ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Level cap issues

THIS IS A &(#^# BAD IDEA IT IS WAY TO MUCH LIKE WOW and i like how GW has only to lvl 20 so it's more about your skills, armour and weaps and so lvl's don't have as much of an effect if it's going to be an open rpg type thing then lvl 80's could go to a lvl 4 place and kill everyone and it would ruine the game.

i would like to see and unlimited lvl cap or a very high lvl cap instead of a lvl cap of 20. you just get to lvl 20 too quickly. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.189.53.133 (talk &bull; contribs) at 15:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Well, to the above, such a design has already been confirmed for GW2...several times.
 * I really like how this article is well-written, has a concern for balance, and looks at previous GW1 and confirmed GW2 mechanics. In other words, isn't absolutely terrible like many others, intended to copy-paste from WoW. Aside from that, I really do think that this is an interesting idea, if the current profession system is to be continued. -- Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 15:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WELL WRITTEN!?!?!?!? It's a freakin essay that doesn't even get to the idea until half way through!! I am sooo condensing this... (Terra Xin 03:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Done. If there's anything I left out please add it back in but DONT make it so long. Get to the point, directly. I gotta ask. once players have used up their last insignia, does that mean that they're stuck with that profession? Or do blank insignias unlock certain primary professions, and once you've unlocked them then you can change as frequently as you like... but you can only unlock up to 5 professions...? (Terra Xin 03:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

There is a discussion page especially designed to discuss changes that have been made to the article. I don't care who you are you are NOT above the Wiki! If you do not list your actions then I will interpret that as a mistake and make reverts. Whoever it was that reverted it also removed the merged article that was made as well. Since that was effectively two reverts made I strongly suggest that the contributor be more aware with what they are editing. (Terra Xin 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Original writer here. In response to the comments left by Terra, I went for a lengthy "essay" approach to counter all the less thought out out ideas I'm seeing in these pages, and because I wanted to disperse any confusion. Also in answer to your question about the Insignia swap, it was mentioned that you might be able to "swap it any time for free by talking to the NPC trainer". And as stated the reason I felt that the swap can be made a limited number of times is so that there is still a flux of players at low end missions. If you could learn them all and swap at any time, why bother making new characters? We'd see the new lower level players getting frustrated only because they haven't been playing for so long as there is no need to replay the game - ultimately contradicting Anet's philosophy on skill>time played. It lowers frustrating starting area grinds and allows for fair character development. Also, again apologies on the length, I wanted to make it clear my intentions, as I've toyed with this idea for a while. Apologies to the wiki staff for my lack of expertise in the article writing! I'm a n00b with these things... I'm thankful for the patience. Didn't mean to turn this into too much an essay. Just an idea.

[OW] Oh, and as for the unlocking of new primary professions, I'd wager that giving one new insignia to the player for the two new ones available might be fair. Not sure about the mechanics about that though. I'll leave it up for any discussion...
 * Wow the previous version before Terra Xin condensed it was reeeeaaaallly long. Like this way better. In response to the original writer, if you want your lengthy 'essay' put in here, copy+paste it to a sub-page of your user page and drop a link here. easier for us all and you can keep all of the lengthy content of your original suggestion. I can do it for you if you want.[[Image:User_The_Cabal_Sig_pic_01.png|19px|]] The Cabal Stalk me!  16:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, basically, I was congratulating the original poster on not using the title to contain his/her whole idea, or not even bothering with the advantages/disadvantages, using "well-written" in the relative. As for your second complaint, Terra, you'll notice that it was two different people who reverted your edits, and while they obviously did not look at the talk page, they did not violate GWW:1RR, as each only made one revert, so no need to accuse anyone of holding themselves above the wiki. Since it's also quite obvious that your reverters do not look here, it's a very poor place to make a threat against them. If the original poster is OK with those edits, I suppose anyone who reverts again is in the wrong, but (to me, at least) the reverts made before 79.67 replied were merely ill-advised. Also, what makes you think me and my Award winning verbosity aren't going to enjoy a long essay? Sorry, I'll stop with the plugs to my ridiculous userboxes. Cabal, it's a bit hard for an IP to put something in their userspace, as they're not supposed to have one. But, should our friend make a user, that's different.
 * Oh, yeah, 79.67.51.255, sign please. -- Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 16:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, the reason it was reverted has already been discussed here. The point is simple: You don't edit other users' comments and that includes suggestions. It's very basic wiki etiquette. The original poster has a right to have his or her suggestion posted in his or her own words regardless of who thinks it's too long. Sure, it's generally advised to keep suggestions short so as not to place too much of a burden on the reader, but if the original poster needs that many words to get the idea across, that's totally his or her prerogative. You, Terra Xin, or any other user for that matter, have no right (just to be clear, I'm specifically not talking about "right" in terms of policy) in condensing other people's suggestions just because you think it's verbose. It's simple; ask the original poster to condense the suggestion. Kokuou 18:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * that's a retarded claim to make. I have every right to edit pages. I don't do it out of spite of the person, my aim is to ensure that their suggestion has as much clarity as possible. I'm not even denying the user their rights to revert the changes I've made, but I should deny yours because you changed it based on your own accord, without taking any of the reasons into consideration. I KNOW you didn't even read the revamped article, and you certainly completely ignored the note that I left near the top of this discussion page! "Right" in terms of policy is all that matters here, and we have these policies to keep order, not so that some contributor who learned manners can come along and completely ignore it because they think they know better!As for my note about people being above the wiki, the 1revert rule states that the person who reverted it should give a reason why. I'm not denying the revert and I already know it was done by two separate people. (Terra Xin 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC))(Terra Xin 23:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
 * For those that came here from GWW:RFC, there is some more information pertinent to this conversation here. Kokuou 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It wiki- ettiquette to not do so. Also [|editing peoples ideas] so that they seem more balanced to YOU is not ok. At all.  Continue doing what you're doing and I'll have to bring this to an admins attention. —Utopian  ♫  23:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not Izzy, I have not been re-balancing ANY ideas so that they look ok to me! I am condensing or re-formatting the pages so that they look better to everyone else! Get an admin in here please, I'm tired of repeating myself. (Terra Xin 23:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

How is changing the level cap, the duration, the attribute, and the spell function, CONDENSING? Explain this, please. —Utopian ♫  23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * that's easy, I DIDNT!! And you didn't even read the discussion page, I'm sure you just have it against me.(Terra Xin 23:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Then why are those changes listed there under your name? Hmmm? —Utopian  ♫  23:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WHAT CHANGES!? All I did is re-formatting or condensing. None of the suggestion itself was changed at ALL!! Its times like this I wish we didnt have NPA... (Terra Xin 23:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Calm down, please. This doesn't have to be a shouting match. The suggestion page is not a talk page, thus other people are free to edit it. This doesn't mean you can change it altogether, but to shorten, correct spelling and grammar mistakes, clarify and such should be perfectly acceptable. This section isn't meant for you to be able to show your writing skills, it's to present ideas to ArenaNet. If a user has edited your suggestion and you disagree, discuss it. Make the suggestion better. No one "owns" a suggestion. On the other hand, things can be handled much more efficiently if you stop shouting, stop claiming your rights left and right and actually try to discuss the content instead of the actions. - anja   23:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I can agree to that. (Terra Xin 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Not sure if you took a look at the extent to which Terra Xin edited the original suggestion, Anja. I agree that the things you talk about may be edited by other users, but to completely (and I mean completey; the article was reduced by more than 4,000 characters) cut down a suggestion is unfair to the original submitter. Those kind of edits really should go through the original poster first. Kokuou 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a comment right at the top of the page stating the reason for the change. The 4000 characters contained information that was irrelevant to the suggestion that was being made. The revert should never have happened unless it was by the creator. I make absolutely sure that the suggestion is kept intact after I have edited it. The article itself talks about the current system of level cap, which is information that readers can otherwise look for elsewhere on the wiki. It also contains a lot of repitition and redundant information like "Again, this idea probably has flaws I've overlooked, feel free to add criticisms or suggestions." The suggestions page needs only to report suggestions - that means no backstory, no personal opinion and no going back to what you were saying in the last paragraph. (Terra Xin 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
 * The essay on the page is difficult to read and the point of the suggestion is lost in verbiage. I don't know what the idea is by the time I've read 1000 words which I find that pretty annoying.  I think that perhaps, with the extent of the modification, the original suggestion could be duplicated to this talk page and attributed to the IP for discussion. This retains the suggestion so the nuances of the original can be discussed if desirable.  The IP is encouraged, as anyone is encouraged for these pages, to modify Terra's version on the page to re-add (less verbosely ;) any details which Terra's trimming might have removed.
 * The suggestion pages were deliberately created to not be a talk page so they could be polished by others who liked the idea and to summarize positives and negatives without any of the talk in the way - similar to skill feedback pages, but with a bit more involvement from others. --Aspectacle 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Aspectacle. I would suggest keeping the original suggestion in the talk page, and allowing others to edit the suggestion as much as they want. In case someone does not want his/her suggestion to be edited, just make a subpage within his/her own userspace and write the suggestions there (like I did). Erasculio 01:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not touching this article. It's been the focus of a senseless argument to the point where I don't even want to improve it anymore. I'll go with whatever change is necessary to make it tidy, however. (Terra Xin 03:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC))


 * The correct location for personal essays are in user space, such as Erasculio have done himself. Talk pages are for discussing the article. Backsword 07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a suggestion area written by people for Arenanet's use, you have all created far more redundancy by discussing the redundancy's existance than the original page ever did.
 * Back to the discussion... this idea is good although its functions may be more simple and less definite. How about you start as a profession, right, you start at level one. You gain attribute points and hp per level till level 20, but at any time you are allowed to change your proffession, losing your current attribute points but retaining your hp (if energy gain is included in level - that too) Then your level is level 20 but your skill in that proffession is level 1. You gain the 'per level' attributes in that proffession everytime you would gain a skill point. Switching between proffessions at anytime to suit any circumstance or whatever suited your fancy. You would have unlimited build customisation but will have a different attribute point pool for each proffession so that time you might otherwise spend idling could be spent studying the things your interested in. Maybe it could be so your skill point gain is slower if you are using a secondary proffession for added realism.
 * This might even reduce your dreaded redundancy creating less faces and armor overall (armor use would be restricted by proffession choice) but providing more choices and encouraging people to have just one character instead of 6 or whatever. Good idea, no? Spawnlegacy 15:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea? Yes. But.. While I personally am all for having a single character with unlimited customization, some people do enjoy having multiple characters with different names, stats, and appearances.  Also more characters means more replayability since each character will have to level up, complete the same quests, and grind for the same title, etc.  Since we already know GW2 is going to have different races, the need/want for multiple characters is inevitable anyways.--159.230.137.157 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

THE LEVEL CAP SHOULD BE 50 BECAUSE IT'S NOT TOO HIGH AND WON'T TAKE LONG TO GET TO AND IT'S NOT TOO LOW AND YOU WON'T GET TO IT WAY TOO FAST.

I love how the original suggestion has been completely edited out of existence. Whoops. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:94.192.252.134 (talk).
 * Not sure every suggestion here, but i know the ones i added are still within what was intended to say when they were added, even if they were edited for neutrality or inclusion of missing pro/cons.--Fighterdoken 04:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See the big debate overhead? The suggestion in question has simply disapeared. {{subst:unsigned|
 * Durr... i misread "suggestion" for "suggestions", my bad.--Fighterdoken 16:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Should users edit other users suggestions?
If you don't want someone to edit your suggestions then don't post them
 * Oh and by the way, read the editing page...

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it Thanks! The Cabal Stalk me!  14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Level Cap Should Be 20
If you think the level cap should be 50, go play WoW. Guild Wars is not about grinding. In fact, the faster players get to 20, the quicker the game can get fun and challenging. Lower level players can't do as much as higher level players (If we assume that the players are amazingly good, and just new). They have less health, normally less skills and even their henchmen and sometimes heroes are a lower level. And, since this game does NOT revolve around the elite, missions have to be possible to someone going through the game for the first time. So, the faster you get them to 20, the faster missions like The Eternal Grove, THK, Drozgon Bastion and other great ones can be played.

Again: If you suggest something that requires lots of grinding, 0 skill, or stupidly unbalanced things, go play WoW. If you suggest something in WoW and make it GWsy, more power to you.--The Gates Assassin 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty much agreed. A question may be if levels are gained just as fast as in GW1 or faster, in the latter case a higher cap isnt a problem of course. And even if its the same, cap at lvl 40 is still quite doable. Thing is that it matters so little. With GW1 standards, lvl 50 cap is still quite doable (since xp req's dont increase). It does mean that there will be a longer low level area which you wont look at anymore once youre maxed. Since most players will reach the cap sooner or later, after half a year most players will be in the higher areas, thus making a huge map area rather redundant. I feel players should be close to the cap by simply completing all missions and static quests. Decreasing benefits of leveling may seem a good option, but in the end +30HP does matter, and will make people get tossed out of parties in harder areas.

It is a good idea though to have some sort of benefit by leveling up after the cap. Trading 20 skill points for an 'extra' primary profession option might be nice (face it, after a year the low level areas start getting extinct either way). At least for a while. A 'virtual level' title would be nice too. Or having special elite armors/weapon skins coming availlable at high virtual levels. No level cap means imbalance, high level cap means players will reach it anyway long before they have their titles done, plus even more imbalance. --Tenshi Samshel 08:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is that ANet has alread said that level 20 would not be max, but there wouldn't be any benefits for going beyond a certain level besides prestige I think is what they said. Don't remember where though I saw this though... So if you want to grind for pointless levels, that's up to you. [[Image:User_The_Cabal_Sig_pic_01.png|19px|]] The Cabal Stalk me!  14:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tenshi Samshel, however, look at it this way. You get to level 20 in Prophecies when you reach to about Sanctum Cay, because at that point your character has learned everything he needs to, and is ready to become the true kickass hero he was born to be. Also, being a lvl 20 versus lvl 25's is good, it makes things difficult, as opposed to Runescape's "Ooh, I'm a lvl 100, I'm stronger than any friggin' creature in the game!"

User:Freelance Acolyte

The easiest and most efficient way I can see the new cap introduced is to cap at 40 and just spread out the exp values for the current lv 20 over 40 levels instead. And don't make quests give out 2000-10000 experience, THAT is what has made the cap faster than ever to reach. Allowing lower experience rewards over a larger area *as was done in Prophecies* your character can keep constantly advancing but still reach his maximum in a time that isn't so completely long. As long as there are quests to complete and new areas to explore, Guild Wars can be a continuing developing experience that isn't just grinding endlessly on mobs, but following a unique and enrapturing storyline that actively involves the player in a growing adventure. Malchior Devenholm 01:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that past level oh, say 25, all levels just give you points towards buying cool armor and weapons (Which would NOT be ubers, but just look cool) and consumables and the like. So that way, people could be fighting against a level 25 monster as a lvl 100 in pve, and still not have any huge advantage over it. (Other than their obvious skill at the game, if they managed to get to lvl 100.) And so, it would just be a symbol of how good you are at getting XP, not really of how strong you are. the cap could be 50, or 30, or whatever. it's still better than WoW's cap. (Though I'm sure there are some good things about WoW, though I've never played it.)--70.71.240.170 05:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Soft level cap
I think this is a good idea; Anet has even stated that if an infinite level cap is implemented that there would be a point in which you won't gain as much power over other people. Also the disadvanted would not be there for PvP characters (excluding World PvP which sounds like it won't matter as much anyways as it is linked more to PvE) because for the GvG like part of it characters have been said to start off at max level with the skills they have unlocked. An effect could be granted to PvE characters to make things even also. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.10.143.89 (talk).


 * This is the best idea ever! I think if the makers of GW2 will be reasonable. They would do this. This is so Great! 87.93.152.228 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It would make expansions more difficult to level in kinda sorta. Vael Victus  [[Image:User_Vael_Victus_Sig.jpg|18px|Pancakes.]] 03:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of the suggested root function id go for like  = + (1 * ) / ( * ) This would make each next level less powerfull, untill at some point, no power will be gained from leveling, giving a virtual "Max level", although you can keep leveling. the  can be exchanged by  so that each level will give (approx) same power increase, but xp needed just gets higher, until reaching the virtual max, where the function crosses the y=0 line, and power increase from more xp or levels is 0. The xp needed for next should stay same then, but leveling will only grant status and skillpoints. One trouble I can imagine with infinite level is that people will mistake level, or "grind" for "experience". This way a lvl 20 (virtual max?) may have less chance to be invited even if more skilled then a lvl 100. Breintje 05:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with such method is that works almost in the same way than in GW1 (hard level cap for power, no cap for "skill points + status"). Also, such method, when used together with a "low cap" makes developing characters pretty bland, and when used with a "high cap" makes developing characters a nightmare, so in the end is a lose/lose situation whichever you pick.--Fighterdoken 07:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article

 * You must understand..
 * 1. in a low lvl cap game you can not improve your character once you reach max lvl and are not able to make your character stronger, the only thing you can do is improving your player skill which is not enough long term motivation and the game becomes boring very fast


 * 2. in a game with high lvl cap and useful items you can do both, which is what I call a real character development


 * 3. any kinds of no added benefit after a certain lvl simply kills long term motivation from that point (in pve)


 * 4. cosmetical rewards without a real use or benefit, colors, titles or something similar to show off for "reaching the max level" etc do NOT work 87.189.249.176 11:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. This would be true but you are forgetting that a lot of people have an emotional attatachment to their characters and thus want to make them look as cool as possible and get everything they want. Now, this is totally optional, you aren't forced to do things you don't want to do so if you just want to enjoy the dungeons, you can. If there is a high level cap, you can't, and instead have to grind your way to earn the "honor" and "strength" to be able to go to that place. Also if you are too high a level, you can't go back to the old dungeons and if you are too low you can't go to the most likely more fun higher level dungeons. Also you have to realise that many people experience fatigue over time while leveling and eventually give up because it's so much work and boring. It happens in this game as well, but you have the option to stop completely and go do a dungeon/mission/PvP if you wish to, even if you're PvE character isn't max because you can just make a PvP character.
 * 2. See above.
 * 3. See above.
 * 4. They actually do, the hall of monuments and titles listed RIGHT under your name are these. If these weapons had special things about them such as having one hammer attack at a speed of 1.33 instead of the usual 1.75 adds multiple undesireable things to a game. For one, it makes the people who grind their ass of for it better than everyone else automatically and even if someone is more skillful, the less skillful but better equiped person will have the advantage. It also practically forces people to grind for that weapon even if they don't want to since it's so much stronger than the rest. In short, it throws balance of the game out the window, and creats forced grinds. This makes the game less fun for new people since they feel completely inferior since they don't have the same overpowered equipment, and it feels so far away that it makes the game unattractive.
 * Remember that the point of Guild Wars is that everyone is on an equal playing field, and that you do not have to do anything more than get max armor and max weapons in PvE. Working for hours on end to get a high end weapon is optional, and thus you can just enjoy the game instead of playing the game as an RPGer, making you're character exactly as you want them.--The Gates Assassin 23:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why you are so wrong.
Look I understand what you are saying, but it gets really boring once you hit level 20. You have nothing left to stive for(except completing the campaign), and no other way(except armor additions which aren't the best thing) to increase health or energy. Look, WoW did it right with the high cap. I am a huge fan of GW and would choose it over WoW, but WoW did a lot of things right(the monthly fee is not one of them). More than half the people in GW are level 20 so it isn't a status symbol like it should be, and the fact that you have such limited skill, health, andoverall playing abilities really lessens the power that level 20 should have.

Now, if you were to have a level cap of, say, 80(preferably infinite) that would be raised in increments of 5 or 10 levels every 2-3 months it would keep players on their toes and give them something more to strive to. Plus there isn't some highest rank where players are just sitting up at the top. They would be forced to keep striving toward higher ranks. In PvP there would be no rank at all. All players would be given a base set of skills for their profession. They could earn more skills as they progressed in pvp, but not any extra health or energy. Weapons would not, however, be affected.

Let's talk about the infinite level cap. With this the player would be constantly gaining health, energy, and skill points. High level areas would be designed for players withing 10 level increments that were restricted for lower levels. This would eliminate they player from being the highest possible level. New weapons, armor, and skills would be able to be purchased after entering the next 10 level increment.

Filmfreak988 02:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's talk about the infinite level cap then. You are suggesting that Anet would be forced to develop new content almost on a daily basis just to keep the game in sync with the level of power of players?
 * The problem with a infinite level cap is that it becomes "the one who plays the most wins the game" or "the one who has played for longer wins the game". For most games that is not a problem actually, but since Guild Wars centers its gaming style mostly around PvP, it becomes an issue here.
 * How could a new player that buys the game in 2011 be able to compete on equal grounds against a player who bought the game in 2009 and played 12 hours a day?. One way or another, you would have to put limits, be it with a level curve that becomes less rewarding the more you advance, leaving it as such just for PvE while also generating automated encounters according to the level of the player, or introducing the "Player may die if killed" concept (kinda like the unconditional chars in DiabloII).
 * As i said, these things may work on other games because they are mostly developed around PvE, and a overpowered character doesn't affect the playing posibilities of less powerful but equally skilled players (been there, done that, and loved to see groups picking me not because of me having better gear or stats, but because of the way i played... at least most of the times).


 * Let's talk now about a high level cap. The main problem with them is that the average level of the population in a MMOG is directly proportional with the time the game has been "live". Let me give you an example (excusing my wrongly done maths):
 * A game starts today with 100 players, and 10 new players join per week. The game level limit is 100, and players grow up at a rate of 20 levels per week.
 * By the fifth week you have 100 players at max level, which is 66% of the game population.
 * By the sixth week you have 110 players at max level, which is 68% of the game population.
 * By the week 54th you have 590 players at max level, which is 92% of the game population.
 * You could say "but we just raise the cap then", but that doesn't solve the problem, because people would still reach that cap faster that what Anet (or any game provider) can create new content.


 * Another problem of a high level cap is that low level content becomes usually obsolete. Just watch at GW, where most items are useless unless they are "maxed", and where low level players can hardly get a group of people of the same power. Sure, here it doesn't really matter because you can still group with a level 20 and get things done (while still feeling as if you helped instead of just being run by), but i assure you things don't really work that way on high level cap games (you can't balance every detail in those cases).


 * I don't deny that i would love to see GW2 becoming a bajillion-level game with lots of "no way back" customization that really gives you the sense of progress and of "working towards something" instead of just "running the game for a title", but i don't see it happening, nor i think it would be wise.--Fighterdoken 05:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying about infinite and think that you are deffinitely right on some points and have mentions others that are equally as good that I haven't thought of.


 * But, you didn't seem to pay any attention to what I said in the paragraph above my speaking on infinite. If you put out a higher cap(let's say 50) and then increased it in increments of 5 levels every 3 months you could satisfy those asking for an infinite level cap while keeping a certain degree of cap. I really don't care about the time between level updates in fact a period of 6 months to a year would probably be better.


 * I also mentioned that in PvP skills would be geared more to a player progress in PvP(which is not goverened by level) and not their level. I think that a PvP level should be introduced that is seperate to the main level. It would be much lower(around 30) and would not increase(as in going from 30-35, 35040, etc.).


 * One thing that many people seem too worried about is being fair and fairness between player's levels. If you are constantly handicapping the lower weaker player than it means nothing to be a high level.

Casual Players
It's worth remembering the casual players.

I enjoy Guild Wars vs Wow (or DDO, or ...) because of four main factors:
 * one time fee: There is no financial imperative to play or not play, and no "wasting money" if I choose to take a week or a month off.
 * easy access: I don't have to spend weeks / months grinding to play the "interesting" parts of the game. If I want to work through the campaigns, I can.  If I want to hunt more power (elite skills, items), I can.  If I want to grind titles, I can.  If I want to run missions with friends, I can (and most are short enough that I'm committing 15 minutes or an hour or two, not half a day).  All I have to do to qualify for large segments of the game is play for long enough to be comfortable with the basics.  "Play hard or don't bother coming" is not casual friendly.  Nor is raising the bar every few months so that I'm continually shut out of "top tier" stuff.
 * single or multi: Guild Wars works quite well as a single player game, and it works quite even better as a multi-player game.
 * fun gameplay: Despite some minor interface quirks, it's a really well made adventure / combat engine with a great story on top.

Playing a well designed game should be it's own reward. "The game should reward me for grinding, dammit!" actually suggests a poor game that keeps you hooked by a nebulous promise you'll eventually earn the right to have fun.

That said, I was somewhat unimpressed by factions granting level 2 off the bat. Prophecies proved that level 1 can be playable and fun (and so on for all levels < 20), so why "gift" me level 2 before I even start the game proper? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Nom (talk).


 * While i agree with most of your statements (specially in regards of "the game being the own reward for playing"), there is a point you got wrong on "easy access". On GW1, "If I want to hunt more power, i can not because skills are limited in useability and number, equipment is basically all the same, and there is no posible personalization due to customization options being quite limited if you want to still be competitive."
 * For all that is to be said, Guild Wars is still one of the more "casual friendly" games out there, where even the "grinding" we currently have cannot be compared to what even the more lame games out there force into you, and i seriously doubt GW2 will deviate from that path. Still, i would like just to see some love out there also for the "not-so casual" crowd, ideally in the form of a personalization (and power-progress) level simmilar to what Everquest had a couple years ago. And no, having a non-standard customization (ie, a tank that prefered to do dps or support instead of tanking), or having a sub-par level of customization (a level 150 player against a level 300 player) was never a problem when talking about getting groups there. People always prefered a skilled player (as in "hability") instead of a "properly equiped" player like here in GW..--Fighterdoken 07:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Put caps on skills, armors and weapons but not the characters
This idea promotes players in actually playing the game instead of going for the max level then "grind" for titles and farm for "elite stuffs" in the game.


 * There has to have different one time only quests and missions, sprung up at different areas of the game world 365/24/7 at a random intervals. It will also allow for guildies/alliances to recruit players or a global announcement that xx area have xx incident, players will have to deploy themself to those location for the experience and special rewards, If players are absent during that time they don't get those experience and rewards. Therefore players have got to be in the game forever! Experience points will be added, and special rewards place in players inventory for to use later, in exchange of elite skills, weapons, armors and what nots for their characters. the rewards items are customized and non-transferables.


 * There will also be no level caps! Every players starts out age 17-300 (a suggested choice age range depending on race, also for the looks and customisation of character) with all non-elite skills already available in their "skill book/list of skills" and they grow with the game, the skills evolve with the character in "real time". For instant Player Z's meteor shower would be different from Player X's meteor shower depending on how these players use it, this might be a bit far fetch, inbalance game = bad i suppose, but, it would reflect skill >time, so how to fix that, by putting a cap on the maximum damage meteor Shower can cause. Therefore, in time, when players have throughly explore the possibility of using meteor Shower, it will be at its full potential.


 * This way player Z who actually play the game and understand how the skill works and how their chain effect will turns out, will have a much higher damage output if they use skill bar X compare to player X who don't play the game but slap on skill bar X which they actually never use before will probably have maybe 0 damage, like 2 persons, buys the same piano and plays Piano Concerto No. 3 by Rachmaninoff, one practices everyday and one just bought the music sheet but never practice it sort of thing.

side notes:
 * elite skills will only be available for capping when all the non-elite skills have been "level to the max" (or at one point of the character development as see fit by the development team) This is because in GW2 there will have significantly low numbers a skill available for use, therefore levelling one's non-elite skills is quite feasible.


 * This idea would goes nicely with the "Factions - taking sides and fighting against each other" the more you defend your faction the more rewards you will get, not one in-game gold involved, depending on how "loyal" you are at defending your faction/guild/alliance.


 * Off course gold drop, crafting, armor making etc will still be in the game but if a player choose not to, this is an alternate way to get item for use on their characters, by playing the game.

Why is this a good idea
 * Many players have ask for a way to show how many experience points their character have
 * Levelling of non-elite skill has to be short ones so that character will be able to fully utilise all skills related to their profession.
 * With this system, players do not have to spend one in game gold to play the game. All they need to do is play the game, get the reward exchange for things.

Why this is a bad idea
 * May become another type of "grind" for in-game item.

Edit away, i'll put the original on my talk page. just incase i forgot what I've written, but any suggestion are welcome.

Level Cap Answers
Truly great answers, thanks for writing these. I agree with answer #2. Make areas or zones (Regions...if it is a sandbox style.) have level caps. Making it less complex than "one level higher than the highest level mob". Make these regions' caps higher as you progress through the game. As for the people wanting to one-hit kill everything, there could be a private server type area where you are alone and essentially, God Mode. Have this accessible in a guild hall (or outpost) so people could still be forming groups. Pros: This is really fun, people do it when they're bored. Cons: Would be hard to manage and could have excessive lag.

Well there's my two cents, and a possible answer to the Level Cap Answer's problem. --66.169.124.115 19:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)