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.

Going first vs going second

AuthorMessage
Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Does anyone else feel this way?

We all know that the turn order in PvP is not fair. Going first has a huge advantage over going second because you never have to guess when to heal and you can see when your opponent has shielded and can choose when to attack and so on. Going second you can never see the spell that is coming before you and you constantly have to predict when to heal and when to attack because you never know when your opponent is going to shield etc.

Now I know what you are all going to say. "But it is fair because it's random who goes first", "You can still win from going second you just need to know how to defend yourself" etc.

Sure there is a fair statistical chance of going first and second over times and the better players will still end up winning more than losing, even when you go second it is realistically possible to win if you are good enough. But all of that aside the truth is there has never been a fair PvP match ever since this game has started. Someone or team will always be going first and the other second.

I have never enjoyed an individual duel because there is never an equal chance for either of us to win. Sometimes the best player doesn't win when they should have. It's like two people fighting while one of them is wearing a blindfold.

But what if it could be fair?
The problem is that both players choose their move at the same time while the actual move happens one after the other. The player that goes second essentially has to predict the move that is coming before theirs (you wouldn't play a game of chess if you had to make your move without seeing your opponents move before yours). But that is exactly how it should be, like a game of chess, one move after the other, not at the same time.

So this is how it should be.
The player (or team) that goes first to chooses their spell while the second player waits.
Once the spell has been chosen the spell will be cast.
The second player will then choose their spell while the first player waits.
Once the spell has been chosen the spell will be cast.
Repeat
Repeat
Repeat
Neither player has to guess the turn before theirs because they see it before they chose their spell.
It is that simple and it doesn't radically change gameplay at all.
It seems like the obvious way to do things. It puzzles me that KI didn't do it this way in the first place.

Tell me what you think?
And also leave your own suggestions below. What do you think could be done to make PvP fairer?

Geographer
Aug 28, 2010
953
GhostSTone,

Actually they only need to change one thing in PVP, now that they have added the Watcher's view. All they
have to do, is allow the person going second, to see what is about to be cast. Now the person going
second is no longer blind, they can see what is being cast, and they are basically on equal footing.
Simple, easy to code, will have very little change to the way the game is played.
In fact, you don't have to show player #2 all the attacks, just when a shield, weakness, etc are going up.
The attacks don't need to be seen by the second player, and this would make it so much more fair.
That is, if anyone cares about being fair anymore......

Survivor
May 16, 2013
20
Veracity8 on May 31, 2013 wrote:
GhostSTone,

Actually they only need to change one thing in PVP, now that they have added the Watcher's view. All they
have to do, is allow the person going second, to see what is about to be cast. Now the person going
second is no longer blind, they can see what is being cast, and they are basically on equal footing.
Simple, easy to code, will have very little change to the way the game is played.
In fact, you don't have to show player #2 all the attacks, just when a shield, weakness, etc are going up.
The attacks don't need to be seen by the second player, and this would make it so much more fair.
That is, if anyone cares about being fair anymore......
If only the attacks weren't shown to the second player, then they would already know that the attacks where coming when they are. I actually think nothing needs to be changed...If you have skill, you succeed. If you don't, you don't. But there are ALWAYS opportunities and ways to become better. I for one am a friend who helps out my friends with PvP strategies. I hope you find one.

Wolf Skullslinger, Thaumaturge by Trade

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Veracity8 on May 31, 2013 wrote:
GhostSTone,

Actually they only need to change one thing in PVP, now that they have added the Watcher's view. All they
have to do, is allow the person going second, to see what is about to be cast. Now the person going
second is no longer blind, they can see what is being cast, and they are basically on equal footing.
Simple, easy to code, will have very little change to the way the game is played.
In fact, you don't have to show player #2 all the attacks, just when a shield, weakness, etc are going up.
The attacks don't need to be seen by the second player, and this would make it so much more fair.
That is, if anyone cares about being fair anymore......
Yes I agree, that would also fix the problem (kind of).
That was the first thing I thought of before I came up with the above.
I think the problem with this is that the player going second will start waiting right untill the last minute to pick their move so the second player doesn't have time to react.
I think it is a good idea though. It could probably be modified somehow to make it work like giving the first player 20 seconds to choose their move and giving the second player 30 seconds.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Veracity8 on May 31, 2013 wrote:
GhostSTone,

Actually they only need to change one thing in PVP, now that they have added the Watcher's view. All they
have to do, is allow the person going second, to see what is about to be cast. Now the person going
second is no longer blind, they can see what is being cast, and they are basically on equal footing.
Simple, easy to code, will have very little change to the way the game is played.
In fact, you don't have to show player #2 all the attacks, just when a shield, weakness, etc are going up.
The attacks don't need to be seen by the second player, and this would make it so much more fair.
That is, if anyone cares about being fair anymore......
Hey Veracity8, I've just been thinking about the suggestion you made and I realised that it is not quite a full solution. Going second may be able to see what move their opponent is going to do but they cannot see if it is going to fizzle or not, and that is relevant. The player that goes first is choosing their spell after your one has been cast and you are choosing your spell before their spell is cast.

It may mean the difference between choosing to heal or not depending on whether your opponent's attack fizzled or not. Or maybe if your opponent's heal fizzled you may want to take them out while you can instead of stacking for the next big hit. But you do not know until "after" you have chosen your spell, that is the problem.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
wolf legend on May 31, 2013 wrote:
If only the attacks weren't shown to the second player, then they would already know that the attacks where coming when they are. I actually think nothing needs to be changed...If you have skill, you succeed. If you don't, you don't. But there are ALWAYS opportunities and ways to become better. I for one am a friend who helps out my friends with PvP strategies. I hope you find one.

Wolf Skullslinger, Thaumaturge by Trade
Yes I agree with what you are saying. If someone is good enough they can win even if they go second.
But that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about fairness. And regardless of how good you are and if your win or lose the fight it will always be unfair unless both players have an equal opportunity to counter their opponents move.

Geographer
Aug 28, 2010
953
Ghost stone on Jun 1, 2013 wrote:
Yes I agree with what you are saying. If someone is good enough they can win even if they go second.
But that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about fairness. And regardless of how good you are and if your win or lose the fight it will always be unfair unless both players have an equal opportunity to counter their opponents move.
Wolf Legend,

Ghoststone put if perfectly, you missed the point of my posting, comletely.
Yes, anyone can win from second, but the point is, when you get into the upper
ranks, 98% of the time, the person going first will win. There are exceptions,
like a lucky critical in the first few rounds, etc. Take two equal players, both with
good gear, good pets, and of equal skill, and the blind player will lose.
The "Blind player" is the player going second.......

Try losing half your damage over and over, by hitting directly into a shield. You
lose multiple thinigs when you do that, starting with pip efficiency. When you lose this
in a tight match, you are very very likely going to lose the match.

It's always nice to just say, form a stratergy, or you need to get help, but in reality
that is just tt, at the upper ranks. If you are there, then you know that's true.

Btw, I can pvp just fine, and if you want to find out, just let me know, I'll meet you
anytime......

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Veracity8 on Jun 3, 2013 wrote:
Wolf Legend,

Ghoststone put if perfectly, you missed the point of my posting, comletely.
Yes, anyone can win from second, but the point is, when you get into the upper
ranks, 98% of the time, the person going first will win. There are exceptions,
like a lucky critical in the first few rounds, etc. Take two equal players, both with
good gear, good pets, and of equal skill, and the blind player will lose.
The "Blind player" is the player going second.......

Try losing half your damage over and over, by hitting directly into a shield. You
lose multiple thinigs when you do that, starting with pip efficiency. When you lose this
in a tight match, you are very very likely going to lose the match.

It's always nice to just say, form a stratergy, or you need to get help, but in reality
that is just tt, at the upper ranks. If you are there, then you know that's true.

Btw, I can pvp just fine, and if you want to find out, just let me know, I'll meet you
anytime......
Wow Veracity8, I can tell you are really good at PvP. Just the fact that you understand this so well. Most players that I talk to about this miss the point or do not understand it at all. Most people are aware there is a disadvantage to going second but not very many people actually understand why.

Is there anyone reading this that does understand why going second has a disadvantage? And do you understand what we mean when we refer to the player going second as being blind?

Let us know

Hero
Jul 30, 2012
776
I realize this is just thoughts and ideas. Slim chance fundamental game mechanics will be changed.

As a card playing game there is merit in your OP. Most card games (ex: crazy-eights) one person plays a card, then the turn goes to the next player. And so on. Of course some card games are different, where you build a hand and then everybody reveals their cards together at the end (Poker).

Explorer
May 17, 2010
92
I completely agree that going first has a huge advantage and love your analogy to being 'blind'. I think the OP has a good idea that will make things much more even (take turns), but it will also significantly increase the amount of time. My suggestion (which I posted a while ago but went unnoticed) is that W101 already has that triangle to indicate who goes first, so why not make use of it and either alternate which side goes first or make it random every round. Alternating might be a little less luck and more fair per fight, but the random option would prevent particular strategies where people buff and then attack back to back (i.e. going second and then first), but then again, that is no different than the advantage people have going first right now (when player #2 sees the first spell it is too late to do anything about it - hence they are as good as blind). At least alternating would give both sides that opportunity. And having it random could really 'spice it up'. They could even add amulets or other items with 'increase chance to go first' which would probably get the pvp world in another uproar.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
RottenHeart on Jun 4, 2013 wrote:
I realize this is just thoughts and ideas. Slim chance fundamental game mechanics will be changed.

As a card playing game there is merit in your OP. Most card games (ex: crazy-eights) one person plays a card, then the turn goes to the next player. And so on. Of course some card games are different, where you build a hand and then everybody reveals their cards together at the end (Poker).
Yes that's right. Even other card games where you have your own customised deck like Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemeon Cards are played one player after the other.
I think KI screwed up right from the very beginning on this one. But I don't think it is too late to change, we just need to be heard. It is an easy fix.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
I4C gr8ness on Jun 4, 2013 wrote:
I completely agree that going first has a huge advantage and love your analogy to being 'blind'. I think the OP has a good idea that will make things much more even (take turns), but it will also significantly increase the amount of time. My suggestion (which I posted a while ago but went unnoticed) is that W101 already has that triangle to indicate who goes first, so why not make use of it and either alternate which side goes first or make it random every round. Alternating might be a little less luck and more fair per fight, but the random option would prevent particular strategies where people buff and then attack back to back (i.e. going second and then first), but then again, that is no different than the advantage people have going first right now (when player #2 sees the first spell it is too late to do anything about it - hence they are as good as blind). At least alternating would give both sides that opportunity. And having it random could really 'spice it up'. They could even add amulets or other items with 'increase chance to go first' which would probably get the pvp world in another uproar.
I think that is a good idea. It's crazy though. As you said, there will be players doing moves back to back like shatter then attacking. But it will still be fair because both players will have an equal chance to do this.
Making the triangle random will be even crazier. The duel will have no structure and will make for some really crazy scenarios.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
If anyone from KingsIsle has read or been reading this topic, consider trying this out on test realm. The worst thing that can happen is no one likes it and nothing changes. One player after another could be a solution to a problem this game has had from the start.

Some players are not even aware there is a problem. Most players know it's unfair going second, but not many players actually know why it is unfair. I'm starting to think that the creators of the game are not aware of the problem. Please somebody respond, I know you are reading this.

I understand that mostly children play this game. But even children are smart enough to notice that something is not fair.

Survivor
Aug 08, 2010
17
Wait on Ghost Stone's message how do you know what spell the second player will cast

Defender
Sep 19, 2010
178
Veracity8 on May 31, 2013 wrote:
GhostSTone,

Actually they only need to change one thing in PVP, now that they have added the Watcher's view. All they
have to do, is allow the person going second, to see what is about to be cast. Now the person going
second is no longer blind, they can see what is being cast, and they are basically on equal footing.
Simple, easy to code, will have very little change to the way the game is played.
In fact, you don't have to show player #2 all the attacks, just when a shield, weakness, etc are going up.
The attacks don't need to be seen by the second player, and this would make it so much more fair.
That is, if anyone cares about being fair anymore......
Sorry if everyone else already responded to this one, but I just wanted to go ahead and respond to it. I think this would be a great idea, although I think it'd be fair to just show that the spell is an attack when it's an attack, but not show what attack. That way you don't have a pyromancer using heckhound with the person in second standing ready with the triage, but at the least they know healing isn't a bad idea right now, depending on the status of their shields.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Bryce101699063 on Jul 30, 2013 wrote:
Wait on Ghost Stone's message how do you know what spell the second player will cast
Neither player knows what spell is going to be cast until it happens. I'm talking about knowing the spell that is cast before your spell. If you go first then you already know what that spell is(because it has already happened in the previous turn). When you chose your spell going second you do not know what the spell before yours is because it hasn't happened yet. So the player that goes second is blind because they cannot see what is coming. I hope that answers your question.

I will give a couple of extra examples just to make things a little more clear if you still don't get it.

Tower shield
The player going second is going to cast a powerful attack with blades and traps and do lots of damage. But the spell being cast before by the opponent is a tower shield. The player going second blindly hits into the tower shield and loses half the damage which took a lot of stacking to get.

The player going first is going to cast a powerful attack with blades and traps and do lots of damage. But the spell being cast before by the opponent is a tower shield. This is ok because the player going first has not yet chosen their spell. So instead of casting the powerful attack and loosing half the damage they use a wand spell of a different school or shatter to remove it. Once a turn comes where there is no longer a shield the player going first will cast and do full damage.

The player going second does not have the same opportunity to counter because they cannot see that the player going first is going to use a tower shield. The player going first never has to guess anything because they see that their opponent has cast a tower shield before they choose their move.

Healing
The player going second has enough pips to cast two consecutive attacks and kill the other player. The first spell is cast damaging the player that goes first. The player that goes second choses the second attack. The player that goes first choses to heal. The second attack does not kill the first player because they have healed and now the player that goes second is out of pips.

The player going first has enough pips to cast two consecutive attacks and kill the other player. The first spell is cast damaging the player that goes second. The second spell that comes after by the player that is going second is not a healing spell because the player going second was not aware that an attack was coming. The player going fist choses the second attack. The player going second choses to heal but it is too later because the attack comes first and the player going second loses.

The player going second does not have the same opportunity to heal against their opponents attack because they cannot see when the player going first is going to attack. The player going first never has to guess anything because they see the attack before they choose their move.

There are at lest 100 more examples I can think of but there is not enough room to explain them all

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
1320Wraith on Jul 31, 2013 wrote:
Sorry if everyone else already responded to this one, but I just wanted to go ahead and respond to it. I think this would be a great idea, although I think it'd be fair to just show that the spell is an attack when it's an attack, but not show what attack. That way you don't have a pyromancer using heckhound with the person in second standing ready with the triage, but at the least they know healing isn't a bad idea right now, depending on the status of their shields.
Actually you are wrong. You would need to show everything, tower shield, weakness, attacks and healing and you will also need to show if they are going to fizzle or not. I have explained why previously above.

Defender
Sep 19, 2010
178
Ghost stone on Aug 1, 2013 wrote:
Actually you are wrong. You would need to show everything, tower shield, weakness, attacks and healing and you will also need to show if they are going to fizzle or not. I have explained why previously above.
Actually no, you explained tower shield and healing. I said show everything but attacks, so that you can't just see a heckhound or medusa coming and take the needed precautions. Whether they are going to fizzle or not before they cast would be extremely overpowered, and during cast is the same effect as just having a friend relay information to you.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
1320Wraith on Aug 2, 2013 wrote:
Actually no, you explained tower shield and healing. I said show everything but attacks, so that you can't just see a heckhound or medusa coming and take the needed precautions. Whether they are going to fizzle or not before they cast would be extremely overpowered, and during cast is the same effect as just having a friend relay information to you.
No further up than that, 5th post from the top.
You need to show everything because the player that goes first sees everything you do in the previous turn before choosing his move. So to make things fair you will also have to show everything to the player going second. But if the spell is going to fizzle then you don't need to show what the spell is, only what type of spell it is. Ice, fire so on.

Defender
Sep 19, 2010
178
Ghost stone on Aug 3, 2013 wrote:
No further up than that, 5th post from the top.
You need to show everything because the player that goes first sees everything you do in the previous turn before choosing his move. So to make things fair you will also have to show everything to the player going second. But if the spell is going to fizzle then you don't need to show what the spell is, only what type of spell it is. Ice, fire so on.
Oh sorry, think I missed that section. Think this is a pretty fair way of doing it actually, 5/5 idea

Explorer
May 17, 2010
92
I hear what you are saying about the 2nd person seeing what the 1st is casting, but as mentioned before, that still isn't enough since you don't know if they fizz or not, if they critical or if you block or not, and not to mention what your pet might do. All of those may be the difference between a heal or a shield or an attack. I don't think KI will, nor do I think they should, stir the pot with a solution that is so clearly only partial.
The true solutions I see are either alternating or random which side starts on every round. Also as mentioned earlier, the problem with the alternating is the extra time it will add (it doubles the time for card selection since each side does it separately). However, I have an idea to help with that and would help in general:

Why not give us our next hand (maybe smaller down low or up high) WHILE the animations are going on (maybe even make this a user option feature). This way we can start discarding cards we know we won't use, maybe draw TCs, enchant cards, etc... while those animations are going on. And since we can get some of that done ahead of time, KI can reduce the time for the 'normal' card selection that happens between rounds.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
I4C gr8ness on Aug 5, 2013 wrote:
I hear what you are saying about the 2nd person seeing what the 1st is casting, but as mentioned before, that still isn't enough since you don't know if they fizz or not, if they critical or if you block or not, and not to mention what your pet might do. All of those may be the difference between a heal or a shield or an attack. I don't think KI will, nor do I think they should, stir the pot with a solution that is so clearly only partial.
The true solutions I see are either alternating or random which side starts on every round. Also as mentioned earlier, the problem with the alternating is the extra time it will add (it doubles the time for card selection since each side does it separately). However, I have an idea to help with that and would help in general:

Why not give us our next hand (maybe smaller down low or up high) WHILE the animations are going on (maybe even make this a user option feature). This way we can start discarding cards we know we won't use, maybe draw TCs, enchant cards, etc... while those animations are going on. And since we can get some of that done ahead of time, KI can reduce the time for the 'normal' card selection that happens between rounds.
That is a great idea!!! Wow it actually is.
If turns alternated one after the other and you can see your next hand while your opponent is having their turn, that would be a flawless solution to the problem. It is perfectly fair alternating turns, no one will have an advantage or disadvantage and it won't be more time consuming either (thanks to what you just thought of).

KingsIsle needs to see this!!!
Thank you, you just gave the missing piece to the puzzle. That was the only flaw to my idea and you fixed it.

I also agree with what your saying about the other idea off the second player seeing the first players moves. That was never going to be a complete solution, too many variables to show. I still think the original idea of alternating turns is the best, and if your idea is incorporated into it as well it will be perfect and the match will run smoothly.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
If anyone from KI is looking at or has been reading this topic, take a look at the post by
I4C gr8ness. He gives a really good idea. There doesn't need to be a player going first and second if you alternate turns like he says. He also gives a really good idea of showing your next hand during your opponents turn to prepare for yours, like discarding, drawing treasure cards and enchanting. This will reduce waiting time between turns, keeping both players with something to do other than just wait and make the duel run much smoother. Game play will not be radically changed it will still essentially be the same.

Please KI, PvP can be fair. Neither player or team has to have a disadvantage.
If you read or take note of what goes on your message boards then take note of this. I4C gr8ness has a really good idea and you should consider incorporating it into the game.

Explorer
May 17, 2010
92
First, ty Ghoststone for the compliments.
I have thought of 1 problem with my idea of showing and allowing us to manipulate our hand/cards during the animations and that is if you die (and similar is if you are dead and are hopefully being revived). Either you are manipulating your hand/cards when you can't because you die, or they don't let you and tip you to the fact that you are going to die that round before you even see the animation. Similar is the heal with maybe the healer fizzing or the surprise pet-casted unicorn isn't as much a surprise. But personally, I don't, and I think most others wouldn't mind the spoiler. And as mentioned it can be an option in the game controls. Regardless the possible spoiler will in no way change the outcome or progress of the battle in any way (unless you consider the opportunity for someone to find out they will die and quitting out before the animation actually shows it which I don't see as occurring very often nor any real significant time difference if that is what they would do any way).

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
I4C gr8ness on Sep 11, 2013 wrote:
First, ty Ghoststone for the compliments.
I have thought of 1 problem with my idea of showing and allowing us to manipulate our hand/cards during the animations and that is if you die (and similar is if you are dead and are hopefully being revived). Either you are manipulating your hand/cards when you can't because you die, or they don't let you and tip you to the fact that you are going to die that round before you even see the animation. Similar is the heal with maybe the healer fizzing or the surprise pet-casted unicorn isn't as much a surprise. But personally, I don't, and I think most others wouldn't mind the spoiler. And as mentioned it can be an option in the game controls. Regardless the possible spoiler will in no way change the outcome or progress of the battle in any way (unless you consider the opportunity for someone to find out they will die and quitting out before the animation actually shows it which I don't see as occurring very often nor any real significant time difference if that is what they would do any way).
That is a good point.
What if you just showed your next hand to let you start thinking about what you could do but can't actually manipulate your hand untill your turn comes? You will still have something to think about instead of just waiting for your opponent to choose their spell.

This is how it works in normal card games. Even in other customisable card games like Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon cards you can still see your hand when your opponent is having their turn.