thepmrc wrote:

CodeOrange wrote:

That's all well and good, but there is flexibility to be seen yet in balance.

If GGG took the pokemon route to balancing pvp, where where all players will have their level temporarily reset to let's say, lvl 30/60/90 and have their gear/gems delevelled to accommodate these changes, or use stock equipment/gems if this proves too trying on ggg's/the player's end. All players will only have 30/60/90 passive points + quest reward points to spend in building their character, meaning that they would have to build strategically on the same grounds as their opponent(s), while also providing concrete level milestones to balance the game around.

Ofc I'm only suggesting that this be used for more formal forms of pvp such as arenas or tournaments.

Please god no! Balancing PVP in this way would ruin the economy. Why would anyone want good gear when it is not used for pvp?

For God's sake, I'm not suggesting that this method of balance be applied to generic pking or pk-based modes like cutthroat. I also NEVER said that this should be the ONLY way to formal pvp, that it should only be a possible alternative to item-based battles that are wholly dependent on item drops (ie luck) for the most part.

Can't you people read? If so, then actually do so before posting something stupid like this. I also understand that some of you also prefer item-based combat, but if the crux, weight and conclusion of your argument is going to consist of one or two sentences stating that you prefer item-based combat over game balance, then don't even bother posting in the first place.

Personally, I believe that a player should be rewarded on how skilled they are at the game, not on how lucky they are or on how long they've been playing the game (or in some cases, how much disposable income they have). But that's just me and my ridiculous and controversial ways.