PvP Range

[Amuk]

6 sounds fine to me w/e if this will stop ppl from crying.

[Arillious]

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

I'll talk the incremental natural range over with the others. I'm thinking something like this..

+/- 4 until 20
5 until 40
6 until 50
8 51+

two players able to attack eachother would be determined by the lowest level player's range. Still affected by the dynamic range system.

I'm not against lowering the range from levels 1-20. 8 levels is to much and there's no reason someone 8 levels higher or lower should rightfully be in the same area.

I'm very concerned with limiting it to 5 from 20-40. A level 33 could very easily be in the same area as a lvl 39 rightfully competing for something and not be able to fight eachother using that system. I want to avoid this situation.

Personally, I think after 30 you can really raise it. At that level, even if someone is 8 levels above you, you should have the tools to either avoid the fight, get away, or call for assistance. You should not get completely destroyed without any way to defend yourself, which is what this whole system is in place to prevent.

[Nirgon]

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

Untrue. I want 8 level range, and am opposed to yellow text and global ooc.

Rogean, if you're going to go with a level range system that scales up as you level, please don't make it scale so slowly as you're proposing. Keep in mind that max level will be 50 for a while, and at least make it 8 levels at 42. A 42 stands a good chance against a 50. Please don't fall prey to the false ideology that meaningful pvp only happens at max level. Most of the players here seem to be trying to make pvp scarce until they get to be a high level, so they can level in bluebie bliss.

PvP is great at any level, and an 8 range is honestly not that drastic (except at very low levels).

I don't know if dying to a single spell falls under the category of good chance. There will certainly be lots of pvp if someone is also xping in the same zone as you with a 4 level difference. I'm not solely trying to cater to the poor saps who have never played on a pvp server at all before. The new player experience will still definitely hurt their feelings if they're average tough pvp'er, even at 4 levels. 8 is just crazy before lvl 30. It's great for griefing though, let me be honest.

Maybe I just think the people you're able to attack and coin loot (or lose their coin by destroying it, see: bagging items, same fucking thing) should have some semblance of a chance of a fighting back at all. But, meaningful pvp aside, go ahead with 8 lvls at 4-30 and see what up. This whole "the server is blue unless its 8 lvls" or "pvp is ruined" is absolutely crazy.

[Forestdweller]

Graduated pvp range as you level.
Level 1-20 +-2
Level 21-30 +-3
Level 31-40 +-5
Level 40-50 +-8

[Nirgon]

+2 way too small

[Softcore PK]

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

I don't know if dying to a single spell falls under the category of good chance.

Like what spell? Can't be a nuke, those will be capped. A powerful dot maybe?

[Bockscar]

An uncured ebolt probably kills just about any unbuffed caster, or at least brings them down to like one bubble if they wear HP gear. Same with ignite blood, although that's dispellable and far too slow for that to be much of a concern. Winged death in Kunark also kills if undispelled. I guess only newbies would eat a full WD, but on the other hand pure melees could run out of pumice.

[Softcore PK]

So it's a class balancing issue, not a level range issue. People shouldn't be prevented from having fun and engaging fights just because certain classes are OP.

[Bockscar]

Eh, didn't even bother to look for the context.

[Sarkov]

XP loss for much beyond +/- 5/6 levels is annoying, but I agree - you want to promote as much pvp as possible on a server like this. More than just being fun (at least to some), pvp should also be the primary dispute resolution mechanism. For that to work, anyone xping in a certain area should be pvpable by others looking to xp or camp items in that area.

A "scaling" range addresses that somewhat, but IMO is a heavy-handed solution born out of trying to solve two unrelated problems at once. A more elegant solution is to embrace the idea of losing XP only to a range of mostly "fair" matchups (IE +/- 4-5 levels), but allow people to fight others in a much broader level range, +/- 10, 20, or even total FFA.

If a level 50 warrior and cleric want to camp the ancient croc in upper guk, we should be able to kill the level 35 wizard sitting on the camp and take it from him. He shouldn't lose XP, but he should lose the camp. Under the current rules, the level 35 could KS the two level 50s to his heart's content. That's just not in keeping with the spirit of a pvp server, IMO.