Official Blizzard Quote:
We've been working with a level cap that's quite a bit different. It was something I had alluded to a while back but I think it's probably worth discussing sooner rather than later.
So, we're working with a lower level cap for a myriad of reasons but really the main point that they're more or less all linked to is that we came to the conclusion that a cap of 99 exists for the sake of itself. Meaning that it's a really high number despite all sorts of good things like meaningful player/skill/power pacing, item distribution, balance, etc. It's sort of this long term goal that really didn't matter, almost an Achievement without the flashy graphics or *bwong* sound. You didn't need to reach 99 to do anything, in almost all ways the game stopped somewhere in the 80's (for a lot of people a lot lower), but by stretching the player out over an additional 20 or so levels to 99 it created all sorts of issues we were having problems justifying forcing the game in to. So we're working with a level cap of 60 at the moment.
This is the point where some of you scream "60!? That's like original World of Warcraft!" And then the rest of you /facepalm and say "60!? Couldn't you pick any other number? Now everyone is going to compare it to World of Warcraft!"
The 60 level cap we're working with came from a lot of time and thinking about our content and how we want the experience to feel at every level. It so happens that it works for us really well.
Of course it all comes down to an XP curve. We could, for instance, say the level cap in Diablo III is 60 and then pace that curve and gain out over what we estimate it took someone to reach 99 in Diablo II. Of course we wouldn't do that but it should help illustrate that the time from 1-60 in Diablo II does not equal the amount of time it will take to reach 60 in Diablo III. 60 levels versus 99 levels doesn't mean less content or less powerful characters, etc. These aren't uniform levels of power that move from game to game. And in fact we are pushing a longer game that Diablo II and I'd argue our characters feel way more powerful. Ok, that out of the way, moving on!
The leveling experience is always going to stop somewhere because the real game is the item hunt. So, instead of letting it drag out to a less meaningful 80 or so levels like most people saw in Diablo II, we have 60 levels of awesome; at every level you'll get a meaningful and noticeable increase in power. It has a ton of other benefits and fixes a lot of problems a higher cap causes, but I'll take pause.
Bashiok pointed out some very good reasons for this level cap. Most importantly, that this number really is arbitrary. Whether it is sixty or ninety-nine, the actual game and content will be no different. If anything, it just makes gaining each level that much more rewarding. This could also be beneficial for helping with end game content with the natural flow of then end of the game getting your character to max level. Bashiok further commented that the leveling increment would be around level thirty through the first difficulty, level fifty by the end ofthe second and sixty after the hardest difficulty. With this idea, is it possible that the whole game is developed enough to be playable since they know how the flow of leveling will work out over the course of the game?. It will also be interesting to see how this new level cap will work with the new skill system they have in place. Will we only get sixty skill points or will skills not directly level with character level. While this news leave a lot unanswered, it is nice to get another concrete fact about the game.
now to see how exactly its gonna work with the "awesome" boost with every level gain!
big boost in stats or several skill points with each level up... probably gonna get more with Blizzcon.
Oh. That's right. This. Isn't. WoW.
I played Guild Wars where they made a 20 cap work great. I see no problem with a 60 cap.
I'm very pleased and happy to read that!
Its hard for me to elaborate on this and nobody ever gives a flying shit about this particular subject, anyway, because nobody cares to understand it.
but i think a big reason for a lower level cap is room for more expansions. blizzard does love their dinero...
to a certain point, i'm with you. but i kinda feel what bashiok means by "useless final levels". they take too much effort and they dont really mean too much. kinda felt more rewarding in certain other games where the level cap actually ment something (i do have WoW in mind and there each level up actually made sense).
we'll have to get some sort of end-game, though to make sure it wont end up being simple, boring grinding for stuff and nothing more to look forward to.
They should remove the name Diablo 3 and call this game world of warcraft but with a different view and slightly different graphics. BoE, lvl 60, skill trees looked the same, they wanted to make unique items epic and purple lol.
I mean when you take a hard look at what they have done so far its basically WoW but with no subscription and a different view with slightly altered graphics.
I'm still going to play this game. My only question is that why are they bothering make a new game if its going to be just like WoW anyway. I don't understand it.
what diff does that make? Why can't the level cap be 99 and then the next expansion would push it to 130// ect..ect, why the hell does everything need to be centered around world of warcraft with this game? Imho I can't stand when I find new information about diablo 3 only to have it be completely the same as world of warcraft. It's driving me insane.
What did you get once you hit lvl 99? Probably not a lot. D3 is an entirely different entity altogether, you can't compare the two on that detail alone, it's nearly impossible.
and no, i dont think its gonna be like Diablo 2 when it comes to hitting the level cap. it wont finish the game for that character but merely end the development skill/stat wise. hopefully we're gonna have more of an end-game now than we did with Diablo 2 since honestly, the Diablo 2 end-game was the same from level 75-80 and up. it was all grind. Chaos Sanctuary runs in Diablo II, Baal runs in LoD. and some uber runs later on for torches (after you grinded for the keys). that's not serious end-game.
the level cap in Diablo II didnt make a difference. was boring and took too much effort to hit. hopefully there will be a difference now.
PS. it does leave alot of room for future expansions that we're definitely going to see after the game is released.
that's kind of important too. 7 active skills at any time. probably talking about action bar/mouse but it kinda worried me. asked the same question in the battle.net forums but i havent got an official reply so far.
but it does seem a bit too limited even if we usually dont use more than 7 skills (at least in most games).
so, Diablo 3 is exactly like WoW except for no subscription (which is a good thing...), different angle, and slightly altered graphics?
you have obviously never played a Diablo game in your entire life.
In multiplayer games, other players decide what "happens", I.E. the builds and playstyles for everyone to copy, the most desirable weapons. It's near equally as out of hand of any individual player that comes along, with the aggreated work of a few early community members determining everyone else's experience. The difference is that what the "players" make is usually a small handful of cookie cutters or highly repetitive activities like boss runs, because that is what emerges as the "best" when you just roll some random numbers instead of a developer trying to balance things... the latter of which only happens when they can control and test for most variables.
You are spot-on in recognizing this team is taking a far more "structured" approach to the endgame than D2 did, but considering the joke of (im)balance D2 endgame has always been, I find that very welcome.
The same game? lol... So with that logic, counterstrike and battlefield are the same game because they both have guns to shoot people with.
Oh god this sounds like heaven!
By the way, when bashiok says that normal difficulty will account for the first 30 levels, nightmare for the next 20 and hell for the last 10 (adjust names of difficulties accordingly) is this assuming that we never run through the same map twice and that we kill every monster we encounter? In other words, the experience of all 3 difficulties with all monsters combined is enough to get us up to 60?
I know an answer would be speculation on everyone's part, but what do you think about it?
I'm not in disagreement with you, but I think there's a balance in between to be achieved. Despite what happened with D2, I've seen games (though my best examples would be some not very well known MMORPGs) which would have been nothing if the game was designed the way Blizzard (and other developpers) design their games.
Even if D2 had repetitive boss runs and rushing all over, it was such a grand hit. Why? Yes, there are major flaws that appears after years, but what we can't prove is, what if the game was designed with a lot more structure? Would it still has the same feeling and charms? I believe not, far from it.
Its hard to put these thoughts into words anyway. A few lines to resume my thoughts:
A game with too many rules and restrictions is a game without a "soul". A game with a "soul" is one that feels more than "just another game" because it was designed with passion and not with restraint. A game with a "soul" is a work of art (and I'm not just talking about the visuals/graphics). A hint: most games, especially in the last decade, are "soulless" by my definition and opinion.
hope this makes sense. 2 am and been up since 6 am. XD