So yeah, I've given up on the space pirate game, since people didn't really seem that interested in it.
Anywho, I've been messing around in BYOND, and I was wondering how this style of battling would sound to you all -
Instead of the "click attack verb/macro attack" or random battles, what about auto attack? Example:
You click on an enemy to target it. You have a set range you can attack based on your weapons length. Now, if that target is within said range, you can initiate a battle. But, instead of you macroing an attack, your character attacks on their own, attacking every few seconds(determined by variables such as how much the weapon weighs, your strength, health, stamina, speed and agility). This would leave you free to tell your character when to use spells or items, so you don't sit there and get hit over and over again while looking for that potion or ether in your sack.
So, what do you guys think?
Yes, no, lolhaxx? Suggestions, ideas, boot to the head?
ID:34442
 Sep 1 2007, 9:46 pm
|
|
|
Sep 1 2007, 9:58 pm
|
|
Cinnom
  |
I think it's pretty nice. It works really well for a fast-paced battle system, since you can manage things like movement and equipment/items more easily during battle.
|
I dunno... This sort of thing seems pretty popular (I see it mentioned quite often), but it strikes me as one step down from macroing... I mean, you're not even doing any work for this one (other than following your target around to keep within range)...lol At least with a macro, the player has to hit a key...lol
I guess it does open up the ability to use other abilities (items, equipment, spells, special attacks, etc.) with the "tedious" hacking & slashing grunt work being automatically handled for you, but I still feel like it's one step away from actually playing, and winds up more like directing... But hey, that's just me... | |
i personally hate all mmorpgs that have automated attacking, but that includes a lot of games.
I agree with SSGX | |
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
I dunno... This sort of thing seems pretty popular (I see it mentioned quite often), but it strikes me as one step down from macroing... I mean, you're not even doing any work for this one (other than following your target around to keep within range)...lol At least with a macro, the player has to hit a key...lol For a simple action game where attacking is one of the few things you can do, I'd agree that auto-attacking doesn't have much use. But for a game with more variety, such as special attacks, items, spells, etc (like you said), putting in automation doesn't take anything away from the player - it allows them to do much more with the game, and takes out a lot of the boring, tedious stuff. And I don't even see the problem with calling it "directing." Not sure if you're up and up on strategy and RPGs, but in those genres, directing is playing. FF12 puts the idea of automation to great use with gambits. Not only can you automate attacking, but you can set it up to handle just about anything - casting buffs, raising allies, curing, etc. I don't know if you've played it, but I can tell you that this really great game would be rather long, boring, and tedious if they didn't put gambits in. So, if running up and macroing is pretty much the only thing a battle system offers, then there's obviously no reason to put automation in for that (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this type of game either - Red Cap pretty much breaks down to running up and attacking, with each character having maybe one special ability, and I love that game). If a game offers more strategic elements (and a lot of them), automation will allow the player to make better use of those elements. | |
Not the space pirate game :( I luv'd it.
| |
I would think that there would be better ways to direct creative energy than deciding whether or not to make your attacks automated. Would the battle system by itself be too boring by "just pressing the attack button"? I don't see how automating it would be any better.
For example, I wouldn't want to play a version of Ocarina of Time where Link would autoattack when I'm not using a bomb or something. An action game should be engaging enough to not require autoattack in the first place (or else the gameplay just plain sucks). In a turn-based one, if you think you need an autoattack function then maybe your game just isn't difficult enough. I think the reason why autoattacking in MMOs are common is because it's one less thing to worry about as far as latency is concerned. Your character is still barely functioning even if your responses are delayed. Dead Demon didn't specify this being for an online game or not, though. | |
Cinnom wrote:
FF12 puts the idea of automation to great use with gambits. DBEO puts auto-attacking to great use as well. I'm sure you already knew that though. =D That reminds me, what's going on with it? Is v3 being worked on? I can careless if it comes out 5 years from now, just wondering if you are working on it here and there. DBEO is the only reason I come back to check on BYOND. You should probably host v2 at least. =/ | |
Sarm wrote:
I would think that there would be better ways to direct creative energy than deciding whether or not to make your attacks automated. Would the battle system by itself be too boring by "just pressing the attack button"? I don't see how automating it would be any better. I thought about auto-attacking in a game I will never complete on BYOND, when I saw that while you macro'd an attack, if you wanted to move or something, you would have to stop macroing and move. Similarily, if you wanted to cast a spell or fetch an item out of your bag, you'd have to stop macroing and search your mana pool/sack for the item while trying to run away from the enemy. I dunno, I thought it'd be useful. TM The Ultimate wrote: Not the space pirate game :( I luv'd it. My inspiration hast been rekindled. Thank you, kind sir(s). | |