The Mana World Forums

This is the final vote that determines the fate of TMW's combat system.

Do we want an indirect combat approach like RO, Ryzom, FFXI, etc. Where the user selects a target and lets the server do certain attacks for him (According to a queue of actions he selects)?

Or do we want a directly player-controlled system where players move, select their attacks, and fight all in real time, similar to the way Secret of Mana and The Legend of Zelda control their combat.

final vote

hrmpf -_- i am not gonna vote here

Might i remind you, Elvens dream and goal was to creat a fulltime ActionMMorpg! that meas Action Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. so there is no doubt this topic is not needed. The game will use Realtime fighting and thats that.

Miht i remind you, if we follow Elvens idea, theres a large aray of things we can do

Bear wrote:Might i remind you, Elvens dream and goal was to creat a fulltime ActionMMorpg! that meas Action Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. so there is no doubt this topic is not needed. The game will use Realtime fighting and thats that.

I quite agree, but certain people think Elven doesn't know what he's doing, and thus we need a vote, even though:

ElvenProgrammer wrote: I order TMW to be a real time figthing game

I know some of you don't think I do a whole lot around here, but I personally don't want to work on a project that just does the same thing over again. Everyone else does indirect fighting, and I'd rather play theirs' than make my own. I guess I mean to say, if we don't decide to do real time fighting, I don't really want to be a part of TMW anymore.

but certain people think Elven doesn't know what he's doing

-_-

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1180.html

read this before saying such a thing

Bear wrote:Might i remind you, Elvens dream and goal was to creat a fulltime ActionMMorpg! that meas Action Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. so there is no doubt this topic is not needed. The game will use Realtime fighting and thats that.

Elven would know that when he takes more people on his team he needs to take into account their opinions as well. He's our leader, not our dictator.

I think that should have world per server. real size.
As to combat style I think: targeting and moving to target should be done by mouse, I think there could be two modes you can change by the tab key:
- fighting mode: player has defence bonus, can atack but moves much slower
- normal mode: player can atak, can run with shift but dont have defence bonus

As to server, I think there should be a short actions queue.. normaly player atacks in normal manner.. when you choose target by mouse.. But pressing any additional atack should go to the beging of that queue..
For example we're fighting by slashing.. all the time.. pressing key combination should cause trun&slash at the beging of that queue...

I think that moving with mouse to specyfic locations and targeting is very important..where as keyboard can by used for more precies walking.. Additional various attacks should be done with keyboard as well.

What's more using items or casting spells or even using special atacks could be done with a special shortcuts bar... where you put atacks,spells or items you want to use by pressing key..

What do You think ? I think it's the most in the middle...
Cause we still have very convinent mouse targeting and still can decied how to atack.. Anyway... no matter what I am for mouse targeting..

I'm relatively neutral and will just try to help with both attempts, but anyways, before voting, you should know a some things:

Indirect System is really much like a direct System, it is NOT NOT NOT comparable to a FF-like system, or some other round-based game.

Indirect System:

1. Player selects enemy (No packets sent)
2. Player sends attack packet including informations about which attack to use or which skill to use.
3. Until player selects another skill / weapon / potion to be used/ runs away/ switches the selected enemy, the attack is being continued, and after the server calculated the damage it will send the damage/death/lvl up/whatever status effect packet to the client. It will NOT need another keystroke to attack another time, it will continue until blocked/stopped/skill switches/etc....
This remembers me much of physical damage done in RO or WoW...

Direct System:
1. Player sends attack packet after selecting it.
2. Server confirms it and sends back the damage done,etc
3. Player sends attack packet again
4. and again..and again..maybe also skill packets /potion used packets /whatever

Direct Battle Attempt will definately create more traffic and will mostly generate some lag after each hit/skill usage (sending attack packet and receiving confirm packet) where Indirect Battle Attempt will generate much less lag (There will be only the normal lag when starting to attack or switching the skill /wepon/usage of a potion) and after this client won't need to send attack packets again and therefore infight lag is reduced.

I personally think Direct Battle Attempt might just maybe not work, because it generates too much traffic and lag...but I DONT KNOW IT!
But I trust Hammerbear who seems to have much knowledge of MMORPGlike games, etc. And by the way, if we had no technical limitations I would as well like the direct battle attempt as much, maybe even with find-enemy-by-coordinates-algorithm isntead of a search algorithm based ion 'you can only target one enemy at a time'...it's still amixture of SoM/Zelda and Diablo2 which I would prefer

So please decide after considering both options really and objective...Maybe it's possible to do the direct attempt, maybe not...who knows, without trying? Anyways, it would be definately safer to use the indirect attempt for now and maybe later switch it? or not?

I've voted for the directly player-controlled way because the way Kyokai described it fits best with the way I like a combat system.

I don't really know how that would be written as code.
But I think a package each hit would do it.
When needed it should be possible to add a loop which reattackts the monster/enemy till it's dead (or to far away / in a town / whatsoever) at the client as well.
If someone knows Mu-Online, they have that kind of combat-system.
Well... but I don't need auto reattack, I like the combat-system like it is in dragon raja online

mhhh... maybe it's too easy to cheat when it's possible to check whether the enemy is dead or not at client side since it's open source : x
anyways XD if I failed the topic, just ignore me

Voted 4: Indirectly Controlled Combat

One Big Reason: MORE LAG-PROOF battle system.

Well i hope after reading my post you all will choose directly controlled. Think about this, there are so many indirect games out there and alot of people complain about it. We want this game to be great and i think doing the direct controll system will be the best way to achieve that. A direct controll would give the player alot more to do and to do his own attacks..i think the click and attack games are getting really old. With the direct attack it would be much funner and you could still use all the skills and other abilities your player has. To make this game good i think the direct attack system is the best way to go.

Why do we have 126 views on this post and only 12 votes? If you see this post, vote. Please.

The view count doesn't only count unique users.

There has to be a reason that there is no MMO that uses real-time combat. MMOs have been around for a while, and if real-time combat were practical, it would have already been done.

its been done already, check out maple story, realtime side scroll mmorpg