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.

Dispels in Quickmatches

AuthorMessage
Survivor
Aug 21, 2012
10
Please make it so you can't use dispel in a quickmatch tournament, either 1v1 or 2v2, or take dispels out of tourneys completely. Please! It's not fair if you're going second and the person that's first uses dispel every single turn and then one shots you. Think about it, it's not fair at all. Please remove dispels from quickmatches!

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1620
In quick match, I 100% agree. Dispels should be disallowed.

Delver
Jun 14, 2016
247
Champion
Mar 25, 2011
421
People usually check to see what school they're facing to plan their dispels. Wizard101 could have it where wizards participating in the tournament cannot port in, but other wizards are welcome.

Banning a certain spell from PvP is requested a lot of time and it's usually because there hasn't been a solution founded yet. Instead of outraging a whole bunch of people from removing spells from their decks, instead they can look at other alternatives, like revamping the turn-based system so that there is no longer a "whoever goes first wins" idea plaguing PvP anymore. Just my two cents.

Keep stuns. Use stun blocks.
Hope to see you all in the Spiral!
Nathan GreenEyes 120 PvP Commander Main

Nathan GreenEyes 110 Couch Potato Hoarder
Ryan HexPyre 104 Always Dying
Nathan GreenEyes 75+ Hot in more ways than one (lol)

Survivor
Sep 16, 2015
6
I agree that dispels are a serious issue in Quick Matches. They make it absolutely impossible to win when your second and being spammed.
I would very much like to see a spell that you could put up, which would immediately remove the
spell when it's cast on you. Preventative versus reactive, it would allow the person that is second to hit.
Just like a Stun block, this would be a Dispel block, an easy way to really help these matches.

I really hope that KI looks into this, as it's a major issue now.

Survivor
Feb 21, 2011
1
i just did a 1v1 and like many times before I was dispel non stop I am done with tourneys. I have faced a player named rowan and all she does to me is dispel and then one shots me.today I faced another coward who is afraid to get hit named jonathan something. as long as wizards keeps dispel in quick match I wont do any more tournaments.
I rather do arena on the game Naruto seeing how everyone hits and the game isn't stale like wizards has become

Survivor
Dec 13, 2008
18
3DGhost on Feb 18, 2017 wrote:
I agree that dispels are a serious issue in Quick Matches. They make it absolutely impossible to win when your second and being spammed.
I would very much like to see a spell that you could put up, which would immediately remove the
spell when it's cast on you. Preventative versus reactive, it would allow the person that is second to hit.
Just like a Stun block, this would be a Dispel block, an easy way to really help these matches.

I really hope that KI looks into this, as it's a major issue now.
I like the idea of a stun block type blade that would prevent dispels. However, as people have mentioned, usually the person who goes first just consistently spams dispels, before you can do anything proactively.

Geographer
Sep 19, 2013
818
thelastdiviner on Feb 15, 2017 wrote:
People usually check to see what school they're facing to plan their dispels. Wizard101 could have it where wizards participating in the tournament cannot port in, but other wizards are welcome.

Banning a certain spell from PvP is requested a lot of time and it's usually because there hasn't been a solution founded yet. Instead of outraging a whole bunch of people from removing spells from their decks, instead they can look at other alternatives, like revamping the turn-based system so that there is no longer a "whoever goes first wins" idea plaguing PvP anymore. Just my two cents.

Keep stuns. Use stun blocks.
Hope to see you all in the Spiral!
Nathan GreenEyes 120 PvP Commander Main

Nathan GreenEyes 110 Couch Potato Hoarder
Ryan HexPyre 104 Always Dying
Nathan GreenEyes 75+ Hot in more ways than one (lol)
Second accounts are absolutely a thing. Dispel spam in Quick Match also won't be fixed by a turn system revamp since someone has to act first and the person going first can just say "lol u dispelled bro?" until they can one shot you.

Survivor
Dec 30, 2009
44
I would ban dispels. But I'm more hardline and I know that's a drastic action. It just doesn't seem fair in a turn -based system whereby the player going first can always shut out the second player. Very clear in 1v1 Quick Matches.

Champion
Mar 25, 2011
421
Robobot1747 on Apr 25, 2017 wrote:
Second accounts are absolutely a thing. Dispel spam in Quick Match also won't be fixed by a turn system revamp since someone has to act first and the person going first can just say "lol u dispelled bro?" until they can one shot you.
Right. Those blasted second account users. Ha ha, stumped on this one. If they want to play the dispel game, I'll play.

What tends to work for me is using a dispel for my own school on the first turn. Ex. I'm storm so I'll first round storm dispel. Thankfully, they foolishly put in many dispels against my own school so they'll have to waste a turn to take it off if they still want to waste their time. Suppose this doesn't work too well for Ice wizards due to tower shields everywhere.
Hope to see you all in the Spiral!
Nathan GreenEyes 120 PvP Commander
Nathan GreenEyes 117 Hot in more ways than one (lol)
(Currently questing through Mirage)
Nathan GreenEyes 110 Couch Potato Hoarder
Genevieve HexPyre 90+ PvP Warlord
(Currently questing through Khrysalis)

Survivor
Dec 13, 2008
18
thelastdiviner on Apr 26, 2017 wrote:
Right. Those blasted second account users. Ha ha, stumped on this one. If they want to play the dispel game, I'll play.

What tends to work for me is using a dispel for my own school on the first turn. Ex. I'm storm so I'll first round storm dispel. Thankfully, they foolishly put in many dispels against my own school so they'll have to waste a turn to take it off if they still want to waste their time. Suppose this doesn't work too well for Ice wizards due to tower shields everywhere.
Hope to see you all in the Spiral!
Nathan GreenEyes 120 PvP Commander
Nathan GreenEyes 117 Hot in more ways than one (lol)
(Currently questing through Mirage)
Nathan GreenEyes 110 Couch Potato Hoarder
Genevieve HexPyre 90+ PvP Warlord
(Currently questing through Khrysalis)
While the suggestion of just dispelling them before they can dispel you works, the main issue comes when they dispel you on the very first turn and all turns afterwards, until they have enough of a hit to kill you. Given our current system, in this scenario you don't have the chance to dispel them first, because you've already been dispelled.

Champion
Mar 25, 2011
421
Wolf W on Apr 26, 2017 wrote:
While the suggestion of just dispelling them before they can dispel you works, the main issue comes when they dispel you on the very first turn and all turns afterwards, until they have enough of a hit to kill you. Given our current system, in this scenario you don't have the chance to dispel them first, because you've already been dispelled.
Agreed. As I said, tends to work sometimes. First and second in PvP have all types of complaints surrounding them.

Hope to see you all in the Spiral!
Nathan GreenEyes 120 PvP Commander
Nathan GreenEyes 117 Hot in more ways than one (lol)
(Currently questing through Mirage)
Nathan GreenEyes 110 Couch Potato Hoarder
Genevieve HexPyre 90+ PvP Warlord
(Currently questing through Khrysalis)

Survivor
Dec 13, 2008
18
thelastdiviner on Apr 27, 2017 wrote:
Agreed. As I said, tends to work sometimes. First and second in PvP have all types of complaints surrounding them.

Hope to see you all in the Spiral!
Nathan GreenEyes 120 PvP Commander
Nathan GreenEyes 117 Hot in more ways than one (lol)
(Currently questing through Mirage)
Nathan GreenEyes 110 Couch Potato Hoarder
Genevieve HexPyre 90+ PvP Warlord
(Currently questing through Khrysalis)
I think there's a number of changes that could be made to tone down the effectiveness of dispels in pvp. I've come up with a few, but they all come with their own flaws.

Make dispels cost 3 pips.

This one definitely comes with a lot of drawback. But the main reason, that I've seen, why dispelling is so powerful in pvp is because of the efficiency. You can cast a dispel of your own school every turn, and the only drawback is that you are no longer gaining pips. If it cost 3 pips, the occasional strategic dispel would still give you lots of value, but spamming them would now be much more costly.

Let each player take their turn one at a time.
I think part of why dispelling is so powerful is because if you're the player going second, you simply have to predict when the spam of dispels stops. If you predict wrong, they get two free hits on you, usually enough to kill any storm (my preferred school). If each player took their turn one at a time, they would have the opportunity to look over the battle and make a more appropriate decision. Obviously we would never want to storm lord with a storm dispel. Main drawback is matches will take a lot longer, but I don't see the effecting pve since monsters will pick their spells immediately.

Make dispels not cost pips, or at the very least only a portion of the total pip cost.
This one seems like the simplest solution to me. The main destructive force of dispels is that not only do you fizzle the spell, but the entire spell cost is used. In 1v1 Storm pvp, if you get any high-cost spell dispelled, you can kiss your chances of winning that game goodbye. I feel that a guaranteed fizzle is pretty valuable as is, especially in matches with more people, where delaying an attack one turn could save your entire team's lives.

In summary I would like to add that I really do enjoy the strategic aspect of dispels. Predicting when they will use a spell and acting upon that is great. But the strategy associated with dispels has been lost.

Geographer
Sep 19, 2013
818
Wolf W on Apr 27, 2017 wrote:
I think there's a number of changes that could be made to tone down the effectiveness of dispels in pvp. I've come up with a few, but they all come with their own flaws.

Make dispels cost 3 pips.

This one definitely comes with a lot of drawback. But the main reason, that I've seen, why dispelling is so powerful in pvp is because of the efficiency. You can cast a dispel of your own school every turn, and the only drawback is that you are no longer gaining pips. If it cost 3 pips, the occasional strategic dispel would still give you lots of value, but spamming them would now be much more costly.

Let each player take their turn one at a time.
I think part of why dispelling is so powerful is because if you're the player going second, you simply have to predict when the spam of dispels stops. If you predict wrong, they get two free hits on you, usually enough to kill any storm (my preferred school). If each player took their turn one at a time, they would have the opportunity to look over the battle and make a more appropriate decision. Obviously we would never want to storm lord with a storm dispel. Main drawback is matches will take a lot longer, but I don't see the effecting pve since monsters will pick their spells immediately.

Make dispels not cost pips, or at the very least only a portion of the total pip cost.
This one seems like the simplest solution to me. The main destructive force of dispels is that not only do you fizzle the spell, but the entire spell cost is used. In 1v1 Storm pvp, if you get any high-cost spell dispelled, you can kiss your chances of winning that game goodbye. I feel that a guaranteed fizzle is pretty valuable as is, especially in matches with more people, where delaying an attack one turn could save your entire team's lives.

In summary I would like to add that I really do enjoy the strategic aspect of dispels. Predicting when they will use a spell and acting upon that is great. But the strategy associated with dispels has been lost.
I support #1, because it will solve the spam, and #2, because that's just a good idea, but not sure about #3.

Survivor
Dec 13, 2008
18
Robobot1747 on Apr 30, 2017 wrote:
I support #1, because it will solve the spam, and #2, because that's just a good idea, but not sure about #3.
Thanks for the feedback. I would probably prefer a combination of solutions, as you said. I'm sure there are other solutions even I did not think of, these were just some I've come up with over the past couple of weeks. They all have their own flaws associated with them as well, however.