103 replies to this topic

[Robsy128]

Hey all

I was just wondering what your opinions would be of an increased XP percentage (for a limited amount of time) for those people who have been logged out for more than a day. I believe it's a system the Lord of the Rings Online incorporated into their game, and I personally think it worked pretty well.

To explain it: you play the game normally, and then log out. If you go over 24 hours of not playing the game; the next time you log on, you have a boost in the xp you receive from everything. This only lasts for about an hour.

I personally think it might be a good idea to incorporate this system into Guild Wars 2 to make levelling much more accessible for those people who simply don't have the time to play every single day. They wouldn't have an advantage over other players - it would just be a small xp boost (like the xp boosts you receive from the gem store and black lion chests) to help them on their story.

After all, the game is very much based on your own personal story, yet you're constantly locked out of it because you're not the appropriate level. This system would be targeted more towards the people with busy lives, families, etc and would just allow them to play when they can and access their personal stories much more easily, rather than logging on and finding that they have to do another 10 events in order to access the next story mission.

This is all just my opinion, though. What do you guys think about it? Would it be a good system or bad? Why?

[Zhaitan]

I played LOTRO and I liked that system for their paying customers. I don't think it will hurt as there is literally no mid-level content in the game that you'd miss. Also, most builds are viable/practical at level 80 anyway.

The reason personal stories were spreaded out by levels and zones that the designers want you to do a story chapter and then make your journey to another area, explore the zone, gain a couple levels and do the next chapter of the story. It is like watching Game of Thrones each week during season 1 and 2 vs. cramming all 24 episodes over 1 week before season 3 premiere because your kids are finally away to their granma. Both approach work, but, makers of GoT probably will prefer the first approach of weekly viewing. Same notion applies here as well.

[El Duderino]

But I thought leveling wasn't a grind in this game? Why fix something that's not broken?

Seriously though, if leveling is boring or takes too long, then there is a problem with the leveling system and another band aid mechanic isn't necessary when you can actually fix the problem.

[Kymeric]

Leveling is so quick, I don't think a rested xp mechanic is really needed.  You get xp thrown at you for doing pretty much anything.

Speeding up ultra-casual leveling will only get them to endgame faster, where they will hit a wall when it comes to gearing up anyway.

[Ritualist]

Kymeric, on 21 March 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

Leveling is so quick, I don't think a rested xp mechanic is really needed.  You get xp thrown at you for doing pretty much anything.

Speeding up ultra-casual leveling will only get them to endgame faster, where they will hit a wall when it comes to gearing up anyway.

I just levelled up a character though map kills/exploration only (constant lemon buff). It took me around 70 hours and 40% of the world map to get there.
That's not what I'd consider quick.

[Norseman]

Yeah LoTRO is a Grrriiiiiiinnnnddddd fest. You're talking months of nightly play to have a remote hope of having a level capped toon. This game is vastly easier to level up on. Even a casual player can have a lvl 80 in a few weeks. This is the quickest, easiest game to level in I have ever played. There is no shortage of XP in this game.

[Beta Sprite]

That's what daily achievements are for...

[Krazzar]

Beta Sprite, on 21 March 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

That's what daily achievements are for...

Indeed.

I'm sure if someone were to actually try they could do better than this:

[Kymeric]

Ritualist, on 21 March 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

I just levelled up a character though map kills/exploration only (constant lemon buff). It took me around 70 hours and 40% of the world map to get there.
That's not what I'd consider quick.

I guess it's all relative.  Less than an hour/level seems pretty quick to me.

And I still don't know why the ultra-casual would want to rush to level cap, where things are more grindy and less casual-friendly.

[Wordsworth]

Kymeric, on 21 March 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

Leveling is so quick, I don't think a rested xp mechanic is really needed.  You get xp thrown at you for doing pretty much anything.

Speeding up ultra-casual leveling will only get them to endgame faster, where they will hit a wall when it comes to gearing up anyway.

Yeah, but none of those things are interesting or enjoyable the second or third time around. So by all means, give me that XP.

[Kymeric]

Wordsworth, on 22 March 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

Yeah, but none of those things are interesting or enjoyable the second or third time around. So by all means, give me that XP.

I know some people are dead set against it for whatever reason, but if you already have an 80, you can easily earn enough gold to eliminate half the leveling process through crafting.

[Midnight_Tea]

GW2 has super fast leveling for an MMO. Whether you think this needs fixing depends on whether you think MMOs in general do. Seventy hours to max level is considered lightning fast for the genre. I'm not dismissing the thread's concept in general, "better" is not "good", but since most of us are used to MMOs it doesn't feel that slow to most of us.
GW2 also is not one of those MMOs that puts its meta behind level walls, so there isn't much reason to rush it in the first place. Most holiday content is accessible at all levels, and SPvP isn't affected at all. Ideally WvWvW would scale better, but that's a separate issue.

The reason leveling is slow in most MMOs is because the point of the genre is to make you feel overwhelmed and part of a world much larger than yourself. You exist for the world, it doesn't exist for you like in a singleplayer game. Also a holdover from the days when subscription fees were a sensible business model, but what can you do. My point is, it's not a genre that caters to the high energy zippity-doo-dah gotta-go-gotta-have-it-now hold-on-let-me-use-my-smartphone-to-check-the-leaderboards gamer.

I also think that GW2 is never at a loss of activity to offer people of any given level since content never closes off like in other MMOs. You can always sidekick to an older zone and still get a ton of XP for doing stuff there. That's practically unheard of. That means you get more to do with each and every level instead of doing whatever it is the game thinks you should be doing. If you're not enjoying that experience of the world slowly opening up then maybe this isn't your genre. Myself, I can still remember how excited I was to be able to cross the first bridge in Dragon Quest (Warrior) back in 1986.

Or maybe the genre still needs fixing in general. I won't argue against that. Just because WoW revolutionized it and made it more accessible in 2004, it was still by most standards a needlessly hardcore and punishing mess. Just wanted to clarify I'm not arguing from tradition, but just inviting you to consider what the game was designed to be versus what you automatically assume is a better experience.

[Ritualist]

Kymeric, on 22 March 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

I guess it's all relative.  Less than an hour/level seems pretty quick to me.

And I still don't know why the ultra-casual would want to rush to level cap, where things are more grindy and less casual-friendly.

I think the better question is why should a number prevent players from doing the content that they want to be doing? Because in GW2, it's really down to a number: at least in GW1, the game said that couldn't do certain content because you were not ascended (or because you hadn't reached that content or ...). In GW2 though, with its complete separation of story from the game itself, it's really down to a number. Not only that, downscalling completely removes any point of that number.

What's the point of levels in GW2, outside of being an in-game rule, set by an out-game entity, dictating how many hours characters should exist in-game?

Edited by Ritualist, 22 March 2013 - 01:42 PM.

[Kymeric]

Ritualist, on 22 March 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

I think the better question is why should a number prevent players from doing the content that they want to be doing? Because in GW2, it's really down to a number: at least in GW1, the game said that couldn't do certain content because you were not ascended (or because you hadn't reached that content or ...). In GW2 though, with its complete separation of story from the game itself, it's really down to a number. Not only that, downscalling completely removes any point of that number.

Sure.  I've argued for eliminating levels in other threads.  I just don't see the need for a "rested xp" mechanic in this game (although we already have one of a sort in the form of dailies).

Not to mention, even the devs thought virtually levelless was a good idea at one point when they announced sidekick up-levelling before launch, but something changed.  Probably their money people pointed out that levels are an easy gating mechanic that keep people from getting through content too quickly and also allow ANet to sell xp boosters in the gem shop.

Which would be the same reason they wouldn't want to implement significant amounts of bonus xp for not logging in.

[Trei]

Ritualist, on 21 March 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

I just levelled up a character though map kills/exploration only (constant lemon buff). It took me around 70 hours and 40% of the world map to get there.
That's not what I'd consider quick.

I would.


Despite you apparently choosing to skip so many of other activities which give xp, it only took you 70 hours solely exploring and killing through just 40% of the existing world to max level.

[Mura]

Between food buffs and XP boosters, and the multitude of ways to gain XP, I don't think a rested XP concept is needed here.  If you're not interested in doing other pve between story levels, you can gain xp doing crafting or wvw.

[Captain Bulldozer]

Trei, on 22 March 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

I would.


Despite you apparently choosing to skip so many of other activities which give xp, it only took you 70 hours solely exploring and killing through just 40% of the existing world to max level.

One thing I think a lot of people on this forum forget (or never knew to begin with) is how leveling worked in GW1.  Even when the game was initially released, it only really took around 10-15 hour to reach the max level.  Most of the game was DESIGNED to be done at the max level, which made it about skill much more than it was about grinding away to get stronger.  After the game had been out for a while the time to reach max level (and even get max level gear) dropped to as little as a few hours (I think someone actually managed to do it in under an hour or so by spending a lot of money on XP boosting scrolls).  This made playing alts much more enjoyable and less grindy, and allowed people to focus on the actual content of the game rather than a number in the bottom corner of the screen.

To make GW2 feel more like a standard MMO (in the stated hopes of taking players away from WoW) a lot of changes were made such as a high level cap and more work to reach it, and a different gearing system that is still about vertical progression (even if its not as bad as some others... WoW included).  What Anet seems to have lost track of is that they intentionally did away with those aspect in the original Guild Wars because they are not really fun, and lead to a Time>Skill philosophy in PvP.  Since they made GW2 more about PvE it seems like they decided that lesson was no longer relevant, except that in my opinion it totally still is.

Don't get me wrong:  I think GW2 is a fantastic game... but from a design perspective, in many ways GW1 was far superior.  If they had stuck with it in GW2 and included the upgraded graphics, combat system, etc. they would have a made a game for the ages, rather than the shiniest MMO of the next few years.

[ShezuTsukai]

For a first time player the pace is needed to learn skills, usage, technique and game play mechanics. Plus it's a really big world that the personal story doesn't completely cover. Not to mention the other areas where xp is gained like DE's, dailies, dungeons, JP's, etc.

Now if we are talking leveling an alt, then craft, hit the DEs you know, map cities and definitely do dailys/monthlies. Took a guardian to 40 just get another order. It only took around 10 hours total including story to join the order.

[Midnight_Tea]

Captain Bulldozer:  I kind of take issue with your post because you're making the assumption GW2 is trying to be GW1 but better. No, GW2 is trying to be GW2, which is a more traditional MMO. The devs have said repeatedly they don't consider GW1 to be an MMO and thus not a comparable experience. In retrospect I think it's kind of unfortunate they chose to put a numeral at the end of the name, but it's a bit too late now.

You're also assuming that there is an objective definition of "fun", and that's it's necessarily what you personally consider to be fun. For a lot of us, the traditional MMO experience is fun, and I feel like GW2 has done it better than anyone had up to now. All the fun parts of that experience but minus most of the annoying parts that cause time > skill. I love it.

But you know what? If it came down to it, I'll be the first to show solidarity that the unique experience of GW1 had to suffer for this game to be made. It's a shame such a unique game doesn't have a modern spiritual successor, not even in the game that is supposedly its sequel.

Edited by Midnight_Tea, 22 March 2013 - 03:46 PM.

[Ritualist]

Midnight_Tea, on 22 March 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

You're also assuming that there is an objective definition of "fun", and that's it's necessarily what you personally consider to be fun. For a lot of us, the traditional MMO experience is fun, and I feel like GW2 has done it better than anyone had up to now.  All the fun parts of that experience but minus most of the annoying parts that cause time > skill. I love it.

How is levelling not time > skill?

[Pipples]

Robsy128, on 21 March 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

I was just wondering what your opinions would be of an increased XP percentage (for a limited amount of time) for those people who have been logged out for more than a day.

Wat? Are you serious?

You get experience for almost everything in this game.
* Stumble across a new area? XP gain.
* Run into a waypoint? XP gain.
* Kill a creature no one else has touched recently? XP gain WITH A BONUS.
* Crafting at all? 10 levels per max craft.
* Want to a dungeon? 2/3 of a level per path, once a day.
* Oh is that a local event? XP per kill PLUS an overall event bonus.
* Bored of X area? Go back to lower-level Y area, still get XP.

Don't even get me started on 70-80. Those levels are pretty much free, hit up Orr and spend a day doing events. And you want MORE XP? Why are you even playing this game?

[Gilles VI]

Ritualist, on 21 March 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

I just levelled up a character though map kills/exploration only (constant lemon buff). It took me around 70 hours and 40% of the world map to get there.
That's not what I'd consider quick.

Did you ever play another MMO/online game?

[Captain Bulldozer]

Gilles VI, on 22 March 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Did you ever play another MMO/online game?

This was supposed to be my point above.  Vets of GW1 will feel (and are completely justified in doing so) that the leveling process in GW2 is drawn out and painful (even grindy) whereas vets of virtually every other MMO on the market applaud GW2 for not being so grindy.  My other point is that I wish Anet had focused on appeasing both groups more than they did...

Midnight_Tea:  Its not  that I'm "making the assumption GW2 is trying to be GW1 but better"  as you suggest; I'm saying that I think GW2 COULD HAVE BEEN more like GW1 (and that it would be a better game if it were).  Ironically, certain elements from other MMOs could have been incorporated into GW2 (such as faction reputation) without detracting from the quality of the game.... but anet seems to have gone with quite a few that do detract from the quality for no other reason than making it feel more comfortable to people who live in other MMOs.  Without a doubt, that's one way to get players interested, (hey, the same basic idea worked for Christianity for centuries) but that doesn't make it the best approach either.  In short I feel like A-net made a lot of lazy decisions and made a good game that could have been so much more.

[Midnight_Tea]

Ritualist, on 22 March 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

How is levelling not time > skill?

I didn't say GW2 lacked time > skill, just that they remove most of the annoyances that cause it to be a factor. For instance being sidekicked up for special events like the karka invasion, or for it to be a complete non-factor in SPvP.

Whether this is good enough is a matter of personal opinion, though.

[Ritualist]

Midnight_Tea, on 22 March 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

I didn't say GW2 lacked time > skill, just that they remove most of the annoyances that cause it to be a factor. For instance being sidekicked up for special events like the karka invasion, or for it to be a complete non-factor in SPvP.

Whether this is good enough is a matter of personal opinion, though.

So what's the criteria that separates good time > skill from the bad time > skill?

[Captain Bulldozer]

Pipples, on 22 March 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

Don't even get me started on 70-80. Those levels are pretty much free, hit up Orr and spend a day doing events. And you want MORE XP? Why are you even playing this game?

That's a good point actually, and it does match my experience.  However, for some reason I certainly don't feel like you could say the same about leveling for any 10 level gap after level 20 or so until getting to Orr.  Maybe its just that Orr is better designed that the rest of the zones?

[Midnight_Tea]

Ritualist, on 22 March 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

So what's the criteria that separates good time > skill from the bad time > skill?

Ever play Katamari Damacy? RPGs are kind of like a drawn out version of that. Where part of the fun is growing bigger and bigger and watching the growth happen. GW1 wasn't as much about that, but GW2 is, thus why they're not really too comparable. If that's not considered fun for you then you might not be part of GW2's target demographic. Again, that's why I think it's a shame it's being sold as a sequel since I don't personally like it when sequels flip demographics.

(Even though ironically I'm part of GW2's target demographic even though I wasn't in GW1's)

I think what's bad or good is up to debate and personal opinion, but my opinion is that it's bad when it interferes with competitive PvP environments or if it stonewalls players out of limited-opportunity content.  GW2 isn't perfect in either of these regards, both sidekicking and WvWvW needs tweaking, but it's unique among MMOs for even caring about this at all.

[Gilles VI]

Captain Bulldozer, on 22 March 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

This was supposed to be my point above.  Vets of GW1 will feel (and are completely justified in doing so) that the leveling process in GW2 is drawn out and painful (even grindy) whereas vets of virtually every other MMO on the market applaud GW2 for not being so grindy.  My other point is that I wish Anet had focused on appeasing both groups more than they did...

Yea I know, last summer I started a ele in factions and at 3h45mins I was at ToA, full armor and max lvl ready to E/Mo in UWsc.

But Anet learned, instead of low level and then afterwards hidden grind they put it all in levels now.
Also a common complaint of GW1 was that there was very few progression, so I think they tried to adapt to the general MMO audience that thought about GW1 that way.

[Ritualist]

Midnight_Tea, on 22 March 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

Ever play Katamari Damacy? RPGs are kind of like a drawn out version of that. Where part of the fun is growing bigger and bigger and watching the growth happen. GW1 wasn't as much about that, but GW2 is, thus why they're not really too comparable. If that's not considered fun for you then you might not be part of GW2's target demographic. Again, that's why I think it's a shame it's being sold as a sequel since I don't personally like it when sequels flip demographics.

I've played multiple characters to lvl 60 in D3 (including playing through Inferno) before I even got my first character to 80 in GW2. Heck, I'd stop playing GW2 and go level up my characters in D3.
I think that games without (or with limited) vertical progression are better games than those with. Yet, I am able to absolutely enjoy games with VP (as I said numerous times, D3 was my favourite game of last year despite being an insane grind fest). The point is: if VP is going to be included, then it needs to make sense.
And I fail to see that sense in GW2. It's just there to get in the way.

[Captain Bulldozer]

Gilles VI, on 22 March 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

Yea I know, last summer I started a ele in factions and at 3h45mins I was at ToA, full armor and max lvl ready to E/Mo in UWsc.

But Anet learned, instead of low level and then afterwards hidden grind they put it all in levels now.
Also a common complaint of GW1 was that there was very few progression, so I think they tried to adapt to the general MMO audience that thought about GW1 that way.

Yeah I agree, that's exactly what they did.  Instead of working hard to show WoW players how bad WoW really is (and why) they were lazy and only went half-way.  Much of what has been praised about GW2 when compared to other MMOs (lower grind, story, less gear treadmill, lack of subscription fee, etc.) was present in GW1 but more pronounced than in GW2.  Its as if A-net originally said, "we know a better way" and then later said, "meh, let's meet those filthy hippies halfway even though we know there's a better way."  Again, we can all understand why they did that, but its still unfortunate in my view.  If anything I wish GW1 had been what GW2 became so that GW2 could take it a step further and be like GW1.

Edited by Captain Bulldozer, 22 March 2013 - 05:42 PM.