[georgie]

Originally Posted by Bockscar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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