So, lets conclude.

It seems that my guess about the “packages” system wasn’t correct. This new interpretation says that every character will eventually unblock all the skills and packages the class has available. As the character reaches the last rank. So this means that the customization and use of templates are true only as you “rank up”, while the packages you have available will be all flattened at the endgame.

This IS GOOD. In fact I suggested it for DAoC. Even if in that case it was a step forward proposed for the support classes.

I support this choice if it reveals to be how the game actually works. It would solve the accessibility problems I underlined and would give a more unique role to the “tactics” system (the specialization of your character). So it’s a more solid design choice.

If the earlier reports are still correct, there’s also to consider the four tiers that should make you specialize your class (branching classes). Determining the preset packages you have available. In this case the number of classes will raise.

The other precisation is about the design of the package system that I discussed on F13 and that I report here.

—

Haemish:
But Hrose, you are ignoring the biggest thing about this. No levels means (or should mean) very little to no power differentials.

I’m not ignoring it just because you are convinced I am. On my site I wrote:

Considering everything together the “no level” claim is pretty weak. It’s possible that gaining ranks doesn’t scale up your stats, hitpoints and mana (at this point it would be the only real difference), but add a rank-based itemization and you basically have the exact same mechanic that drives DAoC or every other level-based game.

Explaning better, it sounds like you’ll gain a “rank” every “x” skills you unblock in a package. The stuff available in these packages seem to not be only in the form of skills you actively use, but even bonuses to stats and all the rest. Just more manipulable since the players have a more direct choice in what they pick.

But from every point of view you observe this, there’s still a “level up” mechanic that lets you pick +5 to Strength or more Constitution, or bonuses to damage and so on.

What’s this if not “power differential”?

The raw mechanic here doesn’t do anything to flatten it. Which is the process I described:

In DAoC: level up -> allocate
In Warhammer: allocate -> level up

Allocating not only the skills, like in DAoC, but even the bonuses to the stats. I just don’t see a concrete difference in the mechanic used at the base.

Haemish:
Segmenting zones by tiers should also help that a bit. In other words, it sounds good.

This is my guess (level capping the zones in four tiers), I still have to read Mythic confirming this. The doubt is whether the gap of 10 ranks hasn’t already a quite significant power differential or not.

Which is also what I wrote the past Sunday:

Here the game mechanics are extremely important because if they divide the zones accessibility in four (as the four tiers of ten ranks, for a total of forty levels) the PvP could become just a matter of who’s closer to the zone level cap. It’s important here that each new rank isn’t a huge leap over the other

Short version:

You say that Warhammer design is good because the power differential between the ranks is small.

I say that I agree that the power differential being small would make the design of the game “good”.

But at the same time there is no evidence, from the descriptions of the mechanics we have, that the power differential is, in fact, small.

That’s all.