PVP crossover confusion

[Event "Janе" Horizon]

The crossover from one PVP area to another is not sharply defined.


e.g.

• going from NU [Q] gates directly north - the PVP level 1 becomes level 0 between 58.18N and 58.20N
• going to NU [Q] gates directly south - the PVP level 0 becomes level 1 between 58.14N and 58.15N

So player A running north thinks they are in PVP 1 from 58.14 to 58.18
and player B running south thinks they are in PVP 0 from 58.18 to 58.14


No idea what happens if these two meet in the middle (58.16) and decide to shoot each other.
In theory player A should be able to damage player B and Player B should never be able to damage Player A.


Be interesting to have someone test this out

[Bold "Bertram" Blanshard]

If one player shoots at another, surely the PvP level which should be operative is the lower of whichever either is at?
Whether there is a blurred crossover or not, when two players are either side of a boundary, the player at the lower level should always be safe.
There should never be a situation where one player is safer than the other. I suppose that means that if you shoot someone, you need to see his PVP level as well as yours, at least if it is different.

In your scenario, where B is at 0 and A is at 1, surely it is B who can kill A, not the other way round (if what I said above is not how it works). The operative PvP level would be where the bullet hits, not where it is fired from.

There is of course a problem with a blurred crossover if B is told he is still at 0, but A is told that B is at 1, because they are at the same map position. B would be told A is at 0, so one thinks they are both at 0, the other thinks they are both at 1. So yes, A might shoot, B wouldn't. What happens?

[Event "Janе" Horizon]

I have no idea which scenario works.
Any and all the above is possible.

[Jarod "Brickwit" McBrickerton]

In your scenario, where B is at 0 and A is at 1, surely it is B who can kill A, not the other way round (if what I said above is not how it works). The operative PvP level would be where the bullet hits, not where it is fired from.

I have to disagree with this statement. If a player is able to avoid being killed in PvP by going to a PvP Level 0 (PL0) area but can also still kill a player in a PL1 or higher area it is ripe for exploit. Teams of players could stand in PL0 and shoot into a higher PL area with no risk to themselves but with all of the rewards of PvP looting. While it makes sense at first glance for the bullet's location to determine whether it damages the other player or not, it effectively makes PvP completely unbalanced and unfair.

[kittykali "godslayer" deathslayer]

i think pvp 0 should means no bullets will fly. if one player is in pvp 0 that should means no attack can be made against this player and he can't initiate attacks either. my opinion.

[Jarod "Brickwit" McBrickerton]

If shooting is disabled entirely in PL0 areas we won't be able to shoot mobs either, but otherwise my opinion is the same as yours.

[kittykali "godslayer" deathslayer]

i was talking regarding pvp.

[Bold "Bertram" Blanshard]

In your scenario, where B is at 0 and A is at 1, surely it is B who can kill A, not the other way round (if what I said above is not how it works). The operative PvP level would be where the bullet hits, not where it is fired from.

I have to disagree with this statement. If a player is able to avoid being killed in PvP by going to a PvP Level 0 (PL0) area but can also still kill a player in a PL1 or higher area it is ripe for exploit. Teams of players could stand in PL0 and shoot into a higher PL area with no risk to themselves but with all of the rewards of PvP looting. While it makes sense at first glance for the bullet's location to determine whether it damages the other player or not, it effectively makes PvP completely unbalanced and unfair.

I completely agree with you that this is unacceptable. I was merely answering ESF's theory. But it is equally unacceptable that someone in Lvl 0 can be shot at from Lvl 1. That is why I outlined how it should work in my preceding paragraph.
The question is, how has the system been written?

[Jarod "Brickwit" McBrickerton]

In AWA players in a non-PvP area could not damage players in a PvP area nor be damaged by them. Either this was bugged or it should work the same way in AWS.

When it comes to PvP areas of different levels above PL0 I think it would be most fair for the loot level to be determined by the player that killed rather than the one that was killed since they are in a more dangerous situation by being in a higher PL area. This could also be taken advantage of if two players are in a PL3 with the border to a PL4 nearby and one player steps from PL3 to PL4 just as they kill the other player to get the maximum amount of loot. Both players should be aware of their surroundings while in PvP though and I think it that this shouldn't be considered an exploit.

[Bold "Bertram" Blanshard]

I agree with your first paragraph. But I don't see why the 0/1 boundary should work differently from the 3/4 boundary.
The only fair system when two players are at different levels is to use the lower level irrespective of who kills whom.
This also has the considerable merit of solving the blurred crossover problem.

[Event "Janе" Horizon]

This could all be answered by two players actually trying out the scenarios and reporting back.
I would do it myself - however I would have to 'clone' myself so I could shoot at myself (ha ha).

[Jarod "Brickwit" McBrickerton]

It may already be a moot discussion if the rules are already set up with no desire for change from the devs. The only way to know how it currently works is to test it, but the devs may be open to discussion of the mechanics too.

If the loot level is determined by whoever is lowest, two players could agree to duel in one PL and the player that's losing only has to step to the lower PL at the last second to change the whole outcome. Imagine a contest where you and I agree to a PvP fight in PL6 at a point that's fairly close to a PL4 because of convenience and if you are able to get me close to dead all I have to do is jump to the PL4 to safeguard whatever I'd be risking in PL6 in spite of the agreement. Then it becomes an argument of your word against mine on the forums and elsewhere.

With all of the shared information lately it seems more fair to put the risk of losing more loot on the player who's not paying attention than to put on the player that's playing by the rules of the agreement. Then again, maybe a 50/50 system would be most fair because it would only benefit the player crossing the border (to the detriment of the other player) about half of the time.

[Bold "Bertram" Blanshard]

Perhaps there should be a time limit, as I believe there is in another game. Anyone crossing from a higher to a lower level remains vulnerable at the original level for 30 seconds say.
At the moment, the rules as stated in the Development Release can only sensibly be understood to refer to the level of the killed player, not the killer, so some clarification is needed if there are exceptions, (and shooting from 0 to 1 is certainly such a case).
I also think there should be a warning message sent to a player who shoots at a player who is at a lower level, so that they can decide to stop shooting if the loot is not going to be what they expect, (or to explain why they didn't get that loot).

[Jarod "Brickwit" McBrickerton]

I think the timer idea would be just about perfect! But yeah, some clarification from the devs would be great.

[Event "Janе" Horizon]

The reason I posted this was that I expected the PVP zones boundaries to be very well defined... 58.18 N to be PVP level 1, 58.18.01 N to PVP level 0. However, it is like there is a calculation going on in the Game Server that only calculates the PVP location every now and again.