The "Spam Attack" Strategie

[Lnik3500]

Hey


I intend to seriously make a game and I looked a lot of posts about what players don't like in RPG games.


And I found out the thing most people hate is the "spam attack" problem in games.


I understand that no one wants this kind of gameplay, so in your opinion, if the "spam attack" strategie is possible in a game, does it make it instantly bad?


For exemple, after a couple of tests, I found that this strategie took me more than 2 minutes to beat a slime, but after using some skills, it took me 5 hits to kill him...


What do you think?


Sorry for my english.

 

[Alvonso]

hi, i don't know what you mean, but i know the problem you'r talking about is balancing right? that's why any game dev need a tester dude. Make some monster can defeat just by spam attack, other monster by some skill, and the other more just can defeat if player use right skill in the right time base of his mana and an unique skill. Player like a game that have many solution to finish the problem. Hard but possible.

 

[LaFlibuste]

I think the idea behind the whole spam-attack thing is: if your battle system is tedious and uninteresting, maybe you have no real interest in developing one. And if this is the cas, why have it in your game? It's a game, it should be fun. If something (here: a battle system) impairs the fun, maybe change it or discard it. I understand the need to have "fights" for plot purpose, but maybe you could come up with some other kind of gimmick if you are not feeling particularly inspired by traditional battle systems. I don't really have any suggestions as to what that could be, I'll admit this is an idea I am personally wrestling with for my current project. Battles are also often a way to (artificially?) make your game longer without having to produce more content. But is a game being longer a good thing if said additional length is detrimental to its potential for enjoyment? I'll let you decide.

Although this whole argument is based on the idea that such a battle system is not fun. But maybe it is to you and you are thinking about making a free game as a hobby, in which case you could decide to discard others' opinions on that matter.


If I may get a bit deeper in analysis, RPG games are usually weird beasts that are really three games in one (or rely on three axes):
1) The more obvious one, they're a storytelling experience. A sort of (more or less) interactive novel or something.


2) They're also a puzzle game. A lot of the puzzles are mazes (the dungeons), but some games are more intense in that department (Lufia 2, for instance)


3) They're a tactical game. That's usually the battle system. Sometimes they can be more of an action game instead (ARPG such as Diablo).


Now, games are often better or centered around one or two of these axes. Which is fine. The question is, what do you want to do? And why carry around a part of the game you aren't really interested in developping if it is detrimental to your game? Who said you had to have a battle system?

As an added bonus, I'll add my personal opinion on this: I (usually) vastly prefer the storytelling (first) and puzzle (second) part of RPG games. I usually go levelling my characters with passive boosts in mind and spamming attack as a core strategy because I think there often are far too many battles in games which slows the action and I generally don't care for them. I just want them to be over as quickly as possible. In the most offending cases, I outright flee battles systematically because they bore me. I also more often than not play on "casual" difficulty levels because I don't care about that part of the game, I want to hear the story, see the art and solve the puzzles. Among the rare battle systems I liked are the older Tales titles because they are more action-oriented, ARPGs such as Secret of Mana and Chrono Trigger because there were not too many battles and the art made it actually fun. I can't say there's a single Final Fantasy game where I really enjoyed the battle system (note I haven't played a title after FFX though), only some that were more bearable. Dragon Warrior games are even worst, hated their battle system. Of course, I'm not counting TRPGs such as FFT, they're a different beast entirely. But that's just me. Maybe you love those. Who knows, right?

 

[Wavelength]

The core problem with some battle systems, in relation to this topic, is that the quickest way to defeat normal enemy troops (by total time, not by turns) is to just pound the Attack command since it's the first command on the menu and requires no thought.


If players can do this and beat the enemy with very little damage taken, and doing so will end the battle quicker than taking a few seconds of thought to select a skill, then there is a problem with the battle system.  On the other hand, if smart selection of skills will lead to much quicker or cleaner victories than mashing Attack, your system is fine.

 

[Azurecyan]

I don't mind SOME normal battles to be easy, but the curve of difficulty to should increase rather than stay stagnant. As you level up, enemies should gradually increase in difficulty and require some strategy without the use of spamming attack. Bosses should prove what you've learned up to that point; perhaps have the boss battles test your new skills that you've learned. 


Having HP heavy bosses or HP heavy enemies is not a way for battles to be difficult. They may have a lot of HP but that's all there is. If all you have to do is spam attack and heal while the enemy is using all kinds of flashy moves on you, then your problem is uninteresting battles that can bore the player. Most players want an interesting battle if they're playing RPGs. If the fight is not interesting, they will see it as a hindrance to the game.

 

[ShadowHawkDragon]

In most 'Shin Megami Tensei' games such as Person and Digital Devil Saga, you are not just discouraged from spam attacking but will end up with a game over if you do (unless over-leveled). The reason for this is the emphasis on exploiting elements.


In most of these games you not just deal extra damage from hitting an enemy's weakness but get bonus actions. By not using said weakness, not just do you get less 'attacks', but the enemies can do the same. Even most basic fights can seriously wipe your team if you don't pound them hard on the first turns. This combined with MP running out between restore points adds a strategic depth to throwing in basic attacks now and then to preserve that precious MP...


In my opinion the key to balancing/reducing spam-attacking lies in the incentive and reward for using skills that actually cost a resource (MP).


Why waste MP on a fire spell if all you'll gain is a few extra points of damage that means little?


Why use a debuff and 2 attacks to kill an enemy if 3 attacks would do the job in the first place?

 

[lolshtar]

I encourage players to use other skills by making the normal attack low damage but gives MP.

 

[Ellie Jane]

Get rid of the attack command and have several free melee skills, each with a slight difference and differing success rates to some enemies over others.

 

[Pine Towers]

As @Amy Pond said. Look for the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition. They still have melee (and ranged) basic attack (MBA and RBA), but every character have at least 2 types of attacks that they can use at-will that improves or modifies or add effects, so you really only use a MBA or RBA really rarely.

 

[Azurecyan]

Maybe change the normal attack to give the players an option of slash, strike or pierce(dependent on their equipped weapon) as basic attack skills along with other physical skills they may have.

 

[Lnik3500]

I made my basic attack really weak compared to the skills of the game, so it's still here, but it's hilarious to think that Guard is more useful in my game since it restores MP and


really reduce damages for the turn... Any suggestions to make he basic attack more useful without being too powerful? I'm still thinking as to what to do with it...

 

[Wavelength]

I made my basic attack really weak compared to the skills of the game, so it's still here, but it's hilarious to think that Guard is more useful in my game since it restores MP and really reduce damages for the turn... Any suggestions to make he basic attack more useful without being too powerful? I'm still thinking as to what to do with it...

The important takeaway isn't really to make Attack a disadvantageous option - the important takeaway is that battle strategy should be situational.  If players are spamming the "Strong Hit" skill and the "Fireball" spell every turn of a battle, it has many of the same problems as the Spam 'Attack' issue.  It's just that Spam Attack tends to be the most frequent and obvious form in which we see it in games.


Possible ways to make the basic attack useful would be to give it a large TP gain (so that you can use it to build TP for skills that are more interesting than the basic attack) or to have skills/spells that enhance a character's basic attacks (for example they give your basic attack extra hits or the ability to poison enemies for a few turns)

 

[Solis]

Spam attack? Nothing wrong with it. Two: If you do this, and your over leveled, it's fine...three, you're enemies AI are just too weak. I encourage players to use auto attacks with skill by making skills power up the next auto attack..which makes it worth it...based on certain situations. 

 

[LightningLord2]

I know a few RPGs that have ways of dealing with auto attack spam:


Pokémon: Types


The only way to attack in Pokémon is to use one of your four skills (called moves) with a certain type, stat alignment (physical/special/status) and effect. You won't be able to use the same attack over and over as the type system heavily cuts your damage if your move is resisted (to the point it can't damage the target ever). No matter how weak a wild Pidgey is, it's not going to care for your Rhydon's Earthquake.


World of Warcraft: Aggro


First of all, your auto attacks in WoW are going to be abysmal at every level, meaning that you want to deal damage with your skills instead. Important to know here is that damage = threat, which means that a DPS who refuses to do anything but attack will end up getting dogpiled by elites and meet the spirit healer. Many classes do have threat reducing skills, so it's not just about idling to wait for threat to go down.


The Legend of Zelda (A Link to the Past for this): Various


Many of the later enemies can't reliably be killed with just the sword. Chus electrocute you when not stunned, several enemies in the ice palace are immune to anything but the Lamp, the Fire Rod and the Fire Amulet, Stalfos dodge your slashes and even the knights can parry your attacks with their sword. Most of the enemies can fall to the sword, but it's much easier to use your special items.


Regarding your basic attack: Since RPG Maker MV uses MP and TP, maybe make the basic attack fill up TP while guarding fills MP, making the former more viable for TP users and the latter better for MP users.

 

[Lnik3500]

Thanks for all thos tips! if there are more suggestions in your mind, please post it! Thank you!

 

[JessieK]

A really quick way to fix this seems to be to have a lot of "status effect" based attacks that are just a better idea to use.


Why spam attack when you can use "blinding attack" which also has a chance of stopping your enemies hurting you next turn.


Other ways to fix this is to have enemies who are resistant to basic attacks in some what.


For example:
Magic units, that can only be harmed by a certain type of magic


Armoured units who require certain "heavy moves" to deal normal damage to


Guardian units that stop you spamming attacks until they are dealt with (They could block the damage another unit may take if you don't kill them first?)


Flying units who can only be harmed by "ranged attacks"  


This sort of thing makes your players at least think before they use there next move, enemies that can switch between these effects will require players to react on the fly too so they don't get in to the "Spam a special move" which is equally as dull as "spam attack" 


Of course if you really wanted to try something unique, you could remove normal attacks completely and have your combat based around balancing your mana use with killing the enemy fast.