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.

We need dispel shields, and fix stun spamming

1
AuthorMessage
Explorer
Mar 29, 2010
84
Dispel spamming is waaaaay too rampant now. KI needs to introduce dispel shields like they did stun shields. Let them work the same way; zero pips and you get two dispel shields. I go first 34% of the time (last tested this with 240 matches) and now I often get dispelled the max number of times possible. There has got to be a better defense against dispels, PLEASE!

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1618
Or you can carry lower pip spells and not have to worry about falling for the same trick every time..?

Defender
Jan 27, 2012
195
There is, just load your deck with low pip spells if you dont like being dispelled. Or dont pvp, thats what I do. its way too corrupt for me nowadays.

Mastermind
Nov 19, 2014
365
MrFlin t on Jul 23, 2015 wrote:
Dispel spamming is waaaaay too rampant now. KI needs to introduce dispel shields like they did stun shields. Let them work the same way; zero pips and you get two dispel shields. I go first 34% of the time (last tested this with 240 matches) and now I often get dispelled the max number of times possible. There has got to be a better defense against dispels, PLEASE!
I agree (dispel spam annoying) but why have cleanse for to use but yes (dispel shield good idea which will work)

but don't think won't help because myth spell of: Pierce, Shatter, Earthquake unless make dispel shield immune to remove to all myth remove shield spell clued for ice (only remove dispel shield with only dispel to remove dispel shield)

here idea (fix pvp) or remove treasure card from ranking pvp

pirate101 just getting there rank pvp on there test realms (they have treasure card) but treasure card more name call: Doubloons (doesn't seem fair) they banned doubloon from ranking pvp from pirate101 test realms!

that want been asking for remove treasure card from wizard101 ranking pvp (wish fix pvp) keep people from raging pvp

(refix pvp) chance add new rules setting for wizard101

rank pvp I would choice (different set) rank

(New Title For Rank PVP different play) people fair play (good idea remove combat order chance it) add something better!

Explorer
Mar 29, 2010
84
PvP King on Jul 24, 2015 wrote:
Or you can carry lower pip spells and not have to worry about falling for the same trick every time..?
What kind of a response is this?!? All I use is low pip spells in pvp, how does that solve the dispel problem??? Using a dispel in many ways does more than a stun does; it can make your turn obsolete PLUS you lose pips. There should be a dispel shield function just like for stuns.

If a player is second, there's no way to get around dispels like this response suggests, I'm really not even sure how this response was allowed because its purpose was to be condescending. How does a person going second 'fall for the same trick every time' when they get chain dispelled???

The only reason to not think dispel shields are a good idea is because that player themselves is using chain dispelling. When you're first against your own school, it's a 99% win rate which I get that some people enjoy, but come on is that what pvp is going to be now? Buh-bye chain stunning (still a problem of course) and hello dispel spamming?

Another idea to maybe help balance the who-goes-first problem: give the player going second automatically one dispel shield.

Astrologist
Dec 26, 2013
1129
MrFlin t on Jul 23, 2015 wrote:
Dispel spamming is waaaaay too rampant now. KI needs to introduce dispel shields like they did stun shields. Let them work the same way; zero pips and you get two dispel shields. I go first 34% of the time (last tested this with 240 matches) and now I often get dispelled the max number of times possible. There has got to be a better defense against dispels, PLEASE!
You already have a dispel defense... it's your own school dispel spell. If someone's dispelling you then they're using a spell from your school to do it. So beat them to it and hit them first with your school dispel. Because of power pips it's going to cost them more pips than it will cost you. If you come out of the box with your school's dispel it could conceivably cost your opponent the equivalent of 8 pips to cast a dispel on you... 2 (possible) power pips to clear the dispel you cast on them and then 2 (possible) power pips to cast the dispel on you.

Explorer
Mar 29, 2010
84
TucsonWizard on Jul 24, 2015 wrote:
You already have a dispel defense... it's your own school dispel spell. If someone's dispelling you then they're using a spell from your school to do it. So beat them to it and hit them first with your school dispel. Because of power pips it's going to cost them more pips than it will cost you. If you come out of the box with your school's dispel it could conceivably cost your opponent the equivalent of 8 pips to cast a dispel on you... 2 (possible) power pips to clear the dispel you cast on them and then 2 (possible) power pips to cast the dispel on you.
'Beat them to it'?? How does a person going second 'beat' the player going first exactly? And of course I'm mainly referring to same school dispel spamming, we all know it's not worth the pips (usually) if it's not your school and you don't have a mastery amulet on.

Again, dispels are like stuns, only more powerful especially if going first. We need dispel shields.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1618
MrFlin t on Jul 24, 2015 wrote:
What kind of a response is this?!? All I use is low pip spells in pvp, how does that solve the dispel problem??? Using a dispel in many ways does more than a stun does; it can make your turn obsolete PLUS you lose pips. There should be a dispel shield function just like for stuns.

If a player is second, there's no way to get around dispels like this response suggests, I'm really not even sure how this response was allowed because its purpose was to be condescending. How does a person going second 'fall for the same trick every time' when they get chain dispelled???

The only reason to not think dispel shields are a good idea is because that player themselves is using chain dispelling. When you're first against your own school, it's a 99% win rate which I get that some people enjoy, but come on is that what pvp is going to be now? Buh-bye chain stunning (still a problem of course) and hello dispel spamming?

Another idea to maybe help balance the who-goes-first problem: give the player going second automatically one dispel shield.
It was a legitimate response. Using low pip spells (0-2 pip spells) makes you undispellable, if somebody dispels you, you lose nothing, your opponent's pips are stabilized, and you gain a pip. A "dispel shield" would do nothing but make anybody in Shrike mode extremely overpowered, as one of two ways to counter Shadow Shrike is to use dispels.

"If a player is second, there's no way to get around dispels like this response suggests,"


No, you do not "get around" the dispels, but you may use low pip spells and avoid dropping your pips into a dispel, until you yourself can dispel your opponent and attack freely. Dispel spam is a terrible strategy from even first if you play in this style.

"The only reason to not think dispel shields are a good idea is because that player themselves is using chain dispelling. When you're first against your own school, it's a 99% win rate-"
Okay, what? So because I don't want to be absolutely defenseless when a Balance wizard uses a Shrike or when somebody decides to go offensive and I want to counter to be able to survive, I'm a dispel spammer? Ok. And no, if you really think that going first has that much of an edge in PvP just because somebody spams dispels, I highly advise you watch my matches once in a while.
Like I said, constantly using dispels will get you nowhere in a match. Your opponent 99% of the time will be gaining pips if they have any sort of minor experience in PvP, your pips will be kept low, and when you run out of dispels and need to Reshuffle, you're left with absolutely no pressure on your opponent, and you're nearly defenseless. Another side effect is that you're losing cards while your opponent is not, which ends up with you Reshuffling 2x faster than your opponent, and while you Reshuffle, your opponent has an extra turn to do whatever they want, as you leave no pressure when you Reshuffle.

Explorer
Mar 29, 2010
84
PvP King on Jul 24, 2015 wrote:
It was a legitimate response. Using low pip spells (0-2 pip spells) makes you undispellable, if somebody dispels you, you lose nothing, your opponent's pips are stabilized, and you gain a pip. A "dispel shield" would do nothing but make anybody in Shrike mode extremely overpowered, as one of two ways to counter Shadow Shrike is to use dispels.

"If a player is second, there's no way to get around dispels like this response suggests,"


No, you do not "get around" the dispels, but you may use low pip spells and avoid dropping your pips into a dispel, until you yourself can dispel your opponent and attack freely. Dispel spam is a terrible strategy from even first if you play in this style.

"The only reason to not think dispel shields are a good idea is because that player themselves is using chain dispelling. When you're first against your own school, it's a 99% win rate-"
Okay, what? So because I don't want to be absolutely defenseless when a Balance wizard uses a Shrike or when somebody decides to go offensive and I want to counter to be able to survive, I'm a dispel spammer? Ok. And no, if you really think that going first has that much of an edge in PvP just because somebody spams dispels, I highly advise you watch my matches once in a while.
Like I said, constantly using dispels will get you nowhere in a match. Your opponent 99% of the time will be gaining pips if they have any sort of minor experience in PvP, your pips will be kept low, and when you run out of dispels and need to Reshuffle, you're left with absolutely no pressure on your opponent, and you're nearly defenseless. Another side effect is that you're losing cards while your opponent is not, which ends up with you Reshuffling 2x faster than your opponent, and while you Reshuffle, your opponent has an extra turn to do whatever they want, as you leave no pressure when you Reshuffle.
Sorry but you're not living in reality. I'm not going to argue when you're pretending; I know how the game mechanics work and currently what's being done in pvp. You can write all you want to try to show how smart you are, but anyone reading these posts knows what I'm talking about.

If you don't think dispels are a problem, fine. I do, and so do the vast majority of people TRYING to play this game.

Just like if you don't think 122% resist is a problem, fine.

Just like if you don't think guardian spirit is a problem, fine.

Just like if you don't think bad juju (even if they made it non-enchantable) or Mana Burn is a problem, fine.

But most people do, and they go walking with their money. PVP is in the worst state it has ever been in for both balance and player participation. If you don't believe that, fine.

Dispel shields would help make not going first not quite so daunting.

I'd like KI to show us what percentage of wins are from people going first; I bet it's over 80%. That's a problem. If you don't care, fine.

"So because I don't want to be absolutely defenseless when a Balance wizard uses a Shrike or when somebody decides to go offensive and I want to counter to be able to survive, I'm a dispel spammer?"

No one ever said anything like this, this is a great example of what you're doing. And you continue to ignore the whole first-vs-second element of the game.

If you think 6 hour matches is okay, fine. But for people with real-world responsibilities, it is not.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1618
MrFlin t on Jul 27, 2015 wrote:
Sorry but you're not living in reality. I'm not going to argue when you're pretending; I know how the game mechanics work and currently what's being done in pvp. You can write all you want to try to show how smart you are, but anyone reading these posts knows what I'm talking about.

If you don't think dispels are a problem, fine. I do, and so do the vast majority of people TRYING to play this game.

Just like if you don't think 122% resist is a problem, fine.

Just like if you don't think guardian spirit is a problem, fine.

Just like if you don't think bad juju (even if they made it non-enchantable) or Mana Burn is a problem, fine.

But most people do, and they go walking with their money. PVP is in the worst state it has ever been in for both balance and player participation. If you don't believe that, fine.

Dispel shields would help make not going first not quite so daunting.

I'd like KI to show us what percentage of wins are from people going first; I bet it's over 80%. That's a problem. If you don't care, fine.

"So because I don't want to be absolutely defenseless when a Balance wizard uses a Shrike or when somebody decides to go offensive and I want to counter to be able to survive, I'm a dispel spammer?"

No one ever said anything like this, this is a great example of what you're doing. And you continue to ignore the whole first-vs-second element of the game.

If you think 6 hour matches is okay, fine. But for people with real-world responsibilities, it is not.
So when people receive advice from other players, they ignore it. When other players tell them why something isn't the way they think it is, they get angry and make disrespectful assumptions. Let's take this backwards.

"If you think 6 hour matches is okay, fine. But for people with real-world responsibilities, it is not."
Who said I played for 6 hours in one match? Who said I don't have real-world responsibilities? If a match against somebody who spams dispels or against somebody with immunity takes you 6 hours, you're obviously doing something wrong. For me, the match can range 15 minutes to about an hour, depending on how early on I find my set of cards, and I'll explain below.
Yes, people who go first win more, obviously, but almost every game runs like this. You play Pokemon, one of the Pokemon goes first and is blind to the other Pokemon's move. There is a reason that Wizard101 adopted something called a TURN BASED BATTLE STYLE. If you don't like it, then Wizard101 probably isn't your type of game.
"Dispel shields would make not going first not quite so daunting."
No, a dispel shield will completely destroy anybody who is going second because they would have almost no counter to Shrike. The opponent will have to wait until you dispel from second, take it off, then you have no survival option, and then they can take you out.
Dispels are a problem? Since when? At Grandmaster PvP, dispels are needed as Life would probably be undefeatable. At Exalted, dispels are needed to fight your own school from second.
Bad Juju isn't a problem as I've stated here.
Mana Burn is a problem? Lol! Since when? Guardian Spirit? Really? So because you don't carry Doom and Gloom, it's officially a problem?
No, immunity is not a problem, as many people have said in various other posts. If you don't use Dark Nova + Shrike, that is your problem, don't complain about it.

Explorer
Mar 29, 2010
84
Stun shields did not break the game, dispel shields will not break the game.

Explorer
Mar 29, 2010
84
A turn-based game is not the same as a 'who-goes-first game'. Turn-based means moves are limited to distinct blocks of time.

Who-goes-first allows one player the chance at an extra turn. It is possible to have a turn-based system where both players are allowed to execute their turn, treating each player's decision as happening in real time, and at the end of the round (when both players have had their turn) a winner is decided or you move to the next turn.

Mastermind
Nov 19, 2014
365
MrFlin t on Jul 28, 2015 wrote:
Stun shields did not break the game, dispel shields will not break the game.
I think need remove battle order (keep people from telling what school they are) use that figure out what school we are!

Mastermind
Nov 19, 2014
365
PvP King on Jul 28, 2015 wrote:
So when people receive advice from other players, they ignore it. When other players tell them why something isn't the way they think it is, they get angry and make disrespectful assumptions. Let's take this backwards.

"If you think 6 hour matches is okay, fine. But for people with real-world responsibilities, it is not."
Who said I played for 6 hours in one match? Who said I don't have real-world responsibilities? If a match against somebody who spams dispels or against somebody with immunity takes you 6 hours, you're obviously doing something wrong. For me, the match can range 15 minutes to about an hour, depending on how early on I find my set of cards, and I'll explain below.
Yes, people who go first win more, obviously, but almost every game runs like this. You play Pokemon, one of the Pokemon goes first and is blind to the other Pokemon's move. There is a reason that Wizard101 adopted something called a TURN BASED BATTLE STYLE. If you don't like it, then Wizard101 probably isn't your type of game.
"Dispel shields would make not going first not quite so daunting."
No, a dispel shield will completely destroy anybody who is going second because they would have almost no counter to Shrike. The opponent will have to wait until you dispel from second, take it off, then you have no survival option, and then they can take you out.
Dispels are a problem? Since when? At Grandmaster PvP, dispels are needed as Life would probably be undefeatable. At Exalted, dispels are needed to fight your own school from second.
Bad Juju isn't a problem as I've stated here.
Mana Burn is a problem? Lol! Since when? Guardian Spirit? Really? So because you don't carry Doom and Gloom, it's officially a problem?
No, immunity is not a problem, as many people have said in various other posts. If you don't use Dark Nova + Shrike, that is your problem, don't complain about it.
about defense of shadow shrike (give more resist as thing of shadow shrike but defense type!

Mastermind
Nov 19, 2014
365
MrFlin t on Jul 28, 2015 wrote:
A turn-based game is not the same as a 'who-goes-first game'. Turn-based means moves are limited to distinct blocks of time.

Who-goes-first allows one player the chance at an extra turn. It is possible to have a turn-based system where both players are allowed to execute their turn, treating each player's decision as happening in real time, and at the end of the round (when both players have had their turn) a winner is decided or you move to the next turn.
I agree (easy win pvp with immunity if go first) did so, many time on ice wizard (able pull off clued with ice immunity) hard to beat win have ice immunity (make hard because steal shield) won't be much trouble if made ice more to myth!

best match so, far with immunity on ice wizard was because I only ice wizard have Immunity To

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1618
MrFlin t on Jul 28, 2015 wrote:
Stun shields did not break the game, dispel shields will not break the game.
Stun shields didn't break the game because stuns cost 0 pips and literally left the wizard with nothing to use. With a dispel, somebody could just use a 0 pip spell to take it off, defend themselves with an off school spell, or use Cleanse Charm to take it off. Stun Block was added because stuns are inexpensive and somebody could easily stun until they get pips to attack, then continue off with stunning again. Dispels, however, cost pips, and therefore serve no purpose if your opponent uses a 0-2 pip spell.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1618
MrFlin t on Jul 28, 2015 wrote:
A turn-based game is not the same as a 'who-goes-first game'. Turn-based means moves are limited to distinct blocks of time.

Who-goes-first allows one player the chance at an extra turn. It is possible to have a turn-based system where both players are allowed to execute their turn, treating each player's decision as happening in real time, and at the end of the round (when both players have had their turn) a winner is decided or you move to the next turn.
Any turn based game still has one player going first. Tic tac toe, for example, has one player reacting to the opponent's move right after the opponent makes their move. One player is still going first. In games like Pokemon, one Pokemon is going first and the other one is blind to the opponent's moves. KI decided that Wizard101 will use the same play style and have the player going 2nd to predict the opponent's moves rather than knowing what's going on. Just because some players feel like it isn't right, they won't change how the game entirely functions.

Astrologist
Dec 26, 2013
1129
MrFlin t on Jul 23, 2015 wrote:
Dispel spamming is waaaaay too rampant now. KI needs to introduce dispel shields like they did stun shields. Let them work the same way; zero pips and you get two dispel shields. I go first 34% of the time (last tested this with 240 matches) and now I often get dispelled the max number of times possible. There has got to be a better defense against dispels, PLEASE!
I'm curious... what school would a dispel shield spell be? Are you proposing a dispel shield for every possible dispel spell or simply a universal dispel shield? Wouldn't casting this shield BEFORE you get dispelled take the same turn time as casting a zero pip spell AFTER you've been dispelled?
A universal dispel shield would be completely overpowered if it gave you one shield, and you're proposing two - for zero pips! Stun shield is a completely different animal because stun is not a function of school affiliation. Stun in itself is universal where dispel is school specific.

Geographer
Aug 28, 2010
957
PvP King on Jul 28, 2015 wrote:
Any turn based game still has one player going first. Tic tac toe, for example, has one player reacting to the opponent's move right after the opponent makes their move. One player is still going first. In games like Pokemon, one Pokemon is going first and the other one is blind to the opponent's moves. KI decided that Wizard101 will use the same play style and have the player going 2nd to predict the opponent's moves rather than knowing what's going on. Just because some players feel like it isn't right, they won't change how the game entirely functions.
PvP King,

Your most likely correct, I doubt that they will every change it. However, when 99% of the
Players have been screaming about this one item, over and over, you would think someone
would listen. I have seen hundreds and hundreds of postings started on this over the years,
not just on this board, but four other boards that I use to post on.

Removing the first turn advantage would help with so many problems, one being dispels.
Second would be the fustration of being blind over and over, when you get stuck second.
The list doesn't stop there, as I'm sure you know....

Having someone go first is not the issue, it's the second player that has to guess.
Remember how hard it was when you first started. Yes, after a few years of playing you
can pretty well determine how good the other player is by their mistakes or play style.
You can pretty well guess if you will win or lose the match before it's half way
over.

For you and I, it's not a problem, but for the average warlord it is. For those that
start and give up and never make it to 900 or 1200 or higher, it's very real.
Keep the first turn advantage in PVE, but change it for PVP. They have pet interrupts,
they have Boss interrupts, they have changed the PvP code over and over.

How hard would it be to actually delay a new Pack, Tournament, plant or some other new
item, and just change the code in PVP. I would bet that any good programmer could take
the current code and have a new turned based PvP in a week. You know that,,, KI has a
good group of Programmers that could do this, pronto, if told to do so.

KI could do this, they just need to be convinced that
we really want it and it would help bring players back to PvP.
I think it would, and I think it's needed for all levels of PvP.
On 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 the sequence they go in needs to be changed too.

I have never supported the first turn advantage, and never will in this game.
For some games, it doesn't really matter, in this game it does.

Mastermind
Nov 19, 2014
365
PvP King on Jul 28, 2015 wrote:
Any turn based game still has one player going first. Tic tac toe, for example, has one player reacting to the opponent's move right after the opponent makes their move. One player is still going first. In games like Pokemon, one Pokemon is going first and the other one is blind to the opponent's moves. KI decided that Wizard101 will use the same play style and have the player going 2nd to predict the opponent's moves rather than knowing what's going on. Just because some players feel like it isn't right, they won't change how the game entirely functions.
I think need ravenwood dice for ranking pvp (go first)

here mine idea of ravenwood dice:
---------------------------------------------
storm: get dice: with school of:

ice: get dice: with school of:

fire: get dice: with school of:

myth: get dice: with school of:

life: get dice: with school of:

death: get dice: with school of:

balance: get dice: with school of:

Bonus Dice: 1st Team: Red (red for sun) & 2nd Team: Blue (Sword for Blue) (Write Twice) extra two: Flag Standard
-------------------------------
Flag Standard Means:

(everyone Have Guardian Spirit) keep there guardian spirit longest without getting spirit guardian destroy (win) win won't count destroy school that you hate (not hit more then once) using AoE only allow to use once (not use again with same school last person attack with AoE) means for example: 2 storm 2 glowbug really to go (what ever school cast second AoE get a penalty) lose percent of Guardian Spirit , Do not have a Guardian Spirit up STILL breaking double AoE rules ,One spell card be randomness SHATTER! mean: USE AOE once & once only until different school cast there AoE and then get use AoE again (choice wisely with AoE who Want Attack First With AoE) team choice (Also Not Use Battle Order) get guardian spirit to own school (be already use in pvp) means get extra life to all school!
-------------------
Dice Rules:

who ever most school win on dice win get go first:

all school 6 chance to win the roll:
all school have dice of own school (some dice of your school will not have your school)

rules: all 8 dice: so, do not want to roll 8 dice: a flag standard PvP)

example:

4v4 ice,ice,storm,storm vs fire,death,life,myth

roll all 8 dice (do not want 8 dice roll a: flag standard) dice said:

roll: 2ice/3storm/1fire/2myth/3death/5life/6balance (said: life is winner:) bonus dice said: sun spot but sun spot is: ice (others team get it) if they have life wizard on there team!

Delver
Jul 15, 2011
290
MrFlin t on Jul 27, 2015 wrote:
Sorry but you're not living in reality. I'm not going to argue when you're pretending; I know how the game mechanics work and currently what's being done in pvp. You can write all you want to try to show how smart you are, but anyone reading these posts knows what I'm talking about.

If you don't think dispels are a problem, fine. I do, and so do the vast majority of people TRYING to play this game.

Just like if you don't think 122% resist is a problem, fine.

Just like if you don't think guardian spirit is a problem, fine.

Just like if you don't think bad juju (even if they made it non-enchantable) or Mana Burn is a problem, fine.

But most people do, and they go walking with their money. PVP is in the worst state it has ever been in for both balance and player participation. If you don't believe that, fine.

Dispel shields would help make not going first not quite so daunting.

I'd like KI to show us what percentage of wins are from people going first; I bet it's over 80%. That's a problem. If you don't care, fine.

"So because I don't want to be absolutely defenseless when a Balance wizard uses a Shrike or when somebody decides to go offensive and I want to counter to be able to survive, I'm a dispel spammer?"

No one ever said anything like this, this is a great example of what you're doing. And you continue to ignore the whole first-vs-second element of the game.

If you think 6 hour matches is okay, fine. But for people with real-world responsibilities, it is not.
What's wrong with Bad JuJu and Mana Burn?

Delver
Jul 15, 2011
290
MrFlin t on Jul 28, 2015 wrote:
A turn-based game is not the same as a 'who-goes-first game'. Turn-based means moves are limited to distinct blocks of time.

Who-goes-first allows one player the chance at an extra turn. It is possible to have a turn-based system where both players are allowed to execute their turn, treating each player's decision as happening in real time, and at the end of the round (when both players have had their turn) a winner is decided or you move to the next turn.
Who's on first, what's on second and I don't know's on third.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1618
Veracity8 on Jul 29, 2015 wrote:
PvP King,

Your most likely correct, I doubt that they will every change it. However, when 99% of the
Players have been screaming about this one item, over and over, you would think someone
would listen. I have seen hundreds and hundreds of postings started on this over the years,
not just on this board, but four other boards that I use to post on.

Removing the first turn advantage would help with so many problems, one being dispels.
Second would be the fustration of being blind over and over, when you get stuck second.
The list doesn't stop there, as I'm sure you know....

Having someone go first is not the issue, it's the second player that has to guess.
Remember how hard it was when you first started. Yes, after a few years of playing you
can pretty well determine how good the other player is by their mistakes or play style.
You can pretty well guess if you will win or lose the match before it's half way
over.

For you and I, it's not a problem, but for the average warlord it is. For those that
start and give up and never make it to 900 or 1200 or higher, it's very real.
Keep the first turn advantage in PVE, but change it for PVP. They have pet interrupts,
they have Boss interrupts, they have changed the PvP code over and over.

How hard would it be to actually delay a new Pack, Tournament, plant or some other new
item, and just change the code in PVP. I would bet that any good programmer could take
the current code and have a new turned based PvP in a week. You know that,,, KI has a
good group of Programmers that could do this, pronto, if told to do so.

KI could do this, they just need to be convinced that
we really want it and it would help bring players back to PvP.
I think it would, and I think it's needed for all levels of PvP.
On 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 the sequence they go in needs to be changed too.

I have never supported the first turn advantage, and never will in this game.
For some games, it doesn't really matter, in this game it does.
Since the largest complaint about dispel spamming is going 2nd, I believe that talking about addressing the first turn advantage won't be considered "hijacking a post," so I'll continue on with this discussion. Though I agree that going second for a newer or less advanced player is difficult, I still believe that the turn system was designed right in Wizard101, it's just the meta we're in that kills it. Back in the "Golden Age" through Azteca the first turn advantage wasn't as potent, as many people could react to things, and critical block percentages were more than often higher than critical percentages. Not every single turn mattered, a stun usually didn't mean you're dead, and Black Mantles didn't decide the fate of the match on the last turn. Back then, you could destroy blades for a high pip cost, heal off attacks, take your time on removing debuffs, and you basically had time to take control.

This meta, you have almost none of that. Not many people in Exalted PvP will try to control the match, only 2 schools carry reliable heals, if you're second, an unexpected critical ruins the entire match, and you're forced to make the most out of all your attacks. This is what max level PvP has come to. Earlier when people could heal without worrying about losing 9% block rating, there was room for mistakes and time for recovery. If KI simply brings this back, which it's needed to for a very long time, the first turn advantage would be fair and the player going second could slowly take control of the match and then win.

Armiger
Mar 18, 2009
2490
TucsonWizard on Jul 29, 2015 wrote:
I'm curious... what school would a dispel shield spell be? Are you proposing a dispel shield for every possible dispel spell or simply a universal dispel shield? Wouldn't casting this shield BEFORE you get dispelled take the same turn time as casting a zero pip spell AFTER you've been dispelled?
A universal dispel shield would be completely overpowered if it gave you one shield, and you're proposing two - for zero pips! Stun shield is a completely different animal because stun is not a function of school affiliation. Stun in itself is universal where dispel is school specific.
This.

Comparing Stun shields to dispels is comparing apples to oranges.

Astrologist
Dec 26, 2013
1129
Tatiana Winterhear... on Jul 30, 2015 wrote:
Who's on first, what's on second and I don't know's on third.
Right.

1