It doesn't matter. I wouldn't care if the level cap was increased by 1,5, 10, etc...
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.
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).
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 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.
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."
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.
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
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
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
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.
Wouldn't mind it one bit.
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.
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
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.