Leveling Speed

Wiki says the following:

On release the developers anticipate max level should be attainable in approximately 45 days if playing 4-6 hours per day.

This is equal to ~225 hours to reach level 50. What is your opinion about it? Would you like it to be faster or slower?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Flanker

Dygz wrote: »

Again...

Haha let's not start that again on the forum. If the time comes, we'd rather make a Round 2 cuz even talking for 2,5 hours on stream was still much more efficient from time management perspective compared to talking on the forum

Dygz

You never have to reply to anything I write, Flanker.
Even that 1 Like from Pendragxn justifies my lengthy reply.
I have no delusions about me (or anyone else) being able to break through your confirmation bias.

dallasrt

I am in the majority of leveling being some what slower. That being said I don't want it to turn into another Korean grind fest. I want to play and enjoy a game with friends and not feel like it's another job.

Flanker

Dygz wrote: »

Even that 1 Like from Pendragxn justifies my lengthy reply.

I regret to tell you that but the user you mentioned will like literally anything or anyone who opposes my opinion/suggestion, as he has been called out for meaningless AI-generated spam comments across multiple threads.

Blood_Raven

Slower is almost always better. I hate games where you get a cool new weapon and in less then a day you out level it and don't get to enjoy the item. Same with content I hate out leveling area's I did not get to experience on the way to max level.

Azherae

Blood_Raven wrote: »

Slower is almost always better. I hate games where you get a cool new weapon and in less then a day you out level it and don't get to enjoy the item. Same with content I hate out leveling area's I did not get to experience on the way to max level.

Yeah, just in case somehow I have given the impression that I want faster leveling, echoing this.

I hate those feelings enough that they're basically quit moments for me, probably because I also roll with a group that feels similarly, who would just 'all get fed up of it together and leave'. I'm sure it's different for people who are building relationships or want to get social stuff out of new experiences in a game, but for my 'established group' if we're constantly flying through gear and levels it's definitely overall worse than slogging.

xVenngeance

This is an important subject to me. I started by playing games like FF11 which is notoriously a slow leveling MMO. when leveling is slow, there is more respect and a feeling of accomplishment for your level. Faster leveling is for those who want the instant gratification of being at the max level and have to focus only on min/maxing their resources for gear. In FF14 level progression felt more balanced as it was also a delineation of story progression. Fast leveling, in my opinion, ruins the concept of leveling in the first place. I never like out-leveling gear that I work hard to get, and a short grind is an easy way to get players to quit early.

Overall, leveling should be a bit slower than 45d to max and should also reward active players more. Please never do instant max level or items that increase exp gain as this is unfair and ruins the integrity of the leveling process. Players should always feel that they are on an even playing field.

Pendragxn

@Dygz

I did a variant of the Bartle Test after you mentioned it, and it was pretty interesting. My results looked balanced, though I’m not sure if that’s good or if there’s an official test.

Flanker

Blood_Raven wrote: »

Slower is almost always better. I hate games where you get a cool new weapon and in less then a day you out level it and don't get to enjoy the item. Same with content I hate out leveling area's I did not get to experience on the way to max level.

Additionally, it is always possible to increase leveling speed with little to no backfire, properly utilizating Rested HP systems, food buffs etc. In case of necessity, obviously. However, there is no way you can possibly make it slower without a massive outrage.

P.S. I've read literally the same comment on reddit today. Gonna let the post age a bit as it has been posted recently and send it here as well

RocketFarmer

Does everyone agree that fun should trump leveling speed? I think I would be fine with whatever speed they come up with as long as the leveling and “end game” is fun.

Or maybe they need to design a short game and long game into this. Short game to satisfy those who want and need immediate gratification and long game for those who really savor the journey.

Flanker

RocketFarmer wrote: »

Or maybe they need to design a short game and long game into this. Short game to satisfy those who want and need immediate gratification and long game for those who really savor the journey.

I doubt that Intrepid would actually do it, but as I suggested in another topic - this could be solved relatively easy by making OG Ashes of Creation have longer leveling and then adding servers with increased rates. Could be an elegant solution to satisfy everyone, but once again, I highly doubt Intrepid would do that

nanfoodle

Leveling speed is not a problem in this game.

220ish hours for your main leveling path. There is so many side paths that people will be climbing like religion, race and so on. My guess and it is a guess. It will take average people well over a year to level what they need to make a well rounded char. Any MMO worth it's salt will have a new expansion out in that time frame. Matter of fact, IS should already be working on that expansion.

Noaani

Blood_Raven wrote: »

Slower is almost always better. I hate games where you get a cool new weapon and in less then a day you out level it and don't get to enjoy the item. Same with content I hate out leveling area's I did not get to experience on the way to max level.

I agree that too slow is better than too fast - but that leaves open the question of what we are comparing that too slow or too fast against.

As has been said, the point of leveling (and thus the measure against which you determin if a games leveling is too slow or too fast) is to teach players the game.

Teaching the game should include the class in question, the games world as it relates to gameplay, and the game systems.

If it would take an average gamer 10 hours to learn these systems, having the games leveling only take 8 hours would be bad. The game is better off making it take 12 hours instead. However, there are limits to this - the game above should't make it's leveling take 15 or more hours if it only takes 10 hours to learn what needs to be learned.

That is where my concern is with Ashes. With an expected 200+ leveling time, that means the game realistically needs 125 or more hours worth of stuff for players to learn, and I really don't see it having that much to it.

So, TL:DR, I agree that games should have their leveling experience be a little bit too long rather than a little bit too short, but it really shouldn't be excessively long.

Fireplay

I love the idea of a slow grind. I want it to feel like an achievement when I hit max level. Cheesing your way to a quick level feels cheated

Flanker

nanfoodle wrote: »

Matter of fact, IS should already be working on that expansion.

Excuse me, we have 5 nodes out of 100 at the moment and 6/8 archetypes, what "expansions" are you talking about?

Expansions come with a speed that they are supposed to come with either rarely or never, depending on the game. While it's not that big of a deal for a box-cost game like New World, for example, it might be an issue for a subscription-based game like Ashes.

nanfoodle

Flanker wrote: »

nanfoodle wrote: »

Matter of fact, IS should already be working on that expansion.

Excuse me, we have 5 nodes out of 100 at the moment and 6/8 archetypes, what "expansions" are you talking about?

Expansions come with a speed that they are supposed to come with either rarely or never, depending on the game. While it's not that big of a deal for a box-cost game like New World, for example, it might be an issue for a subscription-based game like Ashes.

23 years of MMOing and the games that did well had an expansion on a yearly schedule. Listening to many interviews. About two years before launch these game developers were already working on an expansion. It's common practice.

Flanker

nanfoodle wrote: »

23 years of MMOing and the games that did well had an expansion on a yearly schedule. Listening to many interviews. About two years before launch these game developers were already working on an expansion. It's common practice.

I'd assume Intrepid could think about the ideas for future expansions in general, yeah, but the game itself is too far from being finished. And I would probably call it a miracle if we are "2 years before launch" at the moment. Not trying to be overly pessimistic, but things normally take more time than you expect them to take

nanfoodle

Flanker wrote: »

nanfoodle wrote: »

23 years of MMOing and the games that did well had an expansion on a yearly schedule. Listening to many interviews. About two years before launch these game developers were already working on an expansion. It's common practice.

I'd assume Intrepid could think about the ideas for future expansions in general, yeah, but the game itself is too far from being finished. And I would probably call it a miracle if we are "2 years before launch" at the moment. Not trying to be overly pessimistic, but things normally take more time than you expect them to take

My guess if they are doing it right. They are story boarding what they want to create. Looking into main stories they want to go after launch. Deciding what maps this will happen on. A year from now they should be play testing some of the content. 6 months after launch the expansion should be ready for play testing at a beta level. If IS is smart.

RocketFarmer

I’m expecting, based on the design, that rather than expansions we will see more tools/content added to the event system. New dungeons and monsters/world bosses might be in that tool box. Believe they are setting things up campaign style, based on the player choices of course. So you could have one collection of content for a single node that could be replayable for many years based on what the players do with no two servers having the same experience. In other words a simulated world that changes over time. Think of it like they are providing the PHB, DMG and MM to go play D&D, and then have the tools set up for you to do just that.

Given that “expansions” could be focused and produced more frequently with minimal development resources, we might not even notice the “new” content. If they build it right, that is.

Flanker

nanfoodle wrote: »

My guess if they are doing it right. They are story boarding what they want to create. Looking into main stories they want to go after launch. Deciding what maps this will happen on. A year from now they should be play testing some of the content. 6 months after launch the expansion should be ready for play testing at a beta level. If IS is smart.

Well, time will tell.

My concern is that when studio adds an expansion/update/patch every X months, it should contain enough content/new stuff that will retain players for those X months till the next one. Unfortunately, it's sometimes not the case and it leads to a loss of a certain percentage of player base. Some of them will return after the next expansion/update/patch gets released, but some won't. As a result, the number of players will slowly reduce over time and that may be a reason to worry when it comes to a game with a subscription-based monetization model. Player retention (as well as new player acquisition) should be amongst the top priorities.

Child Item