577 replies to this topic

[Kymeric]

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.

"I expect" to do something is definitely stronger than "I might" do something.

"I might" doesn't lean either way, postive or negative.  "I expect" implies "I will" unless something I don't expect happens to make me change my mind.

[Krazzar]

El Duderino, on 20 February 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

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.

Going through a zone isn't a chore for me. I like to take my time, explore, talk to NPCs. During that time I know I will level and on every one of my 6 level 80 characters I remember being surprised at how quickly I was leveling, whenever I noticed my level that is. There will be more zones in an expansion pack, I'm going to spend time in them and because of that I will level, levels don't concern me at all, gating and content pacing concerns me.

[verskore]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Great reasoning there. Thanks for the input!

Ok, you want me to give some reasons?
first of all, alot of people (including me) LIKE to level up, giving us a sense of progress in the game.

Secondly if the lvl cap would be 20, then a huge part of the world would be for max lvls and that would divide the world even more making it feel even more empty, since alot of people here allrdy complain about the emptyness of the world (which I rlly dont get cus there are lots of players), I dont see a lvl 20 cap as a good idea...

Dont get me wrong, I rlly like(d) GW1
So, did I contribute now?

[Strawberry Nubcake]

Expecting or planning to do something doesn't mean it's set in stone.  Look at how many things changed before the game was released.  Account wide dyes?  Tell me how awesome those are.  Oh wait!  You can't because they changed their mind.  Anything can happen.

[Red_Falcon]

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.

I'm not sure where Anet posted that, if they did.
And sure as hell what Anet says isn't set in stone either.

I wouldn't take things for granted, Anet already showed they change their directions according to what most people wants.
If the 80% majority of their players don't want a cap increase I doubt it will happen.

[El Duderino]

Lordkrall, on 20 February 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

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.

Well, if you use history as a guide (see: ascended items) it renders the items before them less powerful. How is that difficult to understand? Ascended gear > exotic gear. There is no mistaking this. But, here let me find more for you since you don't want to believe I am correct.

Quote

Source: https://www.guildwar...-ascended-gear/


You’ll also see more Legendary items in the future and an update to our existing Legendary weapons. Legendary items were always intended to be on par with other “best-in-slot” items. So fear not, all existing Legendary weapons, which are currently on par with Exotics, will be upgraded to be on par with Ascended weapons at the same time that we add Ascended weapons to the game. Thus Legendaries will remain “best-in-slot” items. All Legendary items going forward will be of Ascended power. We also have plans to add more fun ways to acquire Legendary precursor items with a more “scavenger hunt” feel than they are acquired currently.
The new additions in November are just the start of our item progression initiative. We’re going to add tons of new high-level content to Guild Wars 2 in the future. As we introduce the new high-level content, we’ll also roll out complimentary Ascended and Legendary items (to say nothing of the other rewards you can earn by playing the content).

Please, tell me again how wrong I am.

Red_Falcon, on 20 February 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

I'm not sure where Anet posted that, if they did.
And sure as hell what Anet says isn't set in stone either.

I wouldn't take things for granted, Anet already showed they change their directions according to what most people wants.
If the 80% majority of their players don't want a cap increase I doubt it will happen.

Please see my sources I posted in later posts. It is common knowledge.

verskore, on 20 February 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Ok, you want me to give some reasons?
first of all, alot of people (including me) LIKE to level up, giving us a sense of progress in the game.

Secondly if the lvl cap would be 20, then a huge part of the world would be for max lvls and that would divide the world even more making it feel even more empty, since alot of people here allrdy complain about the emptyness of the world (which I rlly dont get cus there are lots of players), I dont see a lvl 20 cap as a good idea...

Dont get me wrong, I rlly like(d) GW1
So, did I contribute now?

Whatever you just said is certainly more of an input than what I originally responded to. I'll post it again so everyone can see your first post in this thread and how much it benefited to discussion:

verskore, on 19 February 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Nooo, just...no

Strawberry Nubcake, on 20 February 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

Expecting or planning to do something doesn't mean it's set in stone.  Look at how many things changed before the game was released.  Account wide dyes?  Tell me how awesome those are.  Oh wait!  You can't because they changed their mind.  Anything can happen.

True, the sky can fall down tomorrow, but don't you think that if it is something that ANet publicly said they intend to do - there is a MUCH GREATER chance of it happening than not? I mean, do you really think they would go out on a limb and tell everyone their intentions which is apparently part of the their reasoning for making GW2 - and then NOT do it?

I guess, sure you can argue that, then we can't take anything ANet says as fact about THEIR GAME.

Seems logical to me. (/sarcasm)

[Lordkrall]

Might I suggest that we all just leave the topic?
There has been nothing but the same people going back and forth over and over and over and over and over again since the thread was opened, with quite a few degrading comments here and there.

Clearly some people here refuse to accept that not everyone have the exact same opinion as them and that their own opinion might not be an universal truth.

[El Duderino]

Lordkrall, on 20 February 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

Might I suggest that we all just leave the topic?
There has been nothing but the same people going back and forth over and over and over and over and over again since the thread was opened, with quite a few degrading comments here and there.

Clearly some people here refuse to accept that not everyone have the exact same opinion as them and that their own opinion might not be an universal truth.

So, because I proved that I was correct, when you said I was wrong, you want to leave and say that it is just my opinion?

Good one. Take your ball and leave then - at least you could admit that I was right. ANet has very publicly said everything that I claimed to be correct. There is no denying it in any way.

[Kymeric]

El Duderino, on 20 February 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

As we introduce the new high-level content, we’ll also roll out complimentary Ascended and Legendary items (to say nothing of the other rewards you can earn by playing the content).

I just noticed the typo in there.  I think they meant "complementary" as in, "gear to go along with the new content".  Instead, they said they would be giving us free Ascended and Legendary items.

Free nitpick for any troll out there who wants to raise a stink on the forums.

To add to Duderino, I'm confident that one of the ANet staff, responding to the "Ascended items!  Gear treadmill!" panic, stated that tiers above Ascended were possible down the road.  He was pretty firm about Ascended being top for a significant time, but also very clear that they aren't planning Ascended to be the end of the treadmill once and for all.

I don't have will to search out the quote, so feel free to dismiss this as something I just made up, if it helps.

Edited by Kymeric, 20 February 2013 - 08:15 PM.

[El Duderino]

Kymeric, on 20 February 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

I just noticed the typo in there.  I think they meant "complementary" as in, "gear to go along with the new content".  Instead, they said they would be giving us free Ascended and Legendary items.

Free nitpick for any troll out there who wants to raise a stink on the forums.

To add to Duderino, I'm confident that one of the ANet staff, responding to the "Ascended items!  Gear treadmill!" panic, stated that tiers above Ascended were possible down the road.  He was pretty firm about Ascended being top for a significant time, but also very clear that they aren't planning Ascended to be the end of the treadmill once and for all.

I don't have will to search out the quote, so feel free to dismiss this as something I just made up, if it helps.

Thanks.

What baffles me are the people who clearly support GW2 more than others would rather dismiss the idea of extra levels and more powerful gear than defend ANet's position that it is beneficial to the game.

That leads me to conclude that no matter how hard they try to argue that they love leveling - they really don't want to continue to level one they reach 80 or max level.

That leads me to believe my first idea: that leveling is antiquated and boring and I think most people can agree with that.

Sure, it may provide some benefits, but the TIME is takes to level to max level in GW2 is much more than it needs to be and contributes to a very "grind-y" feeling, which (I thought) was something ANet was trying to avoid.

[mdapol]

Own Age Myname, on 20 February 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

Um, no? Just my opinion that ANet is stupid, this isn't the only thing I can point out.



Yes, considering I've never gotten to 80.

So -you- failed to achieve your goal.  However Anet did not fail to achieve -their- goal. Which was to make sales and make money.

[Krazzar]

El Duderino, on 20 February 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

Spoiler

Thanks.

What baffles me are the people who clearly support GW2 more than others would rather dismiss the idea of extra levels and more powerful gear than defend ANet's position that it is beneficial to the game.

That leads me to conclude that no matter how hard they try to argue that they love leveling - they really don't want to continue to level one they reach 80 or max level.

That leads me to believe my first idea: that leveling is antiquated and boring and I think most people can agree with that.

Sure, it may provide some benefits, but the TIME is takes to level to max level in GW2 is much more than it needs to be and contributes to a very "grind-y" feeling, which (I thought) was something ANet was trying to avoid.

More like people hate to see their investments being shaken up. Once you add new levels, have a new expansion, or add anything everyone is lumped together as a "new" player and generally those with large investments in the game (time, money, or both) don't like to be mixed with the "unwashed masses". People want to build up and keep a lead on everyone else, the same was true of the pseudo-levels known as titles in GW1. On top of that Anet has a record for making expansion pack progression more restrictive and grindy, particularly because they couldn't use levels in GW1.

Bit of a rash conclusion. Leveling has little to do with the content besides giving it meaning on a universal scale. People don't love leveling, they enjoy the progression, the learning, the sense of achievement, or whatever else, and without levels all those things would still be there in other forms. If you have some kind of metagame goal levels might be in your way, but that's refusing to accept and play the game.

Leveling is an old concept, as old as civilization. We haven't removed it from any other aspects of our lives and actually more genres than ever are incorporating levels. More importantly, what does removing levels actually do? GW2 is more open than GW1 was because GW1 was completely linear due to story progression. Again, without levels we just have other gating mechanisms that happen to be more restrictive. Titles are levels by another name with more restrictions requiring you "rank up" by gaining "title points" from very specific activities, like clearing a particular zone again and again. Gear limits mean you have to gather all the prereq gear from specific zones or dungeons, or get every piece of armor infused one at a time. Story limits require every single character to do the exact same things in the same order. Levels in GW2 are as open as can be. Make no mistake, removing levels wouldn't make the game any more open.

The time it takes to level is only a problem if you don't like the activities you're doing during that time, the point that keeps coming up. If leveling is a grind it's because you've set some kind of conflicting goal that makes it a grind for you, because the same process is not a grind for others.

Edited by Krazzar, 20 February 2013 - 08:42 PM.

[st_clouds]

Yes it should be at 20.

Let everyone play and fight on even ground. The skills should really come from skillful play not time spent. If someone gets really good coz he plays 80hrs / week, so be it. But someone who plays only 10 hrs a week and is just as good, he shouldn't be punished because of it.

[Krazzar]

st_clouds, on 20 February 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Yes it should be at 20.

Let everyone play and fight on even ground. The skills should really come from skillful play not time spent. If someone gets really good coz he plays 80hrs / week, so be it. But someone who plays only 10 hrs a week and is just as good, he shouldn't be punished because of it.

How are they punished for playing less? Everything in PvE is cooperative. In PvP everyone is set to the max level. In WvW there is scaling up. If you are skillful you can take on content above your level and progress more quickly, and you are limited to 4 utility skills at a time, downscaling brings higher level players down, it's not like they get to ramp up unlimited power and steamroll everything at a higher level.

[El Duderino]

Krazzar, on 20 February 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

More like people hate to see their investments being shaken up. Once you add new levels, have a new expansion, or add anything everyone is lumped together as a "new" player and generally those with large investments in the game (time, money, or both) don't like to be mixed with the "unwashed masses". People want to build up and keep a lead on everyone else, the same was true of the pseudo-levels known as titles in GW1. On top of that Anet has a record for making expansion pack progression more restrictive and grindy, particularly because they couldn't use levels in GW1.

I think you are 100% correct here. I know that is why I don't really want to see higher gears or levels after I reach 80.

Krazzar, on 20 February 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Bit of a rash conclusion. Leveling has little to do with the content besides giving it meaning on a universal scale. People don't love leveling, they enjoy the progression, the learning, the sense of achievement, or whatever else, and without levels all those things would still be there in other forms. If you have some kind of metagame goal levels might be in your way, but that's refusing to accept and play the game.

Ok, I can get down with this too. It may not be my cup of tea, but here is my question then:

If the same people that LIKE leveling because it feels like they are progressing and achieving things - why would they be hesitant to like leveling again?

I mean, instead of being excited about the prospect of new levels, the people that responded seemed to want to dismiss the new levels instead of being excited for new opportunities to progress and achieve new things.

So, my feeling is that, much like myself, there is a timer to leveling where, once you pass a certain amount of time, leveling no longer feels like you are achieving or progressing anything, rather it feels like a grind.

The feeling of progression, learning and achieving, in my humble opinion, is tied to the entire game - and if we stop feeling those things, the game becomes uninteresting. So, regardless of level, if we can include things that make people feel like they are progressing, learning and achieving - everything would be great and we could still get max level gear and drops quicker!

Krazzar, on 20 February 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Leveling is an old concept, as old as civilization. We haven't removed it from any other aspects of our lives and actually more genres than ever are incorporating levels. More importantly, what does removing levels actually do? GW2 is more open than GW1 was because GW1 was completely linear. Again, without levels we just have other gating mechanisms that happen to be more restrictive. Titles require you "rank up" by gaining "title points" from very specific activities, like clearing a particular zone again and again. Gear limits mean you have to gather all the prereq gear from specific zones or dungeons. Story limits require every single character to do the exact same things in the same order. Levels in GW2 are as open as can be.

The time it takes to level is only a problem if you don't like the activities you're doing during that time, the point that keeps coming up. If leveling is a grind it's because you've set some kind of conflicting goal that makes it a grind for you, because the same process is not a grind for others.

I can't disagree with what you are saying except that I feel that you aren't considering the fact that if the majority of people feel the time put into leveling is a grind, then maybe it is a grind and should be dialed back.

If you found out that 75% of GW2 players thought that the leveling took too long, would you consider that it might be a deterrent and not a benefit to the game?

[Krazzar]

El Duderino, on 20 February 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

Spoiler

I think you are 100% correct here. I know that is why I don't really want to see higher gears or levels after I reach 80.

Ok, I can get down with this too. It may not be my cup of tea, but here is my question then:

If the same people that LIKE leveling because it feels like they are progressing and achieving things - why would they be hesitant to like leveling again?

I mean, instead of being excited about the prospect of new levels, the people that responded seemed to want to dismiss the new levels instead of being excited for new opportunities to progress and achieve new things.

So, my feeling is that, much like myself, there is a timer to leveling where, once you pass a certain amount of time, leveling no longer feels like you are achieving or progressing anything, rather it feels like a grind.

The feeling of progression, learning and achieving, in my humble opinion, is tied to the entire game - and if we stop feeling those things, the game becomes uninteresting. So, regardless of level, if we can include things that make people feel like they are progressing, learning and achieving - everything would be great and we could still get max level gear and drops quicker!

I can't disagree with what you are saying except that I feel that you aren't considering the fact that if the majority of people feel the time put into leveling is a grind, then maybe it is a grind and should be dialed back.

If you found out that 75% of GW2 players thought that the leveling took too long, would you consider that it might be a deterrent and not a benefit to the game?

Popular vote doesn't decide facts. Remove levels and you have a worse situation. No parallel system used for the same reasons in any game is more open than levels in GW2. Removing levels removes choice.

As Anet says, "the players usually want whatever is best for them, it's up to us to do what's best for the game". I'd wager 75% of GW2 players want to make large sums of money quickly and easily within an extremely short period of time and dominate the trading post, that doesn't mean Anet should dissolve the economic controls they use. The majority of players would love for their favorite profession, build, traits, weapon set, or skills to be made way overpowered, but that doesn't mean Anet would do that.

Edited by Krazzar, 20 February 2013 - 09:00 PM.

[tfckmk988]

El Duderino, on 20 February 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

I think you are 100% correct here. I know that is why I don't really want to see higher gears or levels after I reach 80.



Ok, I can get down with this too. It may not be my cup of tea, but here is my question then:

If the same people that LIKE leveling because it feels like they are progressing and achieving things - why would they be hesitant to like leveling again?

I mean, instead of being excited about the prospect of new levels, the people that responded seemed to want to dismiss the new levels instead of being excited for new opportunities to progress and achieve new things.

So, my feeling is that, much like myself, there is a timer to leveling where, once you pass a certain amount of time, leveling no longer feels like you are achieving or progressing anything, rather it feels like a grind.

The feeling of progression, learning and achieving, in my humble opinion, is tied to the entire game - and if we stop feeling those things, the game becomes uninteresting. So, regardless of level, if we can include things that make people feel like they are progressing, learning and achieving - everything would be great and we could still get max level gear and drops quicker!



I can't disagree with what you are saying except that I feel that you aren't considering the fact that if the majority of people feel the time put into leveling is a grind, then maybe it is a grind and should be dialed back.

If you found out that 75% of GW2 players thought that the leveling took too long, would you consider that it might be a deterrent and not a benefit to the game?

i think the first half of the post ties into the 2nd that people don't want to level again because of the first one

also if 75% of players think leveling took to long i think (hopefully) ANET would look at their formula for how long it took on average and increase experience benefits for activities

[El Duderino]

Krazzar, on 20 February 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

Popular vote doesn't decide facts. Remove levels and you have a worse situation. No parallel system used for the same reasons in any game is more open than levels in GW2. Removing levels removes choice.

As Anet says, "the players usually want whatever is best for them, it's up to us to do what's best for the game". I'd wager 75% of GW2 players want to make large sums of money quickly and easily within an extremely short period of time and dominate the trading post, that doesn't mean Anet should dissolve the economic controls they use. The majority of players would love for their favorite profession, build, traits, weapon set, or skills to be made way overpowered, but that doesn't mean Anet would do that.

Fair enough. So you basically adhere to the theory that if ANet did it, then it must be the right way to do it?

Of course, this is regardless of the fact that it was done quite differently in GW1 and still successful and still done by ANet?

[Arewn]

raspberry jam, on 20 February 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

The levels system is one of constant, rewarding feedback. Basically whatever you do in the game you will get a pat on the head and grow a bit stronger (until you hit 80). Of course that is attractive. In fact your brain is wired to seek out things that reward you with low effort.

But tell me this, are you playing the game because the gameplay is fun, or because it is fun to level up and grow stronger? Well you already answered that one.

And if the gameplay isn't that fun, then why should the game exist?

You... just explained to me what I was explaining to you, and then asked a question I answered in my original explanation, which you acknowledge. You then finished with a rhetorical question.

You could have just not replied if you had nothing to say...

In case your roundabout not-response was a result of not understanding my original point:
Levels serve purpose beyond content gating, the game is fun to play regardless of such goals, but they add a motivating factor that increases time spent on the game, and helps subconsciously justify time spent for some people.
As such, perfected up and down scaling being introduced to the game is not reason enough to remove levels. Which is what I was responding to you saying originally.

[Kymeric]

I've enjoyed exploring the world, getting zone completion.  In the process I got a toon to 80, and now I'm doing another one.

I didn't enjoy that I happily completed the Lost Shores treasure hunt only to find the next stage gated inside higher level zones that required me to ride the coattails of another player if I wanted to complete them.

I would enjoy exploring the rest of the world on my 80 that I didn't see while leveling more if I didn't take a cut in income while doing so.

I would enjoy exploring the rest of the world on my 80 if there were more players around (since mid-level characters are the minority, level cap zones and starting zones are more populated).

That's why I like the idea of a short leveling process, with the majority of the content designed for level-cap characters.  Perhaps ANet will continue to adjust downscaling and rewards to the point where GW2 will play just like that.  Then those of us who want a short levelling process can craft to sixty, at least on alts.  They're going to have to increase both downscaling and rewards a lot more than this last adjustment to get close to that, however.

They never did explain why the removed upscaling from general PvE, did they?

Someone at ANet thought a practically levelless game was a good idea at some point.

[Krazzar]

El Duderino, on 20 February 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Fair enough. So you basically adhere to the theory that if ANet did it, then it must be the right way to do it?

Of course, this is regardless of the fact that it was done quite differently in GW1 and still successful and still done by ANet?

No, Anet making the decision has nothing to do with it being right or wrong, just like leveling has nothing to do with the presence of gating and progression in a game.

GW1 had special cirumstances. They could not add more levels without destroying PvP and since each expansion pack was stand alone they had to maintain equal footing for players starting at different points. Despite that they did in fact add additional levels by the name of titles and those titles are more restrictive in GW1 than levels are in GW2. Titles are literally levels without any choice of activity. So no, GW1 isn't the golden standard.

[Ritualist]

Krazzar, on 20 February 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Levels in GW2 are as open as can be. Make no mistake, removing levels wouldn't make the game any more open.

No.
There is no need for players to get some 100 hours of the game before the game officially tells them that they finished it.

That's your problem - you are just comparing alternatives that force a certain amount of playtime down a player's throat. Why can't the question be if content needs to be shoved down a players throat, instead? Why can't we worry about how much content the game actually has instead of worrying how much content we need to do?

[El Duderino]

Krazzar, on 20 February 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

No, Anet making the decision has nothing to do with it being right or wrong, just like leveling has nothing to do with the presence of gating and progression in a game.

GW1 had special cirumstances. They could not add more levels without destroying PvP and since each expansion pack was stand alone they had to maintain equal footing for players starting at different points. Despite that they did in fact add additional levels by the name of titles and those titles are more restrictive in GW1 than levels are in GW2. Titles are literally levels without any choice of activity. So no, GW1 isn't the golden standard.

I think you are taking this level thing too far into the abstract that I fail to see how it applies to the basic questions at hand.

I'll just agree to disagree, it will be a hell of a lot simpler.

[Mordakai]

There is no such thing as a level-less game.  Even games that claim to be leveless have powers or ways to increase effectiveness.

Even GW1 had pseudo leveling past 20, with PvE only skills with ranks.

[Kymeric]

Mordakai, on 20 February 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

There is no such thing as a level-less game.  Even games that claim to be leveless have powers or ways to increase effectiveness.

Even GW1 had pseudo leveling past 20, with PvE only skills with ranks.

Increased effectiveness doesn't equate to levels.

Capping elites, for example, can increase your effectiveness by giving you new, more powerful tools.  It's a more open system than gain a level, add +x to your stats.

Whether there should be power progression is a different conversation than whether there should be levels.

[st_clouds]

Hmmm the increased effectiveness by capping elites is situational. The new elites don't obsolete the old ones. Every war's favorite elite "Eviscerate" has been around since prophecies. This is what I would call horizontal scaling, not vertical ones. You have more options at your disposal, but they are not "better" options.

Edited by st_clouds, 20 February 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[Kymeric]

st_clouds, on 20 February 2013 - 10:06 PM, said:

Hmmm the increased effectiveness by capping elites is situational. The new elites don't obsolete the old ones. Every war's favorite elite "Eviscerate" has been around since prophecies. This is what I would call horizontal scaling, not vertical ones. You have more options at your disposal, but they are not "better" options.

Exactly.

[Mordakai]

Once  I found out that elite skills and dungeons were locked until a certain level, I knew GW2 was going to be more of the same MMO formula.  That said, if previous games are any guide, getting to level 80 will just get easier and faster the longer the game is out.  Of course, that doesn't mean it still won't be considered grind by some.  It might actually be more annoying the more superfluous it is.  (Example: If the new cap is 120, getting to level 80 will be even more annoying).

Edited by Mordakai, 20 February 2013 - 10:48 PM.

[Krazzar]

Ritualist, on 20 February 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

Spoiler

No.
There is no need for players to get some 100 hours of the game before the game officially tells them that they finished it.

That's your problem - you are just comparing alternatives that force a certain amount of playtime down a player's throat. Why can't the question be if content needs to be shoved down a players throat, instead? Why can't we worry about how much content the game actually has instead of worrying how much content we need to do?

Why do you think the game is over once you've leveled? That's a personal definition, the game doesn't delete your character once you hit level 80. So you need a story to officially tell you when you've finished the game? Do you need a tier of gear to tell you when you've finished the game? Do you need to complete all crafting professions for the game to tell you it's finished? Do you need to completely clear the quest log to know when you've finished the game? These are all "artificial barriers" that restrict players, the difference is with GW2's levels you can do nearly anything and progress through the levels. You gain experience from crafting, events, kills, WvW activity, story, and pretty much everything else in the game. How is that not more open compared to GW1 or any other game? What game is actually giving you this ideal freedom?

What content is being "shoved down our throats"? Are you saying you don't want to participate in any of the zones before the Cursed Shore? I play the game, the levels come as a result. If you don't want to play the game I can see how that could be a problem, but the question becomes why are you logging in?

So I'm just wondering what you would do so differently if there were no levels. How would the game be structured? What gating and progression mechanics would be used? Even single player games have gating and progression. There is no such thing as that ideal freedom you're thinking of, and levels provide more choice than you are seemingly willing to see.

El Duderino, on 20 February 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Spoiler

I think you are taking this level thing too far into the abstract that I fail to see how it applies to the basic questions at hand.

I'll just agree to disagree, it will be a hell of a lot simpler.

I would never say a decision is right just because Anet made it, they don't do everything right and have publicly apologized for mistakes in the past. In the same vein I would not say gating and progression in GW2 is only because of the presence of leveling, they would both be there without levels in a more restrictive form.

It's not abstract at all, as I have been saying, and you agreed with, without levels other gating mechanisms will be used, which would be more restrictive. Levels are just a unified meter of a variety of systems. There is gating and progression with levels in GW2. There would be gating and progression without levels in GW2. Removing levels alone won't do anything because levels rely on the gating and content pacing decisions. Every other gating and progression system is less open than leveling in GW2.

That's not disagreeing, it's either not understanding or giving up. If there is any particular point that needs clarification I would be happy to explain it further or in another way.

Kymeric, on 20 February 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Spoiler

Increased effectiveness doesn't equate to levels.

Capping elites, for example, can increase your effectiveness by giving you new, more powerful tools.  It's a more open system than gain a level, add +x to your stats.

Whether there should be power progression is a different conversation than whether there should be levels.

Do "ranks" that you "rank up" with "rank points" collected by killing opponents and doing specific tasks count as levels? Sounds like the definition of levels spelled a different way.

By definition elite hunting is not more open than leveling. You have to do one activity in one zone by doing something very specific. Compare that to leveling in GW2 where you are granted experience for nearly everything in the PvE and WvW worlds. What offers more choice, leveling (crafting, story, events, hearts, map completion, WvW, and so on) or elite hunting (one activity in one zone finding one boss to kill). It's clearly many choices versus none. No choice is not open. That elite hunting could be considered optional, but in the same sense so is leveling, if you only ever want to be in Queensdale there is little reason to get to level 80. Move on to other zones and you might find a need for added capabilities. Personally, skill hunting was a chore not a freedom, there is zero choice with that process.

Power progression is a pretty simple topic. Power should be added as needed to create a sense of progression. Scaling needs some work, but it removes power that could be abused or trivializes content. Going forward you could use additional power, but that should not impact going back.

Edited by Krazzar, 20 February 2013 - 11:43 PM.

[Own Age Myname]

mdapol, on 20 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

So -you- failed to achieve your goal.  However Anet did not fail to achieve -their- goal. Which was to make sales and make money.

I guess having an opinion is a bad thing these days. Ight man.