It's a mathmatical equation that will never make sense to me. Years of funding, writing and world generation to have it trivialized in one month lol. Once a big name can attract people to a game longer than one month till endgame I think something unexpected will happen:
One month is a long time.
The Avengers costs more than $200M to make .. and it is a 2.5 hour piece of entertainment. A novel takes a writer a year to write, and i can finish it in 3-5 hours.
Entertainment does not always have to last a long time to be good.
Wow... Talk about thread derailing....
So Narius, you spent $60 to get into The Avengers movie showing? and you spent $15 a minute to keep watching it? I think not.
Games these days are letting out less and less content for the same price. Saying that you can get quality entertainment without a huge time invested is like compairing playing a game to watching a movie or reading a book.
Next time you buy a book for $60, and pay $15/month to keep the book accessible on your shelf, please document this and share it for the MMO world to see. Because then and only then can you make an accurate compairison between an MMORPG and a book/movie.
Glad you raise the price we pay.
A movie ticket is $11 ... say $10 .. that is like $5 per hour.
A novel is like $7 for paperback, and $15-20 for hard back .. so $2-3 per hour.
A one month MMO? If it costs $60 .. and you play 15 hours a week (very low number) ... you get $1 per hour. 2x to 5x better than movies & books.
So yeah, 1 month is way long and get your month worth.
But originally argumetn by aelious is "Years of funding, writing and world generation to have it trivialized in one month" .. which has nothing to do with how much you pay, but the amount of investment in the product.
He is obviously wrong .. since other stuff has a much higher investment/(hour of entertainment) ratio.
It would better if they stop trying to create neverending mechanics and focus on exactly 2 weeks - 1 month of gameplay. This way they can create better games.
Yeah, they should. I would say 1-2 month .. a bit longer than Sp games, but not overly so.
Have an option to grind/farm if people like that (not unlike D3, you can "finish" the game in a month .. but can farm and continue to progress for months if you wish).
It would better if they stop trying to create neverending mechanics and focus on exactly 2 weeks - 1 month of gameplay. This way they can create better games.
Yeah, they should. I would say 1-2 month .. a bit longer than Sp games, but not overly so.
Have an option to grind/farm if people like that (not unlike D3, you can "finish" the game in a month .. but can farm and continue to progress for months if you wish).
The problem with options is: if you can't do them well, you should not do them in the first place since it drags down the overall impression of the game. This was the reason for why GW2 did not create open PvP servers unlike many other games: they didn't think they had the time and resources to do Open PvP properly so they opted to not do it.
Im closing my eyes and imagining what an MMO would look like if it forcasted only two months of major income....
LOL
As it is the MMOs funded and designed for long term play are only getting used for that long. An MMO structured as such would have even less content/polish and would be horrible.
I get it, we're all players so we look at it from that point of view and not what's actually possible from a business standpoint. The reason to look deeper than screen value is you get an idea of what's coming. It's a bit more realistic.
This comes back to the point of the OP. If you make the whole world worth equally worth playing you've done it right. There are a lot of ways to do this but the outcome will be the same. People who value the journey will stay or at least stay longer. There are more "journey" minded people than you may think.
It would better if they stop trying to create neverending mechanics and focus on exactly 2 weeks - 1 month of gameplay. This way they can create better games.
Yeah, they should. I would say 1-2 month .. a bit longer than Sp games, but not overly so.
Have an option to grind/farm if people like that (not unlike D3, you can "finish" the game in a month .. but can farm and continue to progress for months if you wish).
The problem with options is: if you can't do them well, you should not do them in the first place since it drags down the overall impression of the game. This was the reason for why GW2 did not create open PvP servers unlike many other games: they didn't think they had the time and resources to do Open PvP properly so they opted to not do it.
I would say it is much easier to make a good 1 month game, then try to make it into a good 1 year game.
But i do agree the option shouldn't be done, unless it is done well.
Guild Wars 2, for all its possible merits, pissed me off and I quit in the leveling phase because it was too mind numbingly easy. I like Greatswords, and I played a warrior. I ran around, annihilating everything 8 levels higher than me, playing 1handed on a laptop while laying down on a couch with my head on a pillow...
While I definitely agree MMORPGs need a difficulty slider while leveling (so everyone can experience a challenge which is just right for them, and be rewarded accordingly), I don't know that I feel MMORPGs are completely devoid of fun before endgame. Especially the ones which have a strong grouping game early on (automated LFG systems, rewarding grouping slightly more than soloing.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The problem with options is: if you can't do them well, you should not do them in the first place since it drags down the overall impression of the game. This was the reason for why GW2 did not create open PvP servers unlike many other games: they didn't think they had the time and resources to do Open PvP properly so they opted to not do it.
It was because many of the mechanics in the game wouldn't have worked in an open world PvP environment therefore the changes would've been much more complicated than "a simple rule change". It is the similar problem as with "Skyrim MMO": Many of Skyrim's features only work in a single player environment so simply allowing multiplayer wouldn't work very well if at all.
If you start thinking about it feature by feature, you'll notice the amount of difficulties and conflicts the devs must resolve. "Just make it multiplayer" or "just allow PvP" sounds easy, but things are rarely that simple.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I guess it's true that some console games have overhead and I'm always amazed at how you can use a part of a sentence to wiggle out of being wrong on your main point. Normal MMOs need a susatained income so your idea of not wanting to have along lasting product is incorrect IMO.
No they don't. Narious is right. There are plenty of games that do well without subsription fees or anything of the sort, and go only by box sales. The need for a "sustainable income" has been greatly exaggerated on these forums by many posters.
Fact of the matter is: Good games do well with box sales alone - everything else is just bonus. Box sales have funded many games and sequels in the past (on all platforms) and will continue to do so in the future.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Guild Wars 2, for all its possible merits, pissed me off and I quit in the leveling phase because it was too mind numbingly easy. I like Greatswords, and I played a warrior. I ran around, annihilating everything 8 levels higher than me, playing 1handed on a laptop while laying down on a couch with my head on a pillow...
Eh... no you didn't.
Yeah, I was wondering about this part of the story. I played a Guardian and even when using the Greatsword I never felt like could take on much more than 2 levels above me especially if a crowd gathered around me.
Can't say that GW2 combat was particularly easy, but then again, I probably just suck.
Guess I should comment on the OP. More often than not, I quit playing MMO's when I get to the end game, I actually enjoy the leveling up process far more than the typical raid/gear grind end game most titles have.
Even now as I near level 60 in Aion (with 13 more levels to go) I don't find myself thinking about what I'm going to do once I get to end game, but rather whether I should level up a Chanter or Zerker as my 2nd character.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I tend to work hard to set my character at the top of my game, gearing as best I could. From about level 27 to 52 I played like that, averaged around a 80% crit chance (I sat at 100% a good deal of the time), and a near pure offensive build. When mobs hit me I felt it but it was often trivial to avoid being hit. To be absolutely fair while slacking I could fight mobs 6 levels above and trying the limit was 8 levels. That doesn't change the jist of what I was saying, however: The game held no challenge in that phase of the game.
Originally posted by Kyleran
Yeah, I was wondering about this part of the story. I played a Guardian and even when using the Greatsword I never felt like could take on much more than 2 levels above me especially if a crowd gathered around me.
Can't say that GW2 combat was particularly easy, but then again, I probably just suck.
Guess I should comment on the OP. More often than not, I quit playing MMO's when I get to the end game, I actually enjoy the leveling up process far more than the typical raid/gear grind end game most titles have.
Even now as I near level 60 in Aion (with 13 more levels to go) I don't find myself thinking about what I'm going to do once I get to end game, but rather whether I should level up a Chanter or Zerker as my 2nd character.
Thats great that you enjoy the leveling up process, and that is a sentiment that multiple people here have expressed. Personally I have found that phase of the game was never interesting enough to hold my attention, as much as I've wanted it to.
Edit: Thats why I wish it had more challenge/"fun challenge".
Originally posted by Axehilt While I definitely agree MMORPGs need a difficulty slider while leveling (so everyone can experience a challenge which is just right for them, and be rewarded accordingly), I don't know that I feel MMORPGs are completely devoid of fun before endgame. Especially the ones which have a strong grouping game early on (automated LFG systems, rewarding grouping slightly more than soloing.)
I disagree with you on both points here. A difficulty slider doesn't address challenge - combat in the leveling phase of MMORPGs is usually either 'you can win' or 'you cannot', and neither way is it challenging. I'm not suggesting that they lack in fun, I am suggesting that they lack in challenging fun.
Part of the problem with grouping in the leveling phase is that it further reduces the challenges. I loved fighting BAMs in Tera (Slayer/Greatsowrd class), and when a healer wanted to group with me I'd either do so for his benefit or not at all, because the challenge completely vanished as my mistakes didn't matter. When fighting monsters that are already trivial, all partying does is increase the speed at which you rip through them, turning the game into a thoughtless action adventure, something which the game was never suppsoed to be.
Name an MMO that has done well off of just boxes without additional funds from any other source.
I sent you a PM asking you to please help avoid the derailing of this thread, and you still seem quite inclined to do so. Please stop, and use a more relevant thread/PMs.
Originally posted by Aelious Because everyone wants to save the princess as soon as they can, to "beat" the game. It's completly missing the point of MMORPGs IMO but way more people have gotten into MMOs from consoles than from D&D and books. This has made the idea of the journey second priority.
It's a mathmatical equation that will never make sense to me. Years of funding, writing and world generation to have it trivialized in one month lol. Once a big name can attract people to a game longer than one month till endgame I think something unexpected will happen:
More players will actually stick around to play the game that took years to make rather than a huge drop.
Don't bring up WoW. If WoW was released right now it wouldn't do nearly as well.
Endgame. The phrase makes me so tiered. Why are we stuck with this sad model of progressing to max level, then progressing to max geared - Eq did it elegantly with alternative experience, but there are so many other ways to avoid getting trapped in the silly endgame model; we just need some devs to do it.
First and most obvious things that creates endgame are levels and max levels, further worsened when those levels pass too fast. Something that strangely never caught on are skill based systems instead of level based, but there are other ways, such as having to earn/quest for a skill/spell, reducing the importance of levels, making virtually limitless levels/skilllevels by introducing dimishing returns on xp/skills or whatever.
Then the way gear is designed to certain levels and needs to be replaced constantly, it undermines the need to go and do a long quest or something that requires efford. Again there are many ways to counter this, gear that can be passed on (not BoE/BoP), gear that needs to be trained with, gear that is level independents in various ways and so on.
What stand in the way of all these solutions is balancing, and balancing is to some degree linked to pvp and solo centric game play. It is hard to make a balanced advanced system, and it will loose some players to the lack of simplicity. But it is what we need some developer to do, or we will be stuck with the engame model that has been perfected to death over the last 10 years.
"It is not the goal that is imporant, it is the road to the goal"
But challenge and progression don't mix very well. The way that combat is usually implemented, a given fight could be trivial if you're too high level or impossible if you're too low level. How do you propose to get around that?
Levels are placebo anyway since you only go to the level 20 zone when you are level 20+/-2. So let's drop levels entirely (eg: rescale players to level 20) and just forcus on that +/-2 level buff. Players going into the zone can easy choose to take on a blessing (+2 effective level) or taboos (-2 to your effective level).
You don't need to invent an excuse why easy/hard versions of the world exist since the handicap is entirely on the player. The blessing buff may requrie a share of the loot to be tithed. The taboo debuff may provide additional rewards for success. (obviously the rewards can no longer be gear to increase your power since that would defeat the purpose of handicapping, but that's a seperate discussion we could get into)
I just seen your response about derailing and I will stop. I haven't seen your PM since I'm on my phone and the mobile version does not notify you.
I hope you have also sent PMs to others as well. What started the chain reaction came from responding to your OP and was completly on topic. I should know better than to fall into thier trap since it happens a lot with specific posters.
My apologies and I will stay on topic if I decide to continue to post in this thread.
No point playing a game that isn't fun/stimulating to level in. Chances are if they can't get that much right, endgame isn't going to be any better I find.
I disagree with you on both points here. A difficulty slider doesn't address challenge - combat in the leveling phase of MMORPGs is usually either 'you can win' or 'you cannot', and neither way is it challenging. I'm not suggesting that they lack in fun, I am suggesting that they lack in challenging fun.
Part of the problem with grouping in the leveling phase is that it further reduces the challenges. I loved fighting BAMs in Tera (Slayer/Greatsowrd class), and when a healer wanted to group with me I'd either do so for his benefit or not at all, because the challenge completely vanished as my mistakes didn't matter. When fighting monsters that are already trivial, all partying does is increase the speed at which you rip through them, turning the game into a thoughtless action adventure, something which the game was never suppsoed to be.
I guess you never played CoH then, because fights became extremely rewarding of tactical skill use when you chose the difficulty which was right at your skill threshold. Eventually you'd get better and increase the difficulty further.
I mean it obviously assumes good mob design in the first place, which might be coloring your opinion (since several major MMORPGs have terrible mob design.) You need each mob type to have some skill which lets you optimize against it -- so that when the difficulty is ramped up, successful optimization against that skill becomes the difference between success and failure. (Which was more or less how CoH worked, except you'd have packs of mobs who each had their 1 skill, and you'd have to cleverly deal with each enemy skill to beat the hardest difficulty.)
Implying groups always reduce challenge is just wrong. If you're on the higher end of the skill spectrum, grouping increases challenge. If you're the tank, grouping allows you a much more dynamic control over your difficulty (pull bigger packs) which has an appropriate increase in reward (kill more faster) which typically isn't the case solo. And finally, in most games raid (group) content is the most challenging in the game. But yeah if you only take the silly version of "doing identical content with more players is easier" then sure grouping is easier.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Character development is a nice feature, but it really doesn't serve well as a benchmark for progression. I can think of many fun RPGs, but not one of them do I remember needing to reach max level in order to succeed. Many of them found more challenge in underleveling, and most of them had level caps and character development far beyond the greatest challenges for the few completionists and those who like to wildly overpower their opponents.
That was a key feature i think they failed to bring from Diablo 2 to Diablo 3.
I think the lack of gameplay depth and reliance on prolonged character development as content is what drew MMOs into their original rut. With the original technology that was just improvising, but now we expect our games to meet more console standard play.
Now that the technology is there I think a return to form is in order. But in the OPs particular case, I don't see how the specific level of ones foe really matters. GW is a game where you challenge numbers of foes, not individual threats, it has been since the first. A lack of interest in low input battle and fighting singularly weak opponents is a separate concern. I'm fairly sure activities in GW2 are designed to scale with level, and PvP is standardized, and I don't even play the second installment. Just saying.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry, they'll be a mile away... and barefoot.
Is it just to sell paid expansions like Guild Wars 2 or WoW?
It doesn't make sense on a variety of levels. Can't get stronger no matter how many millions of centaurs I slay, but as soon as my credit card is charged, I can kill just a few more centaurs and get stronger again.
I'd prefer a fun game. Not a fun game until endgame, or a fun endgame. A game that is fun that you can't get to the end of.
That's just me, other people love digital treadmills.
What is the point of having everyone capped anyway.
Is there any other reason to it than balance in PvP?
Does MMORPG have to be a perfectly balanced e-sport?
In my world, no. I think that MMORPGs sacrifice way too much to provide space for competitive PvP. In fact, they sacrifice the RPG part for it which is why we are getting these arcade shallow MMOs.
They are not supposed to be FPS, they are supposed to be massive RPGs. What is the point of RPG where your character gets capped and does not progress anymore? At level CAP, these so called MMORPGs become similar to FPS in design. They are still nice to play now and then, but the immersion and seriousness are gone.
Either make max level hardly obtainable (years) or remove levels completely. This design does not make any sense.
"Endgame" has nothing to do in RPG.
Just my opinion.
There is a cap and it is obtainable, but your post reminds me of Phantasy Star Online, level cap is 200 Lineage was pretty high and mighty to cap at as well wasn't it?
Well, this is one reason I have stopped playing MMORPG's; the game is usually garbage until endgame. Every MMO I have ever played provides little to no challenge, mostly not even at the endgame. I find PvPing extremely fun, but usually PvPing doesn't happen till endgame and I have to PvE to get to the PvP. I stick to games like SMITE, LoL, DoTa 2, and FPS games because you don't have to grind to get to the fun, and even then... the endgame might get boring fast.
Comments
Yeah, they should. I would say 1-2 month .. a bit longer than Sp games, but not overly so.
Have an option to grind/farm if people like that (not unlike D3, you can "finish" the game in a month .. but can farm and continue to progress for months if you wish).
The problem with options is: if you can't do them well, you should not do them in the first place since it drags down the overall impression of the game. This was the reason for why GW2 did not create open PvP servers unlike many other games: they didn't think they had the time and resources to do Open PvP properly so they opted to not do it.
LOL
As it is the MMOs funded and designed for long term play are only getting used for that long. An MMO structured as such would have even less content/polish and would be horrible.
I get it, we're all players so we look at it from that point of view and not what's actually possible from a business standpoint. The reason to look deeper than screen value is you get an idea of what's coming. It's a bit more realistic.
This comes back to the point of the OP. If you make the whole world worth equally worth playing you've done it right. There are a lot of ways to do this but the outcome will be the same. People who value the journey will stay or at least stay longer. There are more "journey" minded people than you may think.
I would say it is much easier to make a good 1 month game, then try to make it into a good 1 year game.
But i do agree the option shouldn't be done, unless it is done well.
Eh... no you didn't.
Oderint, dum metuant.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It was because many of the mechanics in the game wouldn't have worked in an open world PvP environment therefore the changes would've been much more complicated than "a simple rule change". It is the similar problem as with "Skyrim MMO": Many of Skyrim's features only work in a single player environment so simply allowing multiplayer wouldn't work very well if at all.
If you start thinking about it feature by feature, you'll notice the amount of difficulties and conflicts the devs must resolve. "Just make it multiplayer" or "just allow PvP" sounds easy, but things are rarely that simple.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No they don't. Narious is right. There are plenty of games that do well without subsription fees or anything of the sort, and go only by box sales. The need for a "sustainable income" has been greatly exaggerated on these forums by many posters.
Fact of the matter is: Good games do well with box sales alone - everything else is just bonus. Box sales have funded many games and sequels in the past (on all platforms) and will continue to do so in the future.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Yeah, I was wondering about this part of the story. I played a Guardian and even when using the Greatsword I never felt like could take on much more than 2 levels above me especially if a crowd gathered around me.
Can't say that GW2 combat was particularly easy, but then again, I probably just suck.
Guess I should comment on the OP. More often than not, I quit playing MMO's when I get to the end game, I actually enjoy the leveling up process far more than the typical raid/gear grind end game most titles have.
Even now as I near level 60 in Aion (with 13 more levels to go) I don't find myself thinking about what I'm going to do once I get to end game, but rather whether I should level up a Chanter or Zerker as my 2nd character.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I tend to work hard to set my character at the top of my game, gearing as best I could. From about level 27 to 52 I played like that, averaged around a 80% crit chance (I sat at 100% a good deal of the time), and a near pure offensive build. When mobs hit me I felt it but it was often trivial to avoid being hit. To be absolutely fair while slacking I could fight mobs 6 levels above and trying the limit was 8 levels. That doesn't change the jist of what I was saying, however: The game held no challenge in that phase of the game.
Thats great that you enjoy the leveling up process, and that is a sentiment that multiple people here have expressed. Personally I have found that phase of the game was never interesting enough to hold my attention, as much as I've wanted it to.
Edit: Thats why I wish it had more challenge/"fun challenge".
I disagree with you on both points here. A difficulty slider doesn't address challenge - combat in the leveling phase of MMORPGs is usually either 'you can win' or 'you cannot', and neither way is it challenging. I'm not suggesting that they lack in fun, I am suggesting that they lack in challenging fun.
Part of the problem with grouping in the leveling phase is that it further reduces the challenges. I loved fighting BAMs in Tera (Slayer/Greatsowrd class), and when a healer wanted to group with me I'd either do so for his benefit or not at all, because the challenge completely vanished as my mistakes didn't matter. When fighting monsters that are already trivial, all partying does is increase the speed at which you rip through them, turning the game into a thoughtless action adventure, something which the game was never suppsoed to be.
Name an MMO that has done well off of just boxes without additional funds from any other source.
I sent you a PM asking you to please help avoid the derailing of this thread, and you still seem quite inclined to do so. Please stop, and use a more relevant thread/PMs.
Wow is what defined now in terms of mmo's.
Endgame. The phrase makes me so tiered. Why are we stuck with this sad model of progressing to max level, then progressing to max geared - Eq did it elegantly with alternative experience, but there are so many other ways to avoid getting trapped in the silly endgame model; we just need some devs to do it.
First and most obvious things that creates endgame are levels and max levels, further worsened when those levels pass too fast. Something that strangely never caught on are skill based systems instead of level based, but there are other ways, such as having to earn/quest for a skill/spell, reducing the importance of levels, making virtually limitless levels/skilllevels by introducing dimishing returns on xp/skills or whatever.
Then the way gear is designed to certain levels and needs to be replaced constantly, it undermines the need to go and do a long quest or something that requires efford. Again there are many ways to counter this, gear that can be passed on (not BoE/BoP), gear that needs to be trained with, gear that is level independents in various ways and so on.
What stand in the way of all these solutions is balancing, and balancing is to some degree linked to pvp and solo centric game play. It is hard to make a balanced advanced system, and it will loose some players to the lack of simplicity. But it is what we need some developer to do, or we will be stuck with the engame model that has been perfected to death over the last 10 years.
"It is not the goal that is imporant, it is the road to the goal"
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
GW.
Levels are placebo anyway since you only go to the level 20 zone when you are level 20+/-2. So let's drop levels entirely (eg: rescale players to level 20) and just forcus on that +/-2 level buff. Players going into the zone can easy choose to take on a blessing (+2 effective level) or taboos (-2 to your effective level).
You don't need to invent an excuse why easy/hard versions of the world exist since the handicap is entirely on the player. The blessing buff may requrie a share of the loot to be tithed. The taboo debuff may provide additional rewards for success. (obviously the rewards can no longer be gear to increase your power since that would defeat the purpose of handicapping, but that's a seperate discussion we could get into)
I just seen your response about derailing and I will stop. I haven't seen your PM since I'm on my phone and the mobile version does not notify you.
I hope you have also sent PMs to others as well. What started the chain reaction came from responding to your OP and was completly on topic. I should know better than to fall into thier trap since it happens a lot with specific posters.
My apologies and I will stay on topic if I decide to continue to post in this thread.
I guess you never played CoH then, because fights became extremely rewarding of tactical skill use when you chose the difficulty which was right at your skill threshold. Eventually you'd get better and increase the difficulty further.
I mean it obviously assumes good mob design in the first place, which might be coloring your opinion (since several major MMORPGs have terrible mob design.) You need each mob type to have some skill which lets you optimize against it -- so that when the difficulty is ramped up, successful optimization against that skill becomes the difference between success and failure. (Which was more or less how CoH worked, except you'd have packs of mobs who each had their 1 skill, and you'd have to cleverly deal with each enemy skill to beat the hardest difficulty.)
Implying groups always reduce challenge is just wrong. If you're on the higher end of the skill spectrum, grouping increases challenge. If you're the tank, grouping allows you a much more dynamic control over your difficulty (pull bigger packs) which has an appropriate increase in reward (kill more faster) which typically isn't the case solo. And finally, in most games raid (group) content is the most challenging in the game. But yeah if you only take the silly version of "doing identical content with more players is easier" then sure grouping is easier.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That was a key feature i think they failed to bring from Diablo 2 to Diablo 3.
I think the lack of gameplay depth and reliance on prolonged character development as content is what drew MMOs into their original rut. With the original technology that was just improvising, but now we expect our games to meet more console standard play.
Now that the technology is there I think a return to form is in order. But in the OPs particular case, I don't see how the specific level of ones foe really matters. GW is a game where you challenge numbers of foes, not individual threats, it has been since the first. A lack of interest in low input battle and fighting singularly weak opponents is a separate concern. I'm fairly sure activities in GW2 are designed to scale with level, and PvP is standardized, and I don't even play the second installment. Just saying.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, if they get angry, they'll be a mile away... and barefoot.
Why should endgame exist?
Is it just to sell paid expansions like Guild Wars 2 or WoW?
It doesn't make sense on a variety of levels. Can't get stronger no matter how many millions of centaurs I slay, but as soon as my credit card is charged, I can kill just a few more centaurs and get stronger again.
I'd prefer a fun game. Not a fun game until endgame, or a fun endgame. A game that is fun that you can't get to the end of.
That's just me, other people love digital treadmills.
There is a cap and it is obtainable, but your post reminds me of Phantasy Star Online, level cap is 200
Lineage was pretty high and mighty to cap at as well wasn't it?
Youtube
Twitter
Facebook