At 1/26/07 07:30 AM, AfroUnderscoreStud wrote:
The amount of time it takes to level up is perfectly fine at the moment, since it takes a while to level up, which makes it seem more meaningful. Reducing the amount of time it takes to level up will take away that meaning, since you'll be levelling up too frequently, making it seem like barely an achievement at all.
I don't see that. Why would levelling up - say - after three months instead of six months be less of an achievement?
It's not until you reach somewhere around level 23 that levelling up takes too long. Bear in mind that it's not these high-level users that are complaining. The majority of the complainers are those that have just reached level 9 and are shocked by the amount of experience they need to reach level 10, since they were used to levelling up after every 50 experience points recieved. The arrival of the new levels isn't going to help these people to not feel shocked, since they'll still be faced with a significant extra amount of experience points to acquire than they were used to.
Those who're now high levels, well, already are at high levels. There's a few levels they likely will never reach, but for the most part, even the very high ones can be attained - I remember seeing ramagi at level 23 for a long time, for example, and she's 25 now. I'm pretty sure she'll eventually get to 26, too, at least (that is, she would if there wouldn't be any new levels).
It's not true that the majority of those who complain have just reached level 9, either. Apart from the fact that everyone can see the system is broken no matter which level they currently have, anyway, no matter whether it's level 2 or level 20, I, for one, have always been saying that it's broken even though I'm level 15 now and well on my way to 16.
But actually, I'd be more inclined to listen to those who've just reached level 9, anyway, since they will have to endure even larger gaps. Let's take level 25, for example - I don't know how long it took ramagi to get there, but since she signed up in spring 2001 and since she's 25 now, it took her less than 6 years. Now, take me; according to the planetbob calculator, I'll need another 12 years and 11 months to get there, for a total of about 15 and a half years. Someone who just reached level 9 (400 XP) would need another 22 years and 3 months, in addition to the (negligible) ~1 month they already spent on NG.
How can anyone seriously say that this is not broken?
I'm not saying that high levels should be easy to reach or that, for example, all levels should be at set 50 XP gaps even after level 9 (although I wouldn't be surprised if that's what it was like when the whole level system was first introduced. Does someone know what the *original* level requirements were, before they started changing for the first time?). What I *am* saying is that *everyone* deserves a chance to actually reach even the high levels with enough dedication and hard work, and the way things are now, if you didn't sign up a few years ago, you're hosed, plain and simple.
ramagi got to level 25 in less than 6 years. I will need more than 15 years to get there. Someone who is level 9 right now will need more than 22. Somebody who'll sign up in a year might well need 30. How is that fair?
The current system really does nothing except for rewarding those who have been here for a long time - or, more to the point, it punishes everyone who hasn't. Rewards for having been here for long are OK, but I really think that levels should scale exponentially instead of linearly. Why does the gap between level 9 and level 10, at any given time, have to be the same as the gap between level 29 and level 30? (I know it's still easier to level up to 10, of course, but I'm talking about the XP gap only.) I frankly don't see why, and an exponential scaling would get rid of the unfairness for people who haven't been around for half a decade or more already.
And all this is doubly true when you consider that (base) VP is directly tied to XP, too; one might argue that XP and levels are ultimately meaningless numbers that are only good for vanity, but as it stands, people who're not part of the "old guard" are also punished in terms of voting power - they're basically told that they are and always will be worth less (not worthless, of course, but worth less).
I don't see why that's good, either.