[project1dev] Re: [Design] Player leveling?
- From: Kent Petersen <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 16:49:29 -0700
Population all the way. I hate grinding
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> So in the original act raiser game, since you leveled up based on
> population, and there was only so much land, you were basically capped out
> at a specific level at specific parts of the game.
>
> If you look at a game like gemcraft (a flash tower defense) or even diablo
> or any RPG, you can basically hang around and level up as much as you want,
> or as much as you need to, to be able to move to the next area.
>
> This has a side effect of making it so if you arent as good at a game, you
> just have to level up more, and then you can continue on and see the whole
> game so that all levels of players can get to the full content of the game
> (level caps interfere with this of course).
>
> So im curious what you guys think., which is better? And why do you think
> it's better?
>
> #1) You level up based on your population. When you run out of space to
> build more buildings, youve effectively gotten as strong as you can in an
> area and need to move on. You can come back later when you have better
> technology so they can build better houses, but for now you are locked at
> that specific level and are forced to go to the next place.
>
> OR
>
> #2) Every time you kill something, you gain experience. This lets you
> farm experience and level up as much as you want to before moving forward.
>
>
>
Other related posts:
