I wonder this because I am 9 levels ahead of someone whom I can harm. I'm not a little bit to rank either, i have a penalty on race and class, and this other one is a human with very little penalty. My question is that is Distention a punishment for someone not gaining ranks, and sitting at one level, or at a group of levels and not gaining? Or, is this like an imm "reward" in for the person killing. Because, I have 9 levels on him, and I dont really see him beating me with the difference in levels. I Mean it's a possibility, but this one isn't a bashing giant.

I'm just curious, that's all. Maybe he doesn't have distention, but I know for a fact that I am so much more to level than he is, and he was out of my range a little while ago, but all of a sudden is in.

I'm about 99% sure it's distension.

What do the Imms think about Distention? Also, what do you players who've had distention think about it? You like it?

Another question, but if that one who's 9 levels below me gets a kill on me, do you get more "exp" for killing someone with so many more levels ahead of you, rather than fighting someone of your same rank?

It makes the top end of your range significantly harder. Level generally doesn't matter excessively in PK (despite being a very common copout/excuse), but after a while it adds up.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

.

Level generally doesn't matter excessively in PK (despite being a very common copout/excuse)

Misinformation.

Level means a LOT in PK. In some cases it affects your power directly, in other cases it does that indirectly.

If you are higher level:
- It affects how well your spells land.
- You simply have move hp/mana.
- Average eq quality is higher because it's easier to get good eq at higher ranks. Of course, you may get lucky (or cheat) to have a hero set at middle ranks, but still it is less common than having a hero set at hero ranks. You probably will not see many paladins with defiance at 42, but you may meet some at 51. Etc.
- You have more skills/spells available. For example, you may have a second spec/legacies while your opponent doesn't.
- You may have more cabal powers.
- You may have stronger servitors/charmies.
- You may have advantage in wands. In extreme cases you may have a/b/s while your opponent can't use them yet. Higher level also makes it easier to get wands.
- You *may* have better skill/spell percentage. Of course, this is only at average. In every particular case the numbers may vary, but in general, the higher ranks player is the more time he spent ranking/training. Also, in some cases, it is easier to get % at higher ranks. For example, it is easier to get up weapon skills when you have dual wield and fourth attack.

Trance/notrance too.

I thought it was August, but there sure is a lot of 'may' in there!

r=-.024 (i.e., weak and negative), p=.360 (i.e., insignficant)

I'm pulling the data from over 1400 PBF entries, so the insignificance can't be blamed on a small sample size. And we can expect it to be pretty precise, besides.

Now let's see the correlation between Levels/Hour and PK Ratio. I'll filter out the all the level 51s (since people spend many hours at level 51 at which point ranking is not so much an issue); that still leaves over 500 PBF entries. The Pearson correlation between PK Ratio and Levels/Hour is -.251, p=.000000... So that's significant, though weak. It suggests that the quicker a player ranks, the worse they do at PK in general, but there are plenty of exceptions as well. (Oh, and not filtering out the level 51s would still give us a weak, negative, significant correlation at r=-.109, p=.0000000...)

The above can probably be blamed on the fact that PK Wins/Hour significantly (though weakly) decreases with Level (r=-.99, p=.000210), while PK Losses/Hour stays the same (r=-.021, p=.433).

All in all, the end result seems to be not what you think, despite your list of reasons for expecting otherwise.

(Edit: It might make sense to break this down by cabal and/or class. I may do that tomorrow sometime.)

Furthermore, I think Seantryn Modan must be destroyed.

Not sure what you tried to say...
I said nothing about level/hours and PK ratio correlation.
How about you just sum up how often the victor is lower level compared to the loser and how often the loser is lower level.

Unfortunately the proper data for that kind of analysis isn't publicly available.

However, if what you say is true, then from level 31 to level 51, I'd expect to see improving PK ratios, since there should be an ever increasing number of lower level characters to PK and an ever decreasing number of upper level characters to avoid. Similarly, one would expect people who rank quickest to have the best PK ratios, since they spend less time at low levels more time at high levels.

We know PK Losses/Hour is not increasing, so we can't say things just get that much harder at upper levels. Meanwhile, I'd expect PK Wins/Hour to increase if what you say is true, but the very opposite is happening.

I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be any interaction that supports your point. It does make sense that level would have some effect on PK, as it increases options. But if level mattered "a LOT", then it does seem odd that not even the slightest, shakiest bit of support for that opinion can be gleaned from what data we have. It certainly doesn't seem enough to say the one guy who might actually know for sure is spreading misinformation.

Furthermore, I think Seantryn Modan must be destroyed.

Unfortunately the proper data for that kind of analysis isn't publicly available.

They are available, but tricky.
Modern PBF has level history, so you know what level was a character in a given day (but not hours). They also have PK wins and PK loses with char names.
Of course, you can't get exact numbers because PK wins/loses sometimes aren't complete or buggy and not all fights are 1x1 duels, also PKwins/Level history are given with "day" precision. Still, I believe, some rough estimation will not be too far from the reality.

However, if what you say is true

By the way, which of reasons I wrote you think is false?
Seriously, which one you can argue against?

then from level 31 to level 51, I'd expect to see improving PK ratios, since there should be an ever increasing number of lower level characters to PK and an ever decreasing number of upper level characters to avoid.

Not at all. It depends on many other factors:
- PK ratio reflects only kills. It doesn't include fights where you are completely owned and run from your opponent but still stay alive. For example, your character at level 42 may have no chance against some tough level 51. Level matters a lot here, but if you simply avoid fighting him this fact will not be reflected in PK ratios.
- there are many fights in PK ratios that are not 1x1. And ganging experience may be completely different at hero compared to lower ranks.
- class matters. Some chars have sweet spots. For example, you will see Pk ratio increase for shifters but may notice PK ratio decrease for warriors.
- cabal matters.
- many chars are level 51, levelsitting at 42-50 is not common, so until you hit hero you still have a number of characters above you who usually have advantages. Many of them spend a lot of time at hero, so they have good skills, imm rewards, good eq, etc.
- The higher level is the more skilled average player is. PK is somewhat different at hero, if at some point your opponents start to exceed your pk skill, your PK ratio may go down.

Similarly, one would expect people who rank quickest to have the best PK ratios, since they spend less time at low levels more time at high levels.

Unrelated to PK ratios.
By the way, the quickest rankers are usually shifters, because they try to get their final forms as quick as possible.

We know PK Losses/Hour is not increasing, so we can't say things just get that much harder at upper levels. Meanwhile, I'd expect PK Wins/Hour to increase if what you say is true, but the very opposite is happening.

Again, it depends on many other factors. Some chars start to die at hero more often and other stop dying at hero at all. Class, cabal, player skill/style matter a lot here.

I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be any interaction that supports your point. It does make sense that level would have some effect on PK, as it increases options. But if level mattered "a LOT", then it does seem odd that not even the slightest, shakiest bit of support for that opinion can be gleaned from what data we have. It certainly doesn't seem enough to say the one guy who might actually know for sure is spreading misinformation.

If you want to estimate level difference influence in PK you should estimate exactly this: level difference in PK.
When you try to mix it with something else, you will get completely false data.
Good way to estimate it is analyzing average PK outcome against level difference of opponents (from PBF level history and PK history). "Grep" 1x1 fights from PBFs and compare against known levels.

I don't see anything unusual from my own experience. I rarely run/die to lower ranks and I surely run/die much more often from people who have ranks on me.
I suggest you to try to fight a 36 rank necromancer with access to a/b/s with your 27 level cloud warrior. And then try to do the same against level 20 necromacer. You will probably notice difference too.

I suggest you to try to fight a 36 rank necromancer with access to a/b/s with your 27 level cloud warrior. And then try to do the same against level 20 necromancer. You will probably notice difference too.


(Your distended level 20 necromancer?)

If these are the kind of examples you're using, we're probably in agreement that "Level generally doesn't matter excessively in PK." and "after a while it adds up", where "after a while" is taken to include "changing one participant by 16 levels in a matchup deliberately created to emphasize level".

Take your example and make it a 5 level swing. Replace the necromancer with an assassin, or the warrior with a healer. Assume one player has the advantage of surprise, or is significantly more skilled. Play with available gear. Etc.

Most PK fights aren't arena matchups.

By the way, which of reasons I wrote you think is false?
Seriously, which one you can argue against?

We could solve the renewable fuels crisis with the collection of straw men you've built over the years.

The issue isn't whether they're false. Neither I nor Boon nor Nep stated that. The issue is whether they overwhelm enough of the other variables (player skill, element of surprise, class/subclass matchup, starting conditions, etc.) in a large number of fights.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>If these are the kind of examples you're using, we're probably
>in agreement that "Level generally doesn't matter excessively
>in PK." and "after a while it adds up", where "after a while"
>is taken to include "changing one participant by 16 levels in
>a matchup deliberately created to emphasize level".

We are not in agreement. Level is significant factor in PK. Is it the only significant factor? No.
For example, if out of 15 fights, 5 were won because of class matchup, 5 were won because of players skill and 5 were won because of level difference I still stand at "level matters a lot".

There is a number of fights where level difference matters. There is also a number of fights that DID NOT HAPPEN because of level difference (many players aren't suicidal).

Hell, you have EXTRACOSTs in CF. Their existance can be only explained if level difference matters. If level difference is insignificant, extracost make no sense other than adding an annoyance factor to leveling.

>I don't see anything unusual from my own experience. I rarely
>run/die to lower ranks and I surely run/die much more often
>from people who have ranks on me.

The problem with your theory is that there are just so many counterexamples: cases where in a matchup the lower level character is clearly favored to win. Because of XP penalties, there are a lot of these.

For example: an 800 penalty character will almost always have most of his PK range higher leveled. Are you trying to tell me that every fire A-P who sat at level 36 or 40 trying to build up an unholy weapon was the underdog in most of those fights?

>I suggest you to try to fight a 36 rank necromancer with
>access to a/b/s with your 27 level cloud warrior. And then try
>to do the same against level 20 necromacer. You will probably
>notice difference too.

Given that the level 20 necromancer in that example is almost certainly heavily distended for that fight to even happen, I might still bet on him.

Any time you're matching up opponents of the same class but different levels, then there's the opportunity for one to have some "big" skill and the other one not. The example I gave was martial trance. That's huge. Shifter w/ 4th tier form vs. shifter w/o 4th tier form. Etc.

Suppose I'm an assassin sitting around 27. All else being equal, I'm going to have a lot more trouble with the 27+ paladin than I am the sub-26 paladin.

In most cases, I don't think the spell-saves aspect of it is the most important thing. It's the skills the higher level characters have that the lower level ones don't. Enhanced damage, sanctuary, etc.

>For example: an 800 penalty character will almost always have
>most of his PK range higher leveled. Are you trying to tell
>me that every fire A-P who sat at level 36 or 40 trying to
>build up an unholy weapon was the underdog in most of those
>fights?

You mean that some classes have bad matchups that can overwhelm level difference influence. I completely agree.
But if we take out bad matchups... In your example, I will put my money on level 44 AP against level 36 AP (assuming both have similar number of charges and skill). Why? Because I'm jerk like that and know that level matters.

Also, if you replace level 36/40 AP in your example with level 35, I would argue that he is an underdog more often than not. See? Only one level down matters a lot.

>Given that the level 20 necromancer in that example is almost
>certainly heavily distended for that fight to even happen, I
>might still bet on him.

I'm not sure when a drow necro will enter cloud 27 level Pk range but seening that both of you (Nep and Valg) are trying to fight the same small number in my post makes me think I'm right
Anyway, just replace level 20 necro with level 21(22) necro and get over it.
My point is that a necro with bash protection and a/b/s and more hps is much TOUHGER than a necro without either. And this is heavily level based. Similar examples you can build for almost every class.

>I'm not sure when a drow necro will enter cloud 27 level Pk
>range but seening that both of you (Nep and Valg) are trying
>to fight the same small number in my post makes me think I'm
>right

Hell, you can think whatever you want.

}{

I will always bet on skill over levels. I have watched way too many fights with a skilled low level just smashing their higher level counterparts. Even the distended ones. And yes, the distended are almost always the exceptionally skilled. But, they prove the point that skill overcomes level.

Ya'll are arguing two completely different points.

He isn't saying level is the primary factor by any means. He's just saying that it IS one of the factors, and it DOES matter.

Edit: Fixed my italics tags. I'll be able to keep real HTML and this forum's tags straight someday.

Quoth Valg, higher up in this thread:


If these are the kind of examples you're using, we're probably in agreement that "Level generally doesn't matter excessively in PK." and "after a while it adds up", where "after a while" is taken to include "changing one participant by 16 levels in a matchup deliberately created to emphasize level".


and


The issue isn't whether they're false. Neither I nor Boon nor Nep stated that. The issue is whether they overwhelm enough of the other variables (player skill, element of surprise, class/subclass matchup, starting conditions, etc.) in a large number of fights.


No one's said level is always meaningless. Some of us are saying that in most cases, level is markedly less important than other factors.

I mean, if you take two characters that are the same class, both equally prepared, similar gear, similarly useful cabal powers or lack thereof, similarly skilled players, but one is 8 levels higher than the other -- yeah, the level difference probably points to the winner there -- but it does so as a tiebreaker with a lot of other things being pretty equal.

Exactly my point. You're quoting Valg's argument, and ignoring Dwoggurd's.

This all started when Valg said "Level doesn't generally matter excessively in PK". First off, could you get any more vague?

Dwoggurd, Isildur, etc were saying that level DOES matter to some extent, and depending on the circumstances, it matters a lot. Look at a paldin pre- and post- sanc. A necro pre- and post- wrath. A warrior pre- and post- legacies/specs. Etc etc.

It isn't level necessarily that matters, but the result of having those level. ie, better skills, supps, spells, hp, etc.

Obviously, player skill will always be the most important factor. But it isn't the only one that can decide the fight.

This is turning into one of those obnoxious threads where each side is arguing their own point, while ignoring the point the other person is trying to make.

>Dwoggurd, Isildur, etc were saying that level DOES matter to
>some extent, and depending on the circumstances, it matters a
>lot. Look at a paldin pre- and post- sanc. A necro pre- and
>post- wrath. A warrior pre- and post- legacies/specs. Etc
>etc.

Right. In those edge cases, it's obviously more important; however, I'd still say in those cases level would almost never top my list of reasons why a fight went one way or another.

Whereas Dwoggurd above is suggesting that level determines a fight as commonly as 1/3 of the time, I'd say it's more like less than 1% of the time.

Is that still too vague?

That was pretty much my thinking on it. I would take distended guy, 10-12 ranks below not skilled player, 99% of the time.

For all the noise you're making about not reading the posts of others, go back to the top of the thread and read my original post, and tell me what is incorrect or "MISINFORMATION" about it.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

You are proving my point yet again, that all you can do is explain yourself repeatedly, without actually reading and comprehending what everyone else is saying.

I never said you were wrong. I never said Dwoggurd was right. I just said neither side was paying attention, or acknowledging he fact that you mostly agreed with each other.

Each of you agrees Skill plays a bigger part than anything else. The only disagreement is to what EXTENT of a role level plays in things. And obviously, that depends on the situation question.

So seriously dude, instead of focusing on being right all the time, try to focus on what other people are trying to say.

.

I will *usually* bet on player skill over levels, but it really depends on the difference in player skill and difference in levels.

I don't think this is really what Dwoggurd is trying to say. I might be reading too much into his arguments but I read his arguments like this:

If you assume player skill, class combo, and other uncontrollable factors are equal, i.e. equal skilled players, good combo match ups, similar gear, etc. then level makes a difference.

Pretty sure everyone is in agreement that differences in player skill is most likely the sigle biggest factor in any given pk situation. But, that does not mean that level difference plays no part in determining the likely outcome of a pk attempt.

I would further argue that observation of lower level characters killing higher level characters is not a sufficient counter example. Assume the following:

1. Skilled pkers land more pks then non-skilled pkers at all levels. (I think people pretty much agree to this in general)

2. Player skill has a greater impact on any given pk's outcome then level difference. (Seems to be the general consensus again)

3. Skilled pkers are more likely to initiate a pk situation with higher level characters. (I assume this is a factor of a players skill might not be true but seems likely)

4. The number of Skilled pkers is less then the number of non-skilled pkers. (Since skill is relative, as long as we define being skilled as being better then the majority, this is always true)

5. Relative distribution of skilled and non-skilled pkers is about equal over all levels. (I think this is reasonably accurate up to hero range at hero range I don't think this holds)

Result:

Skilled pkers even when lower level (at least up to hero range) will find non-skilled pkers of higher level to pk more oftem then they encounter skilled pkers of higher level. These encounters result in the skilled pkers getting the pk more often the the non-skilled pker as skill has a greater impact then other factors including level difference.

Thus, resulting in the skilled pker killing higher level non-skilled pkers. The point is player skill is the driver of the pk encounter as well as the major determinate of the outcome. So, the potential impact of level difference would seem to be diminished as skill not level difference drives pk encounters.

The only way I think to get a good look at the actual effect of level difference is find a way to rate player skill and then analyze how level difference affects the outcomes of pks. This way you could see what players of equal skill but of differing levels do up against each other.

My logic is probably all screwy anyway but that is what I make of it.

But I had to post.

I won a ton of fights with Uthral where I was massively out-level'd.

I also see Dwoggurd's point because certain classes that got key skills after a certain level raped me.

Let's agree that IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS level means a lot more than it normally would, but every reasonably intelligent player/person should be able to figure those situations out beforehand (something Dwoggurd knows about, the man never gets into a ####ty fight, which was a talent of my former playing, guess I'm saying I wasn't reasonably intelligent...I hate being stoned).

Ah well, back to my cave and my Usain Bolt t-shirt.

Dude. You totally abused those stats.

A similar example that springs to mind was about how bad coffee was for you.

What they didn't appreciate was that coffee drinking was correlated with smoking, and their stats showed nothing statistically significant once the smoking effect was allowed for.

Similarly, people that play lots of hours may have a different kind of attitude to those that don't.

e.g. Someone who pk's 100 enemies and deleted when pk'd won't hit as many hours as the mud-sexing drow healer.

Just imagine the difference between playing a human AP and fire/drow ap. The human ap will have significantly easier time racking charges at 36-40 due to lower exp penalty. Granted, I'm not saying it's the end all of pk, but let's say we compare two warriors in the 40+ range. Just 4 levels difference will generally mean one legacy and 100+ hp more. It's not ground breaking or an insurmountable obstacle, but it sure does make a difference. I don't need to pick out some super extreme example for it, just in general a 5 level difference is already pretty huge at almost any range. Obviously a charged up level 40 ap will steamroll most level 47 enemies, but that's not the point.

No one in their right mind will claim level is the final deciding factor, but it sure as hell plays a non-insignificant role.

>Just imagine the difference between playing a human AP and
>fire/drow ap.

I don't have to imagine it; I've played all three that high at least once.

And, honestly, I would not say the human had the easiest time of it. (I'm not sure they had the hardest time either; I think it's all roughly even.) The dark elf and fire giant have uglier ranges, true, but they also have powerful advantages that help them make kills or survive where the human wouldn't. While theoretically there can be people in the upper end of their range that they just can't beat that wouldn't be in the human's range, my experience is that these characters are rare, and typically easy to avoid if you want to.