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
Historian
May 06, 2009
630
You know they actually do this in Pirate101's PvP system (that other game KI made last year). One team (let's say blue) will start making their moves while the other team (red) waits and makes no plans. Then come second round, the red team plans their move while the blue team waits. It just goes like that:

Blue
Red
Blue
Red
Blue
Red...

Until the match is won. Becuase KI did this in their other game, I don't think they would object to doing it here:
First Team starts first round
Second Team starts next round
First Team starts next round
Second Team starts next round..

Though it may mean the second team will loose that extra pip KI gave them last update for this new system. Just my two cents I wanted to through in. (good thing I read the posts or else I would've repeated someone)

Historian
May 06, 2009
630
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).
I think that's more work than what really needs to go into PvP as of right now. I think KI should simply implement the alternating start team like in Pirate101 PvP into Wizard101 and leave everything the same (except maybe remove the +1 Pip to second going oppotent rule). The current set up works to me (and I also can quite grasp my head around what you're trying to convey with this idea. I keep rereading, but I don't see how that would work what with the camera moving during animations and the cards getting in the way of the animation. Some players do like to see them without being obscured). Even if they problem that you're possing is insignficant, the fact there is a possible problem, can not be allowed because you never know what might happen and it's better to avoid that kind of outcome, than give it any pause. An alternating turn system, in my opinion, is really all that needs to be done in PvP. You should still play your cards as normal and not see anyone elses or expose your own before completion of the planning period.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Cunning Finnigan S... on Sep 12, 2013 wrote:
You know they actually do this in Pirate101's PvP system (that other game KI made last year). One team (let's say blue) will start making their moves while the other team (red) waits and makes no plans. Then come second round, the red team plans their move while the blue team waits. It just goes like that:

Blue
Red
Blue
Red
Blue
Red...

Until the match is won. Becuase KI did this in their other game, I don't think they would object to doing it here:
First Team starts first round
Second Team starts next round
First Team starts next round
Second Team starts next round..

Though it may mean the second team will loose that extra pip KI gave them last update for this new system. Just my two cents I wanted to through in. (good thing I read the posts or else I would've repeated someone)
I think we will still need to keep the starting extra pip to the player that doesn't go first just to even out the fact that they didn't have the first turn. Or make it like the player with the first turn doesn't get a pip for their first turn. So the first turn is essentially like half a turn or not a full turn. The reason I say this is because this is kind of how they do it in Yu-Gi-Oh cards. The player that goes first for the first turn does not have a normal proper turn, they can plant trap and spell cards and summon monsters but cannot use any of them that turn.(not sure how many people have played Yu-Gi-Oh and understand what I mean)

Similar in Wizard101 the limited pip power the player with the first turn gets will hinder what they are capable of doing for that first turn. You will still be able to discard draw treasure cards and enchant, also you will still be able to cast zero pip spells and if you have a pip wand you can also still cast 1 pip and 2 pip school spells( if you have a power pip)

Personally I think it counts and will make it just that little bit fairer, but in all honesty I don't think it counts that much over an entire duel. And if KI actually does decide to make PvP alternate turns then the level of improvement to fairness that it makes is insignificant.(but still relevant)

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Cunning Finnigan S... on Sep 12, 2013 wrote:
You know they actually do this in Pirate101's PvP system (that other game KI made last year). One team (let's say blue) will start making their moves while the other team (red) waits and makes no plans. Then come second round, the red team plans their move while the blue team waits. It just goes like that:

Blue
Red
Blue
Red
Blue
Red...

Until the match is won. Becuase KI did this in their other game, I don't think they would object to doing it here:
First Team starts first round
Second Team starts next round
First Team starts next round
Second Team starts next round..

Though it may mean the second team will loose that extra pip KI gave them last update for this new system. Just my two cents I wanted to through in. (good thing I read the posts or else I would've repeated someone)
Actually here is a good way to look at it. You know the triangle that rotates in the middle of the arena? You will gain a pip every time it rotates and arrives at your side. The player or team that goes first does not receive a pip for their first turn because the triangle never arrived there, it was there to start with.

Historian
May 06, 2009
630
Ghost stone on Sep 12, 2013 wrote:
Actually here is a good way to look at it. You know the triangle that rotates in the middle of the arena? You will gain a pip every time it rotates and arrives at your side. The player or team that goes first does not receive a pip for their first turn because the triangle never arrived there, it was there to start with.
Yes, I'm very familiar with the triangle in the center of the battle field. It indicates who is making the next move each round. All participants in a battle will gain 1 Pip every round until max. That's been a part of the game since the beginning.

I was just saying that Kingsisle made an update where in PvP if you go second you gain an extra Pip along with the one you get naturally and the one you get from a wand for a total of 3 Pips. I was simply saying if they added this alternating system, wouldn't that mean we need to get rid of that third pip for the second team to even things out? It's not really fair if whoever goes first the first round will only have 3 pips next round when the second team will have 4 pips because they didn't go first the first round.

Now I'm unsure of what you're saying in this post right now. Are you saying this is the system your playing around with to see if it could work in PvP or is this how battling runs now? 'Because it certainly isn't doing this in the game currently.

Defender
Jul 26, 2009
169
I Don't see why they can't just rewrite the code so that the first turn player alternates every 2 turns.

Explorer
May 17, 2010
92
Let's clear this up a little. We are talking about 2 different things here: fairness and time
In terms of fairness we have 3 ideas on the table with pro's and con's of each:

Take Turns - each side chooses spell and casts spells before next side picks their spell
pro - very fair throughout play
con - 1st round still not equal
con - this can add significant time to the match duration

Alternate Who Goes 1st - Each round the side that will be casting first will alternate
pro - fair throughout play since both sides go 1st and 2nd
pro - 1st round may not be the an advantage - i can easily see strategies that might prefer starting 2nd so that they are going 1st in the 2nd or 4th rounds....
con - it is different and player will have to think/pay attention and may be confusing to some

Randomize which side is 1st every round
pro - fair throughout play since both sides have equal chances of going first throughout
pro - would be really interesting and spice it up
con - could be unfair in some cases if one side got lucky many rounds in a row

Going second added pip - is just a way to make that first round a little more fair and can be applied to any of the above.

optional time savings:
show hand during animations - this will allow us to start thinking about what we want to do, discard, apply enchantment cards, etc... so that we can click in faster and not wait the full time or that card selection time could be reduced. This will not change anything else, since the results of the round are calculated before any animation happens. I don't mind getting a spoiler here or there (see my previous comment) but it can be an option that you have to turn on if you want it.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Cunning Finnigan S... on Sep 12, 2013 wrote:
Yes, I'm very familiar with the triangle in the center of the battle field. It indicates who is making the next move each round. All participants in a battle will gain 1 Pip every round until max. That's been a part of the game since the beginning.

I was just saying that Kingsisle made an update where in PvP if you go second you gain an extra Pip along with the one you get naturally and the one you get from a wand for a total of 3 Pips. I was simply saying if they added this alternating system, wouldn't that mean we need to get rid of that third pip for the second team to even things out? It's not really fair if whoever goes first the first round will only have 3 pips next round when the second team will have 4 pips because they didn't go first the first round.

Now I'm unsure of what you're saying in this post right now. Are you saying this is the system your playing around with to see if it could work in PvP or is this how battling runs now? 'Because it certainly isn't doing this in the game currently.
I'm talking as if the duel runs as suggested by taking turns.

Simply put the player that goes first will have the advantage of having the first turn. So by not gaining a pip for their first turn (or the player going second having an extra one) it makes the first turn not a full turn, or a half turn. This will make up for the fact that they get to go first. I'm not saying that this will make things perfectly fair but it is fairer than both players receiving pips for the first round when one gets to go first before the other.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
I4C gr8ness on Sep 13, 2013 wrote:
Let's clear this up a little. We are talking about 2 different things here: fairness and time
In terms of fairness we have 3 ideas on the table with pro's and con's of each:

Take Turns - each side chooses spell and casts spells before next side picks their spell
pro - very fair throughout play
con - 1st round still not equal
con - this can add significant time to the match duration

Alternate Who Goes 1st - Each round the side that will be casting first will alternate
pro - fair throughout play since both sides go 1st and 2nd
pro - 1st round may not be the an advantage - i can easily see strategies that might prefer starting 2nd so that they are going 1st in the 2nd or 4th rounds....
con - it is different and player will have to think/pay attention and may be confusing to some

Randomize which side is 1st every round
pro - fair throughout play since both sides have equal chances of going first throughout
pro - would be really interesting and spice it up
con - could be unfair in some cases if one side got lucky many rounds in a row

Going second added pip - is just a way to make that first round a little more fair and can be applied to any of the above.

optional time savings:
show hand during animations - this will allow us to start thinking about what we want to do, discard, apply enchantment cards, etc... so that we can click in faster and not wait the full time or that card selection time could be reduced. This will not change anything else, since the results of the round are calculated before any animation happens. I don't mind getting a spoiler here or there (see my previous comment) but it can be an option that you have to turn on if you want it.
Oh sorry I thought that when you said alternating turns you meant taking turns.

Anyway this is just my personal opinion but I will tell you what I think of the three different options to make PvP fairer.

Taking turns
I like this idea the most because it is fair because neither player is blind to the spell coming before theirs and keeps exactly to the order of spell casting that we already have.
The player that has the first turn will have that as an advantage. But I think this can be made more equal by adding or removing a pip. (like we already have)
This is also the most time consuming as one player will always be waiting for the other to have their turn. This is not ideal but I think it could be softened as you said by showing the your cards while your opponent is having their turn. This way you can start thinking about what you are going to do before your turn starts.

Alternating who goes first
I also like this idea, it is just as fair as the one above. I don't like it as much because it requires a significant change to spell order(two spells in a row by the same player). It will completely change the way that PvP is played and I can't see people being tolerant of this big of a change.
In this case we will not need one less or more pip in the first round because the player going first will only get one turn before their opponent gets two in a row. So in a sense the player going first will only have a half turn for the first round.

Randomizing who goes first
This is also fair, but it is the idea I like the least. The randomness of the triangle will remove the structure from the duel. Sometimes you will cast spells one after the other and sometimes you or your opponent will have two spells in a row without know when this is going to happen. This will make PvP more a game of chance than of strategy. There will be cases where the outcome of the turn order can be favouring or crippling and it will be luck as to when it happens. Planning strategies by planning spell sequence will no longer be possible because the structure will be gone and you will no longer be able to know the order that the future spells will be cast, it will all come down to luck. I know the game already has an element of luck to it but I feel like this is too much.
A pip can also be added or removed in the first round to make up for the fact that one player gets to start.

When I say removing or adding a pip in the first round I mean either like it is now by giving the second player and extra pip. Or instead which I think is better you can just remove a pip from the player who goes first so they do not get a pip for their first turn. So in a way the first turn is not really a full turn to make up for the fact that they go first.

I think we have at least two realistic fixes to the problem here on this thread. The only question now is whether or not KI will notice or act on it?

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Oh yeah, and there was also the idea of showing the player going second what the player going first was going to do. But I really don't rate this idea for a couple of reasons.

1. The player going first sees the spell you cast before theirs in the previous turn. But they also saw if it fizzled or not, if it was critical, if the critical was blocked, how much damage or healing it did and if any of the pets cast. Because the player going first sees everything in the turn before theirs then you will also need to show everything to the player going second. There are just too many variables to show and I can't see it working.

2. A problem will be that the player going first will start waiting right until the last second to choose their spell so that the player going second will not have time think and choose a spell accordingly. A way to fix this could be to give the player going first 20 seconds to choose their spell and the player going second 30 seconds. But if this was the case then both players will not have an even amount of time to choose their spells.

This idea will make PvP fairer, but it is definitely not a complete solution.

Astrologist
Aug 20, 2011
1077
Explorer
May 17, 2010
92
[lucas rain] - i also proposed that idea long ago, but it still doesn't make things even because the one going second has to spend pips and a turn to cast that spell.

regarding the randomizing who goes first each turn I just want to make the note that you would know the order of that round (who will be casting first that round) because the triangle shows you. You just have to pay attention. An advantage/disadvantage of this over the alternating who is first (option 2 in my list) is that you don't know if you will get a chance to go back to back. Some would argue that purely alternating is unfair because you can plan the shatter then hit strategy and there is no blocking it (not even by guessing that it is coming). By making it random, you can't count on that back to back coming up.

I do agree that taking turns is the most fair, but these matches are way too long already (IMHO).

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Lucas Rain on Sep 13, 2013 wrote:
https://www.wizard101.com/forum/the-dorms/spell-to-change-who-goes-first-in-duels-8ad6a415407c1977014088784f986826
This is a good idea and nice and simple too. This idea would work best if the spell didn't cost any pips and had 100% accuracy and we could still benefit from having an extra or less pip for the first round. I think as far as fairness goes this idea is really good. The only down side I can think of is that you will have to take up space in your deck with this spell.

I give this idea a thumbs up. Definitely a possible solution.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
I4C gr8ness on Sep 13, 2013 wrote:
[lucas rain] - i also proposed that idea long ago, but it still doesn't make things even because the one going second has to spend pips and a turn to cast that spell.

regarding the randomizing who goes first each turn I just want to make the note that you would know the order of that round (who will be casting first that round) because the triangle shows you. You just have to pay attention. An advantage/disadvantage of this over the alternating who is first (option 2 in my list) is that you don't know if you will get a chance to go back to back. Some would argue that purely alternating is unfair because you can plan the shatter then hit strategy and there is no blocking it (not even by guessing that it is coming). By making it random, you can't count on that back to back coming up.

I do agree that taking turns is the most fair, but these matches are way too long already (IMHO).
Yeah I know. None of these ideas are floorless but any one of them will be better than what we already have right now.

Survivor
Mar 12, 2010
10
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......
I wouldn't be suprised if someone got on another account just to see what the other team does.

Explorer
Jan 29, 2013
60
We all no going second is a disadvantage. My poor storm with her low health against a lvl 90 with insane critical can die pretty easily but.... I have been second so many times now that you do get a kind of FEEL for wt the other player is most likely going to do and I don't think it would be fair to see wt spells are going to cast because well lets face it matches would go on forever. And the combat view should not be changed because it shows the spells after both players have selected their spells. But yes it is very hard to be second but you can still win.

Explorer
May 17, 2010
92
LesRoo on Sep 18, 2013 wrote:
We all no going second is a disadvantage. My poor storm with her low health against a lvl 90 with insane critical can die pretty easily but.... I have been second so many times now that you do get a kind of FEEL for wt the other player is most likely going to do and I don't think it would be fair to see wt spells are going to cast because well lets face it matches would go on forever. And the combat view should not be changed because it shows the spells after both players have selected their spells. But yes it is very hard to be second but you can still win.
Karranation101 and LesRoo, We aren't talking about showing the other teams cards to you. Not even showing them to spectators (that is in other discussion threads). The suggestion here is about showing you your own hand early. So as soon as the card selection time ends, the spell casting/effects start. While those spell animations are happening, it would be nice to see my hand and what new cards i drew and be able to start discarding ones I don't want and using enchanting cards, etc... That way when the animations are done, we are all hopefully done or at least need less time to finish up and the match can move along faster.

Survivor
Nov 23, 2011
32
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
But that's the thing, let's say I fight someone that has the same skill, like fighting a clone of myself. Same skills, so who would win? The one going first or second? The first one right? If someone vs a person that has the SAME skill the first one would win. So see it's not FAIR.

I think they should change it so the first person uses a spell, then the second. But on the second round the second person uses a spell, then the first. So let's name the person going first Chris, and the person going second Luke. First round Chris goes first, then Luke.
Turn-
1. Chris goes first, then Luke.
2. Luke goes first, then Chris.
3.Chris goes first, then Luke.
4.Luke goes first, then Chris.
5.Chris goes first, then Luke.
6.Luke goes first, then Chris.
7.Chris goes first, then Luke.
8.Luke goes first, then Chris.
9.Chris goes first, then Luke.
10.Luke goes first, then Chris.
And so on.
The person that goes first changes every round.

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Its nice to see that with the new test realm updates that the turn order of PvP has still not been addressed. Issues like people hating treasue card and pet users has been looked at by adding PvP modes to ban them and that it great variety for those people who dont like these aspects of the game. But KI still has missed the problem that has been at the core of the game right from the very begining. Even with test realm at there disposal which is a fail safe method of trying something to see if it works.

I feel let down. We have a really good thread here with some good solutions to the problem that at least deserve a look at and to be tried out. It makes me wonder if KI pays attention to what their players have to say about the game.

Survivor
Nov 22, 2012
29
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......
but then the second player would get to see when mana burn is coming, so i guess they would just automatically pass if they dont have the pips.

Defender
Apr 07, 2011
156
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.
You are wrong. If you are talking about PvP you have to see the bigger picture. Not only the matches, but the whole system. You are right, that going first is a huge advantage and that makes a certaing match unfair, but before the match starts the players have the same chance for going first or second. This means the PvP system itself is fair enough. Nothing needs to be changed.

Btw going secod improves your skill of prediction, makes you a better battler. Everything has a bright side. :) Be optimist.

Geographer
Aug 28, 2010
953
Jerry Saibot on Nov 8, 2013 wrote:
You are wrong. If you are talking about PvP you have to see the bigger picture. Not only the matches, but the whole system. You are right, that going first is a huge advantage and that makes a certaing match unfair, but before the match starts the players have the same chance for going first or second. This means the PvP system itself is fair enough. Nothing needs to be changed.

Btw going secod improves your skill of prediction, makes you a better battler. Everything has a bright side. :) Be optimist.
Jerry,

Where I won't disagree with your last line, I do disagree with the first.
I have gone 2nd, at times over 65% of the time, in my matches, I see nothing fair about that at all.
Driving my 5, 8, or 10 pip spells into a shield, and losing 50 to 70 to 80% of my damage,
hardly seems fair. While the opponent can hit me, knowing that he or she will get a clean hit.

If I had a average of 50% over my last 500 matches, or if it was even close, then I would agree
with you. As anyone that knows how programs are written, they have limitations, and they cannot
and are not truely written so they can hit the even chance of going first 50% of the time.
(I mean the way this program is written, not talking of just any program).... random number
generators are not really random.

I keep track of how often I go first, and how often I go second, in each match. I also note why I lost
the match, and what type of wizard it was. I have often gone second 8 times in a row.
I have never gotten above the 40% mark on going first, so the same chance of going first or second
hold no wind in the sails for me.

Bottom line, for anyone that has pvp'ed a lot, if you are second, and you could see a marker or in
someway know that a shield of your school was going up or a weakness, that is all you need to
make the match much more even. This would be easy, actually very easy for KI to implement.
Low cost, and an incredible increase in the fairness of the match, at low and high level.

Justanoob.
even.

Survivor
Jun 06, 2009
29
Ghost stone on Aug 1, 2013 wrote:
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
Well how would you change the PVP system them? Sure it has a few disadvantages, but it's the only way to do it. If you have a problem with it, you can just flee every time you go second in a PVP, they tried their hardest to make it even with the extra pip advantage for the player going second in a PVP so stop criticizing.

Charles Nightsword, Level 37 See you in the Spiral (or not)

Defender
Apr 07, 2011
156
Veracity8 on Nov 8, 2013 wrote:
Jerry,

Where I won't disagree with your last line, I do disagree with the first.
I have gone 2nd, at times over 65% of the time, in my matches, I see nothing fair about that at all.
Driving my 5, 8, or 10 pip spells into a shield, and losing 50 to 70 to 80% of my damage,
hardly seems fair. While the opponent can hit me, knowing that he or she will get a clean hit.

If I had a average of 50% over my last 500 matches, or if it was even close, then I would agree
with you. As anyone that knows how programs are written, they have limitations, and they cannot
and are not truely written so they can hit the even chance of going first 50% of the time.
(I mean the way this program is written, not talking of just any program).... random number
generators are not really random.

I keep track of how often I go first, and how often I go second, in each match. I also note why I lost
the match, and what type of wizard it was. I have often gone second 8 times in a row.
I have never gotten above the 40% mark on going first, so the same chance of going first or second
hold no wind in the sails for me.

Bottom line, for anyone that has pvp'ed a lot, if you are second, and you could see a marker or in
someway know that a shield of your school was going up or a weakness, that is all you need to
make the match much more even. This would be easy, actually very easy for KI to implement.
Low cost, and an incredible increase in the fairness of the match, at low and high level.

Justanoob.
even.
Verocity,

Thanks for the long and toughtful answer, i always like sharing oppinion with expereinced players like you.

As for the artificial random case you mentioned i have to agree with you, a weitten program can't model reality. An iforrmatist friend of mine told me about this once. But there can be a solution to make this 50% factor work. KI should improve the matching up system, with making cycles of (let's say) 50 matches. Your chance of going second would decrease a bit any time you went second, and your chance of going first would improve, and vice versa. For example: If you played 30 matches when you went 20 times second and only 10 times first then you gonna have only (i lack math skills ) about 20% chance of going second again. The match up system has to find you an opponent who has 80% chance of going second. The goal is to equalize your going first/second statistics at the end of the cycle. I know its not an easy programming issue, but i think KI has a good team to solve this problem.

I totally agree with you about going second is a really bad thing and can make an expert task even if you matched up with an opponent lacking real pvp skills.

I still don't like the "marker idea", because i'm with the conservative w101 party when comes to revolutionary changes.

Jerry

Defender
Jan 18, 2013
195
Jerry Saibot on Nov 8, 2013 wrote:
You are wrong. If you are talking about PvP you have to see the bigger picture. Not only the matches, but the whole system. You are right, that going first is a huge advantage and that makes a certaing match unfair, but before the match starts the players have the same chance for going first or second. This means the PvP system itself is fair enough. Nothing needs to be changed.

Btw going secod improves your skill of prediction, makes you a better battler. Everything has a bright side. :) Be optimist.
That is great for the guy who only cares about win loss ratios and rank. But what about individual fights that count for something important? What about the individual fights that have sentimental meaning?

What if someone is talking smack and wants to challenge you for bragging rights? It would be a shame if the fight was won or lost because someone went first instead of second rather than whoever was the better player.

Me and my brother are both very good at PvP and sometimes we have deciders for who is the best based on a one off fight. But how can this be the case when the duel never has a fair chance for each of us to counter each others moves. Sure there is an equal chance that either of us could end up going first for the duel, but after the match has started who ever is going second is most likely to lose because we are both close to equal in gear ability and skill. The winner of the match essentially comes down to a flip of a coin.

And what about the knock out structure of the tournaments? It would be a real shame to make it to the final and lose just because you went second.

You are probably going to say that if you are good enough you can win even if you go second. Sure. But that is not in anyway relevant to a whether a match is fair or not. And not to mention as your rank goes up you will be paired with players of similar rank, saying "if you are good enough" becomes irrelevant because so is your opponent and he is also going first. And once again the match is most likely to be won by whoever goes first.