On the RPG 'Auto-Attack'

This thread is in the context of a traditional 'hotbar' RPG combat system, be it Single player, co-op/party based, or MMO, but feel free to discuss it in other senses as well. I wanted to get opinions on the design of the unit's standard attack. I am looking at three designs at the moment.

1. The traditional Auto-attack: Player clicks target, and as long as they are in range, they will continue to perform a basic attack on the target. The auto-attack can be toggled on or off. Other abilities are free to cast, though they will generally interrupt the attack.
   
   Implications: The player gets free damage based on build. The player focuses solely on ability casting. Can feel rather dull if abilities are not being chained.
   
   Example - World of Warcraft
   
   
   
2. The Manual 'Auto' attack: Requires the user to manually click, or hold down the mouse button, for each attack. The player generally has to wait for the attack to complete before casting other abilities.
   
   Implications: The player is constantly doing SOMETHING, even if it is clicking your basic attack. The player has more precision on how many attacks fly out at which targets. The player might find it tedious to spam a click to do essentially the same thing an auto attack does, and would rather focus on timing their ability casts.
   
   Example: Dragon Age: Inquisition
   
   
3. The 'Its just another ability' attack - The basic attack is placed on the hotbar, traditionally slot one, and is cast like any other ability. It generally triggers a GCD, though perhaps a shorter one.
   
   Implications - The player must weave in attacks with their abilities, making for more complicated rotations. The player gets zero free damage. Again, the player may feel that they are wasting their time and would rather focus on their flashier skills.
   
   Example - SW:TOR

As a player, what sort of design do you find most appealing, and why? And is there another approach I could take to this? I am curious on your thoughts.

 

It depends on your vision for the game. Do you want to favor strategy or tactics? If you want players to focus on building the best strategy and not worry about mundane tasks, then give them auto-attack. If you want them to focus on fast-paced decisions on a tactical level, then let them attack manually (or even block and evade manually).

I can tell you from my experience I've gotten bored with games that take the middle road. The old Final Fantasy games make you press a button for every attack. There are only so many elemental combinations you can play before you've figured them all out and it becomes boring. Final Fantasy XII had a controversial solution which I actually liked. They allowed you to completely automate the combat system by setting up Gambits on players. Even though 90% of the combat became automatic, I still enjoyed strategizing about the optimal gambit configuration to get the most loot or survive a boss battle.



On the other hand, some players prefer fast-paced action games. The Legend of Zelda series walked the line between traditional RPG and an action game. It had a storyline and quests like an RPG, but the combat was all real-time with tight controls. The controls were more simple to allow you to focus on timing your attacks, dodges and blocks. This type of game-play is arguably more "fun" than coming up with combat strategies, but it appeals to a different type of player.



Looking at these two examples, I think there is a trade-off between reaction-time and complexity. The more fast paced the game, the more simple it has to be.

 

There is also the system used by Diablo and Skyrim and the like. The player can equip one ability in each hand, and fire them with left and right clicks. The main effect this had was making you choose which abilities you carried equipped. Sure you could change them on the fly, but there was generally a time cost involved.

 

I think you mean, "MMORPG Auto-Attack, as popularized by EverQuest."

Most RPGs actually don't use Auto-Attacks; in the Dragon Quest franchise, you have to choose to attack. In the Final Fantasy franchise, you choose to attack. Most Atlus RPGs? Same. Tales series? Ditto, only you press a button and it happens like an action game.

I'd suggest actually playing more of the existing RPG literature out there, so that you can understand why auto-attacks even became a thing. I'd suggest starting with Final Fantasy I and Dragon Warrior I, for the best possible context. Luckily for you, I've been speedrunning Dragon Warrior I on the GameBoy Color, so you can experience that game stem-to-stern within two and a half hours.

 

Oh I have definitely played a large share of those RPGs with a variety of attack types - cases 2 and 3 both fall into the 'you have to manually activate your basic attack somehow' category, be it through a simple mouse click or as a hotbar ability. I appreciate that there are many ways to handle them. I just wanted to get opinions on what ways are more desirable, and why (Again, in the context of a hot-bar driven, real time combat system). It sounds like perhaps there is room for all manners of implementations.

Perhaps 'Basic attack in a hotbar driven ability system' would be a better title'.

 

To be completely honest, I think a better name would be, "On Basic Attacks in RPGs."

The reason, is your first list simply is not valid, because you approached the concept wrong - you were trying to pigeonhole all the different ways you've seen basic attacks in Eastern and Western RPGs into somehow being related to MMORPG auto-attacks, which isn't even a thing; Eastern RPG Attack commands specifically are not automatic at all, you have to manually issue the command; compare and contrast to the MMO context you established where you only have to issue the, 'go into combat mode against [insert enemy] and attack whenever you get within range.'

Your first list item fits the MMO criteria you seemed curious about at first. Your second and third item are the same thing presented two different ways, you just failed to recognize it. Manually selecting a command that won't execute from a list is no different than manually clicking an icon in a hotbar, to cause the command to happen.

TL;DR - You've conjured up a dilemma that doesn't actually exist. That's also why I told you to go replay all those games, it was obvious you weren't seeing the pattern. Hopefully this helps with that.

 

Another way to look at it is what do you really gain with an auto attack?
You mention free damage, but you good just as easily balance the game to avoid that. I'm not sure having the computer constantly do something actually enhances game play.

 

Perhaps you are correct. I am pigeonholing the basic attack concept into one of a couple ways, probably because I am approaching the idea from according to a specific game I am already developing. As many other concepts are fleshed out, my question is probably veering into 'how should I implement it in my game' rather than taking a step back. But then, that might be better answered in my case via a WIP thread with a web-demo. In the context of game design, the list I posted is rather narrow.

I can agree with this. For context, in running through playtests of a game of mine with a couple friends, one explicitly disliked the LACK of auto attack. I thought this was strange until I saw many complaints about the same thing in Dragon Age: Inquisition. I thought I'd look to see if anyone could give a convincing argument FOR the 'MMO' style autoattack.

 

You can put me in the "no auto attack" camp. If my character is going to do something I want it to be because I gave the order to do it.

 

If your game design requires the player to spam click multiple times per second, then implement an auto fire feature.

But this strikes me as different from most rpgs I have played. In general most basic enemies can be killed in a couple of hits, making the auto fire feature a bit redundant.

 

I really don't like having to spam a basic attack, in an MMORPG it makes sense to have an auto attack because of latency and number of user inputs. Some abilities in WoW add a modifier to your next auto attack which gives them a bit more of a purpose. Also the amount of time's I've lagged out and auto-attacks have killed the target for me puts me in the auto-attack boat

In a singleplayer or low-latency multiplayer game however, I prefer having to attack/dodge/block manually i.e. "Mount and Blade" and "Medieval Warfare" but they aren't really RPGs anyhow

 

OP, I think it depends on what the RPG focuses more on.

If the RPG has a lot of focus on timing of 'normal' attacks (like directional blocking in Mount&Blade, as Serinx mentioned) or the RPG is turn-based (Divinity: Original Sin), none of the auto-attack designs are relevant.

When the RPG is real time and is more focused on using special skills at the right time, where fights are populated with basic strikes and player-triggered use of abilities, the traditional auto-attack fits in well enough, especially because of latency.

However I think the manual auto-attack (the second one) with holding down the mouse button is neater, since in my opinion it makes special attacks feel less like micromanaging refreshing timers and more like.. Well, special moves/spells.

(And by the way, Serinx, Mount and Blade IS a RPG )

 

I don't favor auto-fire attacks as a general attack strategy, but it could play a role in a game depending on the game's mechanisms.

Auto-fire might be better used for support skills like buffs / debuffs - like heals - but then again, if the skill is best used on auto-fire, the dev could always modify it to naturally pulse as though it was on auto-fire, and the player toggles it on or off by themselves.

Personally, I don't feel any particular attraction or repulsion related to an auto-fire mechanism. It may be a bit hacky, but it's part of a player's meta game - how they play the game - and it can be good to develop that area a bit to add some optional complexity to the game.

 

It looks like I misunderstood your question. If you already have a working demo, then you should definitely listen to your playtesters. The way you phrased it, you're going to get a lot of general opinions that might not apply to your specific game.

I can think of 2 arguments for auto attack.

1. The complexity of the spell rotations is beginning to overwhelm your players. If this is happening, then you have to make a decision. (A) you can simplify your spell rotations like Skyrim did to allow their players to focus on timing their attacks. Or (B) you can give the players an auto-attack like WoW did so they can focus on more complex spell rotations.
2. Your players are just getting tired of pressing the attack button. If this is happening, it is NOT an indication you need auto-attack! It is an indication that your players are getting bored. You might consider adding more variety of spells and strategies to spice things up. The player should always feel slightly challenged.

If you want more specific advice, we would need to see the actual game. Can you post a demo?

 

BTW, if you want to see the most perfect auto-attack in history, check out Progress Quest. The video really starts to pick up around 2:00.

 

Thanks, this is a solid lead that I'll examine. I am not quite comfortable sharing the demo with the forums yet, as the setup is very ad hoc and I have players playing out of the editor while I continue to fill random holes - I'll likely post one in the WIP forum sometime later on.

 

As a "pro tip" (quotes because I'm not as pro as I'd like to be) I would suggest creating a Webplayer client, and interacting with your players as an admin through the editor for debugging reasons. This makes it significantly easier for the rest of us to look at what you've got and give feedback, but also for you to see the real interactions for debugging purposes.