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.

make shadow spells no-pvp

2
AuthorMessage
Hero
Dec 16, 2009
773
Aaron SpellThief on Apr 24, 2014 wrote:
Kymma, please-just look at my previous example. In that match, without huge amounts of luck, it was impossible for me to win. No matter how much I shielded, weaknessed, and healed, the storm could do more damage than I could heal. I could not hope to do any half-decent damage. He could pierce through all of my resist with a 55% shield. I don't see how it is possible to think that it is not unfair when something is near impossible to defend against. And Eric, shrike should be nerfed/removed because the matching system is probably never really going to be fixed. No matter what "fix" was made, it would pretty much dramatically increase waiting times in order to get fairer matches. Players that are only slightly lower level than players with shrike would still have to fight with no shrike against shrike users. Finally, shrike is not only a problem for lower levels. Shrike was a hyper-aggressive addition to an already extremely aggressive maximum level average playstyle, completely outdating defensive strategies. Trying to defend against shrike is like trying to defend against a huge base damage hit. Not impossible, but you will lose more frequently than you will win to it. Pvp without shrike had more variety and was more fair. If shrike had been put into the game before, say, Hades gear, it would not have been so overpowered. Back then, it was needed to combat jade gear players. However, when shrike is combined with critical gear, it becomes ridiculously overpowered and helps a hyper-aggressive playstyle rise to the most prevalent by far, making pvp a far less diverse and more unfair place. Pvp would be fairer if shrike was removed/nerfed. Because of the reasons I have stated in this and previous posts, I came to the conclusion that shrike is overpowered. It will never be fair to introduce a huge advantage that not all players can have and have few/no ways to defend against it.
There exists many possible alterations to the matching system that would improve matchups and better wait times(See this thread). At every major level cap wizards gain new abilities, that is in the very nature of leveling. It simply does not make sense to nerf an earned high level ability to accommodate lower level wizards. Not only is this nonsensical but it is not sustainable as a high level wizard's power would constantly have to be adjusted to match a lower levels. Should a lvl 50 not be allowed to critical because they may fight magus wizards without block? Should a magus wizard not be allowed to summon minions because he may fight an initiate who cannot? Of course not. Finally, on the contention of shrike in high level PvP: Shrike already comes with its own sets of counters and drawbacks. Stuns, mantles, dual shielding, out healing the damage, beguile, dispels, negative charms. The max level meta was already hyper aggressive without shrike, what shrike did was add an excellent counter to immunity and allow the second round player to operate on much more even ground. What is unfair about a spell that is limited duration, self injurious and with numerous inexpensive counters? The diversity argument is also moot as this level of PvP has the most diverse use of gear, spells, pet setups etc. than ever before. Every level increase introduces an advantage that not all players have access to. This is not unfair but rather consistent with a lvl based mmo approach.

Champion
Oct 30, 2011
449
kymma shadow on Apr 25, 2014 wrote:
You lost fairly against them that why you hate them because you use tc by default and as long there tc there will always be shadow shrike

Other wise I want to lose 100% and go down to 50% accuracy for warlords to win. So warlords so you are trying to put a non tc user out of rank pvp just for using That really rude to do and really unfair for them also because then no one can beat a warlord so shadow shrike stays in rank pvp to make fair.

Warlords have 50 global and sometimes there pets give 20+ global resist so that 70 global resist all together so they have to go to shadow shrike form to win.

Other wise warlord will be king and queens in rank pvp and to me that not fair in rank pvp should warlords be in control?

Amy lvl 95 in shadow world when she gets shadow shrike spell she will use it against others players
Kymma, did you read my post? As I said, it was near impossible for me to win against that storm without huge amounts of luck. You may find this fair, but I certainly don't find it fair when it is near impossible for me to win. I do not hate that player. I simply do not think that it was fair for me to have that matchup. When did I say I wanted to put him out of ranked pvp? I believe that pvp should be made fair, not random players kicked out just because they are higher level. It's not his fault he got paired with me. And finally, Kymma, how could warlords ever not be the "queens and kings of ranked pvp"? Warlords consistently win. By what it seems is your definition of queenship and kingship of ranked pvp, warlords have to be the "queens and kings of ranked pvp" or they would not be warlords. Eric, for your soft rank cap solution, it would get highly unfair the higher rank a person got to. A 3000 rank warlord would be equated with a 1000 rank warlord, which is not exactly fair by my definition.

Hero
Dec 16, 2009
773
Aaron SpellThief on Apr 26, 2014 wrote:
Kymma, did you read my post? As I said, it was near impossible for me to win against that storm without huge amounts of luck. You may find this fair, but I certainly don't find it fair when it is near impossible for me to win. I do not hate that player. I simply do not think that it was fair for me to have that matchup. When did I say I wanted to put him out of ranked pvp? I believe that pvp should be made fair, not random players kicked out just because they are higher level. It's not his fault he got paired with me. And finally, Kymma, how could warlords ever not be the "queens and kings of ranked pvp"? Warlords consistently win. By what it seems is your definition of queenship and kingship of ranked pvp, warlords have to be the "queens and kings of ranked pvp" or they would not be warlords. Eric, for your soft rank cap solution, it would get highly unfair the higher rank a person got to. A 3000 rank warlord would be equated with a 1000 rank warlord, which is not exactly fair by my definition.
I agree that it would not be perfect but it would be a lot better than what it is now. From what I have seen the main difference between a 1000 warlord and 3000 warlord at lvl 50 is the number of matches. Even though there is 2000 rank difference between these warlords the difference in skill is much smaller than the skill difference between a 900 warlord and a 400 private(a rank difference of merely 500). A rank cap would lead to much more even matches in both level and rank than we have today.

Delver
Mar 17, 2011
278
Aaron SpellThief on Apr 26, 2014 wrote:
Kymma, did you read my post? As I said, it was near impossible for me to win against that storm without huge amounts of luck. You may find this fair, but I certainly don't find it fair when it is near impossible for me to win. I do not hate that player. I simply do not think that it was fair for me to have that matchup. When did I say I wanted to put him out of ranked pvp? I believe that pvp should be made fair, not random players kicked out just because they are higher level. It's not his fault he got paired with me. And finally, Kymma, how could warlords ever not be the "queens and kings of ranked pvp"? Warlords consistently win. By what it seems is your definition of queenship and kingship of ranked pvp, warlords have to be the "queens and kings of ranked pvp" or they would not be warlords. Eric, for your soft rank cap solution, it would get highly unfair the higher rank a person got to. A 3000 rank warlord would be equated with a 1000 rank warlord, which is not exactly fair by my definition.
i think and i just thinking here some of these post are just because some people that coudnt win before got the updates and now can win because of shadow magic don't wanna give it up or they don't have it yet and want to try it out in pvp first i mean the the ack shadow magic is to over power they need to be taken out because it makes pvp to unfair right now or make it were it can be Resistance of some kind to it the other shadow magic like the block one and the heal one and the new summons are not that big of a unfair thing so they could stay but the hitting shadow magic makes the pvp unfair so just 1 of the shadow magics need to be taken out not all because not all of them make the pvp unfair these way it be balance in pvp they also need to take out or make some spell lower on the game but that's for another topic
100wizard

Delver
Jan 31, 2012
226
Aaron SpellThief on Apr 26, 2014 wrote:
Kymma, did you read my post? As I said, it was near impossible for me to win against that storm without huge amounts of luck. You may find this fair, but I certainly don't find it fair when it is near impossible for me to win. I do not hate that player. I simply do not think that it was fair for me to have that matchup. When did I say I wanted to put him out of ranked pvp? I believe that pvp should be made fair, not random players kicked out just because they are higher level. It's not his fault he got paired with me. And finally, Kymma, how could warlords ever not be the "queens and kings of ranked pvp"? Warlords consistently win. By what it seems is your definition of queenship and kingship of ranked pvp, warlords have to be the "queens and kings of ranked pvp" or they would not be warlords. Eric, for your soft rank cap solution, it would get highly unfair the higher rank a person got to. A 3000 rank warlord would be equated with a 1000 rank warlord, which is not exactly fair by my definition.
Yes I read your post.

I don't think it fair for private to fight warlords. I wish on 2v2 if there a shadow and on 1 side and there 3. 95 wizards and a warlord does a friend joins.

Where would that warlord be? I add a few warlords so I wouldn't have to fight them in rank PVP is that unfair to you?

And warlords shouldn't call private rank players in rank PVP noobs that really rude to do I quit calling warlords noobs so warlords needs to stop it just starts a argument.

Warlords should help the private not call them noobs. One warlord called me a noob first so I call him a tc noob but I started to think I shouldn't call warlords tc warlords sometimes I call them it so I can start talking to them and right after I call them I say jk and I congrats them on there bagde.

Now only Warlord needs to be nicer and help private out not call them noobs that only makes it worse please help private out not call them noobs please.

I want to see more nicer warlords in rank pvp who don't call private a noob.

Amy lvl 95 Needs to reset her training points and she not going to get any shadow spells till she resets her training points.

Champion
Oct 30, 2011
449
Eric Stormbringer on Apr 27, 2014 wrote:
I agree that it would not be perfect but it would be a lot better than what it is now. From what I have seen the main difference between a 1000 warlord and 3000 warlord at lvl 50 is the number of matches. Even though there is 2000 rank difference between these warlords the difference in skill is much smaller than the skill difference between a 900 warlord and a 400 private(a rank difference of merely 500). A rank cap would lead to much more even matches in both level and rank than we have today.
That is true, but even so, a warlord with 3000 rank would probably have at least a fairly large advantage in skill. Everyone hits a point when he or she starts losing. A warlord with 1000 rank is less likely to have hit that yet, I agree. That warlord could very well get to 3000 rating, but it is more unlikely. A warlord with 1000 rank most likely will not have had to battle players of much higher level, and may not have his or her deck set up for that kind of battle yet. A warlord with 3000 rank will be very experienced at fighting most, if not all, types of players at much higher levels. The player with 1000's lack of experience could be his/her downfall. Perhaps if rank mattered less after 1000 rating, but the impact did not entirely go away it would be fairer?

Delver
Apr 21, 2012
253
sliver moon wolf on Apr 24, 2014 wrote:
it not unfair if some of us who can yous shadow magic are agree that it should go because it to over power and yes the new shadow magic maybe or maybe not depending if it like what we got now but the other spell in the game seem balance so you can block and stuff against them
so yes the magic should not be in pvp
95 wizard
8 wizard
There are all kinds of spells in PvP that people don't want to be on the receiving end of, Storm Owl is too much damage, Efreet's Weakness is too powerful, Shields and heals should be banned, I can't even take these people seriously, really, all they want is to change PvP so they can win easier. Also, you need to check your spelling, and grammar.

Survivor
Mar 14, 2010
6
I think PvP should be based off of skill level and not rank. This is a big challenge for KI, I understand that. That's because they aren't going to monitor everyone's PvP strategy and debate on whether or not that person is good at PvP, especially since they don't even have as many employees as there are players. Shadow spells do throw in a mix to the PvP system, but I have altered my strategy to get around it, so I don't think it's necessary for them to completely make shadow spells -- or shadow shrike alone -- a No-PvP spell. For instance, my strategy is partially based on luck at the first 15 seconds of the match, where the countdown begins. In 1v1, I examine my opponent's look, name, badge, and pet to decide what school they are. Say they were storm for example. Then I would put in TC -85% storm shields in my side deck. And if they have 80%-105% I'm still fine because I have my 50% universal resist to still back me up. Shadow spells are now a part of PvP, it's a challenge Kingsisle has given us. We can choose to work with it or exploit it, and I don't think exploiting it is the answer. You can always try to not base it off of resist anymore and go more offensive. That's a good strategy because you know people with Hades gear aren't going to have a whole lot of resist. Hope this helps with your problems, especially you, Aaron SpellThief.
-John StarCatcher

Hero
Dec 16, 2009
773
Aaron SpellThief on Apr 28, 2014 wrote:
That is true, but even so, a warlord with 3000 rank would probably have at least a fairly large advantage in skill. Everyone hits a point when he or she starts losing. A warlord with 1000 rank is less likely to have hit that yet, I agree. That warlord could very well get to 3000 rating, but it is more unlikely. A warlord with 1000 rank most likely will not have had to battle players of much higher level, and may not have his or her deck set up for that kind of battle yet. A warlord with 3000 rank will be very experienced at fighting most, if not all, types of players at much higher levels. The player with 1000's lack of experience could be his/her downfall. Perhaps if rank mattered less after 1000 rating, but the impact did not entirely go away it would be fairer?
That would also be an acceptable tweak to the cap system, practically any solution that establishes a hidden cap of some sort will lead to better matching outcomes for all players..

Champion
Oct 30, 2011
449
JollyGoodFellow on Apr 29, 2014 wrote:
I think PvP should be based off of skill level and not rank. This is a big challenge for KI, I understand that. That's because they aren't going to monitor everyone's PvP strategy and debate on whether or not that person is good at PvP, especially since they don't even have as many employees as there are players. Shadow spells do throw in a mix to the PvP system, but I have altered my strategy to get around it, so I don't think it's necessary for them to completely make shadow spells -- or shadow shrike alone -- a No-PvP spell. For instance, my strategy is partially based on luck at the first 15 seconds of the match, where the countdown begins. In 1v1, I examine my opponent's look, name, badge, and pet to decide what school they are. Say they were storm for example. Then I would put in TC -85% storm shields in my side deck. And if they have 80%-105% I'm still fine because I have my 50% universal resist to still back me up. Shadow spells are now a part of PvP, it's a challenge Kingsisle has given us. We can choose to work with it or exploit it, and I don't think exploiting it is the answer. You can always try to not base it off of resist anymore and go more offensive. That's a good strategy because you know people with Hades gear aren't going to have a whole lot of resist. Hope this helps with your problems, especially you, Aaron SpellThief.
-John StarCatcher
To be honest, being aggressive against a player that can one hit kill you on turn two isn't generally the best idea. Max level players have huge advantages in critical, armor piercing, enchants, damage, and just spells in general. Trying to out-damage them is near impossible, and trying to continuously remain on the aggressive while staying with shields on and at health so that they cannot kill you with two pips is not exactly easy. I sometimes win this type of match, but often have to rely on luck in regard to critical. I have had a storm deal 2900 damage to me through two shields with no blades..max levels just have too many ridiculous advantages to lower level players for pvp to be fair currently.

Survivor
Mar 14, 2010
6
Aaron SpellThief on Apr 29, 2014 wrote:
To be honest, being aggressive against a player that can one hit kill you on turn two isn't generally the best idea. Max level players have huge advantages in critical, armor piercing, enchants, damage, and just spells in general. Trying to out-damage them is near impossible, and trying to continuously remain on the aggressive while staying with shields on and at health so that they cannot kill you with two pips is not exactly easy. I sometimes win this type of match, but often have to rely on luck in regard to critical. I have had a storm deal 2900 damage to me through two shields with no blades..max levels just have too many ridiculous advantages to lower level players for pvp to be fair currently.
Agreed, but I think this is the point Kingsisle is trying to make. They are trying to have us stay at a certain rank by, once obtaining a higher rating, placing us with higher levels. It is then the player's decision whether to go full on offensive or not. Therefore, we lose a lot that we sink back down to a lower rating. By this time, we get people who are easier to defeat and then get a higher rating again, and then the process repeats itself. It is a never ending game of monkey in the middle. So we can take 2 paths that lead to a neutral solution (at least the only 2 things I can think of). Path 1 would be to level up and become one of these offensive-built players. Path 2 is to quit ranked PvP and focus more on practice until you have mastered the skill.
Ever since the level 50 warlord gear has come out, people have been making level 50's as the lowest level you can be and still have amazing gear. It's time to enter a new age and venture beyond level 50 and go to unknown territory (for many level 50 PvP'ers). Overall, for this category, I disagree that shadow spells should leave PvP, it's a way of Wizard101, therefore it's a way of the PvP system.
-John StarCatcher

Delver
Jan 31, 2012
226
I think when a person goes in shadow shrike form they lose some of there resistance and they can't heal in that form because if they do the shadow shrike person gets hurt more.

The storm wizard put a blade up before going into shadow shrike form and when I fought a ice wizard in rank PVP that went into shadow shrike the second time I cast judgment spell on him he wasn't ready for it at all.

So be careful in shadow shrike form if the balance wizard has all there power pips they can get you.
And I going to try to get shadows spells now.

Amy lvl 96 No shadow spells yet lol

PS:

Shadow shrike evens the playing field in rank PVP. Other wise reduce tc spells to make it fair in rank pvp.

Champion
Aug 15, 2012
455
Just like how you can use astral spells in pvp, I think you should be able to use Shadow spells also. When a new type of magic comes out, it will probably be even more powerful than shadow magic so that will be banned from pvp. Different types of magic make pvp fun, not unfair. Eventually, you will be max level and be able to use shadow spells also.
Saffron Sandsword
Legendary

Delver
Mar 17, 2011
278
wraithcaster on Apr 28, 2014 wrote:
There are all kinds of spells in PvP that people don't want to be on the receiving end of, Storm Owl is too much damage, Efreet's Weakness is too powerful, Shields and heals should be banned, I can't even take these people seriously, really, all they want is to change PvP so they can win easier. Also, you need to check your spelling, and grammar.
i not saying take out every single shadow spell the new spell don't seem balance so they don't need to go but some spells yes wild bolt is one of them that thing way to powerful and shadow shrike should be taken out it also way to powerful but don't get silly now we all yous the blocks and there way to get around them also i not saying take out every good spell i saying make some no pvp and storm owl that's fine so is efreet they are balance out but some spell do need to be taken out because it mess in up pvp it making it to unfair to all players ether that or they need to make shadow resistance gear that can block armor piercing spells so at lest the spell will be balance again and wild blot needs to be lower in hit because it so strong sure the chance thing is great and all but it still hits really hard it not like i saying get ride of all the good stuff i just saying they need to make something to balance it all out if they don't pvp just going become even more mess up and unfair to every player and soon no one will want to pvp anymore then what are we going do it not a bad thing to balance things out to make everyone a little happy and make it were we get to keep cool spells in pvp even know it a lot of work kl needs to do these so pvp is not as unfair as it is now

Survivor
Mar 20, 2010
12
Eric Stormbringer on Apr 13, 2014 wrote:
You want to make Shrike No-PvP because you are facing higher level wizards that utilize it? Sorry that does not make much sense. A high level wizard's power should not be limited so a lower level wizard can win against them. What does need to change is the matchmaking system and that is what should be advocated. High level PvPers have all the stats and tools necessary to counteract shrike. A lower level does not necessarily have the same stats and tools and thus should not be matched against these wizards.
Exactly. It isn't unfair to anyone else, only to lower levels. They should improve matchmaking, which they have already done, but banning shadow shrike would make pvp less interesting, and there is no reason for it.

Defender
Jul 26, 2009
169
kymma shadow on Apr 27, 2014 wrote:
Yes I read your post.

I don't think it fair for private to fight warlords. I wish on 2v2 if there a shadow and on 1 side and there 3. 95 wizards and a warlord does a friend joins.

Where would that warlord be? I add a few warlords so I wouldn't have to fight them in rank PVP is that unfair to you?

And warlords shouldn't call private rank players in rank PVP noobs that really rude to do I quit calling warlords noobs so warlords needs to stop it just starts a argument.

Warlords should help the private not call them noobs. One warlord called me a noob first so I call him a tc noob but I started to think I shouldn't call warlords tc warlords sometimes I call them it so I can start talking to them and right after I call them I say jk and I congrats them on there bagde.

Now only Warlord needs to be nicer and help private out not call them noobs that only makes it worse please help private out not call them noobs please.

I want to see more nicer warlords in rank pvp who don't call private a noob.

Amy lvl 95 Needs to reset her training points and she not going to get any shadow spells till she resets her training points.
What your missing is its not fair to the warlord either. When you're a high rank, Fighting people who have stronger enhancements, and damage that even treasure cards are no where close to, it really doesn't matter. The bane of pvp would be the the lack of strategy a spell causes.

I Consider Shrike a strategy spell. I have yet to use it as a key spell on my high level wizards as infallible is better in almost every case. Mid levels won't be able to take a decent crit build with good block, that uses combos effectively and the pierce is not needed. An example of this would be fires Efreet followed by Krampus and then a freeze. Its great because it completely shuts shrike down and can be used by mid levels and high levels alike.

I Really like the spell, It adds importance to many other school spells that would otherwise be unimportant. Note Krampus, The timing on a Medusa TC, Black mantel, Freeze, Bad Juju, Etc. These spells haven't seen much attention lately, And shrike has made them important making more rounded and diversified builds at top and mid level. I really feel like the counter play is valuable in the game.

~~~~~~
P.S. The report button is very helpful for any bullying you receive in the arena. Check the Terms of Use and code of conduct for more information.

Survivor
May 02, 2014
38
Hi

Why do you want to rune rank PVP for high lvl wizards?

If TC allowed so should shadow shrike it makes it even for the high lvl wizard.

Sorry if you don't agree.

Kymma Lvl 4

2