Thoughts about level increase with expansions

So in the latest live stream there was a question about level increase with new expansions, and Steven said that that would be the case. Personally I do not like the idea of increase the level of your character to enable new content and new gear, since all previous content will no longer be relevant for most players. World of Warcraft is a good example where level increase did not work well for the game, and ESO is a game where not increasing the level with each expansion can work.
Ashes of creation is a totally different game so the increase in level may not effect the game in the same way as I'd did for WoW, but I'm still not a huge fan of it. What do you guys think?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jamation

Wandering Mist wrote: »

....What I don't agree with is that Time alone should be the measure of that. Player skill and efficient use of time should always be more important than raw time spent playing

While I don't think the idea of being "better" simply because a person has played longer is a good model, I do agree that time invested should mean roughly the same thing in terms of experience gain.

What I mean by that is I've played far too many games where I'll start at the "vanilla" stage and after a few expansions the game will then add in a catch-up mechanic where players get a ridiculous EXP boost + ridiculous OP gear for their level in order to catch them up to the new content. While I understand the premise that the devs want players to experience the new content that they've probably been seeing in ads and all over the internet, I can't agree with how it's implemented. When you hand new players a "FastPass" it takes away not only from their own experience as new players, but degrades the work and effort that older players put in to get to where they are.

But also in regards to the OG question, I usually prefer games that have level increases. It doesn't need to be anything ridiculous, but it could even be something as small as 5 levels. It just makes me feel like I have something to progress towards rather than another gear/story grind.

Caeryl

rikardp98 wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

You dont like the lv cap/gear expansion content BECAUSE you played wow and eso.

The mmorpg types you have experienced are limited.

Here are my thoughts:
In ESO the gear appearance and gear strength are not connected.
Imagine if all you had was CP160 with tier 1 Breton looks and the strength of Ashen Grip and the new expansion brought CP170 looking like Covenant or tier 4 Breton with the power of warriors Fury.
But that's not the case is it? Because in stupid ESO a CP160 guy and a CP810 can both wear Warriors Fury.
The game also revolves around ez story mode and repetitive dungeon runs.
You can craft a new crafted set in 15 minutes and you are rdy to queue for cyro or bg.
A new dungeon gear might take you a day to collect.
The gear sets WAY TOO MANY and appearance has nothing to do with them.
That is why I wouldnt like, like you also dont, changing CP160 to CP170.

In other mmorpgs the content built around ez story questing map that you finish in 4h and new dungeons to run until you drop the gear you need.
In other mmorpgs a new expansion means a map addition with new open hunting grounds for you to spend MONTHS on, unlocking new class skills with the new lv cap, and new gear that takes A LOT OF TIME to craft, with an appearance that conveys more prestige and power than the previous expansions highest gear.
Having reached those new goals means you had months of fun open world gameplay and now you are stronger than those who havent done so yet.

And then you have games like AA and BDO that you are stuck with one only playstyle or even character, since your gear took you 4 years to enchant to competitive lv. And that is something I would never spend time on again.

Btw, why would you want AoC to follow the ESO gear model? Wouldnt that make AoC ESO2?

The CP points in ESO has nothing to do with gear, only until CP 160. After that you only have CP points for the secondary progression system where you can use your points to specialist in different directions.

The thing I like about ESOs gear model is that the gear focus mainly on the set bonuses and not the pure stats.

It must’ve been a while since you’ve played because CP points have everything to do with gear power.

A level 10 character in level 10 gear has almost all of the stat density of a level 50 cp160 character in level 50 cp160 gear. But a level 25 character in level 15 gear will be much weaker than that level 10 character was because of how battle scaling in that game works.

If the gear cap was increased in ESO, all existing gear would become weaker. I don’t mean weaker comparative to the new cap, it would have lower stats than it had the day before the gear level increase.

No one should be looking to ESO for much of anything besides some world design. It’s a half-functional game with no immersion in its easy-mode solo questing, unplayable PvP that’s practically a meme of its own, and a development team that’s constantly putting out ethically questionable money grubbing tactics.

The only thing that needs to be done to remove the sting of no longer having the highest level gear, is letting players upgrade their gear. Why this is so rarely done baffles me. Of course players wouldn’t be bashing their head against an RNG wall and highly questionable loot rules (which for the record, individual looting is so much better) but that’d absolutely be a positive for the players. And it means they’ve gotta make sure content is more interesting that just it’s loot pool.

rikardp98

Caeryl wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

You dont like the lv cap/gear expansion content BECAUSE you played wow and eso.

The mmorpg types you have experienced are limited.

Here are my thoughts:
In ESO the gear appearance and gear strength are not connected.
Imagine if all you had was CP160 with tier 1 Breton looks and the strength of Ashen Grip and the new expansion brought CP170 looking like Covenant or tier 4 Breton with the power of warriors Fury.
But that's not the case is it? Because in stupid ESO a CP160 guy and a CP810 can both wear Warriors Fury.
The game also revolves around ez story mode and repetitive dungeon runs.
You can craft a new crafted set in 15 minutes and you are rdy to queue for cyro or bg.
A new dungeon gear might take you a day to collect.
The gear sets WAY TOO MANY and appearance has nothing to do with them.
That is why I wouldnt like, like you also dont, changing CP160 to CP170.

In other mmorpgs the content built around ez story questing map that you finish in 4h and new dungeons to run until you drop the gear you need.
In other mmorpgs a new expansion means a map addition with new open hunting grounds for you to spend MONTHS on, unlocking new class skills with the new lv cap, and new gear that takes A LOT OF TIME to craft, with an appearance that conveys more prestige and power than the previous expansions highest gear.
Having reached those new goals means you had months of fun open world gameplay and now you are stronger than those who havent done so yet.

And then you have games like AA and BDO that you are stuck with one only playstyle or even character, since your gear took you 4 years to enchant to competitive lv. And that is something I would never spend time on again.

Btw, why would you want AoC to follow the ESO gear model? Wouldnt that make AoC ESO2?

The CP points in ESO has nothing to do with gear, only until CP 160. After that you only have CP points for the secondary progression system where you can use your points to specialist in different directions.

The thing I like about ESOs gear model is that the gear focus mainly on the set bonuses and not the pure stats.

It must’ve been a while since you’ve played because CP points have everything to do with gear power.

A level 10 character in level 10 gear has almost all of the stat density of a level 50 cp160 character in level 50 cp160 gear. But a level 25 character in level 15 gear will be much weaker than that level 10 character was because of how battle scaling in that game works.

If the gear cap was increased in ESO, all existing gear would become weaker. I don’t mean weaker comparative to the new cap, it would have lower stats than it had the day before the gear level increase.

No one should be looking to ESO for much of anything besides some world design. It’s a half-functional game with no immersion in its easy-mode solo questing, unplayable PvP that’s practically a meme of its own, and a development team that’s constantly putting out ethically questionable money grubbing tactics.

The only thing that needs to be done to remove the sting of no longer having the highest level gear, is letting players upgrade their gear. Why this is so rarely done baffles me. Of course players wouldn’t be bashing their head against an RNG wall and highly questionable loot rules (which for the record, individual looting is so much better) but that’d absolutely be a positive for the players. And it means they’ve gotta make sure content is more interesting that just it’s loot pool.

Yeah it's been a while since I played ESO. I also do not like the scaling in the game.
But what I meant was that CP over 160 dose not effect the gear, only the secondary progression system (if I remember correctly).
And as I said, one of the only things that I like about ESO is their way for creating interesting gear with unique set bonuses.

I no longer play ESO for a reason, but that specific thing about gear is good in my opinion.

unknownsystemerror

Damn, this kind of blew up while I was sleeping. Developers are always going to lower the bar to entry for new players. Sure, you may have put in your 1000 hours or more, and be the best thing for the community since sugar frosting, but new blood keeps the money flowing in. People coming into a new mmo already have a daunting learning curve and if they feel they are going to spend months to make the game "fun" by whatever metric they personally use, they will go somewhere else. Whether Intrepid keeps you banging on that slot machine with a vertical gear progression system or a horizontal incremental 1000 level creep doesn't matter. If people don't enjoy it, they will leave. No subs, no money. No money, no game.

Plateau

Noaani

leonerdo wrote: »

I want catch-up mechanics to lessen the GRIND, not remove entire chunks of content or gameplay.

But the core game design of Ashes removes entire chunks of content.

I personally think a game is better off if it increases the level cap every 2 or 3 expansions/major DLC's. This makes the game more interesting in many ways, and provides players that are in the game for a long time with a break from the type of gameplay that always exists when you are at the level cap. Leveling to the cap and playing there is great, but occasionally having to level up again in a competitive manner is it's own fun - as long as it doesn't happen too often.

I do see issues with this in Ashes due to the way the games content is set up, but they aren't the kind of issues that wouldn't have a viable work around - they are simply things that mean Ashes would need to tackle additional levels in a different way to other games.

What I would find odd is if levels 1 - 50 (or whatever) take place in the original game world with the node system and it's system for content delivery, and when they increase the level cap they add a new area for levels 51 - 60 (or whatever) and we all spend our time there instead.

That would be odd.

In terms of the change in time needed to hit the level cap, I don't see it as an issue.

If it takes players 200 hours to hit the level cap if they push it from day 1, it should take a player around 150 hours to hit it when the guides are up and the market is full of easy gear for them to upgrade to.

So really, you have 150 hours as a base to get to the level cap.

If the level cap is raised from 50 to 60 (or what ever), it should still take a new playe 150 hours to get to the level cap. Not to get to the old level cap - to get to the level cap.

If in the increase of levels the developers work in that it should take 50 hours to get from the old level cap to the new level cap, that needs to be factored in to how long it would take a new player to get to the new level cap.

Under this, it would mean it should now take 100 hours to get to the old level cap, and then that same 50 ours to get from that old level cap to the new level cap, meaning a total of 150 hours, which was the same as the original time it took to get to the old level cap once guides and upgrades were available.

Someone that played at release and took 200 hours to hit the old level cap may look at someone that only needs to spend 100 hours to do that now and this that it isn't fair, but really, that player is just whining.

If the level cap is raised a second time, the amount of time it takes to get to that newest level cap should still be 150 hours. So if that newest level cap took another 50 hours to level to from the old new level cap (I'm trying to be confusing on purpose here), then that means it should take new players 100 hours to get to that old new level cap, followed by another 50 hours to get to the newest level cap.

This may see it only take 75 hours to get to the games original level cap, when people playing at the time took 200 hours.

However, in both situations, the base time it should have needed, assuming upgrades on the market and guides, is level 1 to the level cap in 150 hours.

And really, the time it takes to get from the start of the game to the level cap is the one thing that needs to remain constant - even if that level cap shifts.

Caeryl

noaani wrote: »

leonerdo wrote: »

I want catch-up mechanics to lessen the GRIND, not remove entire chunks of content or gameplay.

Someone that played at release and took 200 hours to hit the old level cap may look at someone that only needs to spend 100 hours to do that now and this that it isn't fair, but really, that player is just whining.

Referring to this specifically, if it takes half the time to hit level50 a year after release as it did to hit level50 a few months after release, that should be entirely because of the community presence. It should not be because of new player exp boosts, nerfing content to be easier than it was, hyperinflating exp gains, or reducing exp requirements to reach level50.

There’s a natural easement for players entering the game. More resources, established areas, player guides, etc. the easement shouldn’t be coming from the devs artificially trivializing early levels.

Plateau

George_Black

Guys, if I have spend months of excellent open world gameplay on 20-30 zones with 20-30 lv gear, and then 40-50 zones with 40-50 gear, I look back at those zones and they are full of good memories.

When the 50-60 expansion comes along with new zones and gear, that doesnt mean that now the old content is obsolete and useless.

It is there for the new players to enjoy. If I am in a guild and new blood comes along I might create a new char to help their group, or simply stand guard with my high lv while they xp safe. Again, I had played in those zones and enjoyed them for months.

Look at games like ESO for example. You literaly finish a new map in hours. 0 memories.
Going back there to the older zones, because that's where werewolf hide gear drops, without a challenge takes a day of rng. Is that your successful definition of retaining players interest in older zones? And is this a good reason to oppose new lv cap and gear with a yearly expansion?

That expansion would bring months of gameplay with true rewards in the form of new gear and abilities within the new lv increase.

Unlike ESO, in which a CP increase would mean that your New Moon Acolyte cp160 golden out is sliiiiiiiiiightly worse than if you crafted within 15minutes and goldened a New Moon Acolyte cp170, and 10 more cp points to spend as opposed to brand new class abilities with new function and animations in games with true expansions.

Anyway... if a group of humans was used during their whole lives to seeing shadows on the walls of a cave, they will either be terrified or would ridicule the open world outside if they were ever told about it.
-Plato

Google for detailed account.

Noaani

Caeryl wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

leonerdo wrote: »

I want catch-up mechanics to lessen the GRIND, not remove entire chunks of content or gameplay.

Someone that played at release and took 200 hours to hit the old level cap may look at someone that only needs to spend 100 hours to do that now and this that it isn't fair, but really, that player is just whining.

Referring to this specifically, if it takes half the time to hit level50 a year after release as it did to hit level50 a few months after release, that should be entirely because of the community presence. It should not be because of new player exp boosts, nerfing content to be easier than it was, hyperinflating exp gains, or reducing exp requirements to reach level50.

There’s a natural easement for players entering the game. More resources, established areas, player guides, etc. the easement shouldn’t be coming from the devs artificially trivializing early levels.

I agree that specific boosts to experience are essentially a kick in the face to existing players - unless existing players get some sort of equal boost. To me, there will always be better things you can do to get more people in to a game than offer experience boosts - as it is very rare that the time it takes to level up to the cap is the main barrier to people starting a game a year or more after launch.

I'm on the fence about making content easier though, or at least content for leveling.

As you would have gathered from my previous post, I am fully on board with it taking the same amount of time to get from level 1 to the level cap, regardless of where that level cap is. This means that getting from level 1 to level 50 needs to take more time to do when the level cap is 50 as it does when the level cap is 60.

To me, there are three viable ways to achieve this. The first is to decrease the actual amount of experience needed per level by a set percentage. The second is to increase the amount of experience players gain from all content. The third is to make all leveling content easier, thus allowing players to push through it faster.

I can see an arguement for each of the three. Even though I have one method that I would prefer (the first method), I wouldn't begrudge a developer for picking a different method.

I would, however, begrudge a developer if they did all three, and even more so if they also added bonus experience on top of that.

That shits not cool.

Noaani

leonerdo wrote: »

Optional rambling

To me, rambling is never optional - rambles are what keep these forums moderately interesting.

I totally agree with you on equipment though.

The only gear that should be replaced on the leveling parth from 51 to 60 is gear that was obtained during the leveling path from 41 - 50.

I can see the occasional solo or group item obtained at the level cap being replaced before hitting the new level cap, but this should be the exception rather than the rule. The only time someone with top end group or raid gear should even consider swapping in an item obtained in the leveling process is if that new content added in a new stat or mechanic, and that new piece of gear provides the player with that stat or mechanic.

I am even all on board with there being the occasional item that remains irreplaceable across several expansions - as long as it is done because the item in question is amazingly useful rather than simply because the developers couldn't/didn't add in a better item.

rikardp98

George Black wrote: »

Guys, if I have spend months of excellent open world gameplay on 20-30 zones with 20-30 lv gear, and then 40-50 zones with 40-50 gear, I look back at those zones and they are full of good memories.

When the 50-60 expansion comes along with new zones and gear, that doesnt mean that now the old content is obsolete and useless.

It is there for the new players to enjoy. If I am in a guild and new blood comes along I might create a new char to help their group, or simply stand guard with my high lv while they xp safe. Again, I had played in those zones and enjoyed them for months.

Look at games like ESO for example. You literaly finish a new map in hours. 0 memories.
Going back there to the older zones, because that's where werewolf hide gear drops, without a challenge takes a day of rng. Is that your successful definition of retaining players interest in older zones? And is this a good reason to oppose new lv cap and gear with a yearly expansion?

That expansion would bring months of gameplay with true rewards in the form of new gear and abilities within the new lv increase.

Unlike ESO, in which a CP increase would mean that your New Moon Acolyte cp160 golden out is sliiiiiiiiiightly worse than if you crafted within 15minutes and goldened a New Moon Acolyte cp170, and 10 more cp points to spend as opposed to brand new class abilities with new function and animations in games with true expansions.

Anyway... if a group of humans was used during their whole lives to seeing shadows on the walls of a cave, they will either be terrified or would ridicule the open world outside if they were ever told about it.
-Plato

Google for detailed account.

I think you missed my point, I sad that ESO is an example where not increasing the lvl cap can work. And yes, I know ESO isn't a perfect game, I mean I no longer play it for that reason. But I must say that ESO has a pretty good leveling experience with all the quests and interesting storylines, and eso has a good gear design with the interesting set bonuses.

In my opinion increasing the lvl cap with each new expansion like WoW did, you will most likely make the older "end-game" irrelevant. Just look and retail wow, if you ask players how many relevant raids there is they will say one, maybe two, and the game has been out for 15 years with countless raids and zones that are currently dead.

George_Black

My friend, again you look at/mention two mmorpgs that are a very far cry from the mmorpg type that AoC wants to revive.
I imagine that many things you see here are a foreign concept.

Dont worry, lv cap increase and new high gear entries per expansion will not be as mindless as it would be for example, eso changing CP160 to CP170 and maxCP points to 850 from 810.
I like esos gear system model F O R eso.
But AoC is going to be completelly different.

You cant judge just the expansion additions alone, without understanding the whole game experience.

Merle

Guys, don't forget that the node system in AoC probably (hopefully) changes quite a few things with regard to the whole discussion.

If a new expansion comes out, old areas won't be deserted because the veteran players move to the new areas - they will still be playing in the same world as the newly beginning players, maybe just go to a different dungeon.

But newly beginning players will still contribute to, say, leveling of the nodes since they also contribute exp to them. So maybe new players won't have a big feeling of "missing out" (of new content, whatever) compared to the veteran players.

Depending on how node sieges work, maybe new / low level players can even contribute meaningfully to them, again dampening their possible feeling of needing to catch up with the veterans.

unknownsystemerror

I still think people have yet to change how they think about how Ashes will work. There is no "old content" and "new zones." A few individuals seems to still be stuck in a themepark mentality when it comes to how content will be experienced. Content comes and goes as nodes level and are sometimes reset to 0 due to sieges. The "OMG I will NEVER run that raid again because the dragon was only level 50, but now the level cap is 60!" is not a thing. All they have to do is adjust the encounter spawn to make it relevant again. Before you are going to see a map increase with new nodes, they would have to increase the concurrent server population caps for nodes to support the exp needed to maintain what was already there.(not an easy thing on already full servers to say add 30% more active people) If their calculations are based off of a max 10k concurrent population doing X amount of activity to stave off node atrophy, and then you spread those clusters out even more, the whole system starts to break down. Then you would have huge swathes of basically empty map at node level 0. Which is pointless.

rikardp98

George Black wrote: »

My friend, again you look at/mention two mmorpgs that are a very far cry from the mmorpg type that AoC wants to revive.
I imagine that many things you see here are a foreign concept.

Dont worry, lv cap increase and new high gear entries per expansion will not be as mindless as it would be for example, eso changing CP160 to CP170 and maxCP points to 850 from 810.
I like esos gear system model F O R eso.
But AoC is going to be completelly different.

You cant judge just the expansion additions alone, without understanding the whole game experience.

It's very true that AoC will be a different mmorpg compared to eso and wow. And I'm not sure how the lvl Increase will affect the game since the game will probably be more "alive" in a sense. It was just a concern that I had and was wondering what other people thought about it.

As you sad, we can't judge the game before understanding the whole game experience, so maybe it's batter to ask this question after they have fully released the game.

But also remember that AoC will still have raids, dungeons and world bosses that will probably drop specific gear just like previous mentioned games.

Plateau

Hartwell

Level cap increases are a great way to invalidate progress without making players feel like their progress has been invalidated. Oh look, a number increased. Moving on up, guy who needs to replace all of his gear now.

Ventharien

George Black wrote: »

Guys, if I have spend months of excellent open world gameplay on 20-30 zones with 20-30 lv gear, and then 40-50 zones with 40-50 gear, I look back at those zones and they are full of good memories.

When the 50-60 expansion comes along with new zones and gear, that doesnt mean that now the old content is obsolete and useless.

It is there for the new players to enjoy. If I am in a guild and new blood comes along I might create a new char to help their group, or simply stand guard with my high lv while they xp safe. Again, I had played in those zones and enjoyed them for months.

Unfortunately that is exactly what it means. If new content is released, at a base level it has a shine of novelty to it, not to mention if it has actual statistical benefit. Like all the new gear being better. Old players will want to stay strong, and new players will want to get to the big game as soon as possible. That old content, though level appropriate for them, is now just another obstacle in the way of them getting to the content that most everyone else is currently enjoying.

What makes MMO's unique in gaming is that First M, the living world you can run around in and see a group in the distance and know they're players off to do something you could go do as well, or even go converse with them. Content systems that carelessly introduce new, overpowered areas have tended to create dead worlds in modern MMO's.

Noaani

[quote="unknownsystemerror;c-222200"If their calculations are based off of a max 10k concurrent population doing X amount of activity to stave off node atrophy, and then you spread those clusters out even more, the whole system starts to break down. Then you would have huge swathes of basically empty map at node level 0. Which is pointless.[/quote]
I seem to remember a comment at one point about how they would be able to alter the level of atrophy on lower population servers in order to reduce the need to merge servers.

If this is the case, then they could just as easily alter the level of atrophy upon adding new nodes, meaning a servers population could go from being able to mostly maintain 5 metropolis level nodes to being able to maintain 6 metropolis level nodes with just a few numbers changed in a database (after careful consideration and a whole lot of math).

The "OMG I will NEVER run that raid again because the dragon was only level 50, but now the level cap is 60!" is not a thing. All they have to do is adjust the encounter spawn to make it relevant again.

This would work just fine for event based raids - anything where community participation is expected or desired.

However, for raid content designed on the notion of an organized guild making plans to take on a specific encounter, this would see raid guilds leave the game. I also don't imagine people at the group level would be happy with all the content they have spent the last few years taking on at level 50 is now the content they are to take on at level 60.

A new level cap is a time to add new mechanics to the game, as you are (or should be) in a position where you are adding both new abilities to players, and a full range of new content - and both of these are needed to successfully add new mechanics to a game.

Simply increasing the level of existing content is the develers way of telling players they aren't getting any new mechanics. While an argument could be made for adding these new mechanics to existing encounters, the rebalancing of the encounter that then needs to happen to take these new mechanics in to consideration is actually about the same amount of consideration as creating a new encounter.

While it is absolutely possible in a technical sense to do this, it is more a case of what players will and will not accept. In that regard, this would work just fine for the occasional encounter that has a story to back this up (such as EQ2's Avatar encounters - literally gods personified), for the more generic run-of-the-mill dragon raid boss, this kind of thing won't keep players happy.

If you add a new level cap, you need to add new content, not just buff old content.

This is where Ashes will have issues with a level cap increase. Not insurmountable issues, but issues that need to be worked though.

If the game isn't getting new land added to it, that means there needs to be some space created in the existing node structure for content at the new level cap. Some of this could be by removing content at the old level cap, as content in this range is now only needed for leveling purposes. However, this means that there is less space for content at the new level cap than there was at the old level cap.

They could increase the ZoI of metropolis nodes (or add a new tier of node), which would open up more area within the ZoI of these nodes in which to add content. This would seem to me to be the option with the best outcome. If the node/ZoI/content system is designed with expansion like this in mind, it may even prove to be the most efficient method for adding in content at a new level range - and if done in conjunction with lowering the amount of content at the previous level cap, the ZoI would only need to be increased every 2 or 3 level cap increases.

The other way I can see content for a new level range being added without adding new land mass is to keep content in that new level range underground. It is perfectly concievable to me that they could just open up a large area of underrealm that has content for the new level range in it. This could be done in a way where the content is affected by the node system, but the level of the content remains the same. THe problem there is that it would obviously mean all players would focus in that area.

As an alternative to that last method, they could simply add extensions to all dungeons in the game, opening up space for max level content there. I don't like this idea much at all either, but it would be possible.

Child Item