We both know, little bitter forum creature, that the only reason why you squeal here so aggressively is the fact that the suggestion doesn't fit your personal preferences and you are simply trying to kill the thread by your meaningless spam, the same way you do it in other threads.
using data from an inappropriate source that is unable to be verified,
Ah, here we go again. It's pretty obvious that the average person won't go through all 12 pages of the discussion and see that you are actually lying. @NiKr confirmed that the data I provided comes from a trustworthy source L2on. When you started whining that info about private servers is irrelevant, @Korela confirmed that it might be even more relevant than data from the official servers that I also provided.
L2on tracks several servers outside of the official ones as well, but it was mostly used just for the official ones and was a highly trusted source of info.
Guys, are you really rejecting the data from L2 private servers? This is just ridiculous. They are much better than the official ones.
You bury the actual discussion in tons of your spam because you know very well that the average person is not going to read the whole thread, the first and the last page at best. So you keep spitting your lies and garbage hoping that it will work (it won't, as long as I'm here) - the text above proves that you just lied and you did it knowingly and intentionally.
Never said such thing. I said that it's the data we could take into account because it's relevant, I never said "it's only data that matters" - misrepresentation and twisting of my words used as a manipulation.
Ignoring? It's a poll that compiles subjective opinions and personal preferences of people, who on average haven't even spent 60 seconds thinking about the topic seriously and analyzed it from the perspective of game's longetivity (meaning no offence to people, but that's what I'd expect from Reddit poll). In fact, if you ignore the middle option. you'd see that "slower" option got more votes than "faster" and I'm not even talking about the most upvoted comments - all of which are IN FAVOR of slower leveling.
It was right back here (before I even looked in to where your charts came from) that you proved to not be worth the time to have a real discussion or debate with
Says who? You? You think I care about a random whining forum clown and liar?
You weren't interested in truth, just in your opinion and in being right - and you would twist and contort things to that end.
It's funny how you attempt to accuse me in something that doesn't apply to me, but perfectly applies to you. I would remind the readers that in other topic I support a suggestion that goes against my personal benefits, but is good for overall game's health. The thread you actively try to kill as well.
And that comes from whom? You...? I'm surprised you're not ashamed to even open your mouth
The course of events was the following (not precisely, but in general):
> I described the issue.
> You stated that it lacks explanation.
> I provided an explanation.
> You stated this is explanation is irrelevant and doesn't make sense.
> I provided the objective statistics over a representative period of time.
> You attempted to claim tha this statistics is irrelevant.
> I explained why it is relevant
> You said that data from private servers can't be trusted
> I provided data from official servers
> You intentionally ignored it twice
> KEKW
> Information got confirmed by other people
> You ignored it again because it doesn't fit your narrative
> I emphasized that you intentionally ignored it again
> You haven't acknowledged or admitted that despite it being public and obvious
> I called you out like a dozen of times already on using logical fallacies and manipulations in your comments
> You never acknowledged or admitted that, even though it's obvious. Damn, you haven't even said something like "Okay, I should have probably phrased it better"
> I call you out again
> You keep switching topics, moving the goalposts and say literally anything for the sole purpose of just arguing and/or increasing your post count on the forum, idk. Makes no sense either way.
As long as I'm here, you won't be able to do that without being called out until the moment you actually start conducting a discussion in a proper manner, like a grown-up adult.
Oh, my friend, obviously it has never ever happened in history - when majority of people voted for something that ended up being a wrong/bad/counterproductive/terrible. I'm not using this as an actual argument, I mention this so that you just keep it in mind.
Now, statistics never lie, but only in case if you properly interpret it. What I mean by that is... let's say, metaphorically, that 20% of car accidents happen because of drunk driving. I means that the remaining 80% of accidents happen when the driver is sober. Does it mean that sober driving is riskier than drunk driving? Obviously not.
What you need to realize, while analyzing the results of that poll:
1. The average Reddit user would have less knowledge about the game compared to the average forum user. Also, as I said previously, I highly doubt that the average voter thought about this topic seriously for at least a minute prior to clicking one of the options.
2. If you are really looking for truth, then it's crucial to take so-called "status quo bias" when it comes to a representative sampling of poll participants. For reference:
A status quo bias or default bias is a cognitive bias which results from a preference for the maintenance of one's existing state of affairs. The current baseline (or status quo) is taken as a reference point, and any change from that baseline is perceived as a loss or gain. Corresponding to different alternatives, this current baseline or default option is perceived and evaluated by individuals as a positive.
Status quo bias is a cognitive bias based in emotion. Change naturally invites risk, and people may be uncomfortable putting themselves in situations where the outcome is uncertain. This tendency to keep things the way they are can have a considerable effect on how people behave in virtually any aspect of life.
And as I said, if you ignore the middle ground, more people actually voted for "slower" leveling compared to "faster" option
3. You look at the poll, yet you completely ignore the comments. Here are the top comments under that poll. If you want to be objective, shouldn't you take them into account?
So, is there anything in comment that you'd like to disagree with?
P.S. Once again, I didn't make this suggestion because it fits my personal preference. I support suggestions that I consider to be good for that game, whether they align with my personal preferences (like in this case) or not (like in case with HP bars suggestion)
We now have a better idea about the things players will be barred from when not being level 50 - mainly the high end areas of dungeons, castles and freeholds. We've been over this before, this might be fine.
Mate, it is not really accurate though.
1. High end dungeons and areas - well, there are mobs and dungeons for different level brackets. It's like making an argument that you can't wear the best gear on level 1 - there is different gear for different levels.
2. Castles - how are you barred from them? Castle sieges do not have a level requirement
3. Freeholds - as I mentioned several times in this thread and referred to Steven's words: Owning a freehold is one thing, but having access to it - is a different thing. And there is no level requirement when it comes to accessing to a freehold.
If you think that reaching level 50 faster would allow more casual players to participate in PvP/wars/sieges on equal terms, it's not true either. Just as I said, if it takes "X" time for hardcore player to reach level 50 and "3X" time for casual player to do that; then by the time casual player does that, a hardcore player has already spent "2X" time on gear, enchantments, gaining more experience etc. The difference will be mitigated a bit, but the advantage of a hardcore player will still be there and it will still be significant.
A great example of that (that I provided in this thread as well): New World Wars. Reaching max level was easy even for casual players. Did they actually have a chance to participate in wars? Absolutely not, because only hardcore players could, because of their experience.
If you can't comprehend and/or admit that hardcore players will still beat a casual player at any type of content, no matter how long leveling takes, then this debate is pointless. I mentioned an example about New World wars - idk if you played it, but there will be plenty of people who could confirm that.
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/newworldgame/comments/1aw3nny/hows_war_these_days_in_new_world_asking_as_an_old/ - Is Wars still available to only a few? Are war alts still a commonplace thing? - War scene is pretty dead. Every server in every region is filled with alts. Either you’re in the club and fight the same players over and over or you aren’t and get farmed over and over. - Just because it’s the same players participating doesn’t mean it’s “dead.”I think what you mean to say is it’s still “gatekept” or “exclusive”. For those players in the elite war companies, they’re running influence races and decking wars daily.
We now have a better idea about the things players will be barred from when not being level 50 - mainly the high end areas of dungeons, castles and freeholds. We've been over this before, this might be fine.
Mate, it is not really accurate though.
1. High end dungeons and areas - well, there are mobs and dungeons for different level brackets. It's like making an argument that you can't wear the best gear on level 1 - there is different gear for different levels.
2. Castles - how are you barred from them? Castle sieges do not have a level requirement
3. Freeholds - as I mentioned several times in this thread and referred to Steven's words: Owning a freehold is one thing, but having access to it - is a different thing. And there is no level requirement when it comes to accessing to a freehold.
If you think that reaching level 50 faster would allow more casual players to participate in PvP/wars/sieges on equal terms, it's not true either. Just as I said, if it takes "X" time for hardcore player to reach level 50 and "3X" time for casual player to do that; then by the time casual player does that, a hardcore player has already spent "2X" time on gear, enchantments, gaining more experience etc. The difference will be mitigated a bit, but the advantage of a hardcore player will still be there and it will still be significant.
A great example of that (that I provided in this thread as well): New World Wars. Reaching max level was easy even for casual players. Did they actually have a chance to participate in wars? Absolutely not, because only hardcore players could, because of their experience.
If you can't comprehend and/or admit that hardcore players will still beat a casual player at any type of content, no matter how long leveling takes, then this debate is pointless. I mentioned an example about New World wars - idk if you played it, but there will be plenty of people who could confirm that.
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/newworldgame/comments/1aw3nny/hows_war_these_days_in_new_world_asking_as_an_old/ - Is Wars still available to only a few? Are war alts still a commonplace thing? - War scene is pretty dead. Every server in every region is filled with alts. Either you’re in the club and fight the same players over and over or you aren’t and get farmed over and over. - Just because it’s the same players participating doesn’t mean it’s “dead.”I think what you mean to say is it’s still “gatekept” or “exclusive”. For those players in the elite war companies, they’re running influence races and decking wars daily.
How can one guy so throughly miss the point and ignore what was written? I give up XD
So I mention that in the video that I attached to the first post and then suddenly I magically forget and don't know about it anymore?
Flawless logic, my friend
I'd expect such comment literally from anyone else, but not from you.
I'm not watching your clickbait. And I don't care about anything you might have said there.
I'm going by what you repeatedly state here, in the Forums.
As you continue to QQ despite your clickbait video.
If you truly understood the way progression is designed to work in Ashes, there would be no need to make that video or this topic - other than to troll for attention.
I'm not watching your clickbait. And I don't care about anything you might have said there.
I'm not asking you to watch it, I'm stating a fact. One more precious view from you - that's an honor I can do without.
And I suppose, it doesn't really make sense for me and you to continue this conversation, as apparently it leads to nowhere. I have nothing against you, I simply disagree with your arguments and the way you handle the discussion. I assume you think the same.
We now have a better idea about the things players will be barred from when not being level 50 - mainly the high end areas of dungeons, castles and freeholds. We've been over this before, this might be fine.
Mate, it is not really accurate though.
1. High end dungeons and areas - well, there are mobs and dungeons for different level brackets. It's like making an argument that you can't wear the best gear on level 1 - there is different gear for different levels.
2. Castles - how are you barred from them? Castle sieges do not have a level requirement
3. Freeholds - as I mentioned several times in this thread and referred to Steven's words: Owning a freehold is one thing, but having access to it - is a different thing. And there is no level requirement when it comes to accessing to a freehold.
If you think that reaching level 50 faster would allow more casual players to participate in PvP/wars/sieges on equal terms, it's not true either. Just as I said, if it takes "X" time for hardcore player to reach level 50 and "3X" time for casual player to do that; then by the time casual player does that, a hardcore player has already spent "2X" time on gear, enchantments, gaining more experience etc. The difference will be mitigated a bit, but the advantage of a hardcore player will still be there and it will still be significant.
A great example of that (that I provided in this thread as well): New World Wars. Reaching max level was easy even for casual players. Did they actually have a chance to participate in wars? Absolutely not, because only hardcore players could, because of their experience.
If you can't comprehend and/or admit that hardcore players will still beat a casual player at any type of content, no matter how long leveling takes, then this debate is pointless. I mentioned an example about New World wars - idk if you played it, but there will be plenty of people who could confirm that.
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/newworldgame/comments/1aw3nny/hows_war_these_days_in_new_world_asking_as_an_old/ - Is Wars still available to only a few? Are war alts still a commonplace thing? - War scene is pretty dead. Every server in every region is filled with alts. Either you’re in the club and fight the same players over and over or you aren’t and get farmed over and over. - Just because it’s the same players participating doesn’t mean it’s “dead.”I think what you mean to say is it’s still “gatekept” or “exclusive”. For those players in the elite war companies, they’re running influence races and decking wars daily.
How can one guy so throughly miss the point and ignore what was written? I give up XD
You can't make someone understand your point if their point relies no thrn not understanding your point.
Fact is, he isn't interested in any kind of truth, he is only interested in pushing his agenda.
Since his original point was thst Ashes needs to have a longer leveling time or people will leave, all tha needed to be done (and was done) was pointing to the top 10 most popular MMORPG's of all time, all of which have a slower leveling speed than Ashes will have, and he should have realized that his notion was completely wrong.
He didn't, because that is the agenda he is trying to push for what ever reason. That is why he had to resort to private servers, from Russia, of a dead game in order to find data that even remotely looked like it supported his agenda.
Since his original point was thst Ashes needs to have a longer leveling time or people will leave, all tha needed to be done (and was done) was pointing to the top 10 most popular MMORPG's of all time, all of which have a slower leveling speed than Ashes will have, and he should have realized that his notion was completely wrong.
Yeah, I'm still waiting for your "rElEvAnT sTaTiStIcS" that you were supposed to provide. But oh... wait... you didn't? You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Pathetic
That is why he had to resort to private servers, from Russia, of a dead game in order to find data that even remotely looked like it supported his agenda.
Intentional misrepresentation = manipulation = you have no better arguments = owned
> It's not Russia, it's the whole CIS region. If you didn't have geography at school, at least google it
> You intentionally miss the fact that I provided the data for both official and private servers and multiple people confirmed that the data came from a credible source. This is a "lie by omission", Mr Clown
Let me educate you again
Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions.
The course of events was the following (not precisely, but in general):
> I described the issue.
> You stated that it lacks explanation.
> I provided an explanation.
> You stated this is explanation is irrelevant and doesn't make sense.
> I provided the objective statistics over a representative period of time.
> You attempted to claim tha this statistics is irrelevant.
> I explained why it is relevant
> You said that data from private servers can't be trusted
> I provided data from official servers
> You intentionally ignored it twice
> KEKW
> Information got confirmed by other people
> You ignored it again because it doesn't fit your narrative
> I emphasized that you intentionally ignored it again
> You haven't acknowledged or admitted that despite it being public and obvious
> I called you out like a dozen of times already on using logical fallacies and manipulations in your comments
> You never acknowledged or admitted that, even though it's obvious. Damn, you haven't even said something like "Okay, I should have probably phrased it better"
> I call you out again
> You keep switching topics, moving the goalposts and say literally anything for the sole purpose of just arguing and/or increasing your post count on the forum, idk. Makes no sense either way.
As long as I'm here, you won't be able to do that without being called out until the moment you actually start conducting a discussion in a proper manner, like a grown-up adult.
Yeah, I'm still waiting for your "rElEvAnT sTaTiStIcS" that you were supposed to provide. But oh... wait... you didn't? You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Pathetic
I don't feel a need to provide those statistics, when you would have to be intentionally avoiding them to not see them.
The most popular MMORPG's of all time all have fairly fast leveling in comparison to what Ashes has proposed - you don't need anything more than that.
It's not Russia, it's the whole CIS region.
Yeah, and most of the West just refers to the area as Russia. Russia, the various *stans, Belarus, and some people include Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and until a few years ago, Ukraine (sorry NiKr) are all just referred to as the general area. This is similar to how America is often a colloquial term for the USA, even though technically the term America should referr to two entire continents.
Colloquial language isn't always 100% accurate - deal with it.
I don't feel a need tonprovide those statistics, when you would have to be intentionally avoiding them to not see them.
The most popular MMORPG's of all time all have fairly fast leveling in comparison to what Ashes has proposed - you don't need anything more than that.
You know this is not true. I said that previously and I will emphasize it once again: if there is gonna be relevant and trustworthy data that proves me wrong - I'd have no problem with accepting it and agreeing that you or anyone else is right.
As long as you presumably don't have any data and can't provide it, let's at least do some sort of simple analysis. I don't know what's the end result gonna be (as I've never played these games), but no matter what it will be eventually - we will be able to at least consider it an indirect factor that is somewhat relevant. Why indirect? Because those games are different and there might be other variables affecting it's popularity.
So you mentioned 10 most popular MMORPGs of all time. It doesn't necessarily have to be 10 - feel free to add games that are around "top 10" as well. This is what quick google search showed me:
1. WoW > (Never played, but heard that now it's very fast. The game is old though, wondering how long did it take to reach the level cap on release)
2. Star Wars Galaxies > ???
3. Runescape > ???
4. Guild Wars 2 > ???
5. Final Fantasy XIV> ???
6. New World > (Very fast, a matter of a couple of days)
7. EVE Online > ???
8. The Elder Scrolls Online > ???
9. The Lord of the Rings Online > ???
10. Ragnarok > ???
11. Black Desert Online > ???
12. Lineage 2 > (very long on official servers, probably applies to every single patch)
13. Lost Ark > ???
14. Dark Age of Camelot > ???
15. Ultima Online > ???
16. Archeage > ???
So, let's see how long did it take to reach max level in those games, shall we? I only know a few of those, so you or anyone else could help to fill it out.
To simplify this again not going through a novel of quotes I am going to just talk reality.
So you want to have Player RETENTION
If you make a levelling system based on what the elite hardcore gamer can do you will lose a good portion of your regular gamers and will eliminate ALL casual gamers period. I wouldn't call that retention I would call that hemorrhaging.
You also missed the biggest point people don't want what you are offering that little informal poll shows that and it is the players who get to choose whether you like it or not!
To simplify this again not going through a novel of quotes I am going to just talk reality.
So you want to have Player RETENTION
If you make a levelling system based on what the elite hardcore gamer can do you will lose a good portion of your regular gamers and will eliminate ALL casual gamers period. I wouldn't call that retention I would call that hemorrhaging.
You also missed the biggest point people don't want what you are offering that little informal poll shows that and it is the players who get to choose whether you like it or not!
1. Nothing is based on "elite hardcore gamer" lol. Don't twist my words
2. Your opinion is based either on belief that "the fun begins on max level" or another belief that "casual players would be able to compete with hardcore players, if leveling was fast" - both of which are wrong.
3. No need to reply emotionally
4. Speaking of the poll, again, I asked you to point out if there is anything you disagree with - you didn't. Instead, you fall to confirmation bias and as a result, ignore the objective factors that do not align with your personal preferences and only point out to something that presumably support your opinion.
Oh, my friend, obviously it has never ever happened in history - when majority of people voted for something that ended up being a wrong/bad/counterproductive/terrible. I'm not using this as an actual argument, I mention this so that you just keep it in mind.
Now, statistics never lie, but only in case if you properly interpret it. What I mean by that is... let's say, metaphorically, that 20% of car accidents happen because of drunk driving. I means that the remaining 80% of accidents happen when the driver is sober. Does it mean that sober driving is riskier than drunk driving? Obviously not.
What you need to realize, while analyzing the results of that poll:
1. The average Reddit user would have less knowledge about the game compared to the average forum user. Also, as I said previously, I highly doubt that the average voter thought about this topic seriously for at least a minute prior to clicking one of the options.
2. If you are really looking for truth, then it's crucial to take so-called "status quo bias" when it comes to a representative sampling of poll participants. For reference:
A status quo bias or default bias is a cognitive bias which results from a preference for the maintenance of one's existing state of affairs. The current baseline (or status quo) is taken as a reference point, and any change from that baseline is perceived as a loss or gain. Corresponding to different alternatives, this current baseline or default option is perceived and evaluated by individuals as a positive.
Status quo bias is a cognitive bias based in emotion. Change naturally invites risk, and people may be uncomfortable putting themselves in situations where the outcome is uncertain. This tendency to keep things the way they are can have a considerable effect on how people behave in virtually any aspect of life.
And as I said, if you ignore the middle ground, more people actually voted for "slower" leveling compared to "faster" option
3. You look at the poll, yet you completely ignore the comments. Here are the top comments under that poll. If you want to be objective, shouldn't you take them into account?
So, is there anything in comment that you'd like to disagree with?
P.S. Once again, I didn't make this suggestion because it fits my personal preference. I support suggestions that I consider to be good for that game, whether they align with my personal preferences (like in this case) or not (like in case with HP bars suggestion)
I doubt this will help anything but eh, why not...
Yet another proof that having all our active abilities by lvl25 would be real nice. And a proof that the cross-lvl interactions that I keep bringing up would be a nice addition as well
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Most of those quotes complain about Endgame.
Ashes doesn't have an Endgame due to Nodes and due to the numerous other progression paths available after reaching max Level Adventurer.
So... those quotes are worthless and really have nothing to do with Ashes.
(
Also... if we're supposed to be evaluating "data" - we really need to include how many hours each person being referenced considers to be "fast" and how many hours each person considers to be "slow".)
The people who want to dabble in other progression paths for 500 hours before hitting max Adventurer Level will probably be able to do so.
And there will always be Node progression available, regardless of Adventurer Level.
I find it somewhat interesting that the game used as the main example of too long to level in that article had a stated estimate of 250 hours to the level cap, and the piece was written from the perspective that this was universally (or at least generally)considered to be far too long.
It isn't the only takeaway from it, but I did find that interesting.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
And I suppose, it doesn't really make sense for me and you to continue this conversation, as apparently it leads to nowhere. I have nothing against you, I simply disagree with your arguments and the way you handle the discussion. I assume you think the same.
I disagree and don't have a problem continuing to point out the flaws in the arguments you present as you continue to QQ about a concern Ashes already addresses in several ways in its design.
Oh, my friend, obviously it has never ever happened in history - when majority of people voted for something that ended up being a wrong/bad/counterproductive/terrible. I'm not using this as an actual argument, I mention this so that you just keep it in mind.
Now, statistics never lie, but only in case if you properly interpret it.]
Pretty much the gist of that quote is "Flanker will think for everyone because everyone is too stupid to think for themselves". A very arrogant and ignorant reply!
You twist and manipulate to manufacture your story I am no longer interested in it.
As for your data, Flanker, in the vain hope that it makes any difference...
Almost every MMO you listed has a leveling rate for a new player with a basic understanding or guide somewhere between 'Hi I joined last week do you wanna run an endgame dungeon' and 'If I skip this bit of gearing up I can be done in 20 hours'.
The more popular ones even moreso. Why? Because the entire concept of how this works and why we level up at all has nothing to do with most gameplay and having it be slower just makes everything harder on a bunch of designers.
The FF ones tend to take longer for many reasons but a lot of it is related to 'watching cutscenes and running around' (FF14) and 'the tendency to lock big exp gains behind adventuring' (current FF11). So those ones end up with a vast variance in it.
There are no currently highly popular MMORPGs with long midrange-leveling periods, and the reasons for this are well known to most designers. Even considering the main ways that Ashes can work around this and justify the FF11-tier leveling (it probably still won't sit well with a bunch of people but they hopefully have some real OG vets around to implement it), making it longer than what is offered is pretty much insane, no matter how much people like me or you would 'like' that.
And as a person who has broken down exactly why she would 'like that', I still think it's unjustifiable. So, at least on the point of the 'top MMOs', let it go, there's a reason they don't let it take long, and basically none of this thread has addressed any of the actual approaches to it so far.
Some of those games aren't even considered MMORPG's by their developers. Others of them wouldn't even be in the top 20.
I said I just took them from the first google search results. Whatever, pick yours, I don't care
I'll pick 6 games. Three of them are probably the most popular MMORPG's in the NA/EU region over the last 10 years, the other three are PvP focused MMORPG's that have been reasonably popular in the NA/EU region. It is worth pointing out that since Intrepid is mostly aimed at this region, it isn't worth the time or effort to even consider any other region, as gamers from every region are different for various reasons, so only looking at the region Intrepid is looking at simply makes sense.
Anyway, those 6 games, with their current time expected to max level, are;
WoW - 20 hours
ESO - 10 hours (have seen claims of 5, but don't know anyone personally that has done this)
GW2 - 0 hours (game comes with auto boost)
Archeage - 10 hours
BDO - 15 hours
Albion - 20 hours
So, with Ashes being set at around 225 hours, it is already well and truely long enough - which has been my entire point. You could level a character to the cap three times over in all 6 of the above games in that same 225 hours that it takes to get one in Ashes.
Edit to add; The above information is all either first hand knowledge of the game, second hand knowledge from someone that has leveled a character in the game in the last 18 months, or failing that, information from a leveling service which is the most reliable source for this information I can think of (they need to tell people how long the service needs access to their account, and if they take too long, people may start doing chargebacks and such).
Most of those quotes complain about Endgame.
Ashes doesn't have an Endgame due to Nodes and due to the numerous other progression paths available after reaching max Level Adventurer.
So... those quotes are worthless and really have nothing to do with Ashes.
(
Also... if we're supposed to be evaluating "data" - we really need to include how many hours each person being referenced considers to be "fast" and how many hours each person considers to be "slow".)
The people who want to dabble in other progression paths for 500 hours before hitting max Adventurer Level will probably be able to do so.
And there will always be Node progression available, regardless of Adventurer Level.
Alright, then it confirms what I wrote earlier - average reddit user has less knowledge about the game compared to an average forum user (I suppose nobody would argue with that)
Now apply that fact to people voting. How do you think, out of all 100% of voters, how many people have a stereotypical beliefs, such as "All the fun begins at level cap", "Long leveling is bad for casual players" etc? I'll give you a hint - that's not 0%.
Pretty much the gist of that quote is "Flanker will think for everyone because everyone is too stupid to think for themselves". A very arrogant and ignorant reply!
You twist and manipulate to manufacture your story I am no longer interested in it.
Zehlan, please. That's the wrong path to follow. That's obviously not what I said and not what I meant, because why would I?
I meant no offence to anyone, I stated a fact. The average forum user has deeper knowledge about the game than the average subreddit follower. This applies to me, you, @Noaani@Dygz@Azherae@NiKr and many others. I hope you won't use exceptions as counterpoints, as exceptions do not disprove the rule. If you can operate with variables like "X", "N" without the necessity of them being the exact numbers (and I assume you can), you would understand perfectly what I'm trying to say.
I'll pick 6 games. Three of them are probably the most popular MMORPG's in the NA/EU region over the last 10 years, the other three are PvP focused MMORPG's that have been reasonably popular in the NA/EU region. It is worth pointing out that since Intrepid is mostly aimed at this region, it isn't worth the time or effort to even consider any other region, as gamers from every region are different for various reasons, so only looking at the region Intrepid is looking at simply makes sense.
Anyway, those 6 games, with their current time expected to max level, are;
WoW - 20 hours
ESO - 10 hours (have seen claims of 5, but don't know anyone personally that has done this)
GW2 - 0 hours (game comes with auto boost)
Archeage - 10 hours
BDO - 15 hours
Albion - 20 hours
So, with Ashes being set at around 225 hours, it is already well and truely long enough - which has been my entire point. You could level a character to the cap three times over in all 6 of the above games in that same 225 hours that it takes to get one in Ashes.
Edit to add; The above information is all either first hand knowledge of the game, second hand knowledge from someone that has leveled a character in the game in the last 18 months, or failing that, information from a leveling service which is the most reliable source for this information I can think of (they need to tell people how long the service needs access to their account, and if they take too long, people may start doing chargebacks and such).
Alright, let's start with those. If I understand it correctly, those numbers represent the current state of affairs, right?
Let's take a look at the next factor - some of those games (might be all of them actually) already exist for years or many years (WoW, for example). It would be fair to take into account the fact that in WoW the approach to leveling could have changed over time, so that players who didn't play it for past 15 years could still join it, wouldn't it?
So my question is: what's difference when it comes to leveling in those games, if we compare leveling at laucnh and now?
As for your data, Flanker, in the vain hope that it makes any difference...
Almost every MMO you listed has a leveling rate for a new player with a basic understanding or guide somewhere between 'Hi I joined last week do you wanna run an endgame dungeon' and 'If I skip this bit of gearing up I can be done in 20 hours'.
The more popular ones even moreso. Why? Because the entire concept of how this works and why we level up at all has nothing to do with most gameplay and having it be slower just makes everything harder on a bunch of designers.
The FF ones tend to take longer for many reasons but a lot of it is related to 'watching cutscenes and running around' (FF14) and 'the tendency to lock big exp gains behind adventuring' (current FF11). So those ones end up with a vast variance in it.
There are no currently highly popular MMORPGs with long midrange-leveling periods, and the reasons for this are well known to most designers. Even considering the main ways that Ashes can work around this and justify the FF11-tier leveling (it probably still won't sit well with a bunch of people but they hopefully have some real OG vets around to implement it), making it longer than what is offered is pretty much insane, no matter how much people like me or you would 'like' that.
And as a person who has broken down exactly why she would 'like that', I still think it's unjustifiable. So, at least on the point of the 'top MMOs', let it go, there's a reason they don't let it take long, and basically none of this thread has addressed any of the actual approaches to it so far.
Alright, then I have another question. In this case, let's refrain from broad statements, biases and irrational fears.
Could you (or anyone else, you are welcome to reply to this as well) provide the bullet points why long leveling would be a bad idea in Ashes of Creation specifically?
I would provide my thought why I don't think it would be an issue:
1. There is little to no content that is gated behind the level cap (the only exception is freeholds, but I wouldn't call it a big deal, because you can still have access to them). Other content will provide usefulness for players who are not max level and/or don't have the best gear (based on Steven's quote about castle sieges)
2. The game has numerous activities and progression paths. Making a progress across several progression paths simultaneously could and (I assume) would maintain the necessary frequency of dopamine hits.
3. Based on Steven's quote - reaching every level would feel rewarding because you always get something (skill points, etc.)
4. All primary skills and secondary archetype are unlocked relatively early (on level 25)
5. There are no dampeners when it comes to PvP and there is a level disparity among players.
6. Lower level players are more protected against PK by higher level players (the consequences of corruption take level disparity into account)
7. No matter whether leveling is slow and fast, casual players would never be able to compete with hardcore players anyway (unless, idk, some super serious changes are implemented, but realistically, I wouldn't expect that)
P.S. I wrote 7 bullet points initially, might add more in case if I forgot something now. Would be glad to see the same list with arguments against it.
P.S.S. I've read the article and I would like to break it down as it's not "black and white", but I'll think whether I actually do it or not. Cuz writing these long posts and replying to multiple people one by one is kind of time-consuming
Let's take a look at the next factor - some of those games (might be all of them actually) already exist for years or many years (WoW, for example). It would be fair to take into account the fact that in WoW the approach to leveling could have changed over time, so that players who didn't play it for past 15 years could still join it, wouldn't it?
That is absolutely true in some cases.
However, finding information on what these games were like at release is now much harder.
What I can say is that it took people that knew what they were doing around 60 hours to level to the cap in WoW after release, and Archeage was still only about 20 hours.
People that didnt know what they were doing - or were purposefully not in a rush - could spend hundreds of hours leveling in either game. However, the comment from Steven was not that players "could spend" 200+ hours leveling up in Ashes, it was that is what they expect at the minimum end.
Regardless of how you look at it, 200+ hours to max level is actually huge. It already means that people not actually dedicated to Ashes as their primary (or only) game will never hit the level cap. It already means the population at the level cap will be smaller than it should. It is already a liability to the game.
It is worth pointing out that while the initial time to the level cap may have been reduced in these games, that is because that is what the developers saw to be the best options. That then leaves the question - why not start the game in this manner? When Ashes releases, it won't be competing with these games as they were at the cap, it will be competing with these games as they are at the time.
As an additional point, even with ESO's fairly short time to the level cap, on the XBox version (the only one we have these statistics) only 6% of all accounts had managed to get a character to the level cap - yet the bulk of in game time is still on max level characters. People just couldn't be bothered leveling.
Edit to add; that number is from 2 years ago, I do not have numbers for today - however, that is still after about 12 months of the XBox version of the game being live. It took 5 casual days of playing to hit the cap, and that was too much for 94% of players.
However, finding information on what these games were like at release is now much harder.
Yeah, true. I hope now you realize that it actually sounds easier to be said than done. And that I didn't "intentionally tried to provide the data the supports my point and ignore everything else" - I didn't even know that it existed when this conversation started and I found it later. It was still a miracle to find data starting from ~2010.
Could you (or anyone else, you are welcome to reply to this as well) provide the bullet points why long leveling would be a bad idea in Ashes of Creation specifically?
I would provide my thought why I don't think it would be an issue:
1. There is little to no content that is gated behind the level cap (the only exception is freeholds, but I wouldn't call it a big deal, because you can still have access to them). Other content will provide usefulness for players who are not max level and/or don't have the best gear (based on Steven's quote about castle sieges)
2. The game has numerous activities and progression paths. Making a progress across several progression paths simultaneously could and (I assume) would maintain the necessary frequency of dopamine hits.
3. Based on Steven's quote - reaching every level would feel rewarding because you always get something (skill points, etc.)
4. All primary skills and secondary archetype are unlocked relatively early (on level 25)
5. There are no dampeners when it comes to PvP and there is a level disparity among players.
6. Lower level players are more protected against PK by higher level players (the consequences of corruption take level disparity into account)
7. No matter whether leveling is slow and fast, casual players would never be able to compete with hardcore players anyway (unless, idk, some super serious changes are implemented, but realistically, I wouldn't expect that)
P.S. I wrote 7 bullet points initially, might add more in case if I forgot something now. Would be glad to see the same list with arguments against it.
I have already answered the most important point here. The notion that there will be little to no content gated behind the level cap is inherently false.
That is an outright answer to the first point, and in my opinion makes the remaining points redundant.
However;
2, All other activities are subject to you being able to defend yourself in PvP.
3, This happens in many games, even those with shorter leveling speeds.
4, since one of the major points of leveling is teaching players, this means they could stop the leveling process at 25.
5, 6 and 7 have no relavence to the topic at hand that I can determine. They apply equally whether the leveling is fast or slow.
Comments
Ah, here we go again. It's pretty obvious that the average person won't go through all 12 pages of the discussion and see that you are actually lying. @NiKr confirmed that the data I provided comes from a trustworthy source L2on. When you started whining that info about private servers is irrelevant, @Korela confirmed that it might be even more relevant than data from the official servers that I also provided.
You lied #1
You lied #2
You bury the actual discussion in tons of your spam because you know very well that the average person is not going to read the whole thread, the first and the last page at best. So you keep spitting your lies and garbage hoping that it will work (it won't, as long as I'm here) - the text above proves that you just lied and you did it knowingly and intentionally.
Never said such thing. I said that it's the data we could take into account because it's relevant, I never said "it's only data that matters" - misrepresentation and twisting of my words used as a manipulation.
Oh yeah, you said you could share "THE REAL DATA" - but... you haven't when I asked you to do so. Pity
Ignoring? It's a poll that compiles subjective opinions and personal preferences of people, who on average haven't even spent 60 seconds thinking about the topic seriously and analyzed it from the perspective of game's longetivity (meaning no offence to people, but that's what I'd expect from Reddit poll). In fact, if you ignore the middle option. you'd see that "slower" option got more votes than "faster" and I'm not even talking about the most upvoted comments - all of which are IN FAVOR of slower leveling.
Says who? You? You think I care about a random whining forum clown and liar?
It's funny how you attempt to accuse me in something that doesn't apply to me, but perfectly applies to you. I would remind the readers that in other topic I support a suggestion that goes against my personal benefits, but is good for overall game's health. The thread you actively try to kill as well.
And that comes from whom? You...? I'm surprised you're not ashamed to even open your mouth
Now, statistics never lie, but only in case if you properly interpret it. What I mean by that is... let's say, metaphorically, that 20% of car accidents happen because of drunk driving. I means that the remaining 80% of accidents happen when the driver is sober. Does it mean that sober driving is riskier than drunk driving? Obviously not.
What you need to realize, while analyzing the results of that poll:
1. The average Reddit user would have less knowledge about the game compared to the average forum user. Also, as I said previously, I highly doubt that the average voter thought about this topic seriously for at least a minute prior to clicking one of the options.
2. If you are really looking for truth, then it's crucial to take so-called "status quo bias" when it comes to a representative sampling of poll participants. For reference:
A status quo bias or default bias is a cognitive bias which results from a preference for the maintenance of one's existing state of affairs. The current baseline (or status quo) is taken as a reference point, and any change from that baseline is perceived as a loss or gain. Corresponding to different alternatives, this current baseline or default option is perceived and evaluated by individuals as a positive.
Status quo bias is a cognitive bias based in emotion. Change naturally invites risk, and people may be uncomfortable putting themselves in situations where the outcome is uncertain. This tendency to keep things the way they are can have a considerable effect on how people behave in virtually any aspect of life.
And as I said, if you ignore the middle ground, more people actually voted for "slower" leveling compared to "faster" option
3. You look at the poll, yet you completely ignore the comments. Here are the top comments under that poll. If you want to be objective, shouldn't you take them into account?
So, is there anything in comment that you'd like to disagree with?
P.S. Once again, I didn't make this suggestion because it fits my personal preference. I support suggestions that I consider to be good for that game, whether they align with my personal preferences (like in this case) or not (like in case with HP bars suggestion)
1. High end dungeons and areas - well, there are mobs and dungeons for different level brackets. It's like making an argument that you can't wear the best gear on level 1 - there is different gear for different levels.
2. Castles - how are you barred from them? Castle sieges do not have a level requirement
3. Freeholds - as I mentioned several times in this thread and referred to Steven's words: Owning a freehold is one thing, but having access to it - is a different thing. And there is no level requirement when it comes to accessing to a freehold.
If you think that reaching level 50 faster would allow more casual players to participate in PvP/wars/sieges on equal terms, it's not true either. Just as I said, if it takes "X" time for hardcore player to reach level 50 and "3X" time for casual player to do that; then by the time casual player does that, a hardcore player has already spent "2X" time on gear, enchantments, gaining more experience etc. The difference will be mitigated a bit, but the advantage of a hardcore player will still be there and it will still be significant.
A great example of that (that I provided in this thread as well): New World Wars. Reaching max level was easy even for casual players. Did they actually have a chance to participate in wars? Absolutely not, because only hardcore players could, because of their experience.
How can one guy so throughly miss the point and ignore what was written? I give up XD
I'm going by what you repeatedly state here, in the Forums.
As you continue to QQ despite your clickbait video.
If you truly understood the way progression is designed to work in Ashes, there would be no need to make that video or this topic - other than to troll for attention.
And I suppose, it doesn't really make sense for me and you to continue this conversation, as apparently it leads to nowhere. I have nothing against you, I simply disagree with your arguments and the way you handle the discussion. I assume you think the same.
Peace
You can't make someone understand your point if their point relies no thrn not understanding your point.
Fact is, he isn't interested in any kind of truth, he is only interested in pushing his agenda.
Since his original point was thst Ashes needs to have a longer leveling time or people will leave, all tha needed to be done (and was done) was pointing to the top 10 most popular MMORPG's of all time, all of which have a slower leveling speed than Ashes will have, and he should have realized that his notion was completely wrong.
He didn't, because that is the agenda he is trying to push for what ever reason. That is why he had to resort to private servers, from Russia, of a dead game in order to find data that even remotely looked like it supported his agenda.
Yeah, I'm still waiting for your "rElEvAnT sTaTiStIcS" that you were supposed to provide. But oh... wait... you didn't? You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Pathetic
Another straight-up lie. Repeating bs 10 times doesn't make it true.
Intentional misrepresentation = manipulation = you have no better arguments = owned
> It's not Russia, it's the whole CIS region. If you didn't have geography at school, at least google it
> You intentionally miss the fact that I provided the data for both official and private servers and multiple people confirmed that the data came from a credible source. This is a "lie by omission", Mr Clown
Let me educate you again
Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions.
I'll remind the readers about this:
The most popular MMORPG's of all time all have fairly fast leveling in comparison to what Ashes has proposed - you don't need anything more than that. Yeah, and most of the West just refers to the area as Russia. Russia, the various *stans, Belarus, and some people include Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and until a few years ago, Ukraine (sorry NiKr) are all just referred to as the general area. This is similar to how America is often a colloquial term for the USA, even though technically the term America should referr to two entire continents.
Colloquial language isn't always 100% accurate - deal with it.
As long as you presumably don't have any data and can't provide it, let's at least do some sort of simple analysis. I don't know what's the end result gonna be (as I've never played these games), but no matter what it will be eventually - we will be able to at least consider it an indirect factor that is somewhat relevant. Why indirect? Because those games are different and there might be other variables affecting it's popularity.
So you mentioned 10 most popular MMORPGs of all time. It doesn't necessarily have to be 10 - feel free to add games that are around "top 10" as well. This is what quick google search showed me:
1. WoW > (Never played, but heard that now it's very fast. The game is old though, wondering how long did it take to reach the level cap on release)
2. Star Wars Galaxies > ???
3. Runescape > ???
4. Guild Wars 2 > ???
5. Final Fantasy XIV> ???
6. New World > (Very fast, a matter of a couple of days)
7. EVE Online > ???
8. The Elder Scrolls Online > ???
9. The Lord of the Rings Online > ???
10. Ragnarok > ???
11. Black Desert Online > ???
12. Lineage 2 > (very long on official servers, probably applies to every single patch)
13. Lost Ark > ???
14. Dark Age of Camelot > ???
15. Ultima Online > ???
16. Archeage > ???
So, let's see how long did it take to reach max level in those games, shall we? I only know a few of those, so you or anyone else could help to fill it out.
So you want to have Player RETENTION
If you make a levelling system based on what the elite hardcore gamer can do you will lose a good portion of your regular gamers and will eliminate ALL casual gamers period. I wouldn't call that retention I would call that hemorrhaging.
You also missed the biggest point people don't want what you are offering that little informal poll shows that and it is the players who get to choose whether you like it or not!
That is a strange list of top 10 MMORPG's.
Some of those games aren't even considered MMORPG's by their developers. Others of them wouldn't even be in the top 20.
1. Nothing is based on "elite hardcore gamer" lol. Don't twist my words
2. Your opinion is based either on belief that "the fun begins on max level" or another belief that "casual players would be able to compete with hardcore players, if leveling was fast" - both of which are wrong.
3. No need to reply emotionally
4. Speaking of the poll, again, I asked you to point out if there is anything you disagree with - you didn't. Instead, you fall to confirmation bias and as a result, ignore the objective factors that do not align with your personal preferences and only point out to something that presumably support your opinion.
https://massivelyop.com/2024/09/19/vague-patch-notes-when-slow-leveling-is-a-problem-in-mmorpgs/
Ashes doesn't have an Endgame due to Nodes and due to the numerous other progression paths available after reaching max Level Adventurer.
So... those quotes are worthless and really have nothing to do with Ashes.
(
Also... if we're supposed to be evaluating "data" - we really need to include how many hours each person being referenced considers to be "fast" and how many hours each person considers to be "slow".)
The people who want to dabble in other progression paths for 500 hours before hitting max Adventurer Level will probably be able to do so.
And there will always be Node progression available, regardless of Adventurer Level.
Interesting read. Thanks.
I find it somewhat interesting that the game used as the main example of too long to level in that article had a stated estimate of 250 hours to the level cap, and the piece was written from the perspective that this was universally (or at least generally)considered to be far too long.
It isn't the only takeaway from it, but I did find that interesting.
I disagree and don't have a problem continuing to point out the flaws in the arguments you present as you continue to QQ about a concern Ashes already addresses in several ways in its design.
Almost every MMO you listed has a leveling rate for a new player with a basic understanding or guide somewhere between 'Hi I joined last week do you wanna run an endgame dungeon' and 'If I skip this bit of gearing up I can be done in 20 hours'.
The more popular ones even moreso. Why? Because the entire concept of how this works and why we level up at all has nothing to do with most gameplay and having it be slower just makes everything harder on a bunch of designers.
The FF ones tend to take longer for many reasons but a lot of it is related to 'watching cutscenes and running around' (FF14) and 'the tendency to lock big exp gains behind adventuring' (current FF11). So those ones end up with a vast variance in it.
There are no currently highly popular MMORPGs with long midrange-leveling periods, and the reasons for this are well known to most designers. Even considering the main ways that Ashes can work around this and justify the FF11-tier leveling (it probably still won't sit well with a bunch of people but they hopefully have some real OG vets around to implement it), making it longer than what is offered is pretty much insane, no matter how much people like me or you would 'like' that.
And as a person who has broken down exactly why she would 'like that', I still think it's unjustifiable. So, at least on the point of the 'top MMOs', let it go, there's a reason they don't let it take long, and basically none of this thread has addressed any of the actual approaches to it so far.
I'll pick 6 games. Three of them are probably the most popular MMORPG's in the NA/EU region over the last 10 years, the other three are PvP focused MMORPG's that have been reasonably popular in the NA/EU region. It is worth pointing out that since Intrepid is mostly aimed at this region, it isn't worth the time or effort to even consider any other region, as gamers from every region are different for various reasons, so only looking at the region Intrepid is looking at simply makes sense.
Anyway, those 6 games, with their current time expected to max level, are;
WoW - 20 hours
ESO - 10 hours (have seen claims of 5, but don't know anyone personally that has done this)
GW2 - 0 hours (game comes with auto boost)
Archeage - 10 hours
BDO - 15 hours
Albion - 20 hours
So, with Ashes being set at around 225 hours, it is already well and truely long enough - which has been my entire point. You could level a character to the cap three times over in all 6 of the above games in that same 225 hours that it takes to get one in Ashes.
Edit to add; The above information is all either first hand knowledge of the game, second hand knowledge from someone that has leveled a character in the game in the last 18 months, or failing that, information from a leveling service which is the most reliable source for this information I can think of (they need to tell people how long the service needs access to their account, and if they take too long, people may start doing chargebacks and such).
Now apply that fact to people voting. How do you think, out of all 100% of voters, how many people have a stereotypical beliefs, such as "All the fun begins at level cap", "Long leveling is bad for casual players" etc? I'll give you a hint - that's not 0%.
Zehlan, please. That's the wrong path to follow. That's obviously not what I said and not what I meant, because why would I?
I meant no offence to anyone, I stated a fact. The average forum user has deeper knowledge about the game than the average subreddit follower. This applies to me, you, @Noaani @Dygz @Azherae @NiKr and many others. I hope you won't use exceptions as counterpoints, as exceptions do not disprove the rule. If you can operate with variables like "X", "N" without the necessity of them being the exact numbers (and I assume you can), you would understand perfectly what I'm trying to say.
Let's take a look at the next factor - some of those games (might be all of them actually) already exist for years or many years (WoW, for example). It would be fair to take into account the fact that in WoW the approach to leveling could have changed over time, so that players who didn't play it for past 15 years could still join it, wouldn't it?
So my question is: what's difference when it comes to leveling in those games, if we compare leveling at laucnh and now?
Could you (or anyone else, you are welcome to reply to this as well) provide the bullet points why long leveling would be a bad idea in Ashes of Creation specifically?
I would provide my thought why I don't think it would be an issue:
1. There is little to no content that is gated behind the level cap (the only exception is freeholds, but I wouldn't call it a big deal, because you can still have access to them). Other content will provide usefulness for players who are not max level and/or don't have the best gear (based on Steven's quote about castle sieges)
2. The game has numerous activities and progression paths. Making a progress across several progression paths simultaneously could and (I assume) would maintain the necessary frequency of dopamine hits.
3. Based on Steven's quote - reaching every level would feel rewarding because you always get something (skill points, etc.)
4. All primary skills and secondary archetype are unlocked relatively early (on level 25)
5. There are no dampeners when it comes to PvP and there is a level disparity among players.
6. Lower level players are more protected against PK by higher level players (the consequences of corruption take level disparity into account)
7. No matter whether leveling is slow and fast, casual players would never be able to compete with hardcore players anyway (unless, idk, some super serious changes are implemented, but realistically, I wouldn't expect that)
P.S. I wrote 7 bullet points initially, might add more in case if I forgot something now. Would be glad to see the same list with arguments against it.
P.S.S. I've read the article and I would like to break it down as it's not "black and white", but I'll think whether I actually do it or not. Cuz writing these long posts and replying to multiple people one by one is kind of time-consuming
However, finding information on what these games were like at release is now much harder.
What I can say is that it took people that knew what they were doing around 60 hours to level to the cap in WoW after release, and Archeage was still only about 20 hours.
People that didnt know what they were doing - or were purposefully not in a rush - could spend hundreds of hours leveling in either game. However, the comment from Steven was not that players "could spend" 200+ hours leveling up in Ashes, it was that is what they expect at the minimum end.
Regardless of how you look at it, 200+ hours to max level is actually huge. It already means that people not actually dedicated to Ashes as their primary (or only) game will never hit the level cap. It already means the population at the level cap will be smaller than it should. It is already a liability to the game.
It is worth pointing out that while the initial time to the level cap may have been reduced in these games, that is because that is what the developers saw to be the best options. That then leaves the question - why not start the game in this manner? When Ashes releases, it won't be competing with these games as they were at the cap, it will be competing with these games as they are at the time.
As an additional point, even with ESO's fairly short time to the level cap, on the XBox version (the only one we have these statistics) only 6% of all accounts had managed to get a character to the level cap - yet the bulk of in game time is still on max level characters. People just couldn't be bothered leveling.
Edit to add; that number is from 2 years ago, I do not have numbers for today - however, that is still after about 12 months of the XBox version of the game being live. It took 5 casual days of playing to hit the cap, and that was too much for 94% of players.
Anyway, could you provide your answer to this?
That is an outright answer to the first point, and in my opinion makes the remaining points redundant.
However;
2, All other activities are subject to you being able to defend yourself in PvP.
3, This happens in many games, even those with shorter leveling speeds.
4, since one of the major points of leveling is teaching players, this means they could stop the leveling process at 25.
5, 6 and 7 have no relavence to the topic at hand that I can determine. They apply equally whether the leveling is fast or slow.