In March 2011, Vitali Klitschko knocked out Odlanier Solis with one punch in round 1. The audience was enraged, people who had paid upwards of 70 euros for a seat said Klitschko cheated them for their money.

Do you think Klitschko didn't fight well? Why would you think you've been cheated? Think about it.

In March 2011, Vitali Klitschko knocked out Odlanier Solis with one punch in round 1. The audience was enraged, people who had paid upwards of 70 euros for a seat said Klitschko cheated them for their money.

Do you think Klitschko didn't fight well? Why would you think you've been cheated? Think about it.

I would've loved it. But then again that's boxing, not a game I play for fun.

There are several reasons why 1 button kills don't work in most pvp games, and that is there is no skill involved. Press the button and the opponent dies, I wouldn't even like it if I was the one winning one.

Then there are some games where 1 hit kills have to be a possibility, and thats FPS games, like Counter Strike, Call of Duty, Battlefield and the games like them.
Where a headshot kills everytime. But hitting a headshot every time requires great skills and is nothing like pressing a kill button.

You are oversimplifying the RPG angle. No game with one-shot kills is going to have a 'kill button' - that would be ridiculously lacking in fun.

If you have one-shot kills, then there needs to be in general a) a degree of skill involved (primarily aim and timing a la 'skill shot'), and b) the target must have a reasonable chance of evading/blocking/countering.

That's the whole point of this discussion.
OP is advertising that PVP should be the first one to fire wins the battle, at the same time he's trying to persuade us that there would be skill involved in this.
Which is ridiculous.

Go back and re-read the OP. I appreciate that he could have worded himself better, but if you pay attention, he always raised the possibility of evasion. From the topic poll:

[indent=1]"All attacks are dodgeable but you die in 1 hit"

He isn't advocating that the first one to fire win, he's advocating that the first one to fire, and not miss, and not be dodged/blocked/countered win the battle.

Wrong. He said "

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]

player skill relies only who jumps first on others"[/font]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]

While he said that B)(the tanky wow battle) Would require more skill.[/font]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]

In his later posts he added to A stuff like Evading/Blocking/etc which would increase the required skill, which is right.[/font]

Sure he changed it a little by dodge-able spells but didn't really explain how they were supposed to be dodged. Time to run away from a magic spell? Until I know how it's dodged I base my posts on the following statements:

"Since everything dies in 1 hit, you know that if someone attacks first you will instantly die, so you watch spell ranges,"
"player skill relies only who jumps first on others."
"Class imbalance doesnt matter because everything dies in 1hit."

I would like to know exactly how the attacks are supposed to be evaded. Is it by manually evading the spell by moving, or by protective spells like silencing spellcast, some protecting shied etc.
Adding stuff like that suddenly makes it require more than 1 attack to kill, which by itself is contradicting the 1 hit kill point.
Thus putting a game like that (from my standpoint) in the more than 1 attack to kill category.

You are the only person in this thread to say 'one attack to kill'. The discussion is about 'one hit to kill'.

That is, one successful attack (i.e. where your aim correctly accounted for the target's evasive movement, and your timing was sufficient to avoid wards and/or counters).

Yeah but we don't know the success rate, do we? And I'm not the only one. Second row in OP: "Whoever attacks first wins".
I might be translating that quite literally but, if it is as you say, aim included, the decks changed.

And already in post #2 I said "It fits well in games like Counter Strike and Call of Duty. Because there is aim involved."

I wouldn't call that the "first to attack", because your aim might suck, and you only hit the wall, so the more skilled of the players is victorious.

But how do you aim a fireball? With a target in the middle of the screen CS and battlefield style?
Is this fireball instant, or does it have a casting time? Does it take time to reach it's target or is it near instant hit?

So many factors need to be included to give a proper answer. Factors we dont currently have.

Thats why i split it into 2 basic categories.
1) 1 button, 1 attack, 1 hit. Dead.
2) More buttons, tactical combos, Hp / damage ratio.
And to me it doesnt matter if it's 2 attacks or 10 to fit in the 2nd category, take WoW (lvl 60 times) as example, a mage could combo the shit out of most classes with 3 near instant spells. And on some classes this just wasn't possible so another aproach had to be made. = skill.

The success rate is based on the player, 100% dodge if you can just move away.

"Whoever attacks first wins"
For example :
Nidalee fires a spear from behind the tree wall, the spear passes through the wall and hits the enemy who is behind the tree wall, the enemy dies instantly without having a chance to see the spear projectile.
Now instead of doing only 60% hp dmg (as in league of legends), it does 100% hp dmg to save you from "Wasting time". After nidalee fires her spear she is on cooldown for 6 seconds, you have to teleport to her and kill her in 1 sec.

Other spells e.g "Brand's fire pillar (delayed area effect attack after 1.5 sec - easily dodgeable) would only do like 30-50% hp damage since it is aoe. Stun skillshots would last 2-4 seconds, but while stunned you cannot move = u die in 0 sec.
Brand could kill you in 0 sec ( QWE ) if he manages to hit you with his spells. And he has his ult R that does 15-20% hp damage per jump, lets make it able to jump 10 times to punish players who stick near each other.