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.

Split phase turns

AuthorMessage
Defender
Jan 20, 2009
137
I appologize if this issue has been discussed before. I glanced through the first couple of pages of this forum.

It seems to me that the major flaw with the duelling mechanic is that when going second in the turn order, you must make your spell decisions before your enemy. This isn't too much of a concern in PvE, since it can be overcome with a little forethought for healing options, etc. However, for PvP, it is far too much of an advantage to go first in the turn order.

I understand that it would inherently make battles longer, but why aren't the turns split into phases where each side takes one turn and then the opposing side has time to select spells in response? This would be a much fairer system, especially for PvP, in my opinion.

I am a relatively new player, so like I said before, I appologize if this issue has come up before.

Defender
Jan 20, 2009
137
I just want to bump this up, because as I see it, this is a serious flaw in the duelling system, especially for pvp.

Perhaps I should be more clear in my explanation.

At the beginning of combat, teams are set Team A and Team B and a die is rolled to see which team gets to go first. From that point on *throughout the entire combat* the teams follow this order. If Team A won the roll and have first turn order, Team B must choose their spells BEFORE they know which spells Team A are going to cast. This doesn't make any sense and is just unfair in some situations.

What I propose is instead of having one spell selection phase per round, have one spell selection phase PER TEAM. That way, each team would, in turn, get a chance to react to the opposing teams spells as they are cast. This would be a fairer approach to combat, as neither side would have an inherent advantage.

Survivor
Jan 06, 2009
26
Even in PVE (Player VS Environment), This would be useful in the areas were there are heavy (weakness use). As I usually would forgo a round to use a wand to get rid of the weakness hex, as well as help with the timing of shields. I think being able to select your spell when it is your turn to cast is defensibly a good tactical idea.

Defender
Jan 20, 2009
137
I'm very interested in hearing from development on this issue. As it stands, the duelling system is inherently unfair, as it forces one side of the duel to make choices before they know what the opposing team decides.

I'm quite certain that this wouldn't be a major pain to change in the game, and I'm wondering why the decision was made to have only one phase per turn instead of one phase per team.

I appologize if this issue has been discussed before.

Defender
Jan 20, 2009
137
It would be nice to hear developer response to this. I am not the only one asking about the combat system. Refer to thread https://www.wizard101.com/site/posts/list/4102.ftl

Explorer
Mar 07, 2009
65
This is not a good idea because it would give a wizard or team a two in a row attack. Yes going first in a PvP increases your chance to win but a very good dueler know how to over come this. I have a very high duel rating over 1 thousand and going 2nd not too much of a big deal. You just have to know what school your dueling and how to play your deck when going 2nd.

Defender
Jan 20, 2009
137
Militarymage wrote:
This is not a good idea because it would give a wizard or team a two in a row attack. ...


Team A goes, Team B goes, Team A goes, Team B goes ... How is this two times in a row? The only difference my solution makes is whether its ABABAB or BABABA

Look, I know there are ways to deal with this system, that's not my complaint. My complaint is that the dueling system is by its very nature unbalanced, because one side has an advantage that the other side doesn't have, however small.

This inherent unfairness is what I'm saying should be looked at, or at least a reason given for its existence.

Explorer
Mar 07, 2009
65
Yea but you must remember that Team A goes but Team B goes last first round then Team B goes first 2 round with Team A going last if I am understand what you’re saying. AB(1st)BA(2nd)AB(3rd)BA(4th).... The problem come when a team gets to cast two spells back to back. This will cause problems. If I could cast two times in a row I would not lose a duel. I believe the system is find the way it is. I know it may seem like you go 2nd all the time but when you keep track of it you see it falls around 50% of the time.... not counting bad days :)

Now I would like to see matches setup as best out of three where the first two match would rotate with each person with the last match random. Then rank the matches as one that way you don’t lose rating due to a bad draw or bad luck, kind of how fighter arcade games are setup.

Or make a dice roll to see who got picked to go first so people don’t think they are getting cheated, kind of a visual aid of what the program doing :)

Defender
Jan 20, 2009
137
Militarymage wrote:
Yea but you must remember that Team A goes but Team B goes last first round then Team B goes first 2 round with Team A going last if I am understand what you’re saying. AB(1st)BA(2nd)AB(3rd)BA(4th)....


Militarymage wrote:
Yea but you must remember that Team A goes but Team B goes last first round then Team B goes first 2 round with Team A going last if I am understand what you’re saying. AB(1st)BA(2nd)AB(3rd)BA(4th)....


You are not understanding what I'm saying.

Here is the combat system, as it is currently defined:

-Random(A,B) = 'first','second'
-SpellSelection('first','second')
-CastSpells('first')
-CastSpells('second')
-SpellSelection('first','second')

Here is my proposed change:

-Random(A,B) = 'first','second'
-SpellSelection('first')
-CastSpells('first')
-SpellSelection('second')
-CastSpells('second')
-SpellSelection('first')

The order will always be either AB AB AB or B AB AB A. Neither team A nor team B will have two turns in a row.

Defender
Feb 03, 2009
119
I've suggested before to have an Initiative Stat added to PvP gear. At least that way there is something, no matter how diminutive, you can do to influence the initial "who goes first" question.

Of course there's always the concept that neither player is at a real advantage. Regardless of when you go, your opponent doesn't know what spell you are going to throw. It's actually relatively simple to suddenly put the player who went first on the defensive.

I think it is actually boiling down to the dynamics of the endgame duel. They mostly consist of sleeping giant type decks and that's where the problem of "Who goes first" really is evident as people try to wand Tower Shields and set up blades/traps for the big 10 pip spell they are saving.

Explorer
Mar 07, 2009
65
Ok , now I see what your talking about. I was thinking about this all weekin and came up with another idea.

Why not rotate back and forth between teams. Random start: Round 1 Team A player 1; Team B player 1; Team A player2; Team B player 2; .... etc. til the end of the round. This way the team that goes first does not have a leg up.

Like your idea with dueling gear with initiative Stats. This would set the dueling gear apart from the adventuring gear, otherwise dueling gear will always be subpar.

Explorer
Feb 09, 2009
58
It goes:
Turn selection (Random) first turn.
Spell Selection (Simultaneous and blind for both)
Then A casts then B casts

What he wants to do is go

A Selcts spells and casts,
Then B selects spells nd casts
then a then b and so on.

Rather than having both sides choose at the same time but having team A spell go off first every time.

Survivor
Feb 27, 2009
8
Dridsuzy wrote:


Of course there's always the concept that neither player is at a real advantage. Regardless of when you go, your opponent doesn't know what spell you are going to throw..

.


no BUT, the person who goes 1st can react proactively to the other person because they go 1st at the beggining of every round.

say person A goes 1st, B goes second.

"card choosing"
A chooses heavy damaging spell
B chooses whatever(it doesn't matter)
Now, neither knows what the other will cast but B will take heavy damage AND have to survive another attack from A because A will go 1st at the beggining of the round

switch up
"card choosing"
A chooses whatever(doesn't matter)
B chooses heavy damage
Well now A just got hurt bad but can just heal up at the beginning of the next round before B gets the chance to do anything else

this system is really flawed and EXTREMELY advantageous to the person who goes 1st

Survivor
Feb 27, 2009
25
Keep PvE the way it is... too much effort to change it. Works pretty well as it is.

I would also like to see PvP changes to split turns. I agree that starting first is too much of an advantage to competitive play.

Wish I knew how the game worked to be able to tell if making PvE different from PvP were possible.

Survivor
May 29, 2009
1
If recoding the combat system is too much work or an impossibility for other reasons (who knows what it'll bork up as far as bugs go), then whoever goes second needs to be given some sort of advantage at least. Here are a few ideas.

- Perhaps give 2 extra pips or maybe a free extra power pip to the team/player going second.

- Give the player/team going second an hp boost that is significant. Like maybe 1000 extra at lvl 50.

- Crank up the resistances of the team going second (I personally don't like this idea, as it messes with dots, which suffer a lot more from resistance, and lifedrains.)

- Force whoever is going first to auto-skip the first round (like they were stunned). This idea is kind of weaksauce though, as it isn't much of an equalizer. Plus, the guys going first would still get their pip.


In the end, the devs need to collect data so they can verify with stats the win ratios of those going first over those going second. Then they'd have to twiddle with stuff on the test server until those numbers started to equal out.

Defender
May 28, 2009
176
I am a supporter of this idea that each team should choose and then immediately cast. That way both teams could be reactive to game play. Granted I COULD have avoided these situations but it has happened to me that I did not correctly estimate how much damage was going to be done to me and as a result did not shield up or heal up in the previous turn. That's the thing team A is always reacting to the last turn and team B is always reacting to the turn before that. So, the current system always puts team B two steps behind. I am saying yes to a split system. If you visualize the dueling ring there are four circles on both sides and a gap in between team A's circles and team B's circles. That gap is where the spell selection should be. The triangle in the middle would simply make a stop there and the next team would choose cards. Yes, spells should be chosen simultaneously for each team but they should NOT be chosen simultaneously for the entire playing field. That defeats the purpose of a turn based combat system. AND this could just as easily (in my opinion) be implemented game wide because in PvE the mobs choose spells so quickly that the player may not even notice spell selection is happening.

Survivor
Sep 11, 2008
23
Medivh wrote:
Dridsuzy wrote:


Of course there's always the concept that neither player is at a real advantage. Regardless of when you go, your opponent doesn't know what spell you are going to throw..

.


no BUT, the person who goes 1st can react proactively to the other person because they go 1st at the beggining of every round.

say person A goes 1st, B goes second.

"card choosing"
A chooses heavy damaging spell
B chooses whatever(it doesn't matter)
Now, neither knows what the other will cast but B will take heavy damage AND have to survive another attack from A because A will go 1st at the beggining of the round

switch up
"card choosing"
A chooses whatever(doesn't matter)
B chooses heavy damage
Well now A just got hurt bad but can just heal up at the beginning of the next round before B gets the chance to do anything else

this system is really flawed and EXTREMELY advantageous to the person who goes 1st
Not to sound rude or anything, but... there's a flaw to your,"logic". In player vs. player, there are two actual real-time, human controlled wizards battling against each other using their best strategies to defend themselves from the opposing team, support other wizards if any and yourself, use attack spells, ect, ect, ect. My point is that I really don't see any logic with what strategies other wizards use in PvP. Win or lose, just have fun . It doesn't matter "who got hurt bad by heavy damage" and what not, eventually whatever strategy any wizard will use, will be up to the fate and the outcome of the duel. That's all there is whether which spell that wizard casted that induced healing, fizzling(casted spell), buffing, warding, ect, ect.

Defender
Apr 25, 2009
104
Insecto wrote:
Medivh wrote:
Dridsuzy wrote:


Of course there's always the concept that neither player is at a real advantage. Regardless of when you go, your opponent doesn't know what spell you are going to throw..

.


no BUT, the person who goes 1st can react proactively to the other person because they go 1st at the beggining of every round.

say person A goes 1st, B goes second.

"card choosing"
A chooses heavy damaging spell
B chooses whatever(it doesn't matter)
Now, neither knows what the other will cast but B will take heavy damage AND have to survive another attack from A because A will go 1st at the beggining of the round

switch up
"card choosing"
A chooses whatever(doesn't matter)
B chooses heavy damage
Well now A just got hurt bad but can just heal up at the beginning of the next round before B gets the chance to do anything else

this system is really flawed and EXTREMELY advantageous to the person who goes 1st
Not to sound rude or anything, but... there's a flaw to your,"logic". In player vs. player, there are two actual real-time, human controlled wizards battling against each other using their best strategies to defend themselves from the opposing team, support other wizards if any and yourself, use attack spells, ect, ect, ect. My point is that I really don't see any logic with what strategies other wizards use in PvP. Win or lose, just have fun . It doesn't matter "who got hurt bad by heavy damage" and what not, eventually whatever strategy any wizard will use, will be up to the fate and the outcome of the duel. That's all there is whether which spell that wizard casted that induced healing, fizzling(casted spell), buffing, warding, ect, ect.


I do not see a flaw in logic there. I totally agree with this. Going first in a duel is an extreme advantage in both pvp and pve, for the whole "heavy damage and healing" thing alone. You get two storm people going first, you're doomed unless you have some major storm resist or multiple storm shields in your deck. It's even worse if you have a player higher level than you that can do over 1000 damage to you in a round.