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.

2 ways to fix PVP

AuthorMessage
Survivor
Jul 08, 2011
4
The problem with pvp is that whichever team goes first has a HUGE advantage. Here are 2 ways to fix this:

1) Change each round which team goes first. Either have it change back and forth or make it random. If my team goes first in the first round, the other team should go first in the second round, or make it random each round. This would go a long way in fixing the imbalance.

2) Stagger it. Player 1 on team 1 goes first. Player 1 on team 2 goes second. Player 2 on team one goes third. Player 2 on team 2 goes fourth. Etc.

Survivor
Aug 28, 2010
42
these ideas, though they look ok, would make pvp very confusing. And if we did the staggering, one team would still have a player going first. I don't think this would work out very well, and if KI did implant it into the game, they'd just recieve complaints about the staggering and randomness.

"Its not fair! The matches are rigged!"
"I always go last when we stagger!"
"Because of the staggering, I can't heal my teamates!"

Good ideas, though.

It takes skill to beat a boss, but heart to be a wizard

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
I think suggestion 1 is a good idea that will make things a lot fairer. But you have to realise that players will start doing spells back to back like shatter then attacking. It will still be fair though.

Suggestion 2 will make things fairer, but not fully. For example, one player on a team will always be going first and on the other team there will always be someone going last. It will work if you staggered and switched up turns like in suggestion 1.

Explorer
Nov 29, 2012
66
In my opinion that would ruin a ton of PvP strategies. There's a strategy for going second and going first. Make one and you'll find that a lot of times it can be a good thing to go second.

Explorer
May 17, 2010
92
mslone2000 on Jun 5, 2013 wrote:
The problem with pvp is that whichever team goes first has a HUGE advantage. Here are 2 ways to fix this:

1) Change each round which team goes first. Either have it change back and forth or make it random. If my team goes first in the first round, the other team should go first in the second round, or make it random each round. This would go a long way in fixing the imbalance.

2) Stagger it. Player 1 on team 1 goes first. Player 1 on team 2 goes second. Player 2 on team one goes third. Player 2 on team 2 goes fourth. Etc.
well if you look at my other posts you will see I agree with #1. As for doing back to back spells, I would argue it isn't much different than going first now. The example of shatter then attack is what player #1 can do now with player #2 have little to no chance of reacting to it.
As for #2, although is creative and thinking outside the box (I like both of those things ) it won't help on 1v1 and marginal on 2v2 and in PVE where the numbers don't match what would happen and in general might be confusing.

Explorer
May 18, 2010
62
I'm pretty much with suggestion 1. It seems like a good idea and possibly make more fair gameplay.
Suggestion 2, I think it would help a little but there will be alot of confusion.

Not bad ideas, but I don't think it will help too much for PvP and complaining will still continue for sure.

Explorer
May 17, 2010
92
CPS Cole on Jun 5, 2013 wrote:
In my opinion that would ruin a ton of PvP strategies. There's a strategy for going second and going first. Make one and you'll find that a lot of times it can be a good thing to go second.
I have got to know, what strategy you could have that would make going second a good thing? I have never found or heard anyone say that going second is a good thing nor any strategy for going second that was any better than how to minimize the advantage that the person going first has. Please, please do share.

Explorer
Nov 29, 2012
66
I4C gr8ness on Jun 5, 2013 wrote:
I have got to know, what strategy you could have that would make going second a good thing? I have never found or heard anyone say that going second is a good thing nor any strategy for going second that was any better than how to minimize the advantage that the person going first has. Please, please do share.
This might change one thing up. When I talk about PvP, I usually think along the 1v1 side of things. When going second, you can sometimes predict moves. The thing I like to do the most is whenever I think someone might attack, Satyr. So they can't follow up and defeat you. That's more of what I was trying to get across. Second isn't the best place to be in PvP, but it helps to at least have some sort of strategy for it.

Survivor
Aug 27, 2010
25
I think it should be like Pirate101 PvP. One team goes, then the next team goes. Would fix a lot of problems.

Blaze FireRider - Level 84

Survivor
Jul 08, 2011
4
I really appreciate the feedback from everyone. So it seems option #2 is too complicated, so I'm removing that option. Please direct all future feedback to option #1:

Each round, it is randomly decided which team goes first. This would go a long way in leveling the playing field in PVP. You would have to adjust your strategies on the fly since you never know if you're going first or second.

KI, please consider.

Geographer
Aug 28, 2010
953
I4C gr8ness on Jun 5, 2013 wrote:
I have got to know, what strategy you could have that would make going second a good thing? I have never found or heard anyone say that going second is a good thing nor any strategy for going second that was any better than how to minimize the advantage that the person going first has. Please, please do share.
I4C gr8ness,

I expect that you forsee something about me..?. : )

Anyway, I agree, there is no strategy that you could have, that could make going second a good thing.

Having said that, I will say that many set up their deck, as if they will also go second, I know I do.
As soon as I'm second, I know that I will start multiplying my DOT cards, etc, as it will increase of odds
of getting in damage. I will also start duplicating certain cards, and not others, cause I'm second.
Even when I go in to test my new deck setups, I will flee if first, and only fight if I go second.
(I always ask the other player if they would mind if I flee, before I leave, and most have no problem).
Since, how you play, how you set up your deck, and what you mulitply is all based on if you are second,
I can say that you could have a strategy for going second, just saying.

Explorer
May 18, 2010
62
Veracity8 on Jun 6, 2013 wrote:
I4C gr8ness,

I expect that you forsee something about me..?. : )

Anyway, I agree, there is no strategy that you could have, that could make going second a good thing.

Having said that, I will say that many set up their deck, as if they will also go second, I know I do.
As soon as I'm second, I know that I will start multiplying my DOT cards, etc, as it will increase of odds
of getting in damage. I will also start duplicating certain cards, and not others, cause I'm second.
Even when I go in to test my new deck setups, I will flee if first, and only fight if I go second.
(I always ask the other player if they would mind if I flee, before I leave, and most have no problem).
Since, how you play, how you set up your deck, and what you mulitply is all based on if you are second,
I can say that you could have a strategy for going second, just saying.
Veracity8,
I agree with you that you could try to have a strategy for going second. However, it's hard for some schools to go second, such as Life.
Unlike some schools [Life, Balance], [Fire, Ice, Death, Myth] have DoTs which can prevent the opponent from stacking shields too much.
The person going second are somewhat blindly attacking and hoping the opponent won't shield/weakened their attack.

A+ Student
Feb 25, 2009
1529
mslone2000 on Jun 6, 2013 wrote:
I really appreciate the feedback from everyone. So it seems option #2 is too complicated, so I'm removing that option. Please direct all future feedback to option #1:

Each round, it is randomly decided which team goes first. This would go a long way in leveling the playing field in PVP. You would have to adjust your strategies on the fly since you never know if you're going first or second.

KI, please consider.
How coud this possibly be fair? IF each round is randomly decided by the system, then it leaves it wide open for the chance of a team being able to attack 2 or 3 times in a row before the other team even has a chance to attack.

If you consider the RANDOM factor, look at it this way, """" you are in a duel and your first 2+ casts fizzle"""", purely random. In the mean time the opponent has hit you at least 2 times, taking let's say, at least half of your health. You are going to get very frustrated at this point. Sure, you have more pips at this point, but now, the attack spell is not where you need it when you need it.

See where this is going?

Random means exactly that, RANDOM. I don't think this would work very well in the PvP arena. This would be no different than trying to battle a CHEATING BOSS that decides to take an extra turn.

The only thing it will accomplish is more turmoil in the arena

Survivor
Jul 08, 2011
4
I disagree. As it stands now, whichever team goes second goes second for the entire match. The team that goes first has a HUGE advantage. Dispels, weakness, doom and gloom, earthquake, besides the fact of being able to hit first. With the randomness each round, each team gets a chance to go first. This to me, really helps balance things out. But thank you Dragon Lady for your thoughts, I appreciate it.

Explorer
May 17, 2010
92
DragonLady, I don't understand your issue. If you fizzle the first two rounds how does that play into this discussion? The proposed randomness of going first each round still means both sides will get a turn each round, just changes which side will cast first. It has to be better that the way it is now since you at least get to go first some of the time. Yes people may complain that the other team got to go first more often (this will happen with it being random), but more often is a lot less than every time, since that is the way it is now.
Also, as for strategy for going second, you need to have that strategy also since about half the time you would be going second. It will encourage even more strategies since you can plan your attacks or shields based on whether you will be first or second that round.

Champion
Oct 30, 2011
449
I think that the only way to fix pvp is to limit/take down altogether healing talents in pvp. Sometimes, if you do not OHKO the other person, their pet heals them up to full health, or at least high enough so that you cannot kill them. An example of this: my level 28 balance warlord, before the match i am mentioning, was over 1200 rank. I was battling a level 39 myth warlord. I managed to survive his first 2 attacks. I was able to do a fire elf into judgement, and get him down to about 50 health. His pet then used fairy. this put him at around 500 health. I used judgement next round, got him down to about 100 health. He then did medusa, and since i was stunned and at about 100 health. He then easily killed me. How is this fair? I am not always able to OHKO people, especially since i battle privates level 50+ often. If their pets spam heals, i have no chance of winning. Players with jade gear can also get huge heals from their pets, and easily heal more than the damage they take. Probably half my losses (27) are because of people's pets. And also, in lower levels, pet heals can have a huge impact. They can heal you half your health with commander gear on. If you are going against someone with a pet that spams heals, and you cannot one hit kill them, you pretty much lose the match. Thus i think pet heals should be at least toned down to stop people from winning only because of this.