Auto-attack

[Martin]

I am so disappointed. I really really really don't want auto-attack.

Nobody happy enough with the current game does.

[Godhandunuki]

Well the problem is we have 1000's of people playing one game, some people want one thing, some people want another. I don't see auto attack really breaking anything, or causing the game to auto play. It seems to me alot of the higher level monsters have attacks you need to dodge, so you still need to pay attention. You guys also need to understand it seems like the battle system and stats are getting a rewrite. So by the time auto attack is in, assuming they take physical level out, we could loose half our damage output in exchange for balance. This is just a small piece of the puzzle, just give them a chance, and see where they go.

[Demacia]

Nobody happy enough with the current game does.

This. Feels like some of the few people who actually enjoy playing this mess don't want it to improve at all. Remember that being different and unique doesn't make it good. Auto-attack is a step in the right direction. This is not an action game nor is it turn-based.

[Kaedan]

Clearly you don't have any consideration as to how others feel... you should try it some time.

If many people feel this way, it's possible it's true..



With these two comments I've come to the conclusion that those that want an auto-attack don't really give a crap about all those that enjoy battle the way it is.

Yeah, that's how it's been going on these boards, and it's getting extremely ridiculous. Here's how it goes with almost every topic:

-Hardcore player says they want something
-Casual player says they want the exact opposite
-Hardcore player suggests a compromise, trying to meet halfway
-Casual player screams "hell no" and/or gets sarcastic, unwilling to budge from their idea... unwilling to compromise at all

Now, I'm not going to deny that there aren't insults thrown about and stupidity from both sides that complicate this process, but this is what most of the "discussions" boil down to. Hardcores are generally willing to meet halfway on a topic, while Casuals are generally completely unwilling to budge on their stance.

[Martin]

This is not an action game nor is it turn-based.

That's right, it's an MMORPG, and it's got it own style, why screwing it up and trying to make it look like another completely different game?, I still think FFXIV it's fine as it is, accept it's uniqueness, or deal with it and stay quiet.

[Grit]

Now, I'm not going to deny that there aren't insults thrown about and stupidity from both sides that complicate this process, but this is what most of the "discussions" boil down to. Hardcores are generally willing to meet halfway on a topic, while Casuals are generally completely unwilling to budge on their stance.

How do you suggest we meet in the middle on the subject of auto-attack?

I propose that everyone try to see things from one-another's perspective, and wait to see the plan that SE lays out for us.

[Demacia]

That's right, it's an MMORPG, and it's got it own style, why screwing it up and trying to make it look like another completely different game?, I still think FFXIV it's fine as it is, accept it's uniqueness, or deal with it and stay quiet.

They aren't screwing it up, they're fixing something that's poorly thought out. I won't accept its unique flaws and I certainly won't deal with it and stay quiet. Kind of why these forums are here you know?

[Dreamer]

As usual you are making wrong conclusions with no evidence to back you up. I ignored your statement becasue I have given 4 (mabey more) in previous posts about why I want AA.

Reduce the need of useless attacks,

Integrate weapon speed, (status weapon diversity and more interesting choices of weapons as a result)

Allow for more room for what I consider more interesting attaks

Class uniqueness though weapon delays, styles of battle and various levels of busy, (15 or 30 actions per second)
remember the brd vs war point, No? Guess you missed this like every other point I made.

Give the controler people a break from going nuts and quiting this game for ever.


None of these statements claim we NEED an AA but they are all arguements for the implementation, and I have already acknowledged that these things can be done in other ways. Claiming there are other ways is not an arguement for why these ways are bad. Claiming they are lack luster does say WHY they are lack luster. If I say your MOM is fat, I can't quantify that. If I say your mom is 400 pounds therefore she is fat is better.

someone says we want AA
someone else says STFU I like this system
someone explains why AA would be a good idea
someone else say, your reasons can not be validaded
General arguement about the various things AA can provide
AA promoters list a few ideas
AA denyers argue thoes ideas opposed to introducing their own
General Flamewar

A new thread appears.....

The first 4-5 steps are unavoidable in forums (people tend to not argue details initially sadly)
This is the step in the forums where the AA denyers NEED to give an arguement for their ideas, unless you do SE will not have enough understanding of your side to give you any real weight or credibility.

The AA denyers have yet to provide a SINGLE arguement that can be supported by a truthfull arguement or evidence againts AA other than you don't like it.(your allowed to think this and your even allowed to say so, but that is not an arguement) So unless you have a good reason why SE should keep this system your going to lose this debate. You can scream as loud as you want but just saying I DON"T WANNA will not convice someone to change something, you need to give reasons. Right now a change (or series if changes) NEED to happen, I am not convinced that AA is the best solution to fixing the combat system, but it is the only one that has any arguements for it's implementation. You can argue thoes points all day long but until you present your own AA promoters will likly win.

There hasn't been a single argument levied in favor of AA that has any merit. Every reason that people have listed in any of these threads is something that has an underlying cause irrelevant of the presence of AA.

Argument: I don't like having to spam the same attack often and over to build TP.
Counter: All AA will do is do it for you. The real problem is TP generation. There are too many 1000-2000 TP skills and not enough 0 and 250 TP skills). Rebalancing of TP generation and usage is what's needed, not a half-arsed measure like AA.

Argument: I shouldn't need to chain together a bunch of useless attacks before I can do the cool ones.
Counter: When every single attack is 'cool', they all quickly become mediocre.

Argument: Supplements to AA like weapon speed will make the combat more interesting.
Counter: No, it won't. All weapon speed does force you into a certain combat pace, and it's an annoyance that detracts more than it helps. LotRO actually normalized all weapon speeds due to this - it was just funneling characters to certain weapon types while doing nothing to the combat system except giving the devs something else to balance.

In case you've missed the actual arguments against AA, here they are:
1. No auto-attack means you are in control of your character. You character attacks when you tell it to. Enemy charging a retaliation counter, mobs CC'd, or Reflect up on your target? Not a problem.
2. No auto-attack means you set the pace of the battle. Should you keep yourself steady and fight a battle of finesse and attrition, or gut your stamina bar trying to take down that imp before it has a chance to cast and rock your world? It's up to you.
3. No auto-attack means you're involved. I'm not sure how Satohiko Matsui can claim AA doesn't make battles easier with a straight face. Plenty of posters have mentioned plainly on these same forums that they prefer to be able watch TV while battling. If not having to even pay attention to a battle isn't an indication of what AA does for a battle system, I'm not sure what is.

[kukurumei]

Yeah, that's how it's been going on these boards, and it's getting extremely ridiculous. Here's how it goes with almost every topic:

-Hardcore player says they want something
-Casual player says they want the exact opposite
-Hardcore player suggests a compromise, trying to meet halfway
-Casual player screams "hell no" and/or gets sarcastic, unwilling to budge from their idea... unwilling to compromise at all

Now, I'm not going to deny that there aren't insults thrown about and stupidity from both sides that complicate this process, but this is what most of the "discussions" boil down to. Hardcores are generally willing to meet halfway on a topic, while Casuals are generally completely unwilling to budge on their stance.

Actually it's the opposite.

hardcore are usually the one that don't compromise or compromise with a "90/10" and call it a compromise.

Casuals by definition, don't care much, as long as something is to their liking. Casuals don't sweat the small stuff and generally leave if they get bored with the game or the direction of the game.

That's why they're call casuals.

And I highly doubt there are many who would even care to give an opinion. They're probably on the next MMO or video game by this point. Or rather rant about it on their blog/Facebook and never speak of it again.

[sivant]

I play with a 360 controller and absolutely do not want automated attack. As it stands, I make a conscious choice what to do, attack or use abilities, and it makes sense and works well. The greatest negative is the timing of spamming actions and never quite being sure if you have actually started it or not, this is a matter of "feel" and timing, and some subtle changes to feedback would resolve it, unless it is trully a server timing issue and actions are being dropped, but it seems wehre that was obvious, spellcasting, has improved and I am not sure that that is the problem now.