EA Forums - Banner

The level max?

With the way XP requirements are going up exponentially, I can't see going beyond 30 levels. It would probably take a month to get that last level up, even playing every few hours. Don't see a lot of point creating many levels beyond that.

I'm just hoping they don't stop at 25, which is a very real possibility.

Replies

  • DohMoe
    506 posts
    edited November 2012
    I'm guessing more than 40. While EA isn't a very good company, I know they will make this game keep on going.
  • dromtsul
    1169 posts
    edited November 2012
    dcline414 wrote:
    It would probably take a month to get that last level up
    That would be welcomed as they only seem to add a level per month. Then no one would have to be upset that they are "wasting" their xp.
  • rs876
    874 posts
    edited November 2012
    Not sure but the lag between level updates is really helping me lose interest in the game.
  • ur_wack452
    237 posts
    edited November 2012
    This game is a cash cow for EA they would be crazy not to keep adding levels. I think level 50 could be the max tho
  • xrobotlove
    538 posts
    edited November 2012
    Definitely 40+. Most of the freemium create-your-own-town games like this one (Smurf's Village, Snoopy's street fair) currently have 40+ levels.. But they've been around quite a bit longer. Those games don't even have nearly as much content nor as much storyline complexity. This game is in pretty high demand, and there's a lot of pressure for it to stand up to a certain quality that Simpsons fans expect (as far as content goes). There's still a TON of possible characters and buildings to be added. So I think this game is gonna be around for quite a while, and with time it will catch up to 40+ levels.
  • Warpt1
    198 posts
    edited November 2012
    EA's been average a level increase about 1 level per month with additional game content. That's not too bad.

    So yes, I'd love to see it continue indefinitely.

  • Philbowen
    120 posts
    edited November 2012
    The Simpsons has been going for years, so could this game if developed properly. Trouble is we have one the worst developers on the case. Personally I feel somebody like Zynga would have been a better option for the development of it..
  • Blobulle
    59 posts
    edited November 2012
    I'm not convinced that EA is going to make more than 40 levels.
    30 is already a lot.
  • Audiobrain
    250 posts Member
    edited November 2012
    The minute they stop producing new levels and new content will be the end of their cash cow. Nobody would continue to play without some incentive or goal. Most players are above 20 years of age and would have little interest in simply accumulating money (fake) or assigning tasks for no reason. We're addicted, but not stupid.
  • KrustyBrand
    15340 posts Member
    edited November 2012
    Audiobrain wrote:
    The minute they stop producing new levels and new content will be the end of their cash cow. Nobody would continue to play without some incentive or goal. Most players are above 20 years of age and would have little interest in simply accumulating money (fake) or assigning tasks for no reason. We're addicted, but not stupid.

    I think this is a good point. One can make the argument that content drops will continue so long as they continue to generate money for the game. On the other hand, continued content drops are going to inevitably make towns larger and more complex. One wonders whether at some point a boundary will broached such that the majority of Springfields become so unstable as to not be viable.
  • Audiobrain
    250 posts Member
    edited November 2012
    That's true. Which means the game goes bye bye or they will have to revamp their programming in order to support it. Limit Friends to 50, Offer buy backs of stored items at a higher rate to reduce memory requirements, upgrade their server, switching focusnon to multi-faceted goals inatead of a list of single tasks, Open up viewing of all springfields on a separate server for reference. Convert existing houses for new characters. There are plenty of options.
  • dcline414
    863 posts
    edited November 2012
    Audiobrain wrote:
    The minute they stop producing new levels and new content will be the end of their cash cow. Nobody would continue to play without some incentive or goal. Most players are above 20 years of age and would have little interest in simply accumulating money (fake) or assigning tasks for no reason. We're addicted, but not stupid.
    Maybe it's just because they haven't been good at adding levels, or the fact that the first few levels are a joke, but I could care less about leveling up. I also hit level 23 before I had Moes or any other buildings that come after that, so I can't appreciate that my leveling up unlocked anything.

    I am more interested in collecting limited edition items (like next Thanksgiving when I have more balloons that aren't available anymore). That stuff takes cash (sometimes lots of it), and is more enjoyable to me than bragging about some meaningless level. How much more content do you really think they will add to incentivize the levels?
  • Audiobrain
    250 posts Member
    edited November 2012
    I think your right in that the focus of the game may trend towards limited edition items. I could also care less about the XPs and am more interested in new characters, buildings, tasks, etc.
  • KrustyBrand
    15340 posts Member
    edited November 2012
    Audiobrain wrote:
    I think your right in that the focus of the game may trend towards limited edition items. I could also care less about the XPs and am more interested in new characters, buildings, tasks, etc.

    I agree with both you and dcline about the level concept being fairly meaningless, but I doubt that it's going anywhere. Too many users are focused on the notion that attaining a given level represents a goal that has some real significance for their town. All of the posts by gamers who seem to deeply worry about "wasted" XP's during the periods when they are capped lead me to believe that doing away with semi-frequent level increases will convince many that the game is stagnant.
  • sonny1618
    1543 posts New member
    edited November 2012
  • Audiobrain
    250 posts Member
    edited November 2012
    Thank you, Sonny for that nice bit of humour (humor) at this hour of the evening. It makes the dismal performance of the Packer game a little more tolerable . . . and I couldn't care less about the outcome because by definition I do care. . . which doesn't make it easy, but does make it survivable because ther is always . .

    Huckleberry
    Overbite
    Picklefoot
    Edumacation
  • sonny1618
    1543 posts New member
    edited November 2012
    :wink:
  • robertjack97
    32 posts
    edited November 2012
    I honestly think that the levels should keep on increasing, but not to quickly as new uses will not have an opportunity to raise to higher levels.
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.