ID:1903207
 

Poll: Which would you prefer:

Auto-Attack 35% (10)
Attack-Macro 64% (18)

Login to vote.

Auto-Attack: Whenever you are within 2 tiles of your target your character will auto-attack them between cooldowns. This allows you to focus on your skills/abilities, while doing a little extra damage and showing continuous combat.

Attack Macro: You press a pre-defined macro and if your within range of your target, you'll attack them. This of course is manual.

EDIT: Side question, will having Auto-Attack cause too much CPU Usage?
Easterpink wrote:
EDIT: Side question, will having Auto-Attack cause too much CPU Usage?

I just released a demo recently that handles targeting enemies extremely efficiently. All you have to do is Attack(currentTarget).

Found here: http://www.byond.com/developer/RedHallDev/AutoTargeting

Which do I prefer? It depends on the type of game. For example Runescape has the Auto-Attack mechanic but it's easy to target enemies. On BYOND clicking a small box is not always easy.

What kind of game is this for?
@ Zecronious

I'll definitely check that out. Also, you'll be able to target enemies by either clicking or pressing the predefined macro for auto-target.

It's for a action/adventure type game.

EDIT: Just checked out your demo. What if I wanted to focus on a single target, I'm not sure I would personally like my target switching up like that just if someone else gets closer.
If you just want to just stay on a single target then that's much more simple and you don't need my demo.

A quick post in Dev Help would probably get you the code.

It will likely involve .Click()
Ehhhh... Macros are useful when you're not using truly repetitive actions, usually better used in action games in which it might be necessary to switch targets rapidly. First person shooters come to mind. Since no one is going to be standing still waiting for attacks to go through, a macro doesn't make sense because you'd just be pressing that macro over and over again. On the other hand, in a game where you're standing still kicking the other guy in the shins for some time, an auto attack is beautiful because you can just let it run and when whoever has the weaker shins crumbles you can move on.

So really, I guess it comes down to this. Is your game the type of game which requires many buttons to be pressed in combat as people duck and weave? Or is it "we'll stand still and kick each other in the shins until one of us keels over"?
stupid question

it just depends on the game

in something like a WoW or dota styled control scheme auto attacking is obviously superior, but auto attacking has no place in a game like street fighter or zelda
In response to Yut Put
I think the question isn't so bad but it's wording is.

Could be better said as this possibly: Do you prefer games that handle combat for you or where you launch each attack yourself?
In response to Yut Put
Yut Put wrote:
stupid question

it just depends on the game

in something like a WoW or dota styled control scheme auto attacking is obviously superior, but auto attacking has no place in a game like street fighter or zelda

Take that shit somewhere else homie. It's not a stupid question for someone new to game design and game development in general.
In response to Easterpink
He's not exactly wrong. Maybe a dick about it, but not wrong.

EDIT: accidentally a word
In response to Doohl
Doohl wrote:
He's exactly wrong. Maybe a dick about it, but not wrong.

He's wrong.. maybe a dick.. but not wrong... What?
For someone who doesn't know anything about game development, I fail to see how me asking a question about something pertaining to it makes it a stupid question.
Sorry, I meant to say he's NOT exactly wrong*

oops.
In response to Doohl
Doohl wrote:
Sorry, I meant to say he's NOT exactly wrong*

oops.

Too late, it's done. There's no going back. You have irreversably changed our course. This thread is fecked.

In response to Zecronious
Zecronious wrote:
Doohl wrote:
Sorry, I meant to say he's NOT exactly wrong*

oops.

Too late, it's done. There's no going back. You have irreversably changed our course. This thread is fecked.


Quick how many horse pictures will it take to get this one on track again?!
Regardless, I have the answer I was looking for. Thanks to all that participated in the poll, etc. I'll update you all on my progress when I have something worth showing.
In response to Ter13
Horse pictures? There's no time, get the the escape pods! Run!
I prefer to have more control of my character. That's why eso trumps wow. Witcher trumps dragonage
In response to DanteVFenris
Wait, what? You haven't played much Dragon Age, have you? Or, at least haven't gone in-depth with the combat. You have to remember, you're controlling a party in Dragon Age, Witcher is only one character.

To avoid unsavory posts, I'm merely asking for clarification here.
[EDIT]: I have withheld voting, as Yut so lovingly put, it depends on the setting/environment. We need more about the type of game to give preference on how the game should behave.
In response to NNAAAAHH
I've beaten dragon Age inquisition. At least have played 80 hours in total. Really great game don't get me wrong
In response to DanteVFenris
Played on easy, never having to switch characters? Harder difficulties make you go in-depth with the combat. The tactical view/mode allowing you to control a line of actions for four characters and nudge time forward a little to see how you have to adapt. The game offers A.I. and a 'easy way of doing combat', but it also offers complete control.
Page: 1 2