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.

Idea to balance PvP! Add speed rate to cards!

AuthorMessage
Survivor
Apr 05, 2010
25
It has come to my attention for several years now that PvP gets increasingly less balanced. This is due to the fact that the wizard(s) going first have a huge advantage. Allow me to elaborate:

- The wizards going first have a plain sight of the field. Because they cannot be suprised by a sudden bad juju (-90% damage death spell) or a sudden tower shield. They are also much less vunerable to spells like beguile.

- They can easily spam accuracy debuff spells like smoke screen to prevent the wizards going second from attacking at all. (using a normal and tc smokescreen stacks the effects resulting in a maximum accuracy of 25% for the wizards going second, this can be done continously)

But how can we fix this unbalanced pvp situation where the wizards going first hold all the cards?

The answer is very simple apply a certain speed rate to cards, preferably the lower the pip cost of the card the faster the card is. What will this mean in practice? Let me put it into a 1v1 perspective:

1) The wizard going first casts a storm lord (7 pips), the wizard going second casts a tower shield (0 pips). The tower shield is faster and will be cast before the storm lord.

2) The wizard going first cast a fortify aura (0 pips), the wizard going second casts a weakness (0 pips). The aura will be cast before the weakness cause of equal speed value the wizard going first casts first.

3) The wizard going first casts a tempest (x pips), the wizard going second casts an efreet (8 pips). The efreet will be cast first, x pips spells will always be the slowest spells.

4) the wizard going first casts a ghoul (2 pips), the wizard going second casts a leprechaun (2 pips). The wizard going first attacks first due to same amount of speed of both cards.

Finally a 2v2 perspective example:

1) Team going first cast a stun block (0 pips) and a tempest (x pip), team going second cast a virulent plague (3 pips) and a smoke screen (1 pip). In this case the stun block will be cast first. Then the smoke screen followed up by the virulent plague and then the tempest will be cast.

What will these changes bring us?

- This will remove the major advantage of the wizard going first in PvP.
- It will improve the depth of pvp since mindless spamming wont directly give you the tactical advantage.

What will it not bring?

- These changes are only to be applied in PvP, PvE will remain the same and wont be effected.

This threat is open to as much responds as you like, positive or negative. Thank you for reading and I am looking forward to meeting you in the spiral.

With kind regards,

Noah Shadowweaver level 100

Defender
Sep 09, 2011
105
Hi

Reading this at first confused me but at end i got your idea i understand what you try to say
i am glad you wrote it i would not know where to start lol.

Idea can be controled its basic math 0 fast and first 10 is slow and last i can imagine it go smooth in pvp
but some will have struggle to adapt after few days mixing of pvp and pve but for some that do pvp almost each day can be great i agree with this idea but we need to ask ourself can KI make it possible? Will it be separate
ranked and practice?
Its new view to pvp it doesn't have who goes first or second as long you count numbers on cards lol.
Its worth of try but we will see maybe some day who knows we dont hold keys of development xD.

Keep up Noah.

Survivor
Jul 31, 2011
18
Yea....no,

1. X is at the front of your card deck for a reason, it has no rank, so it should always attack first.
2. This wouldn't be tactical, it would be based on timing and luck.
3. You can win if you go 2nd, I go second all the time with my buddy Ryan, and we still win, why? He casts Sandstorm and I tempest, best combo ever.

The real way to "fix" PvP would be to get rid of PvP armor, and make a separate arena for PvP Warlords to battle, instead of putting them in with the rest of us.

Defender
Aug 25, 2013
147
Charlie Dragondust on May 1, 2014 wrote:
Yea....no,

1. X is at the front of your card deck for a reason, it has no rank, so it should always attack first.
2. This wouldn't be tactical, it would be based on timing and luck.
3. You can win if you go 2nd, I go second all the time with my buddy Ryan, and we still win, why? He casts Sandstorm and I tempest, best combo ever.

The real way to "fix" PvP would be to get rid of PvP armor, and make a separate arena for PvP Warlords to battle, instead of putting them in with the rest of us.
Yes and no.

I don't agree with the original post. That wouldn't "balance" pvp it would ruin it. Turn based games have always been strategic and always been at the disadvantage of those who go 2nd.

But I pride myself on being able to predict what my opponent is gonna do on the turn they do it (in 4v4 I can't tell you how many times I've used "Rebirth" when one or 2 of my team members have died, and the others are on death's door) because (especially in 4v4) the main way to go is to use AOEs and hit everyone at once.

I'm gonna assume the person who posted the original messages struggles in pvp and thinks this would solve it, but truth be told it wouldn't. Then every storm who casts tempest over and over would win, cause it's only 1 pip. Simple as that.

As for warlords getting their own arena, I have a problem with that. I'm not a warlord but I have seen in pvp the areas they have weakness and that's critical block. They are not "overpowered" in any way. They have earned their rank and shouldn't be forced to game with "others of their kind" I don't believe warlords have to be feared I view them as a challenge and in high level pvp the title "warlord" almost means nothing since the creation of shadow shrike.

Keep pvp the way it is. That's all I have to say on the matter.

-The RavenCatcher

100956360

Survivor
Apr 05, 2010
25
Sokad on May 1, 2014 wrote:
Yes and no.

I don't agree with the original post. That wouldn't "balance" pvp it would ruin it. Turn based games have always been strategic and always been at the disadvantage of those who go 2nd.

But I pride myself on being able to predict what my opponent is gonna do on the turn they do it (in 4v4 I can't tell you how many times I've used "Rebirth" when one or 2 of my team members have died, and the others are on death's door) because (especially in 4v4) the main way to go is to use AOEs and hit everyone at once.

I'm gonna assume the person who posted the original messages struggles in pvp and thinks this would solve it, but truth be told it wouldn't. Then every storm who casts tempest over and over would win, cause it's only 1 pip. Simple as that.

As for warlords getting their own arena, I have a problem with that. I'm not a warlord but I have seen in pvp the areas they have weakness and that's critical block. They are not "overpowered" in any way. They have earned their rank and shouldn't be forced to game with "others of their kind" I don't believe warlords have to be feared I view them as a challenge and in high level pvp the title "warlord" almost means nothing since the creation of shadow shrike.

Keep pvp the way it is. That's all I have to say on the matter.

-The RavenCatcher

100956360
I have warlords at level 100, wrong assumption. PvPed for a very long time mate, thats why I made this post GG

Defender
Sep 09, 2011
105
I dont see strategy lets say storm with one pip for tempest yes its fast but tower shield is 0 pips so basicly you want to protect your strategy because tower shield would be faster for tempest so that storm can spam its easy with storm but that high critical and add some tempest and bolt i sure would like to have shield on right?
I would just stand there while his bolt or tempest hit and i jaust cast 2 shields and its fair of course i wonna live to win thats why storm wizards call me Tc spammer or Shield spammer you know what i am proud on that cause no matter what pierce they got they still have little health and i got loads of storm shields just in case they go with spam. I know they do that cause i let one kill me just to see if he gonna play strategy but nope they laugh and say you bad at pvp sounds fair? Or that they keep calling you shield spammer cause in this idea shields go first not tempest each and single round right? Cause we all know how much with 92 damage and 400 critical and 30 pierce can do to us right? I can even correct myself maybe 600 critical in close future lol. I had chance to feel for just one round how Kraken spell with colossal and no block did to me yesterday trough shield but i still heal and shield and i still defeat that guy going second or first cause its easy i just know they will attack each round i shield and i wait my chance . Peace.

Astrologist
Aug 20, 2011
1077
I agree with Myth Jedi. This "speed edit" would unintentionally encourage spam behaviors since those cards are "faster." It would also make it very difficult to play "slower" cards effectively.

However, I like that you came up with an out-of-the-box solution, the first-second dilemma continues to be a problem that needs all the creativity we can throw at it.

My old thread is locked now, but I suggested a turn-changing spell. https://www.wizard101.com/forum/the-dorms/spell-to-change-who-goes-first-in-duels-8ad6a415407c1977014088784f986826

Survivor
Jan 13, 2014
14
Why not alternate who goes first in PVP? Round one, one person goes first, round two, the other guy does. I have never been the one to go first in a pvp battle, and coincidentally, my record is garbage, so i stopped doing pvp all together.

Survivor
Dec 05, 2009
11
This idea is brilliant! It would definitely resolve (almost) all of the first vs. second issues. KI could play around with the speed hierarchy, depending on whether they want everyone to have the first turn advantage or the second turn disadvantage. This idea could even be added to PvE too.

One minor edit though: I think that attacks with side effects and attacks without side effects should be put into separate groups.

-Gimikk