My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
Why is this an issue?
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
The reason is that tank, dd and healer are used in mmos by players even if those names are different.
Yeah, so, if there is only one archetype that is a tank, calling it a tank is the correct thing for Intrepid to do.
Since there are technically two archetypes that can heal (Cleric and Bard, apparently), Intrepid can't just name one archetype "healer". Since there are at least four archetypes that are DPS (or dd) you can't really use that as a name.
However, there is only one tank archetype, so calling it tank is absolutely appropriate.
If Intrepid were only planning a single DPS archetype, with melee, ranged, magic and sneaky variants all branching off of that one archetype, I'd be all for it being called DPS. It kills any ambiguity players may have about their role.
This debate can go on for years... There are simply those who do not care about the aesthetics of a class name. And there are those for whom it is important.
But what makes me laugh is that if we renamed all the classes with names like "HEALER", "MELEE DPS", "RANGE DPS", "SUPPORT", half of the people who like the class "TANK" would suddenly understand the issue and turn their coat.
However, we know how MMOs with no story, no RP and Fedex quests end up.
I'm one of those people who like building a character identity, it's one of the fundamentals of MMO for me and "Tank" has no soul.
This isn't how language works lol. You can only argue its slang to be called a tank in mmorpgs in general language. DPS and healer are straight for in meaning damage per second and healing. "Tank" definition does say the meaning of the class and is more of a slang / name with an alternative definition created a decade ago.
Effectively if people always called tanks "defenders, meat shield, blockers, knight" over years you would be arguing the same thing and instead be fine with them being called tanks.
DPS is abbreviation that isn't going to be used as a class name.
The names on classes are fine and make sense and are very readable so people know what type of DPS they are getting, what type of support they are getting and know the tank archetype.
You are effectively viewing an archetype as a class and creating an argument based on that. Refer yourself as your class not your archetype, not that it will change anything though you still will be called a tank no matter what like the last past 10 yeas (unless there is an overpowered type of tank everyone uses and refuses to have any other type in their party).
'Knight' can possess a theme that is good or corrupted.
Tank is just a cheap term broadly used because many people don't care, hence why they're one if not the most underplayed class in mmo history (with obv gameplay mechanics being against them ie "only need 1").
I'm totally against the need of any game hard requiring a Tank mechanic anyway, should be an armored Warrior with support traits or a specilization selected but for some ungodly reason a lot of peoples only attractive attachment to this "class" is "I'm able to soak it alllll up!"....talk about comedic immersion...
it's literally like the cheap thrills used in asian martial arts movies when the very skilled average height protaganist bumps into the almost 7ft western muscle man
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
Why is this an issue?
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
The reason is that tank, dd and healer are used in mmos by players even if those names are different.
Yeah, so, if there is only one archetype that is a tank, calling it a tank is the correct thing for Intrepid to do.
Since there are technically two archetypes that can heal (Cleric and Bard, apparently), Intrepid can't just name one archetype "healer". Since there are at least four archetypes that are DPS (or dd) you can't really use that as a name.
However, there is only one tank archetype, so calling it tank is absolutely appropriate.
If Intrepid were only planning a single DPS archetype, with melee, ranged, magic and sneaky variants all branching off of that one archetype, I'd be all for it being called DPS. It kills any ambiguity players may have about their role.
This debate can go on for years... There are simply those who do not care about the aesthetics of a class name. And there are those for whom it is important.
But what makes me laugh is that if we renamed all the classes with names like "HEALER", "MELEE DPS", "RANGE DPS", "SUPPORT", half of the people who like the class "TANK" would suddenly understand the issue and turn their coat.
However, we know how MMOs with no story, no RP and Fedex quests end up.
I'm one of those people who like building a character identity, it's one of the fundamentals of MMO for me and "Tank" has no soul.
This isn't how language works lol. You can only argue its slang to be called a tank in mmorpgs in general language. DPS and healer are straight for in meaning damage per second and healing. "Tank" definition does say the meaning of the class and is more of a slang / name with an alternative definition created a decade ago.
Effectively if people always called tanks "defenders, meat shield, blockers, knight" over years you would be arguing the same thing and instead be fine with them being called tanks.
DPS is abbreviation that isn't going to be used as a class name.
The names on classes are fine and make sense and are very readable so people know what type of DPS they are getting, what type of support they are getting and know the tank archetype.
You are effectively viewing an archetype as a class and creating an argument based on that. Refer yourself as your class not your archetype, not that it will change anything though you still will be called a tank no matter what like the last past 10 yeas (unless there is an overpowered type of tank everyone uses and refuses to have any other type in their party).
A 20th century armoured vehicle is good, so why not an abbreviation!? This is progress and we are writing MMORPG history (Arguments used in this topic for the "pros Tank). We can already see the double talk and the flaws in the speech
You don't like the abbreviation DPS so it can be only RANGE or MELEE or MAGIC to stay in the same register of TANK.
And don't confuse a polite discussion with an argument... Do you feel like you're arguing?
Tank is the most underplayed because they are one dimensional. I hope the tank in Ashes isn't just a meatbag.
No pun intended but you'd have to live in a fantasy land to believe that a game with the clear intention of implementing the Tank role is somehow going to have interesting and indepth mechanics over being some stat heavy "simpleton". Simply put, Steven's directive is for this game to attract millions and what easier attraction that to have a Tank controlling and soaking a massive Dragon with relatively easy support mechanics aiding him, the game will have that accessibility factor for PvE I'm sure.
Until I watch an indepth video on A2 I will not get my hopes up at all
Tank was pretty good in a1. A lot of hard ccs, some damage and a lot of defenses. It is difficult to advise on tank because I'm used to being ignored in pvp as a tank. I think the tank needs damage abilities as well as hard cc.
Tank was pretty good in a1. A lot of hard ccs, some damage and a lot of defenses. It is difficult to advise on tank because I'm used to being ignored in pvp as a tank. I think the tank needs damage abilities as well as hard cc.
PvP and general open world PvP worry me the most with this game.
The "Tank" specifically is a huge wrench that is simply boring game design if left in the same state for PvE and PvP.
Lineage 2 showcased that perfectly, the tank permanently has the stats to take a fair few 30 seconds of wallops from the toughest of bosses or a group of players at will, even without an allies buffs and healing. I'm all for the fantasy of "1 man" leading the charge or paving the way but that could all be through some special "raid/castle equip" instead of some absolute monster def/shield block stat being up while picking daisies and farming other resources.
I'm in firm agreement with there being some influencial attack or supportive abilities from a tank so then to lower these ridiculous stats down where a "Tank" can actually be considered a potential target, alone or in group but if the group would deem it necessary can bolster him to meet some aggressively minded control and capture needs with added def, HP and cooldown as an example.
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
Why is this an issue?
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
The reason is that tank, dd and healer are used in mmos by players even if those names are different.
Yeah, so, if there is only one archetype that is a tank, calling it a tank is the correct thing for Intrepid to do.
Since there are technically two archetypes that can heal (Cleric and Bard, apparently), Intrepid can't just name one archetype "healer". Since there are at least four archetypes that are DPS (or dd) you can't really use that as a name.
However, there is only one tank archetype, so calling it tank is absolutely appropriate.
If Intrepid were only planning a single DPS archetype, with melee, ranged, magic and sneaky variants all branching off of that one archetype, I'd be all for it being called DPS. It kills any ambiguity players may have about their role.
This debate can go on for years... There are simply those who do not care about the aesthetics of a class name. And there are those for whom it is important.
But what makes me laugh is that if we renamed all the classes with names like "HEALER", "MELEE DPS", "RANGE DPS", "SUPPORT", half of the people who like the class "TANK" would suddenly understand the issue and turn their coat.
However, we know how MMOs with no story, no RP and Fedex quests end up.
I'm one of those people who like building a character identity, it's one of the fundamentals of MMO for me and "Tank" has no soul.
This isn't how language works lol. You can only argue its slang to be called a tank in mmorpgs in general language. DPS and healer are straight for in meaning damage per second and healing. "Tank" definition does say the meaning of the class and is more of a slang / name with an alternative definition created a decade ago.
Effectively if people always called tanks "defenders, meat shield, blockers, knight" over years you would be arguing the same thing and instead be fine with them being called tanks.
DPS is abbreviation that isn't going to be used as a class name.
The names on classes are fine and make sense and are very readable so people know what type of DPS they are getting, what type of support they are getting and know the tank archetype.
You are effectively viewing an archetype as a class and creating an argument based on that. Refer yourself as your class not your archetype, not that it will change anything though you still will be called a tank no matter what like the last past 10 yeas (unless there is an overpowered type of tank everyone uses and refuses to have any other type in their party).
A 20th century armoured vehicle is good, so why not an abbreviation!? This is progress and we are writing MMORPG history (Arguments used in this topic for the "pros Tank). We can already see the double talk and the flaws in the speech
You don't like the abbreviation DPS so it can be only RANGE or MELEE or MAGIC to stay in the same register of TANK.
And don't confuse a polite discussion with an argument... Do you feel like you're arguing?
You are making things up at this point DPS = damage per second. Tank = Tank.
Everyone that plays mmorpg does not think an armored vehicle when "tank" is used to ask for one for a party. They clearly mean someone that can take hits, pull aggro, and play their role.
The way you keep bringing this up makes me feel you have not played a mmorpg in the last 10 years since you think people have WW vehicles in mind when they ask for a tank.
This is not a new term for a mmorpg to be called a tank.
I'm used to weapon swaps and twin builds. I was the toughest raid tank possible and also average damage in my damage build. It took a lot of time and effort to obtain two full sets of gear though. I was a Master Gem Cutter and I made a crafted set of armour with one hand damage gems. I was able to one shot anyone in my raid defense build. I couldn't be killed and I killed whole raids. The gems were patched within 5 days but those 5 days were an absolute messy blast lol.
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
Why is this an issue?
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
The reason is that tank, dd and healer are used in mmos by players even if those names are different.
Yeah, so, if there is only one archetype that is a tank, calling it a tank is the correct thing for Intrepid to do.
Since there are technically two archetypes that can heal (Cleric and Bard, apparently), Intrepid can't just name one archetype "healer". Since there are at least four archetypes that are DPS (or dd) you can't really use that as a name.
However, there is only one tank archetype, so calling it tank is absolutely appropriate.
If Intrepid were only planning a single DPS archetype, with melee, ranged, magic and sneaky variants all branching off of that one archetype, I'd be all for it being called DPS. It kills any ambiguity players may have about their role.
This debate can go on for years... There are simply those who do not care about the aesthetics of a class name. And there are those for whom it is important.
But what makes me laugh is that if we renamed all the classes with names like "HEALER", "MELEE DPS", "RANGE DPS", "SUPPORT", half of the people who like the class "TANK" would suddenly understand the issue and turn their coat.
However, we know how MMOs with no story, no RP and Fedex quests end up.
I'm one of those people who like building a character identity, it's one of the fundamentals of MMO for me and "Tank" has no soul.
This isn't how language works lol. You can only argue its slang to be called a tank in mmorpgs in general language. DPS and healer are straight for in meaning damage per second and healing. "Tank" definition does say the meaning of the class and is more of a slang / name with an alternative definition created a decade ago.
Effectively if people always called tanks "defenders, meat shield, blockers, knight" over years you would be arguing the same thing and instead be fine with them being called tanks.
DPS is abbreviation that isn't going to be used as a class name.
The names on classes are fine and make sense and are very readable so people know what type of DPS they are getting, what type of support they are getting and know the tank archetype.
You are effectively viewing an archetype as a class and creating an argument based on that. Refer yourself as your class not your archetype, not that it will change anything though you still will be called a tank no matter what like the last past 10 yeas (unless there is an overpowered type of tank everyone uses and refuses to have any other type in their party).
A 20th century armoured vehicle is good, so why not an abbreviation!? This is progress and we are writing MMORPG history (Arguments used in this topic for the "pros Tank). We can already see the double talk and the flaws in the speech
You don't like the abbreviation DPS so it can be only RANGE or MELEE or MAGIC to stay in the same register of TANK.
And don't confuse a polite discussion with an argument... Do you feel like you're arguing?
You are making things up at this point DPS = damage per second. Tank = Tank.
Everyone that plays mmorpg does not think an armored vehicle when "tank" is used to ask for one for a party. They clearly mean someone that can take hits, pull aggro, and play their role.
The way you keep bringing this up makes me feel you have not played a mmorpg in the last 10 years since you think people have WW vehicles in mind when they ask for a tank.
This is not a new term for a mmorpg to be called a tank.
Ok, so you agree with me if I tell you that "HEALER", "MELEE", "RANGE" and "MAGIC" are good archetype names ?
I'm used to weapon swaps and twin builds. I was the toughest raid tank possible and also average damage in my damage build. It took a lot of time and effort to obtain two full sets of gear though. I was a Master Gem Cutter and I made a crafted set of armour with one hand damage gems. I was able to one shot anyone in my raid defense build. I couldn't be killed and I killed whole raids. The gems were patched within 5 days but those 5 days were an absolute messy blast lol.
Ha really xD
Kind of proved my point earlier with the attraction point for "Tanks", people are only in love for these things when they perform the ridiculous...it's just 1 guy! What the hell is with all this agency!
@Mag7spy FYI I would consider anyone super healthy if they haven't played meta mmorpg mechanics in the last 10 or so years
Like literally most of the audience that has been playing in that time span are too young and simply follow the rheteric and gaming formula's, with a lot of them labelling FF14 as a "worthy" mm...(sniggers)...o.
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
Why is this an issue?
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
The reason is that tank, dd and healer are used in mmos by players even if those names are different.
Yeah, so, if there is only one archetype that is a tank, calling it a tank is the correct thing for Intrepid to do.
Since there are technically two archetypes that can heal (Cleric and Bard, apparently), Intrepid can't just name one archetype "healer". Since there are at least four archetypes that are DPS (or dd) you can't really use that as a name.
However, there is only one tank archetype, so calling it tank is absolutely appropriate.
If Intrepid were only planning a single DPS archetype, with melee, ranged, magic and sneaky variants all branching off of that one archetype, I'd be all for it being called DPS. It kills any ambiguity players may have about their role.
This debate can go on for years... There are simply those who do not care about the aesthetics of a class name. And there are those for whom it is important.
But what makes me laugh is that if we renamed all the classes with names like "HEALER", "MELEE DPS", "RANGE DPS", "SUPPORT", half of the people who like the class "TANK" would suddenly understand the issue and turn their coat.
However, we know how MMOs with no story, no RP and Fedex quests end up.
I'm one of those people who like building a character identity, it's one of the fundamentals of MMO for me and "Tank" has no soul.
This isn't how language works lol. You can only argue its slang to be called a tank in mmorpgs in general language. DPS and healer are straight for in meaning damage per second and healing. "Tank" definition does say the meaning of the class and is more of a slang / name with an alternative definition created a decade ago.
Effectively if people always called tanks "defenders, meat shield, blockers, knight" over years you would be arguing the same thing and instead be fine with them being called tanks.
DPS is abbreviation that isn't going to be used as a class name.
The names on classes are fine and make sense and are very readable so people know what type of DPS they are getting, what type of support they are getting and know the tank archetype.
You are effectively viewing an archetype as a class and creating an argument based on that. Refer yourself as your class not your archetype, not that it will change anything though you still will be called a tank no matter what like the last past 10 yeas (unless there is an overpowered type of tank everyone uses and refuses to have any other type in their party).
A 20th century armoured vehicle is good, so why not an abbreviation!? This is progress and we are writing MMORPG history (Arguments used in this topic for the "pros Tank). We can already see the double talk and the flaws in the speech
You don't like the abbreviation DPS so it can be only RANGE or MELEE or MAGIC to stay in the same register of TANK.
And don't confuse a polite discussion with an argument... Do you feel like you're arguing?
You are making things up at this point DPS = damage per second. Tank = Tank.
Everyone that plays mmorpg does not think an armored vehicle when "tank" is used to ask for one for a party. They clearly mean someone that can take hits, pull aggro, and play their role.
The way you keep bringing this up makes me feel you have not played a mmorpg in the last 10 years since you think people have WW vehicles in mind when they ask for a tank.
This is not a new term for a mmorpg to be called a tank.
Ok, so you agree with me if I tell you that "HEALER", "MELEE", "RANGE" and "MAGIC" are good archetype names ?
Warrior, mage, tank, ranger. Yes
You are literarily trying hard to twist the wording.
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
Why is this an issue?
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
The reason is that tank, dd and healer are used in mmos by players even if those names are different.
Yeah, so, if there is only one archetype that is a tank, calling it a tank is the correct thing for Intrepid to do.
Since there are technically two archetypes that can heal (Cleric and Bard, apparently), Intrepid can't just name one archetype "healer". Since there are at least four archetypes that are DPS (or dd) you can't really use that as a name.
However, there is only one tank archetype, so calling it tank is absolutely appropriate.
If Intrepid were only planning a single DPS archetype, with melee, ranged, magic and sneaky variants all branching off of that one archetype, I'd be all for it being called DPS. It kills any ambiguity players may have about their role.
This debate can go on for years... There are simply those who do not care about the aesthetics of a class name. And there are those for whom it is important.
But what makes me laugh is that if we renamed all the classes with names like "HEALER", "MELEE DPS", "RANGE DPS", "SUPPORT", half of the people who like the class "TANK" would suddenly understand the issue and turn their coat.
However, we know how MMOs with no story, no RP and Fedex quests end up.
I'm one of those people who like building a character identity, it's one of the fundamentals of MMO for me and "Tank" has no soul.
This isn't how language works lol. You can only argue its slang to be called a tank in mmorpgs in general language. DPS and healer are straight for in meaning damage per second and healing. "Tank" definition does say the meaning of the class and is more of a slang / name with an alternative definition created a decade ago.
Effectively if people always called tanks "defenders, meat shield, blockers, knight" over years you would be arguing the same thing and instead be fine with them being called tanks.
DPS is abbreviation that isn't going to be used as a class name.
The names on classes are fine and make sense and are very readable so people know what type of DPS they are getting, what type of support they are getting and know the tank archetype.
You are effectively viewing an archetype as a class and creating an argument based on that. Refer yourself as your class not your archetype, not that it will change anything though you still will be called a tank no matter what like the last past 10 yeas (unless there is an overpowered type of tank everyone uses and refuses to have any other type in their party).
A 20th century armoured vehicle is good, so why not an abbreviation!? This is progress and we are writing MMORPG history (Arguments used in this topic for the "pros Tank). We can already see the double talk and the flaws in the speech
You don't like the abbreviation DPS so it can be only RANGE or MELEE or MAGIC to stay in the same register of TANK.
And don't confuse a polite discussion with an argument... Do you feel like you're arguing?
You are making things up at this point DPS = damage per second. Tank = Tank.
Everyone that plays mmorpg does not think an armored vehicle when "tank" is used to ask for one for a party. They clearly mean someone that can take hits, pull aggro, and play their role.
The way you keep bringing this up makes me feel you have not played a mmorpg in the last 10 years since you think people have WW vehicles in mind when they ask for a tank.
This is not a new term for a mmorpg to be called a tank.
Ok, so you agree with me if I tell you that "HEALER", "MELEE", "RANGE" and "MAGIC" are good archetype names ?
Warrior, mage, tank, ranger. Yes
You are literarily trying hard to twist the wording.
Ok, so why TANK is a good name and not HEALER ? I don't want to twist nothing... I am just trying to understand your logic.
Yep, I'd prefer "healer" as the archetype name, cause healer implies a person that, well, heals. Cleric implies some kind of a religious dude that does who knows what.
Yep, I'd prefer "healer" as the archetype name, cause healer implies a person that, well, heals. Cleric implies some kind of a religious dude that does who knows what.
Honnestly I would also be ok with healer coz it means what it means. To make a real comparison it's like a class "ANTIBIOTIC" for cleric...
This debate can go on for years... There are simply those who do not care about the aesthetics of a class name. And there are those for whom it is important.
It is actually those that are more concerned with the aesthetics vs those that are more concerned with good communication.
This is a debate akin to those that care more about how the game looks vs those that care more about how the game plays.
Basically, you are putting aesthetics first, I am putting practicality first.
But what makes me laugh is that if we renamed all the classes with names like "HEALER", "MELEE DPS", "RANGE DPS", "SUPPORT", half of the people who like the class "TANK" would suddenly understand the issue and turn their coat.
As I literally said in the post you quoted, if this were viable, I would be all for it.
The problem is, it isn't viable.
A ranger can spec for melee combat, so calling the archetype "Ranged DPS" simply doesn't work. Additionally, mages will be ranged DPS, just using magic. Thus, ranged DPS as a name for any of the current archetypes simply doesn't work.
Clerics and bards are both going to be able to heal, from what we have been told, thus, it is not appropriate to call one archetype "healer".
Both rouges and fighters are melee DPS, and some rangers will be as well, as such, no archetype can be called "Melee DPS".
Bards and summoners have both been stated as being able to offer support, so calling one archetype "support" doesn't work.
However, only one archetype is able to tank. You *may* be able to tank with a different primary archetype, but you absolutely will need to take tank as your secondary.
As I said above, if the other archetypes were all more singular in their scope - if only clerics could heal, if only bards could offer support etc - I'd be perfectly fine with their name being altered to their role, for the same reason I am fine with it being the case for tank.
I'm one of those people who like building a character identity, it's one of the fundamentals of MMO for me and "Tank" has no soul.
I'm going to be real blunt here - even for me.
If you are someone that likes building character identity, and you consider the name "tank" to be getting in your way, you are really shit at building character identity. If you are building your own character identity, then you should not be using the name of the class that the game gives you, regardless of what that name is. Class names are names for kits of abilities - nothing more.
Don't ask for the game to be changed in order to compensate for your shortcomings.
1) Change the archetype name "tank" to "defender" and reserve the word "tank" for the tank-healer-DPS/support group roles to reduce miscommunication (at least for the first 25 levels when looking for a group). If there was a vote, I'd go with this option.
2) Change the archetype name "cleric" to "healer" where a healer-healer class is replaced with "cleric" rather than a "high priest". I don't find "high priest" to be a good and descriptive class name. You're given the high priest title before even being given the priest title? The word's etymology has nothing to do with healing at all, it means "elder" or "older" in greek. High priest = high elder. Not so good.
I'd like to see the class name "high priest" changed to something else regardless of option 1. If, however, the community (and Intrepid) agrees that tank and healer are better reserved for tank-healer-DPS/support group roles, I recommend the word "mender" for the current "cleric" archetype and use "cleric" for the "mender/mender" class.
This way, we have clear generalized umbrella roles for most archetypes ending with "-er" as in Defender, Mender, Fighter, Ranger, and Summoner. The remaining exceptions are Bard, Mage, and Rogue... which communicate the archetype's clear role to the general community.
1) Change the archetype name "tank" to "defender" and reserve the word "tank" for the tank-healer-DPS/support group roles to reduce miscommunication (at least for the first 25 levels when looking for a group). If there was a vote, I'd go with this option.
The issue with this is that in regards to the trinity system of tank, healer and DPS, the only archetype able to fulfil the tank role happens to be the tank archetype, yet the other two roles are all able to be filled (from what we have been told) by multiple archetypes.
As such, keeping the tank archetype as tank is actually reducing the chances of miscommunication, not increasing it.
The issue with this is that in regards to the trinity system of tank, healer and DPS, the only archetype able to fulfil the tank role happens to be the tank archetype, yet the other two roles are all able to be filled (from what we have been told) by multiple archetypes.
As such, keeping the tank archetype as tank is actually reducing the chances of miscommunication, not increasing it.
Are you sure that the "tank" archetype is the only one that fulfills the tank role? Do you have a source for that assumption?
I would have assumed that most other archetypes with the secondary "tank" archetype would have some tanking capability, as well... In addition, I'd suspect that most "fighter" archetypes would also be able to tank but not as effectively as a "tank" archetype would. Just as in, Bards are able to heal but Clerics are likely to be the most effective healers.
The issue with this is that in regards to the trinity system of tank, healer and DPS, the only archetype able to fulfil the tank role happens to be the tank archetype, yet the other two roles are all able to be filled (from what we have been told) by multiple archetypes.
As such, keeping the tank archetype as tank is actually reducing the chances of miscommunication, not increasing it.
Are you sure that the "tank" archetype is the only one that fulfills the tank role? Do you have a source for that assumption?
I would have assumed that most other archetypes with the secondary "tank" archetype would have some tanking capability, as well... In addition, I'd suspect that most "fighter" archetypes would also be able to tank but not as effectively as a "tank" archetype would. Just as in, Bards are able to heal but Clerics are likely to be the most effective healers.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
I am not going to provide you with a source - I literally never do. You should come to your own conclusion to these things, not just blindly read the thing I tell you to read.
If you want to believe that a fighter/cleric (as an example) will be considered by players (which is the only metric that matters) to be a tank, then more power to you.
Keep in mind, perhaps, that Intrepid have listed both bards and clerics as support, but have only ever listed tanks as, well, tanks.
It is possible that there will be situations where a character with a tank as a secondary will be able to tank content (summoner/tank almost definitely will), but for the most part, players will want a tank/* as their tank.
The archetypes name kind of gives that away a bit, don't you think?
Comments
It already has done. Yours isn't the first thread about it, and it won't be the last.
barbarian sounds nothing like a tank lol
This isn't how language works lol. You can only argue its slang to be called a tank in mmorpgs in general language. DPS and healer are straight for in meaning damage per second and healing. "Tank" definition does say the meaning of the class and is more of a slang / name with an alternative definition created a decade ago.
Effectively if people always called tanks "defenders, meat shield, blockers, knight" over years you would be arguing the same thing and instead be fine with them being called tanks.
DPS is abbreviation that isn't going to be used as a class name.
The names on classes are fine and make sense and are very readable so people know what type of DPS they are getting, what type of support they are getting and know the tank archetype.
You are effectively viewing an archetype as a class and creating an argument based on that. Refer yourself as your class not your archetype, not that it will change anything though you still will be called a tank no matter what like the last past 10 yeas (unless there is an overpowered type of tank everyone uses and refuses to have any other type in their party).
Tank is just a cheap term broadly used because many people don't care, hence why they're one if not the most underplayed class in mmo history (with obv gameplay mechanics being against them ie "only need 1").
I'm totally against the need of any game hard requiring a Tank mechanic anyway, should be an armored Warrior with support traits or a specilization selected but for some ungodly reason a lot of peoples only attractive attachment to this "class" is "I'm able to soak it alllll up!"....talk about comedic immersion...
it's literally like the cheap thrills used in asian martial arts movies when the very skilled average height protaganist bumps into the almost 7ft western muscle man
Don't like it much too
A 20th century armoured vehicle is good, so why not an abbreviation!? This is progress and we are writing MMORPG history (Arguments used in this topic for the "pros Tank). We can already see the double talk and the flaws in the speech
You don't like the abbreviation DPS so it can be only RANGE or MELEE or MAGIC to stay in the same register of TANK.
And don't confuse a polite discussion with an argument... Do you feel like you're arguing?
No pun intended but you'd have to live in a fantasy land to believe that a game with the clear intention of implementing the Tank role is somehow going to have interesting and indepth mechanics over being some stat heavy "simpleton". Simply put, Steven's directive is for this game to attract millions and what easier attraction that to have a Tank controlling and soaking a massive Dragon with relatively easy support mechanics aiding him, the game will have that accessibility factor for PvE I'm sure.
Until I watch an indepth video on A2 I will not get my hopes up at all
PvP and general open world PvP worry me the most with this game.
The "Tank" specifically is a huge wrench that is simply boring game design if left in the same state for PvE and PvP.
Lineage 2 showcased that perfectly, the tank permanently has the stats to take a fair few 30 seconds of wallops from the toughest of bosses or a group of players at will, even without an allies buffs and healing. I'm all for the fantasy of "1 man" leading the charge or paving the way but that could all be through some special "raid/castle equip" instead of some absolute monster def/shield block stat being up while picking daisies and farming other resources.
I'm in firm agreement with there being some influencial attack or supportive abilities from a tank so then to lower these ridiculous stats down where a "Tank" can actually be considered a potential target, alone or in group but if the group would deem it necessary can bolster him to meet some aggressively minded control and capture needs with added def, HP and cooldown as an example.
You are making things up at this point DPS = damage per second. Tank = Tank.
Everyone that plays mmorpg does not think an armored vehicle when "tank" is used to ask for one for a party. They clearly mean someone that can take hits, pull aggro, and play their role.
The way you keep bringing this up makes me feel you have not played a mmorpg in the last 10 years since you think people have WW vehicles in mind when they ask for a tank.
This is not a new term for a mmorpg to be called a tank.
Ok, so you agree with me if I tell you that "HEALER", "MELEE", "RANGE" and "MAGIC" are good archetype names ?
Ha really xD
Kind of proved my point earlier with the attraction point for "Tanks", people are only in love for these things when they perform the ridiculous...it's just 1 guy! What the hell is with all this agency!
@Mag7spy FYI I would consider anyone super healthy if they haven't played meta mmorpg mechanics in the last 10 or so years
Like literally most of the audience that has been playing in that time span are too young and simply follow the rheteric and gaming formula's, with a lot of them labelling FF14 as a "worthy" mm...(sniggers)...o.
Warrior, mage, tank, ranger. Yes
You are literarily trying hard to twist the wording.
Ok, so why TANK is a good name and not HEALER ? I don't want to twist nothing... I am just trying to understand your logic.
Honnestly I would also be ok with healer coz it means what it means. To make a real comparison it's like a class "ANTIBIOTIC" for cleric...
But, I like your "Guardian" suggestion...if Tank were dumped. But I like Tank too (I almost always play Tank)
Regardless of Class names, we'll still see "LF Healer (, DPS, Tank)" in game
However, you have mischaracterized the debate by saying it is those that care about the aesthetics and those who don't.
Those who don't care about aesthetics of the name are simply not a part of the debate, because they don't consider it important.
The people that are arguing that the name is actually good are people that are arguing FOR good communication.
So, rather than it being - as you state It is actually those that are more concerned with the aesthetics vs those that are more concerned with good communication.
This is a debate akin to those that care more about how the game looks vs those that care more about how the game plays.
Basically, you are putting aesthetics first, I am putting practicality first. As I literally said in the post you quoted, if this were viable, I would be all for it.
The problem is, it isn't viable.
A ranger can spec for melee combat, so calling the archetype "Ranged DPS" simply doesn't work. Additionally, mages will be ranged DPS, just using magic. Thus, ranged DPS as a name for any of the current archetypes simply doesn't work.
Clerics and bards are both going to be able to heal, from what we have been told, thus, it is not appropriate to call one archetype "healer".
Both rouges and fighters are melee DPS, and some rangers will be as well, as such, no archetype can be called "Melee DPS".
Bards and summoners have both been stated as being able to offer support, so calling one archetype "support" doesn't work.
However, only one archetype is able to tank. You *may* be able to tank with a different primary archetype, but you absolutely will need to take tank as your secondary.
As I said above, if the other archetypes were all more singular in their scope - if only clerics could heal, if only bards could offer support etc - I'd be perfectly fine with their name being altered to their role, for the same reason I am fine with it being the case for tank.
I'm going to be real blunt here - even for me.
If you are someone that likes building character identity, and you consider the name "tank" to be getting in your way, you are really shit at building character identity. If you are building your own character identity, then you should not be using the name of the class that the game gives you, regardless of what that name is. Class names are names for kits of abilities - nothing more.
Don't ask for the game to be changed in order to compensate for your shortcomings.
1) Change the archetype name "tank" to "defender" and reserve the word "tank" for the tank-healer-DPS/support group roles to reduce miscommunication (at least for the first 25 levels when looking for a group). If there was a vote, I'd go with this option.
2) Change the archetype name "cleric" to "healer" where a healer-healer class is replaced with "cleric" rather than a "high priest". I don't find "high priest" to be a good and descriptive class name. You're given the high priest title before even being given the priest title? The word's etymology has nothing to do with healing at all, it means "elder" or "older" in greek. High priest = high elder. Not so good.
I'd like to see the class name "high priest" changed to something else regardless of option 1. If, however, the community (and Intrepid) agrees that tank and healer are better reserved for tank-healer-DPS/support group roles, I recommend the word "mender" for the current "cleric" archetype and use "cleric" for the "mender/mender" class.
This way, we have clear generalized umbrella roles for most archetypes ending with "-er" as in Defender, Mender, Fighter, Ranger, and Summoner. The remaining exceptions are Bard, Mage, and Rogue... which communicate the archetype's clear role to the general community.
The issue with this is that in regards to the trinity system of tank, healer and DPS, the only archetype able to fulfil the tank role happens to be the tank archetype, yet the other two roles are all able to be filled (from what we have been told) by multiple archetypes.
As such, keeping the tank archetype as tank is actually reducing the chances of miscommunication, not increasing it.
Are you sure that the "tank" archetype is the only one that fulfills the tank role? Do you have a source for that assumption?
I would have assumed that most other archetypes with the secondary "tank" archetype would have some tanking capability, as well... In addition, I'd suspect that most "fighter" archetypes would also be able to tank but not as effectively as a "tank" archetype would. Just as in, Bards are able to heal but Clerics are likely to be the most effective healers.
I am not going to provide you with a source - I literally never do. You should come to your own conclusion to these things, not just blindly read the thing I tell you to read.
If you want to believe that a fighter/cleric (as an example) will be considered by players (which is the only metric that matters) to be a tank, then more power to you.
Keep in mind, perhaps, that Intrepid have listed both bards and clerics as support, but have only ever listed tanks as, well, tanks.
It is possible that there will be situations where a character with a tank as a secondary will be able to tank content (summoner/tank almost definitely will), but for the most part, players will want a tank/* as their tank.
The archetypes name kind of gives that away a bit, don't you think?
DEFENDER
VANGUARD
Sounds good
I'm not sure people will understand the class name chosen here.