Massive list of secondary class names!

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

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ferryman

I have really hoped that current names are most parts placeholders. Too many of those are just weird name combinations and won't wake up any interest. I hope class names will be checked at least one more time, and that LIST has tons of better options collected from community.

unknownsystemerror

There is a recent (in the last few months) stream or voicechat where Steven put this issue to rest. He said they are not going to change.

grisu

As said in the other generic "change the name thread" please just leave it already, at least until you actually know how classes will be represented. You can be dissatisfied when you actually know how well those names fit then thematically as well as lore wise..
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.

Nagash

Gods that thread was fun to take part in

Jahlon

This name doesn't adequately represent this Archetype and Secondary Class.

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.

tugowar

Grisu wrote: »

As said in the other generic "change the name thread" please just leave it already, at least until you actually know how classes will be represented. You can be dissatisfied when you actually know how well those names fit then thematically as well as lore wise..
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 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

Volgaire

I'm still kind of pissed about Archwizard, Archmage just sounds better maybe even Magus.

Ferryman

UnknownSystemError wrote: »

He said they are not going to change.

*facepalm*

Grisu wrote: »

As said in the other generic "change the name thread" please just leave it already, at least until you actually know how classes will be represented. You can be dissatisfied when you actually know how well those names fit then thematically as well as lore wise..
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.

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.

grisu

And you are the judge of proper, I see. Makes sense, athe vast majority doesnt care, most are just fine with the names. Just a vocal minority.

@tugowar then change the title accordingly?

tugowar

When this thread was made, it was before there was a published list of secondary names.

Ferryman

Grisu wrote: »

And you are the judge of proper, I see. Makes sense, athe vast majority doesnt care, most are just fine with the names. Just a vocal minority.

@tugowar then change the title accordingly?

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.

Damokles

@ferryman
Rogue to StabbyMcStabya

Ferryman

jahlon wrote: »

This name doesn't adequately represent this Archetype and Secondary Class.

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.

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.

grisu

That comment is too good. Really highlights your understanding of the topic.
Welp have fun.

Ferryman

Grisu wrote: »

That comment is too good. Really highlights your understanding of the topic.
Welp have fun.

Classic.. when someone has no real counter argument, he takes path of insulting.

Ravudha

@Ferryman

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.

Ferryman

ravudha wrote: »

@Ferryman

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.

Ravudha

Ok here's the thing - when it comes purely to aesthetics one opinion carries the same weight as another no matter how much one is explained.

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'.

Ferryman

So with current logic we could change archtype names as well. How would you like to play as Bow, Shield, Stone, Night, Spell, Song? And top of that there is e.g. Tank and Strider. So one problem with naming is that those are not in line, which makes the naming as whole kind of confused.

Ravudha

I definitely wouldn't like those as archetype names, but those aren't what the game is using, so I don't worry about it.

Child Item