PvP game level ranges

**asommers** · 07-07-2010, 12:34 AM

Currently, players are grouped for PvP games within specific level ranges: 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, ..., 40-44, 45-49. Unfortunately, this prevents a level 44 from playing a level 45 character. I could do a couple of things:

1) Remove level restrictions entirely. This would allow a level 1 character to play a level 45 character. In effect, this would show all PvP games in the list.

2) Show games within a 5 level range centered around the level of the player that created the game. If a level 20 character created a game, anyone level 18-22 could enter.

Asking the host for options isn't possible without a client patch, so I'm looking for something that can be done server-side.

Thoughts?

-ALS

**Cascade** · 07-07-2010, 12:39 AM

I like the 2nd option cuz i dont want a lvl 1 playing with me and my friends.

**Banned** · 07-07-2010, 12:40 AM

Remove it entirely. If a noob wants to join and get an old school *** whoopin', let them.

Seriously though, I know a few lowbies that can probably hold their own against higher level players.

**bmc85uk** · 07-07-2010, 12:49 AM

I'd say 1, the person can always leave and until host choice is added (I hope you will be adding it) it gives the most freedom.

P.S have a look at this (please) :-p

**asommers** · 07-07-2010, 12:53 AM

The problem with anyone able to join is the other way around where a high-level player joins to grief a low-level match (rather than a low-level player joining to play a high-level match).

-ALS

**Banned** · 07-07-2010, 12:59 AM

Boot.

Nuff said.

And if you're wondering how to boot an opponent, leave the game, join the other team, boot.

**ratava** · 07-07-2010, 03:09 AM

I don't have that great a deal of experience of PvP in other games, so some players might have a better idea who do, but as you suggest a solution for "time-being" ie Option 1 or Option 2, what would be most conducive to PvP growth/games played probably depends on number of potential matches available & how often.

EG: If 500 ppl are online average at any one time, taking a stab in the dark, maybe 1/10th of that number want PvP to join or set-up, 50ppl say. ATM level restrictions 0-4, 5-9..., 40-44, 45. partition another 10 separations (if u assume an even distribution of player levels) in the 50 keen PvPers: So each lvl now only has 5 potential players! Let alone if one of these chooses a PvP arena that maybe the others do not have??

This is also confounded if ppl do not all decide in the same window of opportunity that a PvP match would be their choice to check if any are running or set-up a match, wait for up to 5mins become bored if none join & pull the plug...

So, it seems to me, I'd suggest Option 1 - Lift restrictions, get a PvP community going, at the risk of gankers, mismatches, hopefully some ppl will be able to organise around these troubles with the expectation of improvements in the dev pipeline?

The extreme Worst Case Scenario (WCS): Lvl 45 ganks anyone playing for free Lvl 1-13 who do not know the game very well, & may be discouraged is worth considering especially if Lvls 40-45 & Lvls 1-13 are some if the highest cohorts in the game, then that could very unbalanced and most games somehow end up with this mismatch due to this skew. But that's just looking at, as far as I can see, the WCS.

On a personal note, I'd play PvP if more matches pop, and expect a steep learning curve mixed in with a few fortunate well-balanced games.

But I guess this to be a stop-gap solution, so Option 1: Open to All is my best answer.

**roguedubb** · 07-07-2010, 03:24 AM

I like the idea of a 5 level range (43-47 for a 45). This keeps the level range competitive and stops any potential need for faffing about jumping teams and booting (and any potential whining like, 'But we had a level 1, of course we lost!'). Once PVP gets more established it would be a shame to see people discouraged from exploring PVP when not at the level cap.

**Kingofthebear** · 07-07-2010, 03:44 AM

The 5 level range idea is a great one. I'd be for that, definitely.

**maneut** · 07-07-2010, 03:59 AM

Think Option 2 sounds more practical.

**Barbamitsos** · 07-07-2010, 04:16 AM

Agreee with (1). I wanted to check the pvp at lvl 39 and all my friend were like 42-45 and i couldnt... So anyway if someone wants to get a lvl 1 who joined off just press /boot name
ANOTHER reason is that at a pvp comp it would be easier for people to attend it cause there wouldn't be lvl restriction and he would learn how to pvp an like it so more will come in pvps (which now have like 10 standard players everytime)

**roguedubb** · 07-07-2010, 04:22 AM

I suspect a lowbie would not be attracted to PVP after being trounced by level capped players, but hey, it takes all types.

**ratava** · 07-07-2010, 05:01 AM

Have had a think about this, from the other Option 2 pov, now... It's very dependent on just how disproportionate the levels are to each other if a lot matches lead to mismatches. Guess that's the judgement of the devs' right now testing the levels duking each other? But if that's the case, how do teams that are say

3/5th's high-Lvl + 2/5th's low-Lvl players stack-up or some variation or balance of??

Because if that leads to

1st: more ppl playing
2nd: workable & balanced
3rd: maybe even more strategy by players to protect lower levels or a skillful low-lvl makes the difference etc

A lot of guesses, but overall if the right balance exists then you know what, team PvP games could become more popular and good fun.

I have yet to play a lot of 5v5 games, some 3v3 and some 1v1 but often a mismatch of numbers eg 3v1 or 2 skilled pvp'ers vs 1 low skill player lol.

So even if the proportional difference in powers [damage, health] between levels larger than a 5 gap difference there appear to still be positive factors to compensate this? Of if top-end pvp'ers are very organised it will be a more flexible system as Mrs Banana above points out, our resident pvp champ ; )

If messages could be added for low level new players to warn them about PvP and using the /boot "name" cmd that would prevent too much frustration if they feel the system is set-up to exploit them?? This could help reduce misunderstanding in these situations?

More comments from pvp'ers needed. This speculation could wide off the mark...

**bmc85uk** · 07-07-2010, 05:25 AM

In which case, might I suggest a bigger level range, say 9/7, so that. 45 could fight down to 41 (or 42).

Base stats don't change a huge amount with the current mechanics, it's mostly down to gear, so you'll always have those borders at 35/40.

**ratava** · 07-07-2010, 06:09 AM

Is that do-able server-side, as well? A bigger level range? Eg 1-9, 10-19 ?

So making the lists of PvP games which APPEAR based around wider level ranges??

**Pvp King** · 07-07-2010, 06:13 AM

I perfer the 2nd one. Due to the fact that the pvp competion that I'm host had to be restricted to level 45 only because the levels lower then 45 are unable to join. Even though they don't stand as much of a chance but they can still join and there only like a 1-3 level dffrence. I like the idea of just who ever creater his level will make the group go from 2 levels down and 2 levels up. That sounds like the best idea to me but that is intiererley my opinion.

**ratava** · 07-07-2010, 06:53 AM

That's the conundrum, I figure tho.

Eg PvP set at the optimum lvl ranges ie natural borders per 5 levels due to gear boosts (From PvE), therefore this type of game should work to bring out skill with no/min handicap.

But until bespoke game creations, there's too few players doin PvP, which tends towards no players doin PvP if it's a negative trend ie more matches make more games etc.

So reducing the limitations for the time-being should boost numbers but this could affect quality of PvP due to handicap differences.

So would a middle-way between Option 1 & 2 be workable? Ie extend level ranges or would that be no advantages with the same old disadvantages?

Can't comment more, need to understand the mechanic a lot more than I do plus wonder if the devs' have logs on the number of PvP games played with the current system and how much that can be boosted by Option 1 or Option 2...

Solution? Extend Level Differences eg 1-9: Option 1.5

; )