Welcome to the Wizard101 Message Boards


Player Guide
Fansites
News
Game Updates
Help

Follow important game updates on Twitter @Wizard101 and @KI_Alerts, and Facebook!

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

2nd Starts With Stun Shield

1
AuthorMessage
A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1623
Going second has never been as big of a problem in PvP until lately when offense has been rising up the scale. In Exalted PvP, going second, especially against a Fire, usually costs a player the match because the player going first stuns them and becomes two turns ahead rather than one. This advantage is usually fatal and is extremely difficult to counter from second unless you want to risk the chance of lowering your defense to resist a stun.

A great solution would be to give the player going second one stun shield so that they aren't completely vulnerable to combos such as Fire Beetle-Stun-Fire From Above. Who else agrees?

Squire
May 10, 2013
505
PvP King on Oct 15, 2015 wrote:
Going second has never been as big of a problem in PvP until lately when offense has been rising up the scale. In Exalted PvP, going second, especially against a Fire, usually costs a player the match because the player going first stuns them and becomes two turns ahead rather than one. This advantage is usually fatal and is extremely difficult to counter from second unless you want to risk the chance of lowering your defense to resist a stun.

A great solution would be to give the player going second one stun shield so that they aren't completely vulnerable to combos such as Fire Beetle-Stun-Fire From Above. Who else agrees?
That is why we carry shatter in our side deck to not fall for the same trick every time?

Squire
May 10, 2013
505
PvP King on Oct 15, 2015 wrote:
Going second has never been as big of a problem in PvP until lately when offense has been rising up the scale. In Exalted PvP, going second, especially against a Fire, usually costs a player the match because the player going first stuns them and becomes two turns ahead rather than one. This advantage is usually fatal and is extremely difficult to counter from second unless you want to risk the chance of lowering your defense to resist a stun.

A great solution would be to give the player going second one stun shield so that they aren't completely vulnerable to combos such as Fire Beetle-Stun-Fire From Above. Who else agrees?
Or you can carry Conviction to try and not fall for the same trick every time?

Squire
May 10, 2013
505
PlayHard101 on Oct 16, 2015 wrote:
That is why we carry shatter in our side deck to not fall for the same trick every time?
nvm I meant to write Stun Block...

Defender
Sep 17, 2011
143
PlayHard you completely make no sense.
I mean really? We already have allot of problems with being second.
And now you are saying this lol.
Nicholas Star

Geographer
Dec 14, 2009
892
It's a small fix, but does have merit. I would prefer they just overhaul pvp completely, and fix the issues once and for all, but I also concede at this point that will not happen. KI just seems content to let problems fester, with no real solution ever offered, just these small tweaks here and there that I refer to as "Band-Aids".

Squire
May 10, 2013
505
mykola230 on Oct 19, 2015 wrote:
PlayHard you completely make no sense.
I mean really? We already have allot of problems with being second.
And now you are saying this lol.
Nicholas Star
How do I not make sense?
He is saying that a second should start of with a stun shield.
So, the second could use Conviction or Stun Block.
Tell me anywhere in my point I don't make sense.
I agree that they should start with one, but there are easy counters to this problem.

Defender
Dec 31, 2014
118
PlayHard101 on Oct 20, 2015 wrote:
How do I not make sense?
He is saying that a second should start of with a stun shield.
So, the second could use Conviction or Stun Block.
Tell me anywhere in my point I don't make sense.
I agree that they should start with one, but there are easy counters to this problem.
I don't understand what shatter has to do with stuns since stun blocks could not be destroyed by shatter.

Explorer
Oct 23, 2011
81
PlayHard101 on Oct 20, 2015 wrote:
How do I not make sense?
He is saying that a second should start of with a stun shield.
So, the second could use Conviction or Stun Block.
Tell me anywhere in my point I don't make sense.
I agree that they should start with one, but there are easy counters to this problem.
Instead of replying many time to prove this is a bad idea, why don't you find a better solution for the players going second?

I agree with PvP king, the stun block when you go second wouldn't completely repair the fact that going second can be a big bane but it'd make going second fairer.

Squire
May 10, 2013
505
Alex watersinger on Oct 21, 2015 wrote:
Instead of replying many time to prove this is a bad idea, why don't you find a better solution for the players going second?

I agree with PvP king, the stun block when you go second wouldn't completely repair the fact that going second can be a big bane but it'd make going second fairer.
Alex, tell me any part in my post where I said this was a horrible idea and I don't agree with PvP King.
I never said that. I said this:
"There are easy counters to this problem."
In fact, I said I agree with PvP King that they should have one.

Dude, not cool. Please stop trying to make me look bad, okay?

-PlayHard

Explorer
Oct 23, 2011
81
PlayHard101 on Oct 21, 2015 wrote:
Alex, tell me any part in my post where I said this was a horrible idea and I don't agree with PvP King.
I never said that. I said this:
"There are easy counters to this problem."
In fact, I said I agree with PvP King that they should have one.

Dude, not cool. Please stop trying to make me look bad, okay?

-PlayHard
I'm sorry for the inconvenience, we thought you were not agreeing at all. I mist understood your comments.

PS: I won't stop wanting to make you look bad because I never started.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1623
PlayHard101 on Oct 16, 2015 wrote:
That is why we carry shatter in our side deck to not fall for the same trick every time?
And what on earth does Shatter have to do with anything?

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1623
PlayHard101 on Oct 17, 2015 wrote:
Or you can carry Conviction to try and not fall for the same trick every time?
Yes, because the player who's going first has to wait for me to pull up Conviction and shields before attacking. Genius plan.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1623
PlayHard101 on Oct 20, 2015 wrote:
How do I not make sense?
He is saying that a second should start of with a stun shield.
So, the second could use Conviction or Stun Block.
Tell me anywhere in my point I don't make sense.
I agree that they should start with one, but there are easy counters to this problem.
These "counters" leave the player going second completely exposed to damage. While I am putting up stun shields from second, I can take extremely high amounts of damage. While I am shielding from second, I am exposing myself to being stunned. Either way, the player going second has a fatal disadvantage.

Squire
May 10, 2013
505
PvP King on Oct 26, 2015 wrote:
These "counters" leave the player going second completely exposed to damage. While I am putting up stun shields from second, I can take extremely high amounts of damage. While I am shielding from second, I am exposing myself to being stunned. Either way, the player going second has a fatal disadvantage.
Excuse me, sorry that you don't like going second.
There is obviously a disadvantage of going second cause they can easily mana burn/lore you, but we learn how to deal with it instead of complaining multiple times that you want your plan to shine.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1623
PlayHard101 on Oct 28, 2015 wrote:
Excuse me, sorry that you don't like going second.
There is obviously a disadvantage of going second cause they can easily mana burn/lore you, but we learn how to deal with it instead of complaining multiple times that you want your plan to shine.
"There is obviously a disadvantage of going second"

Which is exactly why my idea minimalizes this disadvantage? If your strategy completely requires you going first and stunning somebody just to hold up a clutch from first, then it isn't even a strategy.

Geographer
Dec 14, 2009
892
PlayHard101 on Oct 28, 2015 wrote:
Excuse me, sorry that you don't like going second.
There is obviously a disadvantage of going second cause they can easily mana burn/lore you, but we learn how to deal with it instead of complaining multiple times that you want your plan to shine.
It is far more than a dislike. It is a huge flaw; one of just many that plagues pvp. You may like how it's setup, but to suggest that it's a simple matter of preference, is way off base.

Squire
May 10, 2013
505
PvP King on Oct 28, 2015 wrote:
"There is obviously a disadvantage of going second"

Which is exactly why my idea minimalizes this disadvantage? If your strategy completely requires you going first and stunning somebody just to hold up a clutch from first, then it isn't even a strategy.
"If your strategy completely requires you going first and stunning somebody just to hold up a clutch from first, there isn't even a strategy."
Said the person who says I'm the only person on the message boards who believes in strategy.
Exactly. Why would a player stun from first on the first round?
If you use stun block, your set. Which is the easy counter.
And for the millionth time, I said I agree with you.
Everyone here is just trying to make me look bad. I don't really like it.


~PlayHard~

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1623
PlayHard101 on Oct 29, 2015 wrote:
"If your strategy completely requires you going first and stunning somebody just to hold up a clutch from first, there isn't even a strategy."
Said the person who says I'm the only person on the message boards who believes in strategy.
Exactly. Why would a player stun from first on the first round?
If you use stun block, your set. Which is the easy counter.
And for the millionth time, I said I agree with you.
Everyone here is just trying to make me look bad. I don't really like it.


~PlayHard~
The use of a stun block from second in the first turn, or any turn in that matter, is leading into a huge risk. Your opponent could easily punish your defencelessness by attacking with a Shadow Enhanced Spell. The key to this meta is perfect efficiency, and using a Shadow Enhanced Spell into a shieldless target takes about half or all of their health, depending whether or not a critical occurs. This is extremely efficient for the player going first and from here on it'll take one more Shadow Enhanced spell to win the match.

I'm glad you agree, but I'm explaining why your points aren't relevant to the top level meta.

Survivor
Jun 30, 2013
38
PvP King on Oct 30, 2015 wrote:
The use of a stun block from second in the first turn, or any turn in that matter, is leading into a huge risk. Your opponent could easily punish your defencelessness by attacking with a Shadow Enhanced Spell. The key to this meta is perfect efficiency, and using a Shadow Enhanced Spell into a shieldless target takes about half or all of their health, depending whether or not a critical occurs. This is extremely efficient for the player going first and from here on it'll take one more Shadow Enhanced spell to win the match.

I'm glad you agree, but I'm explaining why your points aren't relevant to the top level meta.
Greetings!
I don't think this is any good of an idea. It's not all about stuns, plus it would ruin Myth's slight chance of successfully stunning. As a fellow player said in the message boards ( I think it might be you ), the best way to fix that is applying the same system as Pirate101's for turns in PvP, where each player has a turn on his/her own each round. It would give people a chance of being dispelled, stunned of debuffed against right before casting their attacks. Same with heals. The first turn will still give a minor advantage, but not as huge as it is with the current system.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1623
Mindy GoldenHeart on Oct 31, 2015 wrote:
Greetings!
I don't think this is any good of an idea. It's not all about stuns, plus it would ruin Myth's slight chance of successfully stunning. As a fellow player said in the message boards ( I think it might be you ), the best way to fix that is applying the same system as Pirate101's for turns in PvP, where each player has a turn on his/her own each round. It would give people a chance of being dispelled, stunned of debuffed against right before casting their attacks. Same with heals. The first turn will still give a minor advantage, but not as huge as it is with the current system.
No, that solution comes up with more issues, such as unavoidable spell chains (Fire Beetle and FFA, the best and most unstoppable combo in the game) and makes several schools lose a plethora of disadvantages against Fire. A stun block to the player going second would help because several players going first stun their opponents when they're at 4 pips and when their opponent is shieldless, to defeat them the next turn with a Shadow Enhanced Spell. This playstyle, even though I may use it as well, is extremely cheap and an impossible way to counter from second unless the player going first is extremely bad.

Survivor
Nov 15, 2015
12
I actually like the idea of getting a stun block when going second.

It may not be the one all end all solution, but it does help a bit.

Good idea!

Explorer
Dec 12, 2012
91
Normally people don't start with stuns. For some reason, I think people stun more than any other school.

Why?
1.) Balance can use shields all the time
2.) Trying to stun a opponent is a big advantage, because that's one other shield they don't need to worry about slash blade.
3.) Stunning is better than doing nothing right?

People also stun these schools at certain times:
, and .

Explorer
Dec 12, 2012
91
Geographer
Sep 19, 2013
839
Katie LifeSword on Jan 7, 2016 wrote:
It's only a stun can we get over it?
For want of a stun block, a turn was lost. For want of a turn, much health was lost. For want of some health, the game was lost. It's not "just a stun". Second turn needs all the help it can get.

1