PvP Range

[Yukahwa]

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

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]

Originally Posted by Rust1d? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

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

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...

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

+/- 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.