Discussion: +/- 8 Levels, Dynamic

[Rogean]

<&Rogean> Given an FFA Server with an +/- 8 level difference.. the problem becomes that people will have healers hide just under the level difference (level 41 with 50 max, or 51 with 60 max) to avoid combat with level 60's but still be able to help their level 60 friends.
<&Rogean> I'm considering a dynamic system that will adjust the level you can attack and be attacked by based on those acts. If you are level 41 and you heal a level 50, it will expand the level you can be attacked by up to level 50. Vise versa, if a level 50 heals a level 41, he can then be attacked by level 41's (However, the level 50 will not be able to attack the any 41 until they attack him

<&Rogean> training will probably still be against the rules
<&Rogean> a no rules server is just frustrating for everyone

<&Rogean> well we are leaning towards making it against the rules to bind camp.. and I'm not sure about LnS, but I know how pvp players like to ignore those rules. The GM's don't have time to babysit everyone.

<&Rogean> we probably will have an xp loss system on pvp deaths

FFA 8 Level Spread.

Any player doing a beneficial action towards someone outside their level range will have their range increased (or decreased) to match the level of the player they are helping. This does not mean the player doing the helping will instantly be able to attack players outside their range. It will mean that any player within the new range will be able to attack the player that helped and got his range increased. Once an aggressive action is made by a player outside the first player's level range, they will then be able to attack back.

EXAMPLE:

Level 50's are fighting it out. A level 41 Cleric comes by. His name will show up a certain color to the level 50's that means they can't attack each other (this may be blue). That level 41 Cleric decides to heal one of the level 50's. His max attack-able range gets increased to level 50 (from 49). On the level 50's screens, the Cleric's name will now turn a different color (possibly orange) to indicate that they may attack that player but not be attacked (yet) by him.

If one of the level 50's runs over and attacks the 41 Cleric, the name color would update to red to indicate both players are attack-able to each other.

Clause 1: Let's call the 41 Cleric Player A, and the level 50 attacking him Player B. Let's say there is a player C that is also a level 50. As it currently stands, Player C could chose to attack Player A but until he does so, Player A cannot attack Player C. However, if player C decides to heal Player B (Another level 50 currently engaged to Player A) he will inherit Player B's PVP 'links' you could say, meaning anyone pvp enabled to Player B outside his range would also become pvp enabled to Player C.

I'm fairly confident this would result in some fun competitive PVP, so if you have negative feedback for this system it better be constructive. It may be difficult to understand at first, but the name colors will alleviate this in-game and it won't be hard to learn it. This eliminates the problems of players helping others outside their level range, without completely removing their ability to do so.

Cliffnotes: You can't sit outside the level range of being attacked and heal your friends without their enemies being able to attack you.

The 'attack-able' cap for the player doing the healing will be expanded up to the player being healed's level + 8.

I'm not opposed to certain zones being total FFA, particularly raid only ones. I'm hesitant to do that on zones that include group content, such as Solusek B.

I don't have a problem flagging raid only zones but when we get into regular zones that people can experience in, such as SolB and Permafrost, or in Kunark it would be Emerald Jungle, Skyfire, Dreadlands. The latter 3 have a lot of low-mid level players traveling through. We can't make those zones level ffa.

[Flagging the area from FGs and beyond PvP like the arena is] probably do-able.

[Tonomar]

+ or - 8 levels sounds great to me. I wouldn't worry about that pvp flagging thing you were talking about, sounds like too much work for not that big of a deal.

[Harrison]

+ or - 8 levels sounds great to me. I wouldn't worry about that pvp flagging thing you were talking about, sounds like too much work for not that big of a deal.

Yeah, exploiting the system is not a big deal. :rolleyes:

[pasi]

+ or - 8 levels sounds great to me. I wouldn't worry about that pvp flagging thing you were talking about, sounds like too much work for not that big of a deal.

agreeing with Dowork.

[Marglar]

+/- 8 levels is great and oor healing typically isn't a huge deal, it sounds like you are about to invest a TON of dev work into a minor issue. still, cool idea and would enjoy seeing it, but it's not *required*

[Cwall]

I like the flagging idea. I don't think there should be any sort of flagging system on corpse runs though; it seems easily exploitable.

[Xantille]

8 levels is good, make certain zones FFA if OOR healing becomes a problem (doubt it will, esp w/o 2 boxing)

[XiakenjaTZ]

The system works fine like it is especially if you flag certain zones or portions of zone (like the arena) FFA PvP areas.

I do recall several times being on the receiving end and the giving end of having some OOR corpse dragger in Sebelis for example. Happened in Perma as well a bunch.

Good point about one boxes. Really should be even less of a problem when you can two box.

[Scribbles]

I was always a fan of the 7 level range on vztz 1.0

[Misto]

-8/+8 in non-raid zones

Raid zones: Fear / Hate / Sky / Kedge should be FFA

[Scribbles]

lol @ kedge being a raid zone

[Misto]

lol @ kedge being a raid zone

not even mad bro

[Aenor]

Your system sounds great but if it requires significant development time to implement, I would put it low on the priority list. As Searyx said, he could count on one hand the number of times as an administrator that he had to deal with issues of OOR healing. Best to put things higher on the priority list that will come up more often than this.

[Envious]

I really like Rogeans system on this one.

Making raid zones FFA is not practical... group of 50s zoning into Sol B to smash lvl 35s grinding dogs, level 60s snaring people kiting in DL...

Lets not act like a majority of the players here are going to be total shitheads... cause we will put on like we wont, and attempt not to be... but at the core we are all completely jaded soulless and dead on the inside griefers.

Having spell casts etc flagging is the best route, if it is feasible. Some people might have to deal with a single CH landing, but that shouldnt be an issue.

The only reasoning I can see for raid zone FFA would be (MAYBE) low levels training raids... which isnt really logical. If a lvl X cleric is training, then chances are DA is up, so you couldnt do shit to them if it was FFA anyway...

[Envious]

-8/+8 in non-raid zones

Raid zones: Fear / Hate / Sky / Kedge should be FFA

Your a moron. Hate / Fear / Sky have a lvl 46 req, so for classic EQ its not event remotely relevant. Kedge is a joke.

And you forgot Sol B / Perma.

[Amuk]

+- 8 is perfect, I just hope you can make the special attacks work on people more than +-5 unlike vz/tz. As a Rogue I would seriously have a hard time vs 55 SKs or other classes being unable to backstab haha, that is a totally off topic issue altogether though.

[Rushmore]

I think everyone has to sit back and realize this will not be VZTZ.

You won't have multiple characters that are max level for a long time.

You cannot two box.

So this in itself fixes this problem. Though I would ask for all raid zones to be FFA. I'm sorry you have no business in Sol B, LOWER GUK or Permafrost if you aren't willing to pay the consequences.

A CAMP LIKE MANASTONE SHOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO BE CAMPED BY A LEVEL 30 MAGE ETC AND NOT HAVE TO PVP FOR. PLEASE !!!!!!

[Misto]

Your a moron. Hate / Fear / Sky have a lvl 46 req, so for classic EQ its not event remotely relevant. Kedge is a joke.

And you forgot Sol B / Perma.

Get fucked.

[Pudge]

i like the idea rogean. i'd like to see it it, not just for heals but all beneficial spells (bard speed anyone?).

1) for the lower-level healer, if would be nice if the color of higher-level's names changed so he knew they could attack him. ex: A and C are fighting. B heals A. B should see C's name change to purple, indicating C can attack him.

2) "On the level 50's screens, the Cleric's name will now turn a different color (possibly orange) to indicate that they may attack that player but not be attacked (yet) by him.

If one of the level 50's runs over and attacks the 41 Cleric, the name color would update to red to indicate both players are attack-able to each other."

--- If there are TWO level 50 enemies instead of one, if the 41 cleric gets attacked by one of the 50s, can the 41 cleric now attack ALL of the 50s, or just the single one that attacked him? should be all.. but that would mean they had to have cast beneficial spells on one another, right?

ex: 41 cleric heals 50 mage. 50 rogue and 50 druid, who were previously attacking mage, now see cleric as orange-name and can attack. 50 rogue attacks cleric, then goes for mage again, while 50 druid is running from mage pet. cleric may now attack rogue, but can he attack druid? (according to what i read above, he cannot.) however, if druid had cast a beneficial spell on rogue within the last 5 minutes, would cleric be able to then attack druid, because this flags them as buddies?
------------------

so anyway. again while i'd like to see it, i have to agree with other posters that if implementing this system will delay release by more than a few days, I'd rather just see a flat +/- 8 level range till the server gets going

also would have to be in conjunction with FFA on raid zones, just to prevent faggotry

[Rushmore]

Roegan has a solid idea....I think what most are afraid is that it will take months of coding when it can be solved by more simplistic ideas.

[Null]

Roegan has a solid idea....I think what most are afraid is that it will take months of coding when it can be solved by more simplistic ideas.

its already coded for the most part, it just needs to be tuned depending on any specifics. Also I didn't see this mentioned but in the current implementation of this in the code, interacting with -anything- that has a level will flag you up in level. So if you are just leveling off higher level mobs it will put you in a higher pvp range than you normally would.

[Tonomar]

its already coded for the most part, it just needs to be tuned depending on any specifics. Also I didn't see this mentioned but in the current implementation of this in the code, interacting with -anything- that has a level will flag you up in level. So if you are just leveling off higher level mobs it will put you in a higher pvp range than you normally would.

Hey Null, I've missed you.

[vinx]

its already coded for the most part, it just needs to be tuned depending on any specifics. Also I didn't see this mentioned but in the current implementation of this in the code, interacting with -anything- that has a level will flag you up in level. So if you are just leveling off higher level mobs it will put you in a higher pvp range than you normally would.
???

So.. your a level 22 pet class killin a mix of yellow an reds
now your flagged for pvp from a level 31-33?

so you are engaged in pvp.. you turn and send pet on a light blue and now your out of pvp range or??

that all sounds good in theory for the immy healer situations, but isnt that a bit much?
maybe im not getting it :(

[georgie]

in beta, i'm assuming their will be wipes, of course?

[georgie]

wait wait. i didn't read any posts that mentioned the exp. is this classic exp?

[Bardalicious]

its already coded for the most part, it just needs to be tuned depending on any specifics. Also I didn't see this mentioned but in the current implementation of this in the code, interacting with -anything- that has a level will flag you up in level. So if you are just leveling off higher level mobs it will put you in a higher pvp range than you normally would.

This is a whole lot of work for what will end up being a fairly insignificant problem. A server like Red 99, if it is modeled after P99 in regards to PVE difficulty, cannot be compared to previous EQEmu PVP boxes and their problems.

Being able to only play a single box combined with the difficulty of leveling will severely cripple any intentions people have of using OOR healers. I really don't believe this system should be implemented at the launch of the server. If OOR healing ever becomes a true issue, which I would argue will not happen, it could always be added in or switched on later. The only true outcome of having this system implemented right now would be to punish healing classes for doing their job in a group situation.

[JayDee]

its already coded for the most part, it just needs to be tuned depending on any specifics. Also I didn't see this mentioned but in the current implementation of this in the code, interacting with -anything- that has a level will flag you up in level. So if you are just leveling off higher level mobs it will put you in a higher pvp range than you normally would.

Angwe here to rescue us

[SearyxTZ]

Didn't read the entire thread.


What was described in the original post sounds perfect to me (+ making SolB and LGuk FFA couldn't hurt).

[Pudge]

its already coded for the most part, it just needs to be tuned depending on any specifics. Also I didn't see this mentioned but in the current implementation of this in the code, interacting with -anything- that has a level will flag you up in level. So if you are just leveling off higher level mobs it will put you in a higher pvp range than you normally would.

hrrmm.. this could be interesting. lower levels can't steal high levels exp mobs..

good way to try and combat oor bitches from training in non-FFA zones (besides training being illegal of course). wouldn't always work, but still

and.. what level is the evil eye again?

[XiakenjaTZ]

Lguk would help but thats mostly an issue with manastone being perma camped by level 35 pet classes.

[SearyxTZ]

It's barely worth discussing in detail because the occurrences of this stuff happening are going to be few and far in between.


The "level 35 guy fights at level 50" in Lower Guk is a very specific scenario and it doesn't really fucking matter anyway. If you're in Lower Guk in the first place, you should be okay to fight anyone else in there. It's not a 1-50 zone.

[HallygukRZ]

Having played on RZ myself, I'd really prefer a +/- 4 LvL Scenario. 8 lvls in EQ make such a huge difference, plus when its FFA the +/- 8 doesn't make much sense to me. Can go into details if you want :)

[Pudge]

i'd say exp loss, and maybe YT, should only occur if you're +/- 4 levels, but that you should still be pvp-able +/- 8.

[Envious]

Yellow text and server OOC need to be removed.

As far as getting flagged for a lvl ranged based on attacking NPCs... thats kinda fuk'd.

[Tamiah2011]

8 lvl difference sounds about right...But you should give the lower player a option to take flag off if he feels cocky enough to attack the higher lvl.YOu would be amazed what 10 lower can do to higher lvl..

[Scribbles]

Yellow text and server OOC need to be removed.


No fun allowed on Envious's pvp server

[Envious]

No fun allowed on Envious's pvp server

Sounds like you played on a Zek server during live~

[Doors]

Yellow text and server OOC need to be removed.

As far as getting flagged for a lvl ranged based on attacking NPCs... thats kinda fuk'd.

Removal of a global OOC channel is gonna depend on the server population but you could make a good argument for removing it.

Yt does not need removed. You'll get over the shame of being broadcasted within a few minutes, I promise it won't ruin your life.

[Kope]

+/- 8 levels i a good spread. It helps minimize people just out of range training an entire raid force. Asshattery will always happen but lets keep things civil

[lethdar]

+/- 8 is a fair range, but certain high end zones should just be FFA. Level 1 rogue following you around in perma, sol b, etc or a low lvl enc ivuing through guk to scout will be very annoying without a way to retaliate.

[Kope]

Actually, an idea I just had that's probably not even viable but interesting none the less:

What about instead of a "level" spread you do it by gear quality?

Each piece of gear has a value to it, you multiply that by the person's level and you get their "pvp range" level. This way twinks wouldn't be able to destroy all of the low lvl people trying to start on the server.

Better community imo. Probably not viable but...interesting :P

[Rushmore]

Actually, an idea I just had that's probably not even viable but interesting none the less:

What about instead of a "level" spread you do it by gear quality?

Each piece of gear has a value to it, you multiply that by the person's level and you get their "pvp range" level. This way twinks wouldn't be able to destroy all of the low lvl people trying to start on the server.

Better community imo. Probably not viable but...interesting :P

keep it simple.

[Misto]

Actually, an idea I just had that's probably not even viable but interesting none the less:

What about instead of a "level" spread you do it by gear quality?

Each piece of gear has a value to it, you multiply that by the person's level and you get their "pvp range" level. This way twinks wouldn't be able to destroy all of the low lvl people trying to start on the server.

Better community imo. Probably not viable but...interesting :P

sweet jesus

[solid]

Actually, an idea I just had that's probably not even viable but interesting none the less:

What about instead of a "level" spread you do it by gear quality?

Each piece of gear has a value to it, you multiply that by the person's level and you get their "pvp range" level. This way twinks wouldn't be able to destroy all of the low lvl people trying to start on the server.

Better community imo. Probably not viable but...interesting :P

You mean like gearscore in WORLD OF WARCRAFT???????????????

As if anyone actually needed a reason, please ignore this idiot's suggestions from here on out.

[Kope]

You mean like gearscore in WORLD OF WARCRAFT???????????????

As if anyone actually needed a reason, please ignore this idiot's suggestions from here on out.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but please do it in a civil tone.

[Kope]

PS-

I could be completely incorrect here but I didn't think anything in WoW is based off of level item.

Again, I'm not playing wow and haven't played wow in quite a while so I could be WAY wrong on this point.

[Zeebbo]

8 +/- is good. Like Xantille said, OOR healing/rezzing shouldn't be a problem since there's only 1 box allowed. That's not to say someone won't lvl up a lvl 39 cleric or rogue to get in and drag corpses/rez people.

I am definitely not against FFA raid zones, but guess we'll just have to see how much they'll be needed.

[Envious]

You mean like gearscore in WORLD OF WARCRAFT???????????????

As if anyone actually needed a reason, please ignore this idiot's suggestions from here on out.

I need a new MQ compile brah~

Only problem with FFA raid zones, as stated previously, is that all of them are where lower lvls exp. And we all know how much of a shit head everyone is actually going to be.

[vinx]

Only problem with FFA raid zones, as stated previously, is that all of them are where lower lvls exp. And we all know how much of a shit head everyone is actually going to be.
That isnt to bad a thing tbh,
it takes out a zone for that level range and forces people to the other 1-2 hot xp zones = more community interaction
or they level in wide open places = interaction for more lonely druids/bards

and those people will probably be in range
just sayin

[Haul]

+/-4 is proven to work and is more classic, but hardly anyone up in these forums acts or responds like they used to play pvp on live. Bunch of late bloomers for real.

[Macken]

pvp range should be 7-60. No Exceptions.

Free Trade PvP.

Let the free market decide.

Everyone should enjoy the chance to kill a level 50 when they are just level 30.

Quit wasting time on micro-coding all these rules and creating more bugs that you won't find out about for months or years and spend time coding a leaderboard instead.

YT + leaderboard = $

[Aenor]

pvp range should be 7-60.

Dynamic +/- 8 is a compromise between full FFA and Haul's bloobafied RZ rules. Sullon Zek was the least popular ruleset. Glad you enjoyed it. You'll never see it again unless you make your own server and then you'll be the only person on it.

[Macken]

..... and then you'll be the only person on it.


It's lonely at the top.

Known that for years.

[Macken]

Everyone should enjoy the chance to kill a level 50 when they are just level 30.

[Macken]

Sullon Zek was the least popular ruleset.

Because the NBA has less players than junior high, high school or college players, it is the least popular ruleset.


Or maybe, it's just it takes a lot of skill to play in the NBA.

[Rogean]

Yellow text and server OOC need to be removed.

Can't remove something that doesn't exist in the first place.

The basis for this server is P99, not VZTZ, so keep that in mind.

[Rogean]

What do you guys think about a +/- 6 Levels? It's either that or 8. Discuss.

[Rogean]

We are considering flagging high level XP zones as FFA. Not sure what zones this will be yet.

[lethdar]

8 is better imo. out of the 4 pvp servers, only one had +/-4, 2 had 8, and one was ffa. 8 is a fair balance between the extremes.

6 is a pretty odd number, just don't see a reason to make it that

[Vile]

Can't remove something that doesn't exist in the first place.

The basis for this server is P99, not VZTZ, so keep that in mind.

Awesome news.

Fuck global OOC and YT. Let the shit talking happen on the boards imo..

[Pudge]

Can't remove something that doesn't exist in the first place.

The basis for this server is P99, not VZTZ, so keep that in mind.

oooo shit.

i died a little inside :(

[lethdar]

Global ooc existed when p99 first came out, why not do the same until it becomes obvious the server population is too much for it. Wasn't it around until p99 started breaking 500 regularly?

[Pudge]

What do you guys think about a +/- 6 Levels? It's either that or 8. Discuss.

+/- 8 pls. the 8 level difference can increase preying on lowbies.. but the positive is that you can fight for your lewts. when i'm down at evil eye, etc. i don't want to be standing in the midst of 2 out-of-range lowbies waiting for it to pop.

in fact, on vztz that already happened, even with 8 level range. however usually 8 levels was just enough to out-damage the lowbie (often it was a mage)

[lethdar]

Pudge hates lowbies and loves to grief them with fear and feign death, true story.

[Pudge]

We are considering flagging high level XP zones as FFA. Not sure what zones this will be yet.

hrm it would be helpful to see the list from vztz as a reference. off the top if my head:

Classic:
Hate
Fear
Sky
Solb
Perma
Kedge Keep

Kunark:
Chardok
Charasis?
Dreadlands
Skyfire
Emerald Jungle
Sebilis
Karnors
VP

Velious:
Something like.. everywhere. There is a discussion on what it was going to be once we released velious again. But the only places I think had level limits were GD, EW, Crystal Caverns, and ThurgadinA

[Pudge]

lol lethdar you know i love the newbs

i didn't know you had a true newbie in there. i guess regardless i got what i deserved for trying to circumvent the rules.. you know i got that ban for "harassment" and not training? :(

my arg was you how can you harass someone if they want you to do it!? to be harassment you gotta try and escape the harass

[Harrison]

What do you guys think about a +/- 6 Levels? It's either that or 8. Discuss.

6 is better than 8, given that you implement the flagging system to solve the OOR healer/assistance issue.

8 is a rather large variance.

[Macken]

8 is no where near enough.

this is a pvp server right? you want pvp to happen right?

why not just make it + or - 1 blue bubble so that no one has to fight someone tougher than themselves?

Server already sounding like a blue server.

If there isn't enough pvp, people will quit.

+ or - 8 is not enough.

[Harrison]

Lol thank God your opinion has been deemed worthless by anyone and everyone, pvp regulars and not

[lethdar]

8 is much better than 6. Also, more classic.

[Kope]

8 is no where near enough.

this is a pvp server right? you want pvp to happen right?

why not just make it + or - 1 blue bubble so that no one has to fight someone tougher than themselves?

Server already sounding like a blue server.

If there isn't enough pvp, people will quit.

+ or - 8 is not enough.

Macken they're trying to keep it so level 60s don't stomp newbie zones. We need to facilitate people joining the server and wanting to continue playing the server, not the hardcore pvpers.

[lethdar]

Flagging isn't going to solve oor issues, it will help them a bit, but you're still going to be fucked when a cleric sits there until its time to start healing once you've had to tackle your target solo for such as period of time as they'll need a heal.

Flagging won't deal with any of the other oor issues, you're just as dead in pve when the lvl 43 who is oor decides to dispell all of your mezzes and roots in lguk.

[Bardalicious]

Macken still thinks people value his opinion. How cute.

[Harrison]

Flagging isn't going to solve oor issues, it will help them a bit, but you're still going to be fucked when a cleric sits there until its time to start healing once you've had to tackle your target solo for such as period of time as they'll need a heal.

Flagging won't deal with any of the other oor issues, you're just as dead in pve when the lvl 43 who is oor decides to dispell all of your mezzes and roots in lguk.

It helps. It isn't perfect, of course.

[lethdar]

A range of 6 allows a 53 cleric to sit unharassed until they determine the best time to start dropping divine lights, whereas 8 means you can at least attack them before they have the opportunity to start dropping the biggest non complete heal on targets. (for level 60s)

[Kope]

A range of 6 allows a 53 cleric to sit unharassed until they determine the best time to start dropping divine lights, whereas 8 means you can at least attack them before they have the opportunity to start dropping the biggest non complete heal on targets. (for level 60s)

Also 8 levels allows 60s to kill 52s (vox/naggy max level i think...)

[lethdar]

It allows lvl 52s to try and stop 60s from training them while prepping, instead of having an immortal character train all of sol b onto them. (on the assumption gms decide to make training legal).

[Bardalicious]

A range of 6 allows a 53 cleric to sit unharassed until they determine the best time to start dropping divine lights, whereas 8 means you can at least attack them before they have the opportunity to start dropping the biggest non complete heal on targets. (for level 60s)

On a PVP server where the xp is so unforgiving and you only have the ability to play a single box, why would anyone elect to stay as a level 53 cleric when higher levels = higher raid survival? You are also assuming that PVP will only occur between max level toons to make them powerless to a cleric just out of level range. Chances are there will be a pretty good level spread, especially in raid scenarios, in which that cleric is still going to be attacked.

This isn't VZTZ where people will be max in 2 days. I just don't see it being as big of a problem as people are making it out to be.

[Kope]

why would anyone elect to stay as a level 53 cleric when higher levels = higher raid survival?

Bard this happened a lot on TZ. People had mains, but their alts would be level'd to 1 level under the cap so they could have the raid force char, and the uber just under level char.

[lethdar]

Many people on blue99 have lvl 52 alts for killing naggy. The only differences between a lvl 52 naggy cleric alt and a 53 oor healer one is killing a kobold to ding 53 or dying the day before to get back into naggy range

[Rushmore]

Many people on blue99 have lvl 52 alts for killing naggy. The only differences between a lvl 52 naggy cleric alt and a 53 oor healer one is killing a kobold to ding 53 or dying the day before to get back into naggy range

this is off topic possibly ....but the whole community should support any level range being able to kill Naggy and Vox.

This is a good idea for a pvp server.

[Haul]

What do you guys think about a +/- 6 Levels? It's either that or 8. Discuss.

+/- 6 would be a good compromise, 8 is just too much level diversity for spells to land on people.

[Haul]

8 is better imo. out of the 4 pvp servers, only one had +/-4, 2 had 8, and one was ffa. 8 is a fair balance between the extremes.

6 is a pretty odd number, just don't see a reason to make it that

Wrong bro, rallos zek AND zek had +/- 4 get your shit correct plz :a

[Rushmore]

We are considering flagging high level XP zones as FFA. Not sure what zones this will be yet.

Please have this....

And please makes sure Lower Guk is a FFA zone. No one wants lowbies camping manastone without any competition. It just makes it unfair to people that have a life and can't level up multiple toons.

[Rushmore]

hrm it would be helpful to see the list from vztz as a reference. off the top if my head:

Classic:
Hate
Fear
Sky
Solb
Perma

Kunark:
Chardok
Charasis?
Dreadlands
Skyfire
Emerald Jungle
Sebilis
Karnors
VP

Velious:
Something like.. everywhere. There is a discussion on what it was going to be once we released velious again. But the only places I think had level limits were GD, EW, Crystal Caverns, and ThurgadinA

Classic:
Hate
Fear
Sky
Solb
Perma
LOWER GUK
KEDGE KEEP

/fixed

[lethdar]

Wrong bro, rallos zek AND zek had +/- 4 get your shit correct plz :a

Oh no, I didn't mention the last shitty server that everything was merged into years after anyone who mattered quit.

But since we're getting semantic, discord was no level range. 2 No range, 2 with 8, 2 with 4.

For some reason 8 sure looks like a sane middle ground to me.

[Haul]

Oh no, I didn't mention the last shitty server that everything was merged into years after anyone who mattered quit.

But since we're getting semantic, discord was no level range. 2 No range, 2 with 8, 2 with 4.

For some reason 8 sure looks like a sane middle ground to me.

I'm not saying +/- 8 won't work, but it's definately a big variance 4/6 or 7 is much better. P.S. for god sake don't make zones FFA level variance pvp, if guk didn't have level variance that would be beyond retarded lol. Whoever suggested that is a tool.

[Pudge]

thanks, added kedge to the list.

lower guk.. it's not a raid zone. and ppl can start leveling there at level 30. so even though someone might try and steal your evil eye.. i would say leave it non-FFA

[Rushmore]

all zones with the best gear should be ffa period..... Upper Guk would have +/- pvp range.

I don't mind a level range but in certain zones like where manastone and guise drop there should be FFA. People can just make mages and camp gear without harassment.

[Bardalicious]

all zones with the best gear should be ffa period..... Upper Guk would have +/- pvp range.

I don't mind a level range but in certain zones like where manastone and guise drop there should be FFA. People can just make mages and camp gear without harassment.

Or since you're level 50 and that 30-some is trying to camp a manastone you just fucking KS him because it's a PVP server?

[Rushmore]

Or since you're level 50 and that 30-some is trying to camp a manastone you just fucking KS him because it's a PVP server?

the last guy I would think would be against me on this

[Xantille]

+/- 8 levels and/or FFA zones pls, for all the reasons Lethdar stated.

[Bardalicious]

the last guy I would think would be against me on this

You are proposing implementing FFA xp in one of very few zones that people will have to level up in simply because of pre-nerf guise and manastone. If you're level 50 and have level 50 friends, why does it matter if lowbies are trying to camp the shit?

You move in and take the camp and laugh at them while they can't do anything to retaliate.

[Harrison]

Please have this....

And please makes sure Lower Guk is a FFA zone. No one wants lowbies camping manastone without any competition. It just makes it unfair to people that have a life and can't level up multiple toons.

This is just you being a crybaby bitch lol

You don't want people lower level (less time to get to) camping something so you (higher level, aka more time to get to) can't rape them? lol and your excuse is "they have no life"?

You're bad.

[Rushmore]

This is just you being a crybaby bitch lol

You don't want people lower level (less time to get to) camping something so you (higher level, aka more time to get to) can't rape them? lol and your excuse is "they have no life"?

You're bad.

Harrison have you played any box in the past 4 years? I'm okay with whatever they go with. Though my opinion is that Guk should be a ffa zone. Otherwise lowbies or people that can constantly camp manastones for sell/trade will be at that camp uncontested. There are plenty of places to go level other than Sol B, Perma, Guk and Kedge.

When you step into Guk anything goes imo.

[Kope]

Nothing is ever uncontested on a PvP server, that's the entire point. There will always be people to contest spawns, even if it's just a couple of your friends you met while leveling up.

[Rushmore]

Nothing is ever uncontested on a PvP server, that's the entire point. There will always be people to contest spawns, even if it's just a couple of your friends you met while leveling up.

I think your missing my pt.

[lethdar]

There has been some serious facepalm retarding on this last page. The problem rushmore is talking about is that a 30 something mage will out dps your 50 unless you're one of a very few classes. c bolt + pet > everything but a higher lvl mage, possibly wizard, and maybe a necro.

It's not that you're going to respect some faggot lowbies camp, it's that a faggot lowby mage with the right attitude can move in on it and killsteal you 100% of the time unless you're one of the 3 above classes, or you're a combo of 2 dps classes.

[Bardalicious]

I think your missing my pt.

I think everyone is missing your point because the one you are trying to make is illogical. Somehow, these people that have no lives will be able to hit level 50 on their toons and make new ones just for the sake of camping manastones at level 35. And somehow, the level 50's that dont have the lower level alts will not be able to contest the camp through FORCEFULLY TAKING IT. And somehow, these low level manastone farming machines will NOT BE CONTESTED on one of the earliest, most popular camps in original EQ. SOMEHOW, just because they are level fucking 35, they won't be contested, they won't be KSed, they wont be PVP'd by people that are actually in the zone to xp etc.

No, sorry. Point was missed entirely.

[lethdar]

I believe I read another post somewhere that rogean can code certain areas to be FFA? If so that would be a fine solution to the inevitable manastone KS issues that will arise while not condemning random lowbies xping at live to getting continuously shit on by lvl 50s.

[Rushmore]

There has been some serious facepalm retarding on this last page. The problem rushmore is talking about is that a 30 something mage will out dps your 50 unless you're one of a very few classes. c bolt + pet > everything but a higher lvl mage, possibly wizard, and maybe a necro.

It's not that you're going to respect some faggot lowbies camp, it's that a faggot lowby mage with the right attitude can move in on it and killsteal you 100% of the time unless you're one of the 3 above classes, or you're a combo of 2 dps classes.

Thanks,

Lethdar > Bardalicious

[Bardalicious]

And somehow, these low level manastone farming machines will NOT BE CONTESTED on one of the earliest, most popular camps in original EQ.


Quit comparing fail PVP servers that generally had populations of 100 or less with what will inevitably be R99's population. Manastone will be the FBSS of the P99 world, in that there will ALWAYS BE PEOPLE THERE.

Stop crying over potentially lost pixels fgts. Either:

A) Don't out level the range for which ppl will start camping manastones
B) MAKE SOME FRIENDS TO HOLD THE CAMP REGARDLESS?

[Humerox]

Personally, I think any PvP server that doesn't include incentive to group and level PvE-wise is doomed.

Maybe combine SZ's team-based concept with +/- 8 level. You'll draw more blues into the net because they can PvE a little more, and the fights that do happen will be a little more balanced. Item loot would probably be feasible...because it'd be a bit easier to regain the loot that way.

Add to that the OOR fix, and I think there might be a chance for a long-term PvP server.

[Kope]

Maybe combine SZ's team-based concept

If you're talking about making the server more playable for PvE based players and you want a team based server you'd need it race based, not religion. Most of the powerhouse pvp classes are evil, so anyone who doesn't pick evil will get gimped (just like the SZ server).

Of couse on TZ (where I played) the darkies still had the strongest of the 4 teams:

Team 1 - dark (troll, ogre, delf)
Team 2 - humans (hum, eru, Barb)
Team 3 - Shorts (halflings, dwarves, gnomes)
Team 4 - Elves (high elf, wood elf, half elf)

When it came to raid time it was basically all vs darks and they were pretty even (actually darks still had more than the rest of them together)

I bleieve SZ's teams were hardcoded so you couldn't group with those outside of your team, which really sucked.

[Crenshinabon]

Team 1 - dark (troll, ogre, delf)
Team 2 - humans (hum, eru, Barb)
Team 3 - Shorts (halflings, dwarves, gnomes)
Team 4 - Elves (high elf, wood elf, half elf)


Yea this sounds very bad top have 4 teams. I would only imagine team based being.
Team 1 - dark (troll, ogre, delf, freeport)
Team 2 - light (halflings, dwarf, gnome, highelf, wooldelf, halfelf, erudite, barbarians, qeynos)

[Rushmore]

how bout no teams

[Nirgon]

Don't force teams, dark wins. gg etc.

Moreover: if someone lower lvl could ks you 10 years ago on live and he's going for classic..

I wouldn't go labeling Guk a raid zone. Then you're just looking at anything with a valuable spawn regardless of level becoming a raid zone. What about the ancient cyclops in sro etc?

Raid zones are FFA for a reason and are fine imo.

This is overboard.

This isn't about fair or balanced. It's about classic.

Whatever rules he decides are maintainable and enforceable are up to him. The problem isn't necessarily the rules, it's grey areas and rules in writing going unenforced that cause massive QQ / quits (and the selective applications of the rule).

[Galacticus]

Staying on topic, I think this sounds like a good plan with a good solution to hiding healers / buffers. If boxing isn't allowed, then it would be hard for them to do it anyway.

On the note of teams here is my thoughts:

The problem with teams is balancing them. But thats the problem with high end guilds also. Unless you forced people to be on a team they couldnt choose you couldnt avoid this. At the same time, it promotes you to get friendly and be able to trust your team members. But there will be the eventuality that you will have people on your team that you dont like and cant kill, and that sucks when your on a pvp server.

The problem with FFA is that you can only trust your guild mates. But at the same time, it promotes you to want to join a guild so you have people you can group with that cant just leave group and kill you when your at 20% health and they are about to log anyway. If you dont like someone in the guild, you can get him kicked out or join a new one.

So my vote goes for FFA because it has more to offer in terms of pvp and promotes guilding up. Though once the server is older, this may be a problem for new people not being able to get to those guilds.

[Haul]

Or since you're level 50 and that 30-some is trying to camp a manastone you just fucking KS him because it's a PVP server?

Real talk.

[Haul]

I think everyone is missing your point because the one you are trying to make is illogical. Somehow, these people that have no lives will be able to hit level 50 on their toons and make new ones just for the sake of camping manastones at level 35. And somehow, the level 50's that dont have the lower level alts will not be able to contest the camp through FORCEFULLY TAKING IT. And somehow, these low level manastone farming machines will NOT BE CONTESTED on one of the earliest, most popular camps in original EQ. SOMEHOW, just because they are level fucking 35, they won't be contested, they won't be KSed, they wont be PVP'd by people that are actually in the zone to xp etc.

No, sorry. Point was missed entirely.

hahahaha

[Rushmore]

hahahaha

must have missed Lethdar's post.

[Buhbuh]

Aside from the fact that teams will X-team from day one no matter how you choose to hard code the server, yes, it will probably be hard to balance them.

I think there's a bigger issue at hand regarding the idea of making teams: population. From a statistical standpoint, with 400 people playing at any given time, roughly 100 of those will be hard coded as people I can't kill? That sounds not very good, to put it lightly. What's more is that-- who will I be in a guild with? Will I necessarily stick to my team? Probably not. I will probably X-team. That makes even less people dead by my PvP loving hands.

If R99 is even half the population of P99, the teams idea just doesn't pan out. I'm sure developers could make it WoW- like, where teams can't group with others, etc. etc. But I'm not big on that.

Remember with TZ, VZ, SZ, and RZ we all saw 1000+ playing there in the beginning.

Let's not pretend that is a luxury here. FFA seems like the most logical option.

[Humerox]

...I think there's a bigger issue at hand regarding the idea of making teams: population...

That's going to be the problem...otherwise I'd tend to agree with you. No matter what any emu PvP server does - and I daresay that will include Red99 - population is going to be a problem. Sure, some may start up for the novelty, but keeping them in and actually increasing population will take some serious thought and creativity.

A FFA environment doesn't stimulate growth, imo (even tho I personally prefer a hardcore FFA experience)...and I also think it wouldn't attract the population lost from P99 over the last couple of years.

I don't think there are enough experienced red players to support any kind of sustained growth. The blues have to be drawn in, and that's going to require a secure PvE experience (or one that FEELS secure to some extent).

I'd forgotten about the race-based concept; I didn't play any PvP server much except SZ, but race would probably be the way to go.

I applaud Rogean and team for actually going with this...but there have to be more prizes in the box. ;)

[Buhbuh]

That's going to be the problem...otherwise I'd tend to agree with you. No matter what any emu PvP server does - and I daresay that will include Red99 - population is going to be a problem. Sure, some may start up for the novelty, but keeping them in and actually increasing population will take some serious thought and creativity.

A FFA environment doesn't stimulate growth, imo (even tho I personally prefer a hardcore FFA experience)...and I also think it wouldn't attract the population lost from P99 over the last couple of years.

I don't think there are enough experienced red players to support any kind of sustained growth. The blues have to be drawn in, and that's going to require a secure PvE experience (or one that FEELS secure to some extent).

I'd forgotten about the race-based concept; I didn't play any PvP server much except SZ, but race would probably be the way to go.

I applaud Rogean and team for actually going with this...but there have to be more prizes in the box. ;)

To an extent. I agree that there was some security in teams/ race based (some players I would have preferred not to mess with), but it wouldn't destroy my good time if I had to get down with them. The flip side is that there were some people I really wish I could have attacked on my team back on live. For population growth and sustainability, though?

I think the mere fact that the P99 crew is doing this is enough to keep people playing. This candid discussion is more than we got on those makeshift classic boxes. They fix things and want feedback. Maybe most of it is awful, barely readable feedback, but at least they want to give people somewhat of a voice.

You have a point in giving security with teams, but I honestly think it's a stretch to call it game-breaking for the bluebies coming here.

What stopped them from coming to other PvP servers were things like AC, poisons, Strength, Disarm, skillups, and the majority of quests not working, clearly exaggerated imbalances (Warriors crit for 1500? Not crip, crit...in classic), backstab hitting for less than flying kick with top end piercers, 'Whirl Til You Hurl' acting as a T-staff stun, in game help basically absent, etc.

Mechanics aren't really a problem here.

[Rushmore]

That's going to be the problem...otherwise I'd tend to agree with you. No matter what any emu PvP server does - and I daresay that will include Red99 - population is going to be a problem. Sure, some may start up for the novelty, but keeping them in and actually increasing population will take some serious thought and creativity.

A FFA environment doesn't stimulate growth, imo (even tho I personally prefer a hardcore FFA experience)...and I also think it wouldn't attract the population lost from P99 over the last couple of years.

I don't think there are enough experienced red players to support any kind of sustained growth. The blues have to be drawn in, and that's going to require a secure PvE experience (or one that FEELS secure to some extent).

I'd forgotten about the race-based concept; I didn't play any PvP server much except SZ, but race would probably be the way to go.

I applaud Rogean and team for actually going with this...but there have to be more prizes in the box. ;)

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. In an age where there are no true challenging mmo games anymore this is our only home. We only need a well coded sustainable server to call home. And once that happens we will all rapture to it. And all that is heavenly glory will be.

the low population or the inconsistency has been ONLY from the inconsistency. We've always been here in waiting.

[Scribbles]

lots of ppl in this thread scared of their pve being ruined

[Galacticus]

lots of ppl in this thread scared of their pve being ruined

Pve and pvp are both fun.

[Envious]

Can't remove something that doesn't exist in the first place.

The basis for this server is P99, not VZTZ, so keep that in mind.

Gawd I love you.

The problem with 6 level ranges is that you get alot of people grinding in the same zone that are OOR of PvP from each other (grammar, fuk?).

Like Lguk, BR group is 35, Lord group 45+.

Sol B, Royals group is 40, Efreeti group is 50.

MM, Ent group is 20, Castle group is 30+

And a level range of 10 just gives people too much of a ganking advantage.

[Envious]

Wrong bro, rallos zek AND zek had +/- 4 get your shit correct plz :a

ZEK is like SZ, doesnt count.

[Yukahwa]

4 Level range is perfect. A level 16 has a reasonable chance against a level 20 and a level 20 definitely has a surviving chance against a level 24. A level 20 Melee could clear out a level 12 group easily and this is what those lowbies would be faced with with such a high level range.

Making OOR healers / buffers become PVPable would make absolute sense and be totally worth while IMO..but I think the range should be tightened under normal situations.

[Envious]

4 level range means that a Lord group of lvl 50s or an Efreeti group of lvl 50s, cant kill a group of 45s. And considering they would all be grinding / farming / exp'ing in the same zones...

That would be the suck.

[lethdar]

4 Level range is perfect. A level 16 has a reasonable chance against a level 20 and a level 20 definitely has a surviving chance against a level 24. A level 20 Melee could clear out a level 12 group easily and this is what those lowbies would be faced with with such a high level range.

Making OOR healers / buffers become PVPable would make absolute sense and be totally worth while IMO..but I think the range should be tightened under normal situations.

You are really really dumb. a lvl 20 caster might be able to do this, maybe, if the 12s are fucking pathetic and afk. A lvl 20 melee trying to fight anyone, even a caster 1 on 1 8 lvls below him is going to be an ass rape in the majority of cases, let alone a whole group.

[dusk883]

Unreal that Rogean is getting involved with a pvp server, this is such great news for so many. I'm game for anything he has for us. That said, anyone have any idea when this might happen beyond the "stfu and wait" attitude?

[Humerox]

Seeing all the discussion involved, I'd say it's probably getting pretty close.

[Yukahwa]

4 level range means that a Lord group of lvl 50s or an Efreeti group of lvl 50s, cant kill a group of 45s. And considering they would all be grinding / farming / exp'ing in the same zones...

That would be the suck.

Thats a really powerful point.

To Leth - A duo of level 20's could easily kill a group of level 12's, the damage cap is lifted and any lvl 12 caster would be practically a 2 shot with a decent 2hs.

But theres no magical way to make it all perfect. I see the problem with level 45's vs. Lvl 50's in guk though, so I support the 8 level range or at least something more than 4.

These discussions are exciting.


Edit- After reading some threads...I think maybe the PVP range should be 4 levels at lower levels and then increase at the upper levels. This solves the problem of lowbies being vastly overpowered by people 8 levels above them..a level 12 wizard vs. lvl 4 is just a sad sight...level 8 vs lvl 12 is a lot more doable (at least the level 8 has a chance of escape) and it lets genuine lowbies get out of PVP range in a more reasonable length of time.

It also solves the problem of level 50's and level 45's not being able to engage eachother in guk because at that point the lvl limit would have increased.

I think this in addition to the OOR healer problem solver that Rogean suggested would work pretty well.

Just like how at low levels things become light blue / green con much quicker than they do at high levels.

[lethdar]

To Leth - A duo of level 20's could easily kill a group of level 12's, the damage cap is lifted and any lvl 12 caster would be practically a 2 shot with a decent 2hs.


Eq isn't daoc, just being higher level doesn't make you immune to spells. Unless you're talking about a twink melee going to town with a mith 2hander 2 rounding people it still isn't possible.

I mean really, how are you envisioning this scenario to play out, even with duo rather than 1 melee? The 6 level 12s to sit still waiting for autoattack to kill them with a steel sword or some other equally shitty low lvl 2 hander? That none of the casters will cast blind, root, snare, mez, da, shadowstep, or any other number of cc spells that would land on a melee because they aren't going to have dick for MR gear at 20? That the initial target is just going to stand there as he is slowly autoattacked to death instead of kite around? That the healers in the group wont be healing the sad amounts of damage a lvl 20 melee will put out with a bone bladed claymore or whatever?

Even a 20 mage could get owned if he went unprepared against a group of competent lvl 12s. Melee are the defenseless little lambs of the server until they get resist gear, buffs, and weapons. None of that occurs at lvl 20.

[Haul]

ZEK is like SZ, doesnt count.

How is that even remotely close to a rational statement. I think you wokeup too early irl when you posted that one haha.

[juicedsixfo]

4 level range means that a Lord group of lvl 50s or an Efreeti group of lvl 50s, cant kill a group of 45s. And considering they would all be grinding / farming / exp'ing in the same zones...

That would be the suck.

Well except for the fact they will be dinging 46 eventually?

[beentheredonethat]

I don't remember how it was on Rallos, was there a cap even?

[dusk883]

4 on RZ ..at least before i quit

[Yukahwa]

That's true Juiced, heh. Never will there be a group of only 1 level so if some of them are in PVP range that group can be damaged.

I still think if a broader range is deemed neccesary than there should be a different range for higher levels. Just an idea.

[Envious]

Macken has burnt me out on all the SZ shit, so whenever someone posts "This is how it was on SZ" or "SZ was bestest, make server like that" or "SZ etc" I automatically ignore the post.

Well except for the fact they will be dinging 46 eventually?

Not with classic exp rates =P




Lethdar, my dumb shit board pal. A lvl 20 can easily rock a group of lvl 12s. A lvl 20 pet would almost wipe out a group of lvl 12s. Lvl 20 wizards can 1 shot lvl 12s. Wtf are you smoking? Granted, a balanced group of 6 lvl 12s that are prep'd and known each other and ready can prolly kill a lvl 20 without a full wipe.

But thats not pvp brah~ In PvP 2 of those lvl 12s are going to be dead before they realize there is PvP, and add in a few NPCs...

Wtf are you smoking?

[lethdar]

Macken has burnt me out on all the SZ shit, so whenever someone posts "This is how it was on SZ" or "SZ was bestest, make server like that" or "SZ etc" I automatically ignore the post.



Not with classic exp rates =P




Lethdar, my dumb shit board pal. A lvl 20 can easily rock a group of lvl 12s. A lvl 20 pet would almost wipe out a group of lvl 12s. Lvl 20 wizards can 1 shot lvl 12s. Wtf are you smoking? Granted, a balanced group of 6 lvl 12s that are prep'd and known each other and ready can prolly kill a lvl 20 without a full wipe.

But thats not pvp brah~ In PvP 2 of those lvl 12s are going to be dead before they realize there is PvP, and add in a few NPCs...

Wtf are you smoking?

Envious my retarded illiterate board pal, if you bothered to read his post you would see hes talking about a lvl 20 melee owning groups of 12s. This is moronic, and something only a mage or caster could do. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Danien]

Envious my retarded illiterate board pal, if you bothered to read his post you would see hes talking about a lvl 20 melee owning groups of 12s. This is moronic, and something only a mage or caster could do. Thank you for agreeing with me.

I lol'd. Hard.

[Envious]

Envious my retarded illiterate board pal, if you bothered to read his post you would see hes talking about a lvl 20 melee owning groups of 12s. This is moronic, and something only a mage or caster could do. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Shit happens. =P

[Yukahwa]

A twinked 20 melee. A 20 anything. It doesn't matter, the example was general and I typed it on my cell phone in class..kill me. An 8 level range means that players on a totally different plane..not even exping the same mobs can easily wipe a lower level group with no effort. With 4 levels, the pvp will be a lot tighter. In any group people will be within that level range of each other already..so they might be grouped with someone or more than one person who stands a chance against the players that just zoned in to kill them. With an 8 level range, the team of level 24's that comes into unrest will demolish the yard trash groups unopposed.

I think a 4 level limit through lower levels and an increased level limit to solve problems in Lguk may be the way to go. At the same time, guys in Lguk will eventually be in range to level 50's so I think a 4 level limit remains viable. A level 50 group can just take the camp that the level 45 group wants by killing what group members they can (weakening groups pve ability) and then KSing the mob. Problem solved.

The OOR healer fix solves one problem and creates another. It means that at lower levels a lowbie caster who was simply grouped with a player and healing him in normal pve is now in range to the PKers who came to take out his group mates. At low levels this just means more durids using light healing will be killed by people way out of range. At level 41 it makes more sense because an OOR cleric could keep a player alive for a very long time and that sucker needs to be killed. So maybe the OOR healer fix should be progressive somehow too.

[Humerox]

A lot of the level limits will be nullified if people are grouping. Not everyone is going to be the same level, and dynamic level adjustments will throw a lot of range disparity out the window.

Since most are opposed to teams it seems...beta checking and adjusting this stuff would be key.

[vinx]

A lot of the level limits will be nullified if people are grouping. Not everyone is going to be the same level, and dynamic level adjustments will throw a lot of range disparity out the window.

Since most are opposed to teams it seems...beta checking and adjusting this stuff would be key.
^^ this
plus i dont remember +/- 8 being to tough.
a level 20 doesnt come thru and destroy like anyone thinks they can

this scenerio everyones talkin about reminds me of one time.. lol here i go
so me an my bro (both rangers) were xping in paladul.. my bro is 16 and im 15
a level 24 sk comes in and starts to whack on my bro.. and my brother starts losing / im helpless as im OOR (but only a few kills from 16) so i kill 3 mobs while bro kites and runs around mid health.
DING! now i engage and we both kick his ass
Theres other large gap fights i recall to in kunark/loy/pop and wht not, but this fits the level of discussion...it can be tough, but sometimes its awesome to win an engagment like that!

+/- 4 creates a larger OOR healer situation imo

[SearyxTZ]

http://i.imgur.com/WozuR.jpg

[Pudge]

you know. i just love that rogean opened this up to discussion. the server rules i mean. shows openmindedness. he hasent run pvp before and is really trying to do it right

the server WILL have a huge initial population, regardless of the rules. but opening it up shows he is interested in doing this shit right

if the rules arent perfect at first, im sure they will change. but the fact that players are given input means a lot.

population > all. rogean and and crew can do this.

[SearyxTZ]

Yeah and I do not mean to be critical there - the open discussion is a luxury. It's just that VZTZ learned so many things the hard way, it would be a shame to see another server go through the same long experimentation process of having to play all these things out.

[Wonton]

+/- 8 levels seems appropriate.

Having coin loot is nice, hearing that sound effect~

I'd love to see system wide messages implemented for Pvp deaths!

[dusk883]

8 is perfect, I'm assuming everyone in range of player will con White? That's when times were good, I remember back in the day, I think, on Tallon everyone for a long time was white if anywhere within the 8 lvl range so you were certainly gambling at times. Then, at least for a short time, you'd get the green/yellow/red cons of people in range. Not as cool IMO... we need to have everyone gambling as they level up IMO. Just adds to the fun factor. Not that I was ever any good at pvp, I respected the other guy was gambling when he took a shot at the Woohoo.

[Macken]

It's just that VZTZ learned so many things the hard way, it would be a shame to see another server go through the same long experimentation process of having to play all these things out.

I told you so.

VZTZ didn't have to learn the hard way. The experiments had already been performed. The staff was just too stupid to go look or listen. I told everyone on VZTZ forums what was up. It's all still there for posterity. The staff ignored my expert unassailable opinion and we all paid for it. People have been making fun of them ever since. Now VZTZ staff has been labled alot of negative things, some deserved, some not. They deserve to be called out for being ignorant and dumb. Ignorant, because they didn't already know in the first place. Dumb, because they refused to listen to box veterans, refused to look at live pvp history.

Deja' Vu.

This staff seems determined to make the same mistakes.

It's just a coincidence that the box veterans all seem to be saying the same thing on just about every topic.


And the beat goes on.

[Macken]

Emu Staffs find themselves in the peculiar place of being highly skilled at something that simutaneously has few competitors. They are masters of their domain which puts them at extremem risk of groupthink.


Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints.


“A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

In other words, being really good at something that has little competition fools them into thinking they know best about everything, and they will be susceptible to refuse to listen to others. Even if those others have actual experience rather than hypothetically drawing up scenarios in one's mind from scratch.

[Harrison]

Dumb, because they refused to listen to box veterans, refused to look at live pvp history.

Deja' Vu.

This staff seems determined to make the same mistakes.

It's just a coincidence that the box veterans all seem to be saying the same thing on just about every topic.


And the beat goes on.

The success of this server hinges on not listening to retards like you.

You "box veterans" are mostly terrible wannabe pvpers whose sole experience with "pvp" exists entirely within the universe of VZTZ and the following failboxes after its inevitable demise. You don't know what a properly tuned and/or implemented pvp experience is. You don't want it. You want something to exploit, twist, and use to your advantage over others to stroke your pathetically fragile little egos. Most of you may have played elsewhere in the past, but were jokes and wish to rape your way into knocking that chip off your shoulders.

Training legal/no rules against? Check.
Corpse camping allowed/no rules against? Check.
Bind camping/no rules against? Check.
Zone Plugging allowed(ghosting too)/no rules against? Check.

VZTZ didn't fail because it didn't listen to you, the downie ringleader it would seem. It failed because it was a piece of shit half-assed wannabe server.

This won't be half-assed and hopefully won't have any input from drooling morons like you.

"No rules or the server will fail." lawl. No one followed what little rules you did have on your failbox and see how well that turned out.

[Macken]

Harrison makes it his life's quest to misunderstand EVERYTHING he reads.

[Galacticus]

The success of this server hinges on not listening to retards like you.

You "box veterans" are mostly terrible wannabe pvpers whose sole experience with "pvp" exists entirely within the universe of VZTZ and the following failboxes after its inevitable demise. You don't know what a properly tuned and/or implemented pvp experience is. You don't want it. You want something to exploit, twist, and use to your advantage over others to stroke your pathetically fragile little egos. Most of you may have played elsewhere in the past, but were jokes and wish to rape your way into knocking that chip off your shoulders.

Training legal/no rules against? Check.
Corpse camping allowed/no rules against? Check.
Bind camping/no rules against? Check.
Zone Plugging allowed(ghosting too)/no rules against? Check.

VZTZ didn't fail because it didn't listen to you, the downie ringleader it would seem. It failed because it was a piece of shit half-assed wannabe server.

This won't be half-assed and hopefully won't have any input from drooling morons like you.

"No rules or the server will fail." lawl. No one followed what little rules you did have on your failbox and see how well that turned out.

821 posts of fail.

[Harrison]

821 posts of fail.

I used to ghost back on live with a bard to get through to PoM. Basically unplug your connection for 15 seconds then plug it back in for 5 and repeat. You would gain agro for 5 seconds but then lose it, just pray you survive that long.

[lethdar]

loool that is not how ghosting worked on live.

[Envious]

Yeah and I do not mean to be critical there - the open discussion is a luxury. It's just that VZTZ learned so many things the hard way, it would be a shame to see another server go through the same long experimentation process of having to play all these things out.

Agreed.

[Sniperfire]

instead of flaggin make it open pvp
sz rules

[Rushmore]

Macken > Harrison

And i mean to be critcal

[Muaar]

I think ffa is best if you don't want to work very hard to create a balanced and fair system, but would appreciate a well balanced system too.

As long as people can't exploit the rules you create in place of ffa where the COMMUNITY makes the rules (the BEST part of eq imo) it should work great. FFA in raid zones is a must.

[Greenkrak]

Damn Im just super excited that a classic pvp server seems on the horizon.

My opinion is have no limit on the level range for killing.

[Mrcurtloco]

The work you are willing to do for OOR healing is commendable but probly not needed.

Also that could be used to be exploited as well

ie. a low lvl player being zergd by a group of players in crushbone

I heal him and then stand next to him to get AoEd as well then rape the group.

It might make more since to code that for OOR healing if 2 boxing is aloud, but if its solo, I wouldnt worry too much

[Crenshinabon]

I heal him and then stand next to him to get AoEd as well then rape the group.


If you are stupid enough to use an AE when an obvious higher lvl is sitting next to someone you deserve to get owned.

+/- 7 or even 6 levels please. This sounds a bit more fair than a lvl 20 fighting a level 28.

[Yukahwa]

Rogean (i think) proposed a fix for OOR healers. It was proposed that when a heal is cast..the healer become PVP engageable by everyone that can engage the heal recipient.

How will this work when a high level character heals a low level character? A level 50 healer healing his level 40 PK buddy, and so on? Obviously it wouldn't help anyone if a level 50 could automatically be able to PVP whoever they want just by healing someone within their PVP range..

I guess the only solution is to only have healers / buffers become in range (by their own doing) to characters that are higher level than them..not lower. OOR healers healing lower levels are less of a problem in general I guess..

Or just make intentional OOR healing a bannable offense and not waste time coding to try to solve the problem.

Also I really think a tighter PVP range would be better. At low levels the power discrepancy is just too huge. Besides that, at low levels there is no natural clash between people 8 levels apart. No level 23 is going to be competing with level 15's for yard trash in Unrest...it just isn't necessary at all except MAYBE for loot mob disputes in Lguk and the like. Even in Lguk a level 50 group could and should simply kill whoever actually is in range and then take the camp they are after. If no one is in range they can just take the camp with their superior ability to do damage to the mob. I really think 4 is better. -maybe- 5 just to be unique or something. At that range everyone will be competing for the same mobs, and have a fighting chance against one another.

[Nirgon]

The issue is more out of range healing by lower level characters, or having a lower level bard follow you around. I don't think the population is going to be so high that either is a big deal and going 2v2 with a lower level healer on one side is a great idea.

Consider if you will a lower level /duel on a lvl 50 to break mezzes..

[Crenshinabon]

Or just make intentional OOR healing meant to grief lower players a bannable offense and not waste time coding to try to solve the problem.

Also I really think a tighter PVP range would be better. At low levels the power discrepancy is just too huge. Besides that, at low levels there is no natural clash between people 8 levels apart. No level 23 is going to be competing with level 15's for yard trash in Unrest...it just isn't necessary at all except MAYBE for loot mob disputes in Lguk and the like. Even in Lguk a level 50 group could and should simply kill whoever actually is in range and then take the camp they are after. If no one is in range they can just take the camp with their superior ability to do damage to the mob. I really think 4 is better. -maybe- 5 just to be unique or something. At that range everyone will be competing for the same mobs, and have a fighting chance against one another.

This guy nailed my thoughts. 4 is a bit small but 8 is still too much. I think 6 is best of both worlds.

[Xareth]

+/- 8 levels is the perfect range.

If Rogean hadn't laid out the plan to effectively eliminate oor healing then maybe it could be tweaked, say making the range smaller at lower levels.

The +/- 4 level range limits the number of players that can be interacted with way too much, +/- 8 is bad enough - ffa is preferable for most players that enjoy pvp. +/- 8 levels, starting at level 8, is the true middle ground.

[Yukahwa]

What is enjoyable about level 30 vs level 38? Totally different mobs and goals except that the level 38 might have the idea that itd be sweet to kill the level 30 for fun. Level 30 can either run..or thats it.

Most people that PK are going to pick one level and never move from that level. That will be a level where they have plenty of people almost if not exactly 8 levels lower than them to kill. Too easy.

[Xareth]

Yeah most people will be "picking" level 50, or whatever the max level is at the time. Plus, read up on Rogean's oor buster.

Furthermore it is entirely possible for a lvl 30 to kill a 38. All things are not created equal. Some players are better than others; characters have better gear than others; different classes fair better against certain classes. EQ pvp is situational. Mobs come into play as well.

I guess I feel the +/- 8 level range is small. It's small in comparison with FFA, which is best. +/- 4 is wayyy too small.

If you want more "even matches" just play p99 and duel. Pvp is never even.

[Xareth]

What is enjoyable about level 30 vs level 38? Totally different mobs and goals except that the level 38 might have the idea that itd be sweet to kill the level 30 for fun. Level 30 can either run..or thats it.

Wait wat?

Mobs and goals??? Are you talking about pve?

The GOAL on a pvp server is to kill as many players as you can while dying as little as possible.

[Yukahwa]

Xareth some people want to PVE to get to their prefered PVP level.

Gold thats a tough situation. No idea there. Roll a mage? ; )

[Nirgon]

Are players pvp immune from lvl 1-5? 1-8? Hopefully not at all :P.

I may have to make a Scumbog.

Points if you remember him. I got him royal velium frosted. He'd still attack my alts even if I let him know in advance because "it was just business" lol.

[Vondra]

+/- 4 levels seems like it'd make things more fun at lower levels. I don't think there'll be a shortage of people to interact with at low levels within those ranges. Would make for some more entertaining lowbie warfare (of which I would think will end up constituting a large portion of population).

Then +/- 6 or 8 at higher levels, starting at lev 30 or something.

[beentheredonethat]

How about deleveling?

I remember in RZ there was this troll "Larry" that used to butcher me constantly because he deleveled something like 20+ levels and kept on killing everyone (where none of us could touch him because of his stats).

I know there was a patch later that fixed that and reduced stats when deleveled.... Not sure if that will be here of course.

[Stickyfingers]

I thought that was generally just used with AA's? You got to keep your AA's after you deleveled.

[Pudge]

make it exp loss only if you get killed by a player +/- 1 level of you.

that way ppl wont be losing much exp, until everyone hits max level already. this will deter end-game bind rushing and make a penalty for death, but take out a lot of the grief potential and fear of pvp

[Xareth]

make it exp loss only if you get killed by a player +/- 1 level of you.

that way ppl wont be losing much exp, until everyone hits max level already. this will deter end-game bind rushing and make a penalty for death, but take out a lot of the grief potential and fear of pvp

laughing to hard, stop

[Pudge]

laughing to hard, stop

dont see what's so funny : /

just tryina find the best compromise

[Xareth]

Wait...so you weren't joking?

I am supposed to take that post literally??

[mitic]

Level 50's are fighting it out. A level 41 Cleric comes by. His name will show up a certain color to the level 50's that means they can't attack each other (this may be blue). That level 41 Cleric decides to heal one of the level 50's. His max attack-able range gets increased to level 50 (from 49). On the level 50's screens, the Cleric's name will now turn a different color (possibly orange) to indicate that they may attack that player but not be attacked (yet) by him.

If one of the level 50's runs over and attacks the 41 Cleric, the name color would update to red to indicate both players are attack-able to each other.


wait what, i dont need to /con or /who anymore? this is fukin brilliant! this is, by far, one of the best new features after eqlive pvp

[Sniperfire]

sounds like a huge waste of manpower .......release it sz style save yourself some coding

also not classic orange names will ruin my immersion

[Barn]

I really like Yukahwa's idea of a sliding scale.
There has to be a way to combat invulnerable folks stealing and griefing, though I'm sure we'll have alts to roll out to face different levels of challengers.

I fear in our teens and 20s 8 levels will be huge. I can see in my heart a level 20 monk eating right through a group of 12s fighting Dervs.

I might make a Monk sometime just for that.

[lethdar]

I really like Yukahwa's idea of a sliding scale.
There has to be a way to combat invulnerable folks stealing and griefing, though I'm sure we'll have alts to roll out to face different levels of challengers.

I fear in our teens and 20s 8 levels will be huge. I can see in my heart a level 20 monk eating right through a group of 12s fighting Dervs.

I might make a Monk sometime just for that.

lvl 20 monks, gods of pvp amirite?

Not really, you're really really dumb, a lvl 12 necro is going to rape your 20 monk 1v1, let alone 1 v 6.

[Titanuk]

melees are OP in classic

[Spike Spiegel]

No way Barn I think a 10 level max is better! Otherwise newbies will be EXPING and i cant even kill them when im all twinked out?! Whats the point of hitting level 50 if I cant utterly dominate people. Ideally there would be no level limit at all so that if I NEED to kill a lowbie crushbone group I totally can. Its really the only way to balance the game cuz if I cant kill crushbone groups at level 50 how can SPAWN DISPUTES on trainer hill get handled?!

+ - 40 levels!

[Xareth]

No way Barn I think a 10 level max is better! Otherwise newbies will be EXPING and i cant even kill them when im all twinked out?! Whats the point of hitting level 50 if I cant utterly dominate people.

+ / - 10 is a nice gap actually. What would you like, only even cons can affect each other?

blu bee

Ideally there would be no level limit at all so that if I NEED to kill a lowbie crushbone group I totally can. Its really the only way to balance the game cuz if I cant kill crushbone groups at level 50 how can SPAWN DISPUTES on trainer hill get handled?!

+ - 40 levels!

No, that is why many players will leave toons low lvl. Just to ruin your months and months of crushbone fun.

Like I've been sayin, the bluebies just don't get pvp.

[Titanuk]

8plus or minus . no lvl range in high end zones

[Greenkrak]

fuck

[jilena]

I would think something like SZ's ruleset would be better. I don't care about teams or whatnot, but just allowing for FFA killing with level assessed penalities. Like a level 50 can stomp on a level 10 but the level 10 loses nothing when he/she dies. If the same level 50 kills a level 46 however the level 46 takes whatever the penalty is, be it exp loss, coin loss, item loss, whatever. This prevents any out of level range exploiting and allows for all levels to contribute in any PvP battle. It also prevents low levels from talking shit without any fear of being killed. I think the ability to kill anyone at any level (I vote remove the stupid level 5 immunity crap as well) makes for the best PvP experience.

The only downside is that you will have people QQing about being "griefed" which is lame. If you have ever told anyone in your life that you were "griefed" you probably shouldn't play on a PvP server.

[Mardur]

<Rogean> Naming Colors.. standard blue naming if neither play can attack eachother (Blue or Purple).. if you can attack them and they can attack you both players will see eachother as red.. if you see a player you can attack (their range was increased to match yours) but they can't attack you (your range doesn't cover theirs), they will show as orange
<Rogean> the vise versa of orange is yellow (they can attack you but until they do you can't attack them)

[Palemoon]

If this coded system works out, then great. If not, then just go with Sullon Zek's way of no level restrictions outside of noob yards.

[JayDee]

8plus or minus . no lvl range in high end zones

only way to go

[Throatseeker]

Personally I believe that if the 41 Cleric is healing a 50 companion not only does he become attack-able but he has signed his own "consent" to join in the fray and should be able to attack on his own will as well. Realistically healing an ally can turn the tide just as much as a surprise back stab right? In that case then why should the 41 cleric have to wait to be attacked to be able to attack after he made his decision to join in and heal a level 50 companion battling another level 50? In my opinion the cleric already decided he was going big or going home.

So I propose that instead of just making the Cleric attack-able upon healing. Instead make it a double edged sword and say "hey if he is ballsy enough to step in the middle of that fight then he should have ALL rights not just healing rights."

[Xareth]

Personally I believe that if the 41 Cleric is healing a 50 companion not only does he become attack-able but he has signed his own "consent" to join in the fray and should be able to attack on his own will as well. Realistically healing an ally can turn the tide just as much as a surprise back stab right? In that case then why should the 41 cleric have to wait to be attacked to be able to attack after he made his decision to join in and heal a level 50 companion battling another level 50? In my opinion the cleric already decided he was going big or going home.

So I propose that instead of just making the Cleric attack-able upon healing. Instead make it a double edged sword and say "hey if he is ballsy enough to step in the middle of that fight then he should have ALL rights not just healing rights."

See "Pvp Coding" earlier in the thread.

[Nirgon]

lvl 20 monks, gods of pvp amirite?

Not really, you're really really dumb, a lvl 12 necro is going to rape your 20 monk 1v1, let alone 1 v 6.

Wont be much to it after the necro lands that engulfing darkness : /, or when he channels the darkness through your lack of stun. The twinked out monk with jboots and magic resist would murder it up.

There really needs to be an informed group reporting on this, the masses are oblivious.

[jilena]

I would like to add to my previous statement to say that I think a combination of SZ and what Rogean suggested would be awesome.

Like this:

1 - Everyone can attack everyone
2 - PvP penalty (be it coin, exp, item, whatever) is only assessed within range (+/-5)
3 - The level range for penalty is ignored if player is flagged as contributing.

Examples:

A level 50 SK walks up and kills a level 34 cleric. The level 34 cleric takes no penalty outside of having to walk back to his corpse. The level 34 cleric shows back up with a level 50 ranger friend and the ranger attacks the SK. The SK seems to be winning so the cleric heals the ranger. The 50 SK seeing the 34 cleric healing the Ranger gets pissed and runs over and kills the cleric again. Then the ranger finishes off the SK. The cleric and the SK both are assessed whatever PvP penalty because even though the 34 cleric was 16 levels lower than the SK, he commited himself to fighting and thus takes the penalty.

Thoughts?

[Sprinkle]

6 levels not 8 please and lowbie / higher interference is part of pvp , deal with it

[Nirgon]

4 (preferably) or 6, 8 is going to be a mistake bros.

[cured]

I played on TZ when it was 8 levels and didn't have a problem with that, 8 levels won't be a problem here, especially given the server population will be lower.

[Nirgon]

Consider a little further penalties for killing players there and teams if you would, and how that can be pertinent to starting areas. Once you've thought about that, think about new people starting on the server and the long term population.

[Billbike]

8 levels. It works. Twinking is the spoils of the highend, and is fun too.

Btw, that necro would just dot and shadowstep, or even tap tank your monk down, in classic anyway.

[Nirgon]

Hopefully you will understand it is very easy for the high end to destroy the server. I don't mean that they shouldn't be able to get every mob they contest. But the ability to grief new-comers without risk (gear) should be thought over.

[dusk883]

You can kill 45s at 50...it's 8 levels no matter what level you are

[Daldaen]

I'd disagree with the +/- 8 for low levels. A level 2 is greatly disadvantaged against a level 9. I seem to recall original servers having like a scaling level bracket system? Like levels 2-15 were +/- 4 or something like that?

[Billbike]

4 (preferably) or 6, 8 is going to be a mistake bros.

So at 50, I cant fight or kill 45s? How about at 60? Can't touch 55s? This will likely always make someone oor during group pvp.

I do not understand this. Why would you want to limit the amount of possible content relevant PVP on r99?

If you get bullied by higher levels, that is incentive to level faster.

[cured]

I'd disagree with the +/- 8 for low levels. A level 2 is greatly disadvantaged against a level 9. I seem to recall original servers having like a scaling level bracket system? Like levels 2-15 were +/- 4 or something like that?

There's a lot more to the game than level 2.

It was +/-8 on TZ. I survived after starting late and made it to the top.

[Morninx]

Couldnt this dynamic open up to say a lvl 8 attacking a lvl 5, the lvl 5 attacking back and then could a lvl 16 attack the lvl 5? or is that not how it works exactly? Just comes off as confusing and a cause for more problems. Rogean you seem to be excited about this pvp dynamic and it sounds interesting but exploitable to people dismay. OOR healers really doesnt happen that often especially with no boxing..And if it does happen.. not a huge deal.. just got to adapt to it.

[Masq]

Would like to see adjusted level ranges.
Made a lowbie alt and getting chain camped by red mages in the newbie zone isn't very fun.

Maybe like:

2-10 +/- 3
11-19 +/- 4
20-29 +/- 5
30-39 +/- 6
40-49 +/- 7
49+ 8

[cured]

^^ not a bad idea. If it isn't too hard to code, I'd support.

[beentheredonethat]

8 is too much at certain levels.

[Daldaen]

Would like to see adjusted level ranges.
Made a lowbie alt and getting chain camped by red mages in the newbie zone isn't very fun.

Maybe like:

2-10 +/- 3
11-19 +/- 4
20-29 +/- 5
30-39 +/- 6
40-49 +/- 7
49+ 8
I approve.

[Cwall]

I don't think your dynamic level range should increase when attacking someone higher level than you.

There's no reason that a level 2 attacking a level 10 should be able to then be attacked by a level 18.

[Silikten]

I think the dynamic should be changed to beneficial spells only. I say that because when a level 15 attacks a level 7, the level 7 can now be attacked by a level 23. That doesnt make sense. It should be beneficial spells only so that if their are OOR buffs or OOR heals.

[Yukahwa]

I think you're right Silk. Other types of spells should just have no effect. Buffs and heals should change it.

I also think the 8 level range sucks for meaningful PVP. Too often the person attacking you is way out of your ability to kill them. If its going to be like that, it might as well be unlimited level range just to make it more obvious that the higher level has to choose not to execute noobs.

I say the level range should either be meaningful (4 levels) or non existent.

[Billbike]

I think you're right Silk. Other types of spells should just have no effect. Buffs and heals should change it.

I also think the 8 level range sucks for meaningful PVP. Too often the person attacking you is way out of your ability to kill them. If its going to be like that, it might as well be unlimited level range just to make it more obvious that the higher level has to choose not to execute noobs.

I say the level range should either be meaningful (4 levels) or non existent.



Meaningful? Lol. Anything less than 8 level range is weak. Don't limit the game.

[Yukahwa]

That's why I said go big and just make it unlimited, if you feel that way it might as well be.

[Softcore PK]

Big difference between a level 50 killing a 42, and a 50 killing a 20.

[Yukahwa]

Not a big difference between a level 30 killing a level 22 and a level 50 killing a level 30

The current limits somewhat mitigate maximum domination by max levels but really do mean that lvl 50 is the only viable pvp level.

[nerfed]

Maybe like:

2-10 +/- 3
11-19 +/- 4
20-29 +/- 5
30-39 +/- 6
40-49 +/- 7
49+ 8

You would run into problems like a level 7 not being able to attack a level 11 but the 11 being able to attack the 7. 15-20, 25-30, etc etc. Low ends would need to be something like -3 /+4

[Softcore PK]

Not a big difference between a level 30 killing a level 22 and a level 50 killing a level 30

Uhm.. what?

The current limits somewhat mitigate maximum domination by max levels but really do mean that lvl 50 is the only viable pvp level.

Why would you not be viable in pvp just because some of your enemies are 8 levels higher?

[OngorDrakan]

I got lvl 12 last night. A lvl 20 comes to destroy me. No chance in hell so I banked my coin and took myself out via NPC. That lvl gap seems too big. So either take it out completely and be done with it, or shrink it so it's a bit more meaningful for PVP battles. The way I see it now, it's going to be rape fest with somebody 8 lvls above you reigning hell from above. It will be "run away city" when the lvl 20 necro drops in the noob area and the lvl 12's scatter away as the Necro's pet and DoT's clear the battlefield.(Or mage pet) It just seems too big right now. There's no way you're going to be 8 lvls lower and take somebody out unless A)They don't know how to play or B)They're AFK.

[Softcore PK]

Why are people saying the level gap is too big, then going on to say the level range should be 2-50? :s

It's really not that bad, people. Yes, sometimes you will die to someone 8 levels higher. But with a level range of 4, I imagine there being a LOT less pvp. I'd rather do my best to put up a fight against uneven odds and die than be immune to them. And sometimes you'll catch a higher level opponent low on health/mana after a hard fight.. when that happens, you'll be glad for that range :)

Besides, there is strength in numbers. 6 level 12s exping should easily be able to take a single level 20 pk.

[Silikten]

The level gap is no problem. It's how a level 22 can attack a 14 flagging the 14 upwards to a level 30. Then the level 30 flagging the 14 to level 38. It's kind of a drag.

[Yukahwa]

Why are people saying the level gap is too big, then going on to say the level range should be 2-50? :s



Thats just my dumb ass. I support rulesets that make sense. I think a tighter level range makes the most sense. I think unlimited level range makes some sense..and I think 8 level range with dynamic engagement system makes no sense.


Why would you not be viable in pvp just because some of your enemies are 8 levels higher?

Well, try making a character and then fighting a player that is 8 levels higher than you and maybe you would see what it is like to play pvp? Or try killing an NPC that is 8 levels higher than you for a small idea of what it is like? I think this is a question you can answer on your own if you really want to.

[Softcore PK]

8 level range is good for you, builds character.

[OngorDrakan]

Was it -/+8 lvls on live PVP servers?

[Softcore PK]

It was 8 level range on VZ and TZ, 4 on RZ and SZ was any level.

[Macedon]

level range should be +/-4 or 5 imo, you really stand no chance against someone that is 8 levels higher than you...

[Softcore PK]

level range should be +/-4 or 5 imo, you really stand no chance against someone that is 8 levels higher than you...

You do if you catch them at the right time. It does happen :P

[Macedon]

You do if you catch them at the right time. It does happen :P

yea but how often does that time come around, most of the time your guna see level 20 mages rolling around CB pking level 12s thinking they iz hot shit, at least at level 16 they only have 1 higher spell set to use against you.

perhaps we can have a system in place where the level range increases as you level up, +/- 4 until level 20, than it becomes +/- 6 until level 30, than +/- 8? hrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[Softcore PK]

yea but how often does that time come around, most of the time your guna see level 20 mages rolling around CB pking level 12s thinking they iz hot shit, at least at level 16 they only have 1 higher spell set to use against you.

PvP is good for you imo. Maybe when you're level 24 or so, you'll come to CB to pk the bad guys and be a hero among elves!

[Macedon]

PvP is good for you imo. Maybe when you're level 24 or so, you'll come to CB to pk the bad guys and be a hero among elves!

im not saying it isnt good, it just seems like useless griefing lol... i've been pking everyone i come across on my bard on beta, and most of the time they are blue/lightblue/green, and stand no chance (i honestly fought 3 light blues and made them all zone dance...), tbh, i can deal with it either way, but it seems like 4 or 5 w ould be better.

[Softcore PK]

im not saying it isnt good, it just seems like useless griefing lol... i've been pking everyone i come across on my bard on beta, and most of the time they are blue/lightblue/green, and stand no chance... tbh, i can deal with it either way, but it seems like 4 or 5 would be better.

Well, bards are overpowered in pvp anyway. You're bound to win most of the time, in 1v1. Useless griefing has its place, you know. 4 or 5 limit would be far too limiting.. PvP would happen a lot less if the level range was reduced.

Of course, with this dynamic system, it may not be as big of a deal as on live.. idk!

[mimixownzall]

4 or 5 limit would be far too limiting.. PvP would happen a lot less if the level range was reduced.

Yes, it would happen less, but you would also have a lot more challenging PvP. Right now, it is people running around killing light blues while avoiding anyone dark blue or higher. What fun is that? I guess it's fun for the girlies who are too afraid to fight anyone they might lose to.

8 levels can cover 2 spell levels. lvl 39 vs lvl 31 - basically lvl 39 spells vs lvl 29 spells. That is huge spell wise.

[Softcore PK]

I really do not understand the problem. Were you expecting to not kill you when given the opportunity? Did you expect every fight to be fair? This is war, not dueling on a blue server.

You're gonna die, lots. We all are. Is it that big of a problem?

[mimixownzall]

No, in war you have at least two defined factions/nations etc. This is not war, this is.. anarchy?

Since I have to spell it out:

The problem is the huge disparity between levels combined with the fact that you can cause someone to lose exp and their money while not having any chance of defending themselves.

You know why SZ worked with its rules set? There was no real incentive to killing lowbies. The only reason to repeatedly kill lowbies is if they were twinks and you wanted to draw out some higher levels. The real incentive was to fight those who were within 5 levels of you. You could loot them and get insignias and cause them to lose exp.

Here? Well if you can kill light blues who have no real chance of defending themselves and easily defeat them while taking their cash and causing them to lose exp, why ever fight anyone your level, or who can kill you? The smart people will do that. Unfortunately I have this really handicapping sense of honor and can't bring myself to do it. I really wish I could, but when I do it, I seriously feel bad IRL about it. There is just no fun out of owning someone who you know has no chance of killing you (for me anyways).

I could do this on SZ... I think it was because of the teams aspect. It truly did feel like war; kill or be killed; fuck those other bastards. I guess I just like having who my enemies are more defined.

[Bockscar]

Dude, I got griefed so hard when I was new on SZ. There were whole days where I made no progress because level 50+ assclowns would routinely clear out low-level zones and corpse camp and fuck with you just so you couldn't level. Your only choice was to ask others for help, and since the SZ playerbase was not too unlike red99's, you'd mostly get people going "lol blubie lern 2 play nub" as you know. The level range ensures that you're never completely incapable of fighting back.

It's not much fun fighting someone 7 levels higher than you and you'll lose almost every time, but the alternative is worse. Every time you're in a situation where you'd want to compete with someone over content rights but can't attack them due to the level range, the essence of PvP is pointless. If someone is in the same leveling area as you, it should be natural to be able to fight them. That won't always be the case with a smaller level range. Taking the occasional unavoidable death from randomly running past someone who's just within your +range is something you just have to live with. It can often be avoided - gating, hiding or even just running will let you get away from many of those situations once you're at a level where your class can fend for itself.

I'd have no problem limiting cashloot and XP loss to +/- 4 levels, but the attackable range is the way it is because a smaller range would create a bunch of problems that are much worse than getting ganked by reds now and then. Most of them won't make a habit of it if you keep your mouth shut about it.

[JarL]

As I said in the other thread stop focusing on the 1v1 aspect of it. So what if you lost 1v1 to someone higher level than you, if you tighten the level range then you severely hinder the open world group PvP that so many of us are looking forward to.

[Billbike]

As I said in the other thread stop focusing on the 1v1 aspect of it. So what if you lost 1v1 to someone higher level than you, if you tighten the level range then you severely hinder the open world group PvP that so many of us are looking forward to.

My name is Billbike, and I 100% approve this message.

[Shrubwise]

It was 8 level range on VZ and TZ, 4 on RZ and SZ was any level.

Yes, however on the +/-4 Rallos Ruleset there was coin and item loot.
On the +/-8 Vallon / Tallon Ruleset it was only coin if I remember correctly.

I was fighting a twink on beta last night. He was owning us (a group of three, his equivalent level) After a while we all just retreated because there was no incentive to continue fighting except, perhaps, to lose more experience. There was nothing to gain, like one of his shiny twink items.

I am in favor of +/-4 level ruleset with item and coin loot. Out of range healers was just something that happened now and then. You bag your shit, kiss your ass goodbye and move on. Regardless, I will play the server any way it comes. Rogean I (and many others) appreciate the work you're doing here.:cool:

[Nixus]

honestly - didn't read the 24 pages. I'm in favor of the +/- 8 lvl range, but the dynamic thing isn't so cool.

We're all smart players - deal with the lvl 51 cleric.

[Bockscar]

What? What's wrong with the dynamic system, aside from the few bugs that will be fixed before the server goes live? Is it better to allow unattackable healers than to not allow it? That makes no sense. How is someone supposed to "deal with the lvl 51 cleric" when they can't, you know, attack the guy?

[Yukahwa]

Dynamic range would work fine in theory. Right now I think most people would rather see it removed than fixed.

8 level range just means most people out to hunt players are going to be hunting people who are green cons for easy kills. It just isn't as fun. As an occasional PK, I always look for the easiest kills, with the 8 level spread this type of PVP isn't very fun. Am I supposed to look for challenging fights? Of course not. I won't look for a challenge unless I am forced to.

Its just not good for fun PVP thats all.

4 level with a working dynamic range that doesn't screw over everyone that receives a buff or whatever would be fine. The most important and perhaps only important spell that justifies the dynamic range is HEAL so maybe make HEAL be the only spell that activates the dynamic range. Heal and Regen.

And it shouldn't work in reverse because no matter what a level 20 isn't going to kill the level 50 healer that is healing his level 20k PK buddy.

And as far as "stop thinking about 1 vs 1" when there is true mass PVP it will be all level 50 guilds at the top. Otherwise it goes back to people targeting players at the bottom of their engagement range and wiping them out.

Just look at the PVP that is happening right now on beta.

[Nirgon]

Are you trying to say killing the weakest target first is a good idea

[lindz]

The dynamic level range is a great idea in theory but it doesn't seem to be working out as well in practice. I think the dynamic range either needs to be smaller (4-6) or move to a FFA system with xp and coin loss at a certain level range (4-6 here would be great). The 8 level range seems ok for the 50s, but anything below that, an 8 level range is an incredibly difference in power.

I do not however want to see the server move to a system where invulnerable healers can happen. Yes it was a problem and it is beyond retarded that every grp pvp fight would mean bringing your out of level range clerics that no one could do anything about.

[Softcore PK]

Yes, however on the +/-4 Rallos Ruleset there was coin and item loot.
On the +/-8 Vallon / Tallon Ruleset it was only coin if I remember correctly.

I was fighting a twink on beta last night. He was owning us (a group of three, his equivalent level) After a while we all just retreated because there was no incentive to continue fighting except, perhaps, to lose more experience. There was nothing to gain, like one of his shiny twink items.

I am in favor of +/-4 level ruleset with item and coin loot. Out of range healers was just something that happened now and then. You bag your shit, kiss your ass goodbye and move on. Regardless, I will play the server any way it comes. Rogean I (and many others) appreciate the work you're doing here.:cool:

Lose more exp? :/

On VZ we almost always used the LnS system. Hardly anyone bindrushed; if they did they would ruin their player reputation. Once you die, you're dead.. you're supposed to loot your corpse, and get out of that zone. There shouldn't be anything to gain from bindrushing, because bindrushing is dumb.

Anyway, I guess I would be ok with players only losing coin to people within 4-5 (5 is better) levels. This would prevent the 42 cleric from losing all their cash for helping their 60 friends, and sounds like a good idea in that regard.

What I find utterly disappointing, though, is that none of you are trying to do anything about these injustices you witness. The great thing about pvp this open is that it allows for different ways to deal with these problems. Why not join/start a guild based on the premise that you're better, more honorable and kind than these people? Something like an anti guild, that takes time out of your day to help these poor defenseless noobs from the +8 gankers? A level 30+ buff class could seriously turn the tides of these CB brawls in favor of the peaceful elves not wanting to gank greens. You certainly have the ability to, and by the looks of this thread there are enough of you. Instead of actually doing something about it, you come here to whine and try to have it changed.

Why not create a force opposed to that which you do not like?

[Yukahwa]

That will happen later Softcore. Not going to happen on Beta when people are just bombing around getting exploited by the broken dynamic range.

My characters worship bristlebane but pray to everquest demi god nilbog for a good ruleset.

[Palemoon]

+/- 8 level spread is too much, at least in the sub 40 game.

[Shrubwise]

Why not join/start a guild based on the premise that you're better, more honorable and kind than these people? Something like an anti guild, that takes time out of your day to help these poor defenseless noobs from the +8 gankers? A level 30+ buff class could seriously turn the tides of these CB brawls in favor of the peaceful elves not wanting to gank greens

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n212/Turisas/NotSureIfSerious.jpg

[stonetz]

+- 8 sucks at lower levels but if it's a bitch to code something like: up to lvl 10 it's within 4 lvls of the lower person, up to 30 it's 6 and after that it's 8 then we just deal with +-8.

Dynamic sounds great, no oor healers. There is no perfect system. EQ (especially pvp) was always broken and I think this might be the purest it will ever get as long as someone isn't insanely OP.

I miss the good ol days on TZ and can't wait for this. Just wish I had the time to go balls out.

[Billbike]

Welcome to PvP. You will die. Suck it up or go back blue.


Just make it 8 level range,
NO exp loss.
NO itemloot.
NO teams.
Coin loot.

I and many others played for years with these rules on live, with the exception of NO teams.

[Palemoon]

xp loss (less then mob death though) for pvp is a good thing. Keeps everyone accountable no matter if they are naked or training or what.


IMHO, the only thing that needs to change at this point is tighten up the pvp level range in the sub 30 game.

If the low levels reverted to +/- 4 for pvp, i'd also get rid of the level one immunity in cities/noob yards, simply because I detest bots and all this would do is force people to create a bunch of level 1 trade bots.

Consider this:

= +/- 4 pvp range from level 1 to 20

= +/- 6 pvp range from level 21 to 40

= +/- 8 pvp range from level 41 to 60

= NO level limits in high level dungeons and raid zones (lvl 40 and up dungeons)

= coin loot, xp loss on death

= no safe zones, no safe cities, pvp starts at level 1, fix faction so people who want a "safe" city can work on maxing out their faction for guard protection for themselves

Launch

[Softcore PK]

Palemoon has the right idea about exp loss, level 1 pvp, no safe areas and faction. When it comes to level ranges, though, I think he's being a bit too conservative. +/- 4 until level 10 would be fine, with +/-8 starting at 11. Limiting the first 10 levels is more than generous enough.

Though.. I really do like my idea of VZ and TZ teams with +/- 8 until level 20 :P

[lindz]

The problem I have with the current system:

A level 35 and 43 group up and go into SolA. They level 35 can attack the level 27s xping there and does so. Once those 27s engage the level 35, they can now be attacked by his level 43 buddy. Now the 43 can slaughter the lowbies and give them xp loss.

I don't care if 40s can attack 20s, but I do think it is wrong that the example above can result in xp loss. I'm all for xp loss in pvp when there can actually be a fight, not just people ganking lowbies.

I would prefer a system that only had xp loss on a range of +/-5 instead of the huge level range we see now.

[Lazortag]

A level 35 and 43 group up and go into SolA. They level 35 can attack the level 27s xping there and does so. Once those 27s engage the level 35, they can now be attacked by his level 43 buddy. Now the 43 can slaughter the lowbies and give them xp loss.

...

This isn't how it's supposed to work; this is a bug.

[Softcore PK]

This isn't how it's supposed to work; this is a bug.

Is Rogean aware of these bugs?

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=432701&postcount=105