Your actually right mathematically, Efreet should be a 10 pip spell (or do 230 less damage.) Let me show you the math.
A 90% weakness is effectively a damage dispel, it makes a spell useless. So I would categorize a 90% weakness as a 2 pips spell.
Now 8-2=6, simple enough, so the damage of efreet should be the same as a 6 pip spell. Lets look at helephant, its average damage is 665, so efreet should be doing 665 damage, not 895 (230 more.)
thorvon65 wrote:
I think it is fair. I mean people complain about efreet all he time but really just wand the weakness off? And really if your going second just don't cast a big attack if you know they can efreet, just simple strategy is all.
Your absolutely right, you can counter efreet, but just because you can counter a spell means its fair? Lets say we gave storm back its old wild bolt, but made it 100% accuracy. You can counter it by filling your side deck with 85% storm shields, and wait till they run out, but does that really make the spell fair?
there is an amulet that can make efreet almost barable, guess what that is? the dark pact amulet. as you said, a damage dispel, but doesnt mean it dispels the blade
and if helephant was better than efreet, then whats the point of having a new spell?
to tell you the truth, fire is about recovery, our DoTs, allow us to stack, recover, and kill. efreet allows us a turn or two to recover, remember, we have the second or third lowest base health there is.
and i agree with fx41001, minus the forest lord part really. if you were to seriously handicap fire, then why would it be fair, to only handicap fire?
if you cant get off the weakness, then try this. pack low low rank spells, like thundersnake imp etc. and use those as a part of your wand spells. my friend has done the exact same thing, his wand is a healing wand, and he has slots in his deck for his "wand spells.
there is an amulet that can make efreet almost barable, guess what that is? the dark pact amulet. as you said, a damage dispel, but doesnt mean it dispels the blade
Equipping that amulet means not equiping a mastery amulet, or another game making amulet. If this amulet if only a counter to one spell, only puts one in your deck, and also wastes your towers, then whats the point?
slammer111 wrote:
and if helephant was better than efreet, then whats the point of having a new spell?
Very true. Though would you think that a helephant with a 90% weakness weaker then normal? If you want the damage to become higher, then raise it to 700, I would still think that's fair, but 895, no.
slammer111 wrote:
to tell you the truth, fire is about recovery, our DoTs, allow us to stack, recover, and kill. efreet allows us a turn or two to recover, remember, we have the second or third lowest base health there is.
I probably didn't make this clear in my post, but I suggested it be 665 damage and a 90% weakness. If fire is about recovery, then how would that change my idea?
slammer111 wrote:
and i agree with fx41001, minus the forest lord part really. if you were to seriously handicap fire, then why would it be fair, to only handicap fire?
Fire has always been the best school for pvp, closely followed by myth. After the Celestia update, which schools were the ones who survived ices wrath? Fire and myth! If you looked at one of the tournaments on central, they gave the tiers of the schools in 1v1. Fire and Myth were the only schools in the top tier. So how would it be unfair to only handicap fire, it would put it at the same level as the other schools or at least give some other schools a chance in the spotlight.
slammer111 wrote:
f you cant get off the weakness, then try this. pack low low rank spells, like thundersnake imp etc. and use those as a part of your wand spells. my friend has done the exact same thing, his wand is a healing wand, and he has slots in his deck for his "wand spells.
Exactly, if you are going first. A fire can time their efreet to ruin your big spell if you are going second. If you want more details on this, read my reply to thorvon.
there is an amulet that can make efreet almost barable, guess what that is? the dark pact amulet. as you said, a damage dispel, but doesnt mean it dispels the blade
Equipping that amulet means not equiping a mastery amulet, or another game making amulet. If this amulet if only a counter to one spell, only puts one in your deck, and also wastes your towers, then whats the point?
slammer111 wrote:
and if helephant was better than efreet, then whats the point of having a new spell?
Very true. Though would you think that a helephant with a 90% weakness weaker then normal? If you want the damage to become higher, then raise it to 700, I would still think that's fair, but 895, no.
slammer111 wrote:
to tell you the truth, fire is about recovery, our DoTs, allow us to stack, recover, and kill. efreet allows us a turn or two to recover, remember, we have the second or third lowest base health there is.
I probably didn't make this clear in my post, but I suggested it be 665 damage and a 90% weakness. If fire is about recovery, then how would that change my idea?
slammer111 wrote:
and i agree with fx41001, minus the forest lord part really. if you were to seriously handicap fire, then why would it be fair, to only handicap fire?
Fire has always been the best school for pvp, closely followed by myth. After the Celestia update, which schools were the ones who survived ices wrath? Fire and myth! If you looked at one of the tournaments on central, they gave the tiers of the schools in 1v1. Fire and Myth were the only schools in the top tier. So how would it be unfair to only handicap fire, it would put it at the same level as the other schools or at least give some other schools a chance in the spotlight.
slammer111 wrote:
f you cant get off the weakness, then try this. pack low low rank spells, like thundersnake imp etc. and use those as a part of your wand spells. my friend has done the exact same thing, his wand is a healing wand, and he has slots in his deck for his "wand spells.
Exactly, if you are going first. A fire can time their efreet to ruin your big spell if you are going second. If you want more details on this, read my reply to thorvon.
-Solstice64
Seriously, I think the ONLY reason you're talking about fire being unfair is because it is NOT your main school. I could find a reason to complain about EVERY SCHOOL in the game. For instance, how ridiculously high snow angel can hit, how triage is big problem for pvpers who rely on dot spells, how storm's insane bolt never seem to back fire, how myth's medusa's two round stun is unfair and so on.
It is YOUR opinion that Efreet's -90 weakness is unfair, but that's just it. Any "fact' you bring up is solely to support them, and I am fine with that. BUt I dont see the reason why KI should change efreet because YOU dont like it. I spend ALL my time on wizard 101 pvp, and I dont see people complaining about it that much. Any wizard with half of a brain can predict when efreet will be cast.
Actually, I see people complain more about all fire wizard team spamming garg-meteor and smoke screens. Or, all storm team spamming tempest.
Chances are you're saying this because you lost to a Pyromancer who used Efreet to defeat you. Sad, really, considering you could have still had a chance of winning if you had some simple things:
1. Defenses. You should train Ice until Tower Shield because that shield knocks off half of every school (that means you are also saved from bladed judgements, too!) and Balance into Weakness because it knocks off 30% of a damage spell. Put that together, and Efreet shouldn't do that much damage- that is, if it's not loaded with a bajillon blades and traps. Then, that's where gold comes in. Spend some gold on shields for every school, Tower Shield, and Weakness if you didn't use training points on those. You could also use some spells that remove negative charms like Weakness, and some spells that remove shields like Earthquake, Pierce, or Shatter.
2. Wand Spells. These are great for when your enemy uses shields and Weakness, and it gets rid of the 90% Weakness from Efreet.
If you had these, plus blades, traps, and an attack spell that does decent damage (no, not Imp... Meteor Strike and up.), you could defeat the wizard, or do enough damage to defeat him when you attack next, assuming that he didn't heal himself, or that the heal didn't do much, and you can still kill him in one shot.
Don't whine because someone defeated you with a certain spell, because I'm pretty sure if someone defeated you with Snow Angel or Skeletal Dragon, you'd think it was "made wrong" too. All it takes is some strategy and Reshuffle.
Sorry if I went overboard, I was just trying to make a point!
Jordan FireBringer, lvl 36 Fire Elijah DeathBringet, lvl 7 Death Patrick Star, lvl 1 Storm
(P.S: None of my opinions on this post are based on or infuenced on my main wizard being a Fire wizard. And just because my main wiz is lvl 36, doesn't mean I don't know how powerful Efreet and all other lvl 58 spells can be.)
Seriously, I think the ONLY reason you're talking about fire being unfair is because it is NOT your main school. I could find a reason to complain about EVERY SCHOOL in the game. For instance, how ridiculously high snow angel can hit, how triage is big problem for pvpers who rely on dot spells, how storm's insane bolt never seem to back fire, how myth's medusa's two round stun is unfair and so on.
It is YOUR opinion that Efreet's -90 weakness is unfair, but that's just it. Any "fact' you bring up is solely to support them, and I am fine with that. BUt I dont see the reason why KI should change efreet because YOU dont like it. I spend ALL my time on wizard 101 pvp, and I dont see people complaining about it that much. Any wizard with half of a brain can predict when efreet will be cast.
Actually, I see people complain more about all fire wizard team spamming garg-meteor and smoke screens. Or, all storm team spamming tempest.
I can reverse exactly what you said. The only reason why you think Efreet is fair is becuase your main school is fire. The only difference is I used math to prove my point, where's your math?
The reason why not many people agree with me is due to the high amount of Fire wizards, Anti-complainers, and people the think all the schools are 100% fair. People who aren't biased are hard to come by. Though I think balance needs a boost in 1v1 pvp, I wont go around saying that. Why, because my opinion is on that is one sided as my first wizard was a balance wizard.
If you deny that fire and myth are the best schools for 1v1, then you are obviously biased. Most wizard101 central tournaments are won by fire and myth wizards. Lets just say I am wrong and efreet is fair, fire still is the best schools in 1v1, fair or not. So wouldn't it be fair to let other schools have the spotlight?
doudjy wrote:
...Any "fact' you bring up is solely to support them...
LOL. Of course the facts I state are supporting my idea. Let me show you what I mean. A scientist claims to have discovered how to travel faster then the speed of light. So he shows his math, facts, and how everything works. Then a competing scientist says "Your wrong because all you facts support your conclusion."
Where are your facts? That I am not a fire wizard? That I don't even have a half a brain? From second, even if you predict the efreet coming, that takes you a turn of removing the weakness and as balance wizard, all my blades and traps in the process. This gives the fire the ability to follow up with another attack or heal.
to everyone complaining about efreet there are bigger things to complain about like medusa stun levys destroy two blades i am fire well since efreet has no overtime effect no stun not even a taunt no destroying blades it has to do something most people should put low rank spells in there deck to break shields and get off weaknesses like efreets so stop complaining easy fix
I can reverse exactly what you said. The only reason why you think Efreet is fair is becuase your main school is fire. The only difference is I used math to prove my point, where's your math? If you can reverse what I said, then we're not going foward. And please, where's the math you used to proved your point??? I love it when people come up with a bunch of numbers and they say that they're using "math" to prove their point. For instance, I can do 2500 with my hound a turn, and that's without critical. But just because hound is capable of such damage DOES NOT mean that it will necessarily do it. Any DECENT wizard know how to prevent themselves from such hit. How come NOOBS and Privates are ALWAYS the ones complaining. I have NEVER met someone who's at least captain complaining about a particular school being favored or overpowered.
The reason why not many people agree with me is due to the high amount of Fire wizards, Anti-complainers, and people the think all the schools are 100% fair. People who aren't biased are hard to come by. Though I think balance needs a boost in 1v1 pvp, I wont go around saying that. Why, because my opinion is on that is one sided as my first wizard was a balance wizard. No, the REASON why not many people agree with you is due to the fact that people now actually are LEARNING how to pvp. I, once had a post about how I thought that Ice was overpowered. I wrote it, not only because i was getting owned by ice in the arena, but because on paper, my "calculations" seemed to be "logical". I mean, on paper, life had universal resist (at that time), huge health, lots of shields, and angel, the new spells could still do A LOT of damage. But when I ACTUALLY met a fire friend, who was warlord, she told me what spell to get, how to set up my deck, and how to specifically beat each school. Now ice is THE easiest school for me to beat. An ice has 1 chance out of 1000 to beat me if i go first. No matter WHO they are, or what they're rank. I was private back then, and now my rank is over 1200!
Is my story a miracle one, NOO, I was just late to learn how to pvp. Frankly, I dont see as much people complain now. But I guess there are still slow ones. I mean, there was a time when balance was practically unbeatable because nobody could shield against them, so people started tranining tower! It's called ADAPTATION, and if you cant do that, DO NOT blame other school for your slowness.
If you deny that fire and myth are the best schools for 1v1, then you are obviously biased. Of course I am biased, who isnt?? But the difference is that I am not blinded! I never denied that fire wasnt one of the best school for 1v1, idk about myth. But so WHAT??? What does that prove?? That's why the schools are different! Because certain are good for team, and others for solo. Dont KI ask a certain question to find out if you're more of team person or not?
Most wizard101 central tournaments are won by fire and myth wizards. Lets just say I am wrong and efreet is fair, fire still is the best schools in 1v1, fair or not. So wouldn't it be fair to let other schools have the spotlight? Fire being the best school for 1v1 is YOUR opinion, it is not based on ANY facts. And NO, just because many tournaments on central are won by fire DOES NOT mean that they're the best. I personally think that ice is pretty good in 1v1. Once, an ice girl defeated me by making me running out of cards! she healed constantly and she had like 10 tresures towers on her. She also reschuffled twice. I came close to beat her, but going second, I had a hard time. Did I complain about it?? NO!! Did i come on her and write a post about how unfair tower treasures are?? NO!!! It WAS my fault I lost, and noone else's!
LOL. Of course the facts I state are supporting my idea. Let me show you what I mean. A scientist claims to have discovered how to travel faster then the speed of light. So he shows his math, facts, and how everything works. Then a competing scientist says "Your wrong because all you facts support your conclusion." you didnt show ANY facts whatsover! the fact that efreet weakness is -90, and it takes one more turn to get it off of you is doesnt prove your point. it takes 2 turns to cast a spell after you've been hit by medusa, SO WHAT?? what does that prove?? where is the math in that??
Where are your facts? That I am not a fire wizard? That I don't even have a half a brain? From second, even if you predict the efreet coming, that takes you a turn of removing the weakness and as balance wizard, all my blades and traps in the process. This gives the fire the ability to follow up with another attack or heal.
Let me remind you that the game is NOT played on a piece of paper with a calculator and a pencil, but in a live 3d environment.
to everyone complaining about efreet there are bigger things to complain about like medusa stun levys destroy two blades...
Medusa is only 10% stronger then it should be, and it has a reason for it. If it was not, then the damage would be exactly the same as Orthrus. Leviathon has a similar situation. Now, as I have stated before, Efreet does 230 more damage then it should. Maybe if the raised the damage so it was slightly more the helephant, it would be much less over powering, though still be an upgrade.
blaze552563 wrote:
i am fire well since efreet has no overtime effect no stun not even a taunt no destroying blades it has to do something most people should put low rank spells in there deck to break shields and get off weaknesses like efreets so stop complaining easy fix
I'll just quote myself for this.
solstice64 wrote:
Your absolutely right, you can counter efreet, but just because you can counter a spell means its fair? Lets say we gave storm back its old wild bolt, but made it 100% accuracy. You can counter it by filling your side deck with 85% storm shields, and wait till they run out, but does that really make the spell fair?
If you can reverse what I said, then we're not going foward. And please, where's the math you used to proved your point??? I love it when people come up with a bunch of numbers and they say that they're using "math" to prove their point.
How about you read over this.
Solstice64 wrote:
Your actually right mathematically, Efreet should be a 10 pip spell (or do 230 less damage.) Let me show you the math.
A 90% weakness is effectively a damage dispel, it makes a spell useless. So I would categorize a 90% weakness as a 2 pips spell.
Now 8-2=6, simple enough, so the damage of efreet should be the same as a 6 pip spell. Lets look at helephant, its average damage is 665, so efreet should be doing 665 damage, not 895 (230 more.)
doudjy wrote:
For instance, I can do 2500 with my hound a turn, and that's without critical. But just because hound is capable of such damage DOES NOT mean that it will necessarily do it.
I never posted how much damage efreet is capable of. No, I simply posted the base damage, which is what should be used to judge spells, not the damage that they do when boosted.
doudjy wrote:
Any DECENT wizard know how to prevent themselves from such hit. How come NOOBS and Privates are ALWAYS the ones complaining. I have NEVER met someone who's at least captain complaining about a particular school being favored or overpowered.
I am insulted by this, I will state my reasons why.
1. I have a warlord ice, and a captain balance. I am not a "noob" or a private.
2. Rank has nothing to do with how smart someone is. Would a chain stunner be smarter then me just because his rank is above 3000?
3. Actually, its the smart people that look at schools being more powerful then each other. The schools will never be perfectly balance, ever. Then there are the people who are stuck on how everything is fair, or how complainers are always wrong.
4. You are going of subject by attacking me. You are trying to discredit my opinion by saying how terrible I am at pvp. Not once did you use any math, but instead say how pathetic my math is. Unless you want this thread to be locked, use better ways of supporting your opinion.
doudjy wrote:
NO, the REASON why not many people agree with you is due to the fact that people now actually are LEARNING how to pvp.
I have learned how to pvp, I am not someone who complains about everything they loose too. You fit under the category of a fire wizard, so you disagree with me as you dont want your power in pvp taken away.
doudjy wrote:
I, once had a post about how I thought that Ice was overpowered. I wrote it, not only because i was getting owned by ice in the arena, but because on paper, my "calculations" seemed to be "logical". I mean, on paper, life had universal resist (at that time), huge health, lots of shields, and angel, the new spells could still do A LOT of damage. But when I ACTUALLY met a fire friend, who was warlord, she told me what spell to get, how to set up my deck, and how to specifically beat each school. Now ice is THE easiest school for me to beat. An ice has 1 chance out of 1000 to beat me if i go first. No matter WHO they are, or what they're rank. I was private back then, and now my rank is over 1200!
I will state this again, Fire and Myth were the only schools who could withstand ice's overpowered wrath at the time. Myth could use earthquake to remove all the blades and shields, and fire could use DoT to remove shields, and efreet to counter the over kill angle. Fire has always been a counter to ice.
doudjy wrote:
Is my story a miracle one, NOO, I was just late to learn how to pvp. Frankly, I dont see as much people complain now. But I guess there are still slow ones. I mean, there was a time when balance was practically unbeatable because nobody could shield against them, so people started tranining tower! It's called ADAPTATION, and if you cant do that, DO NOT blame other school for your slowness.
The reason why you don't see much complaints now is because most things have balanced out since wintertusk.
Balance was only over powered at that time between the ranks of private and knight. I would know this, as I did the max judge. People between those ranks never cast tower shields, but people above those ranks did. Eventually, the lower rank people caught on, the people that didn't were the people who complained.
I am not even going to reply to you calling me slow, just stop trying to discredit my opinion with those tactics unless you want this thread locked.
doudjy wrote:
Of course I am biased, who isnt?? But the difference is that I am not blinded! I never denied that fire wasnt one of the best school for 1v1, idk about myth. But so WHAT??? What does that prove?? That's why the schools are different! Because certain are good for team, and others for solo. Dont KI ask a certain question to find out if you're more of team person or not?
Though fire is extremely good in group pvp as well (though it loses its place as the best.)
doudjy wrote:
Fire being the best school for 1v1 is YOUR opinion, it is not based on ANY facts. And NO, just because many tournaments on central are won by fire DOES NOT mean that they're the best. I personally think that ice is pretty good in 1v1. Once, an ice girl defeated me by making me running out of cards! she healed constantly and she had like 10 tresures towers on her. She also reschuffled twice. I came close to beat her, but going second, I had a hard time. Did I complain about it?? NO!! Did i come on her and write a post about how unfair tower treasures are?? NO!!! It WAS my fault I lost, and noone else's![/doudjy]
Fire being the best school for 1v1 is a fact. You would agree with me if you ever bothered to get a less powerful school (balance, life, storm) to a rank of 1200.
Ice is a good school in pvp, but fire is better and always has been.
Oh. and once again, I don't come here and complain about things just because I lose to them. In fact, once I complained about critical being unfair because of how easy I won with it.
you didnt show ANY facts whatsover! the fact that efreet weakness is -90, and it takes one more turn to get it off of you is doesnt prove your point. it takes 2 turns to cast a spell after you've been hit by medusa, SO WHAT?? what does that prove?? where is the math in that??
Again? Honestly, I am just going to quote myself, again.
Solstice64 wrote:
Your actually right mathematically, Efreet should be a 10 pip spell (or do 230 less damage.) Let me show you the math.
A 90% weakness is effectively a damage dispel, it makes a spell useless. So I would categorize a 90% weakness as a 2 pips spell.
Now 8-2=6, simple enough, so the damage of efreet should be the same as a 6 pip spell. Lets look at helephant, its average damage is 665, so efreet should be doing 665 damage, not 895 (230 more.)
doudjy wrote:
Let me remind you that the game is NOT played on a piece of paper with a calculator and a pencil, but in a live 3d environment.
Then explain how that changes anything, give me an example, and don't reply with how stupid or pathetic I am as that wont get us anywhere.
-Solstice64 P.S. Admins, please don't lock this thread.
It is WAY too strong then it puts that major weakness on you. It should at least be 3 random weaknesses but not a -90% to everything or it should be a random 10%-95% weakness to make things more fair.
if that bothers you so much, buy an amulet that gives you cleanse charm and its called strategy. one time, in a pvp match, one complained i 'lacked strategy' and it didnt end up pretty
It is WAY too strong then it puts that major weakness on you. It should at least be 3 random weaknesses but not a -90% to everything or it should be a random 10%-95% weakness to make things more fair.
don't dare try to complain about efreet, you will ruin it for fire wizards everyone plz don't listen to this guy efreet is fine the way it is even though i don't have it yet lol.
It is WAY too strong then it puts that major weakness on you. It should at least be 3 random weaknesses but not a -90% to everything or it should be a random 10%-95% weakness to make things more fair.
But remember its helpful in boss battles... like in waterworks you can use efreet if your not inked or if you dont have a trap or blalde on the right bubble.... the 90% weakness will make the superpowered ra/skeletal dragon weaker making it easier to live
It is WAY too strong then it puts that major weakness on you. It should at least be 3 random weaknesses but not a -90% to everything or it should be a random 10%-95% weakness to make things more fair.
sure you can say that and why not complain that levy is to strong? efreet is a strong spell after fires last spell and if your storm would you complain about levy?
There is a couple rules 1. If its a spell you can use it in pvp 2. If w101 puts it on its not cheating. 3. Its not that powerful plus you can get the weakness off with a wand
I am a level 60 wizard on the game and efreet has gotten me through a lot of situations. It may not seem fair but it is very useful outside of the arena.
Your actually right mathematically, Efreet should be a 10 pip spell (or do 230 less damage.) Let me show you the math.
A 90% weakness is effectively a damage dispel, it makes a spell useless. So I would categorize a 90% weakness as a 2 pips spell.
Now 8-2=6, simple enough, so the damage of efreet should be the same as a 6 pip spell. Lets look at helephant, its average damage is 665, so efreet should be doing 665 damage, not 895 (230 more.)
thorvon65 wrote:
I think it is fair. I mean people complain about efreet all he time but really just wand the weakness off? And really if your going second just don't cast a big attack if you know they can efreet, just simple strategy is all.
Your absolutely right, you can counter efreet, but just because you can counter a spell means its fair? Lets say we gave storm back its old wild bolt, but made it 100% accuracy. You can counter it by filling your side deck with 85% storm shields, and wait till they run out, but does that really make the spell fair?
If you change it, pyromancers that dont pvp wont get fair fights. Efreet is fine just the way it is.
Your actually right mathematically, Efreet should be a 10 pip spell (or do 230 less damage.) Let me show you the math.
A 90% weakness is effectively a damage dispel, it makes a spell useless. So I would categorize a 90% weakness as a 2 pips spell.
Now 8-2=6, simple enough, so the damage of efreet should be the same as a 6 pip spell. Lets look at helephant, its average damage is 665, so efreet should be doing 665 damage, not 895 (230 more.)
Your absolutely right, you can counter efreet, but just because you can counter a spell means its fair? Lets say we gave storm back its old wild bolt, but made it 100% accuracy. You can counter it by filling your side deck with 85% storm shields, and wait till they run out, but does that really make the spell fair?
1a)Explain how a spell that doesn't do damage is effectively a damage spell. And not just because you say so. Making a spell useless is still not damage. In fact its called a dispel in the W101 world. Lol #1 1b) Because you would categorize it as a 2 pip spell means that thats just simply how it is? Lol #2 1c)I dont understand. 6pip spells should do the same damage for all schools? Or just ones that you choose. Since that math doesnt apply to anything but the helephant. You want to take away what gives each class its unique abilities? Okay, then i want to lol #3 and suggest everyone have the same health. Im sure you can find some math with that sort of logic to justify the 'fairness' that would create.
2a)Just because you can counter a spell, does make it fair. This is how the spell and duel system works in the spiral. Why do you think there are so many shields/traps/smokescreens (generally put, counters) available to every class combo? Because you are meant to counter! Lol #4 A lot of pvp strategy comes from guessing what your opponent is going to do. Preparation is key. 2b) Yes, it does. In the eyes of KI and their view for pvp it certainly does. If thats the sideboard you want to go in with in order to prevent a loss that way, then thats your choice. The point is to build a deck with your given spells that is able to withstand, counter, survive, and deal damage adequately enough to reach a victory, am I wrong? Which lol am I on? 2b1)I put a talos in my sideboard in case someone drops one on the field during a duel. Then i drop mine. I evened the playing field by premeditated thought and action, because I was tired of losing to Talos, and not my wizard opponent. I equip Rotunda's Torc (gives 3 -85% storm shields) for this exact reason. To make things more fair on my end (the receiving end) of high damaging storm attacks. If you choose to not calculate in a factor, you are the only one to blame for losing to it. Its called being unprepared. If you don't bring a calculator to the SAT thats your own fault. What would you do? Find SAT Forums and complain that you were unprepared so they should take math off the test? No. Soooooo no.
Closing statement.... As i mentioned in 2b1, I have an amulet that gives me 3 -85% storm shields. This was PERFECT for that kid with a 24-23 pvp record who's sole tactic was 3 thunder snakes, 3 gargantuan treasure cards.
Well let me tell you, he was unpleasantly surprised to have gone second. If I hadn't had the ammy, I probably would have lost as he somehow managed to not fizzle once casting 3 storm spells in a row (he was level 10, I was 11. No accuracy gear) and did well over 900 total damage for those three rounds. I still don't know why he didnt use fizzbats instead, but whatever.
Now i turn this back on you, using your logic and argument. If i had lost, does that suddenly make it unfair? Just because I would be spiteful? No. I'd chalk it up to an unfortunate loss and realize i'm playing a game and then just queue up again. Maybe I would consider adding some storm shields to my deck next time. If I didnt, and lost to the same tactic, does that make it even more unfair that I chose to not learn from my mistake? No. Its only unfair to yourself that you can keep lying to yourself and say its everyone elses fault, not your own.
Whats fair is that we both had the option to use whatever gear/strategy was available to us, and did. In this case, I came out on top because i just happened to trump his tactic. You can't be so naive to think you can prevent every single thing that someone can possibly use against you in a pvp match. Humans are the largest variable when it comes to something like that. You have to account for it. If you dont and lose? Tough luck. I learned the hard way, and haven't felt ive lost an unfair fight to a talos since. Boy, ignorance sure does get me going.
1a)Explain how a spell that doesn't do damage is effectively a damage spell. And not just because you say so. Making a spell useless is still not damage. In fact its called a dispel in the W101 world. Lol #1
I was hoping people would understand this when they read my post, but I guess not. A -90% weakness makes any damaging attack negligible, no this isn't one single school either, its to every school. Thats why its a damage dispel. The downside to it is that the spell still allows you to clear shields.
classact21 wrote:
1b) Because you would categorize it as a 2 pip spell means that thats just simply how it is? Lol #2
I showed you why I categorized it as a 2 pip spell, do you disagree? Its a global damage dispel, but it still allows the player to clear shields. Seems like a 2 pip spell to me as it fits in with dispels.
classact21 wrote:
1c)I dont understand. 6pip spells should do the same damage for all schools? Or just ones that you choose. Since that math doesnt apply to anything but the helephant. You want to take away what gives each class its unique abilities? Okay, then i want to lol #3 and suggest everyone have the same health. Im sure you can find some math with that sort of logic to justify the 'fairness' that would create.
You are making absolutely no sense. I am comparing it to helephant because we are trying to find fire's average damage for 6 pips as efreet is a fire spell. Or should we compare it to collosus, you know, to try to keep each schools unique abilities. Anyways, how is reducing the damage of a fire spell to compensate for its effect taking away its unique ability.?
classact21 wrote:
2a)Just because you can counter a spell, does make it fair. This is how the spell and duel system works in the spiral. Why do you think there are so many shields/traps/smokescreens (generally put, counters) available to every class combo? Because you are meant to counter! Lol #4 A lot of pvp strategy comes from guessing what your opponent is going to do. Preparation is key.
You obviously haven't read my example, unless your thick enough to believe that 100% wild bolts were fair, just to prove your point. You don't even know what your talking about, how is a trap a counter? Yes you are meant to counter, but if ice got an efreet with double the damage, you can counter it with shields, so from you perspective, that makes it fair?
classact21 wrote:
2b) Yes, it does. In the eyes of KI and their view for pvp it certainly does. If thats the sideboard you want to go in with in order to prevent a loss that way, then thats your choice. The point is to build a deck with your given spells that is able to withstand, counter, survive, and deal damage adequately enough to reach a victory, am I wrong? Which lol am I on?
I think I can grasp what your responding too by the side deck part. So your saying that 1000 damage for 2 pips without a downside is fair because a side board full of shields can counter it? Now you opinion doesn't mean much to me anymore. Your just arguing for the sake of the spell, not how it actually is.
classact21 wrote:
2b1)I put a talos in my sideboard in case someone drops one on the field during a duel. Then i drop mine. I evened the playing field by premeditated thought and action, because I was tired of losing to Talos, and not my wizard opponent. I equip Rotunda's Torc (gives 3 -85% storm shields) for this exact reason. To make things more fair on my end (the receiving end) of high damaging storm attacks. If you choose to not calculate in a factor, you are the only one to blame for losing to it. Its called being unprepared. If you don't bring a calculator to the SAT thats your own fault. What would you do? Find SAT Forums and complain that you were unprepared so they should take math off the test? No. Soooooo no.
Of coarse I prepare. I don't go to a battle and loose then come here and complain. That's the problem with all the people on these forums, they simply assume that the people on the other side of the argument are terrible at pvp, ignorant, and are complaining because they can't win. I have a commander balance (recent) and an ice warlord. I know how to prepare.
classact21 wrote:
Closing statement.... As i mentioned in 2b1, I have an amulet that gives me 3 -85% storm shields. This was PERFECT for that kid with a 24-23 pvp record who's sole tactic was 3 thunder snakes, 3 gargantuan treasure cards.
Well let me tell you, he was unpleasantly surprised to have gone second. If I hadn't had the ammy, I probably would have lost as he somehow managed to not fizzle once casting 3 storm spells in a row (he was level 10, I was 11. No accuracy gear) and did well over 900 total damage for those three rounds. I still don't know why he didnt use fizzbats instead, but whatever.
You do know that there are better ways to counter then that amulet. Train ice till you get volcanic shield (I think that's the name.) The only problem is I don't know what level you pvp at, so that might end up being the best amulet for your level.
classact21 wrote:
Now i turn this back on you, using your logic and argument. If i had lost, does that suddenly make it unfair? Just because I would be spiteful? No. I'd chalk it up to an unfortunate loss and realize i'm playing a game and then just queue up again. Maybe I would consider adding some storm shields to my deck next time. If I didnt, and lost to the same tactic, does that make it even more unfair that I chose to not learn from my mistake? No. Its only unfair to yourself that you can keep lying to yourself and say its everyone elses fault, not your own.
Once again you assume incorrect things.
classact21 wrote:
Whats fair is that we both had the option to use whatever gear/strategy was available to us, and did. In this case, I came out on top because i just happened to trump his tactic. You can't be so naive to think you can prevent every single thing that someone can possibly use against you in a pvp match. Humans are the largest variable when it comes to something like that. You have to account for it. If you dont and lose? Tough luck. I learned the hard way, and haven't felt ive lost an unfair fight to a talos since. Boy, ignorance sure does get me going.
You are trying to pull words out of me I never typed. Trying to prove your point with little tricks like that wont make your side of your argument correct, or mine incorrect. It just proves you need to make me look like I'm bad at pvp, or I don't prepare, just to make your argument correct.
-Solstice64 P.S I'm not the one being ignorant. Your the one that couldn't fully understand my post.
Your actually right mathematically, Efreet should be a 10 pip spell (or do 230 less damage.) Let me show you the math.
A 90% weakness is effectively a damage dispel, it makes a spell useless. So I would categorize a 90% weakness as a 2 pips spell.
Now 8-2=6, simple enough, so the damage of efreet should be the same as a 6 pip spell. Lets look at helephant, its average damage is 665, so efreet should be doing 665 damage, not 895 (230 more.)
thorvon65 wrote:
I think it is fair. I mean people complain about efreet all he time but really just wand the weakness off? And really if your going second just don't cast a big attack if you know they can efreet, just simple strategy is all.
Your absolutely right, you can counter efreet, but just because you can counter a spell means its fair? Lets say we gave storm back its old wild bolt, but made it 100% accuracy. You can counter it by filling your side deck with 85% storm shields, and wait till they run out, but does that really make the spell fair?
And mathamatically, Leviathan should be 10 pips. It does the damage of a rank 10 spell, oh, and don't forget it removes 2 charms. If you're gonna change Efreet, change Leviathan, too.
Ugh! Seriously? Why blame everything on us fire wizards? If you think efreet is bad, look at what leviathan does in pvp. Leviathan KO's everybody one shot. I don't think that we are overpowering. The only problem I can find with any of the spells is skeletal dragon. It should be given a side effect, because even with 1000 total damage, it does DoT so it is not as easily boosted as leviathan or efreet. And i don't even thing that is that bad. Snow angel is basically ice fire dragon, with side effect for the eighth pip. Forest lord and Ra are AoE. Medusa is arguable, since the stun is blocked by bosses, but it dominates in PVP. Overall, I think that they are fairly balanced.
It is WAY too strong then it puts that major weakness on you. It should at least be 3 random weaknesses but not a -90% to everything or it should be a random 10%-95% weakness to make things more fair.
Although I'm not fire Efreet is pretty fair. I mean, despite the -90% weakness thing, it takes them 8 pips to cast (quite a while to gain them if they had a bad day with power pips). And even so you can just use a cheap 0-pip wand spell to crack the weakness without any effort at all.
And mathamatically, Leviathan should be 10 pips. It does the damage of a rank 10 spell, oh, and don't forget it removes 2 charms. If you're gonna change Efreet, change Leviathan, too.
Actually, Leviathan is fair mathematically.
Removing a charm (disarm) is one pip. It does this twice, making it 2 pips. Though when you add the same effect twice, you get what I like to call, a package deal, making it 1.5 pips. Now, 8-1.5=6.5, 6.5 is about 6 pips, and Tritons average damage per pip is 155. So, 155*6.5= about 1007 damage. They cheated storm an extra 23 damage, unlike the 230 that went into Efreet.
-Solstice64 P.S. Leviathan doesn't deal the damage of a 10 pip spell, storms dpp isn't 100.
Your absolutely right, you can counter efreet, but just because you can counter a spell means its fair? Lets say we gave storm back its old wild bolt, but made it 100% accuracy. You can counter it by filling your side deck with 85% storm shields, and wait till they run out, but does that really make the spell fair? And mathamatically, Leviathan should be 10 pips. It does the damage of a rank 10 spell, oh, and don't forget it removes 2 charms. If you're gonna change Efreet, change Leviathan, too.
I don't agree with a few things. One, efreet is easily countered without using any boosts, unless they are like feint, but if you use a myth wand, it wont waste your fire boosts. However, Storm cannot be blocked without using a training point on storm shield, or buying treasure cards. So, efreet's weakness can be countered easier than leviathan which makes it not that great, although i do not care. Efreet still does good damage. I think that efreet's weakness counts as maybe one pip. But i agree with what you are overall trying to say. If people think 895 is too high for 7 pip fire hit, think about whether 1030 is too high for 1030 storm hit.
