PvP range fix?

[Ilikedagunz2]

In my opinion the pvp range for tl5 players is ridiculous, considering a 174 can be attacked by a 219 (who has leveled with 5x the amount of skill increases since 201). Taking into account the skill increases, it's really 174 vs 295. This is an incredibly large pvp range and makes for tl5 battles (tower or otherwise) to have the ability to be decided by someone tl7 in a grossly unfair and unbalanced way.

The lowest level that can pvp a level 200 is a level 159; only a 41 level difference. The difference in skill between a 174 and a 219 is equivalent to 121 levels. The scaling is monstrously exponential, and would only make sense if 201+'s leveled with the same skill raises as a pre-201 does.

I propose that the tl7 pvp ranges be much smaller, to reflect the massive increase in skills and perks that post-200's have over everyone lower.

I created a spreadsheet. You can view it here.

Questions/comments/constructive feedback invited <3

"lol stop whining cuz you got pwned at towers on your tl5 by my tl7" isn't constructive.

EDIT: To further clarify, as the spreadsheet is somewhat confusing...

The way FC made the pvp ranges for 201+ is the same way they did it for every other level: the gap between players is the same for 4 levels, then the gap increases by 1 and stays that way for another 4 levels, and so on. IE: The gap between players will be X for, say, levels 150-153. The gap for levels 154-157 will be X+1, and 158-161 will be X+2, and so on.

However, since you can raise your skills 5x more per level after level 200, the gap between players becomes extreme, since a 201 is equivalent to a level 205, and a 210 is equivalent to a level 250, and a 220 equivalent to a level 300.

My proposed change to the PvP ranges is to keep the same formula, but to apply it as if the 210 player really WAS level 250, for the sake of consistency.

The way I came to the ranges I did was change all shadowlevels to what level they were equivalent to, and applied FC's range formula, and rounded down wherever possible. You can see the end result in the spreadsheet.

Again, please refrain from making insulting/worthless comments like Snoop has given us a beautiful example of.

EDIT (again): If you don't like this suggestion, take a look at this one:

Big bump.

The best and by far easiest way to fix this is to add a title level check.
This idea was invented by yours truly and posted in tons of threads already.

It would work like this: You can only attack your own TL, one above and one under. This is in addition to the regular level check!

It will in reality only affect tl7 vs tl5. Which is exactly what is needed.

The highest a 174, or any other tl5 for that matter would face would be level 204. 204 is still quite potent compared to a tl5, but it's not an automatic win against any numbers like a 214.

It also solves the problem with 174's healed by 215+.

Someone will inevitably say: Wut about all the 189 twinks that will spring?

189 is nothing. You're capped at 170 ish already so all you get is another perk and some nanos. And a 189 can't do bs so I don't think there will be many of those.

Thank you.

[Snoopdooog]

174 is for noobs.

[Cheree]

Restricting pvp ranges to the ql of the towersite makes most sense to me. Outside NW however, it's a balance between having a big enough range to be able to fight other players, but low enough to give everyone a chance of being marginally effective. Even then, it'll stll be unfair given the circumstances and professions. A lvl 150 advy fighting a lvl 150 shade is unfair. How does it compare to a fight between a lvl 170 enfo vs a 207 crat?

Also, players have made decisions in the past based on these pvp ranges. They knew what they were getting into. If they didn't, it's not excusable. Changing the pvp ranges is unfair to those who twinked at a certain lvl because of the pvp ranges.

You give the example of a 174 vs a 219 as a 121 lvls of difference. Another example, less suitable to your case is a lvl 165 vs a 207, a 61 lvl difference. Then take that same 207 vs a 220, a 65 lvl difference. The 207 is more disadvantaged than you when it comes to your respective upper pvp range lvl restrictions.

[Ilikedagunz2]

Restricting pvp ranges to the ql of the towersite makes most sense to me. Outside NW however, it's a balance between having a big enough range to be able to fight other players, but low enough to give everyone a chance of being marginally effective. Even then, it'll stll be unfair given the circumstances and professions. A lvl 150 advy fighting a lvl 150 shade is unfair. How does it compare to a fight between a lvl 170 enfo vs a 207 crat?

Also, players have made decisions in the past based on these pvp ranges. They knew what they were getting into. If they didn't, it's not excusable. Changing the pvp ranges is unfair to those who twinked at a certain lvl because of the pvp ranges.

You give the example of a 174 vs a 219 as a 121 lvls of difference. Another example, less suitable to your case is a lvl 165 vs a 207, a 61 lvl difference. Then take that same 207 vs a 220, a 65 lvl difference. The 207 is more disadvantaged than you when it comes to your respective upper pvp range lvl restrictions.

Some good points. Bringing professions into it is pretty unrelated though, because those don't have to do with the level of the prof as it does that prof's toolset. Profs are good at some levels, dominate at some, and are terrible at others. I believe that's widely accepted.

Yes, changing the PvP ranges is unfair to those who have twinked at it, but it's also unfair for a 210 agent to bring a swathe of instakilling destruction to a tl5 battle. Maybe that's a little extreme, but the point remains. The people who twink tl7s for the sole purpose of killing tl5s are just taking advantage at the gigantic gap in skills the two players have. Those are the only -players this change would affect negatively. Unless I'm mistaken, the reason there are 165 twinks instead of 170 is to stay out of the PvP range of tl7s who live to kill tl5s.

The problem is, people have accepted this broken system, and found ways to work around it by tweaking the levels they twink at. Sure, it allows for more creative twinking, but that doesn't change the unfairness in a tl7 attacking a tl5 at all. Not everyone who goes to a towerbattle is a twink, after all. Or hell, they could be a 170+ twink because of IP problems their profession has, or that they made the twink for BS rather than towers, but still go to towers anyway. Blaming the player that someone 60+ levels higher than them killed them is a bit unfair.

With the changes I've proposed, the largest gap in levels is 50, appearing at 195 and 200-210. Since this is a smaller range than it was to begin with, and the equipment and perks a 200-210 has access to, I can't imagine this would create any complaints by those players.

[tweeeek]

dont make 174 twinks

problem solved

[Matammyr]

200s used to be able to attack down to 75. Changes need to be made, taking into consideration the decisions of people who, for lack of a better term, manipulated the current situation for their own benefit, would be counterproductive to say the least.

[Ilikedagunz2]

dont make 174 twinks

problem solved

Okay. What about 173? And 170? Another worthless contribution.

200s used to be able to attack down to 75. Changes need to be made, taking into consideration the decisions of people who, for lack of a better term, manipulated the current situation for their own benefit, would be counterproductive to say the least.

Why would this be a bad change, though? I can't see how changing the ranges so that everyone in every range has SOME kind of chance against the person attacking them would be a negative thing.

Yeah, 200s used to be able to attack down to 75. Used to. They changed it because it's ridiculous. However, that's less unfair than a 220 attacking a 175, considering the gear and perks a 220 has over a 175.

[Matammyr]

I don't think you read that right. I support a reevaluation of pvp level ranges.

[Ilikedagunz2]

I don't think you read that right. I support a reevaluation of pvp level ranges.

Nope, I guess I didn't <3. The huge sentence spliced by commas made my head spin a little. Got it now though lol.

Thanks.

[Cheree]

I still feel there should be a balance. The direction you're heading at is to make pvp encounters the fairest as possible, as far as ip and perk actions go. We can't and shouldn't overdo it by making the lvl range single digit for every lvl. The larger the range, the more unfair it is (all other variables remaning constant). AO doesn't have a flat lvling curve. In other words, a gain of one level does not always correspond to the same gain at every range. You can't just look at ip and the number of perks. There's IP caps that you hit when you near certain TL milestones, there's armor, nanos, and perks that get unlocked. If I may go to the extreme of your suggestion, imagine if the proposition was a 1+/- level range at every level. A 189 fighting a 190 would be an unfair fight because of HHAB. A 206 vs a 207, unfair because of Mongo Rage. On the other hand, a lvl 163 vs a 164 wouldnt be so unbalanced. Also, smaller ranges means less people to fight.

You'll be at a disadvantage no matter what level you twink at. Is the gap too large? Maybe. I believe the worst pvp range is between 175 and 206. The advantage you gain against players lower than you is not worth the risk of being hit by 220s. I'd be more afraid of pvping at 175 than 170. Players who twink need to make this risk/reward assessment before lvling, taking into consideration the current dynamics and social makeup of the game. "If I go from 169 to 170, I'll gain a perk to be more effective vs 165s, but do I want to open myself up to the 214 twinks?"

I personally feel that if the guy you're scared to death from is also scared to death, then it's fair.

[Ilikedagunz2]

I still feel there should be a balance. The direction you're heading at is to make pvp encounters the fairest as possible, as far as ip and perk actions go. We can't and shouldn't overdo it by making the lvl range single digit for every lvl. The larger the range, the more unfair it is (all other variables remaning constant). AO doesn't have a flat lvling curve. In other words, a gain of one level does not always correspond to the same gain at every range. You can't just look at ip and the number of perks. There's IP caps that you hit when you near certain TL milestones, there's armor, nanos, and perks that get unlocked. If I may go to the extreme of your suggestion, imagine if the proposition was a 1+/- level range at every level. A 189 fighting a 190 would be an unfair fight because of HHAB. A 206 vs a 207, unfair because of Mongo Rage. On the other hand, a lvl 163 vs a 164 wouldnt be so unbalanced. Also, smaller ranges means less people to fight.

You'll be at a disadvantage no matter what level you twink at. Is the gap too large? Maybe. I believe the worst pvp range is between 175 and 206. The advantage you gain against players lower than you is not worth the risk of being hit by 220s. I'd be more afraid of pvping at 175 than 170. Players who twink need to make this risk/reward assessment before lvling, taking into consideration the current dynamics and social makeup of the game. "If I go from 169 to 170, I'll gain a perk to be more effective vs 165s, but do I want to open myself up to the 214 twinks?"

I personally feel that if the guy you're scared to **** from is also scared to ****, then it's fair.

What I'm proposing is that the ranges be scaled according to how many times more powerful everyone past level 200 is than pre-200. Level locks on items, nanos, perks, etc have nothing to do with this, and before BS, I'm fairly sure people made twinks at certain levels BECAUSE of level locks on items and perks, and to counter a twink someone else made at a lower level.

I'm also failing to see what argument you're making. Who said anything about making the range a single digit? My proposal is to even the ranges out more than they are. AO has a pattern (at least from what I can tell) determining what level can PvP what, and it follows that curve quite nicely.

Is what you're proposing, or arguing, or whatever, is that PvP ranges should reflect equipment, TL milestones, and perks? I don't know why you even mentioned that; it's completely irrelevant.

Again, all I'm saying is that FC made a mistake with the way they scale the PvP ranges, and I gave a logical change to it, using the formula they've been using this entire time.

[Cheree]

What I'm proposing is that the ranges be scaled according to how many times more powerful everyone past level 200 is than pre-200. Level locks on items, nanos, perks, etc have nothing to do with this, and before BS, I'm fairly sure people made twinks at certain levels BECAUSE of level locks on items and perks, and to counter a twink someone else made at a lower level.

How can nanos and locks have nothing to do with pvp ranges? I'm pointing out the difficulty in setting ranges because there are many factors to consider. Effective levels (IP+Perks) being only a part of the analysis.

I'm also failing to see what argument you're making. Who said anything about making the range a single digit? My proposal is to even the ranges out more than they are. AO has a pattern (at least from what I can tell) determining what level can PvP what, and it follows that curve quite nicely.

By evening out, you're proposing to reduce. The purpose of having a smaller pvp range is to make it more fair. Taking that to the extreme means having everyone the same lvl. Even one level of pvp difference, depending on what lvls you're talking about, can be pretty devastating.

Is what you're proposing, or arguing, or whatever, is that PvP ranges should reflect equipment, TL milestones, and perks? I don't know why you even mentioned that; it's completely irrelevant.

It shouldn't be irrelevant. It should be considered. However, given the complexity of making a system that takes all of this into consideration, I would...
1. Make the pvp ranges at NW reflect the ql lvl of the sites
2. Make sure that every twink of every level puts fear into someone of lower lvl, and fears someone higher. I believe AO is achieving this for all lvls but 175-206.

This isn't an argument for or against your suggestion. It's just my point of view on pvp level ranges.

[Ilikedagunz2]

How can nanos and locks have nothing to do with pvp ranges? I'm pointing out the difficulty in setting ranges because there are many factors to consider. Effective levels (IP+Perks) being only a part of the analysis.


By evening out, you're proposing to reduce. The purpose of having a smaller pvp range is to make it more fair. Taking that to the extreme means having everyone the same lvl. Even one level of pvp difference, depending on what lvls you're talking about, can be pretty devastating.


It shouldn't be irrelevant. It should be considered. However, given the complexity of making a system that takes all of this into consideration, I would...
1. Make the pvp ranges at NW reflect the ql lvl of the sites
2. Make sure that every twink of every level puts fear into someone of lower lvl, and fears someone higher. I believe AO is achieving this for all lvls but 175-206.

This isn't an argument for or against your suggestion. It's just my point of view on pvp level ranges.

Why would you take my argument to the extreme? That's...well, extreme. :P

The system you've proposed would be much more complex, and outdated once new equipment came out.

But speaking of NW, I've realized that my change would completely eff up towers, since they use the same system as PvP. I suppose the towers keeping the old system would be the best solution.

[tweeeek]

Okay. What about 173? And 170? Another worthless contribution.

its called learning your pvp range and not going for a level that is ultimately going to get you raped.

there's reason why theres no 99 twinks or 147 twinks ect.

if you want a tl5 twink not gankable by tl7s its called 160-164

[Ilikedagunz2]

its called learning your pvp range and not going for a level that is ultimately going to get you raped.

there's reason why theres no 99 twinks or 147 twinks ect.

if you want a tl5 twink not gankable by tl7s its called 160-164

That doesn't change the fact that it's a broken system.

tl5 isn't just 160-174. It goes AAAALLL the way up to 189. In case you forgot.

[Ilikedagunz2]

bump

[Ilikedagunz2]

bump

[Troxxor]

I agree PvP level ranges are in need of adjustment.

A simple solution might be: pvp range = title level range

[Ilikedagunz2]

That could cause a lot of problems for level 16-30ish twinks though, being able to be attacked by 49s.

[Troxxor]

Ah true, I guess it's a big difference at that level.

OK, putting a little more thought into it, how about cut lower TLs in half & this to make lvl 200 fr00b twinks worthwhile:

Start	End	Effective Lvl Range
1	7	7
8	15	8
15	32	18
33	50	18
51	75	25
76	100	25
101	125	25
126	150	25
151	175	25
176	200	25
201	210	50
211	220	50

Lol 2 or 3 fr00b twinks might actually be able to take down a paid player