Level Cap Speculation Thread

[MiatheHierophant]

I was reading various interviews and articles and I was curious...

The Devs have said that the level cap would be higher than 20, if they even have a level cap...

It occured to me that if they chose not to have a level cap, we would continue to gain power and experience until such time as we quit playing that character. The question I have is a simple one. If we have no level cap, would there be a point in the game which we would gain so much power that the character would be "unstoppable"? If not, how would the devs plan for the eventuality of player characters rapidly outclassing the mobs?

One solution to this would be if the mobs you run up against in an instanced area would "read" what the average capabilities of the team and then adjust their skills and damage output accordingly. Not really sure how it would be handled in a persistant area.

On the other hand, if they choose to have a high level cap (example: EQ at level 70) would the players be able to reach that level without having to grind every last point out of mobs?

I do believe that level grinding and mob camping would make me want to go find another game to play. I hope the devs have better ideas than that.

What do you think?

[Ace Bear]

Difference between level50 and level100 is less then the difference between level20 and level50. Meaning that yes level 250 is stronger then level 200 but not by such a huge step that it makes the game imbalanced. And with instances as final boss areas(this is just a guess not actual fact as far as I am aware) level of the mobs can be adjusted to fit the parties.

[Windw]

Alot of people speculate a plateu of power where no more advancement at all I vote for this. and the plateu should be between levels 20-40.

[Jair of the Forest]

And infinite level cap, but than that a higher level doesn't give any advantage over a lower level after a certain point. That way level is only an indication of how much you've grinded/played, just like experience is in Guild Wars 1.

[Akirai Annuvil]

How about no levels.

[Tom Nook]

How about no levels.

Gets my vote. :smiley:

[Saetre]

How about no levels.

I prefer leveling. I like to level my characters but I really hate grinding.
Higher level cap would be nice.

[Wonderboy Jack]

Perhaps 40?

[Balan Makki]

I'm going to guess that there will be endless levels, But, and this is a bigg Butt, Levels will mean absolutely nothing stat-wise; applying only to your current proffession which caps eventually. If there are 20 professions and they all cap at level 30, and a single character can learn multiple professions, there will be 500 levels to gain before the addition of new classes/professions. Because there will likely be new professions added to the game, there will be no reason to cap levels, viola -- endless levels, no stat creep, content does not become obsolete due to level stratification, players are not segregated. Guild Wars remains Guild Wars.

Could even add race/faction ranks to this formula, every level allows you to improve you standing (same thing as Profession attribute points), see EoTN.

I just hope we have an option to not display numbers over other players heads. . .

(I vote (hope) for something other than levels.)

[Mookle X]

I'm hoping that it's like the current system stat wise, maybe having it stop giving stats after level 30 or something, but I kinda like the idea of level showing how much you've played and whatnot. The only thing I fear is I go to find a group that's going to kill a dragon and they say, "Yur only lvl 50? ROTFLOLZ! N3wb! U must b3 l3vl 75 4 this!"

[raspberry jam]

How about no levels.I'd prefer this.

If they don't choose for a level free game, I'd prefer a system where character level increases infinitely while your average power level either remains fixed, or asymptotically approaches a fixed value (not increasing towards infinity, not even in the way a log curve does).

What I expect, though, are WoW-style levels, including raising the level cap at each expansion/new campaign.

[Terenas]

I'd prefer this.
If they don't choose for a level free game, I'd prefer a system where character level increases infinitely while your average power level either remains fixed, or asymptotically approaches a fixed value.
What I expect, though, are WoW-style levels, including raising the level cap at each expansion/new campaign.No levels would be a good change.
But ANet is probably going to target a more typical mmo-centered population, so that the last sentence presents a more likely scenario.

To me, if the game is good, levels are not a severe issue. Grinding my butt to have fun or to be competitive would be though, and I hope the apple isn't going to fall THAT far from the tree.

(oh wait, titles ARE grind...well whatever)

[TheAlchemist]

ye, in wow i couldn't join a group because i was 2 lvls lower..

try to go ramparts in wow at lvl 58 orso.. you MUST be lvl 60 to find a group more easily (just one of those million examples)

lvl 20 is good imo. like the overal balance

you pvp with all lvl 20

in wow you can BG lvl 10-19; 20-29; 30-39....
when you enter a bg at lvl 20 ppl will flame you..

arenas never got to play them.. you MUST be lvl 70, i mean like wtf?

[KyppDuron]

remember that, regardless of the level situation there is going to be a "piggy-back" system, where a level 50 character can let a level 10 into his group, and the level 10 will temporarily gain enough power to do the high-level stuff. That should at least help with any sort of level discrimination.

[Drec Sutal]

My theory for quite some time has been In Four Parts:

1.) No PvE Level Cap.
2.) Auto-max PvP. (as in your level 1 PvE char is on an even footing with a lvl 100 character in terms of stats... equipment is issued at the gate (maybe earning skins or whatever), and all skills are available to choose beforehand)
3.) Diminishing returns on leveling above a certain point. Maybe leveling from 100 to 101 you gain one hit point and deal .5% more damage. Maybe leveling all the way from 200 to 210 you gain 1 hit point and .5% more damage.
4.) All players get the stats of the highest level player. (maybe you start with the full set of attribute points and they get scaled to level - you choose 11-11-10 but you're only level 10 so you get 50%, rounded to the nearest integer, or you're level 100 so you get 120%... health/MP is more obvious)

This way high-level players get something out of their grind, and are desired... but medium-low level characters aren't disadvantaged - you only need one high level player..

[BrotherGrimm]

If higher levels must exist (I'm all for a no level structure if it makes sense), I also hope that they only give minor or no increase in power beyond a set development point (similar to the current GW Lvl 20).

[Windw]

Drec, number 3 sounds like something i thought of. You get a energy, health, att point, after say 10 levels after a certain level. What we do without levels if people are even going to mention that if they're are any advancements in that idea it will just be a different level system.

[MonkeyForLove]

How about no levels.

I vote for this also.

Seriously, levels are so antiquated.

[MiatheHierophant]

I like the idea about having X amount of attribute points and then working toward a percentage (or something similar).

That being said, it is still a "level" based system, meaning you get X for progressing so far toward Y goal.

If we are to have a level based system, (something like what we have now) I would prefer that they put a cap somewhere around level 35-40. Any higher than that, you run the danger of having no choice but to grind exp. The way the system is set up now, you can max your levels as you play the game, no grind involved, titles and Sunspear/Lightbringer/Asura/Norn/Deldrimore/Vanguard/etc. points notwithstanding. Through simply playing the game through to its end, I estimate that I could have levelled through to 40 without having to do any of the quests more than once, maybe twice.

I am still not sure how the idea of "no levels" would work.

[kyln]

I am still not sure how the idea of "no levels" would work.

I was thinking along the lines of PvP character creation. You unlock /acquire skills and items, but stat wise you start and stay the same as everyone else.

Acquiring skills and items would still allow for character development. You character would become more versatile and more capable as it progressed, without relying on experience points at all.

Experience points and levels are after all, supposed to be a way of representing the skills of your character developed in RP games that used dice to simulate combat and other difficult tasks. That way, your characters experience combined with dice rolling made it more than mere chance which characters would likely succeed at something.

You could always tie vitality and energy to 2 universal traits. Each could affect the number of vitality or energy a character has. In a sense, reflecting physical vs. mental training. That way you could have physically toughened characters without need of levels or static skills on bars.

[raspberry jam]

The main reason for levels in tabletop RPGs is that it is easy to use. Using pen & paper for calculations is very cumbersome compared to having a computer do the job for you, so you want to keep stats as bundled up as possible (many systems still use 100+ values on the character sheet). In contrast however, in a video game, you can use 10 000 values for character stats if you want, and the player never needs to even add two of them together, or even know how to - she can concentrate on playing the game.

The main reason to argue against levels is that a level free game (hopefully) focuses on player skill instead of on random numbers and grind.

(GW essentially becomes a level free game as soon as you reach level 20 with 200 ap)

[Rob Van Der Sloot]

That's basically why I always voted for no levels as well. You can have perfect character progression without that old mechanic. If we look at GW1, you'll see that levels hardly have any meaning at all, since you reach it so quickly. I think that's a good thing... so why not remove levels completely?

[MiatheHierophant]

That's basically why I always voted for no levels as well. You can have perfect character progression without that old mechanic. If we look at GW1, you'll see that levels hardly have any meaning at all, since you reach it so quickly. I think that's a good thing... so why not remove levels completely?

I see your point. I like it.

I would like them to have a small area where you learn the game mechanics but without being required to go through a long process to get off the island, so to speak. Play there, without necessary game missions, to get used to it and then leave when you wish. The best example of this would be Pre-Sear. You can run around killing things for as long as you wish, and then go through a rediculously easy mission and then the game begins. The islands of Factions and Nightfall are too lengthy and the grind factor in NF is horrendous.

I can hardly wait to see what they finally come up with.

[sorudo]

i like lvl's purely for the goal of reaching a higher lvl, makes the game look more RPG too.
i did make a lvl system that really shows that you are strong, not that you are a high lvl...
it's close to flawless, but it's difficuld to fit it in a game with atribute points instead of auto stat points.
instead of getting a lvl, you have a counter that show's your power.
this power counter is no XP counter but litterly how powerfull you are, i bit like a power level.
at a certain point of your power, you gain points for your att points.(just to fit the GW att system)
in battle, you don't gain a lvl per so much battles, you gain power in ballance on how strong the enemy is.
so let's say you have a pretty strong enemy, this enemy can't be beaten by a beginner level.
but if you found a way to beat that guy, your power rizes extrodinary.
so it's not 1 lvl at a time, it's around 100 power you gain, and it's more and more the stronger the enemy.
you can expand this power system as high as you want it to be, it's all up to the devs to look it up and see what the cap is in the power system.
so let's say the limit is 1 mill power, it seems a lot but do remember that it's not 1 point each enemy, it's more at ones.
so if you count that up, 1 mill could be pretty low.
do know that this system ballance it self ones a dual begins, they both share there power so the power lvl is the same.
so in the end, even while in PVE your power does mater, in PVP your power has nothing to do with each other, it balance it self out to keep things fair and square.

like i said before, it's close to flawless, but the GW system makes this system difficuld to work, but we'll see.

[raspberry jam]

i like lvl's purely for the goal of reaching a higher lvl, makes the game look more RPG too.But actually the least RPish part of a standard RPG is the levels system.

Sorry, sorudo, your system has a vital flaw. Anyone can look up a build on wiki and go nuts. For example 55 monks kill some of the most powerful enemies in the game on a day to day basis.
And even if that wasn't true, it would just be the same grind, just without sharp power jumps at the level increases.

[Alaris]

instead of getting a lvl, you have a counter that show's your power.

9000!! NINE THOUSAAAAANDD!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

You sorta have that as it is, with the cap set at 20. Basically, if you kill monsters above your level, you get XP faster, and even more so if you do that alone. Your plan would be to completely remove the slow buildup.

Even a ladder system needs a slow buildup, otherwise your power can fluxuate wildly due to luck. Also, in PvE, it's relatively easy to make a build for which a given opponent has no counter. The 55 is not the only farming build out there, and there's plenty of ways to defeat easily the doppleganger. I'm sure in GW2 there will be ways to defeat very high-level monsters using specific builds as well (like the previous poster pointed out).

However, I like the idea of a level that's linked to achievements. You could for example have your level being 1-20 due to experience alone + 0-10 due to quests + 0-10 due to how far into the game you got + 0-10 due to achievement-based titles like protector or skill hunter (as long as the last 0-10 is fairly easy to max out to prevent grind). So there's many ways to improve your character early on, but at higher levels you have to start achieving something rather than just grind.

[Barinthus]

How about no levels.

Amen.

Either no level or I prefer level cap as it is now in GW. It's absurd to have so many levels like some other games.

Having so many levels will just split the game into areas - this area for level 5s, that area for lvl 80s and so on. And when you finally reach max lvl (if its high) then most of the game will become boring to you. When you're lvl 80 you don't want waste your time in lvl 20 area. Look at Prophecies pretty much everything before Magumma Jungle are too easy when you have maxxed out the level cap and attribute quests.

Anet told us GW was supposed to be all about skills and playing not grinding. I hope they'll keep that in mind for GW2

What am I saying?!?! This is Anet after all :sad:

[Divinity Archer]

Well, when you "level up" in GW, you'll get a skillpoint a reward instead of gaining another level. Right now there is no real way of showing the amount of experience or skillpoints you have gained with a character, something they might want to implend for GW. Given ANets title fetisch, your level might be the ultimate "title" in GW2, without actually improving beyond level 20 or so. At least I hope that is the idea behind the high level cap, because a high level cap doesn't suit GW imho.

[sorudo]

But actually the least RPish part of a standard RPG is the levels system.

Sorry, sorudo, your system has a vital flaw. Anyone can look up a build on wiki and go nuts. For example 55 monks kill some of the most powerful enemies in the game on a day to day basis.
And even if that wasn't true, it would just be the same grind, just without sharp power jumps at the level increases.
totaly wrong, with this sytem you don't have to wait till you're a certain lvl, and a 55 monk is a very bad way to compare GW2.
i think that, with all the changes, a 55 monk is just like a toothpick, you spit it out and it's useless.
also, the grind is far from the same, in regulare RPG's you are 1 lvl at a time, but this system makes you able to train pretty fast and while first you where to weak to kill that boss, after a few monsters your lvl is so high that it's just like your so famous 55 monk.
you spit the boss out, and it's useless.

the end story is, normaly when an enemy is for instance lvl 24, you need to be lvl 20 to kill that boss.
but with that ssytem, the leep from one lvl to another is a lot smaller.
you don't have to grind so many monsters to get that one lvl, you just train your character untill you think you can take that guy.
so you have 2 advantiges.

you are not limited to how high your lvl is, since you can determine it your self
you are free to choose, the big leeps of lvls are gone so it's all up to you if you're ready to fight or not.in other words, the limit is gone.
no restrictions, no before chosen powers and you are free from leeps.

[raspberry jam]

All that is fine, Sorudo, the point is though: why would you have to train at all? In a truly level free system you'd start out at maximum raw power. You could still learn skills to make that power more versatile and diverse, but your health etc. wouldn't change.

Normally, the "thing to do" in MMOs and similar games is level up and make your character stronger. It really is time to step away from that and make a game that is about just playing the actual game. GW came so close, let's hope that GW2 takes that leap fully.

[The New BP]

My thought on this is quite simple...
Lvl should not show next to a players name or be visable to the general public at all.
Gaining Hp,Mp,Att pnts, and such should be gained by xp and Use of skills.What I mean by this (other than the obvious xp part) is that say I use skills from attribute 1 more than attribute 2 then I may gain a "Lvl" in that attribute only... I.E. Blood Drinker(new prof lol) +6 in blood LFG Quest: Dragon Slayers...
And then be able to ping that "Lvl" From that skill set in game
At that point Lvl capping would be useless
thats just Imho

[Flamefang of Arnor]

30 or 40 gets my vote...(but the above could be good too) having no cap will make the game too similar to WoW where a character can completely decimate lower characters.
Also this would give and advantage to those who devote their lives to the game and make them nearly unstoppable. people will continue to level up which may result in grinding and possible other problems that WoW has experienced despite its level cap.

Please! lets not take the Path that Blizzard did and begins something that could prove the downfall of Guild Wars. let us use previous examples to strengthen our own. the Past holds knowledge to the future!

one day GW will overtake WoW and we too may fall but lets make it a long time until that happens. maybe one day a game truly superior to our own will take over the MMO industry but for now we should be flexible but not too flexible and not make a previoulsy make mistake.

WE NEED A LEVEL CAP!

Sorry for the rating! :)

~Flamefang of Arnor

[Egal]

Been curious to see which way this thread will go and I'm pleased to see that the No Levels idea is getting some support. The suggestion made by Anet that levels may go signifcantly higher in GW2, or even be unlimited, worries me greatly. In addition, there's been an increased emphasis on title aquisition, another form of leveling.

In my cynical moments (and I'm having more and more of these now) I expect Anet to give us a high level cap, and I suspect I'll make my first character, log on and find I've already started 106 different title tracks. I really hope I'm wrong about this.

I think 20 levels has been great so far; GW1's 20 levels is so close to no levels at all as to make no difference. Great, but if that's the way of it, may as well get rid of them altogether, I reckon.

I'd be happy to see my character "grow" by aquiring a wider range of gear, armour and abilities/skills which I can combine in different ways. I don't need to see my character grow by going up through levels to simulate character development. I'd like to think my character gets to be more powerful because I'm getting better at the game and using the resources and opportunities it gives me. GW1 did this, way back when.

@ The New BP: training specific attributes to level them up makes characters less flexible than what we have now. It may make level capping useless but seems to be a lot like title grind, which a lot of people don't seem too keen on. I think this is a backwards step.

[Rob Van Der Sloot]

30 or 40 gets my vote...


Please! lets not take the Path that Blizzard did and begins something that could prove the downfall of Guild Wars.

Eh? So you want GW to not be like WoW... AND you want a high level cap? But that's exactly like WoW. You are kind of contradicting yourself.

is that say I use skills from attribute 1 more than attribute 2 then I may gain a "Lvl" in that attribute only... I.E. Blood Drinker(new prof lol) +6 in blood LFG Quest: Dragon Slayers...
And then be able to ping that "Lvl" From that skill set in game
At that point Lvl capping would be useless
thats just Imho

But then people would demand everyone to ping the level of each skill, and demand specific skills to be at specific levels.

Did you really think this through? That's even worse than level discrimination!


Normally, the "thing to do" in MMOs and similar games is level up and make your character stronger. It really is time to step away from that and make a game that is about just playing the actual game. GW came so close, let's hope that GW2 takes that leap fully.

Raspberry understands game design. I like it.

Most MMO's are about delayed fun. Rather than having months of levelling and not having any real fun, how about having no levels and none stop fun? Let the fun begin right at the start, rather than at max level. Levelling is just a crude and boring way to keep players busy. I'd rather prefer entertaining the players with a fun gameplay experience.

[Trinity Fire Angel]

remember that, regardless of the level situation there is going to be a "piggy-back" system, where a level 50 character can let a level 10 into his group, and the level 10 will temporarily gain enough power to do the high-level stuff. That should at least help with any sort of level discrimination.

that;s right.... also,,, remember the "journey to the North" EoTN??? WHere a Level 10 person can travel to EoTN but they get L20 stats, HP and Energy for until they get to whatever level or where ever. The piggyback system obviously would not give your character real Level 50 status, so i guess the amount of experience you gain would be overall less than if you went out at Level 40. Similar to LDoA presearing, you stop getting experience from Level 9's when you get to L15 (or whatever. etc etc.). This is how i see the way they will discourage people from farming noobs in the Mists... except for the fun of it... and likewise, a group of L20;s can go out looking for solo Level 32;s and try and take them out. etc etc

This is all speculation.... until we get the BETA~!!!!!

WHERE IS THE BETA>>???:> plz?:laugh:

[sorudo]

All that is fine, Sorudo, the point is though: why would you have to train at all? In a truly level free system you'd start out at maximum raw power. You could still learn skills to make that power more versatile and diverse, but your health etc. wouldn't change.
true, the HP and MP must have a limit, but training is part of any game.
the truth is, in every single RPG you need to train, if it's for power or for skills, it's unavoidable.
the only thing i'm pointing out is that with the normal lvl system you have grind higher then with a power lvl system, because your power isn't determined by the game system, but by your own training.
it sorta that, you don't hang around to stay within one power line till the next lvl, you continue improving while playing the game without grinding for lvls.

there is a very simple and fast way to show it, but i'm afrate ppl don't take me serious anymore after that.

[Akirai Annuvil]

Similar to LDoA presearing, you stop getting experience from Level 9's when you get to L15 (or whatever. etc etc.). This is how i see the way they will discourage people from farming noobs in the Mists... except for the fun of it...
...I cannot remember a single game where ganking gained you a reward since Diablo II. People never gank for the experience or the items, people gank for fun. Disallowing players to gain experience from newbies will not protect those newbies from being ganked.
What I mean by this (other than the obvious xp part) is that say I use skills from attribute 1 more than attribute 2 then I may gain a "Lvl" in that attribute only...
That system is pretty boring. Basically, instead of just grinding your level, now you have to grind your attributes too. Plus it necesarrily disallows the player from quickly reallocating attribute points, hindering player build experimentation; a huge part of GW PvE (and PvP but that is outside this realm of discussion).
Why even allow players to switch skills freely, if they need to grind ceaselessly to be effective with them?
lets not take the Path that Blizzard did
The path Blizzard took was to steadily increase the level cap. Exactly the same as what you are suggesting.
the truth is, in every single RPG you need to train, if it's for power or for skills, it's unavoidable.
Uuuhm, why?
there is a very simple and fast way to show it, but i'm afrate ppl don't take me serious anymore after that.
Oh don't worry about people not taking you serious anymore. You have that base covered.

[sorudo]

.Uuuhm, why?
simple, have you ever had even one RPG where there is no training involved?

Oh don't worry about people not taking you serious anymore. You have that base covered.
with you lurking around bashing everyone, no wonder.....

[Rob Van Der Sloot]

simple, have you ever had even one RPG where there is no training involved?

So, what's your point? Why do things exactly the same?

If we're going to use other people's ideas, why make a game at all?
I'd rather do things differently. Just because every RPG uses the same mechanics, does not mean it is set in stone.

[raspberry jam]

simple, have you ever had even one RPG where there is no training involved?Actually yes. But it was a pen & paper RPG.

[The New BP]

But then people would demand everyone to ping the level of each skill, and demand specific skills to be at specific levels.

Did you really think this through? That's even worse than level discrimination!





Ok I thought I had thought it thru but upon further inspection and getting flammed i figured it needed to be tweaked no in game pinging...keep every thing else the same as far as the grinding for different attributes i also stated that you would gain a preset amount with xp for all attributes not sure if i was clear enough also those points could be distributed as they are now in GW...Just thinking of different ways the game could be played so dont QQ over this

[Tru Reptile]

If I were to make an RPG it would have no levels at all. So...

/signed for no levels.

[MiatheHierophant]

I think we'd all benefit from a bit more news from Anet...Unfortunately, they're taking their own sweet time with the goods.

I am almost convinced that we need a level system, but not a rediculously high cap as in some other MMOs. We all talk about WoW (I have never played, so I don't know) and EQ (I lived and breathed it before discovering GW) which both have their cap set somewhere around 70 or so. The grindfest and the mob camping turn an otherwise enjoyable game and turn it into "work". I believe as I have stated elsewhere, a level of around 35-40 should be sufficient to keep us levelling throughout the game, and yet keep the grinding to a minimum.

Let's assume "no levels" for a moment. Even if we have no levels indicator, we would probably still have growth of the character through power, energy, skill knowlege, whatever. Any way you slice it, it will still be a "level" based system. For example...Right now in GW, all our level 20's are still gaining experience, with which they can gain skill points to buy skills (if you have money enough.) We also gain rank (Norn, Asuran, etc.) That in itself is levelling of a sort. Just ask anyone who wants R9 Ursan Teams. If they take away the level system, what would we be working toward? better armor? more uber weapons? The only way to not have levels is to spawn our characters at max levels from the beginning, and then work toward other goals to "level" toward eliteness.

Again, I agree with so many posters before me. We will simply have to wait and see what ANet tells us.

[Akirai Annuvil]

Let's assume "no levels" for a moment. Even if we have no levels indicator, we would probably still have growth of the character through power, energy, skill knowlege, whatever.
The entire idea is for everyone's power to be at max at creation. In my opinion being UAX would be best too.
Right now in GW, all our level 20's are still gaining experience, with which they can gain skill points to buy skills (if you have money enough.) We also gain rank (Norn, Asuran, etc.)
Yeah the suggestion is to do away with all of that.
If they take away the level system, what would we be working toward?
The grindfest and the mob camping turn an otherwise enjoyable game and turn it into "work".
Nothing. You'd be enjoying the game for what it is.
You probably mean to ask, what rewards will our characters get for playing the game?

Personally, I'd expand the idea of competitive missions for PvE. Allow the players to unlock various cosmetic features and general playing conveniences would be pretty good rewards. Enabling player developed content would be awesome but takes a lot out of programming and design.
For the rest, there's always the various forms of PvP.
I think we'd all benefit from a bit more news from Anet...Unfortunately, they're taking their own sweet time with the goods.
They've still got 1-2 years of development ahead of them. It's hardly surprising they haven't realeased much as not that much is set in stone yet.

[sorudo]

i don't see quests to be something to play for, if there is no higher strength to play for then it's a blank paper work.
every game needs a goal, and just doing quests makes the game rather dull, that's why the level system is there to have just that, a goal to work for.
in all games, the most boring thing i've played in RPG are games without a power gain and starter UAX, it's like playing a game with a cheat inserted " finish game".

[Rob Van Der Sloot]

i don't see quests to be something to play for, if there is no higher strength to play for then it's a blank paper work.
every game needs a goal, and just doing quests makes the game rather dull, that's why the level system is there to have just that, a goal to work for.
in all games, the most boring thing i've played in RPG are games without a power gain and starter UAX, it's like playing a game with a cheat inserted " finish game".

That's because most of the quests are badly designed. But what if the quests themselves were fun to do? What if you actually cared about the storyline? What if quests weren't about the rewards at all?

A lot of MMO's are about a power curve, but that's a very boring type of gameplay. What really makes an MMO interesting hasn't been done much before:

-Immersion, actually believing in the world
-Good storytelling, also part of the immersion.
-Exploration, adventure, surprises and mysteries

What makes a game like Metalgear Solid a more compelling experience than a game like Guild Wars? Is it the awesome combat, or the excellent stealth gameplay? Not really. In my opinion it's the story. With a genre that has so many narrative elements I'm surprised that the overall story of so many MMO's is so bad. And why do Zelda games feel more mysterious than a game like Guild Wars? Why is the discovery of a secret in Zelda so much more rewarding than discovering a secret in a MMO?

Levelling is such a tired old type of gameplay to keep players occupied. Apart from the entertaining power increase, the overall process of acquiring new levels is often a very boring and repetative affair.

[Tru Reptile]

i don't see quests to be something to play for, if there is no higher strength to play for then it's a blank paper work.
every game needs a goal, and just doing quests makes the game rather dull, that's why the level system is there to have just that, a goal to work for.
in all games, the most boring thing i've played in RPG are games without a power gain and starter UAX, it's like playing a game with a cheat inserted " finish game".

Having levels (IMO) is the most generic way to add content to a game. Yes, I understand players like seeing their character grow in power, but obtaining skills should really be enough. A player's power should be determined by their player skill, not stats. Doing away with levels alltogether lets the devs and players focus on real content, like making quests and missions that are actually fun.

NOTE: Having levels isn't a rule that developers have to follow. If developers really want to prevent the video game industry from becoming stagnant then they really need to think outside the box and take risks.

[Rob Van Der Sloot]

NOTE: Having levels isn't a rule that developers have to follow. If developers really want to prevent the video game industry from becoming stagnant then they really need to think outside the box and take risks.

That's what I always say: Abandon the rules, and make your own. Reinventing the genre is good for diversity, and the only way to stand out in the huge pile of MMO's that already exist.

No rule is set in stone.

[Tru Reptile]

That's what I always say: Abandon the rules, and make your own. Reinventing the genre is good for diversity, and the only way to stand out in the huge pile of MMO's that already exist.

No rule is set in stone.

I have more admiration for a dev who tries something new and fails than a dev who milks what's been done before and sells a lot. Video games are great fun, but the industry is hurting.

[MiatheHierophant]

I have more admiration for a dev who tries something new and fails than a dev who milks what's been done before and sells a lot. Video games are great fun, but the industry is hurting.

/agreed

I also see the the validity of most of the arguments (both for and against) presented here in this thread. I stand by my opinion that even if you don't have "levels", there will still be some sort of periodic goals that we will reach (another sort of "levelling") with our characters. I just hope the goals are something we would want to attain.

[MonkeyForLove]

If aren't having fun without goals, you probably aren't having fun with goals. This isn't to say that goals are a bad thing. Its just that I'd rather play a game where they emphasizes the journey towards the goal and not the goal itself.

[raspberry jam]

Let's assume "no levels" for a moment. Even if we have no levels indicator, we would probably still have growth of the character through power, energy, skill knowlege, whatever. Any way you slice it, it will still be a "level" based system.Yes, but while "leveling" by gaining skills makes sense (because you actually grow by learning something, like in real life), leveling by getting actual levels do not. While being more powerful than some other character by knowing more spells than them makes sense, being more powerful by just having 5 times as much health do not.

Not to mention, of course, that such a system would put a lot of weight at your own growth as a player of the game, not just the growth of your character.

If they take away the level system, what would we be working toward?Personal goals. I can only speak for myself, but I have never been excited about goals like "reach level 100". That there would still be such personal things is self-evident, just look at GW before EotN and before titles. There was nothing really tangible and general to work towards, and yet people played on, even long after beating the storyline and getting FoW armor or whatever else.

[sorudo]

That's because most of the quests are badly designed. But what if the quests themselves were fun to do? What if you actually cared about the storyline? What if quests weren't about the rewards at all?
in general, i hate quests a bit.
they take a lot of time, and in the end they are all the same just like any other quest.
even in all other games i tried like WoW, EQ2, lineage2 and TMO, quests don't do it for me, having a lvl-up does.
it's strange, but having a lvl-up feels like you achieved something, finishing a quest feels more like a waist of time.

[Shadowleaf]

I'd like to see some form of character progression in the game, but I agree with most posters here. Character levels are boring at this point.

Getting more content over the progression of the character seems like a good idea to me. The most exciting thing about leveling up in an RPG is getting new stuff with that level. New skills, enough strength to wear that badass armor, new toys to play with. On the other hand, the levels which you get nothing besides a few hitpoints from (happens often in D&D) are very dissapointing.

It's not the act of leveling up that people like, it's the acquisition of new content.