Welcome to the Wizard101 Message Boards


Player Guide
Fansites
News
Game Updates
Help

By posting on the Wizard101 Message Boards you agree to the Code of Conduct.

Limit fizzles to 2 in a row...

AuthorMessage
Survivor
Jun 12, 2008
18
Just like the title says - it can be maddening to fizzle three times in a row, especially if you waste your best cards with them. If it bugs me as an adult, keep in mind how frustrating it must be to a kid...

Survivor
Aug 11, 2008
2
I do think there needs to be some kind of limit to this. If not a hard limit, perhaps after a fizzle you gain a +5% to the next spell of the same school?

I know this may mean tweaking the system a bit, but it IS maddening to lose a fight because you fizzled a bunch of times. I had to re-do an instance because during the final fight I fizzled 3 times in a row...On DEATH spells. My opponent seemed to have no problems casting their spells. Even the storm ones.

While statistically this is bound to happen...when things like this do, it's the kind of thing that can make someone quit a game. No one likes loses to random chance. Bad planning, being over powered, surprise attack sure. But horrible luck just frustrates people.

Survivor
Aug 13, 2008
2
If not 2, at least 3. As a storm mage, I fizzle at least twice a battle, and three times I've experienced 4 fizzles in a row, one time 5 fizzles (that was in a group so I hadn't died. At least, I think it was 5) 3 times in a row is way too common for me.

If there's no limit, maybe an alternative is to allow the spending of extra pips and/or mana to boost accuracy.

I think the greatest problem are spells that lower the accuracy of spells. Although it may seem like setting a limit would render the spell almost useless, it is also important to note that the card being cast is essentially wasted when fizzled, which still gives the spell much use.

Survivor
Jun 12, 2008
18
  • If not a hard limit, then some code to diminish the possibility of fizzles, perhaps 5%, per fizzle? For example, if I fizzle once then use an 80% card the next round, I'd get a 5% bonus to the "not fizzle" percentage. There could even be a graphic display of the bonus over the character, just like spell effects. If I'm unfortunate enough to fizzle again, the third round would display a bonus of 10%. Each consecutive fizzle would raise the bonus by 5%.

    I think I like that better than the hard limit, actually.


  • Regardless, I also think one should fizzle less for skills in one's own school. It would be great if it was 5%, too. As such, an attack card with a 80% non-fizzle rate would actually have a total non-fizzle rate of 85%. There's still a chance for a fizzle for everybody, but a student casting spells from his or her own school should have some advantage to casting them (other than gear bonuses) than a student from a different school.

~Ripper

Survivor
May 29, 2008
42
It's interesting that people would hope that after fizzling a certain amount of times, the chance to hit would increase. Probability alone is doing this for you. With accuracy, every school has the upper hand. I say this because no school has an accuracy equal to or less than 50%. Each time you stack a turn, your chances of fizzling again decrease. So you see, chance, probability, or whatever you want to call it is already doing this for you!

I disagree with these methods though. Not because I enjoy fizzling or doing so multiple times either. Accuracy is a rating of the cards, not the wizard (though you can boost accuracy through gear, the card values remain the same) . The cards do not change unless they are changed with enchantment spells. If fizzling is so horrifically maddening that you would be willing to insert a possible game breaking adjustment, you should consider buying accuracy boosting treasure cards. 50 gold a pop for the minimal boost is heaven even for a storm student. And if you're a storm student, you have accuracy boosting spells at your disposal. As well, missing twice is no reason to give a Diviner the accuracy of a Pyromancer. Your accuracy is set, so why should missing change that? If you are a Diviner, you will miss a lot. You accepted that charge when you enrolled for the class. There are plenty methods for increasing accuracy, I think you should use them before deciding it's best to change the game.

Survivor
Jul 15, 2008
2
the fizzle thing is their in order to balance the schools,
after all diviners could very well one hit many monsters, so theyr accuracy taker awayer thingermajigger (thats a scientifical term by the way) is there to keep them from being super powerfullyistical*.

just like life is lacking in attacks but has awesome heals and good accuracy
ice has medium in almost everything
balance is protection against everything and enhance everything attacks
and on and on

no take away fizzle, it might be frustrating but it makes it more fair



*who says i'm unfastly slow'd and does no no how to writee?

Survivor
Jun 01, 2008
8
It is a matter of balance. As a storm mage, you would do the most damage per pip but for the disadvantage of the highest fizzle rate. Doing more damage means that you are more powerful and able to defeat opponents more quickly, but at the risk of sometimes longer battles or even getting defeated when fizzling more than average.

Cards that fizzle are only lost from your hand not your deck, they are reshuffled into it, as far as I know.

Tweaking fizzle rates as proposed would mean to corrupt the current clean and clear rules somewhat and to shift balance towards an advantage to the more risky schools.

I understand that it can get annoying and frustrating, and an accuracy bonus towards the next spell after a fizzle is an idea I like some, it could mean that your wizard tries harder to concentrate after a fizzle.

But I tend more to leave it as it is. It should be considered carefully when choosing spell school, wether one wants to hit hard but sometimes fizzle too much or if he wants more reliable spells which are weaker then. Further, one can use spells and equipment to increase accuracy.

Survivor
Jun 01, 2008
8
Kilajula wrote:
Each time you stack a turn, your chances of fizzling again decrease. So you see, chance, probability, or whatever you want to call it is already doing this for you!

Stochastics say that if your accuracy is 70%, for instance (which means a fizzle rate of 30%), your chance to fizzle will always be 30%, regardless of how many fizzles you experienced in a row preceding your present attempt.

But your chance to fizzle twice in a row will be 9% (0.3 * 0.3),
to fizzle 3 in a row 2.7% (0.3 * 0.3 * 0.3).

Survivor
Jun 12, 2008
18
Each time you stack a turn, your chances of fizzling again decrease. So you see, chance, probability, or whatever you want to call it is already doing this for you!

This simply isn't true. Each card, each round is calculated independently of each other. If I have any 80% card, then it's 80% each time I cast it (4 out of 5 successful will be successful, on average). The fact that a previous card fizzled isn't considered when the next card 'to hit' is calculated.

Survivor
May 24, 2008
1
RipperMcGee wrote:
Just like the title says - it can be maddening to fizzle three times in a row, especially if you waste your best cards with them. If it bugs me as an adult, keep in mind how frustrating it must be to a kid...


I do agree... I am a kid and I am furious if I fizzle especially because I am use to never fizzling being in myth. I think it should be a limit to 2 times per battle let alone to in a row

Survivor
Jul 01, 2008
5
i am 4 levels away from being a grandmaster life and it is so funny when i fizzle since life cards only have 10% chance lol. but remember if a 90% can fizzle then a 10% can work. o yah i have learned a secret but i dont think i'll tell it. my name is dakota lifewraith if you know me fell free to ask. 8)

Survivor
May 29, 2008
42
Firlan wrote:
But your chance to fizzle twice in a row will be 9% (0.3 * 0.3),
to fizzle 3 in a row 2.7% (0.3 * 0.3 * 0.3).
This is precisely what I am talking about! I should have left in that sentence "but your chance to fizzle on any given turn is the same." That way I wouldn't have to deal with needless replies telling me I'm wrong and right in one fell swoop. lol

Anyhow, my whole point is the chance to fizzle multiple times is low. In effect, taking care of what these players are asking for.

Survivor
Jun 15, 2008
1
I don't know what it is, but it seems like lately the fizzle rate is much higher. Every time I battle I fizzle about 5 times in a row. It's starting to get really annoying. I don't remember fizzling that much. I'm an Ice student with Storm as a 2nd. I know storm has a higher fizzle rate, but come on! Fizzling 5 times in a row is lame!!! This needs to be fixed, and fast!

Survivor
Aug 06, 2008
6
The chance of fizzling is all part of the battle. It would throw the balance off the schools as well. Some of the schools with higher damage spells have lower accuracy while others with medium damage spells have higher accuracy. It is part of the experience of battle and whichever school you are.

I really wouldn't want some kind of fizzle in a row cap.... even though I do agree that it can be annoyign when you fizzle multiple times in a row.

Survivor
Jun 01, 2008
8
Kilajula wrote:
That way I wouldn't have to deal with needless replies telling me I'm wrong and right in one fell swoop. lol

I'm not eager to write "needless replies". This time, RipperMcGee and I understood your post independently from each other the same way (my post was undergoing approval when he wrote his) and expressed the same criticism to it. But, of course, you were right from the beginning, I said you were right and wrong in one fell swoop (I just lectured a bit about stochastics) and we did needless replies *shakes head*

If you would be really poised you maybe would have said something like "Thanks for the clarification, that's how I actually meant it", but that's not your style, as far as I've learned.

(Please don't try to start another "I'm not here to appeal to you" argument, we've had this yet. I just felt offended, replied and a bit tried to show you another way, but do not intend to make you appeal to me. Do what you like, but I won't swallow whatever you say.)

Survivor
May 29, 2008
42
Firlan wrote:
If you would be really poised you maybe would have said something like "Thanks for the clarification, that's how I actually meant it", but that's not your style, as far as I've learned.
That was the intention, actually. That's the problem with written language, the reader doesn't necessarily know what the writer's intentions are. However, I don't say "thank you" to those who shoot down my posts. A style of yours as I've learned.

Anyhow, it's a moot point. It's just sad that when I post something I have to defend it against those who understand and agree. And it certainly doesn't help the topic either.

Survivor
Jun 12, 2008
18
Survivor
Aug 19, 2008
1
a more simple way to do things and which should have been implemented into the game is to give the user a greater chance of spell success in whatever main school he/she chooses.
for example someone who chooses storm school should have a better chance of spell success than someone casting a storm spell from another school.
i too have noticed lately though after the last update that the fizzle rate has greatly increased especially in instances.
lost track of how many times me and a friend fizzled back to back last night during a instance while the enemies had no troubles with only 1 fizzle a piece.

Survivor
Jun 01, 2008
8
Kilajula wrote:
It's just sad that when I post something I have to defend it against those who understand and agree. And it certainly doesn't help the topic either.

Yes, I'm sad about that, too. Most times when getting into an argument, we are on the same side, though weaken each others point of view.

I didn't intend to shoot your post down and hadn't been all sure how you meant it, so I quoted some stochastics, the first indent showing that probability does nothing like a soft fizzle cap, the second showing something similar to what you wrote.

But it won't help a topic to argue fuzzy, unfair or even wrong, either, and such and misunderstandings may then become starting points for "friendly fire" ;)

Survivor
Aug 13, 2008
2
Well, 2 consecutive fizzles isn't really much. It's past 3 that gets annoying.

I do agree that a hard 2 limit fizzle would break the game. A possible solution is for the 3rd fizzle to give a second roll- if the initial roll fizzles, have another 50/50 chance, and the 4th fizzle in a row would be guaranteed, or improve the chances.

Regardless, I proposed spending extra pips/mana to boost accuracy for a certain spell. Doing this helps finish off that one monster that just doesn't die and keeps chipping away at your health, simply because you fizzle. This wouldn't negate the idea of trading accuracy for damage; rather, wizards with low accuracy would have to spend extra pips to do the same amount of damage, lowering his damage the next turn, since pips will need to be regenerated. This wouldn't be game breaking if implemented properly, I think.

To address the other issue, accuracy spells are useful, but only in certain circumstances. Since it boosts the accuracy of the next spell, a sudden necessary heal or needing to get a debuff off (with say a wand) inhibits its usefulness, especially since it needs to be the last spell cast before the actual spell you're boosting the accuracy of. It's also another spell, meaning another turn casting it, preventing killing a mob on the last turn, when you both are one hit from death. Worst comes to worst, the boosted spell fizzles (albeit rarely) and the accuracy buff is wasted anyways.
Not to mention if the buff is a treasure card, you have to discard a potentially useful card for it.

"Kilajula" wrote:

Anyhow, it's a moot point. It's just sad that when I post something I have to defend it against those who understand and agree. And it certainly doesn't help the topic either.


So don't defend yourself. One person was offended through a slight connotative misunderstanding, expressed his discontent. Like you said yourself, it's hard to read through written language, so why start an argument over a minor issue?

Survivor
Jul 19, 2008
4
I dont think they should change the fizzle rate. Yes it is very frustrating to die and lose a battle due to fizzles but i guess thats the price that you pay for high damage.

It's no fair to other schools like life and balance, probably ice too. They have low damage and low fizzle rates, while the rest have high damage and a little higher fizzles rates. This makes things balance out, besides it was your choice of school, you weren't force into it.

You want more power, you gotta pay the price. Thats how reality works.

sghoul wrote:
I do think there needs to be some kind of limit to this. If not a hard limit, perhaps after a fizzle you gain a +5% to the next spell of the same school?


Want to know a secret? The game already does this. In fact, it's more significant than what you are suggesting.

That said, we can't push it too far, or it would throw off the balance of the game. Storm hits significantly harder than any other school, and the downside is that it fizzles more. If you make it fizzle less, the other schools would suffer in comparison.




Survivor
Jul 18, 2008
1
It IS a problem- whats really annoying is when I get dragged into a fight with low mana. Every time I fizzle I loose the mana regardless of the fact it didn't work, so I wind up being killed due to no mana BECAUSE of all the fizzling.

Survivor
Jun 12, 2008
18
Survivor
May 29, 2008
42
Firlan wrote:
But it won't help a topic to argue fuzzy, unfair or even wrong, either, and such and misunderstandings may then become starting points for "friendly fire" ;)
Isn't that the truth? Hahaha. Please know that I do respect your posts greatly. There are many testers who post here, and do so brilliantly. In my opinion you are at the top. I always make a point to look out for one of your posts. I learn a lot. Our discussions may get heated at times, but it's never a personal issue.

Lancaster wrote:
So don't defend yourself. One person was offended through a slight connotative misunderstanding, expressed his discontent. Like you said yourself, it's hard to read through written language, so why start an argument over a minor issue?
If I feel I must, I will. That is my right as a member of this community. I don't wish to upset anyone. And sometimes I post and cross that line. I do so at my own discretion. I can't speak for Firlian, but I believe that we're both under mutual understanding of our own posts. Either way, it doesn't concern you. We can manage fine, thank you.

As for your pip for percentage proposal, I think it's a brilliant idea. But I disagree that it would not be game breaking. Being able to boost accuracy by means of pips defeats the purpose of even having accuracy, in my opinion. It also defeats the purpose of having spells that boost accuracy. I understand your latest post on how they can be misused. However, the timing of when you use a card is key to any card game. It's an issue of strategy.
Stat augmentation should remain by means of gear and spells, I think.