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.

Treasure Card Banning in PvP

AuthorMessage
Survivor
Nov 15, 2009
26
Seethe42 and Aaron I can see where you are coming from and for me it is too one sided for me to enjoy but its not about not bringing the punch. I Say Bring It but only if you have learned the spell from the school you have trained from and not relying from TC. Yes TC's are a neat tool and free for anybody to use, to cast ANY spells that you didn't learn IS fun, but they are spells players didn't learn just bought.

Bring your mastery amulets cause the spells it requires to cast would be from the second or third school you wanted to learn from... my main is myth, I have learned life as my second and death as my third with a few spells from ice, balance, sun, star and shadow.

this is the example I would like to have in a ranked pvp match where both me and my opponent are, or about the same lvl (where titles or rankings have no meaning), our stats % limited to attack 50% and resist to 25%, crit, crit block, shadow pips and TC restricted. bring only what you learned from your school and duel it out. I would be more then honored to accept anybody's challenge as long as they are or about my lvl.

the 2 different Ranked Pvp Matches could be called (Classic Battle) and (Free for All Battle). As it is right now all we have is the Free For All and I am very tired and bored with winning using this battle format.

Archon
Sep 17, 2012
4118
HajimeNoIppo on Dec 20, 2013 wrote:
Seethe42 and Aaron I can see where you are coming from and for me it is too one sided for me to enjoy but its not about not bringing the punch. I Say Bring It but only if you have learned the spell from the school you have trained from and not relying from TC. Yes TC's are a neat tool and free for anybody to use, to cast ANY spells that you didn't learn IS fun, but they are spells players didn't learn just bought.

Bring your mastery amulets cause the spells it requires to cast would be from the second or third school you wanted to learn from... my main is myth, I have learned life as my second and death as my third with a few spells from ice, balance, sun, star and shadow.

this is the example I would like to have in a ranked pvp match where both me and my opponent are, or about the same lvl (where titles or rankings have no meaning), our stats % limited to attack 50% and resist to 25%, crit, crit block, shadow pips and TC restricted. bring only what you learned from your school and duel it out. I would be more then honored to accept anybody's challenge as long as they are or about my lvl.

the 2 different Ranked Pvp Matches could be called (Classic Battle) and (Free for All Battle). As it is right now all we have is the Free For All and I am very tired and bored with winning using this battle format.
And with your "perfect" situation of limits, first player always wins. It's not exactly an improvement and it totally unfair to school strengths/weakness already built in. You limit defense and attack. How is that fair? So Ice ends up with the same attack boost as Storm, plus double the life still? Limits throw out all school traits that are carefully worked into those schools gear. It's NOT an even playing field to say "OK you both have same limit resist and damage" when Ice has double life and Storm spells do a small amount more damage per pip than Ice. You cannot just set limits like that without taking into account the schools. I'm using those schools as examples, but you can make arguments for all schools. Unless you limit all players of all schools to spells of all the same damage per pip and all get the same health... you see the poinst without me stating all of them... you cannot possibly have what you think is a "fair fight". The point of different schools IS they have different strengths and weaknesses, that's the game.

Defender
Mar 08, 2013
114
seethe42 on Dec 21, 2013 wrote:
And with your "perfect" situation of limits, first player always wins. It's not exactly an improvement and it totally unfair to school strengths/weakness already built in. You limit defense and attack. How is that fair? So Ice ends up with the same attack boost as Storm, plus double the life still? Limits throw out all school traits that are carefully worked into those schools gear. It's NOT an even playing field to say "OK you both have same limit resist and damage" when Ice has double life and Storm spells do a small amount more damage per pip than Ice. You cannot just set limits like that without taking into account the schools. I'm using those schools as examples, but you can make arguments for all schools. Unless you limit all players of all schools to spells of all the same damage per pip and all get the same health... you see the poinst without me stating all of them... you cannot possibly have what you think is a "fair fight". The point of different schools IS they have different strengths and weaknesses, that's the game.
And having tc makes it any more fair? With the warlord gear, ice will still have more health and storm will still have more attack. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Archon
Sep 17, 2012
4118
David DeathFlame on Dec 21, 2013 wrote:
And having tc makes it any more fair? With the warlord gear, ice will still have more health and storm will still have more attack. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Try reading the post before replying. It was a reply about limiting stats.

Survivor
Nov 15, 2009
26
seethe42 on Dec 21, 2013 wrote:
And with your "perfect" situation of limits, first player always wins. It's not exactly an improvement and it totally unfair to school strengths/weakness already built in. You limit defense and attack. How is that fair? So Ice ends up with the same attack boost as Storm, plus double the life still? Limits throw out all school traits that are carefully worked into those schools gear. It's NOT an even playing field to say "OK you both have same limit resist and damage" when Ice has double life and Storm spells do a small amount more damage per pip than Ice. You cannot just set limits like that without taking into account the schools. I'm using those schools as examples, but you can make arguments for all schools. Unless you limit all players of all schools to spells of all the same damage per pip and all get the same health... you see the poinst without me stating all of them... you cannot possibly have what you think is a "fair fight". The point of different schools IS they have different strengths and weaknesses, that's the game.
first player wouldn't always win, the limits are set so everybody has the same chance. it would be almost exactly like when you first started wizard101 where you had basic wand, no attack, resist, accuracy, crit, crit block, TC or shadow pips. with 50% universal attack and 25% universal resist limited for all wizards, it wouldn't change the cards power since that is set already and the bonus would still come from the blades and traps you cast. but if it bothers players (who are above lvl 75) so much into thinking that limiting attack and resist would make them weaker then what they started off with playing wizard101 at lvl 1 then don't limit the attack or resist or TC but instead restrict all Crit and Crit Block for all wizards from pvp. there has to be a change somewhere that everyone can agree to since half think TC are OP and the other half think TC aren't.

players who say there is nothing wrong with the current ranked pvp system are just players not wanting to look for a new way to win fairly. spending more time, money, hatching new pets just to match a new pvp system is a waste of time and effort no one wants. using a 2 pip TC (that can be drawn whenever the player wants)or colossal attack spell over and over again where there attack is about 85-98%, there crit is around 400% and dealing over 3k-6k damage a turn, no blades, traps, or shadow spells needed. doesn't matter if there opponent has 50% resist or 150-300 crit block cause the crit damage will still go through with little to no difference from resist since it doesn't apply until all other effects happen. this is just as an example .... 800dmg + a 92% attack stat (maybe have a + a 35% blade) + crit - a no crit block and 32% resist would = about 3.5-4k dmg (without the 35% blade = about 2.5-3k dmg )(with crit block and 35% blade = about 1.5k ). now lets use the same formula but have the attack and resist were limited and crit, crit block, shadow pip and TC's were banned .... 800 dmg + 50% +35% blade - 25% resist = about 1.5k dmg (without the 35% blade = about 1k). if we use the same limits and restrictions again but make attack and resist to 0% ... 800dmg + 35% blades - 0% resist = about 1k.

its all about the same no limits vs limits but having a PVP with limits and restrictions wouldn't make anybody weaker. just means there is no first turn wins anymore giving a player going first or second the exact same chance to win.
cause with no limits the second player going has no way to stop or protect themselves from being a first turn kill. I mean how many post have players complained about TC and going second vs an OP player is unfair? But in reality if people think about it I guess you could say that TCs are not really the problem but Critical and Critical Block are the real problem.... restrict those 2 things and everybody would probably stop complaining....

Survivor
Nov 15, 2009
26
I have also been reading others post and with the restriction of Critical and Critical Block, without the stats on attack or resist be limited or restricted, I agree that ALL TC's SHOULD BE Restricted to players based on there lvl, doesn't mater what school they are in. I mean should a lvl 40 have access to a lvl 60 or lvl 75 spell for pvp only? this IS all about looking for the best solution that everyone can agree to in order to create a fair duel. players shouldn't try to make an argument saying that the pvp system, that we have now, still isn't flawed without a way or idea on what can be done to try to fix the Pvp system, we ARE trying to find a really good compromise for everyone.
if it WERE just a few post or responses that thought the pvp system was flawed and needed to be fixed I wouldn't put my 2 cents in because I probably would of been that player that would of said it wasn't flawed. but that is not the case here since there is over 2k post and responses on this very same problem. I have seen and read the pros and cons of the todays pvp system and it does need a new facelift and not a complete makeover, you know just some adjustments. if that can't be done then a complete makeover or a new pvp system would be needed. maybe make it for 1v1 and 2v2 since making 2 different pvp systems for 3v3 and 4v4 wouldn't be so wise.(even if this did happen people would still complain about wanting 3v3 and 4v4 also)

I mean this post is about what would your idea, comment or suggestion be for a compromise. so lets hear your compromise and not disagree with what everybody wants or says, since I am curious about what you or anybody else would be willing to give up or accept in Pvp.

Archon
Sep 17, 2012
4118
HajimeNoIppo, you fail to address the issue of limiting based on school. Why should all schools have the same limts? The point of schools differences IS their differences. Tell me how limiting a Storm Wizard to 50% resist but leaving him with 3k health is the same as limiting Ice to 50% resist but leaving him with 7k health? Tell me how that is fair? Every school's gear is built to enhance it's strengths or address it's weaknesses. Limiting certain stats to an artificial percentage still allows certain advantages for some and exploits weaknesses of others.

Defender
Mar 08, 2013
114
seethe42 on Dec 22, 2013 wrote:
Try reading the post before replying. It was a reply about limiting stats.
Sorry, I have been reading posts for what seemed like an hour or two and it was late, so I was kinda skimming through it. I thought I had it, but now I can't think of what it was. Now that I reread both posts multiple times, I think I understand what both of you were talking about. HajimeNoIppo said that capping tc and stats would be a good solution and you said that capping the stats would be unfair.

I read the first part of HajimeNolppo's post and liked it, then I saw "with your perfect situation" and missed "of limits" on your post. I guess I skimmed more than I thought. I will make sure I read more carefully to every post from now on. Thanks for telling me.

Yes to something being done to tc.
No to stat cap.

Survivor
Nov 15, 2009
26
first things first, what are you willing to compromise? if you have an idea then lets hear what you suggest.

second, limiting the stats won't cause any difference between the schools, just the power in which the spell does. also a lvl 50 should never of been faced against a lvl 80-95 wizard based on title, that is another reason why I said the pvp system is flawed. a players health is based on lvl, the armor they dawn or the pets they have equipped. all the schools will still be different, they will still have the same strengths and weaknesses. but like I said if you think that limiting stats is not acceptable then I will change my perspective and suggest that they restrict critical and critical block.

if you limit the attack and resist but not the crit and crit block, the dmg of the crit would be close to the same as the dmg from a spell, where attack and resist were not limited but Crit and Crit block was restricted. the only real difference with the Critical is the heal spells.

Is the amount of health increased on the wizard from each lvl they gain from each school, different? besides, most players are gunning for health, attack, accuracy and critical for that first turn, one hit win while healing, resist and healing % is second.

Defender
Mar 08, 2013
114
HajimeNoIppo on Dec 23, 2013 wrote:
first things first, what are you willing to compromise? if you have an idea then lets hear what you suggest.

second, limiting the stats won't cause any difference between the schools, just the power in which the spell does. also a lvl 50 should never of been faced against a lvl 80-95 wizard based on title, that is another reason why I said the pvp system is flawed. a players health is based on lvl, the armor they dawn or the pets they have equipped. all the schools will still be different, they will still have the same strengths and weaknesses. but like I said if you think that limiting stats is not acceptable then I will change my perspective and suggest that they restrict critical and critical block.

if you limit the attack and resist but not the crit and crit block, the dmg of the crit would be close to the same as the dmg from a spell, where attack and resist were not limited but Crit and Crit block was restricted. the only real difference with the Critical is the heal spells.

Is the amount of health increased on the wizard from each lvl they gain from each school, different? besides, most players are gunning for health, attack, accuracy and critical for that first turn, one hit win while healing, resist and healing % is second.
"second, limiting the stats won't cause any difference between the schools, just the power in which the spell does." That's all what storm is, pure damage. It would change things because you would be crippling the one thing storm is good at.

I don't lvl past 50 cause I have always hated the crit and block, so I have no comment on those topics.

Champion
Oct 30, 2011
449
HajimeNoIppo on Dec 23, 2013 wrote:
first things first, what are you willing to compromise? if you have an idea then lets hear what you suggest.

second, limiting the stats won't cause any difference between the schools, just the power in which the spell does. also a lvl 50 should never of been faced against a lvl 80-95 wizard based on title, that is another reason why I said the pvp system is flawed. a players health is based on lvl, the armor they dawn or the pets they have equipped. all the schools will still be different, they will still have the same strengths and weaknesses. but like I said if you think that limiting stats is not acceptable then I will change my perspective and suggest that they restrict critical and critical block.

if you limit the attack and resist but not the crit and crit block, the dmg of the crit would be close to the same as the dmg from a spell, where attack and resist were not limited but Crit and Crit block was restricted. the only real difference with the Critical is the heal spells.

Is the amount of health increased on the wizard from each lvl they gain from each school, different? besides, most players are gunning for health, attack, accuracy and critical for that first turn, one hit win while healing, resist and healing % is second.
I agree with you-level 50s should never be battling level 80-95 people. The problem is, if they were not battling them, then the extremely high rank level 50 warlords wouldn't have too many people to battle but level 70 warlords. At least as it is, my recently leveled balance warlord battles level 80-95 people with low rank. But if I started battling level 70 warlords all the time, my rating might take a turn for the worse. I can beat people like that sometimes, but not constantly, with their better stats and spells. As it is, I can usually defeat higher level opponents. (I defeated my first level 95 yesterday, he had 0 rank lol) Storms, on the other hand, just wild bolt/kraken/triton spam me every time, and I normally get paired with them. I doubt a level capping system will ever come into place, but I kind of hope it does.

Survivor
Aug 25, 2009
46
You all are completely missing the point. For everyone saying its bad to limit people, fine, we'll in my idea you can just to treasure card Pvp with other people who use them. I honestly don't see your problem. Now people using treasure cards will go against people using treasure cards, which is what all you pro-treasure card people seem to want. What's the arguing about? Everyone is happy.

Mastermind
Jan 23, 2011
318
TheBananaSlug on Dec 25, 2013 wrote:
You all are completely missing the point. For everyone saying its bad to limit people, fine, we'll in my idea you can just to treasure card Pvp with other people who use them. I honestly don't see your problem. Now people using treasure cards will go against people using treasure cards, which is what all you pro-treasure card people seem to want. What's the arguing about? Everyone is happy.
Unfortunately the only problem with this compromise is that it will be difficult and for some people nearly impossible to find a match. So, some of us think it's best to remove or lvl cap tc from pvp and others think it's best to keep it. Personally I think tc is completely fair in pvp and should be kept.

Archon
Sep 17, 2012
4118
HajimeNoIppo on Dec 23, 2013 wrote:
first things first, what are you willing to compromise? if you have an idea then lets hear what you suggest.

second, limiting the stats won't cause any difference between the schools, just the power in which the spell does. also a lvl 50 should never of been faced against a lvl 80-95 wizard based on title, that is another reason why I said the pvp system is flawed. a players health is based on lvl, the armor they dawn or the pets they have equipped. all the schools will still be different, they will still have the same strengths and weaknesses. but like I said if you think that limiting stats is not acceptable then I will change my perspective and suggest that they restrict critical and critical block.

if you limit the attack and resist but not the crit and crit block, the dmg of the crit would be close to the same as the dmg from a spell, where attack and resist were not limited but Crit and Crit block was restricted. the only real difference with the Critical is the heal spells.

Is the amount of health increased on the wizard from each lvl they gain from each school, different? besides, most players are gunning for health, attack, accuracy and critical for that first turn, one hit win while healing, resist and healing % is second.
"second, limiting the stats won't cause any difference between the schools, just the power in which the spell does"

You seem to refuse to address the differences in schools that AREN'T in the spell. Ice gear gives loads of resist and health. Storm gear gives little resist and health and loads of damage. Limiting to artificial levels takes away SOME of those inequalities but not all. If you are going to limit Damage and Resist, then you should also give everyone the same Health limits. No matter how you try to do it, making everyone the same will never work. It will ALWAYS be "unfair" to someone. The schools have their strengths and weaknesses built into everything, not just their spell cards.

Survivor
Sep 01, 2013
3
The use of treasure cards in PVP, in my opinion ruins PVP in this game. There is something seriously wrong a low level character can load up on high level treasure cards and beat players that are at significantly higher levels consistently and achieve warlord status with no problem. I think treasure card use should be capped at the player's level. For example, if a level 20 then the highest level treasure card that can be used is a level 20 spell. Another idea would be to severely reduce the number of cards that can be used in one match to say 3 and they don't get to be used again from reshuffle.

The PVP system is so out of whack with the ability of players to exploit the current mechanics that is a big joke.

Survivor
Oct 31, 2009
7
OK, So.
Treasure cards should not be in PVP

1- Ranked PVP is as it says RANKED.
This should mean it is ranking you against other players to compare your wizard and how you use your wizards abilities that have been earned. Good Treasure Cards are not hard o get. You simply get them for free from a higher level friend or pay a small amount of god at the Bazaar.

2- Treasure Cards take away the strategy in the PVP match.
In a PVP match you are supposed to be able to plan ahead based on what has been used, what level or how much health they have, and many other things. But when a Treasure Card comes it can easily get through everything as if you never cast a single spell.

3- Treasure Cards are normally over powered.
My ice friend who was around my level. We were dueling a guy who's friend had left him and this guy was at half our level (about 25-30. we were about 50) He cast a single spell that attacked my ice friend. it got through his ice armor thing that was a hundred something absorb per pip (that he had almost full power pips that he used on it) his 50% off shield, and a Spirit Armor I cast on him (400 absorb) then it still killed him when he had at least 3000 health.
A level 25-30 should not be able t do this.

4- Part of the strategy in PVP is building your deck better then the other player.
If you use Treasure Cards all you need is armor that gives great power pip chance one o two traps or blades, and an over powered Treasure Card.

Survivor
Oct 31, 2009
7
seethe42 on Dec 18, 2013 wrote:
What's really the point in limiting anything? It's kinda like having a boxing match with right hands tied behind the back. Does it prove who is a better fighter? No, it just draws out a fight proves that one is a better left handed fighter. TC are part of the game. Everyone has equal access to them. As long as everyone is fighting by the same rules, I don't understand why anyone wants to handicap anyone. If you want a "fair" fight, why not create PvP that everyone has the same stats and spell deck? I have a feeling that the "limit everyone but me" crowd wouldn't like much. Everyone who is against TC seems to resent the fact that they lose to lower level players who are better than them. That's ALL this argument is, it's all EGO. If you keep getting beat by lower levels with TC... GO GET SOME TC and learn to change your strategy. I personally don't like PvP that much, but if you are going to PvP, you use the tools and rules of the game. You don't change the rules to suit your inaddequacy as a player.
In a boxing match a boxer Works out. it is his duty to work out both arms. If he uses a substance that greatly improves his natural ability or if he brought a hidden weapon, he can be banned, maybe even arrested.

Treasure cards are like that substance or weapon. It alters what would happen if it was done fair.

They should be banned from Ranked.

Survivor
Oct 31, 2009
7
Thesist on Dec 19, 2013 wrote:
With the example of high level wizards you are giving us more reasons as to Don't ban these treasure cards from pvp as they are a very important part right now of the game.

what would you do with a dispel? you need cleanse charm and if you no storm that have the real spell you can't take it off if is not with a card of the same school.

Or what would you do with all those dispel or weakness spamming that is going on in arena right now? 6 wand attacks are not enough in the entire battle to get rid of all those.

What would happen with people that bought their mastery amulets to be able to cast a spell that is not their own school and they didnt train it?

Are you telling me that if i want to cast feint (card that i have in lots from plants) I can't and I only have to use it in quests or helping my friends or farming tartarus. What if I only do pvp, where I can use all treasure cards that I get from plants.

I think the argument is over and this ban of treasure cards like people is asking is not viable. :p
The point is players are abusing the high level treasure cards.

the rest of what you said is all strategy. IF someone found a way to spam with shields, they are preparing. get rid of them, they are wasting their time to fight.

I sell all my TC.
A lvl 25 should not be able to, with one attack, kill a lvl 50 ice that has a full power pip absorb armor (whatever its called), a 50% tower shield, and a 400 absorb spirit armor that his life friend casted on him.

Champion
Oct 30, 2011
449
Grump Warlord on Dec 30, 2013 wrote:
The use of treasure cards in PVP, in my opinion ruins PVP in this game. There is something seriously wrong a low level character can load up on high level treasure cards and beat players that are at significantly higher levels consistently and achieve warlord status with no problem. I think treasure card use should be capped at the player's level. For example, if a level 20 then the highest level treasure card that can be used is a level 20 spell. Another idea would be to severely reduce the number of cards that can be used in one match to say 3 and they don't get to be used again from reshuffle.

The PVP system is so out of whack with the ability of players to exploit the current mechanics that is a big joke.
So, you're saying that level 5s should be killing each other with fire elves and lightning bats? Heals heal quite a bit more than the damage of attacks at that level. This is exactly what kingsisle does not want. I remember seeing somewhere, probably on an update or something, that kingsisle did not want pvp to become a contest of who had the most resist and health. (Now it's a contest of who has the most critical, but that's not the point of the post) If this were to happen, than lower level matches would be a contest of who could tank the longest. I personally do not like that kind of matches, and I know that many of my friends agree with me.

Mastermind
Jan 23, 2011
318
Oran PixieSword on Dec 31, 2013 wrote:
OK, So.
Treasure cards should not be in PVP

1- Ranked PVP is as it says RANKED.
This should mean it is ranking you against other players to compare your wizard and how you use your wizards abilities that have been earned. Good Treasure Cards are not hard o get. You simply get them for free from a higher level friend or pay a small amount of god at the Bazaar.

2- Treasure Cards take away the strategy in the PVP match.
In a PVP match you are supposed to be able to plan ahead based on what has been used, what level or how much health they have, and many other things. But when a Treasure Card comes it can easily get through everything as if you never cast a single spell.

3- Treasure Cards are normally over powered.
My ice friend who was around my level. We were dueling a guy who's friend had left him and this guy was at half our level (about 25-30. we were about 50) He cast a single spell that attacked my ice friend. it got through his ice armor thing that was a hundred something absorb per pip (that he had almost full power pips that he used on it) his 50% off shield, and a Spirit Armor I cast on him (400 absorb) then it still killed him when he had at least 3000 health.
A level 25-30 should not be able t do this.

4- Part of the strategy in PVP is building your deck better then the other player.
If you use Treasure Cards all you need is armor that gives great power pip chance one o two traps or blades, and an over powered Treasure Card.
And if KI takes away tc then how will my lvl 15 ice overlord beat lvl 40s? I'm pretty sure that I can't bring my opponent's 2000+ health to zero with a bunch of evil snowmen before he heals the damage off. Tc does not take the strategy out of pvp. How you use the tc is strategy. For an example, two lvl 10 ice warlords vs each other. They both have tc, but one must win unless there is a draw which is very unlikely to happen. The player that won must be more skilled than the other. Last, for goodness sakes EVERYONE can use tc. Hopefully now you understand why tc should be kept in pvp.

Mastermind
Jan 23, 2011
318
Grump Warlord on Dec 30, 2013 wrote:
The use of treasure cards in PVP, in my opinion ruins PVP in this game. There is something seriously wrong a low level character can load up on high level treasure cards and beat players that are at significantly higher levels consistently and achieve warlord status with no problem. I think treasure card use should be capped at the player's level. For example, if a level 20 then the highest level treasure card that can be used is a level 20 spell. Another idea would be to severely reduce the number of cards that can be used in one match to say 3 and they don't get to be used again from reshuffle.

The PVP system is so out of whack with the ability of players to exploit the current mechanics that is a big joke.
Achieving the warlord status and maintaining it is not a breeze as you say. Even with the use of tc, low levels with high ranks still have trouble defeating their higher lvl opponent while keeping themselves alive. A lvl cap on tc isn't necessary. Please, just stop the complaining.

Archon
Sep 17, 2012
4118
Oran PixieSword on Dec 31, 2013 wrote:
In a boxing match a boxer Works out. it is his duty to work out both arms. If he uses a substance that greatly improves his natural ability or if he brought a hidden weapon, he can be banned, maybe even arrested.

Treasure cards are like that substance or weapon. It alters what would happen if it was done fair.

They should be banned from Ranked.
No, a banned substance or hidden weapon would be something OUTSIDE the rules. TC are available to all equally WITHIN the rules of the game. They do not make anyone more powerful, if anything they only level the playing field. If you want them banned, because lower level players can use them, fine. How about just do the opposite. All higher level players should be limited to the same gear as their lower level opponent, have the same pips, spells, mana, health and bonuses. That's more fair than banning TC, but I don't see anyone proposing that. You all claim to want more fair matches, but these limits and TC suggestions do exactly the opposite making things more unfair for everyone. If you get your way and TC are banned and stats are limited, all it will do for you is end PvP because no one will be left to play. Why should people start PvP at lower levels if they have no chance of competing? Why should they wait and start at higher levels only to compete with warlords who got in before the limits? Removing TC from ranked wouldn't solve any issues the PvP system has except remove all lower level players from play and make it impossible for anyone to ever get a match.

Survivor
Sep 01, 2013
3
In the boxing analogy, TC would be the equivalent of using performance enhancing items like steroids. To me PVP shouldn't be about who can farm/collect the better set of TC. It should about who has the better ability to develop a strategy based on the character's class and level.

Archon
Sep 17, 2012
4118
Grump Warlord on Jan 3, 2014 wrote:
In the boxing analogy, TC would be the equivalent of using performance enhancing items like steroids. To me PVP shouldn't be about who can farm/collect the better set of TC. It should about who has the better ability to develop a strategy based on the character's class and level.
Then you should both be exactly the same level, wearing exactly the same gear, with the same pets, carrying the same spells and in the same school... You want everything to be equal right? That's the only way to show that's it about skill right? TC are nothing like steroids, they are a tool in the game that EVERY level has equal access to. I personally only carry some reshuffles in my TC, but lower levels of high rank have no way to play without TC.

Mastermind
Jan 23, 2011
318
Grump Warlord on Jan 3, 2014 wrote:
In the boxing analogy, TC would be the equivalent of using performance enhancing items like steroids. To me PVP shouldn't be about who can farm/collect the better set of TC. It should about who has the better ability to develop a strategy based on the character's class and level.
Apparently you don't really know how pvp is for low lvl warlords. We almost NEVER get a fair match. You say pvp should be based on the character's lvl. Well all I've gotta say is that KI shouldn't be matching lvl 15 wizards with lvl 40s in ranked pvp no matter what the player's rank is. There needs to be a lvl cap in pvp. If KI doesn't fix it then tc must be kept. But to tell you the truth, tc is fair, it makes matches more interesting and should be kept anyway.