Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Dont forget the dual shields mega thread! XD
Definitely honorable mention/runner up for sure.
They want the base archetype name to clearly reflect the role.
I'm dubious about Bard to be perceived as a party buffer for those who never played D&D.
"so... why is a bard coming to the battlefield with his lute?"
Fun fact: the term “tank” was a code word meant to keep the military secret about what was being developed. In 1915, when tanks were being built they tried to hide what was being made so they called these huge metal structures “tanks” so that people thought they were meant to hold liquids, not protect soldiers as war vehicles. The name stuck and so the vehicles kept the name.
We might as well be calling them “barrels” or “casks” for as much sense as this idiotic name means.
Next up: let’s call mages “Pew-Pews” and fighters are now “Hackenslashers”.
Lord of the rings online managed to come with interesting names for their trinity based system.
That being said, why couldn't fighter be mercenary (sword for hire), tank could be soldier or guard, ranger could be Woodsman or something, heck even mage could be wizard (because isnt summoner just a mage who specialized?) and I don't know about the others.
But in regards to this
I feel like if this really matters, and we keep talking like it does, then eventually some kind of change will occur.
Defender is where it's at IMO. It's very clearly defining what the role is but it isn't as silly as the word "tank". I keep seeing this pop up as a concern and it will eventually be changed I'm assuming.
Then all will be right in the world.
I support that. If IS uses the reason that the archetype has to tell us what the character is all about, then we need to change the names, at least here in the chat, until IS understands that choosing a trinity-role as a Name is..."not so well done".
Lets make a full list:
- Tank is already there :-)
- Cleric -> Healer
- Bard -> Support
- Warrior -> Sword-DD
- Rogue -> Dagger-DD
- Mage -> Range-Magic-DD
- Ranger -> Range-Physical-DD
- Summoner -> Pet-DD
And if someone gets the idea to tell me, that warriors can use more than swords, well.....Tanks can do more than tanking, so......have fun. :-)
Exactly...
The main argument against the "Tank" name seems to be that it's immersion breaking as hell. This is both valid and extremely important for a game that continues to tout immersion as one of its main selling points.
The only argument for "Tank" that holds any water is that people might choose the wrong class and feel stuck in a role they didn't want. That's fair, I suppose. But it can also be easily mitigated by having accurate descriptions of the archetypes available to players at the character creation screen. Heck, just put a banner across the top saying, in bold, red letters: THIS IS THE TANK ARCHETYPE
That being said, I wouldn't be totally surprised if this all turned out to be an elaborate prank/inside joke by the devs. "Tank" will persist all the way up through the betas, then BOOM! Name change at launch.
(On a personal note, I'm partial to Vanguard as a more appropriate name
Tank is so boring and overused hopefully they can change it in the future!
I'm perfectly fine with all the other ones, because they make sense, but unless there are tanks (the war kind) hidden somewhere in Verra, nobody would call someone a "tank".
Pretty easy fix too. I don't mind really what they would change it to. Guardian would still keep it clear that it's a tank archetype (ofc changing tank + tank name), but anything that makes sense really.
I hear by petition to have Mages formerly addressed as Pewpews.
While we're at it let's just rename everybody to better match their play style.
Fighter: Tankwabnabe
Cleric: Bae
Rogue: Coward
Ranger: Bow Coward
Summoner: BadPewpew
Bard: FknNoob
Tank: Chad
And then whatever dumb name Tank/tank has should be changed to:
TOTALCHAD
Fighter: MeChargeNow?
Rogue: Stabby McStabsomemore
Ranger: PewPew
Tank: Masochist-Inc.
Bard: Seduction101
It will be until you get your second archetype and all the other ones have well proper names, tank just sticks out really badly.
No. It will just be the name of the class/archetype/role/etc you use for half of your leveling experience.
So I suppose we should instead just spend the first two weeks of gameplay saying "im a future knight" or other such nonsense?
It doesn’t make it any less ridiculous, lazy, and wrong. Intrepid has done a lot of really good things, it’s silly that they’ve done something this blatantly stupid.
Technically old chap, you pick an archetype and are playing as an archetype until level 25 at which point you choose a second archetype and form your class.
It wouldn't do to be inadvertently spreading disinformation. Now, would it?
In reality, no you’re stuck with a stupid class name for 25 levels if you want to be any of the 8 sub-types of the class Intrepid is calling a “Tank”. Hopefully they get around to fixing this sometime in the next year or so.
There are 6 classes with Shadow in their name. You can easily replace them with like Void/Night/Twilight or something.
Also, wtf is a NightSpell? Or an Argent? Or a Scion?
Some of these class names are super generic while others are pretty cool. I wish they were more open to changing these generic class names.
I think the devs should just do a sort of community poll. Give us a blank class template and ask people to rename all the base 8 and then the 64 advanced classes.
Then they can see if there are sugestions that the community wants which might be better.
This is completely and totally the truth.
The bulk of players are not going to restrict themselves to one "class" as Intrepid are currently defining them. Rather, they are going to look at their archetype as being their class, and all choices of secondary archetype as being potential builds for that class.
A Scryer, Preditor or Knight will be a to Ashes what a fire mage or fury warrior is to WoW - whereas the 8 basic archetypes are to Ashes what the 12(?) basic classes are to WoW.