The Problem with PvP Level Balance

[Chereee]

I missed your post Scottik, sorry.

The problem is that 1 shadow level is not equal to 1 regular level. 1 shadow level is equal to 5 regular levels based on IPs and to 10 regular levels based on perks! Not to mention the access to tons of new armor, weapons, symbiants and most of all to LE70/AI30.

The problem is that 1 regular level is not equal to 1 regular level!

The power difference between level 164 and 165 is not the same as 165 to 166. The power difference between 206 and 207 is not the same between 207 and 208. Your chart does good at representing the difference between the number of regular levels, but that's it. You don't buy a house based on the number of rooms without taking a look first. What you thought was a mansion may just turn out to be a closet. The IP you get from level 1->2 isn't the same as 150->151 either. IP cost between skill points isn't the same. Going from a lvl1 perk to a lvl2 perk isn't the same as going from lvl9 perk to a lvl10 perk.

Everything from breed caps, to TL caps, to equipment, to unlocked weapons, nanos, perks, to ip cost.. everything has to be taken into consideration. Basing it on the difference between levels has flaws, and accepting those flaws because it fits some mathematical formula is whack. The difference in regular levels is an indication of power, but it shouldn't be followed religiously to determine the ranges. Basing it on what risk people are willing to accept vs what they gain is a better indication of what's viable and what's not. Being subjective and looking at the power changing benchmarks is a better way of going about it, without ignoring what happens when you enter the SLs.

nerf, my last post is at the bottom of last page just like yours

[Scottik]

If it's broken now, why do people still roll twinks in that range? Makes no sense. 'I didn't know the pvp ranges' isn't an excuse either.

I haven't made any excuses. I'm giving you facts, numbers, charts and bit of basic sense.

I feel thinking -only- about IP/Perks is the wrong way to go about it. You should also take into consideration what gets unlocked at certain levels, because that's one huge factor the higher level you get.

Well, yeah but that only supports my theory why TL7s shouldn't be able to attack TL5s, doesn't it? Since you gain more powerful stuffs at higher levels.

My attempt at a pvp range adjustment:
220 should attack down to 215 (nanodeck and db nanos).
215 should attack down to 207 (mongorage).
207 should attack down to 190 (hhab).
190 should attack down to 165 (unlocked nanos).

LOX not taken into consideration here cause I quit before it came out. XD

This suggestion has the purpose to fix the 171-206 range, not the 165-170 lvls because they're not broken. To make them viable, they need to have something to gain (like HHAB), but not have too much risk like being open to 220s. I feel being open to 207s is an adequate risk. Since 207s lose the ability to gank 165s, they should accept less risk. Less risk means not being ganked by 220s.

Whatever love TL5 get from this suggestion is incidental. I personnaly don't think it's love because 189 will be the new 164. And some will go 190 for HHAB to get an edge, just like the 165s-170s do now, then complain again in a similar thread to this one about how 207 vs 190 is imba.

I ain't sure bout your suggestion above but at least there's some logic involved.

[Scottik]

I missed your post Scottik, sorry.


The problem is that 1 regular level is not equal to 1 regular level!

The power difference between level 164 and 165 is not the same as 165 to 166. The power difference between 206 and 207 is not the same between 207 and 208. Your chart does good at representing the difference between the number of regular levels, but that's it. You don't buy a house based on the number of rooms without taking a look first. What you thought was a mansion may just turn out to be a closet. The IP you get from level 1->2 isn't the same as 150->151 either. IP cost between skill points isn't the same. Going from a lvl1 perk to a lvl2 perk isn't the same as going from lvl9 perk to a lvl10 perk.

Everything from breed caps, to TL caps, to equipment, to unlocked weapons, nanos, perks, to ip cost.. everything has to be taken into consideration. Basing it on the difference between levels has flaws, and accepting those flaws because it fits some mathematical formula is whack. The difference in regular levels is an indication of power, but it shouldn't be followed religiously to determine the ranges. Basing it on what risk people are willing to accept vs what they gain is a better indication of what's viable and what's not. Being subjective and looking at the power changing benchmarks is a better way of going about it, without ignoring what happens when you enter the SLs.

nerf, my last post is at the bottom of last page just like yours

I'm not gonna reply to every statement you made here but lemme answer in short.
Yes, I used regular levels as indication of power because taking all other things into consideration is just not possible (you can hardly include all these informations in chart at least). It's simply the easier and the best way to demonstrate the difference between "regular levels" and shadow level even if it's not accurate.
And as you said - the more higher level you are the more better/powerful items you get. That means it only makes the gap between TL5 and TL7 bigger (TLs we are concerned about). And that only supports my theory. But now I'm just repeating myself

[RedWatr]

treat each Shadowlevel like 5 regular levels when taking into account pvp level ranges, and make the adjustment, that should create a more realistic balance. leave the rest as it is.

or maybe for a different approach open all levels to attack and make the adjustment in dmg caps.

[Chereee]

And as you said - the more higher level you are the more better/powerful items you get. That means it only makes the gap between TL5 and TL7 bigger (TLs we are concerned about). And that only supports my theory. But now I'm just repeating myself

In general yes, but not at every range and for every attribute. Considering the TL5 cap, according to Chrys, that kicks in at 163. That means, the max skill you can get by IP alone is absolutely 0 from that point forward until lvl 190. Meaning there's no difference between a 163 and a 190 when looking at max skill obtainable by IP expenditure, which is directly linked to gains in regular levels. Read NO GAIN / LVL for this attribute, how is that widening the gap?

It's not the only thing to look at, but it's an example.

Here's another disproving that every level gain is better than the previous. Looking at agent perks, the assassin perkline has a much bigger gain from 6 to 7 perk investments (gaining concusive shot) than from 7 to 8 perk investments. Again, how is that widening the gap the higher level you are?

Example that supports your statement, you gain more IP per level as you level. Counter example to that, you spend more ip per skill the higher skilled you are.

Of couse you get more powerful the higher level you get, but the gap doesn't necessarily become wider because of levels alone. The way I go about determining what's a good and what's a bad range is more substantial as I'm measuring what's actually happening than what a narrow formula says should happen. It's the decisions players make that make up my opinion of player ranges. They decide what risk/reward they are willing to take. They decide what's balanced by what they do, not what they say.

[Klod9003]

My attempt at a pvp range adjustment:
220 should attack down to 215 (nanodeck and db nanos).
215 should attack down to 207 (mongorage).
207 should attack down to 190 (hhab).
190 should attack down to 165 (unlocked nanos).

This makes almost perfect sense and not only because of those things in brackets.

[Chrys]

In general yes, but not at every range and for every attribute. Considering the TL5 cap, according to Chrys, that kicks in at 163. That means, the max skill you can get by IP alone is absolutely 0 from that point forward until lvl 190. Meaning there's no difference between a 163 and a 190 when looking at max skill obtainable by IP expenditure, which is directly linked to gains in regular levels. Read NO GAIN / LVL for this attribute, how is that widening the gap?

Er because it's physically impossible to max all your important skills when you first hit the cap. NR1/2 builds are also impossible for the same reason. But by 174, you can max everything you need plus have some IP leftover for hotswap and other shiz for practically every class. You also get a few more AI/LE levels and more symbs options unlocked. There is a gap generated between a 163 and a 174 for that reason. But it's a difference of widening the base rather than moving in a sharp direction that starts again at 201. Stuff like getting enough AR to easily perk a tl5 fixer becomes possible, whereas the 174 vs 160 fix might not achieve that necessarily. It's a qualitative difference, but one you seem keen to fudge or deny. Basically, the 207/30/70 vs 165/22/56(?)* is not a gulf that promotes PVP the way 49 vs 60 or 60 vs 76 or 90 vs 114 or even 126 vs 150 is.

*AI22 on a 165 is bloody hard to get since LE mishes stopped being the best choice for AI levelling of tl7s - it was mindnumbing before, it's brain-damaging now.

[Chereee]

Basically, the 207/30/70 vs 165/22/56(?)* is not a gulf that promotes PVP the way 49 vs 60 or 60 vs 76 or 90 vs 114 or even 126 vs 150 is.

But it's a gulf that the playerbase accepts by twinking at that level. If it's THAT bad, people wouldn't twink at 165! Obviously, there's more at play here than REG/AI/SL/Research levels. I mean, I 164->165is only one level. Reward = new nanos, perks, some stuff unlocked. Cost = this huge gap that you're trying to convince me of. Is it worth it? Apparently, yes - by your actions, not your threats.

That other stuff you said, about spending ip in other places, that's another attribute. It doesn't change that you have the same maxed skill for the past 20 levels.

Every level has to be scared of something. They need to be scared and decide that it's still worth playing. That's what makes pvp ranges. Coming up with pvp range changes that make TL5 scared of nothing is more selfish than a 207 wanting something to kill. If you give me nothing to kill, then why would I play? To be eaten alive by 220s? I'm not saying TL5 has to be what I gank, but you're giving no solutions to address the problem you create with your (not you speficially) suggestions. Some suggestions are proposing to kill a fun pvp range so that another can be artificially at the top with nothing to fear. Talk about selfish.

I'm not arguing against all the suggestions people make, I'm arguing what you're basing it on. My suggestion is flawed, I'm sure, but at least it's trying to address the real problem which is the 171-206 range.

[Flyingengi]

But it's a gulf that the playerbase accepts by twinking at that level. If it's THAT bad, people wouldn't twink at 165! Obviously, there's more at play here than REG/AI/SL/Research levels. I mean, it's only one level. Reward = new nanos, perks, some stuff unlocked. Cost = this huge gap that you're trying to convince me of. Is it worth it? Apparently, yes - by your actions, not your threats.

That other stuff you said, about spending ip in other places, that's another attribute.

It's not that they want to level to 165, it's that they have to level to 165 or even people at the bottom of their pvp range will wtfpwn them.

[Chereee]

It's not that they want to level to 165, it's that they have to level to 165 or even people at the bottom of their pvp range will wtfpwn them.

Anybody holding you at gunpoint? If 165 isn't viable and 164 isn't viable, then guess what, that profession you rolled isn't viable at that twink level you chose. People who make lvl 20 twink GA fixers stop playing their twink shortly after they discover that it's just not meant to be. I had one, and I stopped playing it. I can claim that there's an unbalance. If you have an active 165-170 twink, you can't make that same claim. Players don't, upon discovering that their toon is useless, keep playing as if everything is fine. Cause that's what I'll believe, everything is fine.

The mere existence of TL7 twinks is proof enough that 165-170 twinks aren't dead. If they were dead, there would be no 207 twinks to complain about. I don't know the current situation, but if TL5 is dead, then that means 207-214 is also dead. Then I'll revise my argument to claim lvl 165-214 is broken rather than just 171-206.

Don't say one thing but do another thing in game, k? Either it's broken and you stop playing your twinks or it's not broken and you keep playing.

[MassDebater]

I dont think 220 only being able to attack 215 is a good idea lol.

[Chrys]

But it's a gulf that the playerbase accepts by twinking at that level. If it's THAT bad, people wouldn't twink at 165! Obviously, there's more at play here than REG/AI/SL/Research levels. I mean, I 164->165is only one level. Reward = new nanos, perks, some stuff unlocked. Cost = this huge gap that you're trying to convince me of. Is it worth it? Apparently, yes - by your actions, not your threats.

That other stuff you said, about spending ip in other places, that's another attribute. It doesn't change that you have the same maxed skill for the past 20 levels.

Every level has to be scared of something. They need to be scared and decide that it's still worth playing. That's what makes pvp ranges. Coming up with pvp range changes that make TL5 scared of nothing is more selfish than a 207 wanting something to kill. If you give me nothing to kill, then why would I play? To be eaten alive by 220s? I'm not saying TL5 has to be what I gank, but you're giving no solutions to address the problem you create with your (not you speficially) suggestions. Some suggestions are proposing to kill a fun pvp range so that another can be artificially at the top with nothing to fear. Talk about selfish.

I'm not arguing against all the suggestions people make, I'm arguing what you're basing it on. My suggestion is flawed, I'm sure, but at least it's trying to address the real problem which is the 171-206 range.

No you're just talking out of ignorance. Everyone who argues here against the wide tl5->7 gulf here has twinks at multiple levels. We know what the 47->60->75/76->90->114->126/130->150 etc. gaps are like and those are nowhere near as ridiculous as the 165->207, never mind 170->214 gaps in PVP range. My 60 personally knows how it feels to be ganked by a 76 agent (used to be clam fotm in 2005), my 90 what it means to be ganked by 110 adv (hai Loopoos!!), my 118 by a 130 trader, etc. There's always a fighting chance at those gaps. But 165-174 getting smacked by tl7 alpha is retarded and nowhere close to a similar situation.

Look at 90->114, which is one that's basically 14x4or5 IP = 64-70 more max IP, 2 more perks, 3 more AI levels, 6 more LE levels. Like 165->207, a lot of things at 90 are capped so the major benefit is unlocking 120 symbs (which are **** at this level) and spreading some IP around, the 1k board, 200 Jobe implants etc are bonuses the tl4s will get. Now look at 165-207: That's 150 more max IP (I can't remember what tl6 unlocks IP-wise offhand, so I'm just assuming it's only base ability trickle), an absolute ****ton of IP to distribute everywhere (IP only becomes tight again after 213-214), 11 more perks (MR especially), 24(?) LE levels, 8 AI levels. And ofc Xan symbs.

[McKnuckleSamwich]

We know what the 47->60->75/76->90->114->126/130->150 etc. gaps are like and those are nowhere near as ridiculous as the 165->207, never mind 170->214 gaps in PVP range.

Look at 90->114, which is one that's basically 14x4or5 IP = 64-70 more max IP, 2 more perks, 3 more AI levels, 6 more LE levels. Like 165->207, a lot of things at 90 are capped so the major benefit is unlocking 120 symbs (which are **** at this level) and spreading some IP around, the 1k board, 200 Jobe implants etc are bonuses the tl4s will get.

Now look at 165-207: That's 150 more max IP (I can't remember what tl6 unlocks IP-wise offhand, so I'm just assuming it's only base ability trickle), an absolute ****ton of IP to distribute everywhere (IP only becomes tight again after 213-214), 11 more perks (MR especially), 24(?) LE levels, 8 AI levels. And ofc Xan symbs.

QFT. 90-->114 = substantial change because benefit of TL4.
165-->207 = just effing retarded.

[Flyingengi]

If 165 isn't viable and 164 isn't viable, then guess what, that profession you rolled isn't viable at that twink level you chose.

A 165 MP/NT is VERY viable at tl5 versus other tl5's. The problem is that NO profession is viable at lvl165+ versus a 207 toon, not even a twink. I have a 208 purely PvM nanomage 1hb enforcer and I can **** almost any tl5 twink in existance. If it was a PvP twink there would be no stopping it.

[Chereee]

No one needs to convince me of the difference in power between a 165 and a 207. You need to convince yourselves. As long as people are saying one thing on the forums and doing another thing in game, you'll keep losing credibility with me.

[Flyingengi]

No one needs to convince me of the difference in power between a 165 and a 207. You need to convince yourselves. As long as people are saying one thing on the forums and doing another thing in game, you'll keep losing credibility with me.

I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to convince FC.

Just so you know, I practice what I preach in game as well.

[Chereee]

I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to convince FC.

It was directed to anyone trying to explain to me the difference in power when I'm just trying to point out that you decide, by your actions, not words, what is balanced and what's not.

Just so you know, I practice what I preach in game as well.

Good to hear. I don't know why it took this long for someone to finally come out and say that. Now if the playerbase did too.

[Chereee]

If it was a PvP twink there would be no stopping it.

Yes there would: two twenties.

[Chereee]

I dont think 220 only being able to attack 215 is a good idea lol.

Why?

What do you suggest?

[McKnuckleSamwich]

No one needs to convince me of the difference in power between a 165 and a 207. You need to convince yourselves. As long as people are saying one thing on the forums and doing another thing in game, you'll keep losing credibility with me.

This is irrelevant, cheree: If a prof is weak at 165, but has significantly more power at 170, (keeper, agent, NT, particularly) doesn't mean they don't care about the 207's that might gank them. It means that that is an INCONSISTENCY of the game mechanic that they HAVE to deal with.

The benefits of rolling a 170 instead of a 165 are far greater for 99% of play, whereas, if people *only* rolled in preparation for the odd attack by a high level player the ENTIRE population of "twinks" would be highly fragmented or, if you take your argument to an extreme, they would ALL be level 1, since, at that level there is the littlest disparity between the highest level of PVP and their level with which to play, which, clearly isn't the case, so, yes, people, ALL people, will never roll toons by this principle.

We have to make do, dealing with 207's is one of them, but why bother with a toon which will be at 60% of it's capacity in 99% of the encounters you face, instead of making a toon with is 100% of it's potential for 99% of the encounters you face? obviously the latter is the superior option.