Will the class "names" become letdowns.

The 64 classes were all named out quite a while ago. Will gaining a secondary class diversify you enough to fit each and every class name, or will some of them end up being disappointing in the end? And should we be okay with some classnames not being fulfilling or should they be changed to better suit what that combination of architypes becomes?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

BaSkA_9x2

I don't think the names need to be final, after all nomenclature changes all the time, no harm in changing the name of classes or archetypes if it's for a good cause.

Regarding how much the secondary archetype will change the primary, I would not be surprised if each class had one unique skill. We all know that the secondary archetype might "add a flavor" to the skills from the primary archetype if you choose so, but I don't think there's ever been a quote saying "the final class will not add any unique skill(s) to it".

It would be really cool if each class from the Mage archetype had a unique skill, could be active or passive, so that there's more than subtle differences between Sorcerer, Acolyte, Battle Mage, Archwizard, Spellhunter, Shadow Caster, Warlock and Spellstone. Maybe add a unique skill to every class except for the classes which are reached by choosing the same primary and secondary, which is probably going to be "the purest version of each archetype".

Atama

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

At this point i feel they have to keep the tank archtype, and add to the lore about why it is called a tank. Maybe easter egg in some books and misc object lore that talkes about the lost tech of a mobile cannon known for being hard to destroy.

"Tank", from the old term "tan-ka", 'Taker of The Flow', the term referred to the valiant warriors who would take the charge of the enemy head on, blocking their flow toward those vulnerable who needed to be protected, taking on the responsibility of the safety of others with their powerful armor and trained bodies, while those more suited to striking and magical defenses supported the Tan-ka from behind or from the flanks.

I just think Tanks should increase their damage mitigation by getting drunk. They are nicknamed "Tanks" from the Tankards they drink from.

The same way Assassins are named for their association with the drug hashish.

(I am only halfway joking.)

CROW3

Atama wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

At this point i feel they have to keep the tank archtype, and add to the lore about why it is called a tank. Maybe easter egg in some books and misc object lore that talkes about the lost tech of a mobile cannon known for being hard to destroy.

"Tank", from the old term "tan-ka", 'Taker of The Flow', the term referred to the valiant warriors who would take the charge of the enemy head on, blocking their flow toward those vulnerable who needed to be protected, taking on the responsibility of the safety of others with their powerful armor and trained bodies, while those more suited to striking and magical defenses supported the Tan-ka from behind or from the flanks.

I just think Tanks should increase their damage mitigation by getting drunk. They are nicknamed "Tanks" from the Tankards they drink from.

The same way Assassins are named for their association with the drug hashish.

(I am only halfway joking.)

Hm… that would explain why they’re always barreling into groups too. And taunting. And moving around in circles.

You know - I think you nailed it, @Atama.

Atama

My idea was partially inspired by my old EverQuest warrior. I tanked with him and always drank before fights. The only skill I maxed on him was Alcohol Tolerance. (That was a real skill in that game.)

Even World of Warcraft has a tank specialization (for the Monk class) called "Brewmaster" which drinks. If they don't want to do alcohol, make them some kind of fortifying potion drunk from a tankard instead.

CROW3

Atama wrote: »

My idea was partially inspired by my old EverQuest warrior. I tanked with him and always drank before fights. The only skill I maxed on him was Alcohol Tolerance. (That was a real skill in that game.)

Even World of Warcraft has a tank specialization (for the Monk class) called "Brewmaster" which drinks. If they don't want to do alcohol, make them some kind of fortifying potion drunk from a tankard instead.

Heh - yeah I MT'd as Brewmaster for a little bit, but ended up preferring Ven DH and Blood DK.

Dygz

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I use spellstone as an example just because its a class i remember, not because i have expectations for it or anything.

It's a class name you remember, but if you have no expectations for what it should do, there can't be a letdown.

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I'm along the lines that the labels arent that important, and them being changeable in the case that majority of people seem to have a misinterpretation due to class name. The game is in development after all. I expect when things are more concrete, than name changes may occur.

I mean... Cleric/Tank sounds like what I expect a Paladin to be.
Summoner/Cleric: Necromancer might be summoning undead, sure...

I have no expectations for what a Ranger/Fighter or Tank/Ranger should be called, so, whatever that is OK.

But, yeah, we want a Paladin to feel a least a bit like what we think a Paladin would be.
We want a Necromancer to feel a least a bit like what we think a Necromancer would be.
We want a Shaman to feel a least a bit like what we think a Shaman would be.

Kovrm

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

At this point i feel they have to keep the tank archtype, and add to the lore about why it is called a tank. Maybe easter egg in some books and misc object lore that talkes about the lost tech of a mobile cannon known for being hard to destroy.

"Tank", from the old term "tan-ka", 'Taker of The Flow', the term referred to the valiant warriors who would take the charge of the enemy head on, blocking their flow toward those vulnerable who needed to be protected, taking on the responsibility of the safety of others with their powerful armor and trained bodies, while those more suited to striking and magical defenses supported the Tan-ka from behind or from the flanks.

Perfect.

daveywavey

Or, if you want to change Steven's names, put $Xmillion of your own money into the game, and I'm sure he'll let you have your say.

Ironhope

There's no way of telling until Alpha 2 (which we will realistically see at the end of 2023) mr. Penguin.

The quotes we got from the devs so far are pretty vague. You could respect them to the letter and create classes which are just cosmetic packs with minor stat buffs or you could create something close to the specs in wow (without changing the role of the archetype within the role trinity).

I for one have signalted many times that not delivering notably distinct (both in gameplay and spirit, meaning appearance and all that) classes would be a big mistake from the devs and would disappoint many people.

Mag7spy

I can't see a name being a let down, its simply the name of a class. If the name relates to something all people know and understand it should follow that. If it is a new type of class name there can't be let downs as we don't know what to expect.

Though if we see a name and create what you think it will be in your mind, then you are setting yourself up for being let down. Generally id not expect new skills and expect skills as planned to be augmented with new effects or changed in how it works.

Talents

If you take the class names literally then yes, they will be let downs imo.

bloodprophet

I think the people that will be let down the most will be the ones that carry emotional baggage forward from other games or IP's vs those that can look at it as something new and different.
More people need to learn to let go and move forward. Take the game for what it is not whatever you want it to be. Don't try to force meaning where there is none.

Child Item