This is going to look really silly if the devs announce it was a placeholder name for their least finished character or something! How about we leave issues for this until they do the class reveal and see if they have a new name for it or not. /thread
Tank is already revealed and was playable in alpha 1.
This is going to look really silly if the devs announce it was a placeholder name for their least finished character or something! How about we leave issues for this until they do the class reveal and see if they have a new name for it or not. /thread
Tank is already revealed and was playable in alpha 1.
This is going to look really silly if the devs announce it was a placeholder name for their least finished character or something! How about we leave issues for this until they do the class reveal and see if they have a new name for it or not. /thread
Tank is already revealed and was playable in alpha 1.
Fair enough, I was never there for that. But as we're still in Alpha stages it may still be subject to change. I do have a question though, what classes are finished as far as we are aware? Mage, Cleric, apparently Tank as well and Ranger will be revealed at the end of the month.
Personally I don't think Tank is a very good name for a class.
Every other archetype (other than mage, which is synonymous to wizard) derives from a common sense DnD class which describe a set of abilities, not their role.
Tank is going to be difficult to bruteforce into the lore vernacular. Any mention to a "tank" in the lore is going to be jarring.
If any other archetype other than Tank is used as a tank within the group, this will cause confusion. And this WILL happen outside of high end pve content.
There is still time to reconsider the name before it's set in stone in Alpha 2!
Personally I don't think Tank is a very good name for a class.
Every other archetype (other than mage, which is synonymous to wizard) derives from a common sense DnD class which describe a set of abilities, not their role.
Tank is going to be difficult to bruteforce into the lore vernacular. Any mention to a "tank" in the lore is going to be jarring.
If any other archetype other than Tank is used as a tank within the group, this will cause confusion. And this WILL happen outside of high end pve content.
There is still time to reconsider the name before it's set in stone in Alpha 2!
@Sathrago
I realized I wasn't part of this important point in AoC history yet. I have now redeemed myself as a forum guy.
Also to add to my post, while I listed some negatives, the other important point is that there aren't many positives to having an archetype called "Tank". What's the big benefit? Surely people aren't defending the opinion just because Steven said so?
To paraphrase Steven's argument: "Since everyone will just call it a Tank anyway, why not name it that." Fine logic, but it breaks as soons as someone decides to tank on their fighter for more dps during a group grinding session. Or if someone builds their Tank as a bruiser dps.
Also, why not apply that same logic to DPS or healer? Fighter should be "melee DPS", cleric should be "healer", bards should be "support", and rogues could be "invisible men!" I'm sure the skilled writers at Intrepid could write a story about how the legendary xxxSNiperE1337xxx became the first "Ranged DPS" of his kind and passed on his skills to the brave warriors returning to Verra.
Or alternatively you could just give the "tanky" archetype some arbitrary, commonly accepted and lore friendly name and let people refer to them as tanks when they are tanking.
Tank is great, it's calling a spade a spade. Plus, people arguing about their class not being the best at tanking go away. If someone chooses a different class they should expect tanks to be better at tanking.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2022
Fighter is Fighter
Mage is Mage
Ranger is Ranger
Tank is Tank
They are all lore-friendly.
Everyone already knows that the English language has some irregularities.
@Sathrago
I realized I wasn't part of this important point in AoC history yet. I have now redeemed myself as a forum guy.
Ashes Forum-Guy checklist:
1. Registered.
2. Fanatically loves OR casually denigrates the Tulnar.
3. Expressed your opinions on the following topics:
- Tank as a class name
- Dual-wielding shields
- Cosmetic cash shop
- Damage meter or similar addons/mechanisms
- Open pvp & "safe" instanced contents
- Proximity voice chat
- Cheaper subscription fee for players from _____ (insert arbitrary region / demographic group) on EU/US servers
4. Witnessed the resurrections of each of the threads above more than once.
....... What else? I'm sure there's something I've missed ...
@Sathrago
I realized I wasn't part of this important point in AoC history yet. I have now redeemed myself as a forum guy.
Ashes Forum-Guy checklist:
1. Registered.
2. Fanatically loves OR casually denigrates Tulnar.
3. Expressed your opinions on the following topics:
- Tank as a class name
- Dual-wielding shields
- Cosmetic cash shop
- Damage meter or similar addons/mechanisms
- Open pvp & "safe" instanced contents
- Proximity voice chat
- Cheaper subscription fee for players from _____ (insert arbitrary region / demographic group) on EU/US servers
4. Witnessed the resurrections of all the threads above more than once.
....... What else? I'm sure there's something I've missed ...
Trolling, loving or hating stuffertons whenever cosmetics gets mentioned.
Personally I don't think Tank is a very good name for a class.
Every other archetype (other than mage, which is synonymous to wizard) derives from a common sense DnD class which describe a set of abilities, not their role.
Tank is going to be difficult to bruteforce into the lore vernacular. Any mention to a "tank" in the lore is going to be jarring.
If any other archetype other than Tank is used as a tank within the group, this will cause confusion. And this WILL happen outside of high end pve content.
There is still time to reconsider the name before it's set in stone in Alpha 2!
These are some of the worst points I've ever seen. Nothing is confusing tis eastremely easy to understand.
Tank means you will be more tanky skill wise.. So if your main class is tank you will be a lot heavier a tank. If it is your sub class you will be in more of a tank position.
You know the term used for mmorpgs since you were in diapers. The term still used in every single god damn game. People out here actually doing some necro post for no reason. When did i start playing dead Space?
Fighter is Fighter
Mage is Mage
Ranger is Ranger
Tank is Tank
They are all lore-friendly.
Everyone already knows that the English language has some irregularities.
Indeed these classes try to be as generic as possible by players.
Just that in if you would really living in a real medieval (fantasy) world, people would not say their profession is tank
Also summoner is a bit unusual, as that could be a mage too.
Alternatively, if they don't care about the immersion then they could use the word healer instead of cleric.
Guardian would have been a better name instead of tank.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
These are some of the worst points I've ever seen. Nothing is confusing tis eastremely easy to understand.
Tank means you will be more tanky skill wise.. So if your main class is tank you will be a lot heavier a tank. If it is your sub class you will be in more of a tank position.
You know the term used for mmorpgs since you were in diapers. The term still used in every single god damn game. People out here actually doing some necro post for no reason. When did i start playing dead Space?
These are some of the worst counter arguments I've ever seen. Nothing you say disagrees with anything I wrote.
By your logic, if Tank is an acceptable main class name because everyone uses the term "Tank" to describe their role, then DPS should be an acceptable main class as well! DPS is used in every single god damn game since you were in diapers. If your main class is DPS, you will be doing heavier damage. If it's the sub class, you are in a more dps positon. No confusion!
So problem solved! Rename all archetypes according to the role people will call them!
Or maybe just give Tank another name. There are no benefits and only downsides to the current setup. No other game does this, no game should.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Since the game is balanced for an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype, we should expect people to call for the unfilled Primary Archetype spots, rather than "healer" or "dps".
I don't think this is the case. The talks I've heard have been about having a diversity of the trinity roles in a party and not strictly all the archetypes.
Anyway your point still stands in the way that if a dungeon group needs a secret door open, they will be yelling for a "Rogue" and not for a "melee dps."
Why is that? Well because Rogue invokes an image of a certain skillset (inherited from early tabletop games), which has nothing to do with their role in the trinity. A rogue could also not even be DPS. I imagine with some debuffing configuration it could be a support or with a tankier configuration even an evasion offtank.
This brings us to the name "Tank". Tank is an accepted name for the role in the trinity, but now Steven wants it to describe a skillset as well. This makes sense if these two conditions apply:
Tanks are the only ones who can tank
Tanks can only fill the tank role, and no other roles
I don't think either of these points will be true, so people will always have to specify if they are talking about the role or the class when they talk about "tanks".
I just don't see why all this hassle? What is the big benefit we gain from this? It seems that now we will have to spend more time communicating rather than less. And finally there's the lore question. I acknowledge that "Tank" would be many times more lore friendly than "DPS" to have the people of Verra talk about. But surely you agree that for example "Guardian" would be more lore friendly than "Tank". I can see someone describing Gondar The Stout establishing the "Order of The Guardian". This is significantly less jarring than the "Order of The Tank" to me. Would you have been okay with a "Tank" class in Everquest?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2022
More time communicating is great in any case.
But, it not an issue.
If you want a Tank, ask for a Tank.
If you want a Fighter, ask for a Fighter.
If you want a Rogue, ask for a Rogue.
Takes less time to ask for a Tank than it does to ask for a Guardian. And that's about the difference of one second.
These are some of the worst points I've ever seen. Nothing is confusing tis eastremely easy to understand.
Tank means you will be more tanky skill wise.. So if your main class is tank you will be a lot heavier a tank. If it is your sub class you will be in more of a tank position.
You know the term used for mmorpgs since you were in diapers. The term still used in every single god damn game. People out here actually doing some necro post for no reason. When did i start playing dead Space?
These are some of the worst counter arguments I've ever seen. Nothing you say disagrees with anything I wrote.
By your logic, if Tank is an acceptable main class name because everyone uses the term "Tank" to describe their role, then DPS should be an acceptable main class as well! DPS is used in every single god damn game since you were in diapers. If your main class is DPS, you will be doing heavier damage. If it's the sub class, you are in a more dps positon. No confusion!
So problem solved! Rename all archetypes according to the role people will call them!
Or maybe just give Tank another name. There are no benefits and only downsides to the current setup. No other game does this, no game should.
I see you continue to make stupid takes, and are counting an abbreviation as a potential class name as your argument now.
Actual no brain with some of the dumbest feedback I've seen. Clearly you don't play games, tank has always be an acceptable name. You want some weird shit that makes no sense clearly.
Cleric is a cleric,
Warrior is a warrior
Ranger is a ranger
tank is a tank
ETc
Please don't be this dumb about actual pointless feedback with names that fit fine.
Actually cant under stand some of the stupidity. Call the class by the more fancy class names you don't need to say tank if you want to be that different.
Comments
Tank is already revealed and was playable in alpha 1.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Talking of looking really silly.... hahaha!
A Tank class has a large sturdy tank of Health.
Fair enough, I was never there for that. But as we're still in Alpha stages it may still be subject to change. I do have a question though, what classes are finished as far as we are aware? Mage, Cleric, apparently Tank as well and Ranger will be revealed at the end of the month.
Got it!
Tanks, Fountains and Hoses.
THE LIQUID TRINITY OF MMOs
In that case, I want my Fighter/Tank class name to be ‘Warthog.’
https://www.historynet.com/a10-warthog-beloved-military-plane-origins/
I'll take a Eurofighter. They're awesome.
There is still time to reconsider the name before it's set in stone in Alpha 2!
I realized I wasn't part of this important point in AoC history yet. I have now redeemed myself as a forum guy.
Also to add to my post, while I listed some negatives, the other important point is that there aren't many positives to having an archetype called "Tank". What's the big benefit? Surely people aren't defending the opinion just because Steven said so?
To paraphrase Steven's argument: "Since everyone will just call it a Tank anyway, why not name it that." Fine logic, but it breaks as soons as someone decides to tank on their fighter for more dps during a group grinding session. Or if someone builds their Tank as a bruiser dps.
Also, why not apply that same logic to DPS or healer? Fighter should be "melee DPS", cleric should be "healer", bards should be "support", and rogues could be "invisible men!" I'm sure the skilled writers at Intrepid could write a story about how the legendary xxxSNiperE1337xxx became the first "Ranged DPS" of his kind and passed on his skills to the brave warriors returning to Verra.
Or alternatively you could just give the "tanky" archetype some arbitrary, commonly accepted and lore friendly name and let people refer to them as tanks when they are tanking.
Mage is Mage
Ranger is Ranger
Tank is Tank
They are all lore-friendly.
Everyone already knows that the English language has some irregularities.
Ashes Forum-Guy checklist:
1. Registered.
2. Fanatically loves OR casually denigrates the Tulnar.
3. Expressed your opinions on the following topics:
- Tank as a class name
- Dual-wielding shields
- Cosmetic cash shop
- Damage meter or similar addons/mechanisms
- Open pvp & "safe" instanced contents
- Proximity voice chat
- Cheaper subscription fee for players from _____ (insert arbitrary region / demographic group) on EU/US servers
4. Witnessed the resurrections of each of the threads above more than once.
....... What else? I'm sure there's something I've missed ...
-_-
Trolling, loving or hating stuffertons whenever cosmetics gets mentioned.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
I've always been more partial to an AC-130 (specifically the j variant lately).
But this may just be my proclivity towards longer range and more firepower.
These are some of the worst points I've ever seen. Nothing is confusing tis eastremely easy to understand.
Tank means you will be more tanky skill wise.. So if your main class is tank you will be a lot heavier a tank. If it is your sub class you will be in more of a tank position.
You know the term used for mmorpgs since you were in diapers. The term still used in every single god damn game. People out here actually doing some necro post for no reason. When did i start playing dead Space?
Indeed these classes try to be as generic as possible by players.
Just that in if you would really living in a real medieval (fantasy) world, people would not say their profession is tank
Also summoner is a bit unusual, as that could be a mage too.
Alternatively, if they don't care about the immersion then they could use the word healer instead of cleric.
Guardian would have been a better name instead of tank.
These are some of the worst counter arguments I've ever seen. Nothing you say disagrees with anything I wrote.
By your logic, if Tank is an acceptable main class name because everyone uses the term "Tank" to describe their role, then DPS should be an acceptable main class as well! DPS is used in every single god damn game since you were in diapers. If your main class is DPS, you will be doing heavier damage. If it's the sub class, you are in a more dps positon. No confusion!
So problem solved! Rename all archetypes according to the role people will call them!
Or maybe just give Tank another name. There are no benefits and only downsides to the current setup. No other game does this, no game should.
I don't think this is the case. The talks I've heard have been about having a diversity of the trinity roles in a party and not strictly all the archetypes.
Anyway your point still stands in the way that if a dungeon group needs a secret door open, they will be yelling for a "Rogue" and not for a "melee dps."
Why is that? Well because Rogue invokes an image of a certain skillset (inherited from early tabletop games), which has nothing to do with their role in the trinity. A rogue could also not even be DPS. I imagine with some debuffing configuration it could be a support or with a tankier configuration even an evasion offtank.
This brings us to the name "Tank". Tank is an accepted name for the role in the trinity, but now Steven wants it to describe a skillset as well. This makes sense if these two conditions apply:
- Tanks are the only ones who can tank
- Tanks can only fill the tank role, and no other roles
I don't think either of these points will be true, so people will always have to specify if they are talking about the role or the class when they talk about "tanks".I just don't see why all this hassle? What is the big benefit we gain from this? It seems that now we will have to spend more time communicating rather than less. And finally there's the lore question. I acknowledge that "Tank" would be many times more lore friendly than "DPS" to have the people of Verra talk about. But surely you agree that for example "Guardian" would be more lore friendly than "Tank". I can see someone describing Gondar The Stout establishing the "Order of The Guardian". This is significantly less jarring than the "Order of The Tank" to me. Would you have been okay with a "Tank" class in Everquest?
But, it not an issue.
If you want a Tank, ask for a Tank.
If you want a Fighter, ask for a Fighter.
If you want a Rogue, ask for a Rogue.
Takes less time to ask for a Tank than it does to ask for a Guardian. And that's about the difference of one second.
So say we all
I see you continue to make stupid takes, and are counting an abbreviation as a potential class name as your argument now.
Actual no brain with some of the dumbest feedback I've seen. Clearly you don't play games, tank has always be an acceptable name. You want some weird shit that makes no sense clearly.
Cleric is a cleric,
Warrior is a warrior
Ranger is a ranger
tank is a tank
ETc
Please don't be this dumb about actual pointless feedback with names that fit fine.