5 levels enough for CATA, but for MOP?

[Deleted]

10 levels are still slower due to moving to different zones etc. Even if the XP needed is the same, it does feel slower.

But 10 levels feels more meaningful and exciting. Having a big gap between each level is discouraging.

[Mad_Murdock]

Question:
5 Levels worth 5000000 XP total or 10 Levels worth 5000000 XP total, which one is a bigger chore?

Whichever is the fastest is what I want. I think of it more like, run around to 3 zones or run around to 7 zones. If I could just go to a hub and load up 25(why not 50?) quests and return that would be most awesome. The get 2-3 quest, run out, back, get 2-3 more, run out run back, go over here and deliver a message, now come back with the answer..I really hate.

I'm don't like leveling, so my opinion is biased.

But 10 levels feels more meaningful and exciting. Having a big gap between each level is discouraging.

It is funny that it really seems to boils down to our psychological aspect that makes it feel less rewarding, even if it was exactly the same as getting 10 levels

[papajohn4]

Level up in this game is dead...doesn't matter at all. I am surprised they still add levels. Level up is so fast and so trivial and is just a time sink now, not an epic journey it used to be. I love leveling in Lotro, but in wow I think this new 5 levels will be like hell..linear questing, funny quests with almost zero lore and things like saving bears and cats from trees, not my liking. I would prefer the old epic and long questlines, full of lore and dark things to discover.

[Soulless Cynic]

The number of levels has nothing to do with the amount of experience, content or time required to gain those levels. Blizzard could have just as easily made the new level cap 86, the experience required to reach it a billion, and the number zones required twice the size of Outland and Northrend combined. The number of levels required to reach the new cap isn't a reflection of anything.

If you want to argue there's not enough levelling content or content, that's another matter. Complaining about the level cap is just silly.

[Archimand]

ok when Cata came out and people where complaining about the only 5 levels insted of 10, blizz came out and said " well we gave you the 1-60 revamp to make up for it" and we came to accept it, because it was true.

now that MoP is coming out we are getting again 5 levels, but no revamp, are you guys ok with this?

i am Ok only because they said they will pump out content more frequently through out the expansion and so far most of their promises have been keped, but i just want to know if every one is ok with it.

if you that worried about it

the questing from jade forest into valley of 4 winds/krasarang wilds into kun lai into townlong stepps into dread wastes and last but not least vale of eternal blossoms which is a max level zone is 100 times more epic then cata was so in regard to that you will have tons to do and generally much more fun

[rogueMatthias]

I dont know entirely.. From what I've seen, Pandaria isn't much smaller than Outland at all, especially when you consider all the empty gaps between all the zones in Outland. If levelling up isn't quite slow, then surely you'll be finished aftr a couple of zones and miss out on the rest? Or are Blizzard telling the truth when they say half of Pandaria is meant to be for End-game adventuring / rep etc?

[Deleted]

I think they just increase the XP needed for 85-86 from 10 mil to 15.5 mil? Anyways levels means nothing, its the amount of XP needed that is important to how long it will take to level up.

[Grocalis]

I dont know entirely.. From what I've seen, Pandaria isn't much smaller than Outland at all, especially when you consider all the empty gaps between all the zones in Outland. If levelling up isn't quite slow, then surely you'll be finished aftr a couple of zones and miss out on the rest? Or are Blizzard telling the truth when they say half of Pandaria is meant to be for End-game adventuring / rep etc?

How is that different then BC? You would start out in Hellfire, then move to either Zangarmarsh or Terrokar. You could level all the way in one of those zones until you got high enough to go to Blade's Edge or Nagrand, then finally chose between Shadowmoon Valley or Netherstorm. You COULD attempt to do all the zones, but with the amount of quests each zone had, it was never required. MoP is the same. We start out in the starter zone, then can spread out and choose the next zone out of a choice of two.

It's a good choice because it adds replayability, you miss some zones on one alt, you go on another.

[killidan]

5 or 10 is just a number. The amount of time spent leveling hasn't changed much between the last expansions.

The amount of time spent questing/leveling and the size of the added continent and the amount of quests will be rather similiar to Wotlk/northrend.

This is false. The amount of time it took to level from 80-85 was shorter than that between 70-80, which in turn was shorter than that between 60-70.

---------- Post added 2012-08-10 at 03:30 PM ----------

The number of levels has nothing to do with the amount of experience, content or time required to gain those levels. Blizzard could have just as easily made the new level cap 86, the experience required to reach it a billion, and the number zones required twice the size of Outland and Northrend combined. The number of levels required to reach the new cap isn't a reflection of anything.

If you want to argue there's not enough levelling content or content, that's another matter. Complaining about the level cap is just silly.

It is silly to put forth a completely theoretical hypothesis where there is 1 billion xp needed to level to 86. That has nothing to do with the reality. In practice, Blizzard offered LESS leveling content, which is finished in LESS time when they added only 5 levels instead of 10.

---------- Post added 2012-08-10 at 03:32 PM ----------

Or are Blizzard telling the truth when they say half of Pandaria is meant to be for End-game adventuring / rep etc?

After all the lies about releasing content faster and such, who believes in what Blizzard says anymore?

[Grocalis]

This is false. The amount of time it took to level from 80-85 was shorter than that between 70-80, which in turn was shorter than that between 60-70.

Don't agree.

I made it from 60-70 in less then a week on my hunter, same for 70-80. I found myself a bit more stagnant in Cataclysm, reaching 85 in a little over a week. Maybe you just didn't understand the game very well back then?

[Wipeout]

86 - 87 = 21mil xp ( ish)

86-87 quests = 111k xp ( per quest ).

conclusion it will take longer than what it did in Cata ( hopfully a week or 2 )

[Soulless Cynic]

It is silly to put forth a completely theoretical hypothesis where there is 1 billion xp needed to level to 86. That has nothing to do with the reality. In practice, Blizzard offered LESS leveling content, which is finished in LESS time when they added only 5 levels instead of 10.

It is silly to provide meaningless anecdotal evidence as you did on page 2. 13 days for 70 to 80 in Wrath? It took me 10 days to reach 80 from 55 on my fresh DK.

My "theoretical hypothesis" has everything to do with the reality. There is no connection between level cap and amount of content whatsoever. If you want to complain that there wasn't enough content, then by all means do so. But claiming a smaller increase in level cap automatically leads to less content is completely false. And no, you can't claim a precedent or pattern after a single expansion.

The amount of time it took to level from 80-85 was shorter than that between 70-80, which in turn was shorter than that between 60-70.

If 70 to 80 took less time than 60 to 70 (both of which were 10 level increases), doesn't that indicate, in your own words, that the size of the level cap increase has nothing to do with the time required to level?

[Jackkernaut]

All the things we doing while we leveling we can do at max level anyways, no point of increaseing the number of levels IMO.

[hulkgor]

5 is just a number. Irrelevant.

What is relevant is the xp required to reach max level, the content you have to go through to gain it, the time it takes, and so forth. Also, the spells\abilities you gain in the process.

If it takes 10 hours to reach the new max level, and you gain 3 spells and a talent, and go through 8 zones, it's irrelevant if you leveled to 90 or 95. It's just a number.

So, it really depends on the leveling content they got placed and the new spells that are obtained. They usually do that pretty well.

I love how people say "5 levels take less time then 10!!!!". That's just redundant, but it seems pointless to argue lol. That's like saying 10 stones are heavier then 5 stones! Kinda depends on the size of the stones, doesn't it? 10 are just more stones...

[Hijiri]

The number of levels just means the amount of time you have to spend on old content.
X hours questing in zones, Y hours on working on professions, Z hours on questing.
Most won't do level appripriate old raids, since getting to the latest content is on most of the playerbase's mind.
Plus it's just easier to switch content at 58, 68, 80 and 85 since the next expansion will make greens compatible to the old content purples.

If your complaining about the shortness of levels then it's as if your complaining about how you get options on how to experience content.
If 5 levels is to short, then instead of racing your new characters through cata to get to MOP then spend the 200 hours+ in Cata like you did on your current character.
However the community at large will want many players to be at max level to do old content so they don't have to get max amount of players.

5 levels in MOP is irrelevant now, but if you start a new character 2 expansions down the line most will be glad of the shortness of levels in order to get through the content quickly.
77-80 is pretty rough on many people.

[Kilpi]

I still haven't realised what's the big deal about the amount levels you have to gain. As even the first reply wrote: It doesn't matter if it's 5 or 10 or 15 levels if the time spent is the same.

[Tomana]

I dont know entirely.. From what I've seen, Pandaria isn't much smaller than Outland at all, especially when you consider all the empty gaps between all the zones in Outland. If levelling up isn't quite slow, then surely you'll be finished aftr a couple of zones and miss out on the rest? Or are Blizzard telling the truth when they say half of Pandaria is meant to be for End-game adventuring / rep etc?

Vale of Eternal blossoms is for end-game. Other than that, you will prolly be in Dread Wastes when you finish leveling (if you level without a blue bar that is).

[StationaryHawk]

Levels are just a number, not a measure of content.

[Tomana]

conclusion it will take longer than what it did in Cata ( hopfully a week or 2 )

Certainly not a week or two. It's a shame I didn't chronometer my leveling on Beta, but I estimate 24+ hours as Prot spec.
It is longer than Cata, but not by much.

[Blackmist]

I wonder what Blizz will do once we reach 100? Will they keep going or add some new progression path? At some point you have to think the amount of levels wont look appealing to a new player.

That point was a long time ago.

IMO levelling is a crutch. Here's an alternative. Start game with a few abilities, as you use them, more unlock. Sort of like GW2 does every time you pick up a new weapon and have to learn it's 2-5 spells. Should be tuned so that after you've finished the two starting zones, you've got everything and are ready to go out into the world.

Let a few games break the mould and in a few years, the idea of levelling in RPGs will seem as quaint as the concept of lives in platform games.