PvP Range

[Rogean]

Are you guys happy with the 8 level PvP Range? Considering a 6 or 5 level difference instead. 8 Levels is a lot when people are in the lower levels.

[Combobreaker]

8+/- is fine

e/ <3

[Galacticus]

Depends if there will be EXP loss. If no loss, then leave it in. If lost, then the range should be narrowed a bit. I think 5 or 6 sounds right.

[Shwingler]

Edited: +/- 4 or 5 please. 8 is too large and the dynamic seems like more of a pain to implement than it is worth.

[Naikon]

The current level range is good, any level range can be successful.

The level range modifier should be taken out.

[Rogean]

Item loot is not happening, nor is this the place to discuss it.

[God-King Abacab]

I'm in favor of +4/-4 with high contest zones being labeled as FFA

[Dfn]

Level range is fine - just do away with the dynamic PvP system. It creates a whole mess of problems and is a ton of work for you guys.

[pojab]

maybe make it 4 levels until 35 or something, then bump it up.

dynamic pvp deal doesnt make sense. i attack someone 4 levels above me now i can get axe murdered by someone 12 levels above me then when i protect myself i get murdered by someone 20 levels above me???

just make raid zones no pvp range. problem solved.
[hate,fear,sky,sol b, permafrost, kedge]
possibly give like a 20% boost to xp for the 'added difficulty' aka ur ass getting griefed trying to slay polar bears.

[Darwoth]

dont really care about sub 30, after that it should be 8 or no limit.

[Cwall]

+/- 8 is fine with me as long as it's not impossible to cast spells on people several levels higher than you.

[Aenor]

just make raid zones no pvp range. problem solved.
[hate,fear,sky,sol b, permafrost, kedge]


Kinda agree.

Edit: Add lguk

[Barn]

I would prefer 4-6 at the lower levels. 1 spell level up, I have a chance against someone.
In the 20's or 30's I have more options against an 8 level gap.
Of course, raid zones and solB,LGuk should be wide open.

Thanks!
Moran

[Bockscar]

I think there have been some excellent proposals for a scaling level range. Something along the lines of:

1-20: +/- 4 levels
21-30: 5 levels
31-40: 6 levels
41-50: 8 levels

Then fidget a bit with the first level in a new bracket so it's, say, +5/-4 at level 21 so a level 21 player can't attack a level 16 player who isn't in range to the 21.

I think an 8-level range is important in the endgame where a dungeon can easily contain a wide range of levels. If it was a 5-level range, for instance, then there'd frequently be situations where players would compete for the same content but be unable to PvP, and that has to be avoided as much as possible. You're much more capable of PvPing against someone 6/7/8 levels above you when you're 40+ than you are when you're level 7. Even if a level 41 won't usually beat a level 49, it can make for a worthwhile fight and it isn't the one-sided griefing that it would be for a level 7 against a level 15. Lower-level content tends to span a shorter range of levels - you don't sit at orc hill or dervs for eight levels, but you absolutely can do many of the lguk/solb spots from the early 40s all the way to 50.

If you don't want to code a scaling level range system, I'd say go with +/- 8 and let people endure the sucky lower levels. It's more important to ensure that the ruleset doesn't stifle PvP in the higher levels.

[lindz]

Would prefer +/- 4 or 5. Eight level range is totally fine at high end, but before 50 it just feels brutal.

[Palemoon]

8 level range, coupled with the futre slow xp/leveling creates too big of a divide in power in the sub 30 pvp game. There can be no real meaningful pvp between a level 5 and a level 13.

I'd like to see a tighter pvp range in the low levels and a broader pvp range in the higher levels.

If that is too much of a hassle to implement, i'd go with a +/- 5 pvp range and designate all high (44ish and up) level dungeons being FFA.

A five level range will keep pvp a lot more balanced, no trying to land spells on deep reds 8 levels above you. But I still think its important to keep the high level dungeons all FFA. Great risk, great reward, and all that.

[Pudge]

i agree with all the ppl saying it should scale to be +/- 4 at a lower level, and +/- 8 at 40+.

[Bockscar]

If that is too much of a hassle to implement, i'd go with a +/- 5 pvp range and designate all high (44ish and up) level dungeons being FFA.

We might as well start off with a system that's also viable once we move into Kunark. +/-5 does not work for level 40+ and it's only pre-Kunark that all the high-level content is conveniently crammed into a few zones. There are Kunark zones where you can go more or less from 45 to 60 but in different areas, and it would suck to have them all be FFA. The system has to be applicable for Kunark and Velious as well since we will eventually progress and they can't invent a new system at that point if it still has to work for the old world as well. I say decide on the system now and stick with it forever. FFA in solb will just be retarded in the future when level 43s are trying to grind and level 60s come in to grief them. +/-8 pretty much ensures that people who are doing content suited to their level can always PvP against others doing the same. It's not so much about guaranteeing balanced fights, it's about making sure you don't get into situations where you would compete with someone over some spawn in lguk but can't because he's 44 and you're 50. FFA in high-level zones only works pre-Kunark where there's pretty much no zone except maybe HHK and OOT where people will XP at wildly different levels. Most of the Kunark zones where you go to hit 60 are also inhabited by people in their late 40s and such.

[Softcore PK]

I voted yes for +/- 8, and I think it would be fine at all levels. I played this way on live and had no serious issues.

If possible, though, +/- 4 until level 10, then +/- 8 would be perfect. Don't make the 8 range happen too late like some posters are wanting, it would seriously limit the amount of pvp that takes place.

[mitic]

remove hell lvls and iam fine with 8 lvl difference

[Xantille]

maybe make it 4 levels until 35 or something, then bump it up.

dynamic pvp deal doesnt make sense. i attack someone 4 levels above me now i can get axe murdered by someone 12 levels above me then when i protect myself i get murdered by someone 20 levels above me???

just make raid zones no pvp range. problem solved.
[hate,fear,sky,sol b, permafrost, kedge]
possibly give like a 20% boost to xp for the 'added difficulty' aka ur ass getting griefed trying to slay polar bears.

this

[Cwall]

I'm pretty sure it's the intent of the dynamic range system to only flag you when casting beneficial spells, not when you attack people. I think in that case it will be fine.

[fiegi]

maybe make it 4 levels until 35 or something, then bump it up.

dynamic pvp deal doesnt make sense. i attack someone 4 levels above me now i can get axe murdered by someone 12 levels above me then when i protect myself i get murdered by someone 20 levels above me???

just make raid zones no pvp range. problem solved.
[hate,fear,sky,sol b, permafrost, kedge]
possibly give like a 20% boost to xp for the 'added difficulty' aka ur ass getting griefed trying to slay polar bears.

well said

dynamic system more trouble then its worth

[Blayze]

8 is far too much at lower levels. 4-6 would be much better. dynamic system seems overkill considering people cant box anyway.

[Harrison]

4 levels until 39

39-50 have no restrictions in this range upwards. (39-50 can attack each other, 39-43 still get the 4 level range downward and no limit upward)

8 Levels is too huge until late mid-game and serves no purpose other than BAD players to grief with.

[Crenshinabon]

I voted no. I would love to see level range widen somehow as you got higher level. Start with +/- 4. This would make all the newbie zones contested between themselves where the level spread in mobs is usually around this and then as you level up it goes to 6 then maybe 8.

Its no fun being a level 9 and getting ganked by a lvl 17 in a newbie zone where the 17 should not be anyways.

[mimixownzall]

+/- 8 is fine. Just make it where you can't lose exp or get coin from people unless they are +/- 4.

I think this is a compromise everyone can agree with.

Considering a level 34 can group with a level 50 and get exp, I think the 8 level difference is needed at later levels.

If I get attacked by someone I really have no chance of killing, then fine, I'll take my lumps and move on. But for them to be able to loot my precious coin and me lose exp in doing so? :(

The wide range (8 levels) will be there for group PvP, but +/- 4 for loot/exp loss removes and incentive to pick on people who have little chance of successfully defending themselves.

[Prahadigm24]

Voting for +- 6 levels, all the way from 2 to 50. A range of 8 levels was too wide, while I feel 4 or 5 levels would be too close.

The middle = 6 levels = win! :)

[Billbike]

8 level range is perfect. Please take out PvP exp loss though.

[Rust1d?]

My thoughts:

1) pvp starts at lv 6 - gives players a chance to buy spells/weapons etc. get their feet wet if you will.
2) +/-4 until lv 35 then +/-8.
3) zones such as Solb/Lguk/Perma/Kedge/Fear/Hate are all ffa zones.
4) Not sure if this has been discussed, but what about a 5-10 second invulerability when you port? Would hate to evac from xyz zone only to be dumped in the middle of a bunch of guys gathering for a raid. Note, this does not pertain to zoning.

[Yukahwa]

it should scale to be +/- 4 at a lower level, and +/- 8 at 40+.

This is a good, simple option. OOR healer issues can be dealt with by an OOR assassin from the healers enemy. With no 2 boxing OOR healers shouldn't be a big issue. Training should be against the rules and it will be obvious when a sub level 42 tries to get higher levels killed.

I think the best option is a 4 level PVP limit, with a working dyanmic range system in the listed contested zones. In gfay there is no reason a level 30 needs to be worried about healing someone, that is just part of the game.

If its a serious problem in Lguk and Perma than just make those zones dynamic range enabled but only for heals and not regular buffs..and even then there should be no coin loot or EXP loss just because of the possibility of an accidental involvement in higher level PVP.

[Lovely]

I'm fine with the current system. However I wouldn't mind most of the suggestions here..

As long as it's at least 8 levels from 30 and up. Lowbie pvp is freaking useless anyway, it's all about the class/race then. At higher levels every player can get different tools which require skills to use that make any class viable. For example a skilled warrior or any class for that matter can destroy anyone at level 50 if they use the right methods and apply certain tools.

[Rust1d?]

I think the +/-4 below 35 is nice because no one is too powerful and you stand a chance at killing someone 4 levels above you. Once you hit 35, you have most of your decent spells and are able to get better geared.

[Shamanx]

I think +/- 6 would be better. A level 12 has their brand new spells. With an 8 level range he can be attacked by a player that's level 20 with brand new spells, two tiers higher in power. A 6 or even 7 level range doesn't allow that.

Also, while the dynamic PvP range was a good idea at first, there are too many other important bugs that need developer's attention. Scrap the dynamic PvP range and focus on fixing the problems that make the game classic.

[mimixownzall]

4) Not sure if this has been discussed, but what about a 5-10 second invulerability when you port? Would hate to evac from xyz zone only to be dumped in the middle of a bunch of guys gathering for a raid. Note, this does not pertain to zoning.

This is just part of PVP; live with it. You will also have people camping the portals. This is a dynamic of world pvp you don't see in other games. Go play wow.

[jilena]

I feel like any level range works with certain caveats.

1.) that resists/melee are not treated as they are with mobs. A lower level player should be able to cast/melee with reasonable chance of success on the highest level in their level range. If it works like mobs and +8 is nearly impossible to hit/nuke/whatever then +8 is too high and it should be reduced to the point where, barring high resist gear/mitigation gear, it's possible to have a reasonable fight within the range.

2.) The larger the range the lesser the penalty should be for loss. If the level range is 12 levels then obviously someone fighting at the opposite end of the range from his/her oponent is going to have a huge advantage/disadvantage. If the range is small say 4 levels, the win/loss is better earned and a higher penalty is not so excessive.

That said, I am with Abacab in that a smaller window is fine so long as say all higher level dungeons/planes etc are FFA. I would say maybe any zone where the average mob level is over 30.

Another alternative imo is no restriction PvP with penalty assessed within a 5 level range (i.e. sullon zek). This accomplishes what the dynamic range system does with much less confusion. And while it does allow for camping low levels, the only thing they would be losing is their time and let's be realistic, if there is some way to cause new players distress someone is going to accomplish it. Be it a bored level 50 mage, or a level 9 ranger twinked to hell with a 50 druid following him around healing him and giving him DS while he lays waste to the newbie area. *shrug*

[mrully31]

+/- 5 or 4 is golden

[Envious]

8 is how it should be.

Prevents people from staying OOR when in places like Lguk, Sol B, etc.

Once the dynamic range shit is fix'd it should be perfect imo.

[Xareth]

dynamic pvp deal doesnt make sense. i attack someone 4 levels above me now i can get axe murdered by someone 12 levels above me then when i protect myself i get murdered by someone 20 levels above me???


I agree. This one kinda looks good on paper, but it's pretty ridiculous in action. If a lvl 34 engages a lvl 26 druid with thorns up, after the first hit a lvl 42 could hit the druid and a lvl 50 could then hit him...


+/- 8 is fine. Just make it where you can't lose exp or get coin from people unless they are +/- 4.

(...)

The wide range (8 levels) will be there for group PvP, but +/- 4 for loot/exp loss removes and incentive to pick on people who have little chance of successfully defending themselves.

Sadly, this is exactly what I was going to say. So +1

Another thing I really don't like about the dynamic pvp system is that with the color system you automatically know who can and cannot attack you. If I would see someone that con'd red, but their name was blue then I would run right past them. If there is no way to know, other than knowing the toons approx level, it makes the pvp environment better.

[Softcore PK]

I like the nametag color system.. after not too long on live they made it so anyone in range conned white, which made sense to me.

[Chronoburn]

+/- 6 levels with exp loss please.

[juicedsixfo]

+/- 6, indifferent on exp loss


no pvp until level 4, 5, or 6

[Yukahwa]

The most important thing is to tighten up the pvp range for the majority of the levels. Most people trying out red99 will not be getting to level 50 any time soon or maybe ever.

They will want to play and bomb around and see their favorite dungeons and see what the fuss is all about. 8 levels higher than a level 12 is ridiculous. 8 levels higher than a level 20 something is still ridiculous because it means melees have had their damage cap removed and will be tearing people in their 20's apart.

Level 50's can deal with their problems just fine..they can kill mobs for their gear and don't need to grind for days on end..they have more freedom to do things.

Level 1-40s need to get higher level to attain anything worthwhile. Making it miserable for these levels is worse than any possible type of item loot or EXP loss situation. The 8 level range is just a really poor choice in this regard and means the only time that PVP is really viable is at level 50. Level 50 is the least important level for server growth.

The dungeons like lguk shouldn't be totally FFA..those dungeons start in the 30's and to make them FFA is just begging for griefing and destroying an EXP oppurtunity for the mid levels which is pointless.

Level 50's can figure out what to do with a 4 level pvp range when some lower level team is getting in on their favorite pharm spot. Just because they are higher level shouldn't mean they should be able to wipe out a group of level 30's camping a mob just because the loot is actually worthwhile. That is silly. A group of level 50's will out damage any lower level group. If the group is creeping towards the range of those level 50's at least one of them will be killable and that is usually enough to cripple a group.

OOR healers can be killed but if its a real problem than the dynamic range should apply in these high stakes dungeons for heal spells and buffs with a heal component and nothing else. It will be easy enough to remember not to heal high level guys in these dungeons.

Outside of those circumstances the dynamic range really makes PVP confusing and just kind of arbitrary just like the 8 level range does. 4 level range means that anyone you can PVP with is someone you can realistically defeat. The dynamic range in key dungeons for heal spells only will mean that AE's wont accidentally trigger it, and it means that for most of the world the PVP will be simple and strait forward.

[Rust1d?]

This is just part of PVP; live with it. You will also have people camping the portals. This is a dynamic of world pvp you don't see in other games. Go play wow.

Wow, it is just a suggestion. Did you get caught rubbing one out today and could not finish?

[Palemoon]

If the pvp range is reduced down to +/-4 for the low levels, pvp needs to start at level one. It dosent take long to get to level two anyways, and the idea of "safe zones" "safe toons" on the red server sticks in my craw.

Make player relationships important, not level one trade/bank bots.

[Yukahwa]

Level 1 and level 6 pvp both have their merits I think. Either works fine for me. I know that when I started, level 1 pvp got me hooked immediately.

[Lazortag]

The most important thing is to tighten up the pvp range for the majority of the levels. Most people trying out red99 will not be getting to level 50 any time soon or maybe ever.

They will want to play and bomb around and see their favorite dungeons and see what the fuss is all about. 8 levels higher than a level 12 is ridiculous. 8 levels higher than a level 20 something is still ridiculous because it means melees have had their damage cap removed and will be tearing people in their 20's apart.

Level 50's can deal with their problems just fine..they can kill mobs for their gear and don't need to grind for days on end..they have more freedom to do things.

Level 1-40s need to get higher level to attain anything worthwhile. Making it miserable for these levels is worse than any possible type of item loot or EXP loss situation. The 8 level range is just a really poor choice in this regard and means the only time that PVP is really viable is at level 50. Level 50 is the least important level for server growth.

The dungeons like lguk shouldn't be totally FFA..those dungeons start in the 30's and to make them FFA is just begging for griefing and destroying an EXP oppurtunity for the mid levels which is pointless.

Level 50's can figure out what to do with a 4 level pvp range when some lower level team is getting in on their favorite pharm spot. Just because they are higher level shouldn't mean they should be able to wipe out a group of level 30's camping a mob just because the loot is actually worthwhile. That is silly. A group of level 50's will out damage any lower level group. If the group is creeping towards the range of those level 50's at least one of them will be killable and that is usually enough to cripple a group.

OOR healers can be killed but if its a real problem than the dynamic range should apply in these high stakes dungeons for heal spells and buffs with a heal component and nothing else. It will be easy enough to remember not to heal high level guys in these dungeons.

Outside of those circumstances the dynamic range really makes PVP confusing and just kind of arbitrary just like the 8 level range does. 4 level range means that anyone you can PVP with is someone you can realistically defeat. The dynamic range in key dungeons for heal spells only will mean that AE's wont accidentally trigger it, and it means that for most of the world the PVP will be simple and strait forward.

This is a pretty smart post, but I disagree on what you said about the dynamic range. Honestly the name colours make everything pretty clear. Keep in mind most of the people who are opposed to the dynamic range are just mouth breathers who don't understand how it's supposed to work (for example, the people saying that if you engage someone your range gets expanded don't seem to understand what a bug is). I think if anything the dynamic range is better at clarifying who you can and cannot attack, since everyone involved in a battle (including oor healers) becomes fair game.

[Yukahwa]

I just like simplicity. If it is bug free I think it should be implemented in the most limited way possible. AE's should not engage it, even normal buffs. Only things like healbuffs and heals should engage it and even then only in the contested dungeons most people have listed already.

There is no reason anyone should even really be thinking about the dynamic range when playing. It is just a way for higher level dudes to kill OOR healers when an enemy tries to exploit that level difference.

[Authority]

Plus or minus 4. It's much more fair to players leveling up. Sucks to try and xp and not be able to b/c you're getting griefed for hours.

[Ames]

If you are in favor of the +8 / -8 system then you obviously did not play on beta. It turns things into a grief/shitfest at lower levels which will drive a lot of new players away.


I would personally like a +4/-4 with FFA zones like Abacab said but i could settle on something like + 5 /-5.

[Lazortag]

As for the range, I'm cool with anything really, but if it does get changed I would prefer something like +/-4 which makes sense on many levels (since it often allows you to only engage people with similar quality of spells and does make pvp fairer overall) and probably feels the most "classic" of all the level ranges. I would also prefer having pvp start higher than level 2 but again, I'll play either way. If we keep things as they are and level 10 players insist on griefing level 2 players, I'm going to level an alt to level 18 specifically to destroy people who do this. I think some others should follow suit too - a lot of the problems people have mentioned could go away on a server with a large and involved enough community if we just policed each other a bit.

[Rust1d?]

the issue with having pvp starting at lv 1 is you will have people sitting there killing people as they make chars or level 5's shitting on level 1-4s. Having pvp start at lv 6 eliminates lots of griefing which would drive newbies off the server.

[Softcore PK]

Yes, the dynamic range is a great idea. And if all the bugs can be worked out of it, I support it 100%.

The people saying 8 range is too much seem to be under the impression that any pvp these newbies encounter will be against twinks 8 levels higher. This is really not the case, and beyond the CB griefers us elves have always put up with, it doesn't really happen that often. In the random encounters of players that are +8, I feel they should be able to attack. EQ PvP has never been about fairness and if your options are either to die or escape, players should utilize their skills and make their best efforts at escape.

There are bigger and badder PKs out there, and you should be wary of them. 8 level range seems perfect for this, because that's generally the sort of range you'd see in many exp zones. When you're in your late teens, you are among the higher levels for CB, and you earned your advantage over the early teens by sticking it out and dealing with the people who had an advantage over you. This is nice too, because a lot of places are like this. Start to outlevel oasis and nro? Time to move to loio or somewhere, and start at the bottom rung of the exp ladder for the new zone. Then you get to your late 20s and you're king of that exp zone.. but only because you were able to stick it out, and level while in danger of being killed by the higher levels exping there. No one gets any serious advantage over anyone else, because everyone gets to enjoy being big and bad AND small and easy.

[georgie]

I think there have been some excellent proposals for a scaling level range. Something along the lines of:

1-20: +/- 4 levels
21-30: 5 levels
31-40: 6 levels
41-50: 8 levels

Then fidget a bit with the first level in a new bracket so it's, say, +5/-4 at level 21 so a level 21 player can't attack a level 16 player who isn't in range to the 21.

I think an 8-level range is important in the endgame where a dungeon can easily contain a wide range of levels. If it was a 5-level range, for instance, then there'd frequently be situations where players would compete for the same content but be unable to PvP, and that has to be avoided as much as possible. You're much more capable of PvPing against someone 6/7/8 levels above you when you're 40+ than you are when you're level 7. Even if a level 41 won't usually beat a level 49, it can make for a worthwhile fight and it isn't the one-sided griefing that it would be for a level 7 against a level 15. Lower-level content tends to span a shorter range of levels - you don't sit at orc hill or dervs for eight levels, but you absolutely can do many of the lguk/solb spots from the early 40s all the way to 50.

If you don't want to code a scaling level range system, I'd say go with +/- 8 and let people endure the sucky lower levels. It's more important to ensure that the ruleset doesn't stifle PvP in the higher levels.

or just make it 8+/- at 42-50 , 42 will just have a 8+ range

[casdegere]

I think 5 levels is most reasonable

[Dontmez_Mebro]

+/- 4-5

[Yukahwa]

Softcore what that really means is that you spend a lot of time slaughtering people mercilessly and being slaughtered mercilessly. It just isn't fun at either end of the 8 level pvp range. I feel half obligated to kill anyone lower level than me and in my PVP range, but when they are level 12 and I am level 20 it just isn't fun. A tighter range means everyone actually gets to fight, rather than just get killed or be a killer. It means fights happen.

[Softcore PK]

Softcore what that really means is that you spend a lot of time slaughtering people mercilessly and being slaughtered mercilessly. It just isn't fun at either end of the 8 level pvp range. I feel half obligated to kill anyone lower level than me and in my PVP range, but when they are level 12 and I am level 20 it just isn't fun. A tighter range means everyone actually gets to fight, rather than just get killed or be a killer. It means fights happen.

A lot of time? No, not in most character's lives. Fights will still happen, as the general exp spots will be populated by people around your level. In my experience, coming across someone 8 levels above or below you is something that tends to happen more when you're exploring, or running to/from bank or exp spot.

I really don't understand why this is such a big deal for some people. It's understandable in CB, which is the place to go get griefed, but once you hit level 20 it's honestly not that big of a deal. Why are you all so afraid of dying?

[Darwoth]

some of the best xp spots post 35 are used from the mid 30s to mid 40s, either keep the 8 level range or make it so the lower range only applies sub 30 imo.

[gloinz]

some of the best xp spots post 35 are used from the mid 30s to mid 40s, either keep the 8 level range or make it so the lower range only applies sub 30 imo.

2nd this here motion

[Djanis]

I think 5-6 range is a good compromise.

[Nirgon]

I'm in favor of +4/-4 with high contest zones being labeled as FFA

There way no formal 8 lvl or unlimited range ffa pvp server for a reason. 4 levels makes sense.

[Softcore PK]

VZ and TZ were both 8 levels, and with four teams and rampant crossteaming it was pretty much FFA.

[Kraz]

The problem is not range... Its fucking resists, its like fucking wow. if they are 1 level above you, you cant land spells thats not classic, thats not even eq its wow....

[Drytan]

Range of +/-4 levels, just like the original RZ.

I ask that a new poll be created, one with specific level range choices (4,6, and 8 should suffice).

[MrSparkle001]

+/-4 like RZ gets my vote, since I'm assuming this server won't have a Sullon Zek ruleset?

Has anyone addressed the issue of deleveling? RZ for a long time had a problem with high levels deleveling to make themselves practically gods. I distinctly remember a trio of deleveled trolls - Moe, Larry, and Curly - who'd terrorize Nektulos.

[Tamiah2011]

needs to be 4 lvl difference.

[lethdar]

The only problem is pre 30 really, everything else is fine.

[Morninx]

Straight +/-6 is enough. more fair fights. Dynamic pvp, though a good idea looks to be more headaches then necessary and leaves ability for people to find ways to exploit it. Also players should only con 3 colors. Green/Red if OOR of pvp depending on which end of the spectrum and anyone in range of PvP should con White.. no blues or yellows.

[Clownface]

Just make sure that high level zones have no level range to prevent OOR healing/Ressing/shit-talking spys that sit next to your raid immune to death.

[Palemoon]

Straight +/-6 is enough. more fair fights. Dynamic pvp, though a good idea looks to be more headaches then necessary and leaves ability for people to find ways to exploit it. Also players should only con 3 colors. Green/Red if OOR of pvp depending on which end of the spectrum and anyone in range of PvP should con White.. no blues or yellows.

If we ditch the dynamic pvp thing, then we absolutly must have high level dungeons FFA.

No one wants to deal with OOR level 39 clerics CHing the person you are trying to fight a camp for, or a boss mob for , for that matter.

[vinx]

I think something like this might work:


STATIC RANGE -4/+4 until level 25

20 - range 16/24
21 - range 17/25
22 - range 18/26
23 - range 19/27
24 - range 20/29 *exception -4/+5

BUMP RANGE -4/+5
25 - range 21/30
26 - range 22/31
27 - range 23/32
28 - range 24/33
29 - range 24/35 * exception -5/+6

BUMP RANGE -5/+6
30 - range 25/36
31 - range 26/37
32 - range 27/38
33 - range 28/40 *exception -5/+7
34 - range 29/41 *exception -5/+7

BUMP RANGE -6/+7
35 - range 29/42
36 - range 30/43
37 - range 31/44
38 - range 32/45
39 - range 33/46

BUMP RANGE -7/+8
40 - range 33/48
41 - range 34/49
42 - range 35/50
43 - range 36/50
44 - range 37/50
45 - range 38/50
46 - range 39/50
47 - range 40/50
48 - range 40/50 *exception -8/+8
49 - range 41/50 *exception -8/+8
50 - range 42/50 *exception -8/+8

FFA zones: SolB/Perma/Kedge
(no Lguk FFA imo)
Already Default 46+ zones : Hate/Fear/Sky

[Shrubwise]

+/-4, coin + 1 item loot. Rallos rules baby.
OOR healers is classic, after all.

[vinx]

OOR healers is classic, after all.
yep, theres no reason for a dynamic system when we had to deal with it in the past
The main reason it sux so hard these days is cuz boxing is more prevelant then it was on live during that era.. with R99 following P99s example of single box, theres no real reason to implement a new system to control it.

I do agree with the training rule as it helps in raid situations.
but in any other zones (raid included) most people either dealt with it (now or later) or trained the lowbie healer lol
That part of training i agree with if they are untouchable ;)

[Rushmore]

maybe make it 4 levels until 35 or something, then bump it up.

dynamic pvp deal doesnt make sense. i attack someone 4 levels above me now i can get axe murdered by someone 12 levels above me then when i protect myself i get murdered by someone 20 levels above me???

just make raid zones no pvp range. problem solved.
[hate,fear,sky,sol b, permafrost, kedge]
possibly give like a 20% boost to xp for the 'added difficulty' aka ur ass getting griefed trying to slay polar bears.

this from master pojab will do fine. especially the bold and underlined.

[VanEyck]

8 is good because sometimes 2 lower level people can beat a higher level person, and still have a 'fair' fight. Since there isnt really much at stake besides coin and possibly exp. Reducing the amount of targets is basically shackles on a good red server.

On a side note, as a dedicated PKer I cringe to think of my new 'griefer' reputation as I'm passing out steady exp losses to people. My intentions as a PKer is to win battles, not destroy the hard work of others.

[vinx]

this from master pojab will do fine. especially the bold and underlined.
I know there was a time when you could sneak a level 1 in Hate/Fear/Sky
but honestly, do you think they are going to allow that here? they didnt allow level 1's on P99... wish people would stop listing those zones
you could bind in P99 Fear for awhile tho

[Harrison]

Yup, you could get level 5's into hate and fear and "Fansy" it up. "It's classic!"

[Rushmore]

I know there was a time when you could sneak a level 1 in Hate/Fear/Sky
but honestly, do you think they are going to allow that here? they didnt allow level 1's on P99... wish people would stop listing those zones
you could bind in P99 Fear for awhile tho

Hey sir.. sol b is a raid zone. Might as well do it now. Once 60 you will have 45's being spy's. True Pixels you should fight over. Don't be scared. Na'mean?

[Morninx]

OOR healing is such a minor issue imo... If it happens, deal with it. The unexpected is what makes EQ pvp so much better than lets say WoW pvp...

Rogean thank you for asking our input... Wish there was a more definitive answer.

[Nirgon]

Again beware requests from no life, item hoarding, poopsocker griefers.

[tmoneynegro]

Too many blue server noobs posting in here that have no clue of the side effects of their "+/- 4 level" suggestions.

When you have groups of 6 people in a dungeon fighting another group of 6 people, the level ranges in those 12 people will be huge. Level range HAS to be large enough so that all of them will be able to attack each other and so there will be no invulnerable healers either.

I think it's pretty clear the dynamic level system has too many problems and will need to be scrapped so don't even mention that thing.

Having all high-end or high level zones flagged as "arena" is also needed to prevent people from walking in with level 1 spies and trainers against raids.

[Nirgon]

From the desk of tmoneynegro.

[georgie]

8+/- is fine been fightings reds and yellows since i hit 42

[Amuk]

+-4 is way too small of a pvp range. Having a group ranging from 26-30 being unable to engage a group of 32-35's due to half your grp being OOR is a game breaker. I can only imagine that the people who want +-4 are more solo players that want a better balanced 1v1 atmosphere because any team/group player will hate this level range. I could write 50 scenarios where half a grp is in range but is left impotent because the guys you're going against will just rape the people in range and be left at a stalemate staring at you. I hope you don't listen to the QQ's of the noobs and understand that most of the griefing going on during beta currently are just dynamic pvp system bugs.

[Wonton]

i love how everybody tries to throw on some new twist to it all, lol....

+/- 8 levels and 1-50 Pvp in Solb, Perma, and Kedge. this is dynamic enough imo

[Evoken]

Yes and no. I think 8 level range is fine, but I remember on live every player in your range conned the same to you. I'd like a system like this so there's some uncertainty and you can't just exclusively "pvp" against people who con blue or green.

[Billbike]

Again beware requests from no life, item hoarding, poopsocker griefers.

8+/- Perfect.

If not, PvP will be broken. It will be due to Nirgon and his PvP ignorant friends who have no idea of how what they are voting for will influence R99.

I guess having PvP experience and knowledge makes me a griefer.

[MrSparkle001]

+-4 is way too small of a pvp range. Having a group ranging from 26-30 being unable to engage a group of 32-35's due to half your grp being OOR is a game breaker. I can only imagine that the people who want +-4 are more solo players that want a better balanced 1v1 atmosphere because any team/group player will hate this level range. I could write 50 scenarios where half a grp is in range but is left impotent because the guys you're going against will just rape the people in range and be left at a stalemate staring at you. I hope you don't listen to the QQ's of the noobs and understand that most of the griefing going on during beta currently are just dynamic pvp system bugs.

This is why Sullon Zek was the best PvP server. You didn't have a narrow range, and you had dedicated teams that to me made more sense than Tallon and Vallon. If this was going to be a Sullon Zek server I'd play there in a heartbeat; FFA PvP was a mess with the game clearly not designed for it.

Yup, you could get level 5's into hate and fear and "Fansy" it up. "It's classic!"

That's why they changed the Sullon Zek rules slightly :) That guy is legendary but man it was game-breaking, which is why I say no matter what rules they implement here, people will find a way around them.

GO GO GOOD TEAM!

+/-4 is necessary at lower levels, but at high levels it's too narrow. So what about +/-4 and certain high level zones have no range? I don't want to see level 8-12 people running around newbie zones wreaking havoc. 8 levels is an enormous difference at low levels. The difference between level 1 and 9, or 12 and 20, is huge. Too huge.

[Nirgon]

8+/- Perfect.

If not, PvP will be broken. It will be due to Nirgon and his PvP ignorant friends who have no idea of how what they are voting for will influence R99.


I guess having PvP experience and knowledge makes me a griefer.

I'd love to hear about your long list of experiences being in the lvl 40 range on some train fest pvp server and your random encounters in East Commons and Dreadlands. Frankly, I don't care. You aren't thinking long term, or maybe for you the little skirmishes that flare up with insta-posted message board responses over meaningless random ganks is as far as you go. Sure, do 8 levels, it creates MORE pvp but not more meaningful pvp. The servers with 8 level range and higher also weren't FFA pvp servers. Who cares about meaningful pvp, let's "go out to Hillsbrad and kill newbies", then be sure to immediately come here and shit up the forums with posts.



The truth is, 8 levels and no item loot are also being voted by the same people who want:

1. Yellow text
2. Global ooc

both of which have been ousted for obvious reasons given half a second of intelligent consideration. A year after launch when people discover this server and make it to lvl 42 to be chain ganked by "you mad" spamming idiots in full resist gear/droppable dragon haste, at no risk to any piece of their gear, it will make more sense. You can certainly grief harder with an 8 level advantage and being able to safely wear anything you want, not like planar isn't enough of an advantage over some poor slob.

You guys seem to want the next big box, but you continue to vote for changes that are detrimental to it lasting more than a year or a few months. Lol pvp is broken if it isn't 8 levels, hit yourself for being stupid.


PS: SZ was really a completely one-sided evil team laugh fest on the raid scene and that's how it ended (personal victories and forum retardation aside).

[Amuk]

In the end dipshits let themselves be griefed. I guarentee you the people I'm going to play with will shit on groups that are 5-8 levels higher. I hate to say it but even though it's a ffa server you shouldn't be looking at it like a solo pvp server, it's just ffa so people that dislike each other arn't hardcoded into teams - this server will be teams in the form of guilds you can guarentee pre formed guilds already exist and have strategies for how they will exp/control content.

If someone 8 levels higher than you is in the zone be aware, and be ready to retreat - that's a much better alternative to having a group be out of range to other groups camping shit you're capable of holding. And 100x better than being out of range of the 1-2 duo people camping shit that you could win with numbers.

[lethdar]

Imo you can't really judge the 8 lvl range fairly due to the resist system being so borked on beta. Would need the next patch to be in place to evaluate it fairly.

[Harrison]

Imo you can't really judge the 8 lvl range fairly due to the resist system being so borked on beta. Would need the next patch to be in place to evaluate it fairly.

He has a point with this.

The level range will need to be tested with a proper resist system in place, first.

Conjecture without resists working is worthless.

[Nirgon]

I have a feeling none of these things are getting changed so I'll just have the I told you so warm and ready. Can we start implementing balances to things on the blue server now? I mean there's lots of things that SHOULD be changed to make things better. For instance, making mobs immune to other players when they don't have first to engage. I think that would be a good start.

[Amuk]

I think you should stop posting.

[Nirgon]

Lol just saying, for a "classic" implementation we're sure making a lot of "tweaks" and "considerations".

[Billbike]

making mobs immune to other players when they don't have first to engage. I think that would be a good start.

If this isn't a good troll, you should be banned.

Eq is about choice. Limiting options is wrong.

People like Nirgom being able to vote is ruining everything.

[Sarkov]

I know Nirgon, you are RUINING IT!!!!

...yeah.

He has a point though. Classic != Classic + Rogean's list of personal gripes. I mean, whatever, its your server you can do what you want. But I think you'd please a lot more people if you just committed to an existing ruleset (whether Sullon, VZ/TZ, or Rallos) and ran with it.

FWIW (which is probably nothing since Rogean is clearly going to do wtfever he wants), I favor the Sullon ruleset. If you adamantly oppose hardcoded teams, I still favor the Sullon ruleset: FFA no level limit to engage, full rezzable xp loss +/- 5, small boost to xp earned (IIRC it was 20%?) to offset the impact of xp loss in pvp.

[Klyre]

Why not just keep it simple stupid....

1.5 x your level PvP just like your XP....if you can XP together, you can PvP together. This would keep a low spread at the low levels and expand the range at higher/raid zones. There is a 5 level range until what 10 at which point a 10 can only be hit from a level 15 after which it increases exponentially.

At level 18 is where it goes beyond the +8 difference to be +9 to be hit by a 27. Yes your going to get WTF PWND but at this level you should be grouping and at least have a chance.

Even when you reach 30 a +15 to be Pwnd by a 45 can happen but you won't need FFA for any Zone.

Flame on

__________________________________________________ ____________

As a side note I also don't think you should be able to Buff anyone not in your level range. But thats just me.

Flame twice

[Nother]

I would be happier if under 40 its a 4+ or - but after that full pvp with no range. obviously not able to pk lower than 40.

[Sarkov]

Oh and this "dynamic range" nonsense needs to go. I give you full marks for spotting the obvious problem with a +/- N levels system, but realize that all you are doing is replacing one type of griefing (dragging around an out-of-range healer) with another: dragging around a level-appropriate alt to sucker people in a low-level zone into attacking (really, just responding to being attacked) and then suffering xp loss at the hands of someone 16+ levels higher.

Lets be honest: no matter what system you adopt, there will be griefing. But, in both the OOR healer and the tag-along-lowbie cases I spell out above, its the XP loss that makes the griefing particularly onerous.

So how about you adopt a system that removes the possibility of XP loss from someone 16+ levels higher than you, and lets you kill anyone who heals your target, full stop:

FFA, no level limit to engage.
XP loss within a level band, say +/- 5.

Oh hi Sullon Zek rules, I didn't see you there!

Say it with me folks: XP loss from unattackable healers is bullshit. XP loss from people 16+ levels higher than me is bullshit.

I am the 99%

#occupyqeynos

[Rogean]

Only things like healbuffs and heals should engage it

This is already the case....

[Sarkov]

This is already supposed to be the case....

Fixed that for you mate.

So basically, when a twink 8 levels higher than you shows up and starts killing you with his buddies in tow healing him, DON'T HEAL ANYONE in your group, or the buddies will kill you and you will lose xp.

Swell idea.

[Rogean]

I'll talk the incremental natural range over with the others. I'm thinking something like this..

+/- 4 until 20
5 until 40
6 until 50
8 51+

two players able to attack eachother would be determined by the lowest level player's range. Still affected by the dynamic range system.

[Rogean]

Fixed that for you mate.

So basically, when a twink 8 levels higher than you shows up and starts killing you with his buddies in tow healing him, DON'T HEAL ANYONE in your group, or the buddies will kill you and you will lose xp.

Swell idea.

How about you stop trying to troll me because I'm not really in the mood for your snidey "fixed" remarks.

The system is working as intended. If you heal someone higher level, they can attack you, vise versa.

[Sarkov]

OK, snideness aside.

Any thoughts on limiting XP loss to a hard range a la Sullon rules? (So, following your "dynamic range" idea, you can pvp anyone that buffs/heals your target, but you can still only lose XP if someone +/- N kills you)

As I said above, its the XP loss from people a billion levels higher than you that really sucks about the system as currently designed. Seems like you agree at least in principle, hence your consideration of the "incremental natural range."

[Harrison]

I'll talk the incremental natural range over with the others. I'm thinking something like this..

+/- 4 until 20
5 until 40
6 until 50
8 51+

two players able to attack eachother would be determined by the lowest level player's range. Still affected by the dynamic range system.

This is much more reasonable and further prevents stupidity like a level 10 camping levels 2's spawnpoints for "lulz", damaging server integrity.

[Nirgon]

I just don't want the bottom to fall out of the population and I'd hate to ask more from The Emp coding-wise.




+/- 4 until 20 - good. 16 vs a 20 but not 12 vs a 20.
5 until 4 - good. 35 vs a 40.
6 until 50 - 44 vs a 50, fine also imo.
8 51+ - welcome to kunark, bitches. Server has also been established for a while and people should have at least minor magic resist/whatevs gear on their chars.

[therooman88]

+/- 5 or 6 would be great, 8 is excessive!

[Softcore PK]

The truth is, 8 levels and no item loot are also being voted by the same people who want:

1. Yellow text
2. Global ooc

Untrue. I want 8 level range, and am opposed to yellow text and global ooc.

Rogean, if you're going to go with a level range system that scales up as you level, please don't make it scale so slowly as you're proposing. Keep in mind that max level will be 50 for a while, and at least make it 8 levels at 42. A 42 stands a good chance against a 50. Please don't fall prey to the false ideology that meaningful pvp only happens at max level. Most of the players here seem to be trying to make pvp scarce until they get to be a high level, so they can level in bluebie bliss.

PvP is great at any level, and an 8 range is honestly not that drastic (except at very low levels).

[Amuk]

6 sounds fine to me w/e if this will stop ppl from crying.

[Arillious]

I'll talk the incremental natural range over with the others. I'm thinking something like this..

+/- 4 until 20
5 until 40
6 until 50
8 51+

two players able to attack eachother would be determined by the lowest level player's range. Still affected by the dynamic range system.

I'm not against lowering the range from levels 1-20. 8 levels is to much and there's no reason someone 8 levels higher or lower should rightfully be in the same area.

I'm very concerned with limiting it to 5 from 20-40. A level 33 could very easily be in the same area as a lvl 39 rightfully competing for something and not be able to fight eachother using that system. I want to avoid this situation.

Personally, I think after 30 you can really raise it. At that level, even if someone is 8 levels above you, you should have the tools to either avoid the fight, get away, or call for assistance. You should not get completely destroyed without any way to defend yourself, which is what this whole system is in place to prevent.

[Nirgon]

Untrue. I want 8 level range, and am opposed to yellow text and global ooc.

Rogean, if you're going to go with a level range system that scales up as you level, please don't make it scale so slowly as you're proposing. Keep in mind that max level will be 50 for a while, and at least make it 8 levels at 42. A 42 stands a good chance against a 50. Please don't fall prey to the false ideology that meaningful pvp only happens at max level. Most of the players here seem to be trying to make pvp scarce until they get to be a high level, so they can level in bluebie bliss.

PvP is great at any level, and an 8 range is honestly not that drastic (except at very low levels).

I don't know if dying to a single spell falls under the category of good chance. There will certainly be lots of pvp if someone is also xping in the same zone as you with a 4 level difference. I'm not solely trying to cater to the poor saps who have never played on a pvp server at all before. The new player experience will still definitely hurt their feelings if they're average tough pvp'er, even at 4 levels. 8 is just crazy before lvl 30. It's great for griefing though, let me be honest.

Maybe I just think the people you're able to attack and coin loot (or lose their coin by destroying it, see: bagging items, same fucking thing) should have some semblance of a chance of a fighting back at all. But, meaningful pvp aside, go ahead with 8 lvls at 4-30 and see what up. This whole "the server is blue unless its 8 lvls" or "pvp is ruined" is absolutely crazy.

[Forestdweller]

Graduated pvp range as you level.
Level 1-20 +-2
Level 21-30 +-3
Level 31-40 +-5
Level 40-50 +-8

[Nirgon]

+2 way too small

[Softcore PK]

I don't know if dying to a single spell falls under the category of good chance.

Like what spell? Can't be a nuke, those will be capped. A powerful dot maybe?

[Bockscar]

An uncured ebolt probably kills just about any unbuffed caster, or at least brings them down to like one bubble if they wear HP gear. Same with ignite blood, although that's dispellable and far too slow for that to be much of a concern. Winged death in Kunark also kills if undispelled. I guess only newbies would eat a full WD, but on the other hand pure melees could run out of pumice.

[Softcore PK]

So it's a class balancing issue, not a level range issue. People shouldn't be prevented from having fun and engaging fights just because certain classes are OP.

[Bockscar]

Eh, didn't even bother to look for the context.

[Sarkov]

XP loss for much beyond +/- 5/6 levels is annoying, but I agree - you want to promote as much pvp as possible on a server like this. More than just being fun (at least to some), pvp should also be the primary dispute resolution mechanism. For that to work, anyone xping in a certain area should be pvpable by others looking to xp or camp items in that area.

A "scaling" range addresses that somewhat, but IMO is a heavy-handed solution born out of trying to solve two unrelated problems at once. A more elegant solution is to embrace the idea of losing XP only to a range of mostly "fair" matchups (IE +/- 4-5 levels), but allow people to fight others in a much broader level range, +/- 10, 20, or even total FFA.

If a level 50 warrior and cleric want to camp the ancient croc in upper guk, we should be able to kill the level 35 wizard sitting on the camp and take it from him. He shouldn't lose XP, but he should lose the camp. Under the current rules, the level 35 could KS the two level 50s to his heart's content. That's just not in keeping with the spirit of a pvp server, IMO.

[Harrison]

If you lose a camp to a 35 with two 50s, you don't deserve the camp. Sorry.

[Pudge]

I'll talk the incremental natural range over with the others. I'm thinking something like this..

+/- 4 until 20
5 until 40
6 until 50
8 51+

two players able to attack eachother would be determined by the lowest level player's range. Still affected by the dynamic range system.

Sounds like a great compromise. Please do this.

[Pudge]

also pls make certain areas FFA. like evil eye and assassin tower. once attacked in the FFA area, the dynamic system coudl take over and keep those ppl who were fighting in-range for pvp to eachother even if one runs away (as in, runs outside of the FFA designated area).

[juicedsixfo]

also pls make certain areas FFA. like evil eye and assassin tower. once attacked in the FFA area, the dynamic system coudl take over and keep those ppl who were fighting in-range for pvp to eachother even if one runs away (as in, runs outside of the FFA designated area).

... Dear god. Just leave it alone.

[Palemoon]

I'll talk the incremental natural range over with the others. I'm thinking something like this..

+/- 4 until 20
5 until 40
6 until 50
8 51+

two players able to attack eachother would be determined by the lowest level player's range. Still affected by the dynamic range system.


Delete the 2nd line

5 until 40

And it will look perfect to these eyes.

[klant]

How about +/- 8 lvls.

Red con/green con = nothing
Yellow/teal/ blue = coin/xp loss
white = 1 item loot/xp loss

retarded? something along those lines, maybe tweaked could be good.

[Softcore PK]

Rogean has said he's for sure not including item loot.

[MrSparkle001]

This is much more reasonable and further prevents stupidity like a level 10 camping levels 2's spawnpoints for "lulz", damaging server integrity.

That sort of thing is going to happen no matter what. PvP servers tend to bring out the worst in people. I expect it so it's not like I'm complaining about it.

PvP for many people does not actually mean "PvP". There's arenas on regular servers if that's what people wanted. No, for many people PvP means gank and generally act like a douche. Look at Fansy or some of the Rallos Zek population. Legendary douchery there!

Like I said, I expect it. It comes with the territory. FFA/no teams brings out more douches than team PvP servers though, so just be warned.

I'll talk the incremental natural range over with the others. I'm thinking something like this..

+/- 4 until 20
5 until 40
6 until 50
8 51+

two players able to attack eachother would be determined by the lowest level player's range. Still affected by the dynamic range system.

Sounds good to me. It might be better to have 5 until 30, 6 until 40, 7 until 50, 8 51+ though?

I still need to know if any thought was given to deleveling? With PvP ranges delevelers can be a real pain, and IMO it's not in the spirit of the game, but is an exploit overlooked by the developers, much like Fansy's antics in Sullon Zek's early days.

[klant]

lol, ya that is true for the most part sparkle but there are hardcore pvpers that aren't huge douches. i think most the d bags came from rz. they tried to be relevant on zek too.

[Bockscar]

I think +/-8 is important for level 40+ content. It's not about ensuring that the fight is always fair, it's about ensuring that you can always PvP against people who show up to compete for content that matches their level. There's plenty of content that matches a span of more than 5-6 levels. You could have a few level 42-43 players camping frenzied ghoul, for instance. Being unable to PvP for that camp would suck. Meanwhile, making dungeons FFA is difficult because you can typically begin going there in your mid-30s but won't be competing for any content wanted by the high-levels. A level 36 paladin soloing the lguk entrance shouldn't be attackable by every level 50 who zones in. 8 levels is about right for the purpose of content competition, anything less will guarantee stifled PvP some of the time. This will be especially important since KSing is legal.

[Macken]

6-50 or you wear panties.

[Rushmore]

can we not have a few FFA zones?

[Macken]

With PvP ranges delevelers can be a real pain, and IMO it's not in the spirit of the game.


You are like the little kid screaming to nerf druid wing death because you can't figure out how to adapt. You are selfish and do not care, and try to make your problem everyone else's problem.

Play Better Kid.

[Dontmez_Mebro]

You are like the little kid screaming to nerf druid wing death because you can't figure out how to adapt. You are selfish and do not care, and try to make your problem everyone else's problem.

Play Better Kid.

So you're good enough to beat a player when you're level 10 that has deleveled from 50? Wow you're my hero. That being said... Delevels are a part of EQ. They are complete trash, but they are part of the game.

[Bockscar]

It's not worth shaping the ruleset around the three people who will have deleveled twinks. Hell, practically none of the PvP gear is no-drop until Velious.

[Ravenlof]

take out lvl range period. SZ shall live again!

[Fatch]

Not sure if i'm 100% here. But I recall something different back in the day.

VZ - TZ was +/- 8 lvls with teams
Sullon Zek was no lvl cap pvp with diety
Rallos Zek was +/- 4 lvls FFA with item loot.

This is what i recall, but I could be wrong.

[Sarkov]

Mostly correct. SZ also had full, rezzable, xp loss on death if the person who killed you was +/- 5 levels, and had a 20% xp boost to compensate.

[Yukahwa]

I'll talk the incremental natural range over with the others. I'm thinking something like this..

+/- 4 until 20
5 until 40
6 until 50
8 51+

two players able to attack eachother would be determined by the lowest level player's range. Still affected by the dynamic range system.

Sounds beautiful to me as long as the dynamic range system isn't funky. I think dynamic range should be applied only to specific dungeons rather than making them FFA.

No serious PVP is going on in Gfay so dynamic range doesn't need to be there for people healing folks at the bank and things like that.

But this is a change for the better and I'm really happy to see it.

[Softcore PK]

Sounds beautiful to me as long as the dynamic range system isn't funky. I think dynamic range should be applied only to specific dungeons rather than making them FFA.

No serious PVP is going on in Gfay so dynamic range doesn't need to be there for people healing folks at the bank and things like that.

But this is a change for the better and I'm really happy to see it.

No serious pvp goes on in gfay? I disagree, for lots of reasons.

1. Newbie/lowbie pvp is worthwhile and often serious.
2. It's the trading zone, and lots of people are trying to kill other people to get their money.
3. Most importantly, the Greater Faydark is under constant constant attack by the ugly and stupid dwarves! The elves defend their forests and their elfin honor; do not make light of their sacrifice and accomplishments.

[Yukahwa]

Serious PVP. PVP in Gfay is the best ever. Groups of level 50's don't come to a head there, so things in Gfay should be just normal which will allow priests to heal whoever they want without dealing with dynamic range mechanics.

Don't get me wrong. I think level 1-40 PVP is more important than max level PVP by a long shot. Level 1-40 is where people get dedicated to the game and where a lot of people spend 100 percent of their gaming experience. Gfay is the number 1 most important PVP in the game is but not Serious pvp.

I think we agree on this point, my apologies for failing to be more clear.

P.S. Me and my dwarf buddies were usually friends with elves.

[Softcore PK]

I like the dynamic range system being active in gfay.

p.s. I slaughtered your dwarf buddies and sold them in pieces to Boomba the Big. Dwarves should know better than to step foot into sacred land.

[Yukahwa]

Vallon or Tallon Pixels never reached the shores of Rallos Zek until me and anyone I knew was long gone. If they did, me and you probably woulda been friends.

[MrSparkle001]

It's not worth shaping the ruleset around the three people who will have deleveled twinks. Hell, practically none of the PvP gear is no-drop until Velious.

True, and the server won't have a large enough population to make delevelers a pain I think. When you're looking to level there will be plenty of places you can go.

I'm just saying, I remember armies of lowbies at the Nektulos newbie log that couldn't defeat the deleveled troll trio. Every spell resisted, they regenerated at an alarming rate for their level, and were like living gods. I'm dead serious when I say I don't want to see that again.

Some say it's part of the game, I say it never should have been to begin with. That's what I mean when I say "PvP does not mean 'PvP' for some people, it means gank and generally act like a douche". The beauty of Sullon Zek was that that mechanic was impossible, and even though Fansy exposed other serious flaws they were patched. A trio of people running around Nektulos killing lowbies? Bring in the big guns and kick 'em out! Couldn't do that on RZ.

Deleveling won't be as bad if there's no item loot though. They will only be an annoyance, not a major frustration factor.

EDIT: I can't remember if this troll trio was Velious era or not. I seem to recall people saying they had higher level no-drop gear, but during Velious I moved permanently to Sullon Zek (before quitting with Luclin for the greener pastures of Dark Age Of Camelot which had infinitely better PvP than EQ ever had, but lacked everything else). I don't remember when Sullon Zek came out so I don't remember how much time I spent on RZ during the Velious era. My memory of 10 year old videogame moments is very fuzzy.

[Darwoth]

deleveling does not work on p99 ( :( )

[Softcore PK]

Vallon or Tallon Pixels never reached the shores of Rallos Zek until me and anyone I knew was long gone. If they did, me and you probably woulda been friends.

Not saying we couldn't have been friends. Secret friends. But if you weren't elf back then I had an obligation to murder you and take your money.

[Xareth]

In the end dipshits let themselves be griefed. I guarentee you the people I'm going to play with will shit on groups that are 5-8 levels higher. I hate to say it but even though it's a ffa server you shouldn't be looking at it like a solo pvp server, it's just ffa so people that dislike each other arn't hardcoded into teams - this server will be teams in the form of guilds you can guarentee pre formed guilds already exist and have strategies for how they will exp/control content.

If someone 8 levels higher than you is in the zone be aware, and be ready to retreat - that's a much better alternative to having a group be out of range to other groups camping shit you're capable of holding. And 100x better than being out of range of the 1-2 duo people camping shit that you could win with numbers.

Exactly this


I'll talk the incremental natural range over with the others. I'm thinking something like this..

+/- 4 until 20
5 until 40
6 until 50
8 51+

I like +/- 8.

I really don't think it's necessary to change the range unless you want less griefing under lvl 20. It was always part of the game on TZ, it was about being smart enough to pick your fights wisely, fight or flight. If you have to do something incremental like this though, I think it should be:

+/- 4/5 until 20
6 until 40
8 40+

+/- 4 doesn't allow for much pvp. 40 is the "big boy" level. It should really be gloves off at that point.

In addition, there really should be ffa zones. Lguk, solb, perma, all the planes and kedge (ha). There are many scenerios where this is necessary, many have already been brought up.

two players able to attack eachother would be determined by the lowest level player's range. Still affected by the dynamic range system.

Excellent!

[Softcore PK]

I don't understand the FFA zones. Won't the dynamic system make up for this?

[Dontmez_Mebro]

Is the dynamic system going to be fixed to prevent level 50's from camping noobie areas and griefing lvl 4's?

[Bockscar]

Of course it is. Why do you even need to ask?

[Macken]

No matter what lies are offered up to placate those who already know the dynamic system is crap, all will have to deal with the fallout: delayed launch, exploitation of the dynamic system, bugs weeks, months and years into the future, etc....




6-50 or you wear panties.

[Silikten]

+/- 4 is how it is on live I believe. It was always nice to level to 60 and let the 65s not be able to own you with gear/spells.

[Dontmez_Mebro]

Just wondering if it's possible, or if it's one of those things that they can't really prevent with a dynamic range system. That would be why I ask.

[Crenshinabon]

Sounds good to me. It might be better to have 5 until 30, 6 until 40, 7 until 50, 8 51+ though?


I like Sparkles range idea.
4 at 2-20
5 at 21-30
6 at 31-40
7 at 41-50
8 at 51-60

[Sarkov]

6-50 or you wear panties.

SISSY. Make it 1-50. Epic piles of corpses at every newbie spawn point in every newbie zone.

Part of the fun of pvp servers is taking your licks when you're a lowbie. That makes it oh-so-much-sweeter when you get to go pwnz crushbone 50 levels later.

[Bockscar]

If your ambiton is to grief in CB once you're 50, I suppose that means we won't be seeing much of you in the dungeons that matter. I sympathize with your line of thinking. I mean, you could get killed going to a high-level zone!

[Dontmez_Mebro]

You won't be seeing anyone there because the "hardcores" will have driven off most of the playerbase.

[Macken]

You won't be seeing anyone there because the "hardcores" will have driven off most of the playerbase.

If YOUR "playerbase" is that easy to run off, then they aren't a "base" by definition.

[Sarkov]

How much of YOUR "base" are belong to us though?

(too soon?)

@retard from last page: yeah. you're right. ganking lowbies means I will NEVER EVER EVER pvp in high end zones. what was I thinking. I should kill myself now.

[Silikten]

all your base am the belong to me

[Dontmez_Mebro]

If YOUR "playerbase" is that easy to run off, then they aren't a "base" by definition.

61%...

[Sarkov]

#occupyqeynos?

[Sniperfire]

i support ffa any lvl pvp
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/003/081/griefing.jpg?1312578634

[Dontmez_Mebro]

i support ffa any lvl pvp

We know you do.You make that very clear while camping the starter areas.

[Goraxx]

+4/-4 up to 20, then +8/-8 after

[Sarkov]

I'm with sniperfire. Anything less would be uncivilized.

[MrSparkle001]

deleveling does not work on p99 ( :( )

It doesn't? Is that confirmed? And I have to ask why it doesn't work. What's different here that disables it?

If your ambiton is to grief in CB once you're 50, I suppose that means we won't be seeing much of you in the dungeons that matter. I sympathize with your line of thinking. I mean, you could get killed going to a high-level zone!

People will be playing there to grief, no question about it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: To many people that's what "PvP" means. It means the ability to be a douche.

It comes with the territory. I expect it. I think we all expect it. It's nothing to complain about. But I'll be happy if deleveling is confirmed to not work, because that helps level the playing field so to speak.

[Darwoth]

tried to delevel my ranger, the skills no longer stay at their higher level state, they temporarily cap at the lower level until you regain said level and passives like double attack etc go away also.

[Harrison]

Good, no exploiting to grief with.

[Macken]

61%...

In essay form, please explain.

[MrSparkle001]

tried to delevel my ranger, the skills no longer stay at their higher level state, they temporarily cap at the lower level until you regain said level and passives like double attack etc go away also.

That's awesome. That's how it should have been 10 years ago. High level no-drop items might still be a problem, but without skill levels it's not nearly the problem it would have been.

[Hasbinbad]

Any level should be able to pvp any other level.
Other than that: +/- 10

[Rust1d?]

pvp starts at lv 6. +/-4 until 35. +/-8 after. Not sure why this is bad?

[Sarkov]

Even WOW had free-for-all pvp on its pvp servers... do we want to be MORE bluebie than WOW? ;)

FFA forever! Xp loss +/-5!

[Macken]

I am bluebie. As such, I have no idea what i'm talking about. Do not listen to me or you will be sorry.

+1

[Toomuch]

I've read some of what other people have suggested, and I think there's some great ideas, many rule-sets that I think would work wonderfully, and I feel they are just plain simpler and less exploitable than the "dynamic" pvp system. It was a great idea in theory, it's just really difficult, and not worth the time and effort to test/code/develop/troubleshoot/police/etc. So, here's my feedback and suggestions:

I liked the hardcore rules on Sullon Zek that you could kill anyone on the other teams. That server was different though, because you had team-mates to back you up (supposedly), and also faction help you could fall back on like guards and class trainers and such (supposedly this is being worked on?). Without a team to rely on, and currently no assist from NPC's, there isn't going to be as much of a "safe" area for anyone, ruling out that type of no level limit rule-set. Thus, I suggest either a +-10/+-5 or +-8/+-4 ruleset similar to what a couple other people have mentioned. Let me explain the numbers.

In a 10/5 ruleset, 10 levels would be the engage range, while -5 is the loot/exp death range. You can freely attack anyone within a 10 level range of you, but you'd only be able to loot coin from or cause an experience death to someone 5 levels below you. If you manage to kill the player higher level than you (between 5-10 levels) they could still lose exp and be looted, as a penalty for sucking so bad (if that's easy to code/set up, if not, no biggy, basic +-10/+-5 is fine). If people think that's too hardcore, you could make it +-8/+-4, where 8 levels is the max engage range, but 4 levels it the loot/exp range.

In my mind, this system facilitates a higher amount of pvp engagement, while not making the penalty so severe for those getting stomped on by someone who is realistically way out of their league. Larger engage range, in my opinion, allows for more immersion . So would faction assist, for that matter.

Now, if you REALLY wanted to get tricky, you could do a scaling version of this ruleset, where at lower levels it's something like 6/3 (levels 1-10), then 8/4 (11-25 or 30), then 10/5 (26+ or 31+). Something along these lines would be ideal for this type of FFA server, in my opinion.

I'd actually like to request some feedback from everyone on this particular idea, both the X/Y idea of engage/loot&expdeath, and the scaling 6/3, 8/4, 10/5 range. To me these sound really good! What do you think?

[Rust1d?]

I like it up the ass

We know you do.

[Titanuk]

guk solb perma kedgekeep should to be FFA

[Softcore PK]

guk solb perma kedgekeep should to be FFA

I don't think they would need to be, with 8 range and dynamic system to prevent immy healers.

[Nirgon]

Sweet ninja troll.

[Glam]

+/- 5

Bigger lvl gap is just OP to run around and kill lowlvl.

Seen alot of pvp lvl 50 just runing around and killing lvl 42-48 for fun and to slow there lvling up so they can be alone at top of lvl 50 as long as possible.

[MakeYouMad]

+/- 5

Bigger lvl gap is just OP to run around and kill lowlvl.

Seen alot of pvp lvl 50 just runing around and killing lvl 42-48 for fun and to slow there lvling up so they can be alone at top of lvl 50 as long as possible.

Group vs group PvP is impossible with a 5 level limit. If your group attacks another inside a dungeon, half the people you attack could be invulnerable. Think before you suggest something.

[Macken]

+/- 5

Bigger lvl gap is just OP to run around and kill lowlvl.

Seen alot of pvp lvl 50 just runing around and killing lvl 42-48 for fun and to slow there lvling up so they can be alone at top of lvl 50 as long as possible.


If this tool had the intestinal fortitude to make it to 50, he would do the same thing (ie pvp) or when he finds out he can't pvp because rules have been hard-coded so as to prevent him from pvping, he will finally realize what his elders have been talking about and promptly quit.

Bluebies expounding on and on about things they know not of, is getting really old.

[Titanuk]

I don't think they would need to be, with 8 range and dynamic system to prevent immy healers.

guess u never played on a pvp server

[Titanuk]

If this tool had the intestinal fortitude to make it to 50, he would do the same thing (ie pvp) or when he finds out he can't pvp because rules have been hard-coded so as to prevent him from pvping, he will finally realize what his elders have been talking about and promptly quit.

Bluebies expounding on and on about things they know not of, is getting really old.

[Softcore PK]

guess u never played on a pvp server

Never a pvp server with dynamic range, no.

[Macken]

No one has.

Ask yourself why.

[Goobles]

4 level difference in my opinion - difference between spell levels.

[Macken]

1 blue bubble difference would really accomplish your goals better.

[Billbike]

4 level difference in my opinion - difference between spell levels.

Up till 20?

Max level must be 8 or higher imo.

[MrSparkle001]

All this talk about level ranges, but has there ever been talk about Sullon Zek rules instead? To me that was the best of the PvP servers.

[Softcore PK]

Sullon Zek was the least populated of the 4 pvp servers. We don't need level 50s scaring newbies off of the server imo.

[Darwoth]

sullon zek was the most populated by far from the time it released until luclin ruined the game and everybody who gave a shit about pvp on all servers quit.

[Softcore PK]

sullon zek was the most populated by far from the time it released until luclin ruined the game and everybody who gave a shit about pvp on all servers quit.

It was new, different and interesting. Even I went to SZ at release. And luclin came something like 6 months later. Once the "wow this is new and fun" factor ended, the population of SZ took a nosedive and remained the least populated until the server merge.

[Macken]

SZ is where the Heroes played.

[MrSparkle001]

Sullon Zek was the least populated of the 4 pvp servers. We don't need level 50s scaring newbies off of the server imo.

Must have lost pop after I quit EQ for good, which is right after Luclin (like a week, maybe a bit more)

[Remington]

When there is ever a decision to be made about a feature, which is totally open to debate and opinion, why not just make it classic? Rallos Zek was FFA, +4/-4. Done. No discussion needed.

Project1999...?

[Softcore PK]

VZ and TZ came out in 1999 too, they were classic! :D

[C5BAMF]

+/-4 level
+/-4 dynamic
Gives you a classic 8 level potential, with a modern balance of odds.
Also, remove the ability to con players other than Green (lower than current range), White (in range) & Red (higher than current range).
Come server launch, remove the "you are now attackable by levels X through X" notification if not already in stone to do so.

[Softcore PK]

Green, white and red player cons is not classic.

[juicedsixfo]

+/-4 level
+/-4 dynamic
Gives you a classic 8 level potential, with a modern balance of odds.
Also, remove the ability to con players other than Green (lower than current range), White (in range) & Red (higher than current range).
Come server launch, remove the "you are now attackable by levels X through X" notification if not already in stone to do so.


Down with this. Everyone in your level range should con even. And if they're going to do a dynamic this makes way more sense.

[Nirgon]

Part of what is great about EQ is conning things and how they rate against you. Everything in your range being even is very meh.

[Macken]

6-50 or you wear panties.

[Softcore PK]

Why not 2-50?

[Macken]

ok.

You win.

[Null]

No matter what lies are offered up to placate those who already know the dynamic system is crap, all will have to deal with the fallout: delayed launch, exploitation of the dynamic system, bugs weeks, months and years into the future, etc....

6-50 or you wear panties.

Other than assumptions of developer incompetence, why do you dislike the dynamic system?

[rankorr]

can we have FFA in the following zones please?


Permafrost
Sol-b
Lguk
kedge
planes

and later on..

hole
karnor
seb
HS
chardok
VP

[Macken]

Other than assumptions of developer incompetence, why do you dislike the dynamic system?

Null,

The answer to that would be obvious to anyone who has pvp'd longer than 12 months. Do you have any pvp experience? What exactly are your credentials?


I know nothing of coding, that is the only reason i haven't launched a full fledged propoganda attack on your ass. The staff has exploded an A-bomb on the community moral.

Why must the staff continue to push non-classic and unwanted changes catered to the exact segment of the population that isn't attracted to pvp, while alienating those who are your exact target population?

Have you suggested to get rid of pve on p99 too? Why would you restrict pve on p99? Why would you restrict pvp on R99?

You coded +/- 7 (or someone did) on VZTZ and you couldn't find any pvp at all. There wasn't anyone in range. You log on. Check /who all. See no one. Log off. Server died. Going to go even faster with no /who all to check---Log on. check zone, check next zone over, check next zone after that, see people, waste time running over to find out they are all green. Get disgusted. Log off. Post on forums i told you so. Server dies.

Do you really need another History lesson?

I told you and your staff on VZTZ that pvp rules where counter productive and a misallocation of resources. Half a year later you quit over it and so did every other GM. Even Sirken finally figured it out and had enough guts to get rid of anti-pvp rules.

This is a pvp server yes? Everyone is expected to be over age 5 yes? On a game where the object is to KILL, we aren't going to coddle those who cry that they are being killed yes?

Is it safe to say if you had left well enough alone and just flipped the pvp switch that we would all be closer to the precious?

[Palemoon]

The objective is not TO KILL, the objective is to play Everquest, with the option of settleing disputes that arise in game through pvp.

If you want TO KILL, try Quake. 1999 rallos was not a 24/7 death match, I was there.

P.S. only persons moral going down is yours, as your posts take on a more and more desperate tone..

[Softcore PK]

Macken said a whole lot, but largely avoided Null's question. Red99 is not going to focus on pvp like VZTZ Macken, it's going to be EQ with pvp added in to it. If you don't enjoy pve, you probably shouldn't be playing EverQuest..

[Macken]

Red99 is not going to focus on pvp

Nice one.

[Macken]

The objective is not TO KILL, the objective is to play Everquest, If you want TO KILL, try Quake. .

Keep 'em coming

[Macken]

1999 rallos was not a 24/7 death match, I was there.


No kidding? They restricted when you could actually pvp on a pvp server and there wasn't much pvp going on?

You don't say.

[Null]

Macken,

You didn't really answer my question, or if you did answer it I couldn't read between the trolling enough to pick it out. So if I miss anything you wanted answered, please try and reform the question as plain as possible.

Null,
The answer to that would be obvious to anyone who has pvp'd longer than 12 months. Do you have any pvp experience? What exactly are your credentials?


Played EQ from late classic until whatever expansion came 5-6 years later on TZ. I remember being aggravated because the PvP part of the game was generally an afterthought and many changes were made for the sake of PvE that crippled PvP eventually. I then worked and eventually ran the highest populated eqemu pvp server (I think ever?)....


I told you and your staff on VZTZ that pvp rules where counter productive and a misallocation of resources. Half a year later you quit over it and so did every other GM. Even Sirken finally figured it out and had enough guts to get rid of anti-pvp rules.

Do you really need another History lesson?


...we then held that population for the most part until the staff imploded because the person hosting our server (only when his girlfriend didn't need the power outlet for her hair drier) refused to stop interacting with our population in less than professional ways. At that point I quit and the server changed hands. Most of the code on the server that I had contributed was removed out of spite, and the server eventually died.


Why must the staff continue to push non-classic and unwanted changes catered to the exact segment of the population that isn't attracted to pvp, while alienating those who are your exact target population?



This is a pvp server yes? Everyone is expected to be over age 5 yes? On a game where the object is to KILL, we aren't going to coddle those who cry that they are being killed yes?


If you are talking about PvP Range (since that was what the question was about in the first place) then there is no consensus on what range to go with. I know you want FFA, others want anything between +/-4 and +/-8. This dynamic system is a compromise.


Is it safe to say if you had left well enough alone and just flipped the pvp switch that we would all be closer to the precious?

This is the only question you have in this huge post that doesn't have some sort of snide/douchie/trolling comment in it. I think that is because you are just impatient and need your PvP fix. I really doubt you have any serious issues with the dynamic system outside of the time you perceive it will take work the bugs out of it. It's cool, I get it and I think its great that you are this excited about the server.

To answer your question though:

For just the level range? Sure.

For everything else? No.

[Melveny]

Gotta love Gronkus..... He probably has a pretty mean gaming machine from all the donations.

Null is the man, hard working and dedicated. I spent countless nights with him and Pika testing out patches / game changes. I don't know why you guys keep calling him out and bad mouthing him, he is provided us what we want, EQ pvp. Show some respect and stop being a douch. It is not hard to voice a concern or complain in a appropriate manner w/ o being an asshat or trolling.

[Macken]

Understood.

You aren't going to find many if any people who know more about making it easier on staff to administer pvp policies.

I am merely advocating a no-nonsense, pvp-centric common sense approach.

The more rules you make, the more you will hate GMing, or the more you will shit on the GM's and the more the population will hate you/them. I fully believe that if you are being honest with yourself, you already know this if only from experience. You really need to streamline this anti-pvp on a pvp server nonsense, and cut it to a minimum, or better yet, cut it out altogether for the enjoyment of all.

The more players find themselves in situations where you have tied their hands and refused to give them a chance to resolve their issues under their own power, the more unhappy your playerbase will become. Guess who's number they will be dialing when they all finally figure this out? I'll give you a hint - Not mine. Heres another clue: what do you think the players will do when they find themselves in a situation where you have refused to let them pvp out of it? Take a ride on Reading Railroad. If you pass go, collect $200. I am assuming you are wise enough to already know all of this. Is your intention to allow training? If not... well you might want to rethink.

The players who are advocating any different are confused and do not even understand the consequences of their advocacy. If you look closely at who they are, they are obscure no-names from yesteryear who have wrongly believed all these years that they had any real effect either way on their servers.

I was right when i told you to get rid of anti-pvp rules on VZTZ and of course I am right again now.

If you are as qualified as you would like for us to believe, I shouldn't have to explain any of this to you. You should already know it.

You can continue to wrongly meddle in pvp affairs, but you will not be the only one to pay the price.

And yes, let's be clear. I am excited about your sever, and if allowed, I will play. At least until it becomes clear that it isn't a pvp server, and I will begin to look for the real pvp server like everyone else.

[Softcore PK]

8 level range is hardly limiting :/

[Softcore PK]

I have a question or two for Null.

How is the dynamic system going? Do the bugs seem easy enough to work out? Will it be ready to go at launch, do you think?

[Melveny]

I like that "If allows" part, maybe take it under consideration.

Moral of your post, make your own server.

Moral of my post, stop posting douch bag troll comments involving monopoly or other board game or troll references you can come up with.

Server isn't even live and I have already been exposed to like 12+ TLDR posts from you Macken. Chillax.

[juicedsixfo]

This is a pvp server yes? Everyone is expected to be over age 5 yes? On a game where the object is to KILL, we aren't going to coddle those who cry that they are being killed yes?


That may be your object, but it's not everyone's. For most of us, it's just good ol' classic EQ with PvP enabled. It's just about having the ability to PvP and not needing lists and shit, and being able to settle disputes in game. Just by choosing to play on a PvP server you are making a commitment to PvP. Everyone will defend themselves, but not everyone is a PK per se either.

[Null]

The more rules you make, the more you will hate GMing, or the more you will shit on the GM's and the more the population will hate you/them. I fully believe that if you are being honest with yourself, you already know this if only from experience. You really need to streamline this anti-pvp on a pvp server nonsense, and cut it to a minimum, or better yet, cut it out altogether for the enjoyment of all.


I agree entirely, but I think the servers proposed rule set reflects that.


The more players find themselves in situations where you have tied their hands and refused to give them a chance to resolve their issues under their own power, the more unhappy your playerbase will become. Guess who's number they will be dialing when they all finally figure this out? I'll give you a hint - Not mine. Heres another clue: what do you think the players will do when they find themselves in a situation where you have refused to let them pvp out of it? Take a ride on Reading Railroad. If you pass go, collect $200. I am assuming you are wise enough to already know all of this. Is your intention to allow training? If not... well you might want to rethink.


I think its sort of funny that preventing training was a pro for the dynamic range in our internal discussion. The idea is that we can catch people training, but we want to prevent situations where people feel the need to train as the only recourse from stuff like OOR Healing or buffing. FFA would do this too, and would be much for effective at combating OOR healing, but you do understand why FFA is not some peoples cup of tea right?

I think that FFA would push more people away faster than it would keep/bring in. I also see the issues with a static range like +/-8, both systems have their issues and can detour a lot of people from playing. The dynamic range that we have (once the flagging issues are handled) solves most all issues found with -/+8 without dipping into the issues that FFA has. If we could flag people for shit talking then I think that would cover all possible reasons that you would want to kill someone outside of your static range.


And yes, let's be clear. I am excited about your sever, and if allowed, I will play. At least until it becomes clear that it isn't a pvp server, and I will begin to look for the real pvp server like everyone else.

You have not really done anything that would constitute not being able to play that I am aware of. Also you could also start your own real pvp server, not trying to be a dick just saying that to configure your server the way you want it would not take all that much coding knowledge.

[Null]

I have a question or two for Null.

How is the dynamic system going? Do the bugs seem easy enough to work out? Will it be ready to go at launch, do you think?

Yea it will be ready. Most of the bugs that people bring up are really simple fixes, its just a matter of finding dev time to do them.

[Softcore PK]

Thank you :)

[Macken]

I agree entirely, but I think the servers proposed rule set reflects that.

Restricting pvp in anyway does not reflect that. You are only fooling yourself. Hope your "in" basket is the size of a 3 ton dumpster.



I think its sort of funny that preventing training was a pro for the dynamic range in our internal discussion. The idea is that we can catch people training, but we want to prevent situations where people feel the need to train as the only recourse from stuff like OOR Healing or buffing. FFA would do this too, and would be much for effective at combating OOR healing, but you do understand why FFA is not some peoples cup of tea right?

If you are saying you realize the need to empower people to solve their own problems without GM pvp intervention, then i salute you. However, while seeming to understand one facet of the problem, your solution is to tepidly move in the right direction but to refuse to commit all the way to stamp out the foolishness once and for all. If that's the case, then it is encouraging, but it is hard to sit and watch you and your staff struggle when the right answer is in front of your eyes, especially considering some staff assumingly having already experienced the problem, but didn't learn the lesson.


I think that FFA would push more people away faster than it would keep/bring in. I also see the issues with a static range like +/-8, both systems have their issues and can detour a lot of people from playing. The dynamic range that we have (once the flagging issues are handled) solves most all issues found with -/+8 without dipping into the issues that FFA has. If we could flag people for shit talking then I think that would cover all possible reasons that you would want to kill someone outside of your static range.

That appears to be still up for debate, although why, I couldn't tell you. I can think of dozens if not hundreds of reasons why i would want to attack someone out of my static range-either above or below. Your policy will deny that opportunity. Please don't ask me to explain all those scenarios. If you do not know what some of them are, ask around. I have already figured out a few obvious adaptations to the backward anti-pvp rules. You can be sure i will be utilizing them in full. The rest of the population and staff will be playing catch-up. Won't it suck to realize your "fix" caused 3x the problems you thought you solved?



You have not really done anything that would constitute not being able to play that I am aware of. Also you could also start your own real pvp server, not trying to be a dick just saying that to configure your server the way you want it would not take all that much coding knowledge.

I never do. But that doesn't stop staff from taking out their frustrations on the players who understand how to use the system to their advantage. If i could code or had the money to pay someone, do you think i would spend my time on these forums educating?

[Samoht]

You coded +/- 7 (or someone did) on VZTZ and you couldn't find any pvp at all. There wasn't anyone in range. You log on. Check /who all. See no one. Log off. Server died. Going to go even faster with no /who all to check---Log on. check zone, check next zone over, check next zone after that, see people, waste time running over to find out they are all green. Get disgusted. Log off. Post on forums i told you so. Server dies.

Do you really need another History lesson?

I never played VZTZ, but

A) From what I hear, you are mistaken about why the server died
B) Did they have some kind of no /anon rule? You know everybody is either RP or anon on PVP servers, right?

[Macken]

servers die for all sorts of reasons. It's never just one thing.

If it all could be summed up in a nice package such as your infantile understanding suggests you think it should, it would come under the heading: Attrition.

[Null]

servers die for all sorts of reasons. It's never just one thing.

If it all could be summed up in a nice package such as your infantile understanding suggests you think it should, it would come under the heading: Attrition.

I'd go with 'hair dryer'.

[Dojii]

Zek is 4 level PVP range now. Zek has been 4 level PVP range for some 3-4 years now maybe more.

8 levels is alot of range especially for players new to PVP.

I think 5 level PVP range is good. 5-6.

[Melveny]

I never played VZTZ, but

A) From what I hear, you are mistaken about why the server died
B) Did they have some kind of no /anon rule? You know everybody is either RP or anon on PVP servers, right?

I would say th biggest Reason was all the server wipes. First one being necessary, others not so much.

If there was a second reason, Gronkus had a part to play and voids was never the greatest dev in vztz history.

And no there was not a anon feature, idea was to encourage pvp. It did don't get me wronge, but hated players like myself were hunted from zone to zone all day every day.

[Macken]

I'd go with 'hair dryer'.

What would Keegan say?

[Melveny]

Keegan would say "BAN"!

I kid,I kid. He would ban and say nothing!

Again I kid, Keegan was always I the background so idk.

He did forum ban me a few times, I deserved them.


No Puma's bans were a different story, that cat had it put for me omgz.

[Macken]

Why?



http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6523/94027998.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/94027998.png/)

[Melveny]

I wasn't banned for that! Nice SS though!

Most my bans were punishment from members, if u have SS of me than you would know that. And by most, all but 1. That 1 was from "fair fighters" fighting fair by manipulating a bind camp rule on a toon that should of been LnS, they instantly message puma lol.

[Dontmez_Mebro]

"Most of my bans" Let's just save the GM's some trouble and ban him now.

[Melveny]

Glad you pick and choose what you read.

[Melveny]

8 levels is also 2 caster spell level difference making pvp gap huge. Level 4, spell does like 5-20 dmg vs a level 12 spells do like 100 dmg. Instant Pvp lolz.

4 levels is 1 caster spell level difference

[Macken]

put your big boy pants back on Melv

[MakeYouMad]

Played EQ from late classic until whatever expansion came 5-6 years later on TZ. I remember being aggravated because the PvP part of the game was generally an afterthought and many changes were made for the sake of PvE that crippled PvP eventually.

Actually, PvP balance has always been fine between melees and hybrids. Wizards and necros have always been fine as well. The only real problem was resists getting high enough to make regular nukes useless from classes like druid, mage, enchanter, and cleric.

Therefore, a rational person would apply changes to direct damage resists to fix that problem instead of irrational, across the board changes that result in upgrades to every class that can cast spells (11 out of 14 classes).

[gloinz]

Actually, PvP balance has always been fine between melees and hybrids. Wizards and necros have always been fine as well. The only real problem was resists getting high enough to make regular nukes useless from classes like druid, mage, enchanter, and cleric.

Therefore, a rational person would apply changes to direct damage resists to fix that problem instead of irrational, across the board changes that result in upgrades to every class that can cast spells (11 out of 14 classes).

actually a rational person would ration his rations but i feel like eatting them all at once so that makes me irrational in ur view but not in my view naw mean dog

[L1ch]

you should just remove level restrictions really - Vanilla WoW PvP anyone?

[Melveny]

put your big boy pants back on Melv

Just pointing out the facts, IDC the range I will play regardless and wreck kids.

[Palemoon]

Any more word on tightening up the pvp range at the lower levels? Some people are already bragging about how they will just make level 12 wizards to shock of lighting lvl 4 noobs around Crushbone non stop.

[Macken]

Monsters live under your bed also.

[Palemoon]

Monsters live under your bed also.

Please try to provide helpful feedback and dispense with the personal attacks.

[Softcore PK]

The poll results have spoken. I bet they're working out a way for the level range to increase as players level.

[Macken]

Please try to provide helpful feedback and dispense with the personal attacks.

google "personal attacks", look at my post and write an apology and an essay length response on why you are confused.

[Melveny]

Idc I like the attenion

[Xareth]

The poll results have spoken. I bet they're working out a way for the level range to increase as players level.

Yes, good one softcore. 60/40 after 138 people is quite a landslide...

You want -/+ 2 with arena only pvp. Do you actually care about / want to pvp??

red99, not pink99 - there is already a p99

[Softcore PK]

Have you read my posts in this thread?

[Macken]

Yes, good one softcore. 60/40 after 138 people is quite a landslide...

You want -/+ 2 with arena only pvp. Do you actually care about / want to pvp??

red99, not pink99 - there is already a p99

+10