Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Legendary! muto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Inside a Bubble
    Posts
    6,312
    It doesn't matter. I wouldn't care if the level cap was increased by 1,5, 10, etc...

  2. #62
    Herald of the Titans Adramalech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    2,702
    5, 10, 1, 7, it doesn't matter. The amount of levels doesn't define the length of the leveling process. I believe MoP is proof of that. It's 5 levels, but it feels more like it did in Wrath and TBC than in Cataclysm.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tya View Post
    As a warlock, allow me to be the first to say that I get tremendous amounts of joy from watching fear pathing take you to Africa.
    Quote Originally Posted by Drayarr View Post
    Twinking is like going back to school when you are 30, just to be smarter than the other kids.

  3. #63
    1) No thank you, the grind from 60-70 and 70-80 is horrible, 5 levels per expansion is far more manageable. Especially considering only 1-2 of those levels would get you a new talent or ability anyway. Come to think of it, I kind of wish they'd made it 5 levels per expansion from the start and we'd only be up to level 80 by now.

    2) The number 100 is not special in any way and they absolutely will go to 105 if WoW gets 3 more expansions.

  4. #64
    Brewmaster orangelemonrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,351
    From a sale point perspective I'd like to think 100 is the magic number, who would want to play a game where you have to level 160 levels before you even get to the content, that sounds ridiculous.

    100 is a great number to end on, while I dont believe it really has been said by blizzard I think its a good idea route to take. I'm one of those people who think WoW will start to drop off over the next 6 years though (not dead, but ~2mil).

  5. #65
    I would prefer they found a way to implement an alternative mean of progression than levels. Levels means more abilities and the UI is already cluttered enough for all the classes.

  6. #66
    This started to be a list but really, it's just one thing. I'd only prefer it if:

    The levels meant something. What did level 86 change for you? Level 88 or 89? Basically, nothing. Your stats went up (and down, crit rate I'm looking at you) and you were able to queue for maybe two more dungeons, but that was it. No new skills except for level 87, no new talents until level 90. I get that they wanted to simplify things, but levels 86, 88, and 89 mostly felt like desperation - something I was relieved to have out of the way but not in any other way satisfying.

    Edited to add: Oh yeah and the levels meant one more thing: the unlocking of bad green and blue gear that had poor itemization but otherwise such highly inflated stats that you felt compelled to trade away your tuned, reforged, set-bonus-having heroic raid gear for, which was also disappointing. Blizzard has stated that they're very much aware of the "Resetting each X-Pack to the zero from the hero is a bummer" thing, and that if they can solve it somehow they will.
    Last edited by markdall; 2012-11-08 at 11:46 PM.

  7. #67
    I revile and disdain levelling. I'd be happy if they got rid of levels altogether in every single game that has them and wiped their memory from existence.

    So... more levels? Hell no.
    "Once you stop caring what an arrogant, ignorant, idiotic little twat somewhere half-way across the world in a mouldy little basement with his mother yelling down at him to get off his arse and get a job is saying on the internet, you will find an immense calm overcome you. Suddenly the world will seem a brighter place and your mood will improve immediately."

  8. #68
    I think Blizzard fear 100 because, whether they try to change people's perception or not, the level 105-110 expansion is going to be a hard sell if people already have a sense of "I've finished that game already". That'd be why they did the 80-85 and 85-90 instead of the previous 10.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevyne-Shandris View Post
    It's more likely due to the game was designed only for 100 levels.

    EQ2 is designed for 200 levels, for example, and why they're still doing 10 level expansions (with 1 year expansion packs, they will hit that limit in 10 years).
    Tiny problem: That's complete bullshit. The game was never designed with a set ending level in mind. Not even sure where you're getting this crap from.

  10. #70
    Brewmaster caninepawprints's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,276
    While I see where you're coming from, Cyzen, I must say I enjoy having to only worry about five levels. I remember when Burning Crusade was released and we had to level up ten times. That wasn't so bad, and it was a nice psychological boost to level after three hours of questing, but I hated knowing I had to do it ten times. I guess it wouldn't be so bad to level up ten levels in the next expansion since the experience gain would be about the same as it would be for five levels. Seeing yourself *ding* twice to what would have otherwise been only once would be good for self-esteem. I understand why Blizzard has been doing it in five-level increments, though. They want to avoid building up the level cap too quickly in the expansions.

    Image created by Brienna

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Maaro View Post
    Well a cap at 95 would just be plain stupid imo.
    And what about Cataclysm's 85?
    Praise the Quest Writers for they give life to otherwise boring expansions.
    I was wrong about Blizzcon 2014 having nothing interesting to show off: There's a Robot Monk!

  12. #72
    Pandaren Monk 1ns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    tdb
    Posts
    1,988
    100 is just a number. Tbh a number is just a number o_o i wouldn't mind an expansion raising the cap to 105, or 106, 107, 109, 1488 - they are all a just a number

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Brazorf View Post
    I would prefer they found a way to implement an alternative mean of progression than levels. Levels means more abilities and the UI is already cluttered enough for all the classes.
    This.

    Prestige-classes or something.
    Dunno, but since they removed the talentpoints per level, there are only new skills to gain as accomplishemt to level up. But please, not more skills...

  14. #74
    I liked the design for Mists, one zone per level range (85-86, 86-87 and through to 90). I sort of prefer that over 10 levels tbh. That said, I wouldn't mind if they threw out an expansion where you didn't level up, you merely progressed in a sort of "extended" expansion. I'm easy, just so long as I never have to see another underwater zone.
    "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." - Ayn Rand

  15. #75
    The Lightbringer Kevyne-Shandris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Basking in the Light
    Posts
    3,255
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    Tiny problem: That's complete bullshit. The game was never designed with a set ending level in mind. Not even sure where you're getting this crap from.
    Prove me wrong.

    I wasn't referring to a "set ending level", I'm referring to the engine and it's limits. EQ2's is set to 200. So WoW has some engine limit, too. No engine can handle more than it's designed for unless it's upgraded...and that in gaming is a whole new platform (a WoW 2.0).
    From the #1 Cata review on Amazon.com: "Blizzard's greatest misstep was blaming players instead of admitting their mistakes. They've convinced half of the population that the other half are unskilled whiners, causing a permanent rift in the community."
    Blizzard's blame game in action: Deleting 6,100+ of Kevyne's posts and threads from the WoW forums.

  16. #76
    Wouldn't mind it one bit.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevyne-Shandris View Post
    Prove me wrong.

    I wasn't referring to a "set ending level", I'm referring to the engine and it's limits. EQ2's is set to 200. So WoW has some engine limit, too. No engine can handle more than it's designed for unless it's upgraded...and that in gaming is a whole new platform (a WoW 2.0).
    The engine has been upgraded several times already. Much more complex parts of the engine than the ability to store and display a 8bit integer, as well. Like, say, phasing, sun shafts, weather, the new water, achievements, the ability to change between 10 man and 25 man raids, LFD+R, battlegrounds, battle pets, the mount system, vehicles and DX11 support.

    Increasing such a level cap as you're claiming exists would be trivial.

    It would appear to me that you have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about.
    How about you go and find some evidence for your ludicrous claim.

  18. #78
    Noooooooooooooooooooooooo

  19. #79
    Field Marshal zacharyk88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    your mom's house
    Posts
    83
    I think 100 is a special number so they will make the next level cap 100 especially if they go with this idea of the burning legion expansion or something. I don't really care a level is just a number after all but 100 seems like a bigger one than 85 or 90 or whatever
    Lok'tar ogar! victory or death - it is these words that bind me to the Horde For they are the most sacred and fundamental of truths to any warrior of the Horde, I give my flesh and blood freely to the warchief. I am the instrument of my Warchief's desire. I am a weapon of my warchief's command. From this moment until the end of days I live and die- For the Horde

  20. #80
    Don't care due to current game systems. Leveling is huge penalty, each level-up you lose upto 20% of combat potential at 80+ (thanks, GC). Maybe it will be better when Rob Pardo will revisit systems, but currently leveling is opposite to being rewarding.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •