Skip to Content
6-22-2010 @ 2:08PM
Did Blizzard ever say why the level cap will only be 85 instead of 90? I don't recall...
6-22-2010 @ 2:12PM
6-22-2010 @ 2:15PM
Sorry, somehow that last comment posted on its own lol.They said it's because they want to have more expansions, but don't want the level cap to be 120 or whatever, because it would be getting ridiculously high.Also, each level (81-85) will take a lot longer to get to
Yes, they did.they're upping the level to 85 instead of 90, because after Cata, they plan to release a new expansion every year, And so, they don't want people to get to lvl 150 within a couple years. just think of the alt lvling T.T
6-22-2010 @ 2:27PM
So they can make an expansion for level 90, level 95, then level 97.5, and finally level 100. (Not sure but there are rumors of a level 99.9 cap in the works.) Business 101 make as much money off the fools while you can.
Whatever their excuses for it the reason is that the revamped 1-60 game eats up too much dev time to do 10 levels of content. I have heard plenty of game companies promise "more content, more often" and I am still waiting on Half-Life 2: Episode 3.
6-22-2010 @ 2:31PM
Additionally, I believe they said that they wanted to spend more time developing the end game (and redeveloping the rest of the world), rather than working heavily on the leveling experience.
6-22-2010 @ 2:32PM
@ FrostbonesLevel 99.9 is in there because 100 is theoretically impossible to reach, as it would mean occupying all levels and classes simultaneously. Rumors are it would also morph your character into a basilisk that can still fly a shuttlecraft.
6-22-2010 @ 2:36PM
@rich Nice Star Trek: Voyager reference there.
6-22-2010 @ 2:39PM
@raptor: You know they are just going to come out with Half Life 3 instead....
6-22-2010 @ 2:59PM
6-22-2010 @ 3:13PM
@thegathererI am just worried about Valve pulling a 3D Realms* and getting so precious about beating their masterpiece that they blow all their capital. In the time since Half-Life 2 other companies have released two-three full games. In nearly six years Valve have released 2/3's of a sequel, a re-skin of Team Fortress, and a student project.* If it wasn't for WoW I am sure Blizzard would have gone the same way trying to top StarCraft and Diablo.
6-22-2010 @ 3:26PM
@theRapterI don't believe it is actually possible for Blizzard to "blow all their capital" - It would be like Brewster's Millions :Hard Mode Edition, sans Richard Pryor.
6-22-2010 @ 3:31PM
@ArturisWhich is why I said "without wow". WoW has been bankrolling them for a long time. They have made a lot of money off WC/SC/Diablo but the money from those games doesn't pay the costs for a company as big as Blizzard. The reason they have taken so long to release games since 2004 is precisely because they have the luxury of a steady income stream.
Sorry, you said Valve, not Blizzard. Thats what I get for commenting while eating lunch. Thats right. I blame my reheated pasta for my reading comprehension failure. Thats how I roll.
6-22-2010 @ 5:43PM
Because levels are just arbitrary numbers on an arbitrary scale that they have total control over, and because they don't want players to be exceeding level 100 within the next two expansions (because that would be silly).The fact of the matter is that they can scale the experience required, and stat increases, and itemization, however they want. They will almost surely make leveling from 80 to 85 take as long as leveling from 70 to 80.So they're basically packing about ten levels worth of content into five. Cataclysm has five new endgame leveling zones, with the intent that reaching 85 will require you to complete most of the quests in all five. This is a response to the tendancy in Wrath for players to reach level 80 before reaching Storm Peaks or Icecrown.
6-22-2010 @ 3:51PM
@theRaptor: Your comment makes no sense. If they redid the old world so that it had the exact same number of quests and stuff it has now, but scaled the leveling so that you went from 1-30 instead of 1-60 (training every level instead of every other level), it would the the EXACT SAME amount of content, but it would "30 levels of content" instead of "60 levels of content". Likewise, they could make the level cap 90 in Cataclysm instead of 85 and it would not be any more content. The whole notion of "only 5 levels of content instead of 10" is utterly ridiculous. It only means something if you don't think about it. Think about what is being said for even a moment and realize it's an utterly stupid statement to make.
6-22-2010 @ 4:10PM
This is a comment I see frequently from people discussing the levelling process and comes of any argument that fails to include units with an otherwise-abstract number. 5 levels on its own is meaningless with respect to content; the only correlation, historically, is between levels and talent points. The number "85" came from not wanting to add additional tiers to the talent trees; 5 additional points from levelling means you get to explore further into the other trees without getting access to talents that should be spec-specific. They then scaled the magnitude of each level according to the amount of content in the expansion; they could also have set it for 10 levels with one talent point every other level, but this approach dovetails nicely with a slower approach to the round number of Level 100.
6-22-2010 @ 4:25PM
For completeness, here's the relevant quote from GC:5) You will get 5 additional talent points for the new levels.6) We are not deepening the trees. This actually unlocks some interesting opportunities. For the first time, you can reach a 51 point talent and a 21 point talent in another tree.
6-22-2010 @ 4:26PM
@ ArtificialIt isn't "utterly stupid", Blizz have a set amount of /played to get to max level that they have largely stuck to since classic* and you need a certain amount of content to make up that time. If 80-90 took half the time of 70-80 people would notice and complain about the lack of content. I used a short hand notation because I can't be bothered going and adding up exactly how much content it currently takes to fill up the time 70-80. So my point was re-doing the old world ate up dev time so that they could only do about half the high levelling content compared to TBC or Wrath. Maybe you should think some more about what people mean instead of making rude replies that show your lack of comprehension.* They have sped up 1-60 by a lot, and sped up 60-70. But I make 1-80 at about the same /played as I took 1-60 in classic and 1-70 in TBC.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.