Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

No wonder guild wars is looking like such a carebear title.

 

The amount of people who actually dont see the difference between getting boosted up and boosted down is actually rather sad.

 

I dont even know why areanet even thought about the idea of giving players the ability to skip content. If you can scale up then why bother, why have levels, why not just make everything do able at level 1 and you can just set your level before you get to the zone.

Its for the PvPers mostly. But leveling unlocks stuff too.

And there is still stuff to unlock and gain exp from in PvE, so I guess you need levels there.

Originally posted by iller

Originally posted by Serelisk

Potentially unbalanced RvR mobs? There's still upscaling in WvW to 80. o.o...

Didn't say RVR, I said R-v-R.   Risk-versus-Reward.

 

Originally posted by Serelisk

Potentially unbalanced RvR mobs? There's still upscaling in WvW to 80. o.o...

Please be more explicit and clear in your definitions and analogies. I don't have experience with this system as it worked in EQ2 or CoH, but I'm confident in it's original intention for GW2. It was to allow friends to play together. 

Okay then you never experienced it first hand so you're not familiar with the Fallout of it and the fact that COH also flattened their supposed leveling curve yet the situation only got worse after purple IO's were added...

You haven't seen it in action so you are resisting all explanations on why it is still abuseable...

As far as I can tell, you're the only person to introduce this concern, and I'm not resisting it. I actually wanted to elaborated. You're telling me what DID happen, not how it happened. You explained that this was a mathematical fact of the way these systems worked in CoH, but offered little insight as to how that may apply to GW2. How is this abuse if levels aren't a goal of the game and dynamic events aren't supposed to be done just because they give you experience but because they're actually fun.

I admit complete ignorance on how this system progressed and apparently failed in traditional MMO's in the past, but your explanations give me little reason to believe that this couldn't properly be executed in a game like GW2 where there isn't nearly as much emphasis placed on levels.

Originally posted by Serelisk

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Serelisk

Originally posted by iller

Umm Serelisk, I just offered you that explanation....

 

It divides the population if you allow smurfs to get power-leveled in end-game areas with potentially unbalanced R-v-R mobs that can be exploited for faster XP when the leveling Curve math doesn't convert properly...

The leveling curve is flat. So I don't understand what conversion needs to be taken into account. As well as this same issue being applicable for people leveling down.

Potentially unbalanced RvR mobs? There's still upscaling in WvW to 80. o.o...

Please be more explicit and clear in your definitions and analogies. I don't have experience with this system as it worked in EQ2 or CoH, but I'm confident in it's original intention for GW2. It was to allow friends to play together. 

Maybe the fact that at lower levels you simply do not have access to the skills required for higher areas. You don't even unlock elite skills until level 30. Then you have traits which is another issue. It's possible that higher level mobs are balanced around the fact that you have all of your weapon skills and traits and at least one elite skill.

Think about it, how well would you perform in GW1's Underworld if you only had access to the starting skills, even if you were level 20.

Very understandable, and that makes sense. I was also wondering about this the very first time they anounced this system, but ultimately decided that I would be okay with it. They wouldn't need to balance the way those encounters were designed or cater to the players who may have upscaled. Those players would be running the risk of facing content that's above their level by mere factor that they're taking on content above their level.

I reasoned that if they truly wanted to play with their friends, they could make up for the difference in ability with their skills while playing and not the traits or utilities that they brought along. While an integral part of the game, the fact that they made the actual in-fight mechanics much more in-depth would have accounted for their outclassed level and made the content playable to those who really wnated to challenge.

I think this is better than just not having the option at all. Because that's exactly what it is, options. :/

The issue is that because of the way events scale with the amount of people participating, a low level sidekicked player, who can't pull his own weight, has the potential to ruin the event for other players.

If there are 20 people doing an event, then the event is scaled to be challenging for 20 people. If 2 of those people are useless, you have 18 people doing an event made for 20 people.

Originally posted by natuxatu

 

^ Well you can't go up in level that's what they decided. So your whole complaint is utterly pointless.

Personally I like how the system is now.. where if you go to low leve content you get scaled down. If you want to play with your friends you still can. But they have to come to you.. you shouldn't go to them. That make no sense. And since they scale down they will still recieve exp ect.. win/win.

/facepalm

My complaint isn't pointless because this thread isn't me protesting to get it re-implemented into the game, rather, it is to discuss what people feel about this.

Why shouldn't you be able to go to them and be able to play a cool dynamic event your friend discovered though he's higher level than you? That is a barrier of players playing together. That is not a win to me.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Serelisk

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Serelisk

Originally posted by iller

Umm Serelisk, I just offered you that explanation....

 

It divides the population if you allow smurfs to get power-leveled in end-game areas with potentially unbalanced R-v-R mobs that can be exploited for faster XP when the leveling Curve math doesn't convert properly...

The leveling curve is flat. So I don't understand what conversion needs to be taken into account. As well as this same issue being applicable for people leveling down.

Potentially unbalanced RvR mobs? There's still upscaling in WvW to 80. o.o...

Please be more explicit and clear in your definitions and analogies. I don't have experience with this system as it worked in EQ2 or CoH, but I'm confident in it's original intention for GW2. It was to allow friends to play together. 

Maybe the fact that at lower levels you simply do not have access to the skills required for higher areas. You don't even unlock elite skills until level 30. Then you have traits which is another issue. It's possible that higher level mobs are balanced around the fact that you have all of your weapon skills and traits and at least one elite skill.

Think about it, how well would you perform in GW1's Underworld if you only had access to the starting skills, even if you were level 20.

Very understandable, and that makes sense. I was also wondering about this the very first time they anounced this system, but ultimately decided that I would be okay with it. They wouldn't need to balance the way those encounters were designed or cater to the players who may have upscaled. Those players would be running the risk of facing content that's above their level by mere factor that they're taking on content above their level.

I reasoned that if they truly wanted to play with their friends, they could make up for the difference in ability with their skills while playing and not the traits or utilities that they brought along. While an integral part of the game, the fact that they made the actual in-fight mechanics much more in-depth would have accounted for their outclassed level and made the content playable to those who really wnated to challenge.

I think this is better than just not having the option at all. Because that's exactly what it is, options. :/

The issue is that because of the way events scale with the amount of people participating, a low level sidekicked player, who can't pull his own weight, has the potential to ruin the event for other players.

If there are 20 people doing an event, then the event is scaled to be challenging for 20 people. If 2 of those people are useless, you have 18 people doing an event made for 20 people.

 ArenaNet has a system that tracks just how much this person participates. If he's at bronze participation, then the player's likely not adding much to the DE. Also, don't forget that they're not inherently useless by nature of them being lower than the content they're taking on.

Suppose the player's level 39 with a full build including an elite. They get a base statistical increase in power so they could be very useful in most fights, since, again, a lot more of the emphasis is on how well you play your character during the fight.

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

No wonder guild wars is looking like such a carebear title.

 

The amount of people who actually dont see the difference between getting boosted up and boosted down is actually rather sad.

 

I dont even know why areanet even thought about the idea of giving players the ability to skip content. If you can scale up then why bother, why have levels, why not just make everything do able at level 1 and you can just set your level before you get to the zone.

The side kicking system adjusts loot and XP to match your true level, rather than the level of the content. This is what enables the entire game to be "endgame", since you never outlevel content and you aren't significantly penalized for doing under-level content.

Side-kicking up with a friend, with your loot/XP adjusted for your true level, would never have resulted in you "skipping" content, because content you "skip" will be viable for you even if you outlevel it before experiencing it. It just would have allowed you to join your higher level friend for content, rather than the higher level character always having to return to lower level content to play with lower level friends.

The change isn't a big deal, but it is still a small step backwards for the game design. (It may indeed be the correct decision, for technical reasons or due to issues that were revealed during testing, so my disappointment is more personal than a disappointment in Arenanet for dropping a feature. I tend to level faster than my friends because I play more and was looking forward to occassionally having a friend side kick up with me).

Originally posted by Quizzical

Good.  Allowing sidekicking up was way too abuseable.  I, for one, will not miss the level 10 gold farmers in level capped areas--and effectively forcing their way into a group with you because that's how dynamic events work.  To avoid stuff like that, they'd have had to make a huge mess of loot tables to the degree that sidekicking up becomes pretty much pointless, at which point, you might as well just remove it entirely.

Players got loot equivalent to their level, same as still currently is in WvW.  You don't just get level 80 gear you can't use yet and the amount of gold that would go with it.

And sidekicking up didn't happen automatically in PVE, it required being sidekicked up to another player manually.

I'm a bit saddened by this. Even though my friends may not play this game, normally when I level up in an MMO my friends become scattered across the level brackets. They don't want to go back and do content below their level to help eachother out. While sidekicking down and transmogrification will help interest higher leveled players to go help lower levels, I thought sidekicking up would have been more effective in doing that.

Is there any information on what kind of reward players get for joining a dungeon while sidekicked down?

Originally posted by Serelisk

 ArenaNet has a system that tracks just how much this person participates. If he's at bronze participation, then the player's likely not adding much to the DE. Also, don't forget that they're not inherently useless by nature of them being lower than the content they're taking on.

Suppose the player's level 39 with a full build including an elite. They get a base statistical increase in power so they could be very useful in most fights, since, again, a lot more of the emphasis is on how well you play your character during the fight.

No one but ArenaNet knows for sure how that system works. It may not scale the event based on the player's gold, silver or bronze participation, it may simply scale the event based on whether or not the person is participating.

Another issue is the fact that a new player may not know how to play the class effectively enough to pull his or her weight in higher level events.

Lastly, there are more lower level zones than there are higher level ones. A few months after the game launches, if the majority of players are in higher level zones with their sidekicked friends, who's going to play with the newbies? You're looking at the same "top heavy" issue that a lot MMOs are facing, something that sidekicking down will help alleviate and sidekicking up may make worse.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Serelisk

 ArenaNet has a system that tracks just how much this person participates. If he's at bronze participation, then the player's likely not adding much to the DE. Also, don't forget that they're not inherently useless by nature of them being lower than the content they're taking on.

Suppose the player's level 39 with a full build including an elite. They get a base statistical increase in power so they could be very useful in most fights, since, again, a lot more of the emphasis is on how well you play your character during the fight.

No one but ArenaNet knows for sure how that system works. It may not scale the event based on the player's gold, silver or bronze participation, it may simply scale the event based on whether or not the person is participating.

Another issue is the fact that a new player may not know how to play the class effectively enough to pull his or her weight in higher level events.

Lastly, there are more lower level zones than there are higher level ones. A few months after the game launches, if the majority of players are in higher level zones with their sidekicked friends, who's going to play with the newbies? You're looking at the same "top heavy" issue that a lot MMOs are facing, something that sidekicking down will help alleviate and sidekicking up may make worse.

But who says they're inherently going to be playing in higher level zones just because they have that ability to be sidekicked up. All dynamic events, according to Arena net, are designed to be enjoyable. You should be seeking them out or joining in on them because they're fun and exciting, no matter what the level. I've seen DE's I'd already like to repeat at level 10.

To me, it seems they would be throwing off that balance by allowing only one direction of scaling. There won't be many people to tackle those awesome meta events at end game if everyones playing lower level content. However, this is simple speculation and I think you raised a valid point with the scaling. However, I don't believe increasing the difficulty of events and assuming these people can't pull their weight in events that're higher leveled is reason to not have it as an available feature. :x

I do want to add something on the bright side of this.  If this map is right http://i44.tinypic.com/5edcfn.png then of the 25-26 world zones, there are five for level 1-15 and four for 15-25 and then it's after that where it starts funneling down into only two leveling paths.

If GW2 is really as big as GW1 and all three of its expansions combined, there will still be a lot of content to play with people in the open world, not even counting WvW, joining them on their personal story, structured PVP and minigames.  Probably won't be 1.5 GW expansions worth since there's no lowbie dungeons, but still pretty significant.

Thinking about this change more, I wonder if there are other reasons for removing the feature.  For one thing, waypoints.  The higher level player will have gradually unlocked waypoints by working their way through all the zones.  In order to sidekick someone to a higher level zone, they would need to escort that person all the way to where they needed to go on foot.  Perhaps they felt like that was something they wanted to avoid.  While there still can be situations where a higher level player doesn't have a waypoint to join a lower player (different race's newbie zones), it's still a lot easier for them to get there due to city Asura gates.

Another thing related to this is that the personal story is designed to progress you through the different zones of the game and doing DEs as you go.  Unlocking a bunch of waypoints on your escort run to the higher level zone I think could really put a damper your experience when you do go progress the story for real.

I might be stretching here, but there could also be an issue of confusion about waypoints.  If there's no sidekicking up, then every waypoint you unlocked is one you reached on your own and thanks to sidekicking down will be doable content if you decide to port to it.  If someone escorts you, then it might take some trial and error to find out where you can go.

---

Originally posted by Eir_S
I agree with other people in this thread, I never thought that much of sidekicking up, I'd almost completely forgotten it existed.  The excitement came from sidekicking down to me.  I wouldn't want to be tempted to go and see level 80 content when I haven't earned it.

---

Originally posted by colddog04

I personally prefer it without sidekicking up. And I like that you can sidekick down.

 

That level 60 can still play with the level 30. He just has to do level 30 content. But he will be scaled down and they can still play together.

yeah i kind of like more this the one way sideckick. It makes more sense to be sidekicked down to play with your low lvl friends than being sideckicked up and skip all the low level world

My thought is this.

As per your op you mentioned Anet saying they would have the upscale feature available. I agree, they did. As per your op you mentioned that

"I don't think i'm alone in thinking that this goes against one of ArenaNet's core philosophies for gameplay, which is that there should be very few barriers for friends to play together"

And although i agree with this, i think you might be focused on this one point too strongly. Anet has several core philosophies which are laid out in their manifesto among other places (ie, blog posts and interviews) and here is one of their ideas on game mechanics

"When a player is defeated, and not just downed, a random piece of their armor will be damaged. When a piece of armor is damaged, it imparts no penalty but serves as a warning. If a player is defeated while all of their armor is damaged, then a random piece of armor will break. When armor breaks, it ceases to provide any benefit to the player and must be repaired by visiting an armor-repair NPC in town. This NPC will charge a small sum of coins to repair any broken pieces of armor, and will repair any damaged armor as well. Having thus transferred the coin cost to the armor-repair NPC, we removed the multiplier on the cost of traveling to a waypoint when defeated."

Once you take armor out of the equation, it totally negates this penalty since their stats are boosted to make up for the lack of level. The upscaling has then eliminated Anet's philosophy that

“When a player is defeated, it’s important for there to be some sort of penalty associated with the defeat.…”

My take is that i wasn't planning on using upscaling anyway, however once i thought about your post and about the things i have read, i felt Anet, after looking at how this feature worked in actual gameplay, decided that as opposed to negating the effect of death on armor, they decided to remove upscaling.

(all items i quoted were from the Beta Development Update By Eric Flannum February 21st, 2012)

I wonder what other things will be left out that ANet said would be available at launch???

Bad sign me thinks. Hold off on your preorder folks, what you are most looking forward too might not actually be in the game :(

Originally posted by Monorojo

I wonder what other things will be left out that ANet said would be available at launch???

 

Bad sign me thinks. Hold off on your preorder folks, what you are most looking forward too might not actually be in the game :(

/facepalm to the unf degree.

Originally posted by Monorojo

I wonder what other things will be left out that ANet said would be available at launch???

 

Bad sign me thinks. Hold off on your preorder folks, what you are most looking forward too might not actually be in the game :(

There would be level 80s to upscale to at launch?

Sorry, just poking fun. What i have seen so far from beta and press releases is more then enough to make me preorder since they are just what anet has been promising.

(edit: I suppose you could then go on to say that at the very least they are being honest about what will and won't be in the game... and not making you wait for patch 1.2 before you see it)

Originally posted by RathanX26

"When a player is defeated, and not just downed, a random piece of their armor will be damaged. When a piece of armor is damaged, it imparts no penalty but serves as a warning. If a player is defeated while all of their armor is damaged, then a random piece of armor will break. When armor breaks, it ceases to provide any benefit to the player and must be repaired by visiting an armor-repair NPC in town. This NPC will charge a small sum of coins to repair any broken pieces of armor, and will repair any damaged armor as well. Having thus transferred the coin cost to the armor-repair NPC, we removed the multiplier on the cost of traveling to a waypoint when defeated."

Once you take armor out of the equation, it totally negates this penalty since their stats are boosted to make up for the lack of level. The upscaling has then eliminated Anet's philosophy that

“When a player is defeated, it’s important for there to be some sort of penalty associated with the defeat.…”

My take is that i wasn't planning on using upscaling anyway, however once i thought about your post and about the things i have read, i felt Anet, after looking at how this feature worked in actual gameplay, decided that as opposed to negating the effect of death on armor, they decided to remove upscaling.

 

(all items i quoted were from the Beta Development Update By Eric Flannum February 21st, 2012)

Thanks for pointing out a possible technical inability for this system to work in practice, I hadn't thought about the death penalty and such. But I was pretty positive it was the stats on their gear and health that would be boosted to the appropriate level they were sidekicked to, so without there gear, they would be just like any other true player of that level who lost their gear.

Also, I don't believe that would be the huge reason for them not having upscaling in the game. I'd like to think that the abilities for friends to play together whenever they want is a far more important development philosophy though. It is an integral part of the way the game was desaigned, from instant teleportation to free server transfers.

Originally posted by Serelisk

Originally posted by RathanX26

"When a player is defeated, and not just downed, a random piece of their armor will be damaged. When a piece of armor is damaged, it imparts no penalty but serves as a warning. If a player is defeated while all of their armor is damaged, then a random piece of armor will break. When armor breaks, it ceases to provide any benefit to the player and must be repaired by visiting an armor-repair NPC in town. This NPC will charge a small sum of coins to repair any broken pieces of armor, and will repair any damaged armor as well. Having thus transferred the coin cost to the armor-repair NPC, we removed the multiplier on the cost of traveling to a waypoint when defeated."

Once you take armor out of the equation, it totally negates this penalty since their stats are boosted to make up for the lack of level. The upscaling has then eliminated Anet's philosophy that

“When a player is defeated, it’s important for there to be some sort of penalty associated with the defeat.…”

My take is that i wasn't planning on using upscaling anyway, however once i thought about your post and about the things i have read, i felt Anet, after looking at how this feature worked in actual gameplay, decided that as opposed to negating the effect of death on armor, they decided to remove upscaling.

 

(all items i quoted were from the Beta Development Update By Eric Flannum February 21st, 2012)

Thanks for pointing out a possible technical inability for this system to work in practice, I hadn't thought about the death penalty and such. But I was pretty positive it was the stats on their gear and health that would be boosted to the appropriate level they were sidekicked to, so without there gear, they would be just like any other true player of that level who lost their gear.

Also, I don't believe that would be the huge reason for them not having upscaling in the game. I'd like to think that the abilities for friends to play together whenever they want is a far more important development philosophy though. It is an integral part of the way the game was desaigned, from instant teleportation to free server transfers.

Well, the only sure response i can make to that since i don't work for anet would be this, If i spent a long time making 79 levels worth of content, i would sure as heck want you to play through it instead of using a feature to skip it. However, thats just me and i like a good story. I suppose if when you upscaled you didn't get any xp that would eliminate the "skip," but without any answers from anet, we are forced to only wonder.