Idea to allow players of all levels PVP together
By
abraxas,
Posted on: 2004-12-07 19:20 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I forgot all about SK'ing!
MentorBots(tm) will be the greatest thing since the TaxiBot and give all those bored 50's something to do.
"Been challenged to a fight? Call MentorBot and we'll send a lvl 50 hero to stand on the sidelines while you fight your nemesis!"
Of course, the villians, once hip to this, will do the same thing. In the end, all PvP battles will be even-con - One artificially upleveled lvl 49 vs another.
Now, how is that better than building an even-con system for PvP in the first place?
[/ QUOTE ]
Ha, I love it! 
5 stars for you...
I hope MentorBot is not already taken, because I'm starting that tanker tonight. 
You have given me my WarCry to "MentorBot here to save the day" HeHeHe
ROFL, I can't stand it...I'd give you tens stars if I could 
[/ QUOTE ]
Better yet, "MentorBot here to enable YOU to save the day!"
[b]Frost Lightning - lvl 50 Ele/Ice[/b]
Kick Asterisk - lvl 43 MA/SR
Frigid Bridget- lvl 20 Ice/Cold
GrammaRadiation lvl 20 Rad/Rad
Helena Ann Baskett lvl 29 Necro/Poisen
The Very Bad Seed lvl 6 Plant/Thorn
And another thing to consider is that the higher level character is going to have more and better enhancers. A 10th level character with a six slotted attack with Generic Enhancers with have a 6 * 8% or (rounded up) 50% damage boost. And a 40th level character is gonna have 6 Single Origin enhancers so 6 * 33% = 200%.
200% vs 50%. Ouch!!!! But 8 teammates at 50% = 400%. The lowbies do have have a chance.
I like the idea of using some sort of 'monster code'. I certainlly don't want to spend my time looking for somebody exactly my lvl to fight, the more characters that can fight the better. I like the idea of low level characters not being continuosly being preyed upon, especially if this person is new to the game. I've always thought that PvP battles should take longer than a PvE battle and the damage, resistances, etc should be scaled accordingly. On the other hand I also feel that a lvl 50 character *should* be able to beat a lvl 10 character.. the lvl 10 character should have time to escape though. But a group of lvl 10 characters should also stand a chance against a single lvl 50. Perhaps, besides the scaling, an option could be added to automatically remove the preyed upon individual to a nearby hospital or police drone, or maybe even summon a police drone.
On a seperate note: All AT's and Origins should have their own 'individual' emote. Scrappers should have one (like the Bruce Lee 'bring it'), Tanks should have one, Controllers, etc, as well as one for Magic, Science etc.
Tk
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It makes no sense for a L50 controller to be shot in the back by an L14 blaster with a snipe and a followup, and die. With scaled damage, this is a likely situation.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all by the sounds of it the PvP will be in special zones, these zones will be ranked much like existing zones. So the fact is that you won't find a level 14 running around a level 50 zones which has enemies that can pick them off with ease. They will probably stick to their own zones to avoid being killed by mobs. This is naturally only occour in crossover zones between the CoH part of the game and the CoV but you can bet there will be mobs there. Assuming they survive that gaunlet they might get into the other PvP zone where no mobs are.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you're saying that an L50 will go out of his way to grief an L14 (and therefore we need to scale damage), but an L14 won't go out of his way to grief an L50 (therefore the scaled damage doesn't matter)? That appears to be what you're saying. My point still stands: If damage is scaled to even-con, level pretty much goes out the window. An L12+ <damage class> is a deadly threat to any level Controller or Defender, bar nothing except pre-prepared buffs. Maybe L12 is a little low, but say L32. I don't understand why an L32 should be a major threat to an L50.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't make sense in terms of gameplay, and it doesn't make sense in terms of comic books, and it won't be fun.
[/ QUOTE ]
From a gameplay point of view it makes great sense, encounters with other players need to be a challenge just like the monsters in the game which now con purple to all players.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. Encounters with other players of lower level does not need to be a challenge, exactly as encounters with other mobs of low levels is not a challenge. It works fine in PvE, I don't understand why it would be necessary in PvP.
The monster example is perfectly fitting. An L32 Purple Monster should not be approachable by a single ~L1-28 hero. An L1 hero attacking an L32 monster does L1 damage, not L32 damage. An L50 attacking an L32 monster does L50 damage. The way purple monsters work in CoH now has nothing to do with damage scaling in the way you seem to be proposing.
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly in the case of comics it does work, in the books the only thing that seperate the Hulk from Spiderman is that he Hulk is nearly indestructable and Spiderman doesn't have as the same degree of superstrength. However you'd never see the Spiderman die within moments against the Hulk because his super reflexes would keep up with it. This 'even ground' methodolgy works even for the comic books.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're talking about L50 heroes versus L50 heroes here. Top shelf, super heroes. Not L1 new trainee heroes or villains.
Spiderman (L50) vs. The Hulk (L50). Even battle.
Superman (L50) vs. The Hulk (L50). Even battle.
The Hulk (L50) vs. Robin (maybe L20). Robin gets pasted.
The Joker (L50) vs. Robin (maybe L20). Robin gets pasted (with an axe or a hammer no less).
The Joker (L50) vs. The Penguin (L50). Even battle.
The Hulk (L50) vs. The Joker (L50). Even battle.
Robin (L20) vs. Jubilee (or whoever) (L15). Even battle, though I'd hope to see Jubilee pasted.
Jubilee (L15) vs. Magneto (L50). Magneto gets yellow and red wallpaper for his evil lair.
Magneto (L50) vs. The Hulk (L50). Relatively even fight.
And so forth. There is no even ground in the comics. Top shelf (paralleled here as L50) heroes or villains will DESTROY lesser heroes/villains/sidekicks.
[ QUOTE ]
Lastly. Being placed into an impossible situation is never fun... being forced into one by another player is worse because you cannot escape it. One way or another you're going to have ambushes and deaths as a result. I know you like the security of being level 50 and what you consider 'safe' however consider what its like for lower level characters being actively hunted by level 50s with no way to defend themselves.
[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't really hold water to me, either. Either it's L50s hunting L1s, or it's everyone hunting everyone. There will be situations in which I don't want to be hunted. In those situations, there must be a solution. The solution will be similar with or without scaled damage... all scaled damage does is turn level into a largely irrelevant detail.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, an INV tanker by L32, if he is auto-scaled to his enemy, will be effectively unkillable one on one by anyone.
[/ QUOTE ]
Every AT and powerset currently has something to counter it. Any tanker could be totally owned by a controller, all it takes is one successful hold and its all over. Even with an 'even ground' system in place. The same can be said for any scrapper and tanker. Even some blasters have ways to drop toggles with a hold or sleep. There is no such thing as someone being undefeatable by anyone just because you made everyone equal in damage ect...
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, there is. If I am an INV tanker, and I have Unyielding on, a single hold from a single controller will not land. Maybe, if they spam all their holds, they might have a slight chance... I don't know the numbers. Say UY has a base of -10 and US has an additional -10. That's a -20 resist. A single controller can stack maybe, what an 8 hold? Stacking 8 hold and 4 sleep and 3 diso doesn't add up to anything... you have to break 20 in ONE of those numbers.
So what does this mean? With scaled damage, an L32 Inv tanker is solo UNKILLABLE by ANYONE in the game. If you can't land a hold, the tanker is quite literally unstoppable. It doesn't matter if it's an L50 super buffed ultra mega Scrapper or an L50 controller... you're just stuck (with scaled damage).
Take it as teams... I, at my best (even con unresisting minions), maybe 700 DPS at L45. Could be more, but let's just use that as an imaginary baseline. At L32, I probably did a quarter less damage if damage is relatively linear. So 8 L45 Lethal scrappers against an L32 capped inv tank will do... wait for it... ~420 DPS (700 * 8 * .75 * .1).
These are largely useless numbers, but the point is that 8 L45 scrappers attacking at once against an L32 anything should be instant death. Not death in 5 or 10 seconds of concentrated attack. This is what scaling damage does, as far as I can tell.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to be afraid to stomp around AP or PP with my L45 Scrapper, and I won't want to be afraid of L1-40 villains in CoV, either. It just doesn't make sense to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
You'd have no reason to stomp around Atlas Park unless you were ganking lower level players or hanging around the trainer to socialize. Thankfully AP will never be a PvP zone from what they have said. You're speaking from a highbies point of view. Why is it unfair for you to be worried about being in a low level zone while its apparently fair for lowbies to feel hunted and powerless to protect themselves in the lowbie zones?
Isn't it fair to everyone to give all heroes the same risks and rewards?
[/ QUOTE ]
In the scope of this game, a) there is no such thing as ganking and b) it is entirely appropriate and justified for an L50 hero to destroy an L1 villain on sight. I'm not going to spend my time hunting L1 mobs, but when a mission sends me to AP, and I see a purse snatching, what do you think I do? I absolutely nuke the Hellion and send him packing to the grave.
I might pass up 100000 L5 mobs because I'm on the trail of an L45 AV, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be fighting the L5s if I have the time or inclination. I don't go to AP of my own volition. But if I have to go talk to Azuria, or the City Rep, or whoever (all of which I have done in L40-45 at least two or three times), it makes sense that I would fight crime there.
Similarly, the lowbie VILLAINS SHOULD be afraid of highbie Heroes. Similarly, lowbie HEROES SHOULD be afraid of highbie Villains.
L1 Super Rubber Man should be afraid of Lord Recluse, and Lord Recluse should be able to stomp him into powder with a flick of his evil wrist. Super Rubber Man's fists of rubber fury should bounce off Lord Recluse without him even feeling them.
L1 Evil Rubber Monster should be afraid of Statesman, and Statesman should be able to stomp him into powder with a flick of his noble wrist. Evil Rubber Monster's fists of rubber evil should bounce off Statesman without him even feeling them.
What doesn't make sense about these two scenarios? If I can hammer Countess Crey at L43, should L1 Evil Rubber Monster brawl me to death chain holds me? I don't think so.
At any level I have played, I can find an even level team with little effort. I would therefore predict, at any level, I can find an even level PvP opponent if I'm so inclined. I see no reason that damage should scale for A) so there's enough fights to have or b) solely to avoid grief. Griefing happens with or without damage scaling. Damage scaling breaks the game in larger ways than L50s (or L15s) hunting L2s. If you're griefed, call a GM, or better, call the L50s goofing around in PP. I'm sure the same type of people who patrol PP at L30+ will be happy to help combat PvP griefers. And again, worst comes to worst, petition. Kill stealing is NOT a problem in CoH... hundreds upon hundreds of complaints and calls to other MMOs occurred in Beta (and to this day)... and it's still not a problem here. Ganking will never be a problem in CoH (it is impossible to exist)... and grief-hunting is AGAINST ToS (similarly to grief-stalking and killing someone else's targets). As KSing does not exist in CoH, neither will ganking.
-D
Really nice discussion
I agree with the OP: It would be nice to be able to at least *try* an approach to PvP similar to the Monster Con. Please notice the word TRY; I am not saying that I know for a fact that such system is flawless or even that it would be better: I am just saying that such a system *might* work.
On another point, I feel we are not going anywhere with the discussion if we keep using the example of 1 lvl 10 vs 1 lvl 50 I think we can all agree that, unless the lvl 50 is without defenses, completly debuffed and just /em boombox in place, the lvl 50 should win. (Notice that I agree on the fact that the lvl 10 CAN kill the lvl 50 And that is something that happens all the time on comic books; usually is the less powerful hero that can beat the big, powerful villain, usually because the villain is distracted or gloating or just plain stupid - but the opposite case is known to happen)
What we are really discussing here if a lvl 30 can take down a lvl 40 on a 1-on-1 fight. I feel that the lvl 30 should have a fighting change; lets say that if both are played by equally skilled players, the lvl 30 should win at least 30% of the time. Under the actual CON system, there is almost no chance that a lvl 35 hero can kill (erm, *arrest*) a lvl 40 villain.
[ QUOTE ]
If this is the case, then I guarantee you, that people will be building a character, just about every two days, with the sole purpose to take out higher level characters. Why ?
Because this is "Fun" to them. May not be "Fun" to others, but this is reality, and many people get their kicks just from picking on other people. I stated my opinion, and even said so.
[/ QUOTE ]
So? If a lot of people decide to create an evil SG called The LowLevel BadGuys who Like to Trash HighLvl GoodGuys with the sole purpose of taking down high lvl heroes, they still are going to need a good number of them to do it. Of course, the high lvl hero just need to find 1 or 2 friends of the same level as he is to completely obliterate the low levels.
Anyway, I really do that scaling is the way to go, especially if we take in account the Bases Raids
If we keep the actual CON system, base raids are going to be a contest between what SG have the more lvl 50 heroes
Not my idea of fun, actually.
How about this?
[Disclaimer: I haven't read the entire thread. Some other person may have suggested this. It may have some gigantic flaw that I haven't thought out. Not available in Rhode Island or Quebec.]
You already have two levels. Your "Security Level" and your "Combat Level." Why not add "PvP Level?"
PvP Level would be your combat level, plus a modifier based on your prior performance in PvP combat. If you gank lots of people who are way lower than you, your PvP Level starts to drop. Slowly at first, and then faster and faster until the lvl 6 n00bs you're trying to gank are actually stronger than you.
You could work off this penalty by actually defeating people your own size [or bigger, for faster results].
Ta da! Instant anti-ganker justice.
It would probably be wildly unfair to let people BOOST their PvP level by fighting higher foes... that'd just lead to griefers pounding a mule toon until their PvP Level is 50 and then ganking away 'til the bonus is gone.
There'd have to be some risk-reward thing involved in paying off the penalty... maybe you only pay it off by being defeated in PvP? ... That's probably too cruel.
[ QUOTE ]
PvP Level would be your combat level, plus a modifier based on your prior performance in PvP combat. If you gank lots of people who are way lower than you, your PvP Level starts to drop. Slowly at first, and then faster and faster until the lvl 6 n00bs you're trying to gank are actually stronger than you.
You could work off this penalty by actually defeating people your own size [or bigger, for faster results].
[/ QUOTE ]
While an interesting Idea, this is too prone to cheating, works this way, two 50th level gankers each take turns ganking lowbies and then beating each other to ger rid of the defeat lowby dept.
Just a thought
This question is aimed at anyone that can answer it, i just didn't want to go back to page one to hit reply 
What ever happened to the consensual PvP, was this thrown away?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PvP Level would be your combat level, plus a modifier based on your prior performance in PvP combat. If you gank lots of people who are way lower than you, your PvP Level starts to drop. Slowly at first, and then faster and faster until the lvl 6 n00bs you're trying to gank are actually stronger than you.
You could work off this penalty by actually defeating people your own size [or bigger, for faster results].
[/ QUOTE ]
While an interesting Idea, this is too prone to cheating, works this way, two 50th level gankers each take turns ganking lowbies and then beating each other to ger rid of the defeat lowby dept.
Just a thought
[/ QUOTE ]
I would argue that (even *without* any checks built in to prevent the scenario you just described) having the system is better than not having it, since without it those two gankers can just gank all day without even stopping for breath.
No consensual PvP has not gone away. Some of us still think that even with consensual PvP that the huge benefits that level difference provides will still make consensual PvP unfun, and I for one would like to see a target level scaling system to Consensual PvP just to level the playing field.
Statesman has clearly stated he wants PvP to be Consensual, and I have not seen anything posted by a Dev that has chanced this stance.
[ QUOTE ]
No consensual PvP has not gone away. Some of us still think that even with consensual PvP that the huge benefits that level difference provides will still make consensual PvP unfun, and I for one would like to see a target level scaling system to Consensual PvP just to level the playing field.
Statesman has clearly stated he wants PvP to be Consensual, and I have not seen anything posted by a Dev that has chanced this stance.
[/ QUOTE ]
OK thanks for clearing that up...and i agree with you 100%
Hey guys this is Fayt's $.02 on the whole matter. Im a lvl 50 dm/invul scrapper myself. COH is my first mmorpg and i have to say im in love. Now i have been waitin a good while for pvp to come out and i see this place that is instituting ideas for pvp. Which all have there disadvantages and advantages. Like i said im new to all mmorpg so dont go hard on me:P. But my idea on the whole thing is have zones where they have pvp. And yes i know that has been stated already:P But my easily understood idea by all is this...lets say me...fayt at lvl 50 goes up against hmmm a lvl 10. Huge lvl difference yes i know. So y not do this to make playing field a lil even. Make the lvl 10 that i am fight a "blue" while in turn me a "red" to him. Easily one on one i could win np. But it would make me think twice when trying to engage 6 or 7 of the lil boogers. Thus ending greifer(is that the word for it?) Also wouldnt this allow pvp in places like Atlas? i mean a rogue lvl 50 stepping into the homeland of heroes:P that would be a epic battle indeed:P stupid of the lvl 50...but epic indeed. Like i said im new to the whole mmorpg terms and lingo. So if this idea has already been said i simplified it for all the new mmorpg players. And if it hasnt well...Just remember a "noob" thought of it)))))))))))))
If they're blue to my lvl 50 scrapper, they better come with a few more than 6 or 7....seriously though, this is a complex system and i'm not sure it'll ever work the way everyone would like it.
Hows that saying go?
You can please some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but never all the people all the time.
Err somethin like that..hehe
bah u knew wat i meant lol somewhere along those lines though...heck bump them up to whites if ya want. i just want pvp to be exciting wether a group of 10's kill me ore not:P
From what I've read, the division in Points of View seems to fall between people who see this as a ROLE-PLAYING Game versus those who see it as a Role-Playing GAME.
For the RPg'ers, the idea is that a Lvl 50 Hero should be able to consistantly beat the crap out of a Lvl 10 hero, because a Lvl 50 Hero is a "seasoned veteran who's earned his advantage through time and hard work" whether or not the player of said character actually has little or no skill in playing the character or the game.
OTOH, The rpG'ers, feel that the player of a lvl 50 Hero should only be able to consistantly beat the crap out of the player of a lvl 10 Hero if they are a "seasoned veteran who's earned his advantage through time and hard work" (or the player or the other char sucks) regardless of whether or not the character of said player has been around for 2 weeks or 2 years.
Now the key difference, as I see it, is whether you view the skill level of the character or the skill level of the player as being the most important factor.
I, for one, am interested in PvP specifically because it's *Player versus Player* and would prefer some system through which my skills as a player are actually being tested by other players of equal (or greater) skill. Having to Power-Level every char to 50 to ensure that unskilled noobs with high-lvl toons aren't trashing me through sheer force of HP and raw DMG capacity is neither challenging nor fun. I'd rather be able to say I won because I was a more formidable player, not because I simply had a more formidable toon.
That puts me in the second camp, though I can appreciate the position of those in the first, so...
Maybe there should be two different types of PvP zones. One for players to match their toons, regardless of skill, and another for players to match their skills, regardless of toon.
[b]Frost Lightning - lvl 50 Ele/Ice[/b]
Kick Asterisk - lvl 43 MA/SR
Frigid Bridget- lvl 20 Ice/Cold
GrammaRadiation lvl 20 Rad/Rad
Helena Ann Baskett lvl 29 Necro/Poisen
The Very Bad Seed lvl 6 Plant/Thorn
As for those who actually think it would be fun to sweep into the Atlas city training zones with a lvl 50 fire blaster and rain death on all the newbs - forget it. First off, the devs aren't foolish enough to allow it (I hope ), secondly, we really don't need players like that in the game. They're called griefers.
Secondly, if the game allows formal encounters between characters of substantially different levels, then they might as well statistically equalize their levels (the Monster Effect), otherwise the encounters won't be terribly fun, now would they? Yeah sure, Spider Man SHOULDN'T be able to beat Superman, but frankly, the comic will be much more fun to read if he at least has a fighting chance - and its not like those extra powers, slots, and SO's aren't going to make a serious difference - they will.
So the REAL question here isn't which system you like, the question is whether you actually enjoy challenging fights. If you want a challenge, then you want the levels statistically equalized. If you don't, well, then you probably should be fighting unintelligent mobs, not other players who will have no fun in a one-sided encounter.
Kblaze said, "Kamui, you're comparing apples to oranges here, but even so, in real life the companies I have worked for will gladly pay the 18-year-old high school graduate more money if he has more skills. The fact that Larry has been around longer doesn't entitle him to anything more - he got what he was due for all those years, or should have (a steady paycheck)."
Of course I'm comparing apples and oranges; I said it was an allegory<G>. However, the point I was making was George has more skills then the 18 yr older fresh out of Highschool. That was stated in the arguement. Now, the company YOU work for might pay that 18 yr older more money....I just hope he's not applying for a Surgeon's position.
"This sense of entitlement that people have has got to go. You work hard, play well and whatever rewards you have coming to you for that shouldn't have to wait for PvP; you should already have received them, so the game doesn't owe you any more distinction."
It's not a sence of entitlement. You can play the game for 15 years, if you roll an alt then it won't have anything more then any other lvl 1 character would have. No one is saying that time spent in a game should garner the player extra (or at least I'm not saying it) goodies. What I AM saying is level is an expression of skill in these types of games. A level 50 character has 'learned' more then a lvl 1 character on his first mission. Note I am speaking about the CHARACTER, not the person playing them. Remember that we are NOT playing ourselves, but instead are playing characters. So then, why in a fight would the lower level person have the same chance to hit as the higher level person? He hasn't 'learned' as much about fighting.
Kasterisk said, "From what I've read, the division in Points of View seems to fall between people who see this as a ROLE-PLAYING Game versus those who see it as a Role-Playing GAME."
Curses upon you! I was gonna say something along that line...<G>. To address your point though about high level 'noobs' I shall delve into an example. In 'Dark Age of Camelot' we have had an influx of 'Adena inc.'. Those who played 'Linneage 2' are familiar with them. Essentialy, they are a conglomerate of oriental players who are payed to 'farm' items and cash for sale in real-world money. Now, these people are all 50th lvl. That's the highest you can get in DAoC. And they suck at it. They consistently lose duels which they shouldn't (A heavy tank v. a Ranger(archer) and the ranger wins...in melee!). When they venture into RvR PvP they lose. They even lose often when fighting mobs becuase they realy don't know how to play their characters. It DOES take some skill to play even these games. So, some dweeb buys him a lvl50 scrapper, or gets PL'd. He then goes up against say, a lvl 45 whatever who knows his/her character backwards and forward. I'm putting my money on the lvl 45.
There is one constant that has been reiterated by the development team CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY: PVP will be consensual.
Soooo...I don't understand why people keep bringing up griefing and etc. as if its relevant to the discussion...its not.It seems thats one part of the design document behind PVP that will be unchanged.
The discussion really centers around multiple factors...
What to do with differing:
1) Power effectiveness: meaning damage done/damage defended against
2) Power accuracy
3) Hit points
4) duel combat or team combat
____________________________________________
Most of the ideas offered have centered around these principles:
1) SCALING:either damage or accuracy or hitpoints..up or down; limited scaling within a limited level range or extensive scaling of all levels
2) Absolute LEVEL PARITY: complete negation of original status of combatants and equalization in terms of hit points/powers/etc.
3) ABSOLUTE NATURAL STATE: characters retain the natural state(HP/levels/accuracy/power effectiveness)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought about configurable options for each battle..BUT...it would end up with the players arguing over options, limit the scope of the battles within those arenas to just those combatants, and create arbitrary restrictions/pace slowdowns when there shouldn't be...or would it?
Exactly what kind of PVP are we looking at in these "arenas"? Are we looking at battles one or a team can join at will, raucous free for alls...OR...organized matches/duels/battles?
I may be assuming much..but I believe most people will favor the more flowing system of fighting battles at will within these arenas...however...therein comes another issue..BESIDES or irregardless of level differences...within those arenas under such a system...teams will dominate, there will be utter anarchy (which could be good or bad) and confusion, and battles will lose their focus or coherence. Whether you're for parity or natural state...or scaling...here's a further complication...that will probably affect all of those schemes.
Organized/premeditated battle? or FFA (with teams)?
so....I apologize for further complicating an already complex issue, but here's another thing to think about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And Nova enough with your labeling...its annoying. If you do want to get into the ridiculously ideological...then here:I accuse you of being classist, who offers nothing but divisiveness through overly broad and blind categorization. Someone who does not offer an argument based on criticism of an idea..but instead attacks the person personally. Althoug lol...calling someone elitist is pretty elitist yourself...ah..lol..i'm falling into the same trap..
[ QUOTE ]
____________________________________________
Most of the ideas offered have centered around these principles:
1) SCALING:either damage or accuracy or hitpoints..up or down; limited scaling within a limited level range or extensive scaling of all levels
2) Absolute LEVEL PARITY: complete negation of original status of combatants and equalization in terms of hit points/powers/etc.
3) ABSOLUTE NATURAL STATE: characters retain the natural state(HP/levels/accuracy/power effectiveness)
[/ QUOTE ]
Good breakdown there - and if we assume that combat is ALWAYS concensual, then all we need to do is determine the format to decide on which of the above is the correct answer:
Duel: Two Men Enter - One Man Leaves...
You absolutely want statistical equalization (hp/damage/acc) for the duel - basically SK the lower level contestant to the higher. Why? Because there's no point in doing it any other way. If two people agreed to duel, then presumably they want to have a decent fight (otherwise its pointless!). Even 2 lvls of disparity are likely to make the fight a statistically meaningless contest, so you might as well just flatten it. The higher lvl will STILL have the advantage of powers/slots, so chances are they'll win regardless, but at least the fight might be worth watching, and a substantial difference in player skill or character build may turn the tide. No lvl 2 will ever beat a 50, but a 32 might beat a 40 if they fight well or have a very good build under these circumstances.
Let me make this point absolutely clear: to do it any other way is to PREVENT THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO FIGHT EACH OTHER - and if combat is consensual, then why on earth do that?
Competitive Mission - Reach the goal/whatever first
Now if they have this contest format (and I hope they do) there will be mobs in the mix, and team levels will matter. In this case the levels of the entrants should be confined to a strict band (including exemplars and sidekicks), and everyone should be fighting at their own effective levels. Team dynamics should keep the individual level differences from being statistically overwhelming. Unlike normal missions, exemplars will need to be locked in for the duration.
Team Arena Duel - probably the toughest choice. You could effectively SK everyone in the battle to the level of the highest contestant, which would probably make for the best fights overall. But in theory team dynamics will make the contest statistically complex enough that entrants in a tight level range will still have fun even if they aren't equalized. One high level ringer will completely throw it though, so you really do have to work with a tight range (+/-3 levels) and raise/lower anyone outside that range to make it a decent contest.
What it really comes down to is that if players are looking for kick@$$ knock-down, drag-out superhero fights that don't take an hour to arrange due to level differences, then you REALLY want your levels equalized in most of these contests.
The AT/build/power/slot differentials will still be quite substantial - but at the end of the day you want things close enough that player skill and/or teamwork is the final deciding factor, not a set of pre-ordained mathematical equations that none of us really have any control over.
Anything less would simply be un-Heroic.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
____________________________________________
Most of the ideas offered have centered around these principles:
1) SCALING:either damage or accuracy or hitpoints..up or down; limited scaling within a limited level range or extensive scaling of all levels
2) Absolute LEVEL PARITY: complete negation of original status of combatants and equalization in terms of hit points/powers/etc.
3) ABSOLUTE NATURAL STATE: characters retain the natural state(HP/levels/accuracy/power effectiveness)
[/ QUOTE ]
Good breakdown there - and if we assume that combat is ALWAYS concensual, then...
[/ QUOTE ]
Just realized there is a very easy way to break down your list up there in terms everyone will understand.
Version 1 Scaling: Basically SideKick the lower level combatant to the higher (at equal lvl rather than -1). Higher level retains the advantage of powers/slots, but not statistics.
Version 2 Absolute Parity: Exemplar the higher combatant to the lower. Deactivate invaliated powers. Probably not much you can do about the slots and SOs though. PvP between pre & post 22's will probably always be a rough business.
Version 3: No scaling: Don't really think this is valid except for team combats/missions within a tightly defined level range. At least groups can use normal exemplar/SK to help smooth things out 
Bear in mind that any form of contest between characters of >2-3 levels difference will be pointless, save to point out bad AT balance issues and to piss people off. Multiplayer PvP games like Quake are so much fun because everyone's got a basically even shot - PvP MMOG's classically suffer horribly because they don't. Luckily CoH has some very good mechanisms available to help level the field and keep things fun and fast paced - if they are used properly.
Make two PvP zones One, a total free for all. One, consent fighting.
Everyone will be happy! If you can only do one, I vote for free for all!
LR, I think you guys are on the right track. The one thing to avoid is to make pvp purely consensual, so that a character can strut around everywhere and accept challenges only from those he is sure he can beat, probably name himself "Grand Lord", but never allow himself to get in a fight with a same level character. A version of this is the pkers who only look for lowest levels to fights. UO was full of these types.
I have seen many people talk about pvp zones, which make sense. If you don't want to go pvp, stay out. Now, I realize that there a players who can't stand the fact that this zone even exists, because their unwillingness to enter it says volumes about themselves, so they want to take it away from everyone else. If CoV caters to these guys, I'm out and I can assure you this game will become famous as the game for six year olds and wooses.
On the other hand, something has to be done to prevent lvl 50s preying on lvl 5s. The answer clearly isn't scaling, which almost eliminates the entire idea of character progression. I'll just send my low lvl 5 scrapper who just got impale out to kill some lvl 50 controller. That's fair. Right? Or maybe two level 5s should be able to take out a lvl 50. This too is stupid, and no other game does it, for good reasons.
I will be interested in seeing how you deal with preventing higher lvls from spending all day hunting down auto-kills. I hope you don't do it by capping the lvls who can enter a zone; if I send my lvl 37 scrapper into PP, maybe he shouldn't be able to prey on the lvl 8s there, but to prevent him from entering at all takes away a lot of the game. And making him red so the guards attack, if he pks some noob, just sends the outlaws to areas away from the guards, so you have two choices with a new character: safe zones, and zones where you will be pkd without a chance (UO).
It certainly is true that some lvl 50s can't pvp to save their life, and this game offers some ability for skill to show. I would tweak it some more, so that certain types of builds have better chances against others (more so than now). I think the idea of Origins is not put to use in this game. Maybe some attack or defense bonus or weakness against other origins (e.g., mutants have an advantage against natural, weakness against tech). Also, I would add more power options, so that you don't only have a choice between one primary and yet another pool, but instead can choose between four or five primaries, and if you choose one, you won't get all four down the road (even when you hit the cap).
The game engine is good and the approach to minimizing computer resources by getting rid of objects on ground etc is a good idea. The game runs well, with great graphics. Just make sure that City of Villains actually has some villany in it, and I don't mean being able to sleepwalk through a "dangerous" area, knowing that nothing can happen to you without your consent. That is not pvp. It's not a city of villains. It's woostown.
[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying that an L50 will go out of his way to grief an L14 (and therefore we need to scale damage), but an L14 won't go out of his way to grief an L50 (therefore the scaled damage doesn't matter)? That appears to be what you're saying. My point still stands: If damage is scaled to even-con, level pretty much goes out the window. An L12+ <damage class> is a deadly threat to any level Controller or Defender, bar nothing except pre-prepared buffs. Maybe L12 is a little low, but say L32. I don't understand why an L32 should be a major threat to an L50.
[/ QUOTE ]
A level 50 WILL without fail go out of their way to hunt lowbies in lower level zones. Sure you might not do it but it will happen as is evident in every single MMO that ever had a level based PvP system. The flaw in that logic however is that a level 50 hunting a level 1 will suffer no risk of hunting them while the level 1 is powerless against a level 50. Its poor gameplay mechanics to allow the player to be in an impossible situation that they cannot avoid by any means. Its like having Kings Row and Galaxy City seperated by Founders Falls requiring a low level character to run across it and no way around. People would complain like hell against such a thing and its the same situation for PvP.
You say that it make no sense for a level 14 to be a threat to level 32. Thats because you comparing another player to being like an NPC, the difference here is that players don't like to be ganked by a higher player and have no ability to defend themselves. NPCs don't careless since they have no feelings. How would you feel if a level 50 character kept following around you while you're playing your level 32 one? he could kill you over and over and over making you suffer massive debt as a result. You'd be so annoyed you'd log out and worse still is that you couldn't petition against that.
The even con system is a solution to that very irritating problem.
[ QUOTE ]
An L50 attacking an L32 monster does L50 damage. The way purple monsters work in CoH now has nothing to do with damage scaling in the way you seem to be proposing.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you know what, because of how that system is functioning I can STILL solo monsters that are lower levels than me its just that they take longer to kill now. Yet by design they are supposed to require a group of players to take down always. Once again you can't seem to break out of this mindset of a level 50 should always defeat a level 1 just because of that number. Try to remember that its unfun to be crushed continually with no means to escape or survive.
[ QUOTE ]
And so forth. There is no even ground in the comics. Top shelf (paralleled here as L50) heroes or villains will DESTROY lesser heroes/villains/sidekicks.
[/ QUOTE ]
You see the heroes as levels, however as I pointed out spiderman should be able to go blow for blow against the Hulk. But the fact is that Spiderman would be completely unable to even defeat the Hulk in a fist fight. Its like a level 1 trying to beat a level 50 enemy, it simply cannot be done and a single hit could mean its all over. Spiderman however can avoid the attacks of the Hulk with his super reflexes, almost as if that specific ability is an equal level to the Hulk.
So in essense they are equally matched but only due to their powers, spiderman cannot defeat the Hulk in a fist fight and the Hulk cannot lay a finger on spiderman. What seperates them is the powers... just as it should be in the City of Heroes PvP.
[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't really hold water to me, either. Either it's L50s hunting L1s, or it's everyone hunting everyone. There will be situations in which I don't want to be hunted. In those situations, there must be a solution. The solution will be similar with or without scaled damage... all scaled damage does is turn level into a largely irrelevant detail.
[/ QUOTE ]
If the concept of everyone hunting everyone is beyond you then there not much I can say because its easy to see that there are great benefits for ALL heroes to be at equal risk in PvP compared to a level 50 being in a safer situation than a level 1. People talk about policing the PvP arena, but what happens when there is no one around to stop a small group of high level PvP players from sweeping a lowbie zone just for the fun of it? For the lowbies in that zone its more feasible to just log out and come back later because they're sick of trying to find someone their own level to fight with only be to one-shotted by those jerks wandering around.
Whats more fair to the induviduals? Equal risk for all at all times or being at higher risk while low and less risk when high?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, there is. If I am an INV tanker, and I have Unyielding on, a single hold from a single controller will not land. Maybe, if they spam all their holds, they might have a slight chance... I don't know the numbers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again your comparing PvP logic to PvE logic. I see now how you cannot seperate the concept of the two in your mind. Try to remember that enemies in the game have lower magnitude holds and such than even the most basic hero, also the PvP system is going have subtle differences to avoid the chance of any single hero being unstoppable. If a controller is able to hold a even con boss with one or two powers then the same will apply to a tanker of equal level.
[ QUOTE ]
In the scope of this game, a) there is no such thing as ganking and b) it is entirely appropriate and justified for an L50 hero to destroy an L1 villain on sight. I'm not going to spend my time hunting L1 mobs, but when a mission sends me to AP, and I see a purse snatching, what do you think I do? I absolutely nuke the Hellion and send him packing to the grave.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again you are for some reason unable to seperate the concept of what works in PvP and what works in PvE in your mind. This is player vs player here and do you really think that level 1 hero who just made his character will apprectiate being attacked by someone just because he wants to PvP with his friends.
Let me just say that if they go ahead with the tried and tested method for PvP (in that it mirrors how PvE functions) then you will see this scenario for certain because it happens in all other MMOs that have PvP.
What you'll find is that people don't bother with PvP at lower levels because they're sick of being preyed on by higher level characters, you MIGHT see people start getting into PvP around level 20 or so but still it'll be a small percentage of the player base. At the higher levels you'll find alot more PvP because now they're not so vulnerable.
Thus PvP becomes only a feature that is feasible for the advanced players, thus it's not friendly towards the casual gamer and people will generally ignore it until much later in the game. So a major feature that is bearly used, talk about a waste of development time.
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, something has to be done to prevent lvl 50s preying on lvl 5s. The answer clearly isn't scaling, which almost eliminates the entire idea of character progression. I'll just send my low lvl 5 scrapper who just got impale out to kill some lvl 50 controller. That's fair. Right? Or maybe two level 5s should be able to take out a lvl 50. This too is stupid, and no other game does it, for good reasons.
[/ QUOTE ]
And the L50 controller says "Okay, the toxic damage stings a bit, but you really should make sure you're not trying to gank someone who's at the 75% cap for lethal DR. Epic powers, ya know. Oh, and my Phantasm would like a word with you and your little friend..."
@Mindshadow
Their is to much Levelism in all MMORPG's to have good PvP mechanics
definition of levelism:
levelism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that negatively discriminate against players based on their perceived or ascribed level. Sometimes the term is also used to describe the belief that level is the primary determinant of players capacities, or that individuals should be treated differently based on their ascribed level. There is a growing, but controversial, tendency to state that levelism is a system of oppression that combines levelist beliefs whether they be explicit, tacit or unconscious with the power to have a negative impact on those discriminated against on a societal level.