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.

A way to fix first turns in PVP.

AuthorMessage
Survivor
Sep 25, 2008
1
People often complain about how they lose if they are not going first in PVP, or as if it's a disadvantage. In my opinion, I think it is a disadvantage. Let's say Player 1 is going first, and Player 2 has a tower shield on. Player 1 can take off the tower shield while Player 2 cannot react to it, even though Player 1 gets to react to every move Player 2 takes because Player 2 goes right before the round would end. So then the next round starts, Player 1 gets to go first again without Player 2 even being able to react to what happened the previous round.

My idea to solve this problem is to have two planning phases. This would mean one team would have their planning phase and do all their moves, then it would go to the second team's planning phase and they would do their moves. This would make it so you can actually react to what move the other team made.

Sorry if it is a bit confusing to understand.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1623
The problem with this is that a player is still technically going "first." I find it better to just have the turn system the way it is because it makes you think on when and how to counter your opponent, rather than having the counters made obvious right away.

Defender
Jan 27, 2012
195
Or they could make it so Player 1 goes first the first round, then player 2 goes first, and so on.

Also, do you mean that player 1 would do everything they wanted to do, then player 2 would get to?

Geographer
Aug 28, 2010
957
Evan DeathBlood on Jul 24, 2015 wrote:
People often complain about how they lose if they are not going first in PVP, or as if it's a disadvantage. In my opinion, I think it is a disadvantage. Let's say Player 1 is going first, and Player 2 has a tower shield on. Player 1 can take off the tower shield while Player 2 cannot react to it, even though Player 1 gets to react to every move Player 2 takes because Player 2 goes right before the round would end. So then the next round starts, Player 1 gets to go first again without Player 2 even being able to react to what happened the previous round.

My idea to solve this problem is to have two planning phases. This would mean one team would have their planning phase and do all their moves, then it would go to the second team's planning phase and they would do their moves. This would make it so you can actually react to what move the other team made.

Sorry if it is a bit confusing to understand.
I would prefer to see Team 1, play 1 go, then Team 2 Player 1 go, then Team 1 player 2 go, so it's
fair to all. One team still goes first, but it would be much more fair to play this way.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
198
Completely agree with you. I suggested the exact same idea around 6 months ago, but 3rd age came out and still nothing has changed. I hope KI can notice that this is an issue that players are actually bothered by and realise that this truly is a serious game flaw. But it's also very fixable. Nice to see there are others speaking up about this problem.

Survivor
Jul 02, 2009
1
How about both teams not attacking the first two based turns. Instead they power up or do whatever they have to do to get ready. Make the game more interesting and longer. Especially 4v4.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
198
PvP King on Jul 24, 2015 wrote:
The problem with this is that a player is still technically going "first." I find it better to just have the turn system the way it is because it makes you think on when and how to counter your opponent, rather than having the counters made obvious right away.
I think you missed the point. Yes someone will always have to go first, that is something that can't be avoided in a turn based game. The real problem is that the same player always goes first every round for the entirety of the match.

And you say you prefer to have to predict your opponent in order to counter them. That's great, but you realise that with the current system only one player is in this situation while the other does not have this "disadvantage".

The problem is that both players are not fairly pitched against each other. It's never a fair match.

Explorer
Mar 29, 2010
84
Even better, why not a system where some effects happen on your current turn, and others will take effect the NEXT turn.
Example 1: if a player going second is defeated, their turn should still be allowed to occur, and if it results in player one also being defeated, then a draw occurs.

Example 2: things like shields would be applied immediately, but things like dispels would affect the next turn (just as an example, it could be debated which spells took effect when).

This does away with the whole who-goes-first problem; no matter which player the game shows as going 'first,' both players' turns will be enacted each round.

Survivor
Oct 01, 2013
29
Use the random number generator, with each team having 50% chance of going first.

Survivor
Apr 12, 2009
40
Seth Silvershard on Aug 5, 2015 wrote:
Use the random number generator, with each team having 50% chance of going first.
That's already how it works LOL

Survivor
Apr 12, 2009
40
How about you just make it so debuffs/dispels go off the turn after they are played this would fix the whole first problem at least in my experience of people dispelling/efreeting/shielding the second I'm about to use judgement from second.

Mastermind
Nov 19, 2014
365
doesn't matter who go first or second (did say percent of going first) forgot one thing: IMMUNITY (immunity is useful anyone will use it) either going first or second (like using immunity when go first) make easy for me to spam storm shield (make it harder for them to attack) use cleanse ward when go first (use storm shield) easy for me so, able take convert off (armor pierce can't resist (use shield) love using high shield :P (make it even more useful) have resist about 127 or above (infallible be useless) 127 resist is immune to 15% armor pierce

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
198
Seth Silvershard on Aug 5, 2015 wrote:
Use the random number generator, with each team having 50% chance of going first.
Yes, so lets let the outcome of the match be heavily influenced by a coin toss. I would rather have both players on an even playing ground and let skill be the only determining factor.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1623
JustinFrostHunter on Aug 26, 2015 wrote:
doesn't matter who go first or second (did say percent of going first) forgot one thing: IMMUNITY (immunity is useful anyone will use it) either going first or second (like using immunity when go first) make easy for me to spam storm shield (make it harder for them to attack) use cleanse ward when go first (use storm shield) easy for me so, able take convert off (armor pierce can't resist (use shield) love using high shield :P (make it even more useful) have resist about 127 or above (infallible be useless) 127 resist is immune to 15% armor pierce
Immunity isn't a reliable way to enter into PvP. Playing with high levels of resist and almost no damage has died down since the Hades era and is impossible to gain even a slightly consistent rank with in this era.

Survivor
Oct 01, 2013
29
Ethanboomshield on Aug 14, 2015 wrote:
That's already how it works LOL
I mean for each turn.

Defender
Oct 15, 2009
130
There is a fair way to accomplish this. We already have stun. When used the player misses a turn. Have a spell similar to it, the big difference is the attack sequence changes directions. Instead of going second the caster now attacks first.

To balance everything out make it a 10 pip card.

Spell name: Reversal

Survivor
Dec 30, 2014
6
Seth Silvershard on Sep 14, 2015 wrote:
I mean for each turn.
That would be a terrible idea because if it's generated like in the same way power pips are or something a person could go first like 5 times in a row

Defender
Jun 12, 2009
140
Ghost stone on Aug 28, 2015 wrote:
Yes, so lets let the outcome of the match be heavily influenced by a coin toss. I would rather have both players on an even playing ground and let skill be the only determining factor.
Even if kingsisle were to some how come up with a 100% fair system on who goes first and so on Pvp still isn't based on skill. It's on who can use FFA first

Defender
Sep 17, 2011
142
The Issue we are currently having is not only who goes first or who goes second.
The current issue is that people use this as an excuse to why they loose the game.
Yes 1st and 2nd is pretty unbalanced and I did like the idea of "Reversal Card"
Also another thing I do disagree with one of the things:
"That would be a terrible idea because if it's generated like in the same way power pips are or something a person could go first like 5 times in a row"
No, It doesn't really matter how many times can go in a row and the reason for that would be that the other person has fully equal chances of the same thing happening to him.
While in current era if you go second you basically stuck with it to the end of the battle and vise versa.
So both ideas in my opinion seem pretty fair and balanced.
But what I am trying to get at is even if something like this was to be implemented then it wouldn't make much difference in complaints. People would still complain no matter what you give them. Then they going to complain about power pips or shadow pips, or bad hand, so on and so on. You can't really stop that factor of complaints. And it's always not their fault but the system's fault.
So with all that being said, the game must be fixed on the factor of first or second go.
But complaints won't stop coming. Because people will find other reasons to complain about and blame something else other than them selves.

Nicholas Star

Survivor
May 25, 2009
12
To be honest, I have no problem with the turn based system. As a player you need to build decks that not just help you win only going first, but in the battles going second as well. My problem was I used to just blame it on not going first; it turned out my deck was really only useful if I went first. Second can be super beneficial as well. If you predict what the opponent is going to do and you counter it the very same turn, chances are the first person wasted a good amount of pips. Examples being: predicting a overtime that leads to triage, making a big heal when you know you are going to lose a big chunk of health that turn and you are probably dead next, or by accident using a bubble the same turn your opponent does. In my opinion, going second is basically just an alternative way to battle things that everyone has to go through. It is definitely beatable.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
198
Ethan LegendBlade on Oct 14, 2015 wrote:
Even if kingsisle were to some how come up with a 100% fair system on who goes first and so on Pvp still isn't based on skill. It's on who can use FFA first
You're not wrong. But even if that was fixed this issue will still need fixing.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
198
The Unknown Wizard on Oct 22, 2015 wrote:
To be honest, I have no problem with the turn based system. As a player you need to build decks that not just help you win only going first, but in the battles going second as well. My problem was I used to just blame it on not going first; it turned out my deck was really only useful if I went first. Second can be super beneficial as well. If you predict what the opponent is going to do and you counter it the very same turn, chances are the first person wasted a good amount of pips. Examples being: predicting a overtime that leads to triage, making a big heal when you know you are going to lose a big chunk of health that turn and you are probably dead next, or by accident using a bubble the same turn your opponent does. In my opinion, going second is basically just an alternative way to battle things that everyone has to go through. It is definitely beatable.
There are so many things wrong with what you just said. Lets start with the thing that just made me face palm myself.
"Second can be super beneficial as well""Examples being: predicting a overtime that leads to triage, making a big heal when you know you are going to lose a big chunk of health that turn and you are probably dead next, or by accident using a bubble the same turn your opponent does".
Notice how you used word like "predict" and "accident" to describe what you are doing when you make the right plays. Now anyone with a brain will know that the player going first can also do all of these things. The difference is the player going first can make these plays with certainty. They don't need to make these plays by "accident" or "predict" what there opponent is going to do, because they have already seen what their opponent has done when choosing there move. What you described as "super beneficial" is actually exactly the same thing the player going first has but with the need to "predict" it or do it by "accident". There is a word for that in English, it's called a disadvantage.

As for your main message. It seems that you are more relaxed when it comes to your circumstances and accept them even if they are not legitamately fair. You would rather focus more on improving yourself as a player rather than improving the game. There is nothing wrong with that, only I get the feeling you wouldn't fuss about the turn system regardless of how it is.
The real question is why did you bother to post in the first place?

This thread is full of people who actually do care about the state of the game that we play.
Since you seem so indifferent about this subject you should prevent yourself from hindering progress for those of us that do want change for improvement.

Survivor
Jan 13, 2014
14
EvanAngleTamer3 on Oct 11, 2015 wrote:
That would be a terrible idea because if it's generated like in the same way power pips are or something a person could go first like 5 times in a row
Currently, the same person will go first for an infinite number of times in a row. So one going five times in a row would be bad?

A 50% chance of it being the other person is a vast improvement to the system. Even if one player gets only 40% of those rounds where he has the initiative, he has a much better chance of winning.