Lvl 100
- Thread starter swaimy
- Start date
SlechtWeerBeer
Diabloii.Net Member
SlechtWeerBeer
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Lvl 100
There'd be no difference between, say, lv120 and lv9001 since Stats and Skills are capped in the above example.
Pyrohemia
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Lvl 100
I like the idea of no level cap, but continue to make it exponentially harder to get the next level. In Diablo 2 if there was no level cap in 1.10+ getting from level 99 to 100 would take 9 000+ baal runs, 100 to 101 would be 30 000+. I don't think that any person or even team would make it to 101 even given a year or two let alone level 102 or higher.
The power level difference between 99 and 100 or 101 would be minimal and would take an exorbitant amount of time. For those who like to run the ladder there would always be competition and yet there would not be enormous power differences between those who do 500 baal runs to level 95 and those who do 45 000 to level 101. Dueling and PvM would all still be balanced.
I like the idea of no level cap, but continue to make it exponentially harder to get the next level. In Diablo 2 if there was no level cap in 1.10+ getting from level 99 to 100 would take 9 000+ baal runs, 100 to 101 would be 30 000+. I don't think that any person or even team would make it to 101 even given a year or two let alone level 102 or higher.
The power level difference between 99 and 100 or 101 would be minimal and would take an exorbitant amount of time. For those who like to run the ladder there would always be competition and yet there would not be enormous power differences between those who do 500 baal runs to level 95 and those who do 45 000 to level 101. Dueling and PvM would all still be balanced.
Re: Lvl 100
Good luck making those work without having a level factor.
@Pyrohemia :
Sounds reasonable but never underestimate people at grinding...
What about hit chance? block chance? dodge chance?
Good luck making those work without having a level factor.
@Pyrohemia :
Sounds reasonable but never underestimate people at grinding...
noticks
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Lvl 100
... and while we're at it, let's all start at level zero instead of level 1. Then instead of gaining only 98 levels to be max-level 99, we can gain all 100 levels. (or whatever cap there might be.)
Not necessarily in favor of a max-level cap, as long as I can get "reasonable" exp somewhere at any achievable level.
... and while we're at it, let's all start at level zero instead of level 1. Then instead of gaining only 98 levels to be max-level 99, we can gain all 100 levels. (or whatever cap there might be.)
Not necessarily in favor of a max-level cap, as long as I can get "reasonable" exp somewhere at any achievable level.
KTang
<font color="#93ad4f">Official Diablo 3 Item Value
Re: Lvl 100
I personally think having a level cap is necessary, and my personal preference. I mean, hitting that final level is really rewarding, but to think carry on levelling infinately just seems so dreadfully tiring and unrewarding. The no exp limit sounds like a fantastic idea for those who compete for ladder, I personally don't but it still wouldn't affect me, which is genius!
I personally like level 99, zeros are a bit annoying
KT
I personally think having a level cap is necessary, and my personal preference. I mean, hitting that final level is really rewarding, but to think carry on levelling infinately just seems so dreadfully tiring and unrewarding. The no exp limit sounds like a fantastic idea for those who compete for ladder, I personally don't but it still wouldn't affect me, which is genius!
I personally like level 99, zeros are a bit annoying
KT
Daedrith
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Lvl 100
I would definitely like to see 100 as a cap rather than 99, it just feels complete I guess. I don't think that having no cap is the way to go, as others have said, that would feel rather unrewarding - an unrelenting struggle to move forward, for what?
Have players cap at 100, let exp continue from there on instead (again, as others have suggested, because it allows for exp ladders to really work)
Then, instead of gaining levels, have some sort of other recognition system as you gain exp or whatever, so people can see who's really worked even at the max level.
I would definitely like to see 100 as a cap rather than 99, it just feels complete I guess. I don't think that having no cap is the way to go, as others have said, that would feel rather unrewarding - an unrelenting struggle to move forward, for what?
Have players cap at 100, let exp continue from there on instead (again, as others have suggested, because it allows for exp ladders to really work)
Then, instead of gaining levels, have some sort of other recognition system as you gain exp or whatever, so people can see who's really worked even at the max level.
Krugar
Banned
Re: Lvl 100
However there's another side to no cap that could be worth exploring. And that would be scaling all areas to player level after, say, Hell difficulty. Essentially build the game around an hypothetical never ending Difficulty levels after the traditional 3. But... scaling monsters is usually the hardest part of game design and probably much harder if meant to be an automatic feature.
I feel some empathy towards this idea myself.
However there's another side to no cap that could be worth exploring. And that would be scaling all areas to player level after, say, Hell difficulty. Essentially build the game around an hypothetical never ending Difficulty levels after the traditional 3. But... scaling monsters is usually the hardest part of game design and probably much harder if meant to be an automatic feature.
Re: Lvl 100
99 also looks less professional on Blizzard's part. It shows they were too lazy to program the possibility of three digits.
They can solve many of the above problems by having ladder resets at consistant times like every year or whatever they decide. Then, they could balance the game so that it is impossible to reach lev 101 or w/e in one year of playing even with a team playing non-stop with the best items in the game.
99 also looks less professional on Blizzard's part. It shows they were too lazy to program the possibility of three digits.
They can solve many of the above problems by having ladder resets at consistant times like every year or whatever they decide. Then, they could balance the game so that it is impossible to reach lev 101 or w/e in one year of playing even with a team playing non-stop with the best items in the game.
Akse
Banned
Re: Lvl 100
There should be theorethical level cap and a practical level cap. Just about how it was before LOD. Looking at some old hc ladders, there were about 10 players in ladder that were 90 and higher. Highest was 94 ever back then. Then there was a lot of players from 80-90 and some of the last 100 spots in the ladder was for 77-80.
So what we have theorethical level cap could be 100 but practical for 95% of the players would be that **-90. If I now look at even classic ladder there are hundreds of characters over 90. How is this possible when there must be significantly less players playing classic now than before LOD when everyone was playing it. Answer is simple, too easy to exp in full game parties. Even weak characters and unexperienced players are able to reach 90 level fast in parties, back before LOD party exp was severely reduced by every party member in the party so it wasn't fast to leech exp like it is now.
Overall I hope leveling up in D3 will get harder even in full party. I'm not into reaching level cap, I probably make a new character when I reach level 90 or something. Before LOD people wasn't expecting top guys to reach 99.. people were excited about some few reaching 90-95(at least in hc).
Nowadays nobody gives a damn about top guys in ladders.. we all know it is only about 8 player face rolling with double lifes from BO and what not. In LOD most of them are bots..
There should be theorethical level cap and a practical level cap. Just about how it was before LOD. Looking at some old hc ladders, there were about 10 players in ladder that were 90 and higher. Highest was 94 ever back then. Then there was a lot of players from 80-90 and some of the last 100 spots in the ladder was for 77-80.
So what we have theorethical level cap could be 100 but practical for 95% of the players would be that **-90. If I now look at even classic ladder there are hundreds of characters over 90. How is this possible when there must be significantly less players playing classic now than before LOD when everyone was playing it. Answer is simple, too easy to exp in full game parties. Even weak characters and unexperienced players are able to reach 90 level fast in parties, back before LOD party exp was severely reduced by every party member in the party so it wasn't fast to leech exp like it is now.
Overall I hope leveling up in D3 will get harder even in full party. I'm not into reaching level cap, I probably make a new character when I reach level 90 or something. Before LOD people wasn't expecting top guys to reach 99.. people were excited about some few reaching 90-95(at least in hc).
Nowadays nobody gives a damn about top guys in ladders.. we all know it is only about 8 player face rolling with double lifes from BO and what not. In LOD most of them are bots..
Re: Lvl 100
bits : 0 to 1
nibble (4 bits) : 0 to 15
signed byte (7 bits) : -127 to 127
unsigned byte (8 bits) : 0 to 255
They specifically selected 99 as a level limit.
@Akse :
That idea I like! I do remember playing classic D2 and almost everyone being 80-90
Too lazy to program possibility of three digits? Excuse my language but that's the biggest load of bull**** I've seen in a while... In programming there's no such thing as a data format limited to double digits of 99 or anywhere near that (at least not in decimal notation)
bits : 0 to 1
nibble (4 bits) : 0 to 15
signed byte (7 bits) : -127 to 127
unsigned byte (8 bits) : 0 to 255
They specifically selected 99 as a level limit.
@Akse :
That idea I like! I do remember playing classic D2 and almost everyone being 80-90