-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
When is leveling too slow?
- Thread starter deakon
- Start date
BlackSalad
Member
http://strategy.diabloii.net/news.php?id=512
In diablo I'm level 90 and it takes a good 5-6 hours to level up of CONSTANT baal running if you find a good game. Up in the higher levels (95-99) it can take up to a month of constant baal running to level =o
In diablo I'm level 90 and it takes a good 5-6 hours to level up of CONSTANT baal running if you find a good game. Up in the higher levels (95-99) it can take up to a month of constant baal running to level =o
Teknopathetic
Member
A) RO is stupid.
B) you know leveling is too slow when you're beginning to say "Man, it's been a fucking long ass time since I leveled."
B) you know leveling is too slow when you're beginning to say "Man, it's been a fucking long ass time since I leveled."
Littleberu
Banned
neptunes said:
It gets boring If you want it to be. It gets boring because it's different. It gets boring because it's so vast. IMO of course. Much like Morrowind.
MrPing1000
Member
play an mmporg where there is no real leveling. Like eve
Teknopathetic
Member
"RO is no different from many other mmorpgs out there. As inane as it gets with the grind."
Except it piles on the level grind with a borked economy system, stupid drops, lag, and stupid progression with mobs.
Except it piles on the level grind with a borked economy system, stupid drops, lag, and stupid progression with mobs.
Tre said:
Economy is player-based, which isn't all that bad. Lag has been addressed ages ago
Stupid drops? You mean lack of straight money? That's also related to the economy. Also the mob progression is based around partying. (With a nice 10lvl share range now) It's also based for the higher players, since it seems more logical to please the older folks. (To keep them playing etc. etc.)CrimsonSkies
Member
EQ past level 20 was hella boring.
Die Squirrel Die
Member
I quite like the idea of levelling up being used in other genres. It's a way for the game to be more thoroughly enjoyed by more gamers.
I know a lot of people like the elitism of being able to finish a hard game, but frankly I don't really see the logic in spending X amount of time on a game, to only have a small percentage of people really experience it fully.
What I think needs done is for developers to appreciate that when it comes to difficulty that not everyone wants the same thing. In the case of most action games, and shooters selectable difficulty levels are the norm, but why doesn't this apply to other genres like platformers or rpgs. Why don't games like FF and Zelda (being too examples I can think of that have had flak for being too easy) have selectable difficulty levels? I think there is no reason for them not to.
I also think that any suposed loss of elitism can be answered by the way people make there own challenges, such as low level runs.
Slightly off of levelling balance but I thought FFVI had a nice levelling idea that I'd like more games to copy, and that's when you died and restarted at a save point you kept the experience from when you died rather than from when you last saved. I think the psychological effect that it had on the levelling process was subtle but important for the gameplaying experience. It encourages the player to just keep pressing forward and enjoy the game, rather than occassionaly breaking from the game in order to do a leveling up grind. Ninja Gaiden strikes me as a recent game that would have benefitted from such a system.
And that's all I have to say about that.
I know a lot of people like the elitism of being able to finish a hard game, but frankly I don't really see the logic in spending X amount of time on a game, to only have a small percentage of people really experience it fully.
What I think needs done is for developers to appreciate that when it comes to difficulty that not everyone wants the same thing. In the case of most action games, and shooters selectable difficulty levels are the norm, but why doesn't this apply to other genres like platformers or rpgs. Why don't games like FF and Zelda (being too examples I can think of that have had flak for being too easy) have selectable difficulty levels? I think there is no reason for them not to.
I also think that any suposed loss of elitism can be answered by the way people make there own challenges, such as low level runs.
Slightly off of levelling balance but I thought FFVI had a nice levelling idea that I'd like more games to copy, and that's when you died and restarted at a save point you kept the experience from when you died rather than from when you last saved. I think the psychological effect that it had on the levelling process was subtle but important for the gameplaying experience. It encourages the player to just keep pressing forward and enjoy the game, rather than occassionaly breaking from the game in order to do a leveling up grind. Ninja Gaiden strikes me as a recent game that would have benefitted from such a system.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Mr. Lemming
Member
Vieo said:
It takes time to siphon money out of your wallet.
Mr. Lemming
Member
GDJustin said:
I used to be ocean wide Ultimate level at Carpentry. Such a cool game.
Uncle Dukey
Member
Die Squirrel Die said:
To be honest, I kind of agree. I like to relax while playing games, and it's a lot less frustrating in an RPG if I know that the time I've spent won't be "wasted" if I die.
On the other hand, it does remove a degree of challenge and sense of urgency.