Welcome to the Wizard101 Message Boards


Player Guide
Fansites
News
Game Updates
Help

Follow important game updates on Twitter @Wizard101 and @KI_Alerts, and Facebook!

By posting on the Wizard101 Message Boards you agree to the Code of Conduct.

Agree or oppose level locks on worlds

AuthorMessage
Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
Ok there have been numerous threads about some people wanting level blocks on worlds lately,Whether it be because of lower levels jumping into battle rings or jealousy because some one is further in game that you due to using their lowbie friends for help. For whatever the reason i want to know who agrees on a level lock on worlds and who opposes a level lock on worlds.
We can look at this thread in a few weeks to see whose the majority on this issue. Hopefully we have alot of players posting their opinion.
I was hoping to get a better perspective on just how many people feel this way. This is a supposed problem that people cant seem to stop writting threads about so lets see just how many agree an oppose. Also if KI sees this maybe whatever the turnout is it will get handled in the appropriate way.
1. Agree (meaning you want a level lock- meaning you cannot enter a world unless you have completed the quest line up to that point and have a key from ambrose.)
2. Dont care
3. Oppose ( meaning you dont mind that people can port there lower level friends into a world to help them if needed.)

Defender
Mar 09, 2011
121
I wouldn't say i don't care, cuz it has certainly gotten on my nerves. But i don't think there should be a level restriction for worlds. It already took me a while to be able to go to Zafaria on my own (i was level 59 when i completed Celestia) and quite often my real life friend, you guys know her as tigress4444, asks to go to the higher level worlds. I oppose of level locks.

Illuminator
May 22, 2009
1309
I do believe there should be a level lock, but not to where you need the key to go there.

I tend to do every quest there is in game as I come to them causing me to be higher level in some of the worlds. This allows me to get my school spell quests long before I have access to the areas needed to complete the quests. I usually have a higher level friend 'take' me to the area in question or I simply play both my accounts at the same time and use one of my higher level wizards. Having to wait to 'unlock' that world or area myself would have been very frustrating.

I do believe there should be a liberal level lock on each world. For Example...You would have to be level 10 before you could port to KT, level 20 for MB, and so on unless you somehow happen to get the spiral key for that world.

When each world is released there is always the lower levels that 'invade' the new areas. I have made it a point to check someone's level. If they are a low level and in my battle, I will not heal them, I will not blade them, and I will not shield them.

Hannah Lifebringer Level 80 Life
Hannah Legendstalker Level 90 Myth

Explorer
Dec 24, 2008
83
i oppose to lvl locks on worlds. how can your friends help you? what if your friends need help? my friends always need help and yes they are in worlds that i cant go to yet (its just azteca i think.) my friends who are a lower lvl than me are very helpful when i need them. Whats the point in having friends if they cant help you because they arent the right lvl for the world your in? i think it would be a wast of crowns and memberships if you can only go to certain places because some people wanted a lvl lock on the worlds.

Erica ShadowRunner lvl 75 Balance~over and out

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
lastdaysgunslinger on Dec 12, 2012 wrote:
Ok there have been numerous threads about some people wanting level blocks on worlds lately,Whether it be because of lower levels jumping into battle rings or jealousy because some one is further in game that you due to using their lowbie friends for help. For whatever the reason i want to know who agrees on a level lock on worlds and who opposes a level lock on worlds.
We can look at this thread in a few weeks to see whose the majority on this issue. Hopefully we have alot of players posting their opinion.
I was hoping to get a better perspective on just how many people feel this way. This is a supposed problem that people cant seem to stop writting threads about so lets see just how many agree an oppose. Also if KI sees this maybe whatever the turnout is it will get handled in the appropriate way.
1. Agree (meaning you want a level lock- meaning you cannot enter a world unless you have completed the quest line up to that point and have a key from ambrose.)
2. Dont care
3. Oppose ( meaning you dont mind that people can port there lower level friends into a world to help them if needed.)
I also totally oppose a level block for the reason of not being able to receive any help if no level appropriate people are on.
If i am on and doing a difficult instance and no level appropriate people are on but there is a few players 10 or even 30 levels under me on that can help, I use them.
I feel worlds should be open to anyone that can port or walk in. Now the underlevels that are porting cannot accept any quests there but i wouldnt care if they could.

Champion
Feb 03, 2012
406
The Dream Eater Pr... on Dec 13, 2012 wrote:
i oppose to lvl locks on worlds. how can your friends help you? what if your friends need help? my friends always need help and yes they are in worlds that i cant go to yet (its just azteca i think.) my friends who are a lower lvl than me are very helpful when i need them. Whats the point in having friends if they cant help you because they arent the right lvl for the world your in? i think it would be a wast of crowns and memberships if you can only go to certain places because some people wanted a lvl lock on the worlds.

Erica ShadowRunner lvl 75 Balance~over and out
Eventually the worlds will get hard enough that friends will have to be at a certain level to be of the most help. Also about the level locks i honestly really don't care, most of my friends are high level and i never really run into low levels in high level worlds anymore.

Defender
Feb 24, 2012
192
Ok i oppose this because it is completely unneeded and if they would do it people that use low levels to assist them could not do that any longer, Keep the spiral free of tyranus blocks on worlds.

Geographer
Dec 14, 2009
892
I neither agree,nor do I disagree. I think there are far better solutions than level locks,but if it was the only recourse, then I would choose it over allowing a segment of the gaming population to suffer adversely. Taking away game preferences is never fun,but it's better to take the high road,and think of others,who suffer from it. I always side for what is best for the health of the game,and try to think of others plight before my enjoyment. I do think that no matter what opinion is voiced,KI will continue to ignore it. They just don't seem concerned with legitimate game problems,such as these. I hope they prove me wrong.

Survivor
Jul 09, 2011
7
I oppose of this, as it's the lower player's choice to teleport the the higher level player, and the lower level players should be allowed to explore worlds, as long as they understand they could easily be beaten by the monsters there. If a low leveled player wants to help a high level one, so be it. I honestly don't know why peopl think that world level locks are needed, I feel that on wizard 101 the current level locks for items, etc. are just fine.

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
this thread started on the 11th so far we have
oppose- 6
dont care- 2

If anyone out there wants or doesnt want a level requirement on all worlds please voice your opinion, I know KI might not even see this but its the only chance we have right now to try to let KI see how we all feel. In a few weeks i will copy this thread and email to KI hoping they will read it.

Defender
Feb 17, 2012
139
Oh that is a wonderful idea! No more frustration for my Promothean friends who have to deal with me teleporting to them! Lucky I'm useful!
Noah Rainrunner lvl 46 (Should NOT be in azteca)

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
Keep the opinions coming everyone.

Survivor
Nov 23, 2011
32
Archon
Feb 07, 2011
3172
I don't want a level-lock, so much as I want a quest progression lock~ if you, yourself, have not unlocked the world via quest progression, you have no business being in combat there.

-von

archmages Shadowsong & Deathwhisper
(& other wizards of various levels, who don't use friends as teleport pads).

Armiger
Jan 11, 2012
2226
while this may have been mentioned before, perhaps have a segmented level lock where you can designate the lowest level of player who can port to you, ensuring that ones who would only jeopardize a battle couldn't port but helpful friends could. it's not a perfect solution, but at least it yields a middle ground rather than all or nothing. More options are always preferred to less, so perhaps something like this:

1) All friends can port
2) Only friends above "X" level
3) Only friends who have opened the world
4) No friends

I know the "only ones who have opened" has been suggested before. Also, this way, you could have multiple options at once, like saying "All friends above level 52 who have unlocked the world" which yields a fifth option. So perhaps a conditional system where:

Porting Options
[] All Friends
[] Above __ Level
[] Who can access your current world
[] Nobody

Where the middle 2 options would be greyed out until you checked off All Friends.

Geographer
Dec 14, 2009
892
Dr Von on Dec 18, 2012 wrote:
I don't want a level-lock, so much as I want a quest progression lock~ if you, yourself, have not unlocked the world via quest progression, you have no business being in combat there.

-von

archmages Shadowsong & Deathwhisper
(& other wizards of various levels, who don't use friends as teleport pads).
A much better solution than the level lock.

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
Its been a week and we have a tally of;

Oppose- 8
Dont care- 3
Agree- 1 (well Von doesnt care about level lock but wants a progression lock which affects what we are discussing so i posted as an agree.)

After a week so far it really seems that out of all that has posted it seems the population so far would not care to have a level lock in place. I will keep track for another week to see if more people see the thread.

Defender
Feb 24, 2012
192
Dr Von on Dec 18, 2012 wrote:
I don't want a level-lock, so much as I want a quest progression lock~ if you, yourself, have not unlocked the world via quest progression, you have no business being in combat there.

-von

archmages Shadowsong & Deathwhisper
(& other wizards of various levels, who don't use friends as teleport pads).
So what you are saying is that if im playing and i need assistance in a world and no people are on that have completed storyline, that i should not be allowed to bring in my brother who is only level 35 to help me in azteca?
Wow that seems pretty stupid if you ask me. And selfish,egotistical and dont forget down right rude. Why should there be a Progression or level lock. Simple question Why?

And please donot say because low levels are jumping into your battle circles because so do higher levels. So you cant use that one as an excuse.

What this is all about is that people with dual accounts or alot of friends an family on to help them is making people with single accounts or solo with no friends BOO HOO about not being able to keep up with everyone else. Thats all this is, It has nothing to do with low levels being in worlds, Thats just the excuse thats being used.
I have about had enough of people saying low levels shouldnt be in a world, Time to man up and play the game if you cant progress its not my fault its probably your own or maybe your tempers are getting in the way of progression.
The game has changed it is a bit more difficult now so any help whether it be lower level or not should be happily accepted. As for the lowbies jumping in battle with you well just flee and let them there if they are hurting you.

Hero
Jul 30, 2012
771
Fireproof said:

"What this is all about is that people with dual accounts or alot of friends an family on to help them is making people with single accounts or solo with no friends BOO HOO about not being able to keep up with everyone else. Thats all this is, It has nothing to do with low levels being in worlds, Thats just the excuse thats being used. "

You are absolutely incorrect and your statements make no sense. There is no competition or race when playing PvE. People who play solo don't give two hoots about how other groups play. The rate that complete strangers level up is irrelevent - nobody cares. And nobody cares about underleveled players that don't impact the game experience. The spiral is a big place and how people that I will likely never meet play the game does not concern me.

Please take some time to understand the issues. There are valid arguments for both sides and you are not presenting any. Learn some more about the game. As you gain more experience with Wizard101 and other games you will have better insights.

Defender
Feb 24, 2012
192
RottenHeart on Dec 19, 2012 wrote:
Fireproof said:

"What this is all about is that people with dual accounts or alot of friends an family on to help them is making people with single accounts or solo with no friends BOO HOO about not being able to keep up with everyone else. Thats all this is, It has nothing to do with low levels being in worlds, Thats just the excuse thats being used. "

You are absolutely incorrect and your statements make no sense. There is no competition or race when playing PvE. People who play solo don't give two hoots about how other groups play. The rate that complete strangers level up is irrelevent - nobody cares. And nobody cares about underleveled players that don't impact the game experience. The spiral is a big place and how people that I will likely never meet play the game does not concern me.

Please take some time to understand the issues. There are valid arguments for both sides and you are not presenting any. Learn some more about the game. As you gain more experience with Wizard101 and other games you will have better insights.
Rotten clearly you have an issue with poeple that donot want a level requirement on a world.
I cannot seem to find any other reasoning behind why some of you out there have this idea that a level lock is a fair solution to the issues people are having. All these type of threads came to be because a few people were blaming battle jumpins on lower level toons.
Apparently there is a problem with people progressing because i am not finding any other reason for them to complain about lower levels being in worlds. If you or anyone is about to say its because they join battle and die or join battle and bring in another mob well doesnt that happen when anyone enters a battle at any level.
There clearly is a problem here but it has nothing to do with lower levels. As i said in post im starting to think it has to do with whiny people that cannot get where they want to be.
My statements make perfect sense if you understand the origin.
There are not valid arguments on both sides when it comes to the level requirement, And understand i have learned all i need to know about this game this is my 3rd account but some might need to learn more about these forums and why they are here.

Armiger
Feb 25, 2009
2179
Dr Von on Dec 18, 2012 wrote:
I don't want a level-lock, so much as I want a quest progression lock~ if you, yourself, have not unlocked the world via quest progression, you have no business being in combat there.

-von

archmages Shadowsong & Deathwhisper
(& other wizards of various levels, who don't use friends as teleport pads).
I have to agree here. NO level lock, but a quest progression lock is a good idea Vonawesome1. Although I have used a lower level wizard from my second account when no friends were on. But I could live with this idea.

@Fireproof, Von's idea makes very good sense. If you have not completed the required quests, it should prevent a lower level from jumping into a battle circle. If you will read my first paragraph, you will see that I have used my second account on occasion. But I also have a level 70 Fire on that account. That was not the one I used. I used a level 52 life from that account.

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
DragonLady1818 on Dec 20, 2012 wrote:
I have to agree here. NO level lock, but a quest progression lock is a good idea Vonawesome1. Although I have used a lower level wizard from my second account when no friends were on. But I could live with this idea.

@Fireproof, Von's idea makes very good sense. If you have not completed the required quests, it should prevent a lower level from jumping into a battle circle. If you will read my first paragraph, you will see that I have used my second account on occasion. But I also have a level 70 Fire on that account. That was not the one I used. I used a level 52 life from that account.
My first question is this Why should lower levels not be allowed into a world?
How many times has a lower level person jumped into a battle with you an was unhelpful?
How many times has a higher level person jumped into battle with you?
Do you think higher level people will stop jumping into battles if this would be in effect?
And back to the first question again.

Seeing how the only complaint here seems to be that uninvited people are jumping into battles
a level lock will not stop uninvited battle jumpers from coming in. It is not the level thats causing this it is the person that is being ignorant. So everyone really has to try and see that a level lock is not the answer here, There has to be an idea out there that will help prevent people from having these issues but the lock is definatley not the answer. Not to mention the fact that KI hasnt even acknowledged this issue being a problem.

Defender
Feb 24, 2012
192
DragonLady1818 on Dec 20, 2012 wrote:
I have to agree here. NO level lock, but a quest progression lock is a good idea Vonawesome1. Although I have used a lower level wizard from my second account when no friends were on. But I could live with this idea.

@Fireproof, Von's idea makes very good sense. If you have not completed the required quests, it should prevent a lower level from jumping into a battle circle. If you will read my first paragraph, you will see that I have used my second account on occasion. But I also have a level 70 Fire on that account. That was not the one I used. I used a level 52 life from that account.
I cannot agree guys im sorry it still cripples those people that use the lower level help. Hence would be just as unfair or more unfair as the problems you say your having. If they are a member or bought the area with crowns they are allowed there, Its right in the handbook, Says access to all worlds on member page.
I can handle myself fairly well so i dont seem to complain much about issues thats going on. I just dont see how people cannot handle an extra mob when a person comes into battle with you.
Wanna solve this issue pack a full group with you then you wont have uninviteds. Cant get a full group? buy henchman to fill slots. There ya go problem solved.

Armiger
Feb 25, 2009
2179
@ Lastdaygunslinger and Fireproof.If you go back and READ what I am agreeing with, you will see that I do NOT agree with level locks. I do agree with Von's suggestion of a QUEST PROGRESSION lock. If a player has not completed the necessary quests to enter a world, they should not be able to JOIN any battle.

Von nor I agree with level locks. Yes, I am aware that Paying and Crowns players have the right to enter any world but, they should not be able to pick up quests or join battles they have not earned. In fact they can't pick up main quests if they have not completed pryor requirements. I don't care if they want to have a look at the newest worlds, but I do care when they join a battle they are not equipped to handle and adding another enemy... A Quest Progression lock would also put a damper on some of us that have and do occasionally use a lower level wizard from one of our other accounts, so this is not an unreasonable suggestion if we are willing to make that sacrifice.

Yes, I have had lower levels join my battle and just SIT there doing nothing to help with an added enemy. I have also had HIGH levels join and flee leaving me with an extra enemy to fight and them laughing about it. I also REMEMBER those players names and I certainly hope I don't see them in a battle needing help. I don't have a problem with helping others but, don't burn me by joining and fleeing. That is just as discourteous as lower levels joining a battle they have no business in. Playing with respect and courtesy goes a long way.

Hero
Jul 30, 2012
771
Perhaps we should let inexperienced athletes compete in the Olympics. Perhaps the NBA and NFL too. Everybody has the right to play, so why shouldn't everybody be allowed to play? And experienced players really need the assistance too. Absolutely, I'm sure I could give George St. Pierre some really good tips for his next UFC fight.

Oh... but I'm talking about something completely different. Apples and oranges. Silly me, pay no attenion! My examples refer to games where you must practice and gain experience and progress based on skill, achievements, winning competitions and recognized abilities. Sometimes there are acceptance criteria to move from one playing level to the next. RPG games don't involve elements like like real world games. If you want to skip right to the end you absolutely should. Because RPG games are not intended to have story lines and paths of progression.