The problem with having “Tank” as a class name

Hurf Derfman

Atama wrote: »

Hurf Derfman wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Samson wrote: »

Steven has already answered why 'Tank' is named the way it is. The name of your class will be chosen from the 64 classes that are available... your class name will not be 'Tank'. It's time to move on.

No it won’t, you don’t pick from 64 classes when you play the game. You pick from 8, one of which is Tank. You can’t get a subclass until later in the game.

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?

Now that is semantics. What they call an archetype is really a class. Intrepid can make up terms but gamers know what things are. In no way is a class as Intrepid calls it, a class. Your weasel speech is unimpressive, and sorry but there is no “gotcha” here pal.

You seem to think that our relationship is something like:

https://youtu.be/mklnXM3LIXo

When it's actually more akin to:

https://youtu.be/NbgVYDI0mQM

🤪🤠

ButteryWholesomeness

This is like reading a thread about PC language on social media.

CaptnChuck

Noaani wrote: »

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.

I don't think so. We don't know how difficult it is to change your secondary archetype. I don't think that it will be as easy as WoW though.

Noaani

CaptnChuck wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

I don't think so. We don't know how difficult it is to change your secondary archetype. I don't think that it will be as easy as WoW though.

It won't be as easy as WoW, nothing will. Even once that is implemented in to the game though, I would expect people to be happy to change secondary class weekly if they had reason to do so - or even more frequently.

maouw

@Buttery Wholesomeness I don't like that your name has the word "butt" in it. It could be really offensive to someone.

/s



It honestly doesn't matter too much to me, but I can see where people are coming from - and how it could be pretty annoying to someone who wants to play tank roles. Like I would be pretty sad if Bard was renamed Buffer.

Noaani

maouw wrote: »

I don't like that your name has the word "butt" in it. It could be really offensive to someone.

While your sarcasm is obvious, your name has Mao in it - also offensive to some people.

CaptnChuck

Noaani wrote: »

maouw wrote: »

I don't like that your name has the word "butt" in it. It could be really offensive to someone.

While your sarcasm is obvious, your name has Mao in it - also offensive to some people.

Oof

Marcet

maouw wrote: »

Petition to rename:

• Rogue --> DPS Melee
• Ranger --> DPS Ranged
• Mage --> DPS Magic
• Cleric --> Healer

Then all will be right in the world.

TheGoodzilla

The "class" system is deliciously flavorful.

But meta is a thing. And 64 unique identifiers is needlessly complicated, and, when given a choice, most people will go for the simpler/more intuitive option.

For that reason I suggest one of the two options:
- borrow from gw1 and use the first few letters of a class name to make a combination
- number each class and just use that (example: fighter fighter would be 1/1)

Like it or not, the game community will bypass the 64 class naming convention in discussing builds. Better to figure out a simplified way to do that now.

Damokles

TheGoodzilla wrote: »

The "class" system is deliciously flavorful.

But meta is a thing. And 64 unique identifiers is needlessly complicated, and, when given a choice, most people will go for the simpler/more intuitive option.

For that reason I suggest one of the two options:
- borrow from gw1 and use the first few letters of a class name to make a combination
- number each class and just use that (example: fighter fighter would be 1/1)

Like it or not, the game community will bypass the 64 class naming convention in discussing builds. Better to figure out a simplified way to do that now.

GW1 didnt combine the first three letters of a class to make another one. You were ALWAYS your main class + your secondary class (could be that i missunderstood you there though).
And I would not really compare GW1 and Ashes at all.
The names are just flavour. A Fighter/Bard and a Fighter/Tank will still be fighters.

TheGoodzilla

Damokles wrote: »

TheGoodzilla wrote: »

The "class" system is deliciously flavorful.

But meta is a thing. And 64 unique identifiers is needlessly complicated, and, when given a choice, most people will go for the simpler/more intuitive option.

For that reason I suggest one of the two options:
- borrow from gw1 and use the first few letters of a class name to make a combination
- number each class and just use that (example: fighter fighter would be 1/1)

Like it or not, the game community will bypass the 64 class naming convention in discussing builds. Better to figure out a simplified way to do that now.

GW1 didnt combine the first three letters of a class to make another one.

Correct, the community did. The most notable example is warrior/monk abbreviated to WaMo.

And a fighter fighter will be, I think, distinct enough from a fighter tank (still don't like that class name) that being able to distinguish them beyond just "fighter".

grisu

How can you not like tank as a name. It's a rolling fortress of fire and destruction capable of withstanding any and all punny attacks you little people can throw at it. Not too unlike what we get right? Maybe without the fire and rolling part.
Petition to make tanks roll around to move forward? ehehehehe

Seriously tho if you do not think about a container what do you think about when you hear tank? Is it the best word to describe the class? I mean it's heavily armored, it can take a lot of abuse. Maybe, maybe not but looking through this topic none of the suggested names do any better.
Some might, if you assume alot about the classes capabilities, but that's the thing, we assume. We don't know and like the 50 "rename classes" thread before this that's all I need to disagree with any and all suggested names.
We don't know how the class will turn out and until we do no name will ever be better than tank. Period.
It's the tank, which also has the role of the tank. Simple, easy and if anyone wanna tell me they never looked for group members by writing "lfg ranged dps, heal (3/5)" not caring for the class then you are lying (or never had anything else aside from a dungeon finder, r.i.p.)

Damokles

TheGoodzilla wrote: »

Damokles wrote: »

TheGoodzilla wrote: »

The "class" system is deliciously flavorful.

But meta is a thing. And 64 unique identifiers is needlessly complicated, and, when given a choice, most people will go for the simpler/more intuitive option.

For that reason I suggest one of the two options:
- borrow from gw1 and use the first few letters of a class name to make a combination
- number each class and just use that (example: fighter fighter would be 1/1)

Like it or not, the game community will bypass the 64 class naming convention in discussing builds. Better to figure out a simplified way to do that now.

GW1 didnt combine the first three letters of a class to make another one.

Correct, the community did. The most notable example is warrior/monk abbreviated to WaMo.

And a fighter fighter will be, I think, distinct enough from a fighter tank (still don't like that class name) that being able to distinguish them beyond just "fighter".

The thing is:
A Fighter/Fighter will have the same base abilities as a Fighter/Tank.

Example:
Fighter - Charge - Charge an enemy and knock them back.
Fighter/Fighter - Charge - Charge an enemy, knock back all enemies on your path and parry all incomming physical attacks for 3sec.
Fighter/Tank - Charge - Charge an enemy, knock them to the ground and taunt all enemies in a 3m radius.

Birthday

Lol guys this must a intrepid prank. Don't take it serious lmao.
They are just provoking you guys to talk about it so that they keep you engaged.
Why else would they name their tank archtype tank LOL. It's a prank!
Watch them change it 1 day before release LMFAO

grisu

I will just throw mine now in too.

Let's call it Panzer. It's the german equivalent of the tank while it's literal translation is armour while also being the word used for the shell of a turtle and similar protective features. The panzer of a turtle, get it? It's perfect.
"Lf Group Panzer 7/8" Can't get better than that. :kappa

/discuss

Birthday

grisu wrote: »

I will just throw mine now in too.

Let's call it Panzer. It's the german equivalent of the tank while it's literal translation is armour while also being the word used for the shell of a turtle and similar protective features. The panzer of a turtle, get it? It's perfect.
"Lf Group Panzer 7/8" Can't get better than that. :kappa

/discuss

ahahahaha it sounds like some gangbanger name. Should defo use it, all the kids will play panzers

TheGoodzilla

My point was even though I don't like the name tank, the issue really is how we abbreviate the combination of first and second classes (because I'm not going to call them archetypes) for brevity and clarity.

And regarding the "a fighter is a fighter" I would suggest thay the augments your second class brings will be significant enough that some groups will prefer one type of tank over another (perhaps tank cleric over tank rogue for example).

On a side note, I think wonderful abbreviation for tank cleric would be TaCl

Voidwalkers

Why not rename the class itself to something that matches a fantasy world (as someone posted earlier, "vanguard" seems pretty good), then have an icon (e.g. shield icon for tank, sword icon for dps ...) or something next to the name to denote the archetype's role?

Well unless there's an actual "tank" as a type of siege weapon in Ashes, i.e. the Verra population actually have the concept of "tank = something or someone who soaks up damage in the frontline, leading the breakthrough", then that's a different story

Kneczhevo

I didn't read all the replies, to the "Immersion" thread, was this brought up? Lol

Funny how no one has issues with the combined Class names. But then we haven't seen the skills and abilities, yet.

If Intrepid is so fixed with Tank, so people can understand the class, when choosing. Then let's change the others to be more discriptive names, as well, for immersion purposes.

Ranger to Bowman
Mage to Spellcaster
Cleric to Healer
Fighter to Weapon Master
Rogue to Backstabber
Summoner and Bard can stay, as they are discriptive already.

/Rantoff

Jamaina

Tank is a bad name for a class and should be changed, it doesn't descipe the class outside of combat or in roleplay at all. The cleric isn't called healer either or bard for buffer. Cleric has a roleplay implications that healer wouldn't. Calling tank for shieldmaster, defender or protector would've led to a more proper class name and would define the class for more than just it's combat

Sent

Welcome to the party.

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/46454/change-the-tank-archetype-name/p1

Timeraider

I would suggest they dont change the classname but that the Tank class will have tracks, a full metal suit and a massive cannon on their back .. that would fix it to.




Just kidding.. kinda agree on this

shadiss

juggernaut, titan, defender, guardian, meatshield ??

someone else said vanguard... that would be fine too..

Robskulvich

Most people would agree that Tank is a bad name for a class. Having said that, your understanding of the class system may be wrong. There are 64 classes in this game and none of them are named tank. When you create your character you are not choosing a class you are choosing an archetype. This represents the role you want to play in the game. Your class does not become available until level 25 when you unlock your secondary archetype. The combination of your primary and secondary archetypes creates your class. Tank may not be the best name for the archetype, but I doubt there is a better name that isn't already represented as a class name.

Marcet

Vanguard or Protector.

"Tank" makes no sense imo.

Bricktop

It genuinely doesn't bother me what it's called.

VmanGman

Tank isn't a class. It's an archetype. You will be able to roleplay as any of the 8 classes that use tank as their primary archetype (Argent, Paladin, Knight, Spellshield, Warden, Nightshield, Keeper, Guardian).

Khronus

Vanguard or Defender. Why they haven't done a community poll and changed the title yet is beyond me. NOBODY wants tank.

insomnia

Khronus wrote: »

Vanguard or Defender. Why they haven't done a community poll and changed the title yet is beyond me. NOBODY wants tank.

Just because YOU don't want it, dosen't mean the everybody else feel the same way. How arrogant are you. I can emagine alot of people don't care. If you pick it, atleast you should have an idea what it is about

Kneczhevo

I foresee a merge of threads coming.