article, and nowhere have they stated what will happen with the current gear if/when they raise the level cap. Which you claimed that they have.

Feel free to post a quote that actually address the statement instead of posting more or less irrelevant articles.

[El Duderino]

Krazzar, on 20 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

As long as it's backed by content and not grind it's fine. Then again, you don't need levels to pack in grind, in fact, most times there aren't levels there is grind. Considering levels are so open you can do nearly anything to progress through them I'd rather have levels than anything else.

Personally, I just think it is beneficial to get to a max level, max content, max loot as soon as possible because it affords me more freedom to do what I want to do - as opposed to doing something that is akin to grinding in order to get to some level that really doesn't do anything except gate me from content.

Really, it comes down to time. Yes, I see value in leveling to the point where it helps you get a basic grasp of the games mechanics. Past that, it really does come down to a grind. I didn't like leveling in GW1 or in GW2, but at least in Factions and Nightfall, it was quicker and the max level content was much better.

Of course, I am sure new content will be provided for GW2, which will alleviate that feeling - but it still takes way to long to get to max level, regardless of whether that level is 10, 20, 80 or 10,000. The number IS rather irrelevant.

GW2 leveling seems like a chore, especially after your first character.