Guild Wars 2 should totally get rid of Levels

MMOExposed

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.

romanator0

Removing levels isn't going to make the game any more of a sandbox than it is already.

Vorch

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.

BeansnBread

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.

ice-vortex

Levels do not determine if something is sandbox or not.

Vhaln

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.

ShakyMo

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.

Phry

Originally posted by ice-vortex
Levels do not determine if something is sandbox or not.

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.

bcbully

Early on I question why there were levels. I guess it was the best gating mechanic they could come up with.

eye_m

Originally posted by Phry

Originally posted by ice-vortex
Levels do not determine if something is sandbox or not.

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.

Really? So no sandbox games have levels, only themeparks?

UsulDaNeriak

Originally posted by Vorch

can someone please clear up the definition of sandbox for me?

 

I thought it simply meant the option of player created content.

 

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. 

MMOExposed

Originally posted by UsulDaNeriak

Originally posted by Vorch
can someone please clear up the definition of sandbox for me?   I thought it simply meant the option of player created content.  

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. 

 

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.

ShakyMo

Gw2 is a themepark, but its more like older themeparks, without the grind, than your typical modern themeparks.

ice-vortex

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by UsulDaNeriak

Originally posted by Vorch
can someone please clear up the definition of sandbox for me?   I thought it simply meant the option of player created content.  

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. 

 

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.

dlld

what's done is done, from now on they should add lvl 80 areas/content and never increase level cap.

AzurePrower

---

Originally posted by Phry
Originally posted by ice-vortex Levels do not determine if something is sandbox or not.

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.

---

There are MMORPGs that are sand box and have levels.

Jakdstripper

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..

Ridelynn

---

Originally posted by Phry

---

Originally posted by ice-vortex Levels do not determine if something is sandbox or not.

---

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.

---

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).

The_Korrigan

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.

ShakyMo

You can have a themepark without levels - planetside.

Cod_Eye

Originally posted by colddog04
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.

How long do you think it would take before players work out or when guides are freely available to tell you where to get specific items, players will still end up clumping together to get X items.  Its not so much the drops that are really an issue, its Karma farming, players are already working the same chain events over and over because they are the most productive.  I think a lot of issue is recognition of what players achieve, you can have the most expensive skins in the game and nobody gives a sh*t.  Probably stems from that most players with commando titles bought their gold from the goldseller sites or used the exploit with the karma vendor to get ahead.

The_Korrigan

Originally posted by ShakyMo
You can have a themepark without levels - planetside.

And The Secret World.

Xasapis

It is true that GW2 could do with half the number of levels they used or even less, but I guess they wanted to give a comparative progression gauge to the other casual giant, WoW. In fact, I think they could have forego levels altogether and let segregation depend on content difficulty, but again, it would have been too much a deviation from what is considered standard for themeparks today.

I suppose they could have followed a system similar to TSW, but the end result showed that the levelling system is more pallatable to the mmorpg population that migrates from one mmorpg to the next.

Generally speaking, they took as few risks as possible, which is understandable.

 

As for Planetside, I'm not sure how much of an mmorpg (emphasis on the rpg part), since I've never played the original. It is certainly a mmofps from the looks of it, and so is the follow up game.

BeansnBread

Originally posted by biggarfoot

Originally posted by colddog04
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.

How long do you think it would take before players work out or when guides are freely available to tell you where to get specific items, players will still end up clumping together to get X items.  Its not so much the drops that are really an issue, its Karma farming, players are already working the same chain events over and over because they are the most productive.  I think a lot of issue is recognition of what players achieve, you can have the most expensive skins in the game and nobody gives a sh*t.  Probably stems from that most players with commando titles bought their gold from the goldseller sites or used the exploit with the karma vendor to get ahead.

A week?

 

I don't know. Who gives a shit? It was just an idea for a totally fictional situation. There ARE levels in GW2. Perhaps if it had no levels, they could add ways to get stuff in the various zones. It's not that crazy an idea.

Gaia_Hunter

Getting rid of levels but then requiring skill levels or ability levels or item levels is the same.

I like how I can go go face higher level mobs to make it a harder experience.

I would rather zones were split into difficulty levels though, because no matter how good or bad I'm that guy 10 levels over me will kick my ass.

I really liked the Mad King Labyrinth and I hope DEs to evolve more into it - it was noticeable people actively looking for others and keeping together because one could easily be overwhelmed.

Zeus.CM

It wouldn't work. Game should have been designed from the beggining for level-less gameplay. Imagine new player come to do CoE dungeon with you. Your party wouldn't move an inch in that dungeon. Leveling is sort of a good long tutorial to learn your class deeply and gives some sense of progression. As gw2 has horizontal (comsetic) progression in end-game, removing the only form of vertical (leveling, getting better gear) progression in levels below 80 would not do good to this game (at this point).