Wizards Underwhelming in Multi-player

I believe Time4Pizza asserted that wizards are naturally weaker defensively and are therefore going to be the first target, putting the wizard-bringing player at a disadvantage due to being short a character.

The obvious counter to this argument being that although wizards have lower health and less armor options, they are hardly a free kill.

 

Um... as Wozarg said, what I said I said in all sincerity. I understand the belief that "removing an opponents character is a huge advantage." I just don't personally believe that to be true.

The connection dear Wozarg has to a wizards power. Which in this instance is a wizards survivability, or perceived survivability; and its correlation to the wizards playability.

 

Well this is a storm in a teacup.
Every class and every card has a usage, limited only by your inventiveness.

Knowing lance. He is being factual

 

Are you saying that you were somehow better off for bringing only 2 characters than you would have been had you brought 3?

I may just be missing something, but I believe that having the extra cards and options that a third character brings is always a benefit. On that premise, you could say that being limited to two characters is a disadvantage over bringing three, the difference here being that you intentionally disadvantaged yourself because you knew you would still have an advantage over your opponent due to card pool and skill.

So being down a character is a disadvantage not necessarily to your opponent, but compared to the alternative of having all three characters.

 

Not better off. Here is my thought on the subject. By limiting my options it forces me to play more effectively and strategically than I would normally. Which to me makes playing a character down no worse off than playing a full party.

 

Why does it force you to play better? Because you know are at a disadvantage so you have to bring your A game or lose.

You could theoretically force yourself to play with that same level of intensity with a full party, but you don't need to. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and I understand why you do it, but you should realize that you basically just said that you intentionally put yourself at a disadvantage.

 

Why don't you just play at maximum effectiveness and strategy all the time? Why do you wait until your opponent has killed one of your guys? And even then, is the difference between your "normal" level of strategy and "maximum" level of strategy really better than 2 cards per turn?

 

I could rant on the subject; but I find sufficeth to say this: It's physiological. In addition to playing better in that particular battle than I normally would, it allows me to better handle the loss of a character and not become shaken when one of them falls in battle. It's like strength training for me.

 

We get it, you're very good at mp and you can win easily with only 2 characters. I am sincerely very impressed, but think of it this way. You are training like a baseball player who swings a weighted bat before batting, or a runner who practices with weights on their ankles. When the weight is removed, you perform better then you would have after training normally. Putting yourself at an intentional disadvantage to perform better under normal circumstances. Even if the runner trains so hard that they run faster with weights on than they did before training, they should still run even faster once the weights are off.

The fact that you can now perform about as well with 2 characters as you did with three does not mean it isn't a disadvantage, it's because it is a disadvantage, and you should now perform even better with a full party. I don't know what your 2 man composition is, but my guess is it's two mages. Let's try to bring this back around to the original conversation heheh. Let's say you start bringing a third mage and continue to play with the same intensity as you became accustomed to when 2-manning it. Would you not be at a considerable advantage, compared to the smaller party?

To bring it even closer to the wizard discussion, lets say lance practices with a two man team composed of only warriors or priests. He practices until he can very easily succeed in mp with this team. Now he decides to start bringing a single wizard in addition to his normal party. Lance, being accustomed to making the most of each character and keeping them alive, I believe would do quite a bit better than he did with the two man party. The wizard, far from being dead weight or an easy kill would be able to use his utilities and range to make the destruction of the enemy party much more efficient.

Sorry if I am beating a dead horse here, I am enjoying this conversation.

 

"Absolutely." -Lance

Don't get me wrong I understand and believe that it is an advantage. My point was that it isn't a "huge advantage." It should also be noted that playing a character down necessitates that in MP either your opponent kill all of your character and/or score at least 2 VP location points in order to win. Which drastically changes the feel of the game.

But this thread isn't about the loss of a character or playing without a full three person party. This thread is about wizards being viewed as "underwhelming." Which I feel the consensus is that it is not the case. Wizards like all of the other classes are balanced, and it is about how you play them which determines their value.

 

No, it depends on how many good cards you buy

 

You...can't buy cards?

 

No... no what? No, the classes aren't balanced? I'm confused.

I believe he is referring to using irl to buy pizza, and then pizza to buy chests. Otherwise, I'm not sure... I'm confused.

 

It is not at all uncommon for players in collectable games to assume when they are faced with an opponent using much more powerful cards than they have, that their opponent must have paid money to get those cards. I personally have only a fraction of the cards that many MP players do, but even just casting one cone of cold has caused some people to claim I bought my way to victory during matches.

Lance is a great case in point that in this game, it is not only possible to compete without spending money on cards, but it is possible to get right to the top.

Forlorn maybe you should focus more on playing the game than making posts insinuating that the only way to have good cards is to buy them.

 

http://www.cardhunter.com/forum/threads/new-video-blog-how-to-build-a-ninja-deck.2414/#post-25517
So, without buying items players are more than capable of being competitive.

 

Denial is a strange thing... you guys act like I didn't get this item from card club the other day Wym's Lavastaff

or this one: Asmod's Telekinetic Chain
or this one: Vira's Shoes
or this: Bubbling Wand
or this: Cleansing Diamond
or this: Ravenna's Incense

 

And you act like all the legendary items found in normal loot don't exist at all... so yes denial is a strange thing.

Try looking at the lists of items Lance has on his builds, there are many excellent items in there, acquired just by playing.

*edit - i personally have 4 of those cards you added to your list, and i am complete free to play

 

The slight validity to this if we ignore the whole p2w whine is that wizards tend to be weaker without a bit more exotic gear and i do agree on that. But at the same time they go up in power at a faster pace than the other classes if you get this gear. This is not referring to full legendary just that most non rare staffs are meh and a lot of rare and up staffs are very awesome. I personally have a few turn 1 wins with my all fire wizard team for example and i think i used one legendary on that team and it was hardly needed. So wizards are definitely not underwhelming as much as they might very likely be harder to utilize than a move in and stab until stuff dies warrior.

 

Wizards are not underwhelming in multiplayer even with only one.

Any character no matter race or class will be weaker when you are just starting out and you don't have a lot of gear options(finish the campaign and play through quests or buy some chest. At the end of the day it wont matter; You will still want more gear). Warriors without those heavy damage swings of 10+ are just like wizards with no utility and no range.

Really what is most important is how your three decks work together, not which one has the highest damage cards.

I personally play with a balanced party because it gives me a lot of flexibility to account for all scenarios. My wizard is just as important to me as my warrior. He gives me the ability to zone and control large spaces of the board as well as contributing significant damage; Especially with demonic buffs from my priest. Unholy Wellspring is insanely powerful on a wizard ready to go off. Also, a warrior just can't spew acid all over the victory tiles.

 

If you use Battlefield Training or Advanced Battlefield Training they can! But stand alone you are correct.

I agree though, that Wizards are not underwhelming in MP. Furthermore, I submit that no one race or class is underwhelming in MP or SP for that matter.