Discussion: +/- 8 Levels, Dynamic

[Rogean]

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

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

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

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

FFA 8 Level Spread.

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

EXAMPLE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tonomar]

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

[Harrison]

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

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

Yeah, exploiting the system is not a big deal. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[pasi]

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

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

agreeing with Dowork.

[Marglar]

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

[Cwall]

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

[Xantille]

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

[XiakenjaTZ]

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

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

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

[Scribbles]

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

[Misto]

-8/+8 in non-raid zones

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