On the Drawing Board #13: Maximum Level?

Posted 6th May 2009 12:15 PM by Flux


Leveling up in Diablo III comes with a shiny explosion of graphics (which actually deals huge damage to nearby enemies) along with the traditional increases to your stats and skills. That’s all well and good, but how often should it occur, and how many times in total?

The D3 Team has said that 100 will likely be the maximum level, but that’s only a tiny part of the question. How long will it take to get there? Days? Weeks? Months? Longer? When will the big diminishing returns kick in as the leveling curve starts to rise? Should there even be a maximum level, or would it be more fun to allow perpetual experience increase, even if level up rewards cease? These and other issues are tackled in this installment of On the Drawing Board. Click through to read the whole article.

On the Drawing Board #13: Maximum Level in D3?

Let’s start off with a little history, to define our terms.

The maximum level in D1 was 50, and reaching it was a tremendous slog. There were no diminishing returns, just tight caps on experience gain, and steadily-increasing numbers of kills required to level up. The journey to 50 wasn’t much fun either, since it meant playing the same few levels over and over again, with very little chance of finding improved items; this was long before the days of exceptional or elite items, and there weren’t even any runes or gems or other trinkets to collect for upgrading purposes.


The maximum level in D2C was 99, and reaching it seemed impossible until the epic race between GerBarb and RussBarb showed that it could be done.  Even if the experience display broke before they got there. (The Ger/RussBarb pages were just added to the Archives. Check them out if you want insight into the teamwork required to reach 99 in D2C.)

The maximum level remained 99 in D2X, though the time to reach it has varied greatly between patches. It wasn’t too difficult in v1.09 and was achieved in less than two days by some ladder racers. It’s much more of a grind in v1.10+, with endless Baal runs required to move the exp bar past level 95, but plenty of players manage it both on and off the realms. (Blasting through full Baal runs in under 2.5 minutes help.)

What will it be in D3? Like most game features, the D3 Team hasn’t confirmed anything, yet. Jay Wilson said, and Bashiok repeated, that they’re considering upping it to 100, since 99 seemed like a fairly arbitrary number in D2. However that’s far from carved in stone.  Who knows; they may yet go the WoW expansion route and cap Diablo 3 at oh.. 75; then up it 10 or 15 in each expansion.

The specific number is almost beside the point, when looking at the larger issue. Whether the maximum level is 50 or 100, the game would be about the same difficulty for characters of a proportionate level. Blizzard would just balance the skill points, skill power, monster difficult, etc, so a level 50 character would be approximately as powerful as a level 100 char, or an 80 was equivalent to a 40, etc. The question I’m more interested in is how attainable the maximum level will be. Should there even be a maximum level? There’s some good discussion of that topic in this forum thread, from which I shamelessly cribbed the concept for this article.

What’s a High Level Character?

This is probably a bigger issue than the maximum level, since most players will never reach that.  What’s a “high level” character? How long should it take to reach? The Diablo series has been fairly unusual in RPGs, in that new characters can level up very quickly. Diablo and Diablo II Players are virtually guaranteed to level up a new character more on their first play session than any session after that. Experienced D2 players think nothing of raising a new character to 60 or 70 in one day, even if they’re unlikely to ever climb past 80~.

This is kind of an odd way to design a game, if you think about it. That it works is a testament to the depth and enjoyment of the item-finding game. A character’s level is only a small part of their overall identity and power—their equipment, whether found, crafted, or traded for, is much more important. If you doubt it, imagine a level 65 with great equipment taking on a level 95 with average gear; it’s a slaughter for the little guy, both in PvP or competing at PvM speed/efficiency. This despite the fact that the level 95 character has logged many times more hours to reach that level.

Would you like the leveling curve to remain similar in D3? Should characters be able to zoom up into the 60s or 70s before leveling becomes much slower? Or would you rather the game force a slower advance, making characters work to gain levels as soon as they enter say, Nightmare?

Also, when should the game get really hard? As soon as Hell difficulty begins? Or not until later acts in Hell?  Should the highest difficulty areas of the game be accessible to all? Or should only very powerful characters, or players supporting each other in groups, be able to defeat the hardest monsters on the highest difficulty level?

Maximum Level Possibilities in D3

The number is irrelevant, other than for style points. It’s what the journey to that number is like. Here are some options.

Attainable, but not easy.
In this model just about anyone can get to 99 (or 75 or 100, or whatever) if they put in the grind time. It should be a little harder than the 38 hours that was Clvl 99 in v1.09, but not impossible. Think World of Warcraft for the leveling speed. Weeks or months for casual players, less for dedicated players, guilds, or cut-rate Chinese leveling services. *cough* Yes, I know, a crazy analogy since as we know, nothing in D3 is influenced by Blizzard’s other RPG.

Grindfest. The maximum level is possible, in a theoretical sort of way. A single player could reach it, but only with months of very dedicated play on the same character. Teams would find faster methods, ala GerBarb, but it would still require months of 12 hour a day, high-skill, team effort, Act Boss-exploiting, Diablo-killing days. If you want it to be even harder, pull the slider up an exponent or two, but be aware that you’ll be making the maximum level essentially unattainable for any mortal player.

No maximum level. No matter how grindy the advance, there is no finish line. This would have to be balanced; perhaps stats/skills could cap while experience kept increasing. Just letting characters level up forever would be just as bad as if every patch introduced hugely overpowered runewords that could only be created through massive rune duping, and then… oh wait. At any rate, in this capless model there’s no maximum level, or perhaps no maximum experience. Characters can keep building exp forever, but it’s purely for their own enjoyment/perversity/ladder ranking. Imagine the time required to go from 99 to 100 is 1% the time required to go from 100 to 101, etc.

Is this a good idea? Does Blizzard have a sort of moral responsibility not to include this sort of feature, since it would make the game too addictive/seductive to some players? Including a maximum level allows for an ultimate goal and a sense of achievement, but also is a sort of self defense mechanism to preserve the sanity of some addictive personality types.

There’s a lot to consider and debate about this issue, and if D2 is any indication, this debate will continue as the leveling speed (if not the maximum level) gets tinkered with in every patch and expansion.



On the Drawing Board is written by Flux. These articles examine crucial game design issues and decisions in Diablo 3 by explaining the issue and presenting arguments for and against. On the Drawing Board aims to spur debate and further the conversation, rather than converting readers to one side or the other. Conversation and disagreement is encouraged. Have your say in the comments, or contact the author directly. Suggestions for future column topics are welcomed.




Bookmark and Share
Filed under: On the Drawing Board

Comments

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >
Krugar
Posted 06, May 2009 03:42 PM
(0)
 

I do find it hard for me to have an opinion on this issue, for one reason or another. I can see any of the options working as long as some care is taken.

Attainable, but not easy.
This is essentially the SP experience on D2. I always found the leveling system in D2 to work very well under SP conditions. It doesn’t for MP because of the rushing exploits, really. Under D3 this would probably be my favorite.

Grindfest.
I do not see a problem here if the threshold after which it starts becoming a grindfest is put high enough. Say, 10-5 levels before reaching the cap. As long as monsters are killable at that level, meeting a new steep curve is not something that would bother me personally. I must remind you, as a SPer I’m used to NOT get to the last levels, or even come close to it. My oldest, most played char ever is still only level 95.

Easy to reach max level.
I’m adding this one myself as a third possibility. It doesn’t shock me either that about anyone can reach max level, even casual players that decide to just put a little extra effort. If the game emphasis is placed on items and their mods, the matter of one extra level becomes unimportant past a certain threshold. Players will be more interested in item finding, then they will be in level racing. For a collector like myself, this wouldn’t bother me. For other type of players, it might.

No maximum level.
This would be my favorite one if it weren’t for the fact I’m yet to met a game that is capable of properly scaling monsters to player level automatically and ad infinitum. The presence of so may classes, each with their unique skills (now complicated by the introduction of runes) along with so many possible mods on items, makes the task of automatic monster balancing near impossible. if not impossible. It’s a shame though. The idea of an endless dungeon crawl is very appealing to me. If someone one day could come with the perfect formula, this would most probably be a game to go on my top-favorite shelf. No questions asked.

Reply
 
[cK]Extreme
Posted 06, May 2009 04:23 PM
(0)
 

Semi grindfest/unattainable. Max level should always be something to oogle over, imo. I hate games that doesnt even begin until you hit that arbitrary number.

Reply
 
Lockinvar
Posted 06, May 2009 05:00 PM
(0)
 

Grindfest, with the last 5 levels or so being largely just for show - putting emphasis on the items.  I liked the GERBarb days.

Reply
 
BrotherRatcliff
Posted 06, May 2009 05:11 PM
(0)
 

Without a doubt I vote for no cap. I don’t think the level-up bonuses should be capped either. You just have to make the exp required to level get exponentially harder as you go. For example each level could be calculated like this: newLvLExp = oldLvLExp * (newLvl * (newLvL/100))

In that equation level 100 would be 100x harder than level 99. Level 101 would be 102.01x harder than 100. Level 110 would be 121x harder, level 150 would be 225x harder than 149 etc. To give an example of the cumulative effect of this level 105 would be 1,342,650,003,255x harder than 99!

Maybe that is even too extreme because getting anywhere beyond the very very low 100s would be virtually impossible, depending on how hard getting to 99 is of course. I would still like a virtually insurmountable amount of exp more than an actual level cap though.

Reply
 
gerbele
Posted 06, May 2009 07:32 PM
(0)
 

I vote for no cap…including no cap for bonuses.  I don’t think the %difficulty should be as high as the above poster but it should be high enough to deter 99.9% of players.  Like stated in the article and evident in D2, 1-2 skill points does not make a big difference in terms of gameplay.  I mean why not?  You will not create an unbalanced character at level 102 compard to 99. 

My 2nd choice would be “Attainable, but not easy”.  Leveling up in D2 MP was too easy and easily exploited.  I loved D2 but had a problem with that if you had the gear, you could create a character and within 2 days could have a him/her just as powerful as one that someone had been creating for months.

Reply
 
The Lord of Darkness
Posted 06, May 2009 08:11 PM
(0)
 

I would say no cap on levels,however I would scale down the benefits of the leveling after a certain level..lets say 100. Example…reduce stat points allocated, reduce mana, life gained after 100. Even scaling down skill benefits after a skill has reached a certain level.. 20? Example…Skill X recieves less % of X than it would normally with hard points after lvl 20. This should make balancing more managable without a cap. To sum this up, or simplify it. You would still benefit from continuing to level, but the benefits are minor.

Reply
 
Kunzaito
Posted 06, May 2009 09:11 PM
(0)
 

I’m with gerbele.

As primarily a SP person, I never had a 99. But I like knowing that it’s *reasonably* possible for me to do by myself if I were to put in the extra effort. Otherwise, I vote for no max level. As others have said, it will eventually become so hard to reach another level that only people who are competing just to have the highest level will worry about it. And for the casual player who plays a lot with one character, it would be satisfying to still get that little level up thrill at 101 while magic finding or helping someone else, and continue to get XP for your battles.

Reply
 
5zigen
Posted 06, May 2009 09:15 PM
(0)
 

Cap it low and make the high end content balanced around players at the cap (sort of the WoW approach, but reduce the time to reach the cap.)

The level “cap” is really just arbitrary, and as long as the games endgame content is balanced around high levels that are attainable by most people it will be pretty successful.  (i.e. that is the endgame content is challenging for people at the character growth curve)

Never-Ending leveling could work, but if D2 is ANYTHING like WoW or D3, then leveling up higher and higher is such a huge advantage that it shouldn’t be set that way.  (ex. in D2 as you leveled it became easier to hit enemies and harder to be hit by enemies.  In WoW it becomes easier to hit enemies, you become less succeptible to crushing blows, and you have a lower chance of taking full damage from spells, and that is all aside from the normal character growth)

Basically what I am arguing against is trivializing the content of the game for those who put in exorbitant amounts of time leveling their characters.  That will be too encouraging for the typical chinese game farmer, and it will reduce the quality of the game for all those who aren’t “hardcore powergamers.” 

The ideal is to make something that is challenging at the top end for the hardcore, as well as something approachable at the top end for the novice / casual gamer.

Reply
 
ThomasJ
Posted 06, May 2009 11:05 PM
(0)
 

I am guessing there will be some kind of cap just because it is alot easier to handle then having no cap. Complexity = no when Blizzard makes games.

Reply
 
Paranoidmage
Posted 07, May 2009 12:08 AM
(0)
 

A quote from a GERBarb interview:

“Did the game do anything special when you got to 99? I would assume not, but the screen didn’t turn orange and rain rare amulets or anything? wink

      Hehe, unfortunately not. But I think it’s a great idea for Diablo 3 wink

Reply
 
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Syndicate