Welcome to the Wizard101 Message Boards

In June of 2020, the Wizard101Devs Twitter account issued a poll asking Twitter Wizards, " Blade/Trap stacking, aka alpha striking: Do you enjoy powering your way through the game this way, or do you prefer fights that require other strategies? Overall, does alpha striking feel good or feel bad?"

Over two thousand Twitter Wizards responded with just shy of 80% of them saying they preferred alpha striking. However, the important aspect that needs to be considered here is why? A quick glance at the comments on that twitter post will give you the answer: It's the fastest. Players are looking to progress through the content as quickly as possible. As KI_Ratbeard said in one of his streams, it's a "mad dash to the end." Why is that though? A number of reasons including getting access to the "newest" content, feeling "powerful" as the Twitter poll insinuated, and gaining access to end game systems such as PVP, Beastmoon, Deckathalon, Gardening and Pets (all of which can be done at earlier levels, but high level or Max players have a distinct advantage with (access to locations, gold, resources and time.)

PVP is enjoyed by many players (often vocal and/or competitive types), but that doesn't mean that they should dictate PVE. PVE players are also looking for a more exciting and interesting challenge while not having to deal with the competitive nature of player to player interactions. Both of these parties want to enjoy getting through the content and those that are strictly doing PVE so that they can get back to PVP want battles to be the "fastest"-strategies and guides are often cropping up about defeat this boss in X rounds. If the new Scion/Gambit spells come to PVE it will be a welcome addition to PVE players especially if there is PVE combat to utilize them. Have cheats and triggers that benefit everyone. Gatekeeping spells to PVP that are not exclusively PVP focus (like Solar Surge) doesn't make sense to me.

Imagine if you will this scenario: A boss in Khrysalis that is a mouse and has 130,000 health (or something ridiculous) He however is scared of elephants (a flip on the age old trope). If an Elephant/Oni Spell is used on the Mouse Boss, he panics and does damage on himself reducing his health by 25%. Imagine if the 4 wizards in battle use Hellephant or Doom Oni etc. they can knock him out in 2 Rounds, alternatively they can blade up and spend 5 rounds blading and such their hammer to have the boss get KO'd by a massive alpha strike. Having that option, to speed up combat using a different method, while still allowing alpha strike as a "passable" strategy I think is the way to go. However, the message that I hear from Devs (particularly Ratbeard recently) is this idea that players only want alpha-striking, when I don't believe that's the case. Players want what will win the battle the fastest, currently the only option that fits that bill is alpha-striking. The two ideas are becoming inflated and undermining the potential the game has to be a win-win-win for all parties. I worry that we will let the Competitor's outvoice the Explorers and Achievers just because interacts seem to come from the same echo-chamber of opinion at times.

Players do want more variety and strategy (nothing insanely difficult, but something more than casting the same 3 spells). What is the point of introducing new spells if you're just going to use the same Feint, Blade and Hit that you've used the last 30 levels? Spells can and should be situational in both PVP and PVE. It's just the competitors and others that are going for speed want to be done as soon as possible and alpha-striking is the only viable strategy currently. There needs to be incentives and room for alternative playstyles in a synergistic way for everyone.

Thank you for taking time to read this, that all being said, the new Scion/Gambit spells I do hope come to PVE, there just doesn't seem to be a reason to keep this mechanic to strictly for the Arena. There's such great potential for combos and other play (like in Beastmoon Monster Mayhem) that I don't think should be kept strictly to PVP only. The Achievers would love to add more spells to their collection and their always is that special feeling (small surge of dopamine) when you learn your next spell-regardless of PVP/PVE.

This is one of the reasons I like Pirate101, because it actually feels like a fight and not "can I get enough blades to nuke the enemy into oblivion before they kill the hitter."

The reason why alpha strike is so much more effective than everything else is because blades and traps multiply rather than add. In other words, each blade is more powerful than the last.

For example, let's say all blades are 100% instead of 35%. If I have 3 blades, that means my hit will deal 2^3x damage (because each 100% blade doubles the damage), or 8x damage. However, if I wait for a fourth blade, then my hit deals 2^4x damage, or 16, twice as much. That means that if 3 blades won't kill the target, I should wait for a fourth blade to be efficient, since otherwise I would have to hit twice with 3 blades to equal the damage, which takes more turns.

One fix would be to change blades to add instead of multiply, and reduce the HP of enemies across the board. This encourages more hitters, since more people hitting with fewer blades would actually do more than one person with all the blades. I'm not sure if this is a good fix, but it's certainly a shakeup.

See, again both responses indicate that alpha strike is currently preferred because it's what is the fastest strategy to defeat enemies.

TPG Miserie: You missed my point, my point was as you also point out in your post, "People always blade/feint before attacking because that is fastest way to win the battle. " That's exactly the problem. There is no variety to spells because it's always Feint, Blade, AOE Hit. It does not as the KI Twitter poll says, "feel good" to do the same strategy over an over-it "feels good" to win. My point is the idea of alpha striking being a preferred strategy is conflated with players want to win faster. You had some suggestions about new spells-they seem interesting and might be potential ideas. My idea about the mouse/oni combo again-was just so that there is some spell variety. I agree with you though, that the Gambit ideas are an excellent opportunity to incorporate new ideas into the game.

Robobot1747: You do bring up an interesting point about blades. I don't think that changing the blades to set amounts is the way to go as opposed to the percents just because of the level of work involved and how they have historically been percents. If you did, you'd outlevel blades just as you do with hits. That being said, that's why I think the secondary effects or the gambit or whatever needs to be something that justifies doing something over a blade. I wonder if spells that had a certain pip requirement, but didn't use the pips would be an option. So say a spell that is a 200% blade or a hit that requires 6 pips, but won't actually use it. Not sure, just an idea. Moral of the story: yes, 35% of 1000 is always going to be a draw, so I'm just wondering what other things could KI do to diversify the spells that actually get used-because what's the point of adding new spells if you have every spell you need at level 48.

John Hawkstone on Oct 30, 2021 wrote:

For main stories, alpha striking is prefered. If the fight will be a gear farming spot, the fight should include some strategy. If it will be a gear farming spot and only one boss (ex: Aberrant Paradox, Titan's Trident), then strategy should be a factor.

For side stories, strategy should be a factor where pure alpha striking can be stopped if you take too long (ex: Darkmoor Malistaire, Devourer, Grandfather Spider) unless boss has a lot of health. The final boss should have strategy being important.

For side quests, there should be a varying mix of both alpha striking and strategy.

For extra dungeons, the same scenario as side stories but the difficult is raised as usual.

If there was to be a pure strategy boss, it should be in a side story (Devourer) or a side quest (Jamburglar, Treemugger, RightJab/LeftHook/UpperCut).

I largely agree.

I think that defeating a boss should be possible using alpha striking, but that having to do other strategies should be more effective/faster, in the majority of scenarios.

Ye, I agree. I have said something similar in my post on school identity before the discussion on school identity was popular. Currently 2-3 blades carries you through like 90% of the content. The changes to schools are still not large enough.

1) every school can hit 150 damage and 55% resist without a single lose or cost. Schools with higher Hp will always do better in everything because 1% dmg is not equal to 1% resist. 90% resist will negate 90%, while a 90% boost will essentially only provide a 10% bonus.

The solution to damage problem you mention is simple. Go from percent based system to the point based system used for critical before.

Eg: attack does 100 damage. I have 100 damage rating, that makes my hit do 200 damage. My enemy has defence ratings of 80. My attack now does 120 damage. Aka he has 20% resist.

Now let’s say I have 30% pierce, that would be 120 + [120 +30]. My final attack does 150 damage.

Fixing the damage calculation therefore allows us to fix step 2: fixing blades.

Eg2: let us say 30% blade +50% blade. That would give me 80% from being addition similar to how was suggested. Which would take our hit to around 300 damage. This is much more fair.

… therefore I am more in agreement that making blades additive would work well if resist and damage where reworked. This would nerf our wizards considerably, but would make it more balanced. It would nerf all stalling strategies in both pvp and pve. This would encourage more active meta since you can no longer blade stack, you will die.

It forces a radical change from passive gameplay to active, because a wiz player with 90% resist and may cast heal pet can remain in a fight for a good 40-50 hours [theoretically] and never die.