Version 1655: Only One Player Can Attack Monsters — How to Fix

05/27/2025 17:03 zukoo#1
I've noticed that in version 1655, only one player is able to attack a monster at a time. If two players try to attack the same monster, only the first attacker can continue dealing damage — the second one won't have any effect.

This behavior is different from previous versions, where multiple players could attack and damage the same monster simultaneously.

Is there any way to fix this behavior in version 1655?
Could it be related to any configuration in file 178?

Any help would be appreciated!
05/30/2025 03:06 GantzRoyalOddesy#2
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukoo View Post
I've noticed that in version 1655, only one player is able to attack a monster at a time. If two players try to attack the same monster, only the first attacker can continue dealing damage — the second one won't have any effect.

This behavior is different from previous versions, where multiple players could attack and damage the same monster simultaneously.

Is there any way to fix this behavior in version 1655?
Could it be related to any configuration in file 178?

Any help would be appreciated!
As far as I know, version 1655 uses normal mob type for bosses, similar to classic servers — which means only one player can skill it at a time. Every newest server since version B10 until 1655 still has this issue. The only workaround is to change it to an NPC type so multiple players can hit it simultaneously.
05/31/2025 14:32 zukoo#3
I did exactly this a few years ago.
I created a script in which the NPC ends up attacking the player...
But this requires a lot of action...
That's why I wanted to know if there was a way to do this...
But apparently not.
06/01/2025 18:20 GantzRoyalOddesy#4
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukoo View Post
I did exactly this a few years ago.
I created a script in which the NPC ends up attacking the player...
But this requires a lot of action...
That's why I wanted to know if there was a way to do this...
But apparently not.
Yep exactly, that is why previously I contacted you on your workaround as I find it very nice to counter this issue. Still trying to figure out on how you did it tho aha. Much appreciate if you can share your finding, thanks.