PvP Range

[Cwall]

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

[Aenor]

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

just make raid zones no pvp range. problem solved.
[hate,fear,sky,sol b, permafrost, kedge]

Kinda agree.

Edit: Add lguk

[Barn]

I would prefer 4-6 at the lower levels. 1 spell level up, I have a chance against someone.
In the 20's or 30's I have more options against an 8 level gap.
Of course, raid zones and solB,LGuk should be wide open.

Thanks!
Moran

[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.

[lindz]

Would prefer +/- 4 or 5. Eight level range is totally fine at high end, but before 50 it just feels brutal.

[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+.

[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