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.

The Only Way to A Fair and Balanced PVP- again.

AuthorMessage
Defender
Oct 15, 2009
123
I've stated this for a few years now. Hopefully KI will at least consider it. There are so many new dynamics of the game now. Critical, pierce, pets that can heal vast amounts of health, and a spell that gives the caster another chance. If you are a midlevel wizard that was skilled and lucky enough to make warlord you will most certainly be matched against a wizard with those attributes. It really doesn’t matter if you are paired against a private with critical in the current system, there is one aspect the guarantees a loss- going second.
It always has been the downside to this game. Yes, people can go second and win, but the percentage is low. Even when you are matched appropriately, the advantage has always made it close to straight out unfair. The new changes to PVP make it even more so.
It’s the last hole to plug. An addition to bring as close to what could be considered some resemblance of balance to the game as possible. We can't get away from it being round based- meaning someone has to go first.
Create a Reverse spell. It should not belong to any specific school.
The person going second uses the card. They have another turn, and now the order goes the other way.
Ways to make the spell fair- make it a high pip spell so the caster can't have another turn to follow with a damaging spell. Put a stun block on the opponent so the caster can't stun them right after.
Might the person who was originally going first have their own? Sure. It could very well turn into a reverse battle at some point in the match. As a high pip card it won't be as bad as a bubble war.
I don’t know how it could work for multi-wizard matches, but perhaps something similar to putting stun blocks according to the number of opponents.
I see this as the only way to level the playing field and bring a level of fairness and balance the game has needed since the PVP option became available.
Will any Professor please respond to this? Even if to say no we are not going to do that because . . . .
Or is not answering the question for almost 4 years now the answer in itself?

One other spell that would be not as necessary as Reverse, but certainly fun- Magic Mirror. The caster becomes a duplicate of the person or thing cast upon it minus the pet for a determined number of rounds. It would be interesting to be temporarily be matched against oneself.

Astrologist
Aug 20, 2011
1077
I have seconded this for years. It's an incisive solution, and necessary in certain situations if you need to avoid a giant one-hit defeat.

It's also programmable so that the spell's dynamics cannot be overpowering, such as reversal immediately followed by a giant earth-shattering hit (essentially two turns in a row).

Explorer
Oct 10, 2010
92
Jeeperz,

In my opinion, I don't think the spell is the main issue, it's that it would change the
base code in the mechanics of PVP. I expect that this would be a good deal of
code change, and therefore, I don' t see that ever happening. That is just my
opinion, nothing more. Although, based on KI"s reaction in the past to changes,
they have never made a change to the base code of PvP.

I have read many posts on the first turn advantage, and I feel that the problem
is mainly attacking into shields or attacking into some type of weakness.

So, what about a spell that could counter this issue, when you are second.
Once the spell is cast, for four rounds you are unable to cast a weakness of any type, or
put up a shield. If Efreet is cast, the weakness will be removed, etc.

This type of idea would not change the base mechanics of the PvP rotation, but would
effectively put the players on a more even field of play.

(personal note): They could also put in a Max Resistance of 50% in PVP,
that would make me happy.

Astrologist
Aug 20, 2011
1077
IcicleWar on Jul 2, 2014 wrote:
Jeeperz,

In my opinion, I don't think the spell is the main issue, it's that it would change the
base code in the mechanics of PVP. I expect that this would be a good deal of
code change, and therefore, I don' t see that ever happening. That is just my
opinion, nothing more. Although, based on KI"s reaction in the past to changes,
they have never made a change to the base code of PvP.

I have read many posts on the first turn advantage, and I feel that the problem
is mainly attacking into shields or attacking into some type of weakness.

So, what about a spell that could counter this issue, when you are second.
Once the spell is cast, for four rounds you are unable to cast a weakness of any type, or
put up a shield. If Efreet is cast, the weakness will be removed, etc.

This type of idea would not change the base mechanics of the PvP rotation, but would
effectively put the players on a more even field of play.

(personal note): They could also put in a Max Resistance of 50% in PVP,
that would make me happy.
The code for the Beguile spell already has the ability to assert turn changes. Would a strictly turn-changing spell would be so different?

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1556
Personally, I wouldn't like a spell that does this. I understand that going second is a huge disadvantage and all, but that's just a factor in the game you're going to have to deal with. The spell wouldn't honestly make PvP confusing and require a mastermind to be able to keep track of matches. And one thing you completely forgot about, if the Reverse spell is at a high pip cost, Balance would be at a serious advantage in the Arena due to Mana Burn. But here's my old motto: If your strategy requires you going first to win, it's no strategy

Astrologist
Aug 20, 2011
1077
PvP King on Jul 2, 2014 wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't like a spell that does this. I understand that going second is a huge disadvantage and all, but that's just a factor in the game you're going to have to deal with. The spell wouldn't honestly make PvP confusing and require a mastermind to be able to keep track of matches. And one thing you completely forgot about, if the Reverse spell is at a high pip cost, Balance would be at a serious advantage in the Arena due to Mana Burn. But here's my old motto: If your strategy requires you going first to win, it's no strategy
If you don't like it, that's fine, I can respect your opinion. It wouldn't require any more of a mastermind than it would learning any other new spell though--lots of spells were probably weird when people first saw them, then they grew accustomed.

Pip costs might not be as big a deal as you anticipate, although bringing up mana burn is a good consideration to observe. In the past I have suggested that turn-changing spells could be X-ranked, or pseudo-X-ranked like the Cyclops Minion, so it won't matter how many pips you have, as it's going to eliminate all of them anyway to initiate the spell.

Explorer
Oct 10, 2010
92
Lucas Rain on Jul 2, 2014 wrote:
The code for the Beguile spell already has the ability to assert turn changes. Would a strictly turn-changing spell would be so different?
Hi Lucas,

I see the Beguile spell as more of an interrupt type spell, just like the Bosses use.
I expect, but certainly don't know, that a turn changing spell would reverse the order,
and this is what KI seems to, not want ot change. The only thing that makes sense,
to me, is that it would take a large amount of rewrite in the code. If so, I expect this is
why KI would not be willing to do this.

Defender
Oct 15, 2009
123
PvP King on Jul 2, 2014 wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't like a spell that does this. I understand that going second is a huge disadvantage and all, but that's just a factor in the game you're going to have to deal with. The spell wouldn't honestly make PvP confusing and require a mastermind to be able to keep track of matches. And one thing you completely forgot about, if the Reverse spell is at a high pip cost, Balance would be at a serious advantage in the Arena due to Mana Burn. But here's my old motto: If your strategy requires you going first to win, it's no strategy
PVP is still good, I just think it would be better. Its a card based game. Have you ever played UNO? As far as the coding; I'm sure it would be work. I'm versed in multimedia applications including 3D animation- but I could never deal with coding. I have the upmost respect for programmers.

I did overlook the Balance issue, but as stated it costing x would stabilize the problem. I admit, I thought the same thing about PVP years ago, and that was before pets did anything other than just stand there and follow you around. Looking back going second was a disadvantage, but you could still pull out of occasionally.

The current levels 85-100 only enhanced the advantage of going first. The disadvantage of going second is so great it has detracts from the enjoyment of the game. But that's only my opinion. I don't play high level matches at this point. The low level matches are still fun.

I have been playing for a while now. Most of my experience on death, storm, life, and myth wizards. All are/were first age Warlords. Now I have low level warlords on fire and ice. I have never played balance.

Considering what you have stated, I also admit to not having a strategy. If I go first with 1 of my high level wizards, Im 95% sure I'll win. The same goes for the other way around. If its life (especially if they have a pet with spritely, fairy, and unicorn even if I can survive the crits, after 3+ hours of beating them only to respawn again and again, Ill lose for leaving the match. Doom and Gloom or not.

Its also my opinion it would not take a mastermind to keep track of, but you bring up good points.