Why is the level cap level 90?

[asharia]

ignore the actual 'levels'

they could have just halved the experience needed for a level and called you lvl 90 in Cata, and there would have been no difference.

[herpecin]

they are changing talents to be one every 15 levels.

90 is cleanly divided by 15, where 95 isnt.

[Pdz]

I have no link or anything like that. But I remember them saying another reason they went to a +5 level cap raise in Cataclysm was 85 was a little less daunting than 90 to new players. And 100 is a lot less daunting than 120 (if they stick to 2 more expansions).

[Brewski]

90 levels already sounds ridiculous. They should do a level squish or something so the cap is like level 50.

[Mudkiper]

Who really cares. It's just a number ¬_¬.

[crejack]

Proof? Of what?

Not sure if genuinly this terrible, or just a bad troll, meh. He proved that there is no lvl 100 cap. To them 100 is just another number like 52 or 1,789,456.

[ice216]

Because y make the req xp lower and lower, yet make the cap higher and higher. 5 lvls is enough to get new content yet not feel like it drags on

[Pejo]

They stated it when they announced Cata. They want the levels to not get out of control and to be less daunting to players. Instead of having to level 100 in MoP (if we kept at 10 each expansion), you're only leveling to level 90. Also, since so many people are focused solely on endgame, they are able to say it is only a 5 level hike versus 10.

[TjSousa]

a 10 level gap would be obsurd to fill in the extra game material.

[Deleted]

They do not want to get to ridiculous levels. with 2 more expansions planned if they had done 10 levels we would be at 100 right now and by the end of wow we would be at 120. Blizzard has stated b4 they want to cap at 100. With 2 expansions left 5 each we will cap at 100.

Interesting, because i've read an interview from last year where it's said they planned to do 6 more xps after MoP. Which would mean the cap is indeed 120 rather than 100.

[Lolvanish]

Interesting, because i've read an interview from last year where it's said they planned to do 6 more xps after MoP. Which would mean the cap is indeed 120 rather than 100.

Source please? not trying to be a dick, i just want to see your source.

[Cactrot]

Because they stated long, long ago that they didn't want to continue WoW over a cap of 100. Though that might have changed, giving us new caps every five levels instead of ten helps stretch that out so they can tell more story before they hit that milestone.

Citation needed. I don't believe they have ever stated anything to that effect.
They posted about not wanting to hit 100 too early, they did not post that they were stopping at 100. It's one more lie that started with someone misinterpreting a statement, and then people expanding on the rumor and spreading it.

And to people thinking WoW is ending that soon... as a frame of reference to consider next time you're talking, Everquest (not everquest 2, Everquest) just recently released its 18th expansion. At its peak Everquest had about 10% of what wow has now after a year of subscriber losses. Thinking that a game with 10x the subscribers is going to stop at 1/5th the expansions is... I'll go with naive to be nice.

[Xiphan]

Source please? not trying to be a dick, i just want to see your source.

There was a recent interview (March) stating that multiple expansions were planned and 6.0 is in the works, maybe they're just confusing it with that and that's where the number 6 came from.
It's probably that, 6 expansions seems a bit specific and bold a statement for a company that enforces vagueness till the very end.

_{Here's the article.}

[Daedius]

Simple - Blizzard want to squeeze in as many expansions into WoW before the 100 level mark, which would potentially be 'the end' of it.

[xanzul]

What difference does it make? It is just an arbitrary number. What matters is the actual content involved in the lvling process.

---------- Post added 2012-04-07 at 12:42 AM ----------

Because they stated long, long ago that they didn't want to continue WoW over a cap of 100. Though that might have changed, giving us new caps every five levels instead of ten helps stretch that out so they can tell more story before they hit that milestone.

Blizzard has never ever said this. People need to stop spreading misinformation.

---------- Post added 2012-04-07 at 12:46 AM ----------

Simple - Blizzard want to squeeze in as many expansions into WoW before the 100 level mark, which would potentially be 'the end' of it.

Blizzard isn't going to stop making expansions simply because they reached some arbitrary limit players have inexplicably decided is when the game should end.

[ClearlyConfused]

Started off with 60, then 10 for TBC and WotLK probably because there is SO much story to be had with those (still going off WC; RTS and repackaging it in a MMO skin.) Then Cataclysm came out and they had to scavenge through WC II-II.5 and throw some fillers in between. Now they are just using a race already established from the RTS and making it a whole new expansion. Just sit and think how boring it would be do jump 10 levels in Cataclysm? Can't say much about MoP being that its not live yet and I'm not going to do expansion zones in beta (don't want to ruin the ZOMFG NEW factor. Really just wanted to preview pandas + monk, which I have recently done.)

[Ogretron]

I know for cataclysm, with all the old world changes, blizzard didnt have enough time or space to make 10 new levels of content, but for MoP, they are only building one continent. So why not 10 levels?

Blizzard had plenty of time to make 10 levels, if they wanted they could have easily made it 10. Or 50. Level is just a number, it doesn't mean anything.

This has been posted time and time and time and time again, please now. Just read:

The 5 cataclysm levels were the equivalent of 10 levels

Not content wise. Going from 80-85 took me maybe 12 hours total the first time. BC and Wrath took much, much longer. I hope MoP questing will be longer but I doubt it.

Oh I see you have no proof because you can't even explain your own "Proof".

Got it.

The look on your face when you finally notice his post is going to be epic.


Personally I'm just waiting until they decide to do the number squish or whatever it's called. I'm sure at the same time they will make the level cap a lot lower as well so it doesn't look as ridiculous.

[Deleted]

Because they stated long, long ago that they didn't want to continue WoW over a cap of 100.

Never happened.

[evilgnomey]

they most likely want level 100 the new cap for the burning legion expansion, look at it from a marketing stand point.. the trailer would say the following:

Return of the Burning Legion!
New World: (i'm not a lore nerd but most people know where we are going to fight them)
Level Cap Raised to 100.
New 4th Specs.
New Dungeons.
New Raids.
PvE Arena.
Mount Racing.

makes things sound more epic.

[Deleted]

Why not 100 levels per expansion? They're just numbers that are essentially irrelevant to gameplay. Whether it's 1 or 100 levels per expansion, the content will be the same.