The perceived issue with the ‘Tank’ archetype name is that it conflates a role with an archetype label. So, the most crucial question to ask is whether there is a class combination that doesn’t include a ‘tank’ that can actually play in the tank role.
If ‘yes’ then Intrepid has some work to do.
If ‘no’ then it’s fine until @Warth rez’s the topic in 4 months.
Oof, unfortunate that he stated it won’t change. I was really trying to fix mine and others future immersion. Well, they better give the class a transformers like feature so I can roll around and shoot artillery from my cannon arms.
Lol.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The perceived issue with the ‘Tank’ archetype name is that it conflates a role with an archetype label. So, the most crucial question to ask is whether there is a class combination that doesn’t include a ‘tank’ that can actually play in the tank role.
If ‘yes’ then Intrepid has some work to do.
If ‘no’ then it’s fine until @Warth rez’s the topic in 4 months.
Can you play a Rogue/Rogue who fights? If yes, Fighter might need some work.
Can you play a Rogue/Rogue who wields magic? If yes, Mage might need some work.
Can you play a Rogue/Rogue who fights? If yes, Fighter might need some work.
Can you play a Rogue/Rogue who wields magic? If yes, Mage might need some work.
You already know my rebuttal, but for the youts: neither 'fighter' nor 'mage' are MMO group roles: e.g. 'tank', 'healer', 'dps', or 'support.' I mean it would be awkward if we renamed 'Fighter' to 'melee dps.' Rogues would be like 'WTF!?'
It wouldn't be appropriate to label the Cleric archetype as 'Healer' because Bards can also serve in that role. If no other archetype could heal, then Cleric could be Healer. So it follows that if any other archetype can be a viable tank, then the 'tank' archetype label fails because you have one label meaning two different things.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
None of the labels matter as long as everyone knows how the game uses the labels.
The perceived issue with the ‘Tank’ archetype name is that it conflates a role with an archetype label. So, the most crucial question to ask is whether there is a class combination that doesn’t include a ‘tank’ that can actually play in the tank role.
If ‘yes’ then Intrepid has some work to do.
If ‘no’ then it’s fine until @Warth rez’s the topic in 4 months.
Its been 12 months <.<
Aalso its @daveywavey 's fault for reminding me that this exists
None of the labels matter as long as everyone knows how the game uses the labels.
Totally. But if a label means two different things in the same game, the label literally fails at a functional level.
It won't really mean the same thing. In Ashes, Tanks tank.
Any other meaning of tank is going to be similar to a Rogue fighting.
A Fighter can tank just as a Rogue can fight.
Especially in a game that is balanced around having one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group...
When you are looking for a Tank, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Tank. Just as when you are looking for a Fighter, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Fighter.
None of the labels matter as long as everyone knows how the game uses the labels.
Totally. But if a label means two different things in the same game, the label literally fails at a functional level.
It won't really mean the same thing. In Ashes, Tanks tank.
Any other meaning of tank is going to be similar to a Rogue fighting.
A Fighter can tank just as a Rogue can fight.
Especially in a game that is balanced around having one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group...
When you are looking for a Tank, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Tank. Just as when you are looking for a Fighter, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Fighter.
Nobody will use the class names anyway. 64 is far too much to remember for it to be productive.
For any communication they will prolly be abbreviated into.
Especially in a game that is balanced around having one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group...
When you are looking for a Tank, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Tank. Just as when you are looking for a Fighter, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Fighter.
Yup.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Cosidering its an archtype name, and not a class name, who cares.
@PenguinPaladin its the first impression new players get so it matters quite a lot.
According to Intrepid, you'll also spend quite some time within the game before getting your secondary.
You will spend quite some time as a single archetype, sure.
Its the "first impression players get" so it maters quite a lot. To someone, you, i guess so sure.
I dont care in the least. I think the name of the archtype matters little. I think it is even such a small and meaningless change that in the overall aspect of the game it is meaningless.
At the very least i see it as so unimportant, that i would rather see the game become more complete than see someone working for intrepid having to constantly read through, debait, and stress over the communities responce to the name of an archtype.
But i mean, i guess other people have other priorities. Thats something i can acknowledge. But if ashes of creation fully released with "tank" as an archtype name, i dont see it that turning anyone away.
Comments
Guardian is already the Tank/Tank combination.
Defender would still be open as an option.
What about Sentinel?
The perceived issue with the ‘Tank’ archetype name is that it conflates a role with an archetype label. So, the most crucial question to ask is whether there is a class combination that doesn’t include a ‘tank’ that can actually play in the tank role.
If ‘yes’ then Intrepid has some work to do.
If ‘no’ then it’s fine until @Warth rez’s the topic in 4 months.
Guardian + Guardian = Juggernaut or something
Lol.
Can you play a Rogue/Rogue who wields magic? If yes, Mage might need some work.
You already know my rebuttal, but for the youts: neither 'fighter' nor 'mage' are MMO group roles: e.g. 'tank', 'healer', 'dps', or 'support.' I mean it would be awkward if we renamed 'Fighter' to 'melee dps.' Rogues would be like 'WTF!?'
It wouldn't be appropriate to label the Cleric archetype as 'Healer' because Bards can also serve in that role. If no other archetype could heal, then Cleric could be Healer. So it follows that if any other archetype can be a viable tank, then the 'tank' archetype label fails because you have one label meaning two different things.
Totally. But if a label means two different things in the same game, the label literally fails at a functional level.
@PenguinPaladin its the first impression new players get so it matters quite a lot.
According to Intrepid, you'll also spend quite some time within the game before getting your secondary.
Its been 12 months <.<
Aalso its @daveywavey 's fault for reminding me that this exists
Any other meaning of tank is going to be similar to a Rogue fighting.
A Fighter can tank just as a Rogue can fight.
Especially in a game that is balanced around having one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group...
When you are looking for a Tank, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Tank. Just as when you are looking for a Fighter, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Fighter.
Nobody will use the class names anyway. 64 is far too much to remember for it to be productive.
For any communication they will prolly be abbreviated into.
Ta/Fi or similar
Yup.
Change tank to guardian and change the tank/tank to something else... Just like @Daggial said
It's just weird having a archetype called by it's role
You will spend quite some time as a single archetype, sure.
Its the "first impression players get" so it maters quite a lot. To someone, you, i guess so sure.
I dont care in the least. I think the name of the archtype matters little. I think it is even such a small and meaningless change that in the overall aspect of the game it is meaningless.
At the very least i see it as so unimportant, that i would rather see the game become more complete than see someone working for intrepid having to constantly read through, debait, and stress over the communities responce to the name of an archtype.
But i mean, i guess other people have other priorities. Thats something i can acknowledge. But if ashes of creation fully released with "tank" as an archtype name, i dont see it that turning anyone away.
What if we swapped tank and guardian completely?
Surely guardian/guardian can be called tank. As that is its role and focus.
Swaping them removes the "first impression argument"
It was JustVine, it wasn't me!!!
Leave it at Tank. I, as a tank main, want to be a Tank.
I also want nikr to be a tank.