The Problem with PvP Level Balance

[Armus]

This isn't an argument for lvl ranges, but an argument for nt/mp balance at 164.


Meeting those arguments are as simple as "you knew what you were getting into, it's your choice, take responsibility, don't like it? don't do it. 164 not viable? go lower." A profession not being viable at 164 can be proved by no one rolling the profession at that lvl. I don't doubt the situation is true for 164 nts, but I do question anyone saying 165 nts aren't viable while I've seen so many in my days.

A toon going to 207 gets opened up to 220s, but it's worth it. They get to attack those who go to 165-170.
A toon going to 165-170 gets opened up to 207s, but it's worth it to get that extra perk or nano.
If it's not worth it, they wouldn't do it.

You'll get no sympathy from me if you make the choice to level then cry.

Just to restate this point, I see no/few twinks between 171 and 206. That makes it a broken level range imo. Not 165-170. And I agree that select professions are not viable at lvl 164, just as select professions are not viable at lvl 20. It's a power balancing issue between professions, not a level range issue.

Yeah shadowlevels adding 5x more skills, a perk each level, VASTLY higher bonuses from LE levels @ level 200, VASTLY superior armour and weapons is no issue.



ps. As explained a THOUSAND+1 times now most ppl do NOT know what they're getting themeselves into when they level past 164.

In the end it's a simple choice: Do we want tl5 NW to be active or do we want it to be DEAD as it is now.

Personally I want it to be alive.

[Chereee]

This is about what is a reasonable gulf between PVP ranges. Is a level one being ganked by a 21 a reasonable gulf? Ofc not, and rightfully so. Same with a 49 being attacked by a 76, that would be retarded, or a 86 ganked by a 126.

If it's not a reasonable gulf, no one would accept it, no one would twink a toon to be subject to that range. With that comparison, you're saying it's retarded for 207 to attack 165. But yet, people choose to accept the retarded lvl range which makes me believe that either the range and the players are retarded or the lvl range is viable and it's just tl5s getting greedy. Which is it?

The gap between 220 and 207, on the other hand, has not appreciably widened in the same time because stuff that was theoretically doable but way to mindnumbing to attain (such as AI30 or 270 symbs or LE 70) is now easily doable on a 207.

You're shortchanging all the stuff available to 220s that isn't available to 207-214s.

IMO:
Status-Quo -> broken 171-206 pvp range
Reducing max pvp lvl for 165-170 -> broken 171-214 pvp range

It's possible to change the pvp ranges so that 207s-214s don't become a broken pvp range. The arguments being used however have too much emphasis on tl5s. They're not the ones with a broken pvp range. They may not have an ideal pvp range, but neither do 207s when faced with 220s.

[Chereee]

ps. As explained a THOUSAND+1 times now most ppl do NOT know what they're getting themeselves into when they level past 164.

I'm surprised how many twinks get it right for every other pvp range but this one. I call bs on them not knowing what level they can be attacked by.

In the end it's a simple choice: Do we want tl5 NW to be active or do we want it to be DEAD as it is now.

If TL5 is dead, then yeah, there's a point that TL5 ranges are broken. However, when I played, TL5 was definitely not dead.

[Chrys]

...rather than watch majority of the other side being demolished by 207 and 210 toons pocketed by zerg of 220s.

Good point. A lot of the arguments the people with 207s make is that they are gankable by 220s, when in fact they're also pocketable by 220s. So it's not a mitigating factor (I've used my gimpy 150 fix to kill 126 twinks many times, pocketed by 160-170s). The question is just one on one, is the gulf too wide - all other factors can be adjusted based on numbers you bring to the battlefield. And the answer, to anyone who doesn't already have a 207 twink, is an unqualified "Yes".

[Flyingengi]

I'm surprised how many twinks get it right for every other pvp range but this one.

You mean 49 twinks that can be attacked by lvl60s (which are quite superior) and 74 twinks that can be attacked by 92s (which are quite superior).

Anybody who knows about lvl ranges have 45-46 twinks and 76 twinks.

49, 74, and 174 twinks are made relative to their BS stations. Prior to BS, you never saw any of them exist.

[sultryvoltron]

49, 74, and 174 twinks are made relative to their BS stations. Prior to BS, you never saw any of them exist.

/duel had more of an effect on the numbers of these "BS Twinks" than the actual creation of BS. With /duel, you could have your max level BS toon, and you could have 1v1 PvP without the fear of being gnaked by some high level character with your flag running. Once /duel came out all my old 60 twink friends leveled to 74.

Just my observations.

[Chereee]

Good point. A lot of the arguments the people with 207s make is that they are gankable by 220s, when in fact they're also pocketable by 220s. So it's not a mitigating factor (I've used my gimpy 150 fix to kill 126 twinks many times, pocketed by 160-170s).

A lot of the arguments the people with 165s make is that they are gankable by 207s, when in fact they're also pocketable by 207s. What of it? Every level range can be pocketed. If you lose the war of the twink killers, chances are you'll lose the twink war. It's a faction domination issue imo. Because many many players have 220s, they have a great influence on the outcome of a TL5 war via supporting their twink killers. If your faction is participating more, there'll be plenty of 220s to go around to take care of them.

The question is just one on one, is the gulf too wide - all other factors can be adjusted based on numbers you bring to the battlefield. And the answer, to anyone who doesn't already have a 207 twink, is an unqualified "Yes".

76 vs 60, gulf is too wide too, but it's fair because the gulf is also too wide between 76 vs 90ish twinks, Ranges are meant to be unfair, that's what makes them fair in the grand scheme of things: It's unfair for everyone. Except 220s (though they have some profession balance to deal with).

You can design level ranges two ways:
- big fish eat little fish, which is what we have here and it's working for most ranges.
- artificial 220s with no big fish by making the higher end of your pvp range unviable. (aka the 150+ get attacked by 220s, but 149 are immune to any bigger fish cause twink killers between 150 and 215 were just not viable then).

To have an unviable pvp range, there would have to be an absence of twinks. Why is it that no one made a twink over 149 back in the day but they do level above 164 now? Before, it wasn't viable to level past that artificial top of the food chain. Now it is viable - as demonstrated by so many 165-170 twinks.

49, 74, and 174 twinks are made relative to their BS stations. Prior to BS, you never saw any of them exist.

I meant at tower wars, people who do show an interest are very aware of the twink levels, at least in my experience.

[McKnuckleSamwich]

just reset PVP levels according to what IP is awarded per level.

FIXED.

It's not that hard folks.

[Scottik]

Nobody even noticed my post (why does it always end up at the end of page? -_-)

[RedWatr]

Cheree, I gotta tell you, you are losing this argument.

[Chrys]

The 4x IP/10x perks per shadowlevel has always been the basis for suggestions on reconfiguring the PVP ranges since the they decided to remove the 149 cap. In fact if you look at IP distribution, everything, and really everything is breed/IP capped at about level 163 or so, and you get a tiny boost to base attributes at tl6 again, then suddenly you get 4 times the amount and no hard caps at 201. 201 would count as level 205, 202 as 210, 203 as 215 and 204 as 220 - so most tl5 twinks would be gankable only by 203s and below. All TL7s should be able to hit 190+ as a hard cap. That would be a much fairer reflection of the gulf in distribution of power and skill. Some tower site ranges would also have to be fixed to reflect the levels originally intended to be hit and then FC should release ql400 towers, gankable by 220s like the 300s were (if you have the skill to plant any of those ofc )

[-Rewd-]

I dont really know much about all this but what it sounds like is people expect to be better than endgame toons at a much earlier level...which IMO is pointless. Ok there is a lack of stuff for lower level pvp, but then if lower levels where equal to the endgame what would be the point?

I am prbably going to get flamed and stuff but it doenst bother me too much because I believe the endgame deserve to own lower levels...

J

[Scottik]

I dont really know much about all this but what it sounds like is people expect to be better than endgame toons at a much earlier level...which IMO is pointless. Ok there is a lack of stuff for lower level pvp, but then if lower levels where equal to the endgame what would be the point?

I am prbably going to get flamed and stuff but it doenst bother me too much because I believe the endgame deserve to own lower levels...

J

You missed the point, sir. It's not about being equal to higher levels. We don't want TL5 twinks to be equal to TL7 twinks as well as level 100 twinks are not equal to level 126 twinks (and we don't want them to be).
The point is that 1 shadow level =/= 1 regular level. It's equal to 5 regular levels at least based on IPs. However the current system counts with shadow level as if they're regular ones. Also you gain 1 perk point per 1 shadow level (=1 perk point per 5 regular levels). I should metion that some of those perks are fundamental. Such as Mongo Rage. And the list continues with nanos (GTH anyone?), armor, weapons, symbiants...
So logically there's a huge gap between levels 220 (basically level 300) and level 175 (the lowest level in range of 220 players) compared to levels 126->100 or 76->60 etc.

Or just check out the charts I made here.

P.S.: I know I'm not best at explaining especially with my poor english skills. But if you can't see the obvious from the charts then you (not just you personally) will have to find someone else who can explain this.

[-Rewd-]

Ahhh. Cheers .

J

[Chereee]

In fact if you look at IP distribution, everything, and really everything is breed/IP capped at about level 163 or so, and you get a tiny boost to base attributes at tl6 again

If there's not much to gain beyond level 163 until you hit the SLs, then what makes a 207 fighting a 165 any different than fighting a level 200?

All TL7s should be able to hit 190+ as a hard cap. That would be a much fairer reflection of the gulf in distribution of power and skill.

All TL7s would not be able to hit 190+ because there won't be any 190+ except 220s. Why make a working pvp range broken for some?

[Scottik]

Why make a working pvp range broken for some?

It'd be broken range for you cos it'd make your 207 trox agent useless over night. The fact is it's broken how it is now and it needs to be fixed.

[Saetos]

If there's not much to gain beyond level 163 until you hit the SLs, then what makes a 207 fighting a 165 any different than fighting a level 200?

A 200 is still gonna have skill bonuses from having about 20-30 levels of IP to spend on whatever skills they can spend on before TL5 and TL6 title caps take over (evades, NR and weaponskills especially) plus a higher amount of HP and NP, 3 more SL perks, 9 more AI perks (if you're masochistic ), and 28 more research levels. Level 165s don't get any of this, and yet they're treated "the same" by level 207s as level 200s are.

[bitnykk]

i completely agree that the level over 200 (not included) worth at least 5 or more "regular" levels.

in the end, the lowest that a 220 can attack is too low as it is. this needs tighten ranges over TL6.

good benefit is TL5 war would not turn to TL7 cover all the way. but other side is 207 twinks gonna feel bad.

[Neon_1]

So why are professionals arguing that 175 to early 200ish players should be unable to pvp with people in a balanced skill range? I would pay hard cash for a viable argument that a 220 should be allowed to gank a 175 at a tower war besides the "he should know better than trying to play a part of AO". It is almost like being a clan that was killed by a Unicorn in Borealis because an omni trained it, and then blaming the clan for dieing. You should know that omni can train you against the EULA in a neutral city

For once I completely agree with Gatester.......hmmm....must have forgot to take either yellow or blue pills......Carry on !

[Chereee]

In fact if you look at IP distribution, everything, and really everything is breed/IP capped at about level 163 or so, and you get a tiny boost to base attributes at tl6 again, then suddenly you get 4 times the amount and no hard caps at 201.

A 200 is still gonna have skill bonuses from having about 20-30 levels of IP to spend on whatever skills they can spend on before TL5 and TL6 title caps take over (evades, NR and weaponskills especially) plus a higher amount of HP and NP, 3 more SL perks, 9 more AI perks (if you're masochistic ), and 28 more research levels. Level 165s don't get any of this, and yet they're treated "the same" by level 207s as level 200s are.

Read those side by side.

So tell me, is there little to gain between 165 and 200 as per Chrys or much as per Saetos?

I'll tell you this much, no one twinks for TWs between 171 and 206 because whatever it is they gain is not worth the cost of being open to TL7, especially when you're open to 220s.

The fact is it's broken how it is now and it needs to be fixed.

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 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.

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.