PvP Range

[Rushmore]

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

I know there was a time when you could sneak a level 1 in Hate/Fear/Sky
but honestly, do you think they are going to allow that here? they didnt allow level 1's on P99... wish people would stop listing those zones
you could bind in P99 Fear for awhile tho

Hey sir.. sol b is a raid zone. Might as well do it now. Once 60 you will have 45's being spy's. True Pixels you should fight over. Don't be scared. Na'mean?

[Cwall]

+/- 8 is fine with me as long as it's not impossible to cast spells on people several levels higher than you.

[Bockscar]

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.

[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

[Palemoon]

8 level range, coupled with the futre slow xp/leveling creates too big of a divide in power in the sub 30 pvp game. There can be no real meaningful pvp between a level 5 and a level 13.

I'd like to see a tighter pvp range in the low levels and a broader pvp range in the higher levels.

If that is too much of a hassle to implement, i'd go with a +/- 5 pvp range and designate all high (44ish and up) level dungeons being FFA.

A five level range will keep pvp a lot more balanced, no trying to land spells on deep reds 8 levels above you. But I still think its important to keep the high level dungeons all FFA. Great risk, great reward, and all that.

[Pudge]

i agree with all the ppl saying it should scale to be +/- 4 at a lower level, and +/- 8 at 40+.

[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.

[Bockscar]

If that is too much of a hassle to implement, i'd go with a +/- 5 pvp range and designate all high (44ish and up) level dungeons being FFA.

We might as well start off with a system that's also viable once we move into Kunark. +/-5 does not work for level 40+ and it's only pre-Kunark that all the high-level content is conveniently crammed into a few zones. There are Kunark zones where you can go more or less from 45 to 60 but in different areas, and it would suck to have them all be FFA. The system has to be applicable for Kunark and Velious as well since we will eventually progress and they can't invent a new system at that point if it still has to work for the old world as well. I say decide on the system now and stick with it forever. FFA in solb will just be retarded in the future when level 43s are trying to grind and level 60s come in to grief them. +/-8 pretty much ensures that people who are doing content suited to their level can always PvP against others doing the same. It's not so much about guaranteeing balanced fights, it's about making sure you don't get into situations where you would compete with someone over some spawn in lguk but can't because he's 44 and you're 50. FFA in high-level zones only works pre-Kunark where there's pretty much no zone except maybe HHK and OOT where people will XP at wildly different levels. Most of the Kunark zones where you go to hit 60 are also inhabited by people in their late 40s and such.

[Softcore PK]

I voted yes for +/- 8, and I think it would be fine at all levels. I played this way on live and had no serious issues.

If possible, though, +/- 4 until level 10, then +/- 8 would be perfect. Don't make the 8 range happen too late like some posters are wanting, it would seriously limit the amount of pvp that takes place.

[mitic]

remove hell lvls and iam fine with 8 lvl difference