How Much Progression Do You Want in A Game

Eldurian

While this might seem to be a similar topic to others in existence I'm actually asking a different question here. I'm less asking if you like progressing or not and more asking that if you do, please quantify it. Consider the following:

1. New players being defined as a character that has made it through some brief initial content taking between five minutes and five hours to complete (such as tutorials or starter zones) as opposed a freshly created character, and assuming equal player skill, no tactical advantages etc. how many new characters should a max level / max gear character be able to defeat?

2. If your answer to 1 is "infinite" how high should a level gap be before it becomes insurmountable?

3. Should characters reach a point that they can go afk in zones that were previously dangerous to them and be safe / be able to one shot enemies that previously took a lengthy and difficult fight to overcome?  How high should the level gap be before this happens?

4. How many levels do you want in a game (Either for characters or for individual skills). At what rate should you progress through those levels? Describe the kind of curve you want the leveling process to follow if there is one.

Eldurian

While I'm an advocate of horizontal progression (Characters not growing stronger over time in a traditional sense but instead advancing in areas such as gaining new but equally powerful build options.) I will answer this question based off a progression system I would still probably enjoy playing.

1. Based on a difference in stats alone an older player should be able to defeat no more than two new players. Of course through knowledge of the game and application of tactics they should be able to defeat a sizable group.

2. Stat gaps should never be insurmountable. 

3. Early zones would get easier at later levels but swords are swords and they would always hurt no matter what your level. A cocky complacent vet could die in a starter zone and absolutely would die if they were straight up AFK.

3. The exact number isn't overly important given I didn't give a number for an "insurmountable gap" in question 2 or 3 however I'll say 500 to help illustrate my points later in this question. The benefit of levels in terms of character strength would follow a curve that inclines quickly at the start then decreases it's rate of climb over time. The effort needed to level would work normally with levels being harder to gain as time went on.

The first 250 levels would come within a month of active play while the next 200 levels would take about five years to complete. The last 50 levels would be designed not to be completed.

CrazKanuk

I'm actually a big fan of more horizontal progression. I think that in order to encourage the social aspect of games we need to make games where the barrier to entry for new players are minimal, allowing them to get up and running and playing with friends sooner. 

Sovrath

Eldurian said:

While this might seem to be a similar topic to others in existence I'm actually asking a different question here. I'm less asking if you like progressing or not and more asking that if you do, please quantify it. Consider the following:

1. New players being defined as a character that has made it through some brief initial content taking between five minutes and five hours to complete (such as tutorials or starter zones) as opposed a freshly created character, and assuming equal player skill, no tactical advantages etc. how many new characters should a max level / max gear character be able to defeat?

2. If your answer to 1 is "infinite" how high should a level gap be before it becomes insurmountable?

3. Should characters reach a point that they can go afk in zones that were previously dangerous to them and be safe / be able to one shot enemies that previously took a lengthy and difficult fight to overcome?  How high should the level gap be before this happens?

4. How many levels do you want in a game (Either for characters or for individual skills). At what rate should you progress through those levels? Describe the kind of curve you want the leveling process to follow if there is one.

1, 3

3, no. I think that a wolf should always be dangerous. That leveling should allow the player to beat that wolf but not be immune to that wolf.

4, slow leveling, harder as you get higher, infinite leveling but leveling should be more than just gaining an extra set of hit points. Maybe it's about gaining extra abilities or passives but not gaining extra hit points? Don't know. I enjoy progression but I don't necessarily think a high level character should sit there while 100 players try to hit him without effect.

Phaserlight

Eldurian said:

While this might seem to be a similar topic to others in existence I'm actually asking a different question here. I'm less asking if you like progressing or not and more asking that if you do, please quantify it. Consider the following:

1. New players being defined as a character that has made it through some brief initial content taking between five minutes and five hours to complete (such as tutorials or starter zones) as opposed a freshly created character, and assuming equal player skill, no tactical advantages etc. how many new characters should a max level / max gear character be able to defeat?

2. If your answer to 1 is "infinite" how high should a level gap be before it becomes insurmountable?

3. Should characters reach a point that they can go afk in zones that were previously dangerous to them and be safe / be able to one shot enemies that previously took a lengthy and difficult fight to overcome?  How high should the level gap be before this happens?

4. How many levels do you want in a game (Either for characters or for individual skills). At what rate should you progress through those levels? Describe the kind of curve you want the leveling process to follow if there is one.

The Everquest / WoW level design really turned out to be a terrible idea when applied to open-world PvP.  It only works within a narrow set of design parameters, such as "consensual PvP only" or "battlegrounds"; it's a spandrel left over from design ideas taken from Dungeons and Dragons, which uses the idea of levels in a heavily-moderated, dungeon-master guided experience.  Unsurprisingly, this doesn't translate very well to an open world computer program where anything goes.

Very simply, the power curve in a MMO with progression ought to look like a logarithmic function.  As such, even after playing a decade, I can beat some players with a couple months under their belt some times but not all the time.

cameltosis

Eldurian said:

While this might seem to be a similar topic to others in existence I'm actually asking a different question here. I'm less asking if you like progressing or not and more asking that if you do, please quantify it. Consider the following:

1. New players being defined as a character that has made it through some brief initial content taking between five minutes and five hours to complete (such as tutorials or starter zones) as opposed a freshly created character, and assuming equal player skill, no tactical advantages etc. how many new characters should a max level / max gear character be able to defeat?

2. If your answer to 1 is "infinite" how high should a level gap be before it becomes insurmountable?

3. Should characters reach a point that they can go afk in zones that were previously dangerous to them and be safe / be able to one shot enemies that previously took a lengthy and difficult fight to overcome?  How high should the level gap be before this happens?

4. How many levels do you want in a game (Either for characters or for individual skills). At what rate should you progress through those levels? Describe the kind of curve you want the leveling process to follow if there is one.

1) Assuming equal skill and no other tactical advantages, then a maxed out player should be able to beat 1 new player on average. However, as a fan of horizontal progression, I believe a maxed out character would be able to specialise themselves for killing newbies (because a new character will have a guaranteed setup), in which case they might be able to kill 3 newbies. 

2) Horizontal progression is all about specialising. I believe that if you have specialised down one particular route (e.g. clothie killer) then you should have a maximum of 50% advantage over your opponent. However, specialism works both ways, so even though you're a clothie killer, you might be 50% weaker against tanks. 

3) No

4) No levels in relation to character progression. However, I'm happy to have levels / ranks / titles etc to monitor pvp xp, faction xp etc. 


I'm an advocate for horizontal progression. That means no levels. It means you never unlock more stats, or better versions of skills. You would simply unlock more specialised skills, traits, builds, gear etc. With horizontal progression, your overall power does not progress, therefore (on average) power gaps remain neutral. 

The thrill of horizontal progression comes from being able to seriously customise your character and fine tune it for your personal playstyle, but also in unlocking tons of variations that result in emergent gameplay.

For example, I love melee brawlers in general. Its a rare day that I choose to play a ranged character. My preference is usually for polearms - the closer I can get to Darth Maul, the better! - so in a horizontal progression game, I would be looking to unlock more polearm skills, but would still enjoy unlocking 2h sword skills, sword and board stuff etc. With each new skill and specialism that I unlock, my relative power should stay the same, but the way my character plays, it's strengths and weaknesses would change. It would keep my class interesting for longer, it keeps all content relevant, it results in more emergent gameplay so the content can remain interesting as well.  

cameltosis

Forgot to talk about rate of progress. 

1) To build your first complete template - 120 hours

By this, I mean it should take you 1 month, averaging 4 hours a day, in order to be able to build your first complete template. Using my melee brawler example, that means it should take me a month to build a template focused on polearms, with my toolbars and traits full and specialised towards polearms. 

2) To unlock everything - 720 hours

I want people to be able to contribute and specialise right from the start, hence the fairly quick time for a first template. However, I want there to be tons to unlock, and feel it should take 6 months of 4 hours a day to unlock all specialisms and max out all traits on a single character. I feel this is fairly dedicated, so average player it might take a year or more. 

Cogohi

Eldurian said:

While this might seem to be a similar topic to others in existence I'm actually asking a different question here. I'm less asking if you like progressing or not and more asking that if you do, please quantify it. Consider the following: ...

Depends on what I'm playing.  If it's a single-player game then I need to be able to be a god among men.  If it's an MMO quite the opposite.

CrazKanuk said:

I'm actually a big fan of more horizontal progression. I think that in order to encourage the social aspect of games we need to make games where the barrier to entry for new players are minimal, allowing them to get up and running and playing with friends sooner. 

This is exactly my frustration with the existing catalog of MMO's.  I've never seen any two people level at the same rate without some heavy coordination.  Thanks to F2P and xp boosts even playtime coordination is not enough.

These days when I see north of 20 levels I get twitchy.  MMO's that boast of triple digit levels are "lol nope".  Tacking on an additional end-game grind progression (eg. SW:TOR's Galactic Command and WildStar's Primal Matrix) is an excellent way to get me to unsub or not even bother coming back.

Aside: Carbine should have known better.  There was a huge amount of backlash against the end-game AMP & Ability point grind.  Why they thought people wouldn't react the same way to the Primal Matrix grind simply baffles me.

Mensur

EQ 1! thats the way to go!

Steelhelm

1.
Three

2.
N/A

3.
No

4.
No levels. Progression through stat increase. 5 or 6 main stats with natural cap. Players would have to choose which stats to increase and to which level. Additional but minuscule stat increase through item enchants. Becoming a naturally capped player might take from 6 months to a year.

Shaigh

The first MUD I played had 19 levels and beyond that they had hero levels. It was fairly equal 1v1 fights if there was a 1-2 level difference between characters, although you had some odd matchups between some classes.

What I really liked about the progression in that MUD was that levels really mattered as well as you constantly raised stats and skills while you were on that level so there wasn't any moment before level 16 where progression felt slow. At level 19 progression became slower and at every hero level your exp gain rate was reduced by 33% which meant that at 19+3 levels started to take a really long time.

I wasn't fond of the progression you had in MUD that had 50+ levels just like I didn't like those systems for mmorpg.

To answer your questions:
1. There has to be so many that your ISP gets an overload to make you go linkdead for level 1-5 to kill you.
2. If there are a difference of 3 they would have to duo to take you down, at a difference of 5 they should need a group. This should change a bit with hero levels.
3. 5 levels of difference, different for hero levels.
4. Somewhere between 20-25 levels with some sort of AA system beyond that. Around 10 days for an experienced and efficient player to reach the softcap.

sunandshadow

I'm ok with a level gap of 3 being surmountable, while a level gap of 5 is not.  At higher levels it makes sense if the difference per level is less significant, so a level 90 character could possibly win a duel against a level 100 character.

Eldurian

sunandshadow said:

I'm ok with a level gap of 3 being surmountable, while a level gap of 5 is not.  At higher levels it makes sense if the difference per level is less significant, so a level 90 character could possibly win a duel against a level 100 character.

I wouldn't say any system in which there is an insurmountable level difference can be described as "making sense." Atilla the Hun was the scourge of the most powerful empire on earth and he died of a nosebleed. If a common mook manages to get a knife into a vital area of the most powerful soldier on earth they still die.

I think if you have truly gained the right to be undefeatable by any but the best, you should have to show it with your player skills. 

sunandshadow

Eldurian said:

sunandshadow said:

I'm ok with a level gap of 3 being surmountable, while a level gap of 5 is not.  At higher levels it makes sense if the difference per level is less significant, so a level 90 character could possibly win a duel against a level 100 character.

I wouldn't say any system in which there is an insurmountable level difference can be described as "making sense." Atilla the Hun was the scourge of the most powerful empire on earth and he died of a nosebleed. If a common mook manages to get a knife into a vital area of the most powerful soldier on earth they still die.

I think if you have truly gained the right to be undefeatable by any but the best, you should have to show it with your player skills. 

Eh, well, to me reality can't be described as "making sense". *shrug*  Or perhaps the type of sense it makes it too horrifying to be acceptable in a game intended as an entertainment.

Phry

I think one of the reasons why i like Eve Online, even after all these years, is because there is no level gap, that is not to say that there is not 'progression' in the game, though perhaps my idea of progression is not necessarily everyone elses, for me progressions is as much about how you gain in experience through playing a game, and by that i don't mean XP+Levels etc. but actual personal experience, like in BDO, where levels and gear are really important, but learning how to actually fight effectively is even more so, though a better example is probably CS:GO, where there are no level advantages of any kind, and where the deciding factors are personal skill, tactics, and teamwork, and you really have to be good at all three of those to 'progress'
Levels are imo pseudo content, if not a lazy game mechanic, the only difference between a new player and a veteran player should be in personal experience and ability, not some crazy level based i win default.

Kyleran

The acceptable amount of progression vs power gap is hard for me to quantify.

Only way I can is to point to EVE as the best system I've found, a mix of capped veritical and horizontal progression per ship or activity yet an almost endless number of skills and activities to progress on.

DAOC comes in 2nd, capping levels at 50 forever but continuing progression in realm abilities which improved your character, especially from a RVR perspective.

Even if someone is a level 50 RR 12L10 a group of 3-4 level 50 RR 2L0's can kill them.

DAOC still suffers from 1 to 49, even with battlegrounds grouped by levels, a lvl 20 has little chance against a lvl 24 except if part of a zerg.

ste2000

My answer is simple.
It is not about 'how much' but more about 'how long'.
Make progression really (and I mean reeeeally) slow so it feels more like an horizontal progression.

Not to beat on the same old dead horse but in the Original EQ the progression was so slow that you actually forgot it was there.
Not having to worry about leveling made me actually enjoy the game and the community more.
Today people just want to get to Max level ASAP skipping as much content as they can and avoid connecting with other players which (ironically for a multiplayer game) could slow down their leveling marathon.

Eronakis

I personally feel that vertical progression is more traditionally sound and more rewarding as a player than horizontal progression. Both forms of progression work, I just prefer vertical progression. With that being said, I can think of 3 games that combat the level gap.

Vanguard/Pantheon - To my knowledge, Vanguard introduced the Mentor and Caravan Mechanic which I found very interesting and a way to negate level gap. The Mentor system allowed a higher level player to temporarily scale to the level of their party. The Mentor can still gain experience while mentoring. The Caravan mechanic allowed players who may not have the time as some of their online friends, so players within that caravan who were offline could also receive rest/decent experience to help catch up. I believe Pantheon is also integrating the Mentor system.

Guild Wars 2 - From level 1-80, Gw2 has a vertical progression until you hit end game, where end game content became horizontal, thus why I haven't played it in a while. Instead of a player determining when to 'mentor', Gw2 had the approach that whatever zone you're in, your character is scaled to that zone's level range and your skills scale as well. This also negated a level gap.

Personally, I feel that both of these avenues to negating a level gap for vertical gameplay works. I don't know which approach I prefer, I am slightly in favor of the Mentor System but just really depends on the core gameplay.

@ste2000 I agree with your sentiment about Everquest, the duration of progression was so slow you didn't really notice it. I will say that post WoW, most players have the idea stuck in their head that leveling is just a quick means to an end and that real game begins at end game content. The race to end game because that is 'where the real game begins' is a toxic approach. To me, MMORPG's were always about community, challenge, variety and immersion. Progression should be about the journey, not end game content. End game content is the reward for reaching higher levels. If you must consider leveling as a race, consider it a marathon, not a 100 yard sprint.

For my current design for my mmorpg, I would just ball park the figures in hours of how long it may take someone to reach level cap...

Levels 1-10 ~ 15 hours
Levels 10-20 ~ 50 hours
Levels 20-30 ~ 175 hours
Levels 30-40 ~ 350 hours
Levels 40-55 ~ 675 hours

*Obviously this above is just ball parking it and is up for change*

cameltosis

For those who enjoy vertical progression, I'm curious whether you actually enjoy seeing the numbers getting bigger or not. 

For me, stat increases have always felt like artificial progression to me. So, sure, I level up and instead of hitting for 1000dps, I start hitting for 1100dps. The numbers on the screen get bigger. 

But what has actually changed beyond floating numbers? I'm still using the same skills, the same rotations. Hell, in most games, you don't even feel more powerful because as you progress through the quests, the enemy level also goes up, so power relative to content typically stays the same anyway. 


For me, the only progression that has ever felt truly meaningful has been the unlocking of skills or traits that change the way I actually play my character. 

k61977

For me it is pretty easy, I enjoy leveling.  So if a game is going to have vertical leveling I would like to see a game where just going from level 1 to level 2 takes some meaningful time, and just keeps going from there.  Not talking about a grinding game but one where you have all kinds of different things you can do instead of just killing mobs to level, things like crafting, harvesting, ect...  Something were it could take a full 6 months of someone that actually has no life and plays all the time to reach a max level if one even exist at all.  But in this type of system I would like to see gear have no meaning other than cosmetic, where you get your boost by leveling and learning skills or new traits as you level.  I also like being able to pick where I put stat points instead of a static thing like a lot of games do now.  This is just my opinion though, I know many do not like leveling at all, but to each their own. 

Dullahan

There should always be something new to achieve in an MMO. When there isn't, people stop playing. The gains don't have to be massive so that it creates in insurmountable gap between older players and new, but if designed right, some things may be bypassed later on down the line by new players.

New content will always trivialize the old to some degree. The problem is when you make everything before the newest expansion completely worthless (I'm looking at you WoW).

Ultimately if progression is to feel meaningful and like a real achievement, new players should be at a disadvantage. I know that just crazy, but if it isn't the case what you've accomplished doesn't really mean shit.

Loke666

Eldurian said:

While I'm an advocate of horizontal progression (Characters not growing stronger over time in a traditional sense but instead advancing in areas such as gaining new but equally powerful build options.) I will answer this question based off a progression system I would still probably enjoy playing.

1. Based on a difference in stats alone an older player should be able to defeat no more than two new players. Of course through knowledge of the game and application of tactics they should be able to defeat a sizable group.

2. Stat gaps should never be insurmountable. 

3. Early zones would get easier at later levels but swords are swords and they would always hurt no matter what your level. A cocky complacent vet could die in a starter zone and absolutely would die if they were straight up AFK.

3. The exact number isn't overly important given I didn't give a number for an "insurmountable gap" in question 2 or 3 however I'll say 500 to help illustrate my points later in this question. The benefit of levels in terms of character strength would follow a curve that inclines quickly at the start then decreases it's rate of climb over time. The effort needed to level would work normally with levels being harder to gain as time went on.

The first 250 levels would come within a month of active play while the next 200 levels would take about five years to complete. The last 50 levels would be designed not to be completed.

I basically agree with this besides that I don't see the point of having so many levels, 20, 50 or 500 is just a number and it is the time it takes to get there that really matters. Each level should give you access to something new, not just a couple of HP or a small stat increase. 

20 levels which all grants new skills and options when you reach them is in my world at least more fun then 500 where you only get something useful every 20 level or so, even with an almost horizontal  progression leveling should mean something or you could just skip them altogether.

Otherwise I think you are totally right.

Loke666

cameltosis said:

For those who enjoy vertical progression, I'm curious whether you actually enjoy seeing the numbers getting bigger or not. 

For me, stat increases have always felt like artificial progression to me. So, sure, I level up and instead of hitting for 1000dps, I start hitting for 1100dps. The numbers on the screen get bigger. 

But what has actually changed beyond floating numbers? I'm still using the same skills, the same rotations. Hell, in most games, you don't even feel more powerful because as you progress through the quests, the enemy level also goes up, so power relative to content typically stays the same anyway. 


For me, the only progression that has ever felt truly meaningful has been the unlocking of skills or traits that change the way I actually play my character. 

The whole thing with getting increased stats gets rather pointless whenever you move to the next zone where you go from killing dragons at the high end of last zone to getting killed by goblins as a low in the next zone is rather silly, yes.

It is a weird thing loosely based on D&D but in D&D the average monster have a standard level and a regular wolf will never be a challenge to a higher lvl PC, only intelligent beings that also can level up can be that there. I think it would feel less confusing if animals and most monsters were set at a specific level in the entire game instead of just zonewise.

Of course it is also the rather silly powergap between noobs and people of max level that really messes things up, I wish they decreased that, even D&D (besides the crappy 4th edition) have nowhere near that huge powergap even if D&D and Pathfinder probably are the 2 pen and paper games with largest powergap, and that by far.

Distopia

I'm not a fan of progression for the sake of more progression, after a while it just becomes another swing at the mole to me. I think progression should truly lead to an ingame purpose, one outside of fighting for yet even more progression. That's all loot based designs turn into in the end.

Hence why I've always been more inclined to speak of SWG over other games in this genre. It's the only one I've played where every progression choice actually resulted in an in-game (endgame) purpose. Be it running a shop, Collecting bounties, slicing weapons as a trade, Entertainer, Doctor, architect etc... 

In other games it never quite feels like I achieve anything, just always working toward it but never being there, only just shy of it.. The eternal carrot chase. 

cameltosis

coretex666 said:

cameltosis said:

For those who enjoy vertical progression, I'm curious whether you actually enjoy seeing the numbers getting bigger or not. 

For me, stat increases have always felt like artificial progression to me. So, sure, I level up and instead of hitting for 1000dps, I start hitting for 1100dps. The numbers on the screen get bigger. 

But what has actually changed beyond floating numbers? I'm still using the same skills, the same rotations. Hell, in most games, you don't even feel more powerful because as you progress through the quests, the enemy level also goes up, so power relative to content typically stays the same anyway. 


For me, the only progression that has ever felt truly meaningful has been the unlocking of skills or traits that change the way I actually play my character. 

Unlocking new skills / abilities / spells is probably the most rewarding aspect of vertical progression. Well, maybe it is on par with getting gear upgrades in games where receiving a new piece of gear is a rare occurence. It is probably one of the reasons why I prefer MMORPGs where you are actually getting new spells / skills as you level up rather than getting higher levels of those that you have been using since low level.

However, for me it is probably not so much about the fact that I can play my character differently due to e.g. having more spells to choose from or having a new spell in the rotation, but rather because it makes my character stronger and more effective in the role it plays in the world. It also often opens new possibilities.

Stat increases usually allowed me to travel to new places, grind monsters more efficiently, hunt monsters with interesting drops in solo or with only 1 friend which was not possible before I got to a certain stat level, overcome stronger bosses, kill or defend myself from other players, etc...

I would lie if I said that simply dealing larger damage does not do anything for me, but it is not just about seeing larger "floating numbers", but rather about its impact on the way I play the game and what activities I can get involved in.

This was the point I was kinda hinting at:

Unlocking new skills / spells etc can be done via horizontal or vertical progression systems, the key point is that the unlock has a meaningful impact on your character. This is why I prefer horizontal progression: you can still have meaningful unlocks and game-changing progression, you just avoid the pointless power gaps created by vertical progression. 

Cryomatrix

Eldurian said:

While this might seem to be a similar topic to others in existence I'm actually asking a different question here. I'm less asking if you like progressing or not and more asking that if you do, please quantify it. Consider the following:

1. New players being defined as a character that has made it through some brief initial content taking between five minutes and five hours to complete (such as tutorials or starter zones) as opposed a freshly created character, and assuming equal player skill, no tactical advantages etc. how many new characters should a max level / max gear character be able to defeat?

2. If your answer to 1 is "infinite" how high should a level gap be before it becomes insurmountable?

3. Should characters reach a point that they can go afk in zones that were previously dangerous to them and be safe / be able to one shot enemies that previously took a lengthy and difficult fight to overcome?  How high should the level gap be before this happens?

4. How many levels do you want in a game (Either for characters or for individual skills). At what rate should you progress through those levels? Describe the kind of curve you want the leveling process to follow if there is one.

1) I'd prefer to say "a lot" it depends on type of max geared character . . . melee vs range

2) logarithmic

3) Yes, I figure if you are in a high fantasy world, and start off with barely any skills and become the single most powerful wizard or whatever, you should be able to slaughter whole villages right. 

4) Levels: --> You get 1 attribute point to add, and new set of skills periodically until level 50
         Levels 50-100 = You can choose from a large passive tree like in Path of exile


1- 50 = 60 hours = at level 50 you can upgrade your class with a number of options with a long quest like in lineage 2 --> basically you choose a subclass with its skills or you stick with an upgraded version of the class you like

50-70 = 50 hours = at level 70 you can upgrade your class with a number of options with a long quest like in lineage 2 --> basically you choose a subclass with its skills or you stick with an upgraded version of the class you like

70-90 = 50 hours = at level 90 you can upgrade your class with a number of options with a long quest like in lineage 2 --> basically you choose a subclass with its skills or you stick with an upgraded version of the class you like

90-100 = 80 hours = at level 100 you choose a special skill for your class - a few options and you get a skill point to hero rank a +1

-- Mob difficulty stops at level 100. After level 100, as you level up, mobs should be getting slightly easier due to increases in your skills 

Levels - 100-200 = You get to choose a 1% increase in an attribute

100-110 = 90 hours == At level 110 = You get a skill point to hero rank a +1
110-120 = 90 hours == At level 120 = You get a skill point to hero rank a +1
120-130 = 90 hours == At level 130 = You get a skill point to hero rank a +1
130-140 = 90 hours == At level 140 = You get a skill point to hero rank a +1
140-150 = 90 hours == At level 150 = You get a new special skill option per your current class
150-160 = 90 hours == At level 160 = You get a skill point to hero rank a +1
170-180 = 90 hours == At level 170 = You get a skill point to hero rank a +1
180-190 = 90 hours == At level 180 = You get a skill point to hero rank a +1
190-197 = 90 hours == At level 190 = You get a new skill passive tree for 7 levels
197-198 = 90 hours == At level 198 = You get 1 point from a god passive tree to choose from
198-199 = 90 hours == At level 199 = You get 1 point from a god passive tree to choose from
199-200 = 250 hours == At level 200 = You become a prophet with a special skill per your current class that once again no one has which is an amazing skill. For example, a class could have a scrying spell, that will lock onto a player for 24 hours and let anyone who is bounty chasing that person to see them on their map. Can be used once a day . 

200 - (A special symbol of your choice) = 1500 hours == You become a god and get a statue of your character. Plus, you gain 1% to all attributes per 100 followers. You give each follower +1% to something. 

3000 hours total.


Okay, enough of wasting time. The goal here is to make leveling fun and while you are leveling up and doing raids or whatever, your level never stops. So you are raiding to get gear but at the same time your char is getting slowly more powerful. 

Cryomatrix