What combat play style do you want your Landmark Adventurer to have?

To be honest, I've played alot of MMO's. My favorite is the Hunter/Rogue/Mage type class. Teleportation for a rogue is crazy as are illusion and archery. Popping out of shadows at any distance and laying down the pain while someone else is going "HOLYWTF is this!" is a wonderful feeling if I should have to say. I love hybrid classes with insane combo's and complimentary enhancements.

Ya I played GW2 as well I still do to be honest. But like you the way it removed the trinity system just makes the game lack luster. When I say this don't get me wrong I don't mind DPSing but I want more of a challenge and I find that challenge in trying to keep other people alive and prevent damage that would other wise kill them. The way the aggro system works in that game for dungeons just blows my mind. While I don't think every situation should be able to be controlled the way you plan I also know that making aggro a free for all game of monkey in the middle is not the way to go. I mean they give you a dodge mechanic but let me tell you once the boss decides that your its target and its not getting off of you for any reason other than death well you can only dodge so many times and pop so many skills before your out of options.

But as Talathion said: ↑

“I want a Trinity to be honest. However I don't want it to be a forced Trinity. It should be like Tera, which HAS healing classes that heal a lot and DPS classes that deal a lot of damage, AND tank classes which can tank a lot of damage. However you can do content with lots of each or mix/match and be fine!

Getting rid of roles completely though is a horrible idea. ”

I agree with all of this but unlike the Mystic and Warrior (at the launch) of Tera classes need to be viable on their own merit. The Mystic was suppose to be an off healer but when it came to dungeons they had to preform the role of a primary healer. They were only viable if people picked up their orbs ( let me tell you NO ONE knows how to "Click on the Lightwell") and even when people did pick up orbs the Mystic was vastly sub par to the priest that people would primarily overlook the mystic in favor of a priest. The warrior on the other hand was suppose to be able to be a tank and while it could do this up to level 30 it then lost its aggro control and its lack of damage mitigation became known. It wasn't until about 7 or so months after launch that they got the patch needed to be what they were suppose to be in the first place.

I think there should and will be strategic advantages for including tanks and healers into parties but at the same time if a group of all dps want to go into a dungeon and they have good cc and maybe a self heal they should be able to succeed as well. That being said I do believe that tanks and healers should be mandatory for endgame raiding content because I would find it unrealistic if a group consisting of 100% pure dps went in and killed a raid boss with with little to no healing potentialin the group.

I'm trying to gauge what exactly it was about combat in other MMO's that I disliked.

Can't put my finger on it, but it has to be the dodge mechanic... it's the only thing that seems completely different.

I guess it's the way it's done... it's the same dodge move every time, your abilities don't blend well with it, abilities get interrupted... I dunno, it just seems like it's not how you would actually avoid something... One dodge for everything...

I think damage avoidance needs huge re-work.

I remember in SWTOR... I'd take my friends through a lower level instance as my max level Sith Inquisitor. Here is where I actually felt like I was truly a powerful Sith Lord. It didn't matter that there were 30 different gun shots coming at me, I blocked them all with my light saber, or others looked like they just missed and my toon didn't have to do a thing except block the other shots.... Now that's just a dodge/block stat based off a percentage but I felt like a Sith Lord... too bad that percent dropped so so low at higher levels.

I dunno if there should be an automated dodge button which uses up endurance when it dodges for you, or if we should have to dodge manually, or both options.... disabling the automated dodge when you want to ensure you dodge a certain direction. Like I said, I dunno.... Something about the manual dodge mechanic seems off to me.

I guess I want to feel Heroic and Powerful and be able to take on many creatures at once without needing a break to catch my breath between dodges...Guess I ate too many twinkies....

If all you ever did in a fight was dodge attacks thrown at you, but did no damage back, how exciting would that be? I think I have found the flaw in dodging for myself. I'm placed in a situation where all I can do is dodge, almost like a brief stun period where I do nothing. I'm no longer able to do damage while dodging, because I'm...dodging... This has to be what I don't like about it...hmm

If we slow down the fight scenes in a movie, you will notice there is some dodging going on while they are also fighting back. From these games I've seen people playing with manual dodge and block, and from the games I've played with dodge mechanics... I find it so boring. It's not even a combo or continuation of a move.. I just get to see someone roll for 2 seconds while the enemy swings and misses.

So I'm pretty sure that's why I don't like it. The way it is done is boring.

Since this game is not being forced into a particular time or theme, I'd like to see some sci-fi options. I also don't want to take a lot of time away from development of Next, so my suggestion is this:

Different models/particle effects for ranged weapons - A bow and a laser/rifle are basically the same idea, just different looks.

Grenades could use something similar to a spellcaster's fireball or whatever with a few tweaks.

Nanobot clouds could be a pallet swap of a poison cloud.

You get the idea. Tech Sgt gear and a bow would just look silly.

But back to the poll, I vote for ranged with the tweaks mentioned above

I'm a little confused here, i thought landmark was primarily about building awesome things. Just how complicated are you planning on making the combat? If it's too complicated won't it dilute the purpose? Are we going to be fighting enemies that are going to be in EQN? will we be getting items that will be in EQN? The idea of combat in landmark makes me wonder just how blurred the line between landmark and EQN will be. For me this game is a way to contribute towards what EQN will one day be, and that's an amazing opportunity. Combat will make this game more fun but i guess i just feel like a simple combat system would be best to keep the focus on building things.

I'm not trying to be a party pooper or anything, I like the idea of killing a few mobs between hunts. This game so far feels like minecraft on steroids for me, and i'm loving the beauty I have the power to create. However i feel like if i have monsters ambling into my claim it's going to piss me off. Additionally if i have to fight cyborgs that shoot lasers, or anything too sci-fi, it will ruin the atmosphere for me. It seems like most people are building fantasy and I'd like to see that theme maintained. If some people want to build x-wings or tanks or whatever that's cool, it's on their claim. I don't really want that kind of theme creeping into what i'm doing in my mountain cottage.

As far as character abilities go in combat I think that people are going to want character abilities that match what they are building. There's alot of people building spaceship hangers and such, and laser pistols would be great for them. But for most people who are building fantasy type homes, sword and board/ranger type abilities will help to reinforce that feeling of being a survivor on the frontier trying to carve out a life from scratch. So having a combination there is important for pleasing everyone. Still, i don't want technology involved in my claim/character/enemies, so all i care about is my ability to maintain that feeling.

Thanks for all your hard work devs and testers who give great feedback. I'm happy to be amongst you.

Because the combat is not supposed to be trinity dependent for group play (based on old information) I will probably start off with a magical class. If classes/roles are needed for group play that may influence my (and I suspect other's) decisions.

I liked the Mix and Match idea, All the classes and you get too mix them? Again Shadowknight and cleric or necromancers and Paladin, they would both be good mixes!

There will be trinity. Just not how it was done before.

Ok, I hit the reply button under someones name and it won't copy their text for me... I have to do it manually which results in no link to their thread, but mentions who said it.... it used to do it for me and I'm not aware of the commands to manually do it aside from the "quote=*name*"...

Anyways....

In this link, they explain what Landmark is and what they intend to do. Aside from them acting like they find the question to be a joke.... they answer none-the-less...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cw6itlOIgaY#t=3777


Landmark started as the tools they were developing and using to create EQN. We will eventually have ALL the tools given to us to use. Not just for building. This includes PvP controls. Also Artificial Intelligence parameters. You can create creatures with an NPC generator, design their personality and what they can do. Build your own Combat Arena, design the building yourself, design your own PvP rules when inside your Arena.

Dave Georgeson says, while talking about Landmark:

• "Landmark started as the tools they were developing and using to create EQN"

• "You can have any world in any setting you want where you can basically do anything that you want to do."

Now Dave referring to Everquest Next:

• "Well that's completely different than Everquest Next. Everquest Next allows you to make all of your decisions, but what you're doing is you're influencing a World that HAS a background and mythos and pageantry and villainy and heroism and all of these things you want out of a fantasy roleplaying game."

• "The sandbox elements of that is how they're making decisions within the context of those frameworks and how THEY cause the villainy and the heroism and to progress in those worlds"

So basically, Landmark and EQN are built using the same technology, but in Landmark, you can do anything you want, you are the game designer. You make your own games and rules, build your own buildings and use them in Landmark. Everquest Next is SOE developers making the rules and story for us, and we enter the world they created for us.

So Landmark is player designed content. Everquest Next is professionally designed content in a fantasy setting provided to us by SOE.

I am also looking forward to this, you cannot imagine! Finally, one character! Alts are no longer absolutely necessary! I've always been a one toon person as I dislike doing the same thing over and over all the time.

Now with the ability swapping, that's just awesome. I feel like I'll be on an epic quest for Class Knowledge!

Anyway, that's for EQN.

Back to Landmark and the adventurer class! Presently, I am under the assumption that we ARE the Adventurer Class that will be present in EQN, as we will be able to Xfer our character in naked form(just the name of your character and class) as the adventurer class to Everquest Next when it begins. I'm not sure how difficult the adventurer class is to acquire in EQN, but it's probably not too difficult....

I guess we'll learn more as time goes on. The combat in Landmark may end up being completely different, but considering Dave mentioned that Landmark started out as the tools to build EQN, I have a feeling the combat system implemented in Landmark will be the testing grounds for how EQN's combat system will be, for the adventurer class anyway!

I think the coolest thing about landmark is the voxel manipulation. So with this in mind, I would argue magic would be ultimately the most interesting combat style. With magic the devs can have a lot more freedom in the ways they design abilities to create/destroy voxels. Stone walls, rock prisons, and conjuring giant holes are three immediate and very easy examples of this idea. You could achieve plenty of destruction with weapons, but creation is a whole 'nother deal.

On a more personal note - I feel magic can fit pretty comfortably within sci-fi, conventional bows and swords less so.

I want the combat system to have a simple mathematical system.

Miss;
Unskilled hit;
Basic hit;
Advanced hit:
Master hit;
Lucky hit;

Then the development team just needs to write a combat script for the MOB or NPC in the story.

If your in a bamboo forest and you need a flaming sword to kill a mutant lizard, you need to know the script. You could use a flaming mace or flaming dagger also. The combat element that is needed to kill the mutant lizard is flame.

AND scale that up to the Very Angry Dragon; kills one hundred players and only the 101 player makes a lucky hit and kills the Very Angry Dragon.

Are these good story elements or good combat elements; is the story exclusive from the combat?

I want the adventurer to be a jack of all trades class, he know how to use a bow, but hes no sniper, I can levitate stones, but I will never move mountains, and even though I can kill with a blade, I am not a ninja. you as thew adventurer should be more focused on non combat(gathering and crafting), especially in everquest next.

Hey thanks for clearing up that question for me darktide, i just got in on the beta and i haven't watched all the live videos yet. I appreciate you taking the time, so much clearer now.

All of them sound fine but for the love of god do not have a global cooldown, the worst combat mechanic of all time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cdgPuEl5Nuk#t=134

Notice the Void Goliaths spell

Select one of the spell pillars...turn it horizontal... add a ball similar in color and effect that grows in size as the starting animation for the spell...

Then BAM, one of those pillars turned horizontal comes blasting out from you as you cast the spell!

Cmoooonnnnn! Cmoooooooooooon!!!

So sexy

My favorite two classes ever were both Sony games.

1) Classic EQ warrior. This is the most versatile class I've seen, period. Can tank, can crowd control, can damage....all depending on how you gear and build. The ability of this one character to keep the nasties focused on one player, and survive the beatdown, is what made a lot of classic EQ possible....and fun! Also a fantastic PVP choice for anyone who knew anything about how a warrior worked, and knew how to prepare ahead of time.

2) Vanguard disciple! <sings> "Everybody was kung fu healin......" Decent damage, amazing healer. I love combat based healers in many games, but IMO this is the king of this type class! By changing stances they could dramatically change what the character did. Took skill, attention to detail and a lot of trial and error to master this class....and when you did the results were stellar!

Add abilities like these to LM/Next and I will be a hampy capper!

Lol, I disagree with complex combat dynamics in LM.... But this post is maybe the best thing I've see on these forums.

Huzzah, sir.

How about legendary creatures..... Creatures that have a kill tally. The lurking stealthy Basilisk of Grendl Forest has killed 20 adventurers. You never see it coming. Avoid the accursed forest! Here, there is a beast of legend! Hunt it at your own peril...
Of course, a large hunting party may drive it into a hiding mode, never to be found unless you're walking in the woods by yourself at night, and drunk (and only a rusty sword to your name after a night of gambling in town).

I want your creatures to scare me, and be illusive and mysterious. Not tethered punching bags that, curse the word, respawn.

I'm already 'peeled' away from the concept of Everquest in connection with LM.
However, I really am enjoying the Hell out of LM for it's own sake. It is an awesome experience learning to use the design tools, just in itself.

I am hoping that indeed, EQN will be a 'real' Everquest, connected to LM only in that the topographical features will be incorporated into EQN. We shall see I guess. Otherwise, I shall continue to play LM because it is fun, and Proj. '99 because it is EQ, and EQII because I had some friends there.

Meanwhile, my main is usually always my DE Necromancer or some form close to it. My second is a Shadowknight, or some form of it. So then, my two top choices of 'caster and sword are in the top percentage rate.