Strawberry Nubcake, on 24 February 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:
You are aware that every other drop isn't supposed to be rare or exotic, right?
Fully.
But don't even act like it's anything close to that. Don't even act like if the drop rate was increased 10x over, it would even be close to that. Most players would probably be surprised to find out that there's a chance rare or exotic gear can drop at all, and I don't doubt that thousands have stopped playing for the sole reason that across opening 100+ endgame chests, all they've ever received are junk greens and blues. It's literally the least rewarding drops I've seen in an MMO ever, even going as far back as the golden days of MMOs. I'm sure there's some Korean crap grindfest MMO that beats it out, but being the second worst is no more justification.
Perhaps the problem isn't the leveling and loot structure, but the way the game presents those elements. Level caps of 20 or even level 100 don't matter unless the system feels somehow limiting to the player through this progression. The example that comes to mind with this in GW2 is primarily with alternates. After you have a level 80, and have progressed to end-game content, going back and leveling an alt provides lesser rewards to the player for the same amount of time spent playing and a watered down game experience. I.E. if I play my level 80 warrior and farm CoF for a few hours, I will make vastly more coin and karma than if I spend the exact same few hours leveling my level 20 thief. The issue compounds itself as leveling an alt after having become accustomed to end-game play, one doesn't notice a mere power difference of a lower level character but a stunted sensation of decreased functionality (fewer skill and trait options). It takes until level 30 for that alt to even begin to resemble the class you will be playing in end game. This ultimately makes the whole of the acquired play-style up to that level worth as much as just looking at the traits and skills of the class in a wiki entry and theory crafting builds. The most potent weakness to the leveling system becomes apparent at level 30 as well, since at this point you have all your skills you are now relegated to suffering a leveling process of acquiring the traits to complete your prospective build, traits that can drastically change the way you play your class. This means, in many cases, one doesn't actually experience their play-style until after they have made it to level 80, further fostering the notion that leveling an alternate character is detracting from becoming more experienced with the play-style you only just achieved after you finished leveling to 80 on your present character. Adding insult to injury there is a leveling tax (trainer books) and a cost effect analysis to make during progression on whether or not to purchase throw away gear you will fairly rapidly out grow. This means most every bit of gear acquired prior to max level, or even max level gear that isn't exotic, is essentially trading post fodder or something to dump into the "mystic toilet" unless it has a skin you intend to use on worthy end-game arms and armor. This simply further discourages low level play.
The way to correct this leveling and loot disparity is as simple as an upgrade system allowing the player to improve the level and rarity of weapons, armor, and accessories they already have obtained through crafting. In addition there should be provisions for this particularly when leveling from 30-80, giving the player access to more than just a trait point that only makes a difference every 5 levels. Unfortunately ANet has proven to have not only the inability to produce a meaningful crafting system, but also a total disregard for one from a once promising initial stance that "It isn’t our intention for players to have to craft a lot of throwaway items in order to level their crafting.". This undeniable failure to deliver on this and other components of the game have caused a cascading effect of problems in other, extremely well done, components of the game.
In short, changing the level cap to 20 is only bad because solid game components were designed around a level 80 cap. It is the failed, incomplete, and plain non-existent game components that drag down the good components to the point that they themselves can appear to be the problem, which is not the case.
Obscure One, on 24 February 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:
In short, changing the level cap to 20 is only bad because solid game components were designed around a level 80 cap. It is the failed, incomplete, and plain non-existent game components that drag down the good components to the point that they themselves can appear to be the problem, which is not the case.
While I don't disagree with the other issues you pointed out, the gating issue is a direct result of the higher cap.
While I don't disagree with the other issues you pointed out, the gating issue is a direct result of the higher cap.
This is a difficult fence to tend. If certain gear isn't restricted to those who have committed to working for it then it's rarity is arbitrary at best. However if it is gated in such a way as ascended gear is then it is only because of a failure in game design, which Arena Net has openly admitted "This was a a mistake and one that we will not be making moving forward.". Whether this admission was due to the negative publicity from their choice or not is a matter of some debate, but the fact is it's something that the developers aim to reconcile.
Obscure One, on 25 February 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:
This is a difficult fence to tend. If certain gear isn't restricted to those who have committed to working for it then it's rarity is arbitrary at best. However if it is gated in such a way as ascended gear is then it is only because of a failure in game design, which Arena Net has openly admitted "This was a a mistake and one that we will not be making moving forward.". Whether this admission was due to the negative publicity from their choice or not is a matter of some debate, but the fact is it's something that the developers aim to reconcile.
I was thinking about the pre-80 gating. If we were dealing with a game with 20 levels, the game could be more open, whereas having 80 levels forces players into specific content until they reach a certain number.
I was thinking about the pre-80 gating. If we were dealing with a game with 20 levels, the game could be more open, whereas having 80 levels forces players into specific content until they reach a certain number.
What specific content might that be?
It is fully possible to level by only doing events.
It is fully possible to level by crafting.
It is fully possible to level by doing WvW.
I don't really see how you need to to "specific content" in order to level. But then again, playing the game might be considered "doing specific content" for some people.
astromarmot, on 22 February 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:
Perhaps the more vocal portion of that audience...if opinions aren't expressed Anet may never really know where they can improve or fall short with their direction...
Thats where statistics come in. Anet monitors players behavior. What really really worries me is that players a lot of times play what they hate just so they can get the best rewards. That might induce development in such areas to provide similar content so that these players get variety. I bet thats where fractals came from in fact.
El Duderino, on 22 February 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:
Ah, you forget, we can't believe things ArenaNet says, because they might change their minds about it!
I hope you're joking here right? Are you saying that if Arenanet say something they should be bound by it even if it turns out its a bad idea? Like any other development project they have a plan. They will report on features based on that plan. If it turns out that plan isnt ideal then they change it. Thats how it should be. Doesnt mean they lied and cant be believed if that happens. If Arenanet didnt change their minds we would never have had an increase in FoV for example. You also dont like the idea of an increased level cap but are you saying they now should do it no matter what because they said a long time ago that they expected the level cap to eventually increase?
This kind of attitude really pushes developers away from communicating with their player base. Because they can be sure everything they say no matter how much good intention they had when saying will be used against them. And then people complain when developers dont communicate as much as they wish.
People who don't want a level cap increase are going to tend to feel that the majority of the voices agree with them, and people who do want it are going feel that the majority is with them.
So what we have left, after fuzzy things like "most of the people I talk to in game and read on the forums" is what ANet has said so far.
Sure, they might change their minds. There's no good reason to think they will at this point.
There is a far bigger problem in my opinion. People state they dont want something but then rush to get it as quickly as possible. This creates a issue because Anet introduce content X in the game and very few people go play it, then introduce content Y and a huge player based plays that and only that. Yet people in the forums say they want X not Y. what is Anet supposed to believe then?
Obscure One, on 24 February 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:
Perhaps the problem isn't the leveling and loot structure, but the way the game presents those elements. Level caps of 20 or even level 100 don't matter unless the system feels somehow limiting to the player through this progression. The example that comes to mind with this in GW2 is primarily with alternates. After you have a level 80, and have progressed to end-game content, going back and leveling an alt provides lesser rewards to the player for the same amount of time spent playing and a watered down game experience. I.E. if I play my level 80 warrior and farm CoF for a few hours, I will make vastly more coin and karma than if I spend the exact same few hours leveling my level 20 thief. The issue compounds itself as leveling an alt after having become accustomed to end-game play, one doesn't notice a mere power difference of a lower level character but a stunted sensation of decreased functionality (fewer skill and trait options).
...
"The Game" isn't totally blameless, but you actually put your finger on the main problem in your example - players being reward driven. If one wants max rewards etc. why even roll an alt? What would be the reasons for rolling an alt? Surely not immediately getting max loot. If one rolls an alt for the usual reasons like alternate story, RP etc., loot shouldn't even be a consideration. The most driven of reward driven players would probably still complain if they log in and get a window giving them a choice of legendaries. What?!?!? Why can't I have them all?!?!?
"The Game" isn't totally blameless, but you actually put your finger on the main problem in your example - players being reward driven.
Players being reward-driven isn't something unique to GW2. The question is how does a game deal with that fact: does it bank on that idea or does it plainly tell the players that this is something that will not be catered to?
As it stands now, I absolutely see GW2 as a game where reward-driven players are being catered to. The game tells them that this is a game where they will feel at home at.
But then the game fails at the most important part - when it comes to giving out the rewards. It's designed like all the reward-driven games, just without the rewards.
You really need to reply Queensdale because Yes if players dont stop them they will most certainly disrupt the area severely in several ways, they'll kill all the farmers and take their place from Curtis ranch (which happens to be the general area where the bandit we're talking about was) They'll poison farmers off a quarter of the map, from the aqueduct up to shaemoor and you'll see them sick and puking. You'll also see the poisoned water conveniently colour in green spraying the surrounding fields and nice green mist coming out from water wells all around the area. They'll kill farmers and burn the fields in the Jeb's Wheatfield area and they'll build barricades to close of the bridge giving access to this area coming from shaemoor. all of this will actually happen visually of course.
You said "Yes, that is how it is now. If you and me (levels 2 and 80) gang up and kill a bandit, then that bandit drops some worthless crap for you and some cool stuff for me. In other words, the bandit had a level 80 drop in his pocket, but you can never get that drop because you are level 2. And that makes no sense." Ergo in your opinion a level 2 mob should never drop level 80 loot. Yet before you said a major issue people dont play in lower level zones is because they reward less. Now you want to make it worst. How is that logical?
Not being able to pick locks at all will not solve the issue that it isnt realistic that its impossible to get through a door without finishing a particular mission first. Its not different then an invisible wall.
the Americas example isnt a good example simply because the Americas were entirely accessible by anyone before you needed to run any mission. Yes in the specific case of Columbus you could argue that petitioning the queen to finance the expedition can be considered a mission but that was just the nature of the situation, he could just as easily bought a ship, had one build or even paid enough an existent captain to take him. He had many avenues he could use to get there even though he didnt know there even existed. A story gate however would mean Colombus has no way of reaching America until he convinces the queen to finance a mission to get there which isnt true or realistic.
As for the other two points. Like I said we all know that games need some leeway for them to work. In truth while I do consider story gating more immersion breaking then level gating they're both dont really break any real immersion. Its part of the rules of the world. Its like playing a character of the opposite gender or a character of an entirely different race, thats something you can do and still be 100% immersed in the world and setting because you know the world you're playing in just has different rules then the one you live in and the immersion is entirely based on those rules and not what is realistic in our world.
An ocean without ships is an invisible barrier because the ocean per-se shouldnt be a barrier at all. In the real world I can just try to swim it to america if I really wanted to, I would die doing it no doubt but the ocean itself will not stop my attempt in anyway. Yet the game that has such a story gate will not allow me to even try.
You're free to engage and win against characters of a higher level there is just a limit on how high you can get. A person armed with a wooden sword is not going to win against an attack helicopter but he might win in a fight against another person armed with a real sword.
So in one line you acknowledge that a game works on a different rule then the real world and then right in the next line you argue how ridiculous it is when it doesnt follow real world rules? Why is it okey to have in game meteors that cant break a door but not okey to grow stronger chopping wood?
I personally dont really care about vertical progression so I am fine with any leveling system as long as it leaves me with new content to enjoy. For me personally we could all start max level, nothing would change for me I would still have played the game 100% exactly like I did with levels. My issue with that and with something like you suggest, ie a low powercurve provided that curve is so low that it would be feasible for a new character to take on max level content that a large majority of players would simply rush to the highest level zone and simply farm the most rewarding content from the first minute.
Sure I agree, if leveling made you to do repetitive tasks like grinding mobs I would agree that it would be same as stretching. But thats not what went on in Gw2, every single dynamic event chain was completely different then any other dynamic event chain and not repetitive at all.
Hmm - sure, seems I need to replay Queensdale lol. Still, doing all of that does not means that it makes sense for that bandit to stand there.
Correct, it does not make sense for a level 2 mob to drop level 80 loot... unless he does it even when only a level 2 PC kills him. Yes, I said that players with level 80 characters have no reason to play in low leveled areas because of the poor loot, but that is a complaint against levels. If there were no levels (or rather, if the power cap was low), most mobs would drop decent loot.
Uh, yes, not being able to pick locks would mean that it would not feel strange to not be able to pick this particular lock. It is not an invisible wall, it is a very visible wall, and it looks like a door.
Yes absolutely, Columbus could have obtained a ship in some other way, or he could have built a raft. But in a game you can only simulate so much of the constructed reality: even though there are ships in a game, you might not be able to become a captain on one of them. You are complaining about the limits of the simulation, limits that exist regardless of levels.
(on the other hand, Columbus really didn't have any other way of doing it realistically, since he could not finance the expedition himself, nor would anyone but the queen of Spain do it).
And yes, level gating is immersion-breaking; narrative gating is not. This is how our brains work; things like that we can't open a door until we find the key is intuitive to us. That said, not being able to beat a number 8 as long as we have the number 2 is intuitive as well, however, that reduces the problem to be one of numbers instead of being about the world, and that is what breaks immersion.
No, an ocean is not an invisible barrier. It is a visible barrier. It looks like a lot of water. The word "invisible" means something that you can't see. And the barrier would be there regardless of whether the game had levels or not. GW2 has levels, as well as lots of "invisible" barriers that you can see.
No, it is not ridiculous that the in-game rules are different from real-world rules, after all, it would be boring if they were not. But it is ridiculous that the in-game rules do not have logical consequences.
Basically, under my suggestion, on the GW2 map, any area outside of, say, Queensdale, would be "max level". Of course, there would be areas that would have varying degrees of difficulty and varying degrees of reward. So when you say "rushing to the max level area", what you are actually saying is dispersing throughout the world, playing the content that they like. Of course, players would aggregate to farming spots, since they would be able to find some areas in the world where they could maximize profit. That will happen no matter what, it happened in WoW, it happened in GW1, it happened in GW2, it happened in any game ever. So forcing them to level for two weeks first is meaningless.
The world would still be thoroughly explored (partially because people like that, partially because people would look for farming spots lol).
Other than that, if someone "rush to the most rewarding area", what does it matter to you?
I really don't see how dynamic events are that unique. Most of them can be placed in a small number of categories.
Kill this enemy/s
Defend this thing/s
Defend/capture this area
Collect X number of Y items
Escort this NPC/s
I might have forgotten some category. And there are a couple of unique events as well. But most fall into these categories. That's not even to mention the hearts, which are very repetitive.
Krazzar, on 22 February 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:
Spoiler
Please explain how it is easier to operate as a level 10 player in a level 25 zone than a level 50 player in a level 25 zone, oh wait, you won't because you don't actually make any effort to have a real discussion. It is a simple fact the greater the level difference the greater the challenge to the point of being impossible. You have the choice to go to a higher level area, that is also a fact. I already said you can't pick your difficulty once you hit level 80, hence I said "you can pick your difficulty level during the leveling process". I didn't say it took two weeks to hit max, I said for me it takes about 60 hours total to get to level 80 if I'm taking my time. If you would like to review the posts you will see in-depth explanations on the purpose of levels, but you really shouldn't need that since this isn't the first time you've tried to halt a discussion on this topic with your negativity. Furthermore, you never make any attempt to show why not having levels or having fewer levels is in any way better. So all you do is say "you're wrong, I know better" without ever establishing a single fact and maintain your clear denial.
Do you always have to reply with comments that apply more to yourself? You don't even have the decency to post anything outside of slander in an attempt to frustrate. You should feel bad for actively discouraging discussion with your refusal to actually discuss anything or even acknowledge questions that would further the discussion. It's obvious your only agenda is to be right when you obviously don't have the facts, industry, or world on your side. I really should have just ignored you but I gave you the benefit of the doubt anyone with human decency deserves. That was wrong of me.
So if anyone would actually like to discuss this topic a few questions should be answered:
Why would no or fewer levels be better?
What would the progression in the game look like, what types of progression, how long does it last, and so on?
How would gating work in the game?
How much content would there be and how would the content pacing be structured?
I took the liberty to spoiler the obligatory worthless-rant-and-bunch-of-ad-hominem portion of your post. And no, levels doesn't allow you to choose your challenge, rather, they remove that option: to do challenge X at difficulty Y you need to do it at exactly the right time, otherwise you'll be leveled too high or too low. This has been established time and time again, but if you want, we can have the discussion once again.
To answer your questions:
Why would no or fewer levels be better? Well, one could say that the number of levels doesn't really matter. For example, I have suggested infinite leveling. What matters is the power cap and the speed at which one approaches it - if it is high (as in GW1 or as in my suggestion), then a stable, level playing field is quickly obtained across the entire playerbase. This will mean that players learn faster and better (players are less likely to get stuck in local optima when learning the game), as well as that players of different capabilities and different amounts of actual play experience and play time will be more likely to play with each other, which even further increases the speed and quality of learning the game. This, in turn, allows designers to create a deeper game experience. A quickly reachable power cap enables a deeper game experience.
What would the progression in the game look like, what types of progression, how long does it last, and so on? Well, there are several ways this could be done. The below all also contain hidden, narrative progression, just like GW2 does.
GW1 had a very good model IMO; completing somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the storyline would usually mean that you hit max level. Most first-time players would max out their gear after that. The downside was that a significant part of the world was not max-level (and thus well-balanced) content, especially since most of the world had a team size other than 8 (the number around which skills were balanced). This was corrected in the expansions.
Another model would be my own suggestion of having infinite levels with a quick power ascension (that also flattens out quickly, on the shape of 1-[1/(x+1)], where x is the level). Apart from a small tutorial-like area, most of the world would be suitable for characters who have reached the vicinity of the power cap (levels 10 and up). I think leveling up once per 20 minutes or so would be good to start with, maybe taking longer as time goes on and levels mean less.
No levels would be a decent model as well; progression could be based entirely on gear. That gear could confer significant statistics, or merely variation of such (e.g. choice between fire damage and slashing damage).
How would gating work in the game? This is obvious: there should only ever be narrative gating. The sole exception would be if tutorial levels exist, as they did in GW1: in that case, merely walking to areas with higher level enemies should mean so much resistance that if you make it you will have obtained so much xp that you already are at the correct level.
Narrative gating should be the main method of "making sure that players don't kill the final boss in 7 minutes". Simply put, just like in GW2, all storyline missions are set inside instances, and each mission will only be accessible once you have done the one before it. This would mean thatthe world at large would not be gated, but that the missions, the storyline events, etc., would be.
How much content would there be and how would the content pacing be structured? The same amount of content as is found in GW2 could exist, and pacing could be handled by the storyline missions. The nice thing with an open-world game is that the content can to a large degree pace itself: one can fiddle around with mob respawn timers and the cycles of events appearing (whether that is the appearance of some NPC for an escort quest in WoW, or the sort of dynamic events we see in GW2).
Millimidget, on 24 February 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:
Fully.
But don't even act like it's anything close to that. Don't even act like if the drop rate was increased 10x over, it would even be close to that. Most players would probably be surprised to find out that there's a chance rare or exotic gear can drop at all, and I don't doubt that thousands have stopped playing for the sole reason that across opening 100+ endgame chests, all they've ever received are junk greens and blues. It's literally the least rewarding drops I've seen in an MMO ever, even going as far back as the golden days of MMOs. I'm sure there's some Korean crap grindfest MMO that beats it out, but being the second worst is no more justification.
Some things cannot be changed to the ideal level you're after, especially because the ideal you have in mind would be very damaging. If drops in queensdale where identical to those you get in Orr you'll not have a busy queensdale and a busy Orr. You'll get a full Queensdale and ghost town Orr. Its risk vs reward. The risk in Queensdale is low and Events are completed extremely quickly. Anet have to strike a balance. For that extra ease and quicker pace you get less reward.
If every chest dropped something valuable you'll have 2 things that will happen. Sooner or later that which was valueable will become meaningless. A precursor sells for tons of money right now so getting that will fell like getting a really awesome reward. Do you think precursors will keep their value if every 3 hours people doing the claw of jormag event got one? we're saying around 30 or so new precursors multiplied by 50 worlds multiplied by potentially 8 runs per day which would make 12k new precursors per large chest awarding event per day. I have no idea how many such events there are but lets say 50. That would mean 600k precursors A DAY!
In 3 - 4 days every single player would get a precursor. In a month there will be enough precursors for everyone to own 8 precursors. By the second month they'll be no different then common exotics. What makes a reward valuable is its rarity. Such events have great rewards it just that very few people get them and thats exactly what makes these events so rewarding, well provided you get lucky.
The second thing you'll have happening if these events get better rewards is you'll have a higher infusion of money in the game. People doing these events will get richer. You might think thats a good thing but it will upset the game quite a bit because it will cause inflation. If doing such a 30 mins event rewarded you with say 3 exotics that means 6+g for 30 mins of game play. high level players will rush to do each and every event becoming richer and richer. They will use this wealth to buy gems making the gold price of gems sky rocket. If 30 mins of game play gives you 6+g spending a couple of hours to get a single charged lodestone to earn 3g would be stupid, so now players who bother with farming that item will not sell it for less then 24g. A couple of months down the line you realize you're actually poorer then you were before, why? because doing these events is tricky, you need to log on and they need to be running and you need the time to do them. earning 2s from an event becomes stupid because to afford a single charged lodestone it no longer means doing 150 dynamic events because of the inflation now you need to 600 events. Basically nothing is viable any more except doing these events.
Bottom line be careful what you wish for. Not all that glitters is gold. This game as an amazing economic balance. Thats something very few MMOs achieve. Even gathering copper is profitable in this game, inflation would destroy that in a heartbeat.
Players being reward-driven isn't something unique to GW2. The question is how does a game deal with that fact: does it bank on that idea or does it plainly tell the players that this is something that will not be catered to?
As it stands now, I absolutely see GW2 as a game where reward-driven players are being catered to. The game tells them that this is a game where they will feel at home at.
But then the game fails at the most important part - when it comes to giving out the rewards. It's designed like all the reward-driven games, just without the rewards.
The other thing is that the majortiy of reward driven players don't simply want "good" rewards, but they want them yesterday. The remarks one always sees are along the lines of the rewards are crap or it's too much grind, and these remarks come no matter what ArenaNet does. Remarks similar to "this is crap! Fix it!".
For sure, reward driven players are being catered to, but along with them ArenaNet caters to RPers, explorers, dungeon divers etc. Expecting ArenaNet to focus exclusively on one's preferred game mode/mechanic/profession/etc. and "fix" things according to their preferences as so many do is just egoistic and unrealistic.
Players being reward-driven isn't something unique to GW2. The question is how does a game deal with that fact: does it bank on that idea or does it plainly tell the players that this is something that will not be catered to?
As it stands now, I absolutely see GW2 as a game where reward-driven players are being catered to. The game tells them that this is a game where they will feel at home at.
But then the game fails at the most important part - when it comes to giving out the rewards. It's designed like all the reward-driven games, just without the rewards.
How can a game be reward-driven but at the same time lack the rewards? The problem is people want Gw2 to be reward-driven but its not. Rewards are entirely option not need for specific content as such there is no need to put an urgency on them. Crafting a legendary can literally take years. Thats only possible because a legendary isnt required for anything. If you had 2 dungeons where dungeon 1 provided a tier 2 armor set that is required to tackle dungeon 2 you cannot make the requirements of said armor set step. If people need to repeat this dungeon for years to acquire that armor set you'll get people quiting or going insane from too much repetition. Most goals in gw2 are long term. A reward driven game simply cannot have long term goals because rewards are what are driving the game. This is not so in Gw2. But it turns out people want reward-driven games more then Anet realised. thats where the problem lies.
raspberry jam, on 25 February 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:
I loled
please give me 1 MMO that has a better balance that doesnt have an economy thats suffering from rampant inflation. You'll get a lot of extra points if you find me 1 MMO that you can buy its equivalent of Gems and the price of said currency is affordable by a low level player.
The other thing is that the majortiy of reward driven players don't simply want "good" rewards, but they want them yesterday. The remarks one always sees are along the lines of the rewards are crap or it's too much grind, and these remarks come no matter what ArenaNet does. Remarks similar to "this is crap! Fix it!".
For sure, reward driven players are being catered to, but along with them ArenaNet caters to RPers, explorers, dungeon divers etc. Expecting ArenaNet to focus exclusively on one's preferred game mode/mechanic/profession/etc. and "fix" things according to their preferences as so many do is just egoistic and unrealistic.
What successful reward-driven games actually cater to the folks that "want rewards yesterday"?
The problem with other groups of players needing to be catered to is that we are playing a reward-driven game (that has no rewards). Our play-style is secondary to the design of the game (we are basically playing the game wrong) - which means if ANYONE is selfish it's those of us that aren't playing for rewards and are demanding that the game be catered to our needs.
That's one of the main points of bitching on this forum - a lot of us would want that GW2 would primarily not be a reward-driven game. That's what we want to change.
But if it stays a reward-driven game, then the game can't withhold the rewards.
please give me 1 MMO that has a better balance that doesnt have an economy thats suffering from rampant inflation. You'll get a lot of extra points if you find me 1 MMO that you can buy its equivalent of Gems and the price of said currency is affordable by a low level player.
I loled again, that just proves that no MMO including GW2 has a good economy
raspberry jam, on 25 February 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:
Hmm - sure, seems I need to replay Queensdale lol. Still, doing all of that does not means that it makes sense for that bandit to stand there.
Correct, it does not make sense for a level 2 mob to drop level 80 loot... unless he does it even when only a level 2 PC kills him. Yes, I said that players with level 80 characters have no reason to play in low leveled areas because of the poor loot, but that is a complaint against levels. If there were no levels (or rather, if the power cap was low), most mobs would drop decent loot.
Uh, yes, not being able to pick locks would mean that it would not feel strange to not be able to pick this particular lock. It is not an invisible wall, it is a very visible wall, and it looks like a door.
Yes absolutely, Columbus could have obtained a ship in some other way, or he could have built a raft. But in a game you can only simulate so much of the constructed reality: even though there are ships in a game, you might not be able to become a captain on one of them. You are complaining about the limits of the simulation, limits that exist regardless of levels.
(on the other hand, Columbus really didn't have any other way of doing it realistically, since he could not finance the expedition himself, nor would anyone but the queen of Spain do it).
And yes, level gating is immersion-breaking; narrative gating is not. This is how our brains work; things like that we can't open a door until we find the key is intuitive to us. That said, not being able to beat a number 8 as long as we have the number 2 is intuitive as well, however, that reduces the problem to be one of numbers instead of being about the world, and that is what breaks immersion.
No, an ocean is not an invisible barrier. It is a visible barrier. It looks like a lot of water. The word "invisible" means something that you can't see. And the barrier would be there regardless of whether the game had levels or not. GW2 has levels, as well as lots of "invisible" barriers that you can see.
No, it is not ridiculous that the in-game rules are different from real-world rules, after all, it would be boring if they were not. But it is ridiculous that the in-game rules do not have logical consequences.
Basically, under my suggestion, on the GW2 map, any area outside of, say, Queensdale, would be "max level". Of course, there would be areas that would have varying degrees of difficulty and varying degrees of reward. So when you say "rushing to the max level area", what you are actually saying is dispersing throughout the world, playing the content that they like. Of course, players would aggregate to farming spots, since they would be able to find some areas in the world where they could maximize profit. That will happen no matter what, it happened in WoW, it happened in GW1, it happened in GW2, it happened in any game ever. So forcing them to level for two weeks first is meaningless.
The world would still be thoroughly explored (partially because people like that, partially because people would look for farming spots lol).
Other than that, if someone "rush to the most rewarding area", what does it matter to you?
I really don't see how dynamic events are that unique. Most of them can be placed in a small number of categories.
Kill this enemy/s
Defend this thing/s
Defend/capture this area
Collect X number of Y items
Escort this NPC/s
I might have forgotten some category. And there are a couple of unique events as well. But most fall into these categories. That's not even to mention the hearts, which are very repetitive.
I see plenty of Double standards in this post. You say that a locked door is logical because we know from real life experience that we need a key to open a door which is true but have no problem with all the other things we know we can do in the real world but aren't possible in the game such as lock-picking, bashing the door, blowing it to smithereens, disassembling it, hacking it to bits etc.. Face it in both cases we have to realize this is a game and doesnt work like real life. Be it a door that cannot be open in any way until you finish a mission or a monster that cannot be beaten until my character becomes more powerful makes absolutely not difference. They're both in game realities that dont map exactly to the real world.
Once again an ocean is an invisible barrier because it is no barrier at all it is just a representation of a barrier. The barrier itself is completely invisible. When you get to the shore and cant move any more its not because there is an ocean in the way, that will not impede your progress in any way. Its because there is an invisible barrier which in our case is a story gate. Like wise with the door. The door will not stop anyone much less a hero that can bring down mighty beasts. The door is not barrier its a representation of the barrier which in your case is once again a story gate. Like wise with leveling. You level is just a representation of your characters level of development. They're all a visual representation of something else intended to give context to the player. Like you said seeing the ocean a player might realize I need to find a way across it which should ideally drive him back to the narrative though this doesnt always work that way. Just like the higher level will drive the player in growing his/her character more.
Like you said it is impossible not to have some content be more rewarding that other content. As long as that exist people who all they care about is the best rewards will flock to those locations. People will most definitely not explore the areas just because they're the same level as anywhere else. Sure at the start a few will wonder around finding the farm spots, then these will become public knowledge and "everyone" will just head there. If people will explore just because they like it like you said why would levels matter to anyone? you will never run out of places to explore while leveling up.
It matters to me because it is important for the game as a whole on a variety of levels. It doesnt address the real problem which is having people play all over the map and not at specific spots. What you're suggesting will make the real problem worst because new players can bypass it all. It damages the longevity of the game because I am quite sure while farming these rewarding spots is what some people want, they dont enjoy it at all and end up quiting because of it. leveling up might open the eyes to at least some of these, helping them realize there is more to the game. If they're free to simply skip everything they will never know there is a lot more to the game.
I took the liberty to spoiler the obligatory worthless-rant-and-bunch-of-ad-hominem portion of your post. And no, levels doesn't allow you to choose your challenge, rather, they remove that option: to do challenge X at difficulty Y you need to do it at exactly the right time, otherwise you'll be leveled too high or too low. This has been established time and time again, but if you want, we can have the discussion once again.
To answer your questions:
Why would no or fewer levels be better? Well, one could say that the number of levels doesn't really matter. For example, I have suggested infinite leveling. What matters is the power cap and the speed at which one approaches it - if it is high (as in GW1 or as in my suggestion), then a stable, level playing field is quickly obtained across the entire playerbase. This will mean that players learn faster and better (players are less likely to get stuck in local optima when learning the game), as well as that players of different capabilities and different amounts of actual play experience and play time will be more likely to play with each other, which even further increases the speed and quality of learning the game. This, in turn, allows designers to create a deeper game experience. A quickly reachable power cap enables a deeper game experience.
What would the progression in the game look like, what types of progression, how long does it last, and so on? Well, there are several ways this could be done. The below all also contain hidden, narrative progression, just like GW2 does.
GW1 had a very good model IMO; completing somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the storyline would usually mean that you hit max level. Most first-time players would max out their gear after that. The downside was that a significant part of the world was not max-level (and thus well-balanced) content, especially since most of the world had a team size other than 8 (the number around which skills were balanced). This was corrected in the expansions.
Another model would be my own suggestion of having infinite levels with a quick power ascension (that also flattens out quickly, on the shape of 1-[1/(x+1)], where x is the level). Apart from a small tutorial-like area, most of the world would be suitable for characters who have reached the vicinity of the power cap (levels 10 and up). I think leveling up once per 20 minutes or so would be good to start with, maybe taking longer as time goes on and levels mean less.
No levels would be a decent model as well; progression could be based entirely on gear. That gear could confer significant statistics, or merely variation of such (e.g. choice between fire damage and slashing damage).
How would gating work in the game? This is obvious: there should only ever be narrative gating. The sole exception would be if tutorial levels exist, as they did in GW1: in that case, merely walking to areas with higher level enemies should mean so much resistance that if you make it you will have obtained so much xp that you already are at the correct level.
Narrative gating should be the main method of "making sure that players don't kill the final boss in 7 minutes". Simply put, just like in GW2, all storyline missions are set inside instances, and each mission will only be accessible once you have done the one before it. This would mean thatthe world at large would not be gated, but that the missions, the storyline events, etc., would be.
How much content would there be and how would the content pacing be structured? The same amount of content as is found in GW2 could exist, and pacing could be handled by the storyline missions. The nice thing with an open-world game is that the content can to a large degree pace itself: one can fiddle around with mob respawn timers and the cycles of events appearing (whether that is the appearance of some NPC for an escort quest in WoW, or the sort of dynamic events we see in GW2).
I am not future teller but doing what you're suggesting I bet will still result in the people finishing the game in 7 minutes because they'll simply skip all the story in favor of the highest rewarding content. For what you're suggesting to work people need to care about the story more then rewards. The fact you're saying levels are an issue is pretty clear story isnt that important to people because there is plenty of story to be had while leveling up if that would be what they seek. Making the main story entirely optional is not going to change that, its going to make it worst because it would be safe to ignore unlike now.
raspberry jam, on 25 February 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:
I loled again, that just proves that no MMO including GW2 has a good economy
Then what game has a good economy exactly?
let me guess "I loled again because that just proves no game has a good economy?"
Menehune, on 25 February 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:
The other thing is that the majortiy of reward driven players don't simply want "good" rewards, but they want them yesterday. The remarks one always sees are along the lines of the rewards are crap or it's too much grind, and these remarks come no matter what ArenaNet does. Remarks similar to "this is crap! Fix it!".
For sure, reward driven players are being catered to, but along with them ArenaNet caters to RPers, explorers, dungeon divers etc. Expecting ArenaNet to focus exclusively on one's preferred game mode/mechanic/profession/etc. and "fix" things according to their preferences as so many do is just egoistic and unrealistic.
I think you're lieing to yourself. If you really dont want something it wouldnt matter if said thing existed or not.
IE. If you feel that gw2 is a reward-driven game but dont want it to be a reward-driven game the solution would be simple ignore the reward.
I think it makes more sense that you want the reward but dont want to WANT the reward so you're expecting the developers to force the choice on you by just removing that reward. What is selfish is that you expect others to play your way because you like their way but at the same time you dont want to play their way for some wierd reason.
Exactly - if they are going to put it on the menu, then you should demand that they do it well.
But doing it well is rather subjective.
Said restaurant might, in my eyes, have extremely good and well done food, but in your eyes it is horrible.
There is no universal truth when it comes to opinions.
What successful reward-driven games actually cater to the folks that "want rewards yesterday"?
The problem with other groups of players needing to be catered to is that we are playing a reward-driven game (that has no rewards). Our play-style is secondary to the design of the game (we are basically playing the game wrong) - which means if ANYONE is selfish it's those of us that aren't playing for rewards and are demanding that the game be catered to our needs.
That's one of the main points of bitching on this forum - a lot of us would want that GW2 would primarily not be a reward-driven game. That's what we want to change.
But if it stays a reward-driven game, then the game can't withhold the rewards.
I don't think any game caters specifically to folks that "want rewards yesterday", but such are a pretty large subset of reward driven players and to be specific we're not talking rewards in general but loot. In fact, most games try to do the opposite - dole out "the good stuff" as slowly as possible without alienating too many players. E.g. need/greed/pass after an 0.01% drop rate running gear gated content. How is GW2 withholding rewards? Are you equating a low drop rate or restricted acquisition with withholding? Also, don't other games usually reserve the best gear for the end boss in raids? At least in GW2, there is a chance to acquire BiS gear from persistent world drops.
A game can be rewarding without being reward driven which what I think is the case with GW2. There is nothing in the game that you really need in order to play the game. I am living proof of that. Sucky as I am, I have 5 chars at max level and none of them have full exotic gear. Sure, I could do things quicker or more efficiently, but I don't have to be the quickest or most efficient. The point is that I didn't need rare/exotic/ascended gear to reach level cap. Why do so many people feel that they need to be max level with the best gear ASAP in GW2? Many activities in and of themselves can be rewarding e.g. the sense of satisfaction after complete a hard JP can be rewarding.
I don't demand that anyone play the way I do or the game should be "fixed" to suit my preferences. It does bother me, though, when people proclaim the game is crap and this has to be that instead, the game is too this or too that, the devs better do as I say or I'll pout and throw tantrums in the forum.
XPhiler, on 25 February 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:
...
I think you're lieing to yourself. If you really dont want something it wouldnt matter if said thing existed or not.
IE. If you feel that gw2 is a reward-driven game but dont want it to be a reward-driven game the solution would be simple ignore the reward.
I think it makes more sense that you want the reward but dont want to WANT the reward so you're expecting the developers to force the choice on you by just removing that reward. What is selfish is that you expect others to play your way because you like their way but at the same time you dont want to play their way for some wierd reason.
I think you misunderstood me, you quoted the wrong post or we're somehow talking past one another here.
You're right that if I don't want something in game, I'll just ignore it. If there's something that I think is cool, but the game requires me to play content I don't care for then I'll be disappointed/irritated, but I'll continue to play the game if other content is enjoyable. Case in point, legendaries. When they were first announced, I thought oh cool, but when the requirements were revealed, I saw that I probably would never get one because I don't care for dungeons. Did I come to the forum to rant? No, but a fair number of others did. I would still like to have legendaries, but I realize that it is my personal dislike for certain content that keeps me from getting any. I don't demand that ArenaNet change the requirements so I can have some nice, but totally superfluous, shinies.
To rephrase my previous comments on the matter, it's not peoples preferences, perceptions or opinions that bother me. It does bother me when people, based solely on their preferences, perceptions, or opinions loudly proclaim that the game is crap and will stay crap or die unless it is "fixed" in the way they want it "fixed" and it has to be "fixed yesterday". Also that their preferences, perceptions and opinions represent those of everyone else.
But doing it well is rather subjective.
Said restaurant might, in my eyes, have extremely good and well done food, but in your eyes it is horrible.
There is no universal truth when it comes to opinions.
Indeed.
Or 2 dishes may be executed equally well, but one is spicy and the customer doen't like spicy food. Doesn't mean the spicy dish is terrible.
But there is! Opinions are like <excretory orifices>, everybody has one.
I'm an alt person, I like having many characters with all nice gear so I can use them ALL in ALL AREAS and swap between them as much as I want. I don't feel Guild Wars 2 is very alt friendly. I'd like the lvl cap to be either 20 or 30. That would make it all feel like there was waaay more endgame. Actually it would be more endgame! I'm not really a big fan of the way they did it now.
I see plenty of Double standards in this post. You say that a locked door is logical because we know from real life experience that we need a key to open a door which is true but have no problem with all the other things we know we can do in the real world but aren't possible in the game such as lock-picking, bashing the door, blowing it to smithereens, disassembling it, hacking it to bits etc.. Face it in both cases we have to realize this is a game and doesnt work like real life. Be it a door that cannot be open in any way until you finish a mission or a monster that cannot be beaten until my character becomes more powerful makes absolutely not difference. They're both in game realities that dont map exactly to the real world.
Once again an ocean is an invisible barrier because it is no barrier at all it is just a representation of a barrier. The barrier itself is completely invisible. When you get to the shore and cant move any more its not because there is an ocean in the way, that will not impede your progress in any way. Its because there is an invisible barrier which in our case is a story gate. Like wise with the door. The door will not stop anyone much less a hero that can bring down mighty beasts. The door is not barrier its a representation of the barrier which in your case is once again a story gate. Like wise with leveling. You level is just a representation of your characters level of development. They're all a visual representation of something else intended to give context to the player. Like you said seeing the ocean a player might realize I need to find a way across it which should ideally drive him back to the narrative though this doesnt always work that way. Just like the higher level will drive the player in growing his/her character more.
Like you said it is impossible not to have some content be more rewarding that other content. As long as that exist people who all they care about is the best rewards will flock to those locations. People will most definitely not explore the areas just because they're the same level as anywhere else. Sure at the start a few will wonder around finding the farm spots, then these will become public knowledge and "everyone" will just head there. If people will explore just because they like it like you said why would levels matter to anyone? you will never run out of places to explore while leveling up.
It matters to me because it is important for the game as a whole on a variety of levels. It doesnt address the real problem which is having people play all over the map and not at specific spots. What you're suggesting will make the real problem worst because new players can bypass it all. It damages the longevity of the game because I am quite sure while farming these rewarding spots is what some people want, they dont enjoy it at all and end up quiting because of it. leveling up might open the eyes to at least some of these, helping them realize there is more to the game. If they're free to simply skip everything they will never know there is a lot more to the game.
I am not future teller but doing what you're suggesting I bet will still result in the people finishing the game in 7 minutes because they'll simply skip all the story in favor of the highest rewarding content. For what you're suggesting to work people need to care about the story more then rewards. The fact you're saying levels are an issue is pretty clear story isnt that important to people because there is plenty of story to be had while leveling up if that would be what they seek. Making the main story entirely optional is not going to change that, its going to make it worst because it would be safe to ignore unlike now.
No, there is a difference: a locked door is something we understand, but the parts where we can pick the lock or batter down the door is not included in the simulation. We understand that the limitation placed on us is due to the fact that not everything can be simulated. With levels, there is an addition to the simulation, an addition which was put there expressly to prevent us from accessing certain content. That is the difference - in the case of the locked door, other options are missing simply because not everything can be simulated, while with levels, other options are missing because the devs want you to spend time.
No, an ocean is a barrier, and it is visible. If you can't cross water in the game, you can't cross water in the game. You might as well complain about the fact that the Destiny's Reach city wall is a wall and you can only pass through it at the gate. In fact that is literally what you are doing.
Hmm, some people will flock to farming locations, and they will do that no matter what. Others like to explore, and they will do that no matter what. The people who wants to explore, however, will be able to explore the places that they want to see, whenever they want, instead of having to wait to be the right level first. In other words, I don't see your point here.
So players can bypass areas of the game that they think are boring... Again why does this matter to you? Even if there is some area that the majority of the playerbase think is boring, but that you want to play, you can probably find others that are just like yourself. You do make a point, but I don't see how levels help. Obviously levels as implemented in GW2 doesn't, because a lot of people think that the game is boring and has no content even though they haven't seen it all (according to people like yourself).
In what way would the game be "finished" in those seven minutes? They can't access the final boss. They can access the several farm spots, perhaps not in seven minutes because of the time required to reach waypoints, but let's say within an hour, or a day, sure. If they go there it probably means that they have something to do there, like farm, which they will do for quite some time.
As it is today, the GW2 story is entirely optional, so I don't see how I am "making" it optional. You can go anywhere and reach level 80 in any way whatsoever without doing anything story-related except the starting instance.
The obvious way to make people interested in the story would be to create a compelling, well written narrative, and an attractive lead-in to it. You know, I really do think that the best way to get people to play your game is to make a good game, instead of having all this crap like levels and gating to make people force themselves to like it.
Lordkrall, on 25 February 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:
There is no universal truth when it comes to opinions.
There is nothing in the game that you really need in order to play the game. I am living proof of that.
Making poorly designed content/rewards optional, doesn't mean that these things aren't poorly designed.
It just makes them optional.
GW2, in its core, is a reward-driven game: chasing down rewards is the play-style that the game promotes. It's absolutely fantastic that players have the option of not needing to play that way (especially, since this freedom is much more pronounced than it is in other games), but that doesn't make these goals non-existent. And, in their optional existence, they're poorly designed. They aren't designed differently (which is what you were trying to say with your "2 dishes" analogy), they are just poorly designed.
Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
Guild Tag:[DuDE]
Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:21 PM
XPhiler, on 25 February 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:
I hope you're joking here right? Are you saying that if Arenanet say something they should be bound by it even if it turns out its a bad idea? Like any other development project they have a plan. They will report on features based on that plan. If it turns out that plan isnt ideal then they change it. Thats how it should be. Doesnt mean they lied and cant be believed if that happens. If Arenanet didnt change their minds we would never have had an increase in FoV for example. You also dont like the idea of an increased level cap but are you saying they now should do it no matter what because they said a long time ago that they expected the level cap to eventually increase?
This kind of attitude really pushes developers away from communicating with their player base. Because they can be sure everything they say no matter how much good intention they had when saying will be used against them. And then people complain when developers dont communicate as much as they wish.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. People told me I was wrong about what ArenaNet said, and when I showed them the quotes, they told me ArenaNet can change their mind.
Well, no kidding they can change their mind?!
However, I think you would be remiss if you think that ArenaNet will do things opposite of their intentions.
Perhaps next time, you can actually reply to the part that makes the most sense that apparently everyone doesn't want to believe. I'll say it again if you missed the big bolded part of the post that you refused to quote:
Or, we can agree that there is merit to what ArenaNet says and use it as a basis to actually hold conversations and make points as opposed to dismissing it when it goes against how we personally feel about the game.
So which is it? Do we agree that when ArenaNet says something, there is a much greater chance that they will stick to their words; or should what they say not be relevant to conversation because they might change their minds?
You certainly can't have both when it favors your feelings and opinions, which is what you and LordKrall seem to want.
EDIT:
Also, can we stop with the whole idea that ArenaNet does what everyone thinks they should do?
Clearly they dont, or else the majority of people wouldn't be complaining about this game or have already left.
Edited by El Duderino, 25 February 2013 - 03:26 PM.
no, it should not be, in a "living game world" it should go on and on until the player stops playing. It also makes sense to have no cap since, when ever we go to a map we will be scale accordingly. it is nice to know who play the most just by looking at their level.
6
Strawberry Nubcake, on 24 February 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:
