Discussion: PvP Deaths (Item/Coin/XP Loot/Gain) - Page 56

Softcore PK · #1 10-02-2011, 03:26 PM

I liked Knuckle's (I think him?) idea. Range of 2 levels from 2-10. 2 can attack 2-4, 10 can attack 8-12. Then it goes to 8, but not so they can attack the low levels. 11 can attack 9-19, 12 attack 9-20, etc.

Really though, I'm fine with level 10s being able to attack 2s like we have now. But we need to think of the bluebies who may quit over it. The more bluebies we have the better.

Bockscar · #2 10-02-2011, 03:32 PM

It's gonna be enormously irritating to be at a level where you can only attack someone up to two levels below you, but can be attacked by someone eight levels above you.

Personally, I just think PvP should start at level 6. There's no reason whatsoever to throw level 2-5s into PvP, it can by definition not result in anything but griefing because classes do not have the capacity to have meaningful PvP that early. All you'll get is a) characters with no investment at all randomly ganking eachother while trying to get the first few levels and b) level 12 mages camping the newbie gardens. You have practically no spells or skills that early, and you have so few HP you can be 3-shotted with a rusty scythe.

Softcore PK · #3 10-02-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

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

It's gonna be enormously irritating to be at a level where you can only attack someone up to two levels below you, but can be attacked by someone eight levels above you.

Personally, I just think PvP should start at level 6. There's no reason whatsoever to throw level 2-5s into PvP, it can by definition not result in anything but griefing because classes do not have the capacity to have meaningful PvP that early. All you'll get is a) characters with no investment at all randomly ganking eachother while trying to get the first few levels and b) level 12 mages camping the newbie gardens. You have practically no spells or skills that early, and you have so few HP you can be 3-shotted with a rusty scythe.

Anyone who's irritated that they can't gank low levels should level up imo.

Having pvp before level 6 is a great way to teach newbies that making friends is often more beneficial than making enemies. Those people within 2 levels fighting one another would probably be better off grouping and exping. And level 6 takes a little while, it's unfair to deny them the pvp experience just because you want to level without mages owning you. There's nothing quite like pitiful level 2 pvp lol.

Oooh, another idea! What if for the first 10 or 20 levels, those characters use the VZ or TZ (not VZTZ) ruleset? Elves can't attack elves, shorts can't attack shorts and so on. This would be even better imo. Let them feel somewhat safe with their own kind for a short while, so they can make some friends before being thrown into FFA. They could still group/guild with other teams without issue, and at a certain level (I like 20) they go real FFA. This will encourage the higher level (for newbie zones) players to assist their team against the higher levels from other teams griefing, and the 8 level limit won't need to be lowered to stop 2s from being ganked.

Quote:

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

4 levels until 50, 8 levels 51+? I still think it should be 4 levels with a modification for out of range healers/buffers (bard songs too) becoming in range for assisting.

4 levels is too small. There's a bigger range of people you exp with than that. 8 worked fine on live, what's the problem?

Nirgon · #4 10-02-2011, 04:07 PM

My arguments only exist for the purpose of lower level 'average Joe' players not getting griefed off the server. At lvl 6 having a 14 stomp you is no good. Would I be fine with it? Sure. Most people? /quit.

I also don't want to take away the option of being able to attack someone at lower levels. I just think an 8 level range is overkill under lvl 12.

Nirgon · #5 10-02-2011, 03:38 PM

4 levels until 50, 8 levels 51+? I still think it should be 4 levels with a modification for out of range healers/buffers (bard songs too) becoming in range for assisting.

Yukahwa · #6 10-02-2011, 03:45 PM

I think Bockscar is right and there is a reason that live switched it to level 6 after some time.

Softcore PK · #7 10-02-2011, 04:12 PM

Anyone that quits because they die at level 6 would prolly not make it very far here anyway :/

Yukahwa · #8 10-02-2011, 06:49 PM

Its just that level 14 killing level 6 is not fun. Its too easy for the level 14 to be any kind of challenge, and its too impossible for the level 6 to have a chance for it to be any fun for him except to avoid the death.

It works okay but its definitely worse than 4 levels.

I think more fair PVP (4 level range) with greater risks and rewards (single item loot) makes for a more exciting and competitive pvp environment.

Also there is an alternative to traditional single item loot (from equipped items..not held or range) is 1 random equipped item not from held or range will be lootable. This means you don't always get boned and lose your best piece..but there is some serious incentives to be careful and to keep your eyes open.

Softcore PK · #9 10-02-2011, 06:51 PM

4 levels is far too limiting. It only worked on RZ because everyone there was scared to pvp anyway (due to item loss).

Bockscar · #10 10-03-2011, 01:54 AM

Quote:

I think more fair PVP (4 level range) with greater risks and rewards (single item loot) makes for a more exciting and competitive pvp environment.

It'll probably do the exact opposite. A 4 level range rules out a huge chunk of potential PvP targets, and itemloot just reduces activity, population and PvP frequency all around. I don't see how you could ever think those two things would make for a more exciting PvP environment when it has been proven a million times that it does the opposite.