Welcome to the Wizard101 Message Boards


Player Guide
Fansites
News
Game Updates
Help

Follow important game updates on Twitter @Wizard101 and @KI_Alerts, and Facebook!

By posting on the Wizard101 Message Boards you agree to the Code of Conduct.

Are you in favor of limits on PVP?

No, let us play as long as it takes!
47% [45]
Yes, I'd be in favor of a round limit (e.g. 20 rounds)
5% [5]
Yes, I'd be in favor of a time limit (e.g. 1 hour)
13% [13]
Yes, I'd be in favor of either a time or round limit.
33% [32]

Feedback Friday 4-12-13

1
AuthorMessage
Administrator
Hi folks! We're certainly seeing the April showers here, and I certainly hope they bring both May flowers, and also warmer weather! ::grin:: I can't be too sad, as Halston is very happy with the storms and Lydia is enjoying one last week of chilly weather, so I'll just look forward to next week's heat wave!

Enough about the weather, onto Feedback Friday!

This week, let's go back to PVP. A bit back, we asked the question of how long your matches take. To elaborate on that, we'd like to know if you'd be in favor or against some sort of time or round limit on these matches?

Vote on the poll, and feel free to chime in with your feedback below.

Have a fantastic Friday, and wonderful weekend everyone!

****

Standard disclaimer applies: We do not guarantee to use each and every idea submitted, and questions we pose may or may not be pertaining to things we are currently working on, or will ever undertake. Sometimes, there are just technical limitations that make changing things difficult to impossible, and though we possess all manner of magic wands here, there are technological beasts out there that are beyond our grasp. Sometimes, we may not feel it is within the spirit and vision of the spiral to add or change something. Also, we realize that some of these topics may have been addressed before in other threads - sometimes it's good to pick up a discussion again. Chances are I have read your threads and would like to hear more!

“If the Mind is like a candle, the Heart is like the sun.” Professor Falmea (aka Leah Ruben, your fearless Producer!)
Survivor
Apr 01, 2009
36
A few things:

- A time limit is implicitly a turn limit, since the cards select is a (mostly) fixed length and each spell's animation takes (mostly) the same amount of time to play. Each round of play takes same amount of time.

- A better approach to the problem might be to "up the ante" after a fixed time. The two causes for long play are healing boosts and high general resistance. Simply cast a "Doom & Gloom" a the start of each round after 30 minutes. Cast a pierce/accuracy aura on each player after 45 minutes. Cheating PvE bosses would be a good place to find this type of code.

- I would consider treating a game ending by turn/time limit to be a draw, with a small bias against whichever wizard went 1st.

Squire
Mar 07, 2011
520
I'm not in favor of strict time or round limit, but I do think it would be handy to have a "Mutual Draw" button for those matches where both players wish to withdraw from the match. Maybe the Mutual Draw button wouldn't show up until after an hour of play, so as to help avoid people figuring out a way to abuse it for points or tickets.

Here's another idea to help alleviate overly long matches: Have a neutral global bubble be automatically cast after a half hour or hour of play that boosts attack by 5-10%. This bubble would be separate from, and in addition to, bubbles that players use. Every half hour or hour, the bubble would be recast with an additionally 5-10% attack boost to all. Having a universal boost to attack as the match goes on would help to bring the match to a close in a more timely fashion, and possibly end the days of 4 hour long matches.

One last note regarding the Guardian Spirit spell, which is one of the main culprits for making PvP matches so long. It's a great spell, but my feeling is that if you kill someone five times, that's it, you are dead.

Survivor
Jul 02, 2011
16
No thanks(: I think we shouldnt add any limits or anything. Because most of the time, I enjoy the long and fun battles. (Especially when I get to have my fun of annoying people with life dispels and Earthquakes

Illuminator
Feb 24, 2009
1357
A time limit or round limit. Leaving it the way it is is basically handing the game to turtles.

Survivor
May 04, 2010
3
No.

I wouldn't like a round limit or time limit.
I'd rather just play as long as it takes

Although some are long, maybe they shouldn't get into such hard PVPs, that'd take a long time, right?

o.o So. I don't think it's a good idea for a round or time limit, but it's up to all the others who would or wouldn't. :D

Champion
Dec 01, 2011
495
Professor Falmea on Apr 12, 2013 wrote:
Hi folks! We're certainly seeing the April showers here, and I certainly hope they bring both May flowers, and also warmer weather! ::grin:: I can't be too sad, as Halston is very happy with the storms and Lydia is enjoying one last week of chilly weather, so I'll just look forward to next week's heat wave!

Enough about the weather, onto Feedback Friday!

This week, let's go back to PVP. A bit back, we asked the question of how long your matches take. To elaborate on that, we'd like to know if you'd be in favor or against some sort of time or round limit on these matches?

Vote on the poll, and feel free to chime in with your feedback below.

Have a fantastic Friday, and wonderful weekend everyone!

****

Standard disclaimer applies: We do not guarantee to use each and every idea submitted, and questions we pose may or may not be pertaining to things we are currently working on, or will ever undertake. Sometimes, there are just technical limitations that make changing things difficult to impossible, and though we possess all manner of magic wands here, there are technological beasts out there that are beyond our grasp. Sometimes, we may not feel it is within the spirit and vision of the spiral to add or change something. Also, we realize that some of these topics may have been addressed before in other threads - sometimes it's good to pick up a discussion again. Chances are I have read your threads and would like to hear more!
An Hour. Done.

I dont feel the need to explain why.

It is unfair for those who enjoy the real world as much as the virtual world wizard101 has presented to us.

The average Candian should NOT play more than 2 hours on the computer for weekdays and 6 hours for weekend. I am forced to play twice as much to finish Xibalba, Waterworks, Tower of the Helephant, and much more.

I have no idea of how it is in the US but I am fed up of this. Force us to play more and more to make us buy and buy is just plain "roberry."

Its not robbery, but just some addction to make money. If it goes on like this, I think I'll just cancel my one year membership.

Illuminator
Oct 22, 2011
1304
Honestly, it's hard to say. It would be nice if there was a round or time limit, but I can see advantages and disadvantages.

The big question is ...... if the limit is up, how does it end? A tie? And, if it's a tie, do both parties get something, or do they get nothing?

If there is a limit (time/rounds), then there should not be any rewards. This would encourage people to actually try to finish the battle before the limit to receive the reward(s), otherwise, teams would hang on as long as they could for the tie, knowing they would receive something at the end (either points and/or tickets).

An advantage to a limit is that it will seriously cut down matches, especially at the higher levels. I was watching a 3v3 match the other night with all level 90's, and it went on for MORE than 6 hours (seriously).

In this instance with limits, KI needs to think about every aspect of how people may cheat or glitch the system. Sorry, but it's a fact. We'd all like to think people play fair, but they don't, especially in PvP.

Archon
Feb 07, 2011
3175
yes, i'm in favour of a limit, at least for high-level pvp matches~ those can take hours, which anyone over the age of 5 probably doesn't have.

Survivor
Nov 26, 2008
37
2 hours max. That's it. A match shouldn't take a century. People have things to do so it's not fair as some people have LOADS of time on their hands. It takes time away from things. If a match goes on forever, a team mate will have to leave eventually to do other productive things in the real world. I say not to put a limit on reshuffle, but to grant the team that has the most health points the win. If its a tie when the limit is up (like QueQueg mentioned) then both times get granted the win (a draw) with the same reward. It's only fair. There should be a timer count down box that shows how much time we have to kill the other team. The box should be small. We should also have an option to hide this timer, as it may make some people nervous lol. But the timer will also allows us to form new strategies quicker as you are being timed of course.

Survivor
Jul 29, 2009
3
I'm in favor of it because I dont always have that much time.

Explorer
Mar 15, 2011
89
DerHundErste on Apr 12, 2013 wrote:
A few things:

- A time limit is implicitly a turn limit, since the cards select is a (mostly) fixed length and each spell's animation takes (mostly) the same amount of time to play. Each round of play takes same amount of time.

- A better approach to the problem might be to "up the ante" after a fixed time. The two causes for long play are healing boosts and high general resistance. Simply cast a "Doom & Gloom" a the start of each round after 30 minutes. Cast a pierce/accuracy aura on each player after 45 minutes. Cheating PvE bosses would be a good place to find this type of code.

- I would consider treating a game ending by turn/time limit to be a draw, with a small bias against whichever wizard went 1st.
I like the ideas. There is a problem with the system automatically casting Infallible on each player, though: Mainly, the Balance spell Super Nova and its aura removal component. How would that work?

Either:

1. Super Nova can no longer function, which is unacceptable to Balance.
2. Super Nova makes Balance overpowered with this dynamic. Because either
a) if the aura goes way, Balance's aura is still permanent
b) the aura would be such that it is not removable by Super Nova, thus unlimited potential for Balance to damage opponent with Super Nova, which is contrary to way the card is intended to function.

I'm not liking the way it might play out. Might have to do a raw stat bump with Pierce/Accuracy in that case.

You want to make PvP matches less time consuming, Falmea? 2 main things:

1. Damage cap of about around 50%
2. Heal boost cap anywhere from around 50-60%

Make that 73-80% ridiculous resist on the Jade Mystery Gear from the Keepers Lore impossible to wear in Ranked PvP. Gray 'em out at the Queue!

Survivor
Aug 13, 2009
13
I'd be happy with a match time limit, for sure. An hour or an hour and thirty minutes would be good, IMO, to ensure that people with limited play time still have access to fun pvp matches.

I think that a match running out of time should not result in any gain though, rank or tickets, for either player. I'd hope this would encourage people to build wizards/decks that are focused on winning matches in an efficient manner, rather than outlasting.

Survivor
Jun 07, 2010
4
While I do think limits have the potential to be abused, I'd prefer them over nothing and would accept any negatives that accompany them.

A few things I think would assist shorter match times:

1) As others have said, healing boost caps, moreso than resist caps. Resist can be overcome with a healthy dose of armor pierce, but heal boost is the near-insurmountable wall. It is extremely disheartening to spend 5-7 pips hitting your opponent for say 1,000 damage, for Fairy Friend to take advantage of heal boost and recover 1,000-1,200. For free, no pip loss or waste of a turn on their part.

May Cast Heals make it difficult to keep infection on, but even if they didn't, heal boost can negate whatever infection takes off. If we can restrain heal boost even somewhat, I believe matches will definitely become shorter.

2) If not restrain heal boost, increase healing suppression. Increase infections from 50% to maybe 60, if not more. Increase Doom and Gloom to 75%. Perhaps introduce negative star spell auras, like an "infection aura" that you can cast on the opponent for x amount of rounds. Just throwing ideas.

3) Improve offensive options. More spells that reward aggression would be fantastic. Maybe a death spell that leaves a 90% infection, like Efreet with weakness, or leaves multiple infections, like Gnomes leaves life dispels. Maybe a Storm spell with built in armor pierce for the effect.

I especially like 2 and 3, above number one, since I know KI has reservations about nerfing certain things. I think giving us more offensive tools that cut down resist and healing would be solid steps forward towards decreasing match times.

Squire
Mar 07, 2011
520
The example you give of a 20 round game limit confuses me. The deck I use holds 96 cards so having a 20 round game makes no sense at all. Since games often require a reshuffle, I don't see how you could make a round limit any less than 200 rounds.

It doesn't really matter. Implementing a time or round limit is going to eliminate a ton of players from PvP, including myself.

I'm still voting for a universal game bubble every half hour that increases attack by 5%, something like that. And a Mutual Draw button that appears after an hour of game play.

Survivor
Apr 01, 2009
36
Balance4all on Apr 14, 2013 wrote:
I like the ideas. There is a problem with the system automatically casting Infallible on each player, though: Mainly, the Balance spell Super Nova and its aura removal component. How would that work?

Either:

1. Super Nova can no longer function, which is unacceptable to Balance.
2. Super Nova makes Balance overpowered with this dynamic. Because either
a) if the aura goes way, Balance's aura is still permanent
b) the aura would be such that it is not removable by Super Nova, thus unlimited potential for Balance to damage opponent with Super Nova, which is contrary to way the card is intended to function.

I'm not liking the way it might play out. Might have to do a raw stat bump with Pierce/Accuracy in that case.

You want to make PvP matches less time consuming, Falmea? 2 main things:

1. Damage cap of about around 50%
2. Heal boost cap anywhere from around 50-60%

Make that 73-80% ridiculous resist on the Jade Mystery Gear from the Keepers Lore impossible to wear in Ranked PvP. Gray 'em out at the Queue!
I understand what you're saying about actually using auras. I'd actually suggesting baking the Pierce/Accuracy boost into the "ThunderDoom" bubble. So at 30minutes, cast an 80% Doom at the beginning of the round. At 45minutes, cast a "ThunderDoom" bubble that sets 80% heal reduction along with a big pierce/accuracy boost for everyone.

The key point is to decisively break the stalemates that happen, which are usually caused by "turtles" who hide behind the heal boosts and high general resists.

Explorer
Dec 22, 2008
61
I think it should be either one, but I voted for time since rounds seems a little too strict and could be abused (Ex: spamming black mantle, dispels until turns run out). I also think it varies on if you win/lose anything after x rounds or x hours.

Survivor
Mar 02, 2013
3
Hi, i'm one of those people who take pvp matches seriously. As an active and experienced player
i've been playing for a long time, pvp hardly last an hour if its 4v4 or 3v3. My point is, time-limit wont make that much of a thing but, i didn't mean its pointless.

My suggestion is, for the match time limit they should also include a null result. As in a real life time soccer or wrestling combat, if time runs-out with no match winner, its a tie. No bad sides on it

Defender
Jun 06, 2009
101
I would be in favor of having an option to impose a time limit, but am hesitant to flatline require one. I know it would be more engineering and more difficult to create the UI hooks, but giving people options rarely irritates them -- except to complain about what the default option is, of course. :-)

I think it would be lovely to be able to set a time limit on the match going in -- maybe even make it a parameter on the Create Game screen. By default it would be "No Limit", but if I know I only have two hours tonight I can specify that on my game. If nobody takes me up on it, better than being forced to lose points just because I had the misfortune of landing a match with someone whose strategy could include having 6 hours worth of patience and just waiting for me to log out.

I do think it would be handy to have a "Mutual Draw" button for those matches where both players wish to withdraw from the match.

I have always thought this would be a fantastic idea. Either player could offer a draw, and if accepted, neither score is adjusted. Especially since PvP doesn't score one point for a win like normal games, and a single loss can revert six or seven victories, the inability to walk away hampers the fun from time to time.

I've been in battles where we both figured there was no way to win. We were even chatting about it. But neither of us could afford the horrible cost of a loss. Since KI seems bent on making sure the scoring is skewed in this game, at least give two honorable players a way to admit neither side can win.

Sorry for the side trip.

Thanks for the poll.

- Stephen Earthmender
Life Wizard, Pixie Realm

Geographer
Feb 15, 2009
992
Add a round limit by all means, but more than 20. 50-75 is good. Then declare it a draw an neither player loses rank.

Champion
Aug 20, 2010
403
I am defiantly in favor of a certain time/round limit. Most of my matches are not really long, but there are some matches that seem to never end. This was mostly because of reshuffle, that could be used as many times as wanted, Test realm fixed this. But I think this is a way better solution.

Explorer
Jul 25, 2011
93
I'm 50-50 on a limit.I have to agree with what vonawesome stated.Same opinion.I just think that there should be...
A |a limit for high level PvP and none for low level PvP,or...
B |a setting to where you can have the PvP match timed.

Survivor
Jun 05, 2009
16
I voted no. However, I would be in favor of a timed duel, with some considerations. If the duel would go to time, give players 3 turns each to finish before calling the duel a draw. Getting no return would seem like a huge waste of time in that circumstance, so give each player some reward. Maybe a small ranking's boost, and split the tickets evenly between players. Since its 14 for wins and 4 for losses now, make it 9-9. If there was no incentive for drawing after reaching a designated play limit - then I'm still not in favor of a play limit.

Explorer
Mar 15, 2011
89
DerHundErste on Apr 15, 2013 wrote:
I understand what you're saying about actually using auras. I'd actually suggesting baking the Pierce/Accuracy boost into the "ThunderDoom" bubble. So at 30minutes, cast an 80% Doom at the beginning of the round. At 45minutes, cast a "ThunderDoom" bubble that sets 80% heal reduction along with a big pierce/accuracy boost for everyone.

The key point is to decisively break the stalemates that happen, which are usually caused by "turtles" who hide behind the heal boosts and high general resists.
Ah, that's cool. Would players be allowed to cast other Bubbles after the time frame is up? Will it stack with trained/treasure Doom? Wyldfire? ToL? power play? etc. etc.

The only issue I am seeing is with the Life school. Since healing is such a big part of what they do, it's a fairly decisive nerf on one of their key attributes. This translates to after 30 minutes particularly in 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 that the Rebirth spell becomes useless for Life wizards to cast? I don't know that that nerf is very acceptable to Life school. I understand this is brought on by excessive heal boost and turtles, but should a school that is already fairly low on the arena totem pole be made to suffer that? Something to think about anyway...

The only other remark I have is I can see people w/ first turn simply stalling people out for 30 minutes and waiting for the ThunderDoom to kick in and knocking somebody out. It generally is a neat idea, though, and I hate shooting it down so.

MODERATOR NOTE: In a previous post where I said "Damage cap approx. 50%," "Damage" was typo/mistake. I meant "Resist cap 50%" Arrrgggh!


Survivor
Apr 01, 2009
36
Balance4all on Apr 16, 2013 wrote:
Ah, that's cool. Would players be allowed to cast other Bubbles after the time frame is up? Will it stack with trained/treasure Doom? Wyldfire? ToL? power play? etc. etc.

The only issue I am seeing is with the Life school. Since healing is such a big part of what they do, it's a fairly decisive nerf on one of their key attributes. This translates to after 30 minutes particularly in 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 that the Rebirth spell becomes useless for Life wizards to cast? I don't know that that nerf is very acceptable to Life school. I understand this is brought on by excessive heal boost and turtles, but should a school that is already fairly low on the arena totem pole be made to suffer that? Something to think about anyway...

The only other remark I have is I can see people w/ first turn simply stalling people out for 30 minutes and waiting for the ThunderDoom to kick in and knocking somebody out. It generally is a neat idea, though, and I hate shooting it down so.

MODERATOR NOTE: In a previous post where I said "Damage cap approx. 50%," "Damage" was typo/mistake. I meant "Resist cap 50%" Arrrgggh!

I have played in teams before, which is why I'm suggesting to cast the "Thunder Doom" bubble at the beginning of the round after 30minutes and 45minutes. It allows the leading wizards of a team to change it during the round to something else, which would free a later wizard to cast the rebirth or other spells with the new benefits. It would be amazingly difficult to do this every turn, so the weight of the "Thunder Doom" bubble would be felt quickly over time.

As a side note, Rebirth under a doom gives you a handy spirit armor, which I have found very useful under doom. The armor protects the shields behind it, except against health draining death spells. "Thunder Doom" would certainly be a boost to death, but death has always been a tier 2 school along with storm and life.

1