I'm assuming Nepenthe will be the one in the know, but I'll take anything people have. As the code is, I imagine it was coded to look at straight number of people on you, or possibly fighting in the same room or from the same group. I feel like it should somehow incorporate levels as well, though, and I don't think from experience that it does. My suggestion:

3 40s vs 1 31 = lots of missed skills/laggers/etc.
3 31s vs 1 40 = much less missed skills/laggers/etc.

This to help level out the playing field of fighting people much higher than you to make it an option instead of a noption. I mean, they're already hitting you twice as much and have 50% more HP - why can't you bring two people to even that out without losing your skills? Also, this may cut down on the ganking of people much lower since as it stands, even with the code those 3 40s are going to rock that 31.

Just a thought that I thought I'd let you think about too.

Overall, level has a fairly minimal effect on PK, particularly on the aspects you're focusing on. Even the extra HP aren't that big a deal-- in the extreme case 31 vs. 40 example you give, you're still only talking about a ~20% gap when you count in the impact of gear, etc. And if you're a 31 facing a 40, you probably have some strong racial perks (weapon resistance, etc.) that are in the game as well.

It makes Baby Floofi cry every time someone loses a PK fight and sour-grapes out a "But you had __ levels on me!". Beyond the fact that those sorts of excuses are lame in general, there's usually 12 other things in play that are at least as important as relative level.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Unless Mr. 31 is an elf. Elves suck. High int aside, why the hell do those pansies cost the extra 500xp?

It's because elves are substance abusers.

.

A second spec, two legacies, and enhanced reactions is worth saying "but you had ... on me" in my book

all those good high hp gains. All those later 30s vs. mid/late 40s warriors are horrible matchups for the 30s warrior. Many times I have been a rager when a level 46 guy wants to challenge the level 38 or 39 guy, because, as you mentioned, he has two legacies, a second spec and enhanced reactions, AND he has maybe 150 or 200 extra natural hp. It's just ugly many times and level reall does matter, in those situations.

With each level you gain skills/spells.

When 20th rank warrior who just learned his first spec faces 29th rank warrior who knows pincer ( for example ) he is in trouble as well.

I die exclusively because I make bad decisions. My point is that one of those decisions is to face enemies on higher playing grounds than me. I've heard imms say many times over that level doesn't factor into pk, but when you look straight at it, there's no way that it cannot. I seem to recall skill %, character level vs weapon level, HP, (known) skills in general, and in certain cases, straight level/hours playing into PK situations. Remembering that both races and classes can have penalities, there are alot of ways to end up in the xp penalty without really having something redeeming to explain fighting a human shaman/bard/warrior/necro with 9 levels on you. We choose those combinations because we want to play them, but I think that I raised a valid point with my previous post.

Sorry I made you cry, Baby Floofi. Now Uncle Floofi is gonna smack me down.

31 vs 40 was an example. Try 39 vs 48 or 19 vs 28 or 29 vs 38 or even the well known 42 vs 51.

You can tell me that you like it and you'll never change it, but please don't try to tell me that level doesn't matter here.

It doesn't matter as much as you think it matters. That's all anyone's ever had to say.

Start by re-reading my first post.

I didn't say level has zero impact. I said that its impact is minimal with respect to what you're focusing on (notably the success rate of hits and "laggers"), and comparable to a number of other factors in an overall sense. Hyperbole doesn't make your point more clear.

You're asking for a counterintuitive system-- if I've achieved more in my guild, I'm now less capable of fighting in a group? And it varies based on who I'm fighting? (If I'm a 42, I'm extra-bad at fighting in groups against a 33 but extra-good in fighting in groups against a more skilled 51?)

Implementing such a counterintuitive system would require a very compelling gamesplay reason which I don't think exists. You could just as easily claim we need to adjust based on your affect list, skill percentages, current equipment, or whatever else. None of those make sense to me either, but they would have the same justification as your idea.

The present 'sheer numbers' system represents crowding and missed opportunities. Even that is somewhat arbitrary (couldn't three attackers encircle a lone defender, creating more opportunities to do harm?), but it goes a ways towards mitigating the advantage of having multiple people on your side. An extra person is a sizable advantage, which justifies the debatable mechanic. Level really isn't in that class of sizable advantages.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com