Simple.

Since they're lvl20 enemies, being level 8 does not constitute overleveling, at all.

However, I'd like to see a test comparing players with over 10 levels of difference. A single level is far too little to be considered representative proof.

Well, save your starting armor and test it out on the level 2 enemies in the steppes at level 2, then again at level 12. You'll get the same result.

I tested this by engaging the Level 20 Hive by the Seeder past The Forgotten Shore. In the beta a few of us tried running this gauntlet of doom at level 8 and would be killed in a single shot. Now, wearing the base Warlock Armor brought me down to my base Level 20 with 59 Defense. A single shot from an Acolyte was enough to push my health bar just past the first tick mark... so they were doing roughly 30% damage to me. Since they weren't killing me outright we can conclude that a player's level has a significant effect on the damage they take, even when the Defense Rating does not change.

This would seem to prove Cody wrong."

No it doesn't. Is 8 greater than or equal to 20? No. Math dude.

If you are UNDER LEVELED YOU WILL GET MURDERED, as evidenced by what you just wrote.

I am talking about being an equal or higher level than your enemy, in which case additional levels over the enemy level matters zilch.

However, I'd like to see a test comparing players with over 10 levels of difference. A single level is far too little to be considered representative proof.

"As far as I can tell both your Level and your Defense Rating matter.

I tested this by engaging the Level 20 Hive by the Seeder past The Forgotten Shore. In the beta a few of us tried running this gauntlet of doom at level 8 and would be killed in a single shot. Now, wearing the base Warlock Armor brought me down to my base Level 20 with 59 Defense. A single shot from an Acolyte was enough to push my health bar just past the first tick mark... so they were doing roughly 30% damage to me. Since they weren't killing me outright we can conclude that a player's level has a significant effect on the damage they take, even when the Defense Rating does not change.

This would seem to prove Cody wrong."

Attacking a level 1 Dreg at level 1 does 44 damage.

Attacking a level 1 Dreg at level 2 does 44 damage.

Attacking a level 1 Vandal at level 1 does 44 damage.

Attacking a level 1 Vandal at level 2 does 44 damage.

Conclusion: no damage boost to being over leveled.

Being hit by a level 1 Dreg at level 1 damages you just below the first tick.

Being hit by a level 1 Dreg at level 2 damages you just below the first tick.

Being hit by a level 1 Vandal at level 1 damages you a little more below the first tick.

Being hit by a level 1 Vandal at level 2 also damages you a little more below the first tick.

Conclusion: no damage reduction to being over leveled. (Flip between tabs - the damage is identical)

Again, the only reason why being a higher level than your enemy seems to cause you to take less damage is because the Crota armor has a higher defense stat than the VoG or Vendor armor, and defense reduces damage received.

Being over leveled yields no benefit of any kind simply on the basis of your level.

You stop gaining benefits to damage dealt and damage reduction once you reach the level of the enemy you are fighting. Going over your enemy's level offers no gains compared to when you are equal to their level.

I will post a really simple demonstration of this in an hour or so.

Tons of people are still confused about this. Simply being a higher level that the enemy you are fighting yields no benefits. You do not do more damage, nor do you take less damage because of your level.

You take less damage because the VoG armor has a lower defense rating than the Crota armor. It has nothing to do with your level.

I disagree that "simply being a higher level that the enemy you are fighting yields no benefits" is a provably false statement. Possibly in regards to the amount of damage you do, but not as a blanket statement. you then follow this up with "You do not do more damage, nor do you take less damage because of your level". I argued this as well, because enemies get bonus damage on you if you are under-leveled in comparison, regardless of your defense.

You saying "It has nothing to do with your level" just adds fuel to the fire of misunderstanding, apparently what you meant, not what you said.

Way to clarify your statement by attacking people. Yeesh.

However, I agree with you when you say his post, as is, doesn't really prove much against your point.

Do it yourself and see. I did.

That's rather missing the point. You might be right. I've said as much multiple times. But if you want to state facts, please provide some evidence, or at least an easily repeatable anecdote/example. You can't just expect people to take your word for it when you provide so little information. "Do it yourself" is hardly compelling - the onus is on you as the theorist to convince us.

What, did you just ignore the part of the post where I agreed with you about damage dealt? Seriously, it was a few pixels below the part you quoted. Here, in case you sonehow missed it:

Levelling definitely affects the damage you deal if you're underlevelled but once you're overlevelled you no longer deal increasing damage per level - this is why the lvl4s in The Steppes don't die to just a single bullet from a weak AR.

What were you saying about reading comprehension?

My statement was a reply with regards to your statement about neither of us having proof. It was not directed at you, but at others in the thread.

Levelling definitely affects the damage you deal if you're underlevelled but once you're overlevelled you no longer deal increasing damage per level - this is why the lvl4s in The Steppes don't die to just a single bullet from a weak AR.

What were you saying about reading comprehension?

I have to admit, I don't know where everyone is getting that from.

It's because of "You do not do more damage, nor do you take less damage because of your level." being a blanket statement, which could be interpreted as not being limited to just overleveling, even though the previous statements were concerning that.

It was one not-so-well-written statement that led to basically all the misunderstanding, here.