Discussion: +/- 8 Levels, Dynamic

[Yukahwa]

That will happen later Softcore. Not going to happen on Beta when people are just bombing around getting exploited by the broken dynamic range.

My characters worship bristlebane but pray to everquest demi god nilbog for a good ruleset.

[Palemoon]

+/- 8 level spread is too much, at least in the sub 40 game.

[Shrubwise]

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

Why not join/start a guild based on the premise that you're better, more honorable and kind than these people? Something like an anti guild, that takes time out of your day to help these poor defenseless noobs from the +8 gankers? A level 30+ buff class could seriously turn the tides of these CB brawls in favor of the peaceful elves not wanting to gank greens

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

[stonetz]

+- 8 sucks at lower levels but if it's a bitch to code something like: up to lvl 10 it's within 4 lvls of the lower person, up to 30 it's 6 and after that it's 8 then we just deal with +-8.

Dynamic sounds great, no oor healers. There is no perfect system. EQ (especially pvp) was always broken and I think this might be the purest it will ever get as long as someone isn't insanely OP.

I miss the good ol days on TZ and can't wait for this. Just wish I had the time to go balls out.

[Billbike]

Welcome to PvP. You will die. Suck it up or go back blue.


Just make it 8 level range,
NO exp loss.
NO itemloot.
NO teams.
Coin loot.

I and many others played for years with these rules on live, with the exception of NO teams.

[Palemoon]

xp loss (less then mob death though) for pvp is a good thing. Keeps everyone accountable no matter if they are naked or training or what.


IMHO, the only thing that needs to change at this point is tighten up the pvp level range in the sub 30 game.

If the low levels reverted to +/- 4 for pvp, i'd also get rid of the level one immunity in cities/noob yards, simply because I detest bots and all this would do is force people to create a bunch of level 1 trade bots.

Consider this:

= +/- 4 pvp range from level 1 to 20

= +/- 6 pvp range from level 21 to 40

= +/- 8 pvp range from level 41 to 60

= NO level limits in high level dungeons and raid zones (lvl 40 and up dungeons)

= coin loot, xp loss on death

= no safe zones, no safe cities, pvp starts at level 1, fix faction so people who want a "safe" city can work on maxing out their faction for guard protection for themselves

Launch

[Softcore PK]

Palemoon has the right idea about exp loss, level 1 pvp, no safe areas and faction. When it comes to level ranges, though, I think he's being a bit too conservative. +/- 4 until level 10 would be fine, with +/-8 starting at 11. Limiting the first 10 levels is more than generous enough.

Though.. I really do like my idea of VZ and TZ teams with +/- 8 until level 20 :P

[lindz]

The problem I have with the current system:

A level 35 and 43 group up and go into SolA. They level 35 can attack the level 27s xping there and does so. Once those 27s engage the level 35, they can now be attacked by his level 43 buddy. Now the 43 can slaughter the lowbies and give them xp loss.

I don't care if 40s can attack 20s, but I do think it is wrong that the example above can result in xp loss. I'm all for xp loss in pvp when there can actually be a fight, not just people ganking lowbies.

I would prefer a system that only had xp loss on a range of +/-5 instead of the huge level range we see now.

[Lazortag]

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

A level 35 and 43 group up and go into SolA. They level 35 can attack the level 27s xping there and does so. Once those 27s engage the level 35, they can now be attacked by his level 43 buddy. Now the 43 can slaughter the lowbies and give them xp loss.

...

This isn't how it's supposed to work; this is a bug.

[Softcore PK]

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

This isn't how it's supposed to work; this is a bug.

Is Rogean aware of these bugs?

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...&postcount=105