PvP Range

[Xantille]

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

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]

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

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? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[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.