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.

First Turn STILL Has It's OP Advantages

1
AuthorMessage
Delver
Oct 26, 2010
233
I just recently did a 1v1 quick tourney with my fire. This is yet another major flaw with the PvP system. On the first hand, the girl I faced 3 times in a row went first every time. The new "extra pip" in 1v1 doesn't even matter. You can STILL get the same amount of pips as the person going first. It should be a guaranteed power pip to make it 3 power pips, when the other person only has 2. When I'm about to hit, she fire dispels me, or towers, which I cannot see coming from being second. Secondly, I can't know when to shield or not, because I don't know wether she is going to hit or not. Going second and winning is 60% luck, 40% skill. There needs to be a way where both parties go first each turn, so like this:

Person going first goes first the first round.

Person going second goes first the next round.

This would give PvP a fair balance, not having to not know what's coming at you 100% of the time.
This disappoints me that this is going on, with the glitches, this tournament madness, and this nonsense.

Again, first turn comes out to be the best when doing PvP.

Astrologist
Aug 20, 2011
1077
It's locked now, but I suggested a fix for this last year, and the year before ... https://www.wizard101.com/forum/the-dorms/new-spell-change-which-side-is-going-first-8ad6a4143a920d2c013ab46cf0a55659

I think more people need to say something about this if they're upset. I mean, KI has talented developers who could make a fix if enough people said they wanted one.

Defender
Jun 15, 2013
139
A Balanced Life on Dec 10, 2013 wrote:
I just recently did a 1v1 quick tourney with my fire. This is yet another major flaw with the PvP system. On the first hand, the girl I faced 3 times in a row went first every time. The new "extra pip" in 1v1 doesn't even matter. You can STILL get the same amount of pips as the person going first. It should be a guaranteed power pip to make it 3 power pips, when the other person only has 2. When I'm about to hit, she fire dispels me, or towers, which I cannot see coming from being second. Secondly, I can't know when to shield or not, because I don't know wether she is going to hit or not. Going second and winning is 60% luck, 40% skill. There needs to be a way where both parties go first each turn, so like this:

Person going first goes first the first round.

Person going second goes first the next round.

This would give PvP a fair balance, not having to not know what's coming at you 100% of the time.
This disappoints me that this is going on, with the glitches, this tournament madness, and this nonsense.

Again, first turn comes out to be the best when doing PvP.
try pvp a little bit more, then it will be easier to guess what the opponent will do

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Firstly I agree with you. Something needs to be done a bout the turn order in the game to make PvP more fair.
I have already made a post about this topic (Gong first vs going second)
Your solution has already been suggested as well as many others.
But it seems to have gone unnoticed by KI even though it has been around a while. Probably because there are not enough people crying out to have it fixed. Most people either are not bothered by the advantage/disadvantage or are not aware of it.
It's good to see someone else on the message boards that also wants a fix to this problem.

Delver
Oct 11, 2010
270
A Balanced Life on Dec 10, 2013 wrote:
I just recently did a 1v1 quick tourney with my fire. This is yet another major flaw with the PvP system. On the first hand, the girl I faced 3 times in a row went first every time. The new "extra pip" in 1v1 doesn't even matter. You can STILL get the same amount of pips as the person going first. It should be a guaranteed power pip to make it 3 power pips, when the other person only has 2. When I'm about to hit, she fire dispels me, or towers, which I cannot see coming from being second. Secondly, I can't know when to shield or not, because I don't know wether she is going to hit or not. Going second and winning is 60% luck, 40% skill. There needs to be a way where both parties go first each turn, so like this:

Person going first goes first the first round.

Person going second goes first the next round.

This would give PvP a fair balance, not having to not know what's coming at you 100% of the time.
This disappoints me that this is going on, with the glitches, this tournament madness, and this nonsense.

Again, first turn comes out to be the best when doing PvP.
could have been worse facing a immune ice or even a storm that 4k zaps you twice in row :D

Survivor
Apr 17, 2010
6
I honestly don't see any problem with it. Yes, KI should do something to fix the unfair advantage of being first in any pvp match, but really whoever goes first is mostly based on luck. No guarantee your team or the other team will go first. It's only a 50/50 chance, and if you turn up to be second a number of times in a row it's not that the game is against you, but you just had the bad luck of going second.

Survivor
Nov 15, 2009
26
sadly its true that going second against an op player is not fair but what you suggest is not possible. if you think about it what happens if the player you go up against went first, then on the second match, who might be a different player, who to say that both you and that player went second last match who gets the first move then? like others have said it is a 50/50 chance, no reason to change it.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
MythOfLegends on Dec 12, 2013 wrote:
I honestly don't see any problem with it. Yes, KI should do something to fix the unfair advantage of being first in any pvp match, but really whoever goes first is mostly based on luck. No guarantee your team or the other team will go first. It's only a 50/50 chance, and if you turn up to be second a number of times in a row it's not that the game is against you, but you just had the bad luck of going second.
Oh great, so lets just let a flip of a coin determine the winner then.
If two wizards are very close in skill and ability then whoever goes first is going to win.
What about tournaments? Should it be fair that someone wins the final just because they went first when the player going second was actually better but was just at a disadvantage?
You could come back with the same argument saying that they both had an equal chance of going first, but that is actually a really pathetic argument because what you are really saying is that the winner of the match is determined by pure chance of whoever gets the advantage of going first.

We need to fix it so that both players have an equal chance of countering each others moves.

Explorer
May 17, 2010
92
The more I think about it, the more I'm liking the idea of alternating who goes first. Although making every round randomly decide who goes first that round is still a little more fair overall, I'm sure it will lead to a lot of whining about how this match was so unfair because "they went first way more than me" and such and last thing KI needs is another thing for people to whine about.
So the idea of alternating is slightly unfair because someone obviously goes first the first round and hence will "go first" more times than the other person half the time. BUT as we keep saying PVP is all about strategy and this is a perfect opportunity to engage your strategy to build up a spell and employ you defenses based on which cycle you are on. In fact, there may be MANY strategies that will benefit from starting the match going SECOND. Based on alternating turns if you start second then you have the first 'back-to-back" hit opportunity. Also, you may need 3 rounds to set something up and want to hit that 4th round and hence going second would be best.
So the more I think about it, I think PVP may embrace this concept as both a more fair match and encourage more PVP strategy.
Finally, with KI including all these PVP options, I think they have opened the door for this idea. I think KI should offer a whole new PVP arena with different rules (i.e. alternating who goes first) so players can choose if they want to play old style or this new alternating way. My thought is that we will quickly find everyone in the new arena and no one in the old one, but let the wizards choose

Astrologist
Aug 20, 2011
1077
Suggestion thread for a spell that could let you change which side of the duel circle begins a round...

Add your thoughts: https://www.wizard101.com/forum/the-dorms/spell-to-change-who-goes-first-in-duels-8ad6a415407c1977014088784f986826

Survivor
Nov 15, 2009
26
instead of a new spell, why not have a first round time out, as in no attacking, stunning or negative blading for both players. that way both players can only shield themselves during their first turn? after that its all fair attacking...it seems more logical and might stop first turn winning for whoever goes first.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
I4C gr8ness on Dec 13, 2013 wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I'm liking the idea of alternating who goes first. Although making every round randomly decide who goes first that round is still a little more fair overall, I'm sure it will lead to a lot of whining about how this match was so unfair because "they went first way more than me" and such and last thing KI needs is another thing for people to whine about.
So the idea of alternating is slightly unfair because someone obviously goes first the first round and hence will "go first" more times than the other person half the time. BUT as we keep saying PVP is all about strategy and this is a perfect opportunity to engage your strategy to build up a spell and employ you defenses based on which cycle you are on. In fact, there may be MANY strategies that will benefit from starting the match going SECOND. Based on alternating turns if you start second then you have the first 'back-to-back" hit opportunity. Also, you may need 3 rounds to set something up and want to hit that 4th round and hence going second would be best.
So the more I think about it, I think PVP may embrace this concept as both a more fair match and encourage more PVP strategy.
Finally, with KI including all these PVP options, I think they have opened the door for this idea. I think KI should offer a whole new PVP arena with different rules (i.e. alternating who goes first) so players can choose if they want to play old style or this new alternating way. My thought is that we will quickly find everyone in the new arena and no one in the old one, but let the wizards choose
I like your idea because it is fair and neither player will have a turn advantage. But the thing I don't like is that players will cast two spells in a row. It will greatly change the structure of the game.
I have nothing against trying it though. Like you said, no harm can come from trying it. That's if KI bothers to notice and actually put it into action.
And if they try this idea then why not try all the good ideas that were previously suggested on my thread
(Going first vs going second). Try them all out on test realm, see which one works best. All of them have their pros and cons but any one of them will be better than the turn system that we have at the moment.

Survivor
Jun 16, 2009
6
A Balanced Life on Dec 10, 2013 wrote:
I just recently did a 1v1 quick tourney with my fire. This is yet another major flaw with the PvP system. On the first hand, the girl I faced 3 times in a row went first every time. The new "extra pip" in 1v1 doesn't even matter. You can STILL get the same amount of pips as the person going first. It should be a guaranteed power pip to make it 3 power pips, when the other person only has 2. When I'm about to hit, she fire dispels me, or towers, which I cannot see coming from being second. Secondly, I can't know when to shield or not, because I don't know wether she is going to hit or not. Going second and winning is 60% luck, 40% skill. There needs to be a way where both parties go first each turn, so like this:

Person going first goes first the first round.

Person going second goes first the next round.

This would give PvP a fair balance, not having to not know what's coming at you 100% of the time.
This disappoints me that this is going on, with the glitches, this tournament madness, and this nonsense.

Again, first turn comes out to be the best when doing PvP.
You just gotta play different. Honestly, I win more often when I go second rather than first BECAUSE of the pip advantage. Going first you are aggressive first then defensive while going second, defensive first then aggressive. It is like I said, an entirely different play style. Both you have to "guess" what the opponent is gonna do. Going second, you have to sometimes guess a few turns in advance as well. With that system though, I feel PvP would not have as many skilled players. YOU CAN WIN GOING SECOND. And that is why you have some players who are really good verses some who well aren't.

Just like you have to play different depending on what school you are, you gotta play different depending if you are first or second

-The Big Dig

Survivor
Jun 11, 2010
5
DigbyIceblade on Dec 17, 2013 wrote:
You just gotta play different. Honestly, I win more often when I go second rather than first BECAUSE of the pip advantage. Going first you are aggressive first then defensive while going second, defensive first then aggressive. It is like I said, an entirely different play style. Both you have to "guess" what the opponent is gonna do. Going second, you have to sometimes guess a few turns in advance as well. With that system though, I feel PvP would not have as many skilled players. YOU CAN WIN GOING SECOND. And that is why you have some players who are really good verses some who well aren't.

Just like you have to play different depending on what school you are, you gotta play different depending if you are first or second

-The Big Dig
I agree 100% on this. Yes, going first has somewhat an advantage but strategizing has a role in this too. Try outsmarting your opponent by doing the less obvious and catching them off guard.

You still have a chance of winning going second-it may just require more planning/strategizing.

~Ryan MythBlade

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
xRyan33125 on Dec 27, 2013 wrote:
I agree 100% on this. Yes, going first has somewhat an advantage but strategizing has a role in this too. Try outsmarting your opponent by doing the less obvious and catching them off guard.

You still have a chance of winning going second-it may just require more planning/strategizing.

~Ryan MythBlade
You just outlined the problem perfectly. "going first has somewhat of an advantage"
And "it may just require more planning/strategizing"
Why should it require "more" strategizing in order to win? All because of something that was pure chance.
A Balanced life was not asking for advice about how to win. He was pointing out a flaw in the turn system of the game that needs a fix.

Archon
Sep 17, 2012
4115
Ghost stone on Dec 28, 2013 wrote:
You just outlined the problem perfectly. "going first has somewhat of an advantage"
And "it may just require more planning/strategizing"
Why should it require "more" strategizing in order to win? All because of something that was pure chance.
A Balanced life was not asking for advice about how to win. He was pointing out a flaw in the turn system of the game that needs a fix.
It's not a flaw in the game, it's a fact of life, and the nature of reality. SOMEONE has to go first in any turn based game. You could have simultaneous attacks, however this would also require the need for three stats in the ranking and would result in a lot of draws and really messed up rankings. As for the "why should it require more strategizing"... because EVERY game does. Defense and offense require different strategies and there is no changing that.

Defender
Mar 08, 2013
114
seethe42 on Dec 29, 2013 wrote:
It's not a flaw in the game, it's a fact of life, and the nature of reality. SOMEONE has to go first in any turn based game. You could have simultaneous attacks, however this would also require the need for three stats in the ranking and would result in a lot of draws and really messed up rankings. As for the "why should it require more strategizing"... because EVERY game does. Defense and offense require different strategies and there is no changing that.
Yes, the turns don't need to be changed... yet(maybe). KI is only going to fix one problem at a time, so far from what I've seen, pvp tc and lvl 50 vs 95 are bigger problems. Going second also has some advantages(if you know what to look for). Many times I have wanded a shield off going first and then my opponent casted a different shield that my wand could have also gotten rid of. If you are going second, you would have wanded off both of them. Can't think of any more right off the bat, but I have lost many times going first because somehow my opponent predicted my every move. I have 3 warlords 62, 38, and18, those were when I got to warlord.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
seethe42 on Dec 29, 2013 wrote:
It's not a flaw in the game, it's a fact of life, and the nature of reality. SOMEONE has to go first in any turn based game. You could have simultaneous attacks, however this would also require the need for three stats in the ranking and would result in a lot of draws and really messed up rankings. As for the "why should it require more strategizing"... because EVERY game does. Defense and offense require different strategies and there is no changing that.
I think you are missing the point all together. Yes every turn based game has to have someone who goes first, but that is not what the problem is.Card games like Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon have a player that takes the first turn as well, and they don't have the same problem. The problem is that the player going second is blind to the spells that are coming.
Look at it this way, imagine you are playing a game of chess but you had to pick your move before you have seen what your opponent is going to do. Sure someone like you could say plan and strategize better and if you are good enough you can still win. But that is completely missing the point, the point is it's unnecessarily unfair. Neither player should have an advantage or a disadvantage over their opponent in a competitive game. Both players should have an equal opportunity to counter each others moves.

The problem which is unique to Wizard101 is that both players choose their move at the same time but one happens after the other. The player going second is blind as a result and has to guess the move about to be played by their opponent. The player going first never has to guess the spell coming before theirs because they have already seen it in the previous turn.

The normal way that this is done in literally every other turn based game is one player at a time chooses their move while the other player waits. This way "both" players see what their opponent has done before choosing their own move.

Geographer
Aug 28, 2010
953
Ghost stone on Dec 30, 2013 wrote:
I think you are missing the point all together. Yes every turn based game has to have someone who goes first, but that is not what the problem is.Card games like Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon have a player that takes the first turn as well, and they don't have the same problem. The problem is that the player going second is blind to the spells that are coming.
Look at it this way, imagine you are playing a game of chess but you had to pick your move before you have seen what your opponent is going to do. Sure someone like you could say plan and strategize better and if you are good enough you can still win. But that is completely missing the point, the point is it's unnecessarily unfair. Neither player should have an advantage or a disadvantage over their opponent in a competitive game. Both players should have an equal opportunity to counter each others moves.

The problem which is unique to Wizard101 is that both players choose their move at the same time but one happens after the other. The player going second is blind as a result and has to guess the move about to be played by their opponent. The player going first never has to guess the spell coming before theirs because they have already seen it in the previous turn.

The normal way that this is done in literally every other turn based game is one player at a time chooses their move while the other player waits. This way "both" players see what their opponent has done before choosing their own move.
Ghost,

Anyone that can't understand this after this detailed reply, will never understand.
This is stated perfectly, and if they make Priates101 so that the second player is
not blind, I see no reason why they can't do the same in Wizard 101. Same basic
idea, same basic concept in coding. Anyway, very well stated, and it can't get
any clearer than this.....

Archon
Sep 17, 2012
4115
Ghost stone on Dec 30, 2013 wrote:
I think you are missing the point all together. Yes every turn based game has to have someone who goes first, but that is not what the problem is.Card games like Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon have a player that takes the first turn as well, and they don't have the same problem. The problem is that the player going second is blind to the spells that are coming.
Look at it this way, imagine you are playing a game of chess but you had to pick your move before you have seen what your opponent is going to do. Sure someone like you could say plan and strategize better and if you are good enough you can still win. But that is completely missing the point, the point is it's unnecessarily unfair. Neither player should have an advantage or a disadvantage over their opponent in a competitive game. Both players should have an equal opportunity to counter each others moves.

The problem which is unique to Wizard101 is that both players choose their move at the same time but one happens after the other. The player going second is blind as a result and has to guess the move about to be played by their opponent. The player going first never has to guess the spell coming before theirs because they have already seen it in the previous turn.

The normal way that this is done in literally every other turn based game is one player at a time chooses their move while the other player waits. This way "both" players see what their opponent has done before choosing their own move.
Football is a better analogy. One team kicks, the other receives. Offense (the first player) tries to get through Defense (the second player). Neither side knows what the other team will do UNTIL the play starts. They make plans and predictions. Either side can be right. It's not a chess match, it's much more like football. Each side has a short huddle to plan their move, then they go.

Explorer
May 17, 2010
92
David DeathFlame on Dec 30, 2013 wrote:
Yes, the turns don't need to be changed... yet(maybe). KI is only going to fix one problem at a time, so far from what I've seen, pvp tc and lvl 50 vs 95 are bigger problems. Going second also has some advantages(if you know what to look for). Many times I have wanded a shield off going first and then my opponent casted a different shield that my wand could have also gotten rid of. If you are going second, you would have wanded off both of them. Can't think of any more right off the bat, but I have lost many times going first because somehow my opponent predicted my every move. I have 3 warlords 62, 38, and18, those were when I got to warlord.
David you give a good example of how going second might work out for the better (in your case using a wand first only got 1 or 2 shields or the opponent got a shield to stay up since they were second). BUT the problem is on the NEXT turn the person going first sees that shield and can CHOOSE to attack through or around that shield OR do something else. Going second does not have that chance. So speaking of planning and predicting and how going second can be ok if you plan and predict, that is all negated when the player going first plans and predicts also. The difference is if you're going first and predict the other player is going to attack you put up a shield, and voila you seriously cut the attack. Going second you do the same thing and predict an attack not this coming round but the next round, but o well you put up that shield and the person going first says oh, guess I will wand that shield away first.
Even worse is that going first you can plan 2 hits, the first to strip shields and do some damage and the second to kill. Going second you can't do that since the other player gets a chance to heal or shield in between.
Someone gave the analogy about chess and the difference is after that first move, you can forget about who went first because you just respond to the present situation and the recent move. In the present W101 battle, the player going first gets that advantage EVERY round. They get that advantage over and over again.
Again, my suggestion I think is a very small tweak to the game mechanics with little to no affect on overall game play, but will drastically even things up. Again, my suggestion is to alternate who goes first each round. This will mean that both sides need to plan and predict. The only complaint people have is that people will then be casting 'back to back' but I contend that is basically what going first is doing every round (unless you are lucky or very good at predicting and getting the right cards in your hand). Furthermore, that is only a potential issue in 1v1, since the biggest concern (that I see) is shatter then attack, but that is always a concern with team battles.

Defender
Mar 08, 2013
114
I4C gr8ness on Dec 31, 2013 wrote:
David you give a good example of how going second might work out for the better (in your case using a wand first only got 1 or 2 shields or the opponent got a shield to stay up since they were second). BUT the problem is on the NEXT turn the person going first sees that shield and can CHOOSE to attack through or around that shield OR do something else. Going second does not have that chance. So speaking of planning and predicting and how going second can be ok if you plan and predict, that is all negated when the player going first plans and predicts also. The difference is if you're going first and predict the other player is going to attack you put up a shield, and voila you seriously cut the attack. Going second you do the same thing and predict an attack not this coming round but the next round, but o well you put up that shield and the person going first says oh, guess I will wand that shield away first.
Even worse is that going first you can plan 2 hits, the first to strip shields and do some damage and the second to kill. Going second you can't do that since the other player gets a chance to heal or shield in between.
Someone gave the analogy about chess and the difference is after that first move, you can forget about who went first because you just respond to the present situation and the recent move. In the present W101 battle, the player going first gets that advantage EVERY round. They get that advantage over and over again.
Again, my suggestion I think is a very small tweak to the game mechanics with little to no affect on overall game play, but will drastically even things up. Again, my suggestion is to alternate who goes first each round. This will mean that both sides need to plan and predict. The only complaint people have is that people will then be casting 'back to back' but I contend that is basically what going first is doing every round (unless you are lucky or very good at predicting and getting the right cards in your hand). Furthermore, that is only a potential issue in 1v1, since the biggest concern (that I see) is shatter then attack, but that is always a concern with team battles.
I know it's a problem, but I think it's less of a problem than others in pvp.

Delver
Jan 05, 2014
212
I don't see why the advantage isn't simply eliminated entirely. After the fist team's animations go off, the second team gets a new timer for 15 seconds or so to re-pick their spell. And ditch the pip advantage in PvP. Problem solved.

Other notes:

This isn't just a problem in PvP. In PvE going second is a serious disadvantage as well, if not so prominent as in PvP. Even in simple street fights you see characters finishing fights with near zero damage when going first but over 50% health gone when the coin flip gave them second turn. In big boss fights going first vs second occasionally does make the difference between winning and dying.

I think some people are getting hung up on the word "fair". Yes, the turn order advantage is not unfair, because all players have an equal chance of being stuck with second. What it is, though, is highly annoying, and frankly bad game design. It is highly frustrating to constantly face losing based on a random coin flip you have no control over. Good game design avoids such random annoyances, because they lead to players ragequitting.

I get that the advantage can be mitigated with good play. I strongly disagree, though, that turn order advantage is an inevitable consequence of turn based play. My take is the advantage can easily be eliminated, so I don't see why it exists. See my first paragraph.

Explorer
Dec 23, 2010
52
A Balanced Life on Dec 10, 2013 wrote:
I just recently did a 1v1 quick tourney with my fire. This is yet another major flaw with the PvP system. On the first hand, the girl I faced 3 times in a row went first every time. The new "extra pip" in 1v1 doesn't even matter. You can STILL get the same amount of pips as the person going first. It should be a guaranteed power pip to make it 3 power pips, when the other person only has 2. When I'm about to hit, she fire dispels me, or towers, which I cannot see coming from being second. Secondly, I can't know when to shield or not, because I don't know wether she is going to hit or not. Going second and winning is 60% luck, 40% skill. There needs to be a way where both parties go first each turn, so like this:

Person going first goes first the first round.

Person going second goes first the next round.

This would give PvP a fair balance, not having to not know what's coming at you 100% of the time.
This disappoints me that this is going on, with the glitches, this tournament madness, and this nonsense.

Again, first turn comes out to be the best when doing PvP.
I disagree. I think its totally random, like flipping a coin. Getting heads like 5 times in a row is normal. It is totally fair, even if you're going 2nd for 3 times in a row. If you played matches a lot, you'd see that you go first about half of the matches. KI will not change this. If what you suggest actually happened, it would be horrible! Imagine people just fleeing the match every other game and only battling when they are first. Going second is just something you have to deal with.
I don't think there's another way for KI to solve the pvp disadvantage. Unless pvp is altered in a way that both players attack at the same time hahaha highly unlikely.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
natshadowbane on Jan 13, 2014 wrote:
I disagree. I think its totally random, like flipping a coin. Getting heads like 5 times in a row is normal. It is totally fair, even if you're going 2nd for 3 times in a row. If you played matches a lot, you'd see that you go first about half of the matches. KI will not change this. If what you suggest actually happened, it would be horrible! Imagine people just fleeing the match every other game and only battling when they are first. Going second is just something you have to deal with.
I don't think there's another way for KI to solve the pvp disadvantage. Unless pvp is altered in a way that both players attack at the same time hahaha highly unlikely.
So you don't think there is another way for KI to solve this problem? I find it ridiculous that you think this.
This would actually be the easiest fix in the world. It is ridiculous that KI screwed this up in the first place. All they (would have to do/should have done) is have each player taking turns to chose their spells one after the other. This is the system used in almost every other turn based game, and none of these games have the same problem as Wizard101.
Lets name a few examples:
Pirate101
Chess
Checkers
Chinese Checkers
BackGammon
Crazy Eights
Go Fish
Pokemon Cards
Yu-Gi-Oh Cards.
Final Fantasy
Swords and Sandals

I'm amazed that KI made the system the way it is in the first place instead of using the same logical system as these games above. I would have been the obvious way to do it.
And I'm also amazed that there are actually people like you that are defending such a crappy game system.

1