Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Massive list of secondary class names!
tugowar
Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This post had so much creative content, I think it's worth resurrecting for easier bookmark...
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/35855/the-unofficial-official-name-that-secondary-class-last-chance-to-play
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/35855/the-unofficial-official-name-that-secondary-class-last-chance-to-play
Virtue is the only good.
2
Comments
There is no creative content in it, it's just a bunch of names that in itself, subjectively sound cooler. They have no ties to the classes in Ashes and no basis on which to call them more appropriate.
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
Yes I know I don't have any information about the skills, abilities or play-style, but I still know more than the Creative Director who wrote all this stuff and who does have the information about skills, abilities, and play-style.
I am not suggesting any changes. These are potential names from mobs, bosses, fanfiction, and more.
It’s just a great list in and of itself
Virtue is the only good.
*facepalm*
Oh please.. do not be ridiculous. If some name combinations are like from kindergarden children's mouth, then no lore or thematic can save those. Tank, Tellsword, Spellstone, Bladecaller, Bowsinger, Strider, Soulbow, Wildblade just to mention some. On top of that some names are in weird places. Naming classes properly is very important, because stupid solutions can be huge turn off. IS can ofc do what ever they want to, but it also show courage to admit if you go wrong with something.
@tugowar then change the title accordingly?
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
Virtue is the only good.
And how you know how many people care? What I remember there has been a lot of people against these names and definitely for good reason.
Okay so because some people so much like those current class names, what if we change archtype names match with classes?
Tank to Shield or Stone.
Ranger to Bow
Fighter to Blade
Mage to Spell
Bard to Singer
Rogue to Shadow or Night
Then we just combi these things together and we get two things. Who wants to play Bow? or Stone? perhaps Spell?
And if we think Tank for example. That is nickname or role. With that logic we could have healer instead of cleric, melee dps instead of fighter or maybe ranged dps instead of ranger.
And Strider.. *sigh* Because Aragorn's nickname in Lotr is Strider and he is a ranger, we have now class named after him?
Not all the names are bad, but some have really cheap taste and feels like 'nothing better came up my mind' solutions.
And I have not actually seen any good arguments behalf those names only protective arguments behalf devs decisions.
Rogue to StabbyMcStabya
Skills, abilities or playstyles have no effect to make weird class names any better. If I can cast stones, it won't make spellstone feel any better than before. I am still a stone with magical powers.
Welp have fun.
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
Classic.. when someone has no real counter argument, he takes path of insulting.
I like the class names and it's got nothing to do with protecting the devs. It's because I like the names, and liking a name doesn't require an argument or justification; it's just personal, subjective taste.
Well everybody has of course right for opinion, but if there is no back up for argument or any reasonable justification, then that opinion just have less weight.
And I did not mean that everybody who are behalf current names are automatically protecting devs, I was referring to some posts already wrote in this thread.
If people wants to be things and objects rather than "occupations", then it is good for them. But imho there is a huge difference to be Battlemage than Spellstone for example. Class names are of course just only one piece of the whole class concept, but still one important part of the entirety.
The class combination system itself is fantastic and gives a lot of different kind of variations for players which is great. IS has shown here and with other mechanics as well, how creative they can actually be. There is a good amount of innovative solutions and mechanics which are the solid base of the whole AoC project. But now with this naming, they are not shining and I was personally expecting more. It feels like they took a shortcut here.
I get where you're coming from with you critique of the names because they're logical, but those are just elaborations of what you don't like about them in terms of aesthetics. E.g. a name sounds cheap or is like an object instead of an occupation. Ok, that just means you prefer a different kind of naming convention, but it doesn't explain why that preference is better with regard to any established goal/objective of some kind that isn't about aesthetics.
Now, if we were to say, for example, a class name should somewhat describe its function and/or tie into the lore then we'd have criteria by which to argue/measure the current names' appropriateness. I think the class names fit these criteria quite well, but of course selecting which criteria are important is, again, subjective.
If you're criteria is that names should sound like an occupation instead of a thing/object then I'd argue Spellstone sounds like both to me and disagree with that criteria - again it becomes subjective.
So I think it's important to recognise different people have different criteria based on personal taste, and each criteria mentioned so far is really subjective in its evaluation. I'm open to any objective criteria anyone can think of, otherwise this whole thing is just 'I prefer this and you prefer that'.
Virtue is the only good.
I only managed to get through a few rows and 1 column. Fighter [row], Tank [row], and Summoner [row, column].
Right click -> open in new tab.
Here is someone else's archetype/sub-archetype chart.