Incline Who actually likes level caps?

[Daedalos]

Level caps are great, because it gives the player a goal, an endpost. You reached the end, congratulations. you can now uninstall and go do something else.
You gotten all that was there to be got.

Grinders have a weak mentality.

 

[Cryomancer]

Yes? If it wasn't clear, I want level caps with better xp pacing. Getting a stronghold is also meaningless noise to me.

IT is not meaningless. I mean, if you look to Thay, the Red Wizards around lv 12~14 are akin in social prestige to "historical" barons and the Zulkirs which are all epic levels, are akin to "historical" archdukes and Ssaz Tam is akin to a Emperor. IMO if the player reached high levels, he should have a stronghold and have more social prestige than a mere adventurer. And having a huge stronghold is a way to do that.

 

[bionicman]

How am I gonna have my male power fantasy if you cap me bro? Huh?

 

[Shin]

How am I gonna have my male power fantasy if you cap me bro? Huh?

rent yourself this guy

 

[CHIN00K]

Having no level cap kills any depth an RPG might otherwise have. There's no builds when you can max every stat and be good at everything. There's no difficult encounters when you can just grind mobs to overlevel everything. Having too high a level cap is the same issue problem. In Arcanum and Fallout, you eventually get so much stat bloat that you lose whatever identity your character had early to mid-game and become a mary sue master of all. Arcanum and Fallout should have capped at 30.

 

[lukaszek]

max every stat

having max indicate sort of cap!
no lvl cap but stat cap? So eventually you cap everything. You know... almost like if... there was a cap!

 

[Peachcurl]

Spoiler

Didn't fuck up the poll this time. He he he.

I also like the spoiler tag feature.

Spoiler

yes you did. fuck up. the poll. no KC wtf

 

[BoroMonokli]

A very low level cap of 20, achievable in a few play sessions (including the 2x +15 attribute quests) works very well for Guild Wars. It allows for new players to catch up quickly, while the TCG-style skill system has plenty of horizontal (for the character) progression opportunity even once the character is built.

 

[Roguey]

I do not want an endless treadmill nor do I want to become master of everything. Though from my observation, soft caps tend to be better-received than hard caps. All a dev has to do is design a level the player has no hope of ever attaining.

In Arcanum and Fallout, you eventually get so much stat bloat that you lose whatever identity your character had early to mid-game and become a mary sue master of all. Arcanum and Fallout should have capped at 30.

Huh? In the first Fallout if you do everything you can just barely hit level 15 unless you do a lot of grinding. Most players won't get sniper/slayer/silent death.

 

[SumDrunkGuy]

Depends on the game.

 

[perfectslumbers]

No level cap means levels have to be designed around the player getting them infinitely, which tends to mean boring jrpgesque leveling where you just get a stat boost every level up. When there's a level cap each level can be designed more thoughtfully. I also enjoy the feeling of "completing my character," by reaching the level cap.

That said I prefer rpgs where the level cap feels out of reach and you have to go out of your way to achieve it, than rpgs where you automatically reach the level cap, or god forbid reach it halfway through the game.

 

[Skdursh]

Don't care either way except in the case where there is a level cap, but it's too easily met and you end up maxed out with 2/3 of the game still to go.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

In a game utilizing a D&D/AD&D or similar system with a relatively small number of levels and particular abilities acquired at certain levels (especially for spell-casting), the imposition of a cap on maximum level is unavoidable, simply because for every additional level implemented it is also necessary to manually implement the irregular additions of abilities and other gains on level up. Many computer games implement a fundamentally different system, where there are certain regular gains on level up such as few points to add to ability scores (Elder Scrolls series) or a few points to add to skills (Fallout series), which can allow for levels to be increased ad infinitum, at the expense of the player-character eventually becoming overpowered and potentially competent at everything.

The only real drawback of a level cap in the former type of game is that sometimes it is reached too early, even without the player engaging in grinding experience points, which results in experience gains no later mattering and characters no longer progressing, both of which make the remainder of the game less interesting for the player. This a problem of calibration on the part of the designers.

 

[Lacrymas]

Limited scaling can be employed in non-linear games. PoE2 does this well. It's just that the xp is too abundant and you reach level cap halfway through the game.

 

[Not.AI]

but it's too easily met and you end up maxed out with 2/3 of the game still to go.

It's just that the xp is too abundant and you reach level cap halfway through the game.

This.

And there is no general way to avoid that, if the game is not also too linear and scripted, not highly predictable, to begin with.

Spoiler

Nier | FFVI | FFVII are great but they are the model only for a few games. Most games should be open worlds. Merely open worlds done well.

If the player can go where they want, do what they want, when they want, too many will hit the level cap long before the game nearing the end. New things stop falling into the hands of the player, they stop playing, bored. There is always a probability of this and this probability is too high. (Bad Ending.)

Spoiler

While making the level cap so high that 97% completion needed to reach it, means the best abilities will be locked out for almost all players. So most studios will make them an afterthought. Endgame would probably be boring and suck. Memories of the earlier experience would be ruined. (Bad Ending.)

If progression is without levels, just items, this is nice, but it lack the stats-going-up people like, limits the role-playing aspect of playing a character rather than yourself, and limits replay to a large extent: in something like Call of Pripyat, you know where all the best gear is laying around.

It the same issue as so-called "balance" but in other clothes. Two ways to lose.

Maybe the error most games make is a single, common, fixed level cap.

One thing that I've never seen but might not be as bad: getting new gear would raise the level cap. Different gear: different changes to the level cap. The general level cap or abilities level caps.

Just like in any strategy game where building more houses raises the population cap. Rather than overall level or ability level just limiting abilities to craft or equip items. If the gear is mostly unique, could be designed to allow several specific, very different builds and playthroughs.

 

[Peachcurl]

That said I prefer rpgs where the level cap feels out of reach and you have to go out of your way to achieve it, than rpgs where you automatically reach the level cap, or god forbid reach it halfway through the game.

Devs have to take care with reaching level cap late, tho.
I hate it when fun abilities are only available at or close to max level, making them only available for the last few fights of the game.

 

[Brancaleone]

That said I prefer rpgs where the level cap feels out of reach and you have to go out of your way to achieve it, than rpgs where you automatically reach the level cap, or god forbid reach it halfway through the game.

Devs have to take care with reaching level cap late, tho.
I hate it when fun abilities are only available at or close to max level, making them only available for the last few fights of the game.

Exactly. It's two different sets of problems: one thing is levels making you stronger, another is levels increasing the number of your options.
A player might be fine with getting max strength only at the very end, not necessarily with playing with limited number of options until the very end.

 

[mondblut]

In a game utilizing a D&D/AD&D or similar system with a relatively small number of levels and particular abilities acquired at certain levels (especially for spell-casting), the imposition of a cap on maximum level is unavoidable, simply because for every additional level implemented it is also necessary to manually implement the irregular additions of abilities and other gains on level up.

Tell that to Pools of Darkness and Dark Queen of Krynn.

Just because you stop giving away extra speshul awesome abilities at level 20 doesn't mean your progression must end there. A few hps and -1 thac0/+1 bab and a generic feat pick feel good regardless. Sure, they are still capped... at twice the level you are realistically expected to reach without obsessively grinding random encounters for weeks.

 

[SumDrunkGuy]

Don't care either way except in the case where there is a level cap, but it's too easily met and you end up maxed out with 2/3 of the game still to go.

That doesn't always matter if the game has other incentives. You can hit the level cap in Conan Exiles in 10 hours or less, and that game takes hundreds of hours to "complete". And that's fine because the real bulk of the character's progression is the feats you learn which are basically recipes for armors, weapons, potions, and random shit you can build. The character's level is secondary. So it depends on the game like I said earlier. Level caps aren't inherently bad and the OP is a mouth breather.

 

[JarlFrank]

If you remove enemy respawing, you don't need level cap.

Yes.

If you design your game like, say, the Gothics where each monster is hand-placed and "respawns" happen at fixed points between chapters, there is inherently a maximum amount of XP you can gain during the game. If you kill all monsters and do all the quests that are not mutually exclusive, and then beat up all civilians you can without getting mogged by the guards, you have harvested all the XP in the game and can no longer get any more. There doesn't have to be an artificial level cap because there is no random farmable content that lets you grind until you outlevel everything in the world.

Remove or severely limit random encounters and respawns, which disables the ability to grind, and level progression will be much easier to balance.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

How am I gonna have my male power fantasy if you cap me bro? Huh?

rent yourself this guy

So b-b-bomb sexplay from SMB is a thing?

Tell that to Pools of Darkness and Dark Queen of Krynn.

Just because you stop giving away extra speshul awesome abilities at level 20 doesn't mean your progression must end there. A few hps and -1 thac0/+1 bab and a generic feat pick feel good regardless. Sure, they are still capped... at twice the level you are realistically expected to reach without obsessively grinding random encounters for weeks.

For those last two games i like to create a fresh party of fighters and grind their assescto lvl 39 then dual class them to whatever classes i really want up to 40.


I believe the might and magic series has no cap and I know the bard's tale series seems to not have one. I never grinded the wizardry series hard enough to find out.

 

[octavius]

Remove or severely limit random encounters and respawns, which disables the ability to grind, and level progression will be much easier to balance.

But rather unfair to those who must grind to git gud enough to beat the final boss. So I approve.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

I say if the game has them then beat the game as it was intended. Later, if you can mod the fuck out of the game and change shit. Do that.

I've always been a grinder of mobs and rarely did it bother me too much. I do like areas that can be cleared though. There is a sense of completion there.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

For the most part yes, level caps are ok
The exception is obviously games designed around very high or no level cap (usually jRPG's)

But for proper RPG's - where various stats/skills exist to provide distinct playstyles and roles which change interactions with the world - then one thing I despise is getting to mid-game and realise my PCs have completely strayed from what I originally intended, and that I have already gained half of all significant stats/skills
I despise this shit almost as much RPG's with several mechanics, but only 1 or 2 of them are actually worthwhile

It's poor gameplay design, kills challenge, breaks immersion and offers absolutely no replayability
Well thought out level caps (plus XP balance) are simple and effective ways to fix this problem

 

[Not.AI]

I do like areas that can be cleared though. There is a sense of completion there.

One of the best things about Gothic. Simpler to implement than anything else too.

Missing in most game and even Elden Ring. Where just saving progress respawns everything in the area you just emptied a minute ago.