| 46 posts found | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
If they really want Endgame to start from level 1, than make that the only level. The world is split into level ranges, and endgame zones reward best. get rid of levels already. allow new and old players make characters and do what they like in terms of PvP and PvE. Make the game more sandbox like.
|
|||
|
11/01/12 6:02:07 PM#2
Removing levels isn't going to make the game any more of a sandbox than it is already.
|
|||
|
11/01/12 6:02:48 PM#3
can someone please clear up the definition of sandbox for me?
I thought it simply meant the option of player created content.
Also, if ANet follows their pattern, future expansions/content will focus on max level characters rather than low level content.
But I do understand where you are coming from. We’ll stop to sleep when the game is the best possible game we think it can be. We’ve seen the population of the game steadily rising lately and we’re not going to sit on our butts and congratulate one another, we’re going to try and build on that momentum and make the game even better. -Colin johanson on GW2 |
|||
|
11/01/12 6:05:12 PM#4
I prefer the progression, but honestly, I wouldn't care if they removed levels and just let everyone go to any zone they wanted. Perhaps they could spread around different cosmetic stuff to keep people hunting in the world. This would help solve that little issue Creslin brought up about certain zones thinning out because people outlevel them.
SWTOR is the greatest mmo ever! |
|||
|
11/01/12 6:07:39 PM#5
Levels do not determine if something is sandbox or not.
|
|||
|
11/01/12 6:26:01 PM#6
I think it could've been pretty cool, if they'd done that from the beginning.. but a little too late for a change like that now. Still, I voted yes, because I support the idea.
Not because I think it'd make the game more of a sandbox, though. It would still be a themepark.. but an even more unique one, and the way its already designed, I think it would've worked pretty well overall. When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world. |
|||
|
11/01/12 6:29:31 PM#7
It should have had just 10 levels or something, pick up the various misc skills every level, skill the weapons yourself. Agree with op sort of.
|
|||
|
11/01/12 6:29:50 PM#8
Originally posted by ice-vortex Perhaps not, but it does define those that arent. Levels = Themepark, not having levels is one of the factors that makes up a sandbox game. |
|||
|
11/01/12 6:31:29 PM#9
Early on I question why there were levels. I guess it was the best gating mechanic they could come up with.
DamonVile- Games built for disposable players are now apparently built by disposable employees. |
|||
|
11/01/12 6:39:56 PM#10
Originally posted by Phry Really? So no sandbox games have levels, only themeparks? All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick. |
|||
|
11/01/12 7:07:34 PM#11
Originally posted by Vorch If payer created content means something like player created quests as in Neverwinter for you, you are wrong. Sandbox means "player driven" in all aspects of the game: player driven progression, player driven economy, player driven politics, player driven environment, player driven combat & tactics, .... Levels are unusual in a sandbox, but could be feasible. Levels = thempark is an old urban myth like sandbox = Open PvP. GW2 is a themepark and getting rid of levels would not make a sandbox out of it. However my first idea was too, that this game needs no levels, as it need no heartsquests. This was done to give more orientation to players, but ttis also leaded to a certain grade of linearity: the plague of all themeparks. Dont get me wrong, GW2 is refreshingly unlinear. But just inside of a zone. The world design is linear, due to level-oriented zones. Looking to PVE, you have to follow a path from Level 1 to 80, even if you ignore the personal story fully. The advantage compared to other themeparks is, that there are dozens of pathes you may follow and the pathes are very broad. played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years) |
|||
Originally posted by UsulDaNeriakOriginally posted by Vorch levels are a themepark element. doesnt mean a more sandbox game cant have them. which is why I stated that no levels would make GW2 more sandbox like. Didnt mean it would make the game into a sandbox.
|
|||
|
11/01/12 7:46:36 PM#13
Gw2 is a themepark, but its more like older themeparks, without the grind, than your typical modern themeparks.
|
|||
|
11/01/12 7:52:45 PM#14
Originally posted by MMOExposedOriginally posted by UsulDaNeriakOriginally posted by Vorch levels are a themepark element. doesnt mean a more sandbox game cant have them. which is why I stated that no levels would make GW2 more sandbox like. Didnt mean it would make the game into a sandbox. Levels are an RPG element, have been since the first pen and paper RPG. |
|||
|
11/01/12 8:28:52 PM#15
what's done is done, from now on they should add lvl 80 areas/content and never increase level cap.
|
|||
|
AzurePrower
Novice Member
Joined: 3/18/07
I neither give in to the hype or hate. |
11/01/12 9:18:35 PM#16
There are MMORPGs that are sand box and have levels. |
||
|
11/01/12 9:24:05 PM#17
well after that derailment.... ....yea GW2 should as a minimum remove half in not more levels. it is completely retarded that you have to go to level 80 when BGs make you level 80 with all your skills and WvW makes you level 80 (but doesn't give you all your skills). remind me again, why does GW2 have 80 levels? nobody knows.. |
|||
|
11/01/12 9:27:59 PM#18
I don't agree. You can have levels in a sandbox. Eve, which I would consider a Sandbox-style game, does it very well, with Skillpoints. Sure, a player with just the starting amount of SP can still compete, but certainly not well against one with millions. Unless you want to call ISK the method of character progression (of which there is certainly a good case to do), and that brings up a can of worms that easily leads to P2W. Sandbox doesn't necessarily equate to MMOFPS, where everyone just starts with a pistol and has to duke it out for whatever they can find in the world. There can be some character progression. I wouldn't go so far as to call GW2 a sandbox, but I will say that you can have levels in a sandbox - they aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Everyone just takes the term "sandbox" and applies it to their own utopic vision of what they would like to have in a game, and then whines whenever the next game that comes out can't possibly live up to their expectations. *edit* To the OP: I agree in one sense - the game would feel a lot more fluid without levels. The fact that you can always go back (and it auto-downlevels you) makes it feel that way, but only in the downward direction. I like having some form of character progression, and some way of finding something that's just "way too f'n hard" and then eventually gaining enough character power (combined with practice and improving my own skill) to finally overcome the challenge. Levels provide one means of doing that - so if they were to go away I'd like to see ~something~ more or less take it's place (hopefully a bit more transparently than just discrete level numbers), but yeah, The game almost already doesn't have levels (or at least, once you finally hit 80 it's that way). |
|||
|
11/02/12 4:15:45 AM#19
Amusing how some people still think sandbox = no levels. Even in UO, you can't enter the game with a level 1 and go kill a dragon, you'll have to raise your skills first. Sandbox doesn't mean lack of progression. Even minecraft has progression. |
|||
|
11/02/12 4:21:42 AM#20
You can have a themepark without levels - planetside.
|
|||