Comments

• Esmee Member UncommonPosts: 5

  February 2016

  Although in the end you make a good point about how important going first is, and how it can easily determine victory or defeat, I unfortunately feel your rating scale is misguided and potentially causing misconceptions of the problem. The problem is inherent to the system and does NOT matter which TYPE of fight you are in. The difference I think you are making is purely the difficulty of the fight. If you are OP for the fight as in most mob fights, then it isn't a big deal, you'll still overcome. But step into a strong mob (e.g. Trying to solo a new area) and you will find first or second and a little good or bad luck, can mean life or death.
  As I noted in their feedback request, why isn't it at least random EVERY round? They created that battle triangle that spins as if they were originally going to make it random each round and you need to look at that triangle to know if you are 1st or 2nd each round, but then changed their mind. It still wouldn't be perfect and add more luck to the battle, but right now you are either lucky our unlucky 1 time at the beginning and that good or bad luck is repeated over and over again with no chance of it changing.
• Swordroll Member UncommonPosts: 5

  February 2016

  I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with the importance factors. Darkmoor is a huge step up only second to PvP, and many groups will actually restart the Shane battle until they go first.
  
  To Esmee's point, I think the rating of how important going first is in these different situations is still valid because although the system may be flawed, how important going first is would STILL be determined by the difficulty of your battle. So even if the rating is based on the battle difficulty, the importance is almost synonymous with regard to success.
  
  That said, there's certainly room for improvement, as both you (at the end) and Esmee note. Pirate does well by allowing players to take turns rather than go first or second, which I think might work in WIzard and is definitely effective across all playing fields.
• Elvoc Member RarePosts: 549

  February 2016

  I cant count how many battles of all types I have lost by not going first... It really seems like a Perk when it happens.
• Vrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,992

  February 2016 edited February 2016

  You could have just written: The more even a match is, the more likely it's going to be determined by who gets to attack first.

   
• VanessaMythdust Member UncommonPosts: 16

  February 2016

  
  

  Esmee said:

  
  

  Although in the end you make a good point about how important going first is, and how it can easily determine victory or defeat, I unfortunately feel your rating scale is misguided and potentially causing misconceptions of the problem. The problem is inherent to the system and does NOT matter which TYPE of fight you are in. The difference I think you are making is purely the difficulty of the fight. If you are OP for the fight as in most mob fights, then it isn't a big deal, you'll still overcome. But step into a strong mob (e.g. Trying to solo a new area) and you will find first or second and a little good or bad luck, can mean life or death.
  
  As I noted in their feedback request, why isn't it at least random EVERY round? They created that battle triangle that spins as if they were originally going to make it random each round and you need to look at that triangle to know if you are 1st or 2nd each round, but then changed their mind. It still wouldn't be perfect and add more luck to the battle, but right now you are either lucky our unlucky 1 time at the beginning and that good or bad luck is repeated over and over again with no chance of it changing.

  
  

  
  
  I agree with you that the problem is definitely inherent to the system. The purpose of my post wasn't to describe the flaws in the system, rather it was to illustrate in which scenarios the flaw would be most devastating.
• Neanderthal Member RarePosts: 1,861

  February 2016

  I think it was a couple of years ago now that  I suggested what I thought was a fairly simple solution to this for PvP duels.  Instead of one player getting to go first every round of a match either alternate who goes first each round or put in a priority system so that who casts first would depend on the type of spell being cast.  For example a defensive spell would have priority over an offensive spell so if player A is casting offensive and player B is casting defensive then player B would go first that round.

  I haven't played the game in a few years though so I don't really care anymore but this was one of the reasons I quit.  Not the only reason but one of the reasons.
• SomeHuman Member UncommonPosts: 560

  February 2016

  @Neanderthal You might be interested in Atlas Reactor: https://www.atlasreactorgame.com/en/
  It is round-based combat with simultaneous turns. After playing this way, I think I prefer someone having a first turn. If it is a well-made game, then you're up for a good play. Take chess for example; two evenly-matched opponents and someone goes first, but it is still a timeless game that is worthwhile and enjoyable. The key is the "evenly-matched" part. Play against somebody with no experience and you'll take them down in a few turns. So if going first leads to an upper-hand, I think it is a balance issue at the very least.
  

  Gaming since 1985; Online gaming since 1995; No End in Sight! My YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8POVoJ8fdOseuJ4U1ZX-oA
• Wizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332

  February 2016

  LOL
  Going first most certainly does matter and a LOT.
  Also a lot of those AI ideas like "cheats" are just a lazy way of creating challenging combat.We already have the spells in place,let's use them instead of creating cheats.Also if the mob is cheating by going first,then guess what "he is going FIRST" lmao.
  
  The other problem with the current structure is Wizards still only start with 4 pips max while some of these Bosses have 8 pips.SO you get all 4 possibly casting powerful spells having you VERY low and having to use your only 4 pips to heal,so now you have no pips next round while the Bosses still have 2/4/6 and then you add in criticals and your really in trouble,taking MANY rounds to try and stabilize.
  
  Really that is the whole combat in a nutshell,trying to stabilize so you can go on the offensive.Then of course to be mana efficient you MUST use buffs,so it ends up a very one dimensional type of combat.
  Buff+buff+attk....heal ...buff buff attk...rinse and repeat.Or if Boss goes first you may end up heal heal buff heal buff "stabilized" attk.

  Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
  
  
• Esmee Member UncommonPosts: 5

  February 2016

  @Vanessa, I realize that but your post is only relevant to high or max level wizards. I like how @Vrika summed it up.
  @Neanderthal, I think I read/contributed to that thread. Alternating turns is a good option (better than now) but gives the ability to plan for back to back hits. Although it will happen in random, it is harder to plan for it. I like your idea of based on spell type but may get complicated.
  @SomeHuman, I would LOVE to play you in chess using W101 mechanics and I go first. You write down your move BEFORE I go, then we move my piece and your piece. That wouldn't be a fun game. The point is that it is NOT about who goes first overall, it is about them going first EVERY round. If we didn't move until we saw the result from the other side, it would be much better. That is a solution for PvE (basically equivalent to you go first all the time in the present system since the AI isn't particularly smart), but having a 30sec timer for each side of a PvP would make already long matches insane. One possibility to implement that would be to allow you to start selecting/discarding while your opponent's spells are animating and then give less time (i.e. 10 secs) after the animation is done. That way you have time to discard, sharpen, enhance, draw TCs, etc... during the animation time and only need to select a spell afterwards. It would great to do that even now in the system as it is.
• Wizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332

  February 2016

  Bosses sometimes use back to back hits,like when they cheat followed by their actual turn,so why not have players do the same?
  The way it should work is player>player back n forth,not one whole side then the other whole side.This allows for any setup to work,solo or 2/3/4 players it still works the same.

  Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
  
  
• djrhia Member UncommonPosts: 1

  February 2016

  
  

  Wizardry said:

  
  

  Bosses sometimes use back to back hits,like when they cheat followed by their actual turn,so why not have players do the same?
  
  The way it should work is player>player back n forth,not one whole side then the other whole side.This allows for any setup to work,solo or 2/3/4 players it still works the same.

  
  

  
  
  yes but if we did we'd be no better than the bosses and the games do try to teach us to be better than those whom would take advantage of us. A good leasson I believe.
  
• VanessaMythdust Member UncommonPosts: 16

  February 2016 edited February 2016

  @Esmee The only portion of my post that would only be relevant to high level wizards is the Darkmoor part. Having soloed the entire game minus a few big instances such as The Rat or Tower of the Helephant, I made sure to write this article with all levels in mind. Although the turn based system can make a big difference in every battle (especially lower levels as you said), in most cases you can still be successful. When going second in a new area where the bosses and mobs were significantly more powerful than me, I made sure to adjust accordingly. In Celestia, I healed a round earlier than I would have if I went first. Going second may make it harder for lower level wizards, but completing a battle from second is not impossible. In Darkmoor and PvP, that's not the case. Going second in either of those scenarios can potentially lead directly to a defeat.
  
  As Swordroll mentioned in his comment, some people will even flee and return until they go first in the Shane Von Shane fight. That really says something about the first round advantage there compared to other areas.
  
  I agree with you and Vrika that the more evenly matched a battle is, the more essential it is that you go first. But there is a big difference between having a more challenging fight from second (which in most cases can still be won) and needing to flee a battle until you're first because it makes that much of an impact. Every battle will be easier from first. I just think that you feel the effects in some situations more than others.
  
  I think the idea you mentioned earlier about having the first team alternate each round would be a great one. I'm happy that Kingsisle asked this question and hope something comes out of it.

  Post edited by VanessaMythdust on February 2016
• SomeHuman Member UncommonPosts: 560

  February 2016

  @Esmee I think that WOULD be a pretty awesome game of chess. I'm sure that's probably already a thing. Reminds me of when my friend and I would play on an imaginary board with imaginary pieces. We'd get nine or ten moves in and be totally lost, but it was good fun. I see your point about W101, though.

  Gaming since 1985; Online gaming since 1995; No End in Sight! My YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8POVoJ8fdOseuJ4U1ZX-oA