Feedback talk:User/4thVariety/No Leveling Up

It's a little late to ask for no level ups in GW2...they announced the leveling system like 2 years ago. ~Shard  07:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is something we know about game development, is that companies always change their minds about something 2 weeks prior to the launch XD.--Fighterdoken 07:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this suggestion as the acquisition of power/health/energy etc are all, imo, part of learning and mastering the finer points of every game's unique mechanics. To start with max everything would seriously limit my enjoyment of the game. The way newer players/characters are going to be able to access higher level content is using a sidekick system similar to that used in City of Heroes, and I have played City of Heroes with friends using this system, and quite simply hated it as a new player. I would much rather have the time to learn and become comfortable with the game before being thrown against the more advanced content. I believe however, it will be beneficial to players who wish to create new characters after having already mastered the learning process. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  07:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, Wyn, but levels have nothing to do with giving a comfortable environment to learn your skills in. There can still be easier locations and more difficult locations with no levels, and in fact it will make the game easier for the developers to program and balance.  If you cluster the easy locations around starting areas and put more difficult areas farther away, you still get a relaxed starting area, but you get the added benefit of the starting area still being useable to a more advanced player!  So, if a friend decides to help you through the starting area with an advanced character, it won't be that much different than if your friend created a new character to help you through.  In that way, you also won't be robbed of your chance to learn how to be effective by a higher level character nuking the rats you were supposed to be fighting.  There are many more benefits on top of that, but I digress.  I do share your hatred of Sidekick systems, but that's only because they modify your character and he/she doesn't feel quite right.  No levels is a much better alternative to level-scaling, as your character will always feel natural and the only thing you'll ever need to bring to a more difficult area is your A-game.
 * Also, there can be character advancement in a level-less system, but this will be done mostly through the aquisition of traits and utility skills. In other words, horizontal growth rather than vertical.  I've found that flexibility does increase power somewhat, and I find the idea of skill hunting much more compelling than levelling up.  In practice, it will be no different than character advancement after level 20 in the first GW.  That was fun, wasn't it? --Silverdawn 23:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's something that could be worked with. I always liked the "alternate leveling" methods from other games where, regardless if you were max level or not, you could also personalize your character further by investing on specialization in certain areas (ie. a paladin specializing on healing, or dps, or undead slaying, or tanking... or all of them for the lifeless ones). Since levels in GW1 didn't really mean much in the long term, i would think it's not something that is really "needed" on GW2 either.
 * Of course, such "no level, but still personalizable" theory is based on a "grind" scheme that hardly works with your average GW player.--Fighterdoken 07:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The finer points of playing GW are certainly not how to manage 180 health instead of 360. It is not learning to distribute 120 skill points when for most of your GW2 gaming life you will have 200. It is not going back to level up in order to finally beat that lvl13 boss at the end of mission X. As I said, in 85% of the areas, the player will have max health, max attribute, max level. Players need to learn what that means, they do not need to go through a process of slowly getting there, or being held back artificially. Combat in GW is decided by skill selection and your ability to use them. Slowly grinding up levels does not teach you that, in fact it merely keeps you from playing at the game's full potential right from the start. Never did the PvP community ask to throw out their max level character creation. Leveling up is but a legacy tool from the grinding ages. Advanced content means tougher opposing skillbars, better organized enemy mobs, more health on your enemies. It does not mean you have to have a lower level to enjoy the game. Else you end up like Fallout3. They have a level system just for show, but since the computer always adjusts the numbers on your enemies it all boils down to the utter elimination of all difficulty. Why? Because you cannot redistribute skills and one overspecialization is enough to exploit yourself through the whole game. GW forces you to do that though, change your skill makeup and thereby retaining difficulty. That is the way to go, not higher numbers. I also do not believe it is too late to kick out levels now. GW1 had 50 levels once.--4thvariety 10:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it is probably too late for GW2, but I wholeheartedly agree with this suggestion. Part of what I love GW1 is that practically all character development just adds more options, not more power. Might as well do away with the tutorial leveling process completely. --Lensor ( talk ) 10:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggestion, too, but it's not going to happen. In GW2 Arena Net is trying to catter to the typical MMORPG player, and said player:
 * Loves high levels. The higher the level cap, the more content the game has.
 * Loves mounts. They may be just a trick to make the time sink of walking from place to place slightly less bad, but still they are seen as the second coolest thing on the planet.
 * The first being Big Swords of Epeen Mastery, of course (shaped like Cloud's swords from FF VII).
 * Needs an auction house. There may be more effective methods of trading, but if it doesn't have an auction house, it's not a MMORPG.
 * Needs crafting, even if most of the time spent crafting is actually wasted collecting materials and crafting napkins in order to advance in crafting levels.
 * Thinks instances are for big raids with phat loot.
 * Doesn't mind if all quests are the "kill 10 rats" variety.
 * Doesn't mind if all content between level 1 and the level cap is just grind, after all that's what levelling is about, right?
 * Are going to complain, when they reach the level cap, that there's not enough content in the game and eventually go back to WoW.
 * For that public, there's no point in removing levels. Maybe (maybe) Arena Net could fool them with a leveling system that is only cosmetic (like number of skill points), but I doubt that's what Arena Net is going for.
 * (Oh, and where's the link for the UfragTV interview?) Erasculio  10:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol @ Erasculio. /agree and disagree on a few of those finely put points. I think that an auction house would be good because I'd rather not spend all week looking for random items. In fact, (prolly going to get flamed for this), and auction house similiar to the one in runescape would be a very good idea; altho it may change the market a bit. when selling an item, the seller can select the item, put in the lowest price he will sell it for, pay a fee (1-2% of that price) and let it sit. and the buyer can type in what he wants to buy, enter the max price he is willing to pay and let that sit. DarkMugen 19:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Two other benefits to a decent marketplace system (auction house or whatever):
 * current system is a mess, and very spammy. With a decent interface, you can go "I want to buy X", and see who is selling it.
 * people playing outside "core" hours aren't excluded from most of the marketplace.

Any idea that "level cap" is correlated to content is fallacious. 20 adventures is 20 adventures, regardless of what pre-req you put on them. Levels just add a "you must have played for X hours to enjoy this content" restriction. To some extent this exists even EotN - new characters must reach places on the map to participate in them. Adding an arbitrary playtime requirement isn't a win, and just serves to alienate casual players. Sidekicking is just a hack around this. Nom 06:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the "noob levels" as long as they are brief. I'm a GW player and I've tried Runes of Magic, and in that game the main reason you have difficulty with a creature is not about the creature's skills - the main reason is because the creature just happens to have a significantly higher level than you and so your spells etc "somehow" become less effective or even ineffective against it ("resistance"). Say you are level X and lose against some level X+3 creature, but if you level up just one level and you use the exact same tactics and skills you win with ease! That's not true in Guild Wars. In GW you could be level 20, and the creature could be level 30 or whatever, you (and your team) do things right, you win. You screw up, you lose. It is a way to artificially "stretch" crappy content - since it makes it a lot harder for people to just rush to the high level areas and figure out sneaky ways to beat stuff. But I hope GW2 won't have to resort to that. In GW1 if you're a low level, you could solo certain high level creatures - protective spirit etc :). What I do like about Runes of Magic is you can wander around and informally help out other people, you don't have to sit around waiting for a group. Another thing in WAR Online you can do some solo PvE whilst queuing up for a PvP instance, whereas with Guild Wars, you're waiting for ages doing nothing much just to get in Alliance Battles...


 * IMO the level system should work like this: PvE creatures level compares with your level the lowest level will take some extra damage, The higher will take less damage from them. This could be capped at 25% more damage and 25% less damage taken if level is x higher or x lower than the PvE foe. In PvP level should be irrelevant. Equipment can then be specified to counter specific PvE monster types to get more of the PvE feel Equipment could also increase or decrease your level depending on its quality. This way level can be unlimited and PvE can feel bigger.--√ iktor (contribs) 12:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, I don't mind that they raise the level cap a little bit (25 or 30 lvls wouldn't be that bad, would they?), but unlimited? IT'D SCREW THE GAME UP!!. It pains me to think that I would have to grind and grind and grind just to be able to kill stuff because, as everybody should have noticed by now, grinding in GW is already a fact (title maxing, ectos, Vanquishing, etc.), why make it even bigger? The attractive in GW is strategic gameplay, not ´´I don't have friends or social life so I'm leveling up my character`` gameplay. I don't care about the MMORPG dumbasses that Erasculio mentioned, I want a real sequel to GW1, not some WoW clone with a look-alike storyline of the game I once loved. Besides, grinding for the 100 hours mentioned here would be more than impossible because people would be stealing kills from you in the infamous persistance, no matter what any page about GW2's persistence or any developer notes might say, that`s what will happen. If that happens, people would just say (I quote WoW and Runescape here) ´´oh, that guy killed the cow, guess I will have to wait for the cow to re-appear so I can kill it. And I swear that no average GW player would want that, right?--IsaaC The Sinful   22:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

ok I posted somewhere that dodging by jumping was the worst idea ever but I have to excuse me THIS is the worst idea ever when I posted it on the jumping thing I really didn't think anyone would be as stupid enough to suggest such a f*ckd up thing. congratulations I think no one will have a more stupid sincere suggestion than you. Prince Grazel 13:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Another reason why levels should be removed is because they're silly. A level 1 character has an epic battle against giant earth elemental hands, but upon beating it and reaching level 2, that same character (and probably his epic, now-vanguished enemy) would be one-shotted by any of the little tiny L50 devourers that we saw in the mid-level charr demo. I mean, how epic are you supposed to feel when bugs squash you? Conceptually, it's just ridiculous! --Silverdawn 03:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)