Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * * - - 19 votes

Should the cap have been level 20?


  • Please log in to reply
577 replies to this topic

#61 asbasb

asbasb

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 985 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:54 PM

Na, the game's chosen to provide players with continuous meaningful progression. We know they didn't like how stagnant GW1 was, at least in PvE, so it only makes sense that they would not make the same design decision again with future games. The "will take everything you love from GW1" shouldn't be taken seriously, like every other statement that could potentially be interpreted in more ways than one.

#62 Elcee

Elcee

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 214 posts
  • Location:YOU DRANK GOLF BALLS

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:08 PM

View Postasbasb, on 18 February 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

Na, the game's chosen to provide players with continuous meaningful progression.

Like I mentioned in my previous post, they didn't do that at all. =/

#63 asbasb

asbasb

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 985 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:55 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 18 February 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

So they made a game where PvE is MORE stagnant?

I don't know about more stagnant. In GW1, as we all know, the stat cap was low, easy to achieve and lasted forever. The only times GW1 created more real progression was with titles that made PvE skills stronger, titles that increased your damage taken and dealt to certain enemies or in certain areas. You know, the Nightfall allegiance, and EotN faction titles.

Granted, GW2 right know only has ascended gear and legendary weapons, which are guaranteed to be upgraded to ascended stats later on. You're right, they could have started out with titles that made you more powerful, overall or just in certain areas of the game.
What I'm saying is they've seen that keeping max stats the same throughout the game's life satisfies a lot less people compared to regularly upping the cap. Increasing the caps in the past was very problematic because of power creep, but GW2 has largely counteracted that with downscaling. It's not tunes perfectly, but that's a solvable problem. The issue of gear gating can be avoided by making end game gear only required for very specific tasks, like high level fractals. It doesn't even bar you from experiencing the content, because all that changes in higher levels is the numbers(and maybe some mob mechanics).

I also agree that the open world should be more rewarding. A lot more. Hard more in GW1 was an interesting mechanic because it upped the difficulty across the board and made it rewarding to play where ever you were. The difference between the easiest HM mob and the hardest was a lot smaller compared to their normal mode counter parts. I think it's possible to add a form of HM on a personal level, since they're already able to increase the loot quality with gear dynamically(MF gear).

#64 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2243 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:01 PM

Here is my real feeling. Leveling is antiquated. You are basically holding people off from using max gear until they do some predetermined amount of useless boring tasks which some people call "progression".

#65 tfckmk988

tfckmk988

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 84 posts
  • Location:VA
  • Profession:Engineer
  • Server:Kaineng

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:09 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 18 February 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

Here is my real feeling. Leveling is antiquated. You are basically holding people off from using max gear until they do some predetermined amount of useless boring tasks which some people call "progression".

but what is an RPG without levels ? I don't mind the trip getting to 80 so far (i'm lvl 77 and have been playing about 1 month) but i think a lvl 50-60 cap could have worked just as well but bear in mind that they would have adjusted the time it takes to get the levels to match what their ideal curve is

#66 Feathermoore

Feathermoore

    Underdog

  • Super Moderators
  • 3731 posts
  • Guild Tag:[AWWW]
  • Server:Crystal Desert

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:09 PM

Deleting a page of off-topic material is not a good sign for a new thread. Please remember to stay on topic and take any grievances to PMs.

Also, when threads go off topic, don't post about how off topic they are, report them.

*Hiccup!* "My gnaester will never be the same." ~ Khairelikoblepharehglukumeilichephriedosd'enagouni

Why hello there forumite. Would you like me to review some moderation you did not agree with? Never fear! PM is here! Want to be a better poster? Check on this link! And this one!


#67 leongrado

leongrado

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 604 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:09 PM

View PostI, on 18 February 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

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

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

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

Exactly. Leveling is fking boring and I always feel guilty because I want to max level out my professions and still be able to go outside and be social once in a while ><. In a sense, it would even make the endgame bigger (not really). The reason GW1 had so much charm was because it wasn't a huge drain on time because you could level up to level 20 very quickly. Then they rest of the game was harder because it required more skill, not because you got stronger.

Bottom line. Arenanet isn't going to change this so there's really no use complaining about it.

#68 Eon Lilu

Eon Lilu

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2295 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Server:Desolation

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:15 PM

It's just a number, it's personal perspective that gives it value or not.

20 or 80, makes no difference as there is always a limit in the end....then you just level anyway after 80 or 20 technically gaining skillpoints...

So really whether it's 80 or 20 doesn't matter, it's all just in our heads.

I get what the op is getting at though, Anet should of really gone with 20 since it works better with their original design philosophy of "the game is the end game" not what level you are, but then again Anet have back tracked on alot of what they said in devolepment and moved away from the original design choices so again it doesn't really matter anymore.

I guess Anet felt players had been too conditioned from other mmo's not to have a high number in levels. Personally I would of followed GW1 with lvl 20 cap.

View Postleongrado, on 18 February 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

The reason GW1 had so much charm was because it wasn't a huge drain on time because you could level up to level 20 very quickly. Then they rest of the game was harder because it required more skill, not because you got stronger.

Exactly. I guess Anet did not have enough faith in guild wars original design to carry it on into guild wars 2 , which in my opinion, was a mistake.

Edited by Eon Lilu, 18 February 2013 - 08:20 PM.


#69 Xsiriss

Xsiriss

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 555 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:24 PM

View PostSerris, on 18 February 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:


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


Yes you really don't. Dungeons were only a small part of EoTN and yet despite being the main 'end game'and instanced content in GW2 there's only a similar level of variety. Despite this they're also still just DPS checks.

My point is that this is real content, whilst the whole leveling aspect is purely forced. In GW1 you only just started at lvl20, and to be honest it's basically the same as hitting 80 just means you can start acquiring proper gear and make a proper build. Most lvl80's still have a whole lot to learn, and the whole process is just drawn out. Frankly it's a bit patronising and a middle finger to any competent gamer.

#70 asbasb

asbasb

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 985 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:26 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 18 February 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

Here is my real feeling. Leveling is antiquated. You are basically holding people off from using max gear until they do some predetermined amount of useless boring tasks which some people call "progression".

That's one way of looking at it, and a lot of people who loved GW1 for it were sorely disappointed with GW2 because of that. It's not at all wrong to want something like that, but in my experience, and I've done a lot of research around the net since the Lost Shores update, the number of people preferring a hard, tangible progression that improves your character statistically far outnumber the people who prefer otherwise. I've looked everywhere I can think of. MMO official/fan forums, reddit, youtube comments, blog comments.

The goal for MMO makers is to create a sense of progression that makes players feel they have become better, whether they really have or not. While a cheap +5 stat change doesn't mean the player's skill or experience improved, the little thrill of becoming "better, faster, stronger" vertical progression provides for a big part of player base cannot be replicated by anything that doesn't give you a numerical advantage. It's not about real progression in a sense that would improve you as a player. If the journey does it(which is does most of the time), cool, but it's really about the +5 "Ding!" feeling, no matter how fake and meaningless it really is.

Is it a sad state of affairs? Maybe. But the masses like it, and GW2 is doing everything in its power to satisfy both ends of the spectrum without leaving anyone out. It's working for the most part, as far as I can see. There are a still a few upset players complaining about gear progression here and there, but the frequency of those threads and comments has decreased sharply. Ascended gear is still not gating a unique piece of content from being experienced, and there has been no content designed around ascended gear or agony resistance yet. Yet.

#71 Kymeric

Kymeric

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1928 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:26 PM

View Posttfckmk988, on 18 February 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

but what is an RPG without levels ?

It's still a role playing game.

RPG means you take on a personality and skillset not your own.  It has nothing to do with levels or any quantifiable progression, really.  So many RPGs have used a level system, copy-pasting on back to Dungeons and Dragons, but there's no requirement for levels inherent in role-playing.

Remember those "what is an RPG" paragraphs writers felt were necessary to include in the first chapter of role-playing game rulebooks?  They inevitably used children playing "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and indians" as an example of role-playing.  D&D and subsequent games were supposed to offer a similar experience, only with a bit more structure to avoid fights like "I shot you first" > "no I shot you first" > "but I had my forcefield on".  Or at least that's what the authors wrote.

There have been many amazing indie pen and paper rpgs written in recent decades that abandoned levels or even character "progression" completely.

If you go back past rpgs and to the source material, fantastic fiction, of course we find things like Feist's Pug going from misfit to master magician, or Jordan's Rand going from village boy to demi-god, but a good case could be made that the best examples of the genre focus on the progression of their characters as a person more than any progression in power, if their characters progress in power at all.

Frodo's story isn't about going from contented hobbit to master swordsman.  Aragorn's isn't about growing from adept ranger to godhood.

Of course, it's a lot harder to provide a sense of intangible progression in a computer game than it is in a novel, or even pen and paper RPG.  It's a lot easier to give a sense of progression through +levels and +stats and bigger, stronger monsters to fight.  That doesn't, however, mean an RPG has to have levels.

#72 Elcee

Elcee

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 214 posts
  • Location:YOU DRANK GOLF BALLS

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:27 PM

View Posttfckmk988, on 18 February 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

but what is an RPG without levels ? I don't mind the trip getting to 80 so far (i'm lvl 77 and have been playing about 1 month) but i think a lvl 50-60 cap could have worked just as well but bear in mind that they would have adjusted the time it takes to get the levels to match what their ideal curve is

In progression-oriented RPGs levels work really well, you're right, but in a game like this it doesn't make a lot of sense. The main rewards are aesthetics, a massive chunk of your skills are useless(people rag on GW for that but GW2 is SO much worse), your weapon skills don't change at ALL, and a lot of the traits, even the Grandmaster ones, are mediocre/terrible, and you get de-leveled in like 90% of the zones/dungeons anyway. What's the point to levels, then, aside from new gear that's only marginally better than what you had before? It's like they tried to combine GW1's model with a "traditional" MMO model and ended up with a horrible mutant lovechild and then tried to put a Handsome Jack mask on it.

Edited by Elcee, 18 February 2013 - 08:28 PM.


#73 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2243 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:31 PM

View Posttfckmk988, on 18 February 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

but what is an RPG without levels ? I don't mind the trip getting to 80 so far (i'm lvl 77 and have been playing about 1 month) but i think a lvl 50-60 cap could have worked just as well but bear in mind that they would have adjusted the time it takes to get the levels to match what their ideal curve is

Well, I don't mind the trip except when my personal story requires me to be level 50 and I'm level 30, then I get annoyed.

I think some others have pointed out that getting to max level fast, and then having lots of content and making that content harder based on skill, rather than level progression, was an appreciated way of leveling.

It also has the added benefit of giving us more semblance of an end-game than expecting people to go back to "beginner" areas where they won't find max level rewards.

And, as we all know that eventually you reach max level with every character (unless you reroll 80's) then the end game is a certainty that needs to be addressed to keep a game healthy and populated.

#74 Kymeric

Kymeric

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1928 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:37 PM

View PostEon Lilu, on 18 February 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

It's just a number, it's personal perspective that gives it value or not.

20 or 80, makes no difference as there is always a limit in the end....then you just level anyway after 80 or 20 technically gaining skillpoints...

So really whether it's 80 or 20 doesn't matter, it's all just in our heads.

Implied in the question would be that you would still take the same amount of time/effort to reach 20 as you do now with 80 levels.  If that's true, then it's not just a number.  What do we have currently?  25 zones in the game?  I count 8 zones (1/3!?!) with under-20 content, and 2 zones marked level 80.

What if we had 8 zones to level in, and then 17 to play in at "endgame", instead?

Everyone seems to think starting areas are so important.  In Rift there were constant complaints because each race didn't have a different zone to start in.   When you level out of your starting zone in a matter of hours, however, what's better for the life of the game?  Half a dozen starter areas, or (at least) half a dozen max-level areas?

#75 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2243 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:38 PM

View Postasbasb, on 18 February 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

That's one way of looking at it, and a lot of people who loved GW1 for it were sorely disappointed with GW2 because of that. It's not at all wrong to want something like that, but in my experience, and I've done a lot of research around the net since the Lost Shores update, the number of people preferring a hard, tangible progression that improves your character statistically far outnumber the people who prefer otherwise. I've looked everywhere I can think of. MMO official/fan forums, reddit, youtube comments, blog comments.

Please give us your "statistics" and evidence for this statement as I would disagree 100%.

I think people prefer to be at the top statistically, which is why they prefer to get there ASAP.

View Postasbasb, on 18 February 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

The goal for MMO makers is to create a sense of progression that makes players feel they have become better, whether they really have or not. While a cheap +5 stat change doesn't mean the player's skill or experience improved, the little thrill of becoming "better, faster, stronger" vertical progression provides for a big part of player base cannot be replicated by anything that doesn't give you a numerical advantage. It's not about real progression in a sense that would improve you as a player. If the journey does it(which is does most of the time), cool, but it's really about the +5 "Ding!" feeling, no matter how fake and meaningless it really is.

I think the goal of MMO makers is to make money. In order to make money, they need to make a game that is fun and has long lasting play-ability. I think people prefer to get to max level ASAP so that they can start working towards max gear ASAP and getting max rewards. So, again, I would disagree.

#76 tfckmk988

tfckmk988

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 84 posts
  • Location:VA
  • Profession:Engineer
  • Server:Kaineng

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:38 PM

View PostKymeric, on 18 February 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

It's still a role playing game.

RPG means you take on a personality and skillset not your own.  It has nothing to do with levels or any quantifiable progression, really.  So many RPGs have used a level system, copy-pasting on back to Dungeons and Dragons, but there's no requirement for levels inherent in role-playing.

Remember those "what is an RPG" paragraphs writers felt were necessary to include in the first chapter of role-playing game rulebooks?  They inevitably used children playing "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and indians" as an example of role-playing.  D&D and subsequent games were supposed to offer a similar experience, only with a bit more structure to avoid fights like "I shot you first" > "no I shot you first" > "but I had my forcefield on".  Or at least that's what the authors wrote.

There have been many amazing indie pen and paper rpgs written in recent decades that abandoned levels or even character "progression" completely.

If you go back past rpgs and to the source material, fantastic fiction, of course we find things like Feist's Pug going from misfit to master magician, or Jordan's Rand going from village boy to demi-god, but a good case could be made that the best examples of the genre focus on the progression of their characters as a person more than any progression in power, if their characters progress in power at all.

Frodo's story isn't about going from contented hobbit to master swordsman.  Aragorn's isn't about growing from adept ranger to godhood.

Of course, it's a lot harder to provide a sense of intangible progression in a computer game than it is in a novel, or even pen and paper RPG.  It's a lot easier to give a sense of progression through +levels and +stats and bigger, stronger monsters to fight.  That doesn't, however, mean an RPG has to have levels.

fair enough in a pen and paper i can totally see not having levels working however on a computer game that working seems unlikely

View PostElcee, on 18 February 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

In progression-oriented RPGs levels work really well, you're right, but in a game like this it doesn't make a lot of sense. The main rewards are aesthetics, a massive chunk of your skills are useless(people rag on GW for that but GW2 is SO much worse), your weapon skills don't change at ALL, and a lot of the traits, even the Grandmaster ones, are mediocre/terrible, and you get de-leveled in like 90% of the zones/dungeons anyway. What's the point to levels, then, aside from new gear that's only marginally better than what you had before? It's like they tried to combine GW1's model with a "traditional" MMO model and ended up with a horrible mutant lovechild and then tried to put a Handsome Jack mask on it.

Maybe I just like progression idk but i think the game would feel incredible empty if you had everything handed to you on a silver platter in terms of character ability (not talking about stats) when you first loaded up the game and i will be honest i did like the increased variety of skills in GW1 better than this (played a couple years ago for 6months maybe and they could do a lot more in terms of progression other than levels and stats but at the same time i think they want people to be able to learn to play their character as they level and unlock skills and such instead of rushing to 80.

View PostEl Duderino, on 18 February 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

Well, I don't mind the trip except when my personal story requires me to be level 50 and I'm level 30, then I get annoyed.

I think some others have pointed out that getting to max level fast, and then having lots of content and making that content harder based on skill, rather than level progression, was an appreciated way of leveling.

It also has the added benefit of giving us more semblance of an end-game than expecting people to go back to "beginner" areas where they won't find max level rewards.

And, as we all know that eventually you reach max level with every character (unless you reroll 80's) then the end game is a certainty that needs to be addressed to keep a game healthy and populated.
i personally think it will be and that they are working on it with things like flame and frost and who knows what the endresult is and the dungeons seem to be very engaging to me and i have only played 2 of them so far AC and CM,

I also think a lot of you are comparing a game that was updated for years (GW1) to guild wars 2 and not allowing developers the same amount of time to get polished and variety of content available

#77 lmaonade

lmaonade

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1121 posts
  • Location:That one place with the thing
  • Guild Tag:[NGE]
  • Server:Crystal Desert

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:44 PM

View PostMisterB, on 18 February 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:

Many people who play video games do not play MMOs. ArenaNet chose to make an MMO, so they made several design decisions that appeal to that audience, including the level 80 slogfest.

You've hit the nail on the head right here. Arenanet didn't make another GW, they made an MMO with the name of GW, whether or not that was a good, smart, or quality choice is up to buyers of all backgrounds, not just those who loved their first game. GW2 is a quality game, just in different way from what GW1 fans were looking for.

#78 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2243 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:45 PM

View Posttfckmk988, on 18 February 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Maybe I just like progression idk but i think the game would feel incredible empty if you had everything handed to you on a silver platter in terms of character ability (not talking about stats) when you first loaded up the game and i will be honest i did like the increased variety of skills in GW1 better than this (played a couple years ago for 6months maybe and they could do a lot more in terms of progression other than levels and stats but at the same time i think they want people to be able to learn to play their character as they level and unlock skills and such instead of rushing to 80.

You know what this reminded me of? Elite skill capping. I don't know why, but I think that was an awesome part of GW1. Yea, you might be level 20, but you gotta go get the elite skills from bosses - and boy was it tough sometimes.

The other problem I have is that it would be good if they wanted people to get to know how to play their character, but with a rather limited amount of skill bars compared to GW1, why should it take longer to learn? You know?

View Posttfckmk988, on 18 February 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

i personally think it will be and that they are working on it with things like flame and frost and who knows what the endresult is and the dungeons seem to be very engaging to me and i have only played 2 of them so far AC and CM,

I also think a lot of you are comparing a game that was updated for years (GW1) to guild wars 2 and not allowing developers the same amount of time to get polished and variety of content available

Yes, I do expect more end-game content to be available with future updates, and I look forward to them. I just dread leveling up my next character to get there :P .

#79 asbasb

asbasb

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 985 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:54 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 18 February 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Please give us your "statistics" and evidence for this statement as I would disagree 100%.

Not this bullcrap again. You know that unless someone spent months of his time tallying up all the opinion on the net and check for duplicates, people that ask the question you asked wouldn't be satisfied. And excuse me for having a live, but I do not have the time to prove to you what I personally feel is the case. Browsing around the net, my overall impression(!) was that there were a lot more people writing posts in favor of gear progression compared to people that argued against it. I'm not talking just about the GW2 community, but all PvE heavy MMOs.

Quote

I think the goal of MMO makers is to make money. In order to make money, they need to make a game that is fun and has long lasting play-ability. I think people prefer to get to max level ASAP so that they can start working towards max gear ASAP and getting max rewards. So, again, I would disagree.

Yup, we disagree here, and there's no way to move that particular argument in one way or another. ANet choose to appeal to a certain demographic, which IMO is large enough to keep GW2 alive and healthy. I would argue that a player base composed of players favoring "stat stagnancy" would not. Again, that's my impression and rationalization for the choices ANet has made.

View Postlmaonade, on 18 February 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

You've hit the nail on the head right here. Arenanet didn't make another GW, they made an MMO with the name of GW, whether or not that was a good, smart, or quality choice is up to buyers of all backgrounds, not just those who loved their first game. GW2 is a quality game, just in different way from what GW1 fans were looking for.

I would even go as far as to say it's the best MMORPG out there at the moment.

#80 Malganis

Malganis

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 133 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Profession:Necromancer
  • Guild Tag:[XIII]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:56 PM

Level 20?   Hell no, I want to see it raised to level 100!    I could really use 20 more trait points.

#81 tfckmk988

tfckmk988

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 84 posts
  • Location:VA
  • Profession:Engineer
  • Server:Kaineng

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:10 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 18 February 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

You know what this reminded me of? Elite skill capping. I don't know why, but I think that was an awesome part of GW1. Yea, you might be level 20, but you gotta go get the elite skills from bosses - and boy was it tough sometimes.

The other problem I have is that it would be good if they wanted people to get to know how to play their character, but with a rather limited amount of skill bars compared to GW1, why should it take longer to learn? You know?


To be honest I never really played GW1 enough to get to that point and that does seem cool but at the same time from when i did play it was virtually impossible to get a group so i almost bought the skill sets just so i could try them out and maybe that was because i was playing a game that was lossing its luster and already had most of the players waiting impatiently for GW2 but I can tell you that was no fun

as for the additional time to learn but GW1 didn't have such a fluid combat system as GW2 does (it was better than WoW's lol but still) learning to not rely on your teammates to heal/tank or soley dps can take time as well playing more actively instead of standing still and spamming 1,2,3 etc as well as learning to time dodges correctly added a lot more complexity than GW1 had with any given build (of course learning different builds took time as well but i think that conversation is best held elsewhere)

#82 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2243 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:10 PM

View Postasbasb, on 18 February 2013 - 08:54 PM, said:

Not this bullcrap again. You know that unless someone spent months of his time tallying up all the opinion on the net and check for duplicates, people that ask the question you asked wouldn't be satisfied. And excuse me for having a live, but I do not have the time to prove to you what I personally feel is the case. Browsing around the net, my overall impression(!) was that there were a lot more people writing posts in favor of gear progression compared to people that argued against it. I'm not talking just about the GW2 community, but all PvE heavy MMOs.

What you personally feel is the case does not necessarily constitute the truth. That is all I am trying to say. You said you did serious research to make a point, when the fact is that you didn't do any serious research. You shouldn't try to make a factual point if you don't have facts to base it on other than some one-sided impossible to verify evidence.

View Postasbasb, on 18 February 2013 - 08:54 PM, said:

Yup, we disagree here, and there's no way to move that particular argument in one way or another. ANet choose to appeal to a certain demographic, which IMO is large enough to keep GW2 alive and healthy. I would argue that a player base composed of players favoring "stat stagnancy" would not. Again, that's my impression and rationalization for the choices ANet has made.

GW1 had the same max stats for years, through three campaigns, and was one of the top MMO's of all time. I think, clearly, you can make a MMO that stays alive and healthy without having to continue to increase the stats of gear.

In fact, I would argue that it was quite apparent that ascended gear caused quite an uproar because it created another tier level of power in a game where people didn't want another tier level of power. You can quite easily see this just by reading Google results when searching anything about ascended gear in Guild Wars 2.

#83 Murderer

Murderer

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 121 posts
  • Location:SoCal
  • Profession:Warrior

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:11 PM

This would have been a great idea. Down scaling in GW2 is a joke and it makes the content way to easy to be enjoyable once you are lvl 80 and in full exotics. Making the lvl cap a lot lower would have fixed most of the problems this game has.

#84 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2243 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:21 PM

View Posttfckmk988, on 18 February 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:

as for the additional time to learn but GW1 didn't have such a fluid combat system as GW2 does (it was better than WoW's lol but still) learning to not rely on your teammates to heal/tank or soley dps can take time as well playing more actively instead of standing still and spamming 1,2,3 etc as well as learning to time dodges correctly added a lot more complexity than GW1 had with any given build (of course learning different builds took time as well but i think that conversation is best held elsewhere)

I could not disagree more. Had you played during the height of GW1, I think you would see things much differently as well.

Builds were much more complex in GW1 than in GW2. Relying on your teammates, as well as not letting your teammates down, was an amazing part of the game. And many people liken GW2 to a button-smashing snore fest over GW1.

I think many GW1 players would agree. But perhaps I am in the minority. Who knows?

#85 tfckmk988

tfckmk988

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 84 posts
  • Location:VA
  • Profession:Engineer
  • Server:Kaineng

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:23 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 18 February 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

I could not disagree more. Had you played during the height of GW1, I think you would see things much differently as well.

Builds were much more complex in GW1 than in GW2. Relying on your teammates, as well as not letting your teammates down, was an amazing part of the game. And many people liken GW2 to a button-smashing snore fest over GW1.

I think many GW1 players would agree. But perhaps I am in the minority. Who knows?

honestly I will say that I really really wish i had discovered it within a year of it coming out but I was playing WoW then lol

#86 typographie

typographie

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1802 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:40 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 18 February 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

I think many GW1 players would agree. But perhaps I am in the minority. Who knows?

GW1 had its strong points, but it was also a broken game in many ways that GW2 isn't. Builds in GW1 gave you more freedom and complexity, but it also encouraged a very rigid, very boring meta that usually left a good player with only one really good build until the next skill rebalance. False choice is worse than no choice at all, there's no way I could be nostalgic for that after 7 years.

The choices here are more limited but I think removing some choice from the skill bar forces builds to be flexible and to have a lot more options in their fine-tuning. And I definitely appreciate the more active, twitchy combat in GW2—you can see that as a "button-mashing snore fest" if you want to, but it is what you make it.

#87 Kymeric

Kymeric

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1928 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:50 PM

View Posttfckmk988, on 18 February 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

fair enough in a pen and paper i can totally see not having levels working however on a computer game that working seems unlikely


Unlikely, yes, but the genre keeps making attempts in that direction.  GW2 is blurring the line with level scaling.  TSW tried to obscure their level system behind skill wheels.

Story is a lot harder for computers and designers to model than power progression, but as both game design and technology develops they are working toward it.  Single player RPGs are getting more sophisiticated in their story-telling, and hopefully good game designers will figure out how to overcome the obstacles of telling a really good story in a massively multiplayer game.  As the ability of RPGs to deliver a complex, interesting story increase, the need for levels will diminish.

#88 asbasb

asbasb

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 985 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:54 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 18 February 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:

What you personally feel is the case does not necessarily constitute the truth. That is all I am trying to say. You said you did serious research to make a point, when the fact is that you didn't do any serious research. You shouldn't try to make a factual point if you don't have facts to base it on other than some one-sided impossible to verify evidence.

I'm sorry I mislead you, but I didn't say I did serious research. With doing "a lot" of research, I wanted to point out that I have until today regularly checked most popular websites where this kind of subject is discussed, and never once had I the impression that there were two big player groups arguing about their preferred play styles. With the GW2 forums being the exceptions, every discussion I've scrolled through had about three to four times as many "pro" VP opinions than otherwise, at least. But that's irrelevant as I don't have numbers and sources to prove. I never claimed my statement as being evidence or fact. I recapped what I saw and experienced, please keep that in mind.

View PostEl Duderino, on 18 February 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:

You can quite easily see this just by reading Google results when searching anything about ascended gear in Guild Wars 2.

Really? I'm periodically checking google to find more discussions about gear treadmills and progression, but outside of the GW2 forums and various fan forums(guru, MMO champ), there's not a lot of results. Some blogs, stuff from last November and December. The controversy has run its course, the backlash was had, ANet stated they wanted to continue with gear, or "item" progression.

Don't mistake GW1s shortcomings, which were the level cap and no gear progression for features that had been ANets philosophy from day one. They were overwhelmed by the amount of PvE players that kept playing the game instead of switching to PvP, so they made the best of what systems they had in place to satisfy their unintended PvE player base.
Looking back, GW1 was the first MMO like project they created from the ground up, and with the plan having been to release a new campaign every 6 months, each of them having to stand on its own feet, it would have been pretty much impossible to work in higher level caps and more powerful gear with what manpower and time they had to get factions and nightfall out. My point is, had they been able to work in a solid vertical progression for GW1 after Prophecies was released, they would have done it.
Yes yes, speculation on my part again, but we may never know the truth, so speculating is all we can do at this point.

#89 Inraged Twitch

Inraged Twitch

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 409 posts
  • Location:T-Town WA
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[MGW]
  • Server:Henge of Denravi

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:59 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 18 February 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

I could not disagree more. Had you played during the height of GW1, I think you would see things much differently as well.

Builds were much more complex in GW1 than in GW2. Relying on your teammates, as well as not letting your teammates down, was an amazing part of the game. And many people liken GW2 to a button-smashing snore fest over GW1.

I think many GW1 players would agree. But perhaps I am in the minority. Who knows?

This might be true in GW1 PVP, but playing my sin or ritualist in PVE I rarely almost never changed my build when going to different areas fow/uw/doa.  Especially when running fow/uw/doa.  Although I do wish they would allow us templates for switching the 6-0 skills while still in combat now that they don't allow us to wp back when a teamate dies.'

Edited by Inraged Twitch, 18 February 2013 - 10:00 PM.


#90 BnJ

BnJ

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 193 posts
  • Profession:Engineer
  • Guild Tag:[MARK]
  • Server:Darkhaven

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:07 PM

Seems like the real question here is did you prefer leveling in GW1 over GW2, which I'd answer yes.

Sure it didn't take long to hit max level 20 (arguably doesn't take long in GW2 either), but the fun for me started when I began hunting down the skills I wanted to equip on my toon, there were some good times there.  The range of builds also kept it more interesting and I gotta say the story was miles better.  I remember GW1 being more challenging than what I've faced in GW2 as well, which helped keep the excitement going, but it's been so long since I played that game, my memory is a little hazy.  One great feature that still sticks out though is when you had the ability to choose a 2nd profession and could make hybrid builds, so many possibilities which kept it fresh.

GW2 leveling was fun the first time I ran it, but it has been such a drag trying to level alts.  I can only bring myself to do it a single level at a time, then i go back to playing my main.

I never really gave it too much thought, but if they remade GW1, with GW2's combat and graphics, that would be perfect for me.

Anyway it's too late now, we're stuck with what we got, it's not going to change.  In fact, we'll be getting additional levels in the future.  :0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users