If you're calling the tank class 'tank'
Why not have the cleric called 'heal'
That's why I thought the tank was an odd name choice...
Just call it guardian and have a guardian/guardian be a phalanx or some such...
We can't call the cleric 'healer' for two reasons: Other classes like Bard may have some slight healing capabilities, and Cleric can spec into things other than being a healer.
The Tanking role is solely unique the the Tank archetype. Tanks pull aggro and soak damage. Until there is a different word that describes those functions, they should be called tank. Until there is another archetype that can pull aggro and soak damage, they should be called tank.
The etymology of the term Tank has been brought up enough: there's no reason that the term 'Tank' couldn't be realistically created in the Ashes universe. The reason people don't like the name Tank is for the same reason they don't like the way AoC Dwarves look: they have preconceived notions of what a fantasy setting should be and don't want to give Steven, Intrepid, or AoC a chance to do any proper world building.
If you're calling the tank class 'tank'
Why not have the cleric called 'heal'
That's why I thought the tank was an odd name choice...
Just call it guardian and have a guardian/guardian be a phalanx or some such...
We can't call the cleric 'healer' for two reasons: Other classes like Bard may have some slight healing capabilities, and Cleric can spec into things other than being a healer.
The Tanking role is solely unique the the Tank archetype. Tanks pull aggro and soak damage. Until there is a different word that describes those functions, they should be called tank. Until there is another archetype that can pull aggro and soak damage, they should be called tank.
The etymology of the term Tank has been brought up enough: there's no reason that the term 'Tank' couldn't be realistically created in the Ashes universe. The reason people don't like the name Tank is for the same reason they don't like the way AoC Dwarves look: they have preconceived notions of what a fantasy setting should be and don't want to give Steven, Intrepid, or AoC a chance to do any proper world building.
Isn't that false tho? Pretty sure it was mentioned other classes can tank as well? 🤔
If you're calling the tank class 'tank'
Why not have the cleric called 'heal'
That's why I thought the tank was an odd name choice...
Just call it guardian and have a guardian/guardian be a phalanx or some such...
We can't call the cleric 'healer' for two reasons: Other classes like Bard may have some slight healing capabilities, and Cleric can spec into things other than being a healer.
The Tanking role is solely unique the the Tank archetype. Tanks pull aggro and soak damage. Until there is a different word that describes those functions, they should be called tank. Until there is another archetype that can pull aggro and soak damage, they should be called tank.
The etymology of the term Tank has been brought up enough: there's no reason that the term 'Tank' couldn't be realistically created in the Ashes universe. The reason people don't like the name Tank is for the same reason they don't like the way AoC Dwarves look: they have preconceived notions of what a fantasy setting should be and don't want to give Steven, Intrepid, or AoC a chance to do any proper world building.
Isn't that false tho? Pretty sure it was mentioned other classes can tank as well? 🤔
I might've missed something, but I doubt it. My understanding is that a role with Tank as a secondary archetype can have some offtank potential, and that's about it.
Jesus people really are passionate about this one. 830 comments. Lol it's just a name. It's not even your final class's name.
To be fair there are a lot better names for the final ones too, though I will be a cultist I think so as long as I don't change class I'll be fine =p
Sure honestly. I don't care what they call it. Change it if you want. It's just a name. Either case the class will fill the tank role. I am much more interested in what Bard and Summoner will do. They seem to be pretty unique.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
Jesus people really are passionate about this one. 830 comments. Lol it's just a name. It's not even your final class's name.
Exactly, is the primary class, archetype or whatever you wanna call it. That doesn't make it better.
Just imagine an NPC telling you: "You are a brave TANK, adventurer, and I know you want to become a Nightshield... but you have to first do this quest that will prove you are a true Nightshield, and not a TANK, because you know you are a simple TANK right now, but you will stop being a TANK to be a Nightshield, okay TANK?"
The game is gonna be like that and don't tell me otherwise.
That right there is lazy writing - but not for the reason you think.
Unless the name of a class has a very specific in world definition (such as Cleric or Necromancer), or is a specific title that one gains via education or some such, NPC's in the game world should almost never refer to a player by their class.
Jesus people really are passionate about this one. 830 comments. Lol it's just a name. It's not even your final class's name.
Exactly, is the primary class, archetype or whatever you wanna call it. That doesn't make it better.
Just imagine an NPC telling you: "You are a brave TANK, adventurer, and I know you want to become a Nightshield... but you have to first do this quest that will prove you are a true Nightshield, and not a TANK, because you know you are a simple TANK right now, but you will stop being a TANK to be a Nightshield, okay TANK?"
The game is gonna be like that and don't tell me otherwise.
That right there is lazy writing - but not for the reason you think.
Unless the name of a class has a very specific in world definition (such as Cleric or Necromancer), or is a specific title that one gains via education or some such, NPC's in the game world should almost never refer to a player by their class.
it happens all the time in wow and is most likely why he mentioned it. That's not to say its bad in wow, as it works quite well.
Just imagine an NPC telling you: "You are a brave TANK, adventurer, and I know you want to become a Nightshield... but you have to first do this quest that will prove you are a true Nightshield, and not a TANK, because you know you are a simple TANK right now, but you will stop being a TANK to be a Nightshield, okay TANK?"
Just imagine an NPC telling you: "You are a brave TANK, adventurer, and I know you want to become a Nightshield... but you have to first do this quest that will prove you are a true Nightshield, and not a TANK, because you know you are a simple TANK right now, but you will stop being a TANK to be a Nightshield, okay TANK?"
I'm fine with that.
I am fine with the tank part, but that "Nightshield" stuff just sounds lame.
I wonder what we could change Nightshield to? Any suggestions, guys?!
Gornlord? Terminator? JK
Real ideas:
Reaver, Dark Knight, Void Knight, Fell Knight...
No offense to the guys who came up with the class names, but I will agree with anyone who says the class names we have now feels like a first or second draft.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Plenty of time for the devs to change class names if they choose to.
It's a quick and easy change programming-wise. I wonder what the non-English languages will choose to do.
Threads with alternative names popped up immediately after the class names dropped.
Fantasy games use different names, but in warfare, generally, combatants are simply named by whatever they do, or what weapon they carry.
We've got Bowmen, Swordsmen, Spearmen, even Riflemen, and Cannoneers. Mage is literally 'one using magic'.
So in the sense that the 'term', realistic, shoehorned or otherwise, for 'taking attention and mitigating damage' has become 'tanking', then it is fine to call them 'tanks'.
We can't call them Shieldmen, because they don't all use shields, but historical precedent indicates that this was done too (Hoplites). And Ashes doesn't force you to wear heavy armor...
If you're calling the tank class 'tank'
Why not have the cleric called 'heal'
That's why I thought the tank was an odd name choice...
Just call it guardian and have a guardian/guardian be a phalanx or some such...
We can't call the cleric 'healer' for two reasons: Other classes like Bard may have some slight healing capabilities, and Cleric can spec into things other than being a healer.
The Tanking role is solely unique the the Tank archetype. Tanks pull aggro and soak damage. Until there is a different word that describes those functions, they should be called tank. Until there is another archetype that can pull aggro and soak damage, they should be called tank.
The etymology of the term Tank has been brought up enough: there's no reason that the term 'Tank' couldn't be realistically created in the Ashes universe. The reason people don't like the name Tank is for the same reason they don't like the way AoC Dwarves look: they have preconceived notions of what a fantasy setting should be and don't want to give Steven, Intrepid, or AoC a chance to do any proper world building.
Fighters are gonna soak up damage too, if you have a Cleric and a Fighter who is gonna "tank"?? It's gonna be the fighter. What you just said is so subjective it doesn't even make sense.
If bards are off-healers as you say, fighters are off-tanks too. Your comment is completely wrong im sorry.
Re-name Clerics to healers and bards to off-healers/buffers.
If you're calling the tank class 'tank'
Why not have the cleric called 'heal'
That's why I thought the tank was an odd name choice...
Just call it guardian and have a guardian/guardian be a phalanx or some such...
We can't call the cleric 'healer' for two reasons: Other classes like Bard may have some slight healing capabilities, and Cleric can spec into things other than being a healer.
The Tanking role is solely unique the the Tank archetype. Tanks pull aggro and soak damage. Until there is a different word that describes those functions, they should be called tank. Until there is another archetype that can pull aggro and soak damage, they should be called tank.
The etymology of the term Tank has been brought up enough: there's no reason that the term 'Tank' couldn't be realistically created in the Ashes universe. The reason people don't like the name Tank is for the same reason they don't like the way AoC Dwarves look: they have preconceived notions of what a fantasy setting should be and don't want to give Steven, Intrepid, or AoC a chance to do any proper world building.
Isn't that false tho? Pretty sure it was mentioned other classes can tank as well? 🤔
I might've missed something, but I doubt it. My understanding is that a role with Tank as a secondary archetype can have some offtank potential, and that's about it.
Bards will have some offhealing potential, and that's it. It's safe to rename clerics as "healers" by your logic.
If a fighter/tank can hold aggro and augment his defenses for a brief period of time, he is, in fact, tanking.
If a tank/mage groups with a, let's say, tank/tank and avoids getting aggro and just does damage, he is, in fact, acting as a DPS. He is in no way tanking.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2021
I mean...a Cleric/Cleric could choose to DPS and never heal.
A Tank/Tank could also choose to act as DPS and let the Tank/Mage be main tank.
A Fighter/Tank can tank, of course, but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank.
I mean...a Cleric/Cleric could choose to DPS and never heal.
A Tank/Tank could also choose to act as DPS and let the Tank/Mage be main tank.
A Fighter/Tank can tank, of course, but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank.
Exactly, and a Bard will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric. You just made our point.
Change Cleric to Healer.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Tank's primary role is tanking.
Cleric's primary role is not healing.
Tank's primary role is tanking.
Cleric's primary role is not healing.
..... cleric is a healer wtf are you spewing now? Can you share me a bit of whatever you're smoking? Paladin sure is not a healer, but cleric? 100% is a healer main
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2021
In Ashes, Healing is not the primary role of Cleric: Restoration. Enhancement. Debilitation. Clerics keep their team in the fight by bolstering their combat abilities and cursing their enemies. Far from simply supporting their allies through healing, a Cleric is also capable of wielding destructive force in the face of danger.
Ashes Clerics have more focus on Death than previous MMORPGs.
The Trinity in Ashes is not Tank/DPS/Healer. In Ashes, the Trinity is Tank/DPS/Support and the official primary role of Cleric is Support. Which is why the devs would not name Cleric "Healer".
Tank's primary role is tanking.
Cleric's primary role is not healing.
I'm pretty sure it was you that rather flatly told me X/clerics might be able to heal but they will not be able to replace the need for cleric in a group... And then posted the quote of Stephen saying that...
Soooo if X/clerics can fill the healer role... Why can't x/tanks tank
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2021
The dev quote states that some Cleric augments will indirectly allow a character to heal others, but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric.
Cleric heal abilities will be more powerful than Cleric heal augments.
In Ashes, the primary role of a Cleric is more than just Healing - just as the primary role of a Tank is more than just Damage Mitigation.
Steven is not going to call the Cleric Healer because Steven wants people to understand that Ashes Clerics are not intended to just be standing in the back of the group focused on Healing.
Just as a Tank is expected to be focused on Threat Generation as well as Damage Mitigation, an Ashes Cleric is expected to be focused on Debilitation and Enhancement as well as Healing.
I didn't say that x/Clerics "can fill the healer role".
I said that x/Clerics are Clerics. x/Clerics will be able to heal others. Yes.
Life is one of the Cleric augment Schools.
Death is also one of the Cleric augment Schools.
The Life School is not more primary than the Death School.
We can expect Threat Generation to be one of the Tank augment Schools and Damage Mitigation to be another Tank augment School. The Threat Generation School would not be more primary than the Damage Mitigation School.
Steven is not going to change the name of Tank to Threat Generator or Damage Mitigator.
Steven is not going to change the name of Mage to Elementalist or Teleporter.
And he's not going to change the name of Cleric to Healer or Enhancer.
Given the archetype being called "Tank", I feel like the other archetypes should have a consistent naming scheme.
"Healer", "Magic DPS", "Support", instead of Cleric, Mage, and Bard. You could come up with a multitude of reasons that this style of nomenclature would break down or quickly become unwieldy, but the point is that there is a clear and obvious inconsistency with the choice of "Tank" as an archetype name.
Acknowledging the lack of other archetypes using a combat-role based naming scheme, something like "Defender" or "Guardian" would be more appropriate for the Tank.
Comments
We can't call the cleric 'healer' for two reasons: Other classes like Bard may have some slight healing capabilities, and Cleric can spec into things other than being a healer.
The Tanking role is solely unique the the Tank archetype. Tanks pull aggro and soak damage. Until there is a different word that describes those functions, they should be called tank. Until there is another archetype that can pull aggro and soak damage, they should be called tank.
The etymology of the term Tank has been brought up enough: there's no reason that the term 'Tank' couldn't be realistically created in the Ashes universe. The reason people don't like the name Tank is for the same reason they don't like the way AoC Dwarves look: they have preconceived notions of what a fantasy setting should be and don't want to give Steven, Intrepid, or AoC a chance to do any proper world building.
Isn't that false tho? Pretty sure it was mentioned other classes can tank as well? 🤔
I might've missed something, but I doubt it. My understanding is that a role with Tank as a secondary archetype can have some offtank potential, and that's about it.
Sure honestly. I don't care what they call it. Change it if you want. It's just a name. Either case the class will fill the tank role. I am much more interested in what Bard and Summoner will do. They seem to be pretty unique.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
That right there is lazy writing - but not for the reason you think.
Unless the name of a class has a very specific in world definition (such as Cleric or Necromancer), or is a specific title that one gains via education or some such, NPC's in the game world should almost never refer to a player by their class.
it happens all the time in wow and is most likely why he mentioned it. That's not to say its bad in wow, as it works quite well.
I'm fine with that.
I am fine with the tank part, but that "Nightshield" stuff just sounds lame.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I wonder what we could change Nightshield to? Any suggestions, guys?!
Gornlord? Terminator? JK
Real ideas:
Reaver, Dark Knight, Void Knight, Fell Knight...
No offense to the guys who came up with the class names, but I will agree with anyone who says the class names we have now feels like a first or second draft.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
It's a quick and easy change programming-wise. I wonder what the non-English languages will choose to do.
Threads with alternative names popped up immediately after the class names dropped.
We've got Bowmen, Swordsmen, Spearmen, even Riflemen, and Cannoneers. Mage is literally 'one using magic'.
So in the sense that the 'term', realistic, shoehorned or otherwise, for 'taking attention and mitigating damage' has become 'tanking', then it is fine to call them 'tanks'.
We can't call them Shieldmen, because they don't all use shields, but historical precedent indicates that this was done too (Hoplites). And Ashes doesn't force you to wear heavy armor...
If it did, there would be a simple solution.
We would just call them Mailmen.
Fighters are gonna soak up damage too, if you have a Cleric and a Fighter who is gonna "tank"?? It's gonna be the fighter. What you just said is so subjective it doesn't even make sense.
If bards are off-healers as you say, fighters are off-tanks too. Your comment is completely wrong im sorry.
Re-name Clerics to healers and bards to off-healers/buffers.
Best idea yet to come from one of these threads.
Same with damage mitigation.
Other Primary Archetypes besides the Mage will be using magical abilities.
Panzers I through LXIV
Bards will have some offhealing potential, and that's it. It's safe to rename clerics as "healers" by your logic.
If a fighter/tank can hold aggro and augment his defenses for a brief period of time, he is, in fact, tanking.
If a tank/mage groups with a, let's say, tank/tank and avoids getting aggro and just does damage, he is, in fact, acting as a DPS. He is in no way tanking.
A Tank/Tank could also choose to act as DPS and let the Tank/Mage be main tank.
A Fighter/Tank can tank, of course, but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank.
Exactly, and a Bard will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric. You just made our point.
Change Cleric to Healer.
Cleric's primary role is not healing.
Yes it is.
..... cleric is a healer wtf are you spewing now? Can you share me a bit of whatever you're smoking? Paladin sure is not a healer, but cleric? 100% is a healer main
Restoration. Enhancement. Debilitation. Clerics keep their team in the fight by bolstering their combat abilities and cursing their enemies. Far from simply supporting their allies through healing, a Cleric is also capable of wielding destructive force in the face of danger.
Ashes Clerics have more focus on Death than previous MMORPGs.
The Trinity in Ashes is not Tank/DPS/Healer. In Ashes, the Trinity is Tank/DPS/Support and the official primary role of Cleric is Support. Which is why the devs would not name Cleric "Healer".
Actually, the way Steven describes it is that Ashes has a trinity +, or quadrant system. Tank/DPS/healer/support.
You're the one that wants to argue semantics all the time, get your semantics correct.
I'm pretty sure it was you that rather flatly told me X/clerics might be able to heal but they will not be able to replace the need for cleric in a group... And then posted the quote of Stephen saying that...
Soooo if X/clerics can fill the healer role... Why can't x/tanks tank
Cleric heal abilities will be more powerful than Cleric heal augments.
In Ashes, the primary role of a Cleric is more than just Healing - just as the primary role of a Tank is more than just Damage Mitigation.
Steven is not going to call the Cleric Healer because Steven wants people to understand that Ashes Clerics are not intended to just be standing in the back of the group focused on Healing.
Just as a Tank is expected to be focused on Threat Generation as well as Damage Mitigation, an Ashes Cleric is expected to be focused on Debilitation and Enhancement as well as Healing.
I didn't say that x/Clerics "can fill the healer role".
I said that x/Clerics are Clerics. x/Clerics will be able to heal others. Yes.
Life is one of the Cleric augment Schools.
Death is also one of the Cleric augment Schools.
The Life School is not more primary than the Death School.
We can expect Threat Generation to be one of the Tank augment Schools and Damage Mitigation to be another Tank augment School. The Threat Generation School would not be more primary than the Damage Mitigation School.
Steven is not going to change the name of Tank to Threat Generator or Damage Mitigator.
Steven is not going to change the name of Mage to Elementalist or Teleporter.
And he's not going to change the name of Cleric to Healer or Enhancer.
The *PRIMARY* role of a tank is to tank, but it can fulfill other roles.
The *PRIMARY* role of a cleric is to heal, but it can perform other roles.
"Healer", "Magic DPS", "Support", instead of Cleric, Mage, and Bard. You could come up with a multitude of reasons that this style of nomenclature would break down or quickly become unwieldy, but the point is that there is a clear and obvious inconsistency with the choice of "Tank" as an archetype name.
Acknowledging the lack of other archetypes using a combat-role based naming scheme, something like "Defender" or "Guardian" would be more appropriate for the Tank.