[RepairmanJack]

Considering how bad of shape "titan" seems to be in suggests theyre aware of the new trends and threats and have to adjust accordingly.

Where does this come from? Honest question. How does it seem Titan is in bad shape?

[Retro]

I really wish they just got rid of levels. Then the whole game would actually be seen as "endgame".

Fun fact: Early in development, Guild Wars 2 had no levels, but it quickly became apparent via testing that players need a familiar progression system, both to tell them where to go and provide motivation.

I agree with you though, vertical progression systems are really only good for gating content and giving you bars to fill. The sense of progression players crave could just as easily be skill based (i.e. Player gets better at the game = player can play in more dangerous places), but it doesn't provide a simple metric which players can track or compare progress.

Firstly, the number of people who pre-purchased the game far exceeded our expectations, and we had to temporarily disable pre-purchases. In the end that wasn’t enough, and even with 48 worlds we didn’t have enough server capacity to meet the huge demand.

Data, data, data, Mr. O'Brien, give me data. I cannot make hype kool-aid without numbers.

that'd be a lot less fun though... having a character grow/change as you level is the good times... yearning for that new skill or hp bump that would let you explore that cave guarded by that *thing*

I'd rather have them drop level/experience and have them hand out stat boosts the same way they hand out skill points; by getting out in the world and doing stuff. Rather than getting an arbitrary stat increase whenever you fill the experience gauge, have it work like Zelda's heart containers; HP (and other stats, in theory) would be increased by finding items or 'growth challenges' out in the world. Maybe even after beating especially nasty chapters in your personal story too.

[ParityBit]

Where can I download the beta client again? I have it on my old machine, but I want to install on my new machine.

[Hawkian]

Where can I download the beta client again? I have it on my old machine, but I want to install on my new machine.

Tis in the OP

[ParityBit]

Tis in the OP

hangs head in shame

Thank you kind sir

[RepairmanJack]

Fun fact: Early in development, Guild Wars 2 had no levels, but it quickly became apparent via testing that players need a familiar progression system, both to tell them where to go and provide motivation. I agree with you though, vertical progression systems are really only good for gating content and giving you bars to fill. The sense of progression players crave could just as easily be skill based (i.e. Player gets better at the game = player can play in more dangerous places), but it doesn't provide a simple metric which players can track or compare progress.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. I wish they went through with it. I can understand why they didn't though. Not only are people more familiar with the play style, but a lot of the stuff they do is sort of gated by XP and levels in a way. It would have been cool though to have a new form of xp, change the name and treat it as a currency you can spend on skills and other things. Maybe that's where Karma came from?

I think the game would seem more crazy and in depth if it wasn't level based. It would be nice to consider zones as hard or easy as apposed to level 15 or level 40. I think in this way it would open up the world a lot more for exploring, no more next area for a specific level, just go out and do whatever. Also would force people to learn new ways of playing because you know if you got your ass kicked by a mob it wasn't because you were too low a level.

[flyinpiranha]

I'm probably against the main sentiment in this thread but I love levels. I think there may be different ways to do it but in the end it's still just a level. Whether you get to level 12 to unlock Skill A or if you attack XX number of things to get Skill A it is still leveling.

I'm actually glad they left some aspects of an MMO in. I won't always want to log on and go WvW or do a dungeon, I sometimes just want to craft or mess around with auctions for a couple hours or gather or w/e ... I think that's what makes this game so special for me, is that I can do ALL of this and not pay monthly.

I'll probably spend more in the cash shop than I would on a monthly fee but it's for stuff I directly want/need and I have the choice of not paying and still enjoying the game.

I'm worried because it seems to address all the issues I've had with MMO's over the years and fixes them, it's almost too good to be true! I keep telling my gaming friends that this is the MMO that will break what MMO's should be, much like other games were "gamechangers".

[birdchili]

I'd rather have them drop level/experience and have them hand out stat boosts the same way they hand out skill points; by getting out in the world and doing stuff. Rather than getting an arbitrary stat increase whenever you fill the experience gauge, have it work like Zelda's heart containers; HP (and other stats, in theory) would be increased by finding items or 'growth challenges' out in the world. Maybe even after beating especially nasty chapters in your personal story too.

that's just levels by another name though. you're just changing what you get "xp" for. ddo (for example) only gives xp for completing quests (that's not strictly true, but close). if you wipe on the final boss, you don't get xp.

what's the advantage of just giving "hearts" and stat-boosts over levels? i don't understand why this is in any way a better system.

[BrettWeir]

I'm probably against the main sentiment in this thread but I love levels. I think there may be different ways to do it but in the end it's still just a level. Whether you get to level 12 to unlock Skill A or if you attack XX number of things to get Skill A it is still leveling. I'm actually glad they left some aspects of an MMO in. I won't always want to log on and go WvW or do a dungeon, I sometimes just want to craft or mess around with auctions for a couple hours or gather or w/e ... I think that's what makes this game so special for me, is that I can do ALL of this and not pay monthly. I'll probably spend more in the cash shop than I would on a monthly fee but it's for stuff I directly want/need and I have the choice of not paying and still enjoying the game. I'm worried because it seems to address all the issues I've had with MMO's over the years and fixes them, it's almost too good to be true! I keep telling my gaming friends that this is the MMO that will break what MMO's should be, much like other games were "gamechangers".

I'm with you on all of the above. Very happy that levels are left in.

[J-Rzez]

Where does this come from? Honest question. How does it seem Titan is in bad shape?

Well they got rid of a lot of the big guys in charge of it's development, err, they left, and I believe on the one podcast I was listening to on gamebreakers someone mentioned they heard not only with the people leaving, but that they had to "restructure" the game 3 times now, most likely this time to being F2P and "features/core design", so maybe something similar to what GW2 is doing, especially after seeing how SWTOR is bleeding subs.

[RepairmanJack]

Don't get me wrong I like leveling in games usually, but for GW2 and how it is it seems like it could go without.

They want the whole game to be viewed as endgame, they want to put an emphasis on exploring and just having fun with doing what you want to do. What better way to do that then by getting rid of what holds you back? Without levels you would be able to go and do anything in the game you want to as soon as you step into the world.

I would like it if they did some kind of currency with skills. Turn Karma into what is used to buy skills and traits. Make some zones mobs bigger and harder than other places in the game and reward exploration with bigger and more dynamic events. The game is basically like this after level 30 anyways. I just think the number is going to hold a lot of people back from considering the entire game as endgame.

Well they got rid of a lot of the big guys in charge of it's development, err, they left, and I believe on the one podcast I was listening to on gamebreakers someone mentioned they heard not only with the people leaving, but that they had to "restructure" the game 3 times now, most likely this time to being F2P and "features/core design", so maybe something similar to what GW2 is doing, especially after seeing how SWTOR is bleeding subs.

Hmmm, kind of interesting. Will be interesting to see if they show any of it at next years blizzcon. I honestly think f2p would be their best bet they are probably making a fortune off of all the pets and mounts they have sold. Though I can see blizzard fans raging even more than the GW2 fans did with what they put up for sale.

[Retro]

that's just levels by another name though. you're just changing what you get "xp" for. ddo (for example) only gives xp for completing quests (that's not strictly true, but close). if you wipe on the final boss, you don't get xp. what's the advantage of just giving "hearts" and stat-boosts over levels? i don't understand why this is in any way a better system.

Zelda's Pieces of Heart are physical objects located in a specific location, usually behind some kind of puzzle or challenge. You can't just head out into Hyrule and grind monsters to level up; you have to actually go somewhere and do something.

Likewise for the Skill Challenges in GW2: yes, you're getting skill points as you level, but you can also zip around the map and earn them too (again, usually behind some kind of fight, as with the Windmill King in Queensdale).

It's not just "XP under a different name" because it requires you to actually do something specific, not just kill an arbitrary number of enemies or complete quests. The only way to advance in this concept is to go out into the world and overcome challenges. They could be as easy as "kill this skritt" to as difficult as defeating a boss, navigating a maze (or jumping puzzle) or just being very observant and exploring.

[birdchili]

I just think the number is going to hold a lot of people back from considering the entire game as endgame.

it really won't. everyone but the most mentally inflexible will play the game and find ways to have fun if they can... some won't like the game and blame x for that, but whatever...

levels make it really easy to find content that's at a fun difficulty level for your mood. feeling brave? go do an area a few levels above your group. feeling lazy/drunk/etc... go run around in the crippled goblin alley newb area.

they're already (anecdotally) having a hard time scaling content to be appropriate for players. dropping levels would make this even harder.

[birdchili]

It's not just "XP under a different name" because it requires you to actually do something specific, not just kill an arbitrary number of enemies or complete quests. The only way to advance in this concept is to go out into the world and overcome challenges. They could be as easy as "kill this skritt" to as difficult as defeating a boss, navigating a maze (or jumping puzzle) or just being very observant and exploring.

"complete quests" is *exactly* the same as "overcome challenges". dropping xp for monster kills i think is a good idea in-general (or at least really minimizing it).

you're already getting pretty-much what you're talking about just by putting a nice sword at the end of a jumping puzzle, or similar. that's non-level leveling that's in-place in the game already.

they've eliminated levels for pvp, where it's not about exploration and character growth, but rather about a more purely build/player skill competition. pve/exploration gameplay i think would feel a loss from the removal of leveling.

[Retro]

levels make it really easy to find content that's at a fun difficulty level for your mood. feeling brave? go do an area a few levels above your group. feeling lazy/drunk/etc... go run around in the crippled goblin alley newb area.

Except that you de-level when you enter the newb area, so the difficulty level would remain about the same as it was if you had just started.

All levels do in GW2 is artificially gate content above your level. We already know that a skilled player can dodge, evade and use their abilities to take on enemies much stronger than they are. All levels do is create a stat inflation so that your attacks only cause 4 or 5 damage.

Without levels, the enemies can only be tougher because of their behavior and skills, their location within the environment (the lost art of enemy placement) or how many/what kind of enemies appear in groups (i.e. one mob vs. 2 and a healer).

Most of that is already in the game, mind you; levels just create artificial difficulty. In my mind, an ideal game is one where the only barrier to progression is if you're good enough as a player to take on the enemy. GW2 without levels feels like it would have that.

"complete quests" is *exactly* the same as "overcome challenges". dropping xp for monster kills i think is a good idea in-general (or at least really minimizing it).

Right. If you added a questing system to Zelda and handed out small upgrade items as a reward ("Here are some new gloves that will increase your attack power!"), then you'd be absolutely right.

However, Zelda doesn't use stats; you get more health as you explore/defeat bosses, but everything else is place solely on the player in terms of overcoming difficulty. You can't get stuck on a boss in Zelda and go grind for a few hours or track down better gear; you have to actually get better at the game. That would be my ideal, honestly, but if we absolutely HAD to have vertical stat growth, I'd be happy if it was solely item based (think Monster Hunter).

[gunbo13]

Don't care about levels because anybody can grind them up. Same thing with rank, except for ladders. The only true satisfaction is dropping into in-game and being a known destroyer. But that is such a damn time sink and is why I really tip-toe around MMOs these days. /southparkWoWepisode

[birdchili]

Most of that is already in the game, mind you; levels just create artificial difficulty. In my mind, an ideal game is one where the only barrier to progression is if you're good enough as a player to take on the enemy. GW2 without levels feels like it would have that.

it's not an rpg anymore then. they only *barely* make action games like that anymore (i think the only game i've played recently like this was Sin and Punishment on Wii (no powerups at-all... pure player skill with the tools you're given at the beginning of the game - very fun, of course)).

i'm sure that there are folk who want an mmo like that, but i'd be surprised if it was as compelling to as many people as a game with an in-game character growth system.

Right. If you added a questing system to Zelda and handed out small upgrade items as a reward ("Here are some new gloves that will increase your attack power!"), then you'd be absolutely right. However, Zelda doesn't use stats; you get more health as you explore/defeat bosses, but everything else is place solely on the player in terms of overcoming difficulty. You can't get stuck on a boss in Zelda and go grind for a few hours or track down better gear; you have to actually get better at the game. That would be my ideal, honestly, but if we absolutely HAD to have vertical stat growth, I'd be happy if it was solely item based (think Monster Hunter).

there really is no difference between "more hearts", "better equipment", and "higher level". you're really talking about reducing the power delta of leveling, not removing it completely.

if i'm stuck at a boss in zelda i can go get more heal potions, get more hearts, etc... it makes *less* of a difference, but it's still there.

[Retro]

Don't care about levels because anybody can grind them up. Same thing with rank, except for ladders. The only true satisfaction is dropping into in-game and being a known destroyer. But that is such a damn time sink and is why I really tip-toe around MMOs these days. /southparkWoWepisode

Exactly the point I was making; being "max level" is not a measure of skill, only time invested. Whether the player flew there by overcoming difficult encounters or they just stood in the level 1 area and grinded on boars for 3 months makes zero difference.

My ideal MMO would have 'levels' exist only as a rank, with your rank increasing based on merit ("Completed Dungeon X on hard mode" = 1 level, "defeated X players in a row without dying" = 1 level) So that a 'max level' player in the game means "Holy shit, that dude is awesome".

[gunbo13]

My ideal MMO would have 'levels' exist only as a rank, with your rank increasing based on merit ("Completed Dungeon X on hard mode" = 1 level, "defeated X players in a row without dying" = 1 level) So that a 'max level' player in the game means "Holy shit, that dude is awesome".

I would also add reward for contribution. Being part of winning teams in PvP or even break it down to stats in something like WvW. I don't believe in penalties but there could be a system for diminishing returns. Like if the game world recognizes rank farming abuse it doesn't cut you off; it just gradually lowers your gain over time. I'd also like titles that aren't shit. A good title IMO would be something like "Versatile Contributor" but more catchy. This would be a title rewarded to somebody contributing to areas of the game using an abundance of classes. You would receive the title based off of your contributing stats based on the above and not time grind.

Alas, most people don't like to actually work for rewards. Everyone wants a free lunch in gaming these days so mostly everything is all time sink based. Put in 1000 hours and collect that cred I guess.

[RepairmanJack]

Exactly the point I was making; being "max level" is not a measure of skill, only time invested. Whether the player flew there by overcoming difficult encounters or they just stood in the level 1 area and grinded on boars for 3 months makes zero difference. My ideal MMO would have 'levels' exist only as a rank, with your rank increasing based on merit ("Completed Dungeon X on hard mode" = 1 level, "defeated X players in a row without dying" = 1 level) So that a 'max level' player in the game means "Holy shit, that dude is awesome".

Actually that would be kind of sweet, but I could see players using cheesy tactics or the objectives getting out of hand and unobtainable. It'd basically be like achievements dictate your level.

[Retro]

it's not an rpg anymore then. they only *barely* make action games like that anymore

An MMO need not be an MMORPG, you know. GW2 without levels flirts with just that notion.

there really is no difference between "more hearts", "better equipment", and "higher level". you're really talking about reducing the power delta of leveling, not removing it completely.

I'm talking about shifting the way in which it is earned and reducing it's impact on the game. If a player is good enough, he wouldn't need to track down extra hearts, for example (in fact, it could be a thing of pride not to).

Ideally, I'd have an MMO that is stat-less, with players starting off as strong as they can get statistically, but getting more skills / options as they advance. Different tools vs. bigger hammers.

if i'm stuck at a boss in zelda i can go get more heal potions, get more hearts, etc... it makes *less* of a difference, but it's still there.

Except that you are limited on how many potions you can carry, and those hearts aren't always just lying around; you need to go find them. You can't go out and magically become stronger though.

Since we're discussing progression in Zelda, however, it is worth mentioning that those games (with the exception of the first) have a different artificial progression mechanic, based on tools. I don't mean for it to sound like Zelda is the perfect solution to MMOs, even it has barriers to content as well.

[flyinpiranha]

it's not an rpg anymore then. they only *barely* make action games like that anymore (i think the only game i've played recently like this was Sin and Punishment on Wii (no powerups at-all... pure player skill with the tools you're given at the beginning of the game - very fun, of course)). i'm sure that there are folk who want an mmo like that, but i'd be surprised if it was as compelling to as many people as a game with an in-game character growth system. there really is no difference between "more hearts", "better equipment", and "higher level". you're really talking about reducing the power delta of leveling, not removing it completely. if i'm stuck at a boss in zelda i can go get more heal potions, get more hearts, etc... it makes *less* of a difference, but it's still there.

I agree, it seems those are different ways to "level" to be honest. Kind of like "dynamic quests" are just group quests, they just give you more options which is awesome.

I like the leveling mechanic. I like being able to grind something out if I need to. I do like the puzzle aspect of action games but it's probably why I've stopped playing Zelda games is because that mechanic just doesn't do it for me. Having to find a boomerang to get past a door is about the same as having to be a certain level, you still run around and do stuff until you're able to do more stuff. It's really up to the game designer to hide these implementations well so you don't realize you're "leveling". I always thought Elder Scrolls games and Crackdown did it well, with leveling as you use something. It's probably why I love the skill unlock system in GW2.

The good thing is that most people here seem to agree with what they do offer, whether some like an aspect or dislike an aspect it's never a "deal killer".

I like big numbers!

Alas, most people don't like to actually work for rewards. Everyone wants a free lunch in gaming these days so mostly everything is all time sink based. Put in 1000 hours and collect that cred I guess.

I don't think this is a bad thing. There will always be things unattainable by the grinders but I'd rather have a large mix of diverse types of players than just surrounded by hardcore players. I played WoW pretty hardcore, I enjoyed it but I never want to play like that again and probably enjoyed it more once I stopped taking it so seriously.

Plus, I don't think MMO's in general are a good place for competition, but that's a personal opinion that I know is different from many.

[Retro]

I would also add reward for contribution.

Yeah, I was just throwing those out there as examples, but there would definitely be a method for tracking player progress as a group. You'd earn points for consistently being part of a winning team (and actually contributing to it, obviously), assisting in kills and such. Number of times you've revived players. Time between setting up siege equipment vs. it actually activating... stuff like that is possible.

Alas, most people don't like to actually work for rewards. Everyone wants a free lunch in gaming these days so mostly everything is all time sink based. Put in 1000 hours and collect that cred I guess.

We already know GW2 is going to turn off a lot of players who want to just coast through their dailies and only show up on raid nights. Might as well go all the way.

Actually that would be kind of sweet, but I could see players using cheesy tactics or the objectives getting out of hand and unobtainable. It'd basically be like achievements dictate your level.

Well, achievements as they exist in most games are for silly things, or things that happen by chance. Most of WoW's achivements and most XBL ones are for goofy shit. I'm talking about actual metrics that track your success. Obviously if you're building a ranking system around them you'd want to ensure they can't be cheesed too easily.

Rank would only exist for players to look at each other and compare their progress. The idea is that an awesome player stands out as an awesome player by virtue of the things they have done.

[Retro]

Edit: Apologies for the double post, meant to edit this reply into the above post.

Having to find a boomerang to get past a door is about the same as having to be a certain level, you still run around and do stuff until you're able to do more stuff.

That's why Best Zelda = First Zelda. Ironically, that's the one fewest "Zelda fans" have played and even fewer actually like.

The good thing is that most people here seem to agree with what they do offer, whether some like an aspect or dislike an aspect it's never a "deal killer".

GW2's combat is leaps and bounds beyond the standard MMO combat. It is not my perfect ideal, but my perfect ideal would probably turn off a lot of players (in the same way that not everyone likes Dark Souls).

Right. I should say that I'm not knocking GW2, because it's actually taking steps towards my ideal and I am happy it at least does that. It's not perfect, but as you say, it's not a 'deal breaker' and it's the best I'm gonna get for a while, methinks. And my perfect MMO would never sell =p

[inky]

I think with combat they could've gone much further. Hate to bring Tera up, but it's true that targeting (and even chained active skills) makes a lot of difference beyond dodging and casting the way it happens in GW2. At this point it is moot to dwell on this tho.

In other [good] news I read that they were considering giving the Guardian more ranged options. ANET said they didn't like how the scepter became the de facto ranged weapon (staff's 'range' is a joke) so they were probably looking to redo some skills. We'll see.

[RepairmanJack]

My big thing I want is reward for exploring. I was a little let down by every thing being drawn out on the map in GW2. Sure there is more to exploring and I knew it would be like that to an extent but I was still a little let down with how far it went with literally everything being on the map.

Also in regards to that are the higher level zones restricted by level? I know they are level specific, but can you go to any zone? With scaling mostly stopping around level 30 does that mean at level 30 I could go to a level 60 zone?

Edit:I'm tired of hearing about Tera combat. :lol I seriously don't see the draw, it was worse than wow to me.

[Retro]

In other [good] news I read that they were considering giving the Guardian more ranged options. ANET said they didn't like how the scepter became the de facto ranged weapon (staff's 'range' is a joke) so they were probably looking to redo some skills. We'll see.

They need to take a crack at their elite skills too, the tomes are somewhat underwhelming, especially compared to stuff like the Warrior's Juggernaut and Battle Standard.

[Complistic]

My big thing I want is reward for exploring. I was a little let down by every thing being drawn out on the map in GW2. Sure there is more to exploring and I knew it would be like that to an extent but I was still a little let down with how far it went with literally everything being on the map.

If you don't want everything drawn on the map don't talk to the scouts?

[Mr. Luchador]

I really want WvWvW to work well. My and my friends are far too excited about the potential it has, and being able to hold a fort, or whatever as a group. We tried our best to do this in World of Warcraft, and it worked for a time, but there was never any real reward.

[RepairmanJack]

If you don't want everything drawn on the map don't talk to the scouts?

I don't think this keeps everything off of the map. Maybe to start the area, but after the first one or two I never talked to any of them and still had everything on the map after a little while. I ended up not looking at the map too much. Just explored and went with it, that's why at the end of the beta my Ele was only level 13 and I ended up just going to the second human zone just to see it before the end of the beta.

Edit: and with that last sentence I think I answered my last question on my own. :lol At least that second zone didn't seem level restricted.

[Haly]

Since content is scaled there are no reasons to have levels except as a kind of indicator to help people track their progress. Which is not insignificant, because as a "F2P" game GW2 will need all the players it can get to sustain a healthy income. Unique to MMOs is the desire to compare yourself with others, and levels are a big part of that. Even without levels you'd still need some kind of metric to gauge overall character progression, like Skill Points in EVE, although utility skills don't mean nearly as much since it's pretty easy to get all of them.

[birdchili]

content is only scaled if you go to an area *below* your level.

you still have the ability to enter areas above your level without any ability modifications, so you can "scale" difficulty anywhere between "at-level" and "arbitrarily difficult" (unless there are other gating mechanics at-work (or you're already at cap)).

i still suspect that they'll make low-level (pc de-leveled) areas easier in difficulty than at-level areas. they're doing so much dynamic scaling with number of participating pcs that i'm certain they're going to have trouble with difficulty balance (bwe players already hinted at this and they're "working on it" - hard problem though).

[BrettWeir]

I really want WvWvW to work well. My and my friends are far too excited about the potential it has, and being able to hold a fort, or whatever as a group. We tried our best to do this in World of Warcraft, and it worked for a time, but there was never any real reward.

It's one aspect I hope they work on. Drop rates need to match PvE drop rates, same with coin. Defending rewards also need adjusted or it will turn into a clockwork of keep/tower takes since there is no incentive to defend.

What I would love to see, is a title/rank system and I'm beating a dead horse here. I'm glad they don't have player names, but seeing a rank title above someone's head gives an indication of how much experience they have put into WvW.

I'll use DAoC (Hibernia) rank titles for an example:
Rank 1: Savant
Rank 2: Cosantoir
Rank 3: Brehon
Rank 4: Grove Protector
Rank 5: Raven Ardent
Rank 6: Silver Hand
Rank 7: Thunderer
Rank 8: Gilded Spear
Rank 9: Tiarna
Rank 10: Emerald Rider
Rank 11: Barun
Rank 12: Ard Tiarna

It was intimidating to see someone with a high rank title because you knew that they have invested a lot of time getting those titles.

[Mr. Luchador]

Yeah, I can understand why they don't have names in WvWvW to stop potential abuse, but it does take away a certain 'fear recognition' from it. Personally, I'd love for people to know me and my guild for being pains in the arse if we've got a fort, for example.

[RepairmanJack]

content is only scaled if you go to an area *below* your level. you still have the ability to enter areas above your level without any ability modifications, so you can "scale" difficulty anywhere between "at-level" and "arbitrarily difficult" (unless there are other gating mechanics at-work (or you're already at cap)). i still suspect that they'll make low-level (pc de-leveled) areas easier in difficulty than at-level areas. they're doing so much dynamic scaling with number of participating pcs that i'm certain they're going to have trouble with difficulty balance (bwe players already hinted at this and they're "working on it" - hard problem though).

If the character progression and armor progression pretty much stops for the most part at level 30 I would see it as everything past level 30 is open game. No matter the level. It may be a little harder but I would assume with decent skill youd be able to take on a mob in the 80 zone at 30. At least that's how it comes off to me... I could be completely wrong.

[nataku]

Yeah, I can understand why they don't have names in WvWvW to stop potential abuse, but it does take away a certain 'fear recognition' from it. Personally, I'd love for people to know me and my guild for being pains in the arse if we've got a fort, for example.

You can see guild tags. I'm not sure if you have any way to see actual guild names, though. I never looked.

[Mr. Luchador]

Yeah, I noticed the guild tags, but I'd like some identity in WvWvW.

[Black-Box]

can a mod change the title since the beta isn't live?

[Retro]

From Facebook:

Monday's stress test draws ever nearer. We want to thank you in advance for helping us test Guild Wars 2. How can you best help with the test? Well, our first Beta Weekend Event gave us a mountain of great feedback about gameplay, and our developers are hard at work on that aspect. Rather than game play feedback, the goal for the stress test is to gather technical feedback. We want you to rush the servers and crowd into Tyria, and you’ll probably come across connectivity and performance problems. Be patient as you help our team find those bugs. Again, thanks in advance for helping us chase those out and crush them for good! To give you even more to look forward to, this charr guardian is waiting to give you a "friendly welcome." Good luck! ~RB2

Yeah, I noticed the guild tags, but I'd like some identity in WvWvW.

Could be as easy as a ranking system with symbols. Symbols appear over the player's guild tag. Allow it to be turned on/off/hotkey activated.

[Thanasis Deitus]

We already know GW2 is going to turn off a lot of players who want to just coast through their dailies and only show up on raid nights. Might as well go all the way.

This whole discussion on the merit of levels is really interesting, and both sides have some interesting points. Certainly I see the merit of getting rid of the leveling system, but from what I played of the beta, I like the system they have implemented. Sure it could use some tweaks, but the basics were just fine by me.

But regardless of my position on leveling, I have to vehemently disagree with the quoted statement. ArenaNet have created this game to appeal to people who have been dissatisfied with the current state of MMOs. As such, players from all walks, be they hardcore PvPers, roleplayers, or yes, even casuals, have flocked to Guild Wars 2 to see how they are making changes to the genre. Certainly the game won't appeal to everyone, especially the hardcore WoW players given the way the have downplayed the importance of leveling, gear, and endgame. But the point is players are coming to Guild Wars 2 looking for all kinds of different things, and I don't think we should really adopt a "No Causuals Allowed" attitude. I'm positive that's not what you meant, but it just rubbed me the wrong way when I read that.

There are people out there that just want to log in whenever they can and just explore and quest, and feel rewarded for time investment. ArenaNet has designed a game where they can do this, without completely dumbing down the experience for the rest of the players, and I think that's awesome. Even better is that they way they have implemented the leveling system, the game will not become a grind to win experience, and PvP will always be skill over time invested. Obviously there are sacrifices made to do this, and one of those things is the gating off of content. But I guess I'm okay with that as long as the grind isn't too severe (and by all appearances it won't be).

[Retro]

But the point is players are coming to Guild Wars 2 looking for all kinds of different things, and I don't think we should really adopt a "No Causuals Allowed" attitude. I'm positive that's not what you meant, but it just rubbed me the wrong way when I read that.

It's not what I meant. I was referring to people who seek the path of least resistance and just want to play something mindless that makes them feel good without putting any effort into it (i.e. reach max level without having to think or try to hard).

I actually consider myself a casual player. But that doesn't mean I just want to log in and be spoon-fed content.

Obviously there are sacrifices made to do this, and one of those things is the gating off of content. But I guess I'm okay with that as long as the grind isn't too severe (and by all appearances it won't be).

I don't see how gating content is a requirement to any of the things you listed. If content is behind a skill gate, player just have to get better at the game to advance rather than have a number floating over their head tell them it's okay. I don't think it's too much to ask that people playing a game actually get better at playing said game to experience content. There's a difference between "Casual Players" and "Lazy players".

[HappyPuppy]

+1 For no levels or set the cap back to 20. Felt limited in what I could do only cause of levels, want to explore nope, want to do personal story line nope, come back when you are X level.

[Thanasis Deitus]

It's not what I meant. I was referring to people who seek the path of least resistance and just want to play something mindless that makes them feel good without putting any effort into it (i.e. reach max level without having to think or try to hard). I actually consider myself a casual player. But that doesn't mean I just want to log in and be spoon-fed content. I don't see how gating content is a requirement to any of the things you listed. If content is behind a skill gate, player just have to get better at the game to advance rather than have a number floating over their head tell them it's okay. I don't think it's too much to ask that people playing a game actually get better at playing said game to experience content. There's a difference between "Casual Players" and "Lazy players".

Yeah, I get what you are saying. Maybe I've just been playing too much League of Legends, and I'm just hypersensitive to skill-based elitism (man, that community is really vile). Not that I was accusing you of that, but it just seemed the conversation in this thread was steering towards a direction of "bad players shouldn't be able to experience the same content as me". I don't know I guess there is a fine line between a game that rewards players for being good and one that punishes players who aren't quite as good.

I certainly have no problem with skill based games, as Devil May Cry and Demon's/Dark Souls are some of my favorite games, but I just don't want this game to be a hardcore "get better noob" experience. At least for the base level of just playing the game anyway; obviously the dungeons should be challenging, and the PVP should be a true test of skill. I'm sure we are on the same page on that.

Anyway, I see what you are saying about skill-gating, and that could certainly work. But I guess I still like the idea of using experience as a reward. I like that no matter what I did in the beta, whether it was exploring new areas, crafting, doing quests, killing enemies, or participating in events, the game was giving me experience and making me feel that nothing I did was a waste of time. Maybe that's just me being a slave to the leveling system constantly patting me on the back, but whatever, I liked it.

[Haly]

Did Anet ever give a reason for not sticking to the 20 levels thing?

I thought that was actually one of the best parts of GW1. That character progression was tied to the skills you got more than anything else.

[Trey]

Did Anet ever give a reason for not sticking to the 20 levels thing? I thought that was actually one of the best parts of GW2. That character progression was tied to the skills you got more than anything else.

No. Skill points --> attributes. Skills were merely the implements and focuses used to channel your attribute build, and they were pretty cheap to acquire unless you went stupid and bought all the useless ones, too.

[Complistic]

Did Anet ever give a reason for not sticking to the 20 levels thing? I thought that was actually one of the best parts of GW2. That character progression was tied to the skills you got more than anything else.

people like seeing that little number go up.

[Haly]

Wait, what?

No. Skill points --> attributes. Skills were merely the implements and focuses used to channel your attribute build, and they were pretty cheap to acquire unless you went stupid and bought all the useless ones, too.

Your attributes were more or less maxed at 20 wasn't it?

[Jira]

The reason they put levels in is because people gave them shit for only 20 levels in GW1 and people like seeing big numbers/seeing "progression". It must have been a large enough number of people based on feedback for them to change from no levels to a level based system.

[Jira]

http://www.killtenrats.com/2012/05/1...the-long-game/

[Hawkian]

http://www.killtenrats.com/2012/05/1...the-long-game/

New events will just pop into existence without any warning.

Oh hell yes.