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.

Which class name instead of "TANK" ?

123468

Comments

  • RipteyeRipteye Member, Alpha Two
    Solmyr wrote: »
    Ripteye wrote: »
    Why do people have issues with Tank as a class? Seems odd to me.
    It's the only archetype that's named after its role. Fighter isn't called DPS, Cleric isn't called Healer, and Bard isn't called Support. Every other archetype gets some cool/thematic monicker that adds a bit of flavor, while the tank is literally just Tank.

    Ya I know but so?
  • SolmyrSolmyr Member
    Ripteye wrote: »
    Solmyr wrote: »
    Ripteye wrote: »
    Why do people have issues with Tank as a class? Seems odd to me.
    It's the only archetype that's named after its role. Fighter isn't called DPS, Cleric isn't called Healer, and Bard isn't called Support. Every other archetype gets some cool/thematic monicker that adds a bit of flavor, while the tank is literally just Tank.

    Ya I know but so?
    It's definitely a minor nitpick, but it's a minor nitpick with an easy fix that's gone unaddressed for a long time. I personally don't care either way, but it's easy to see why people might get bored and start focusing on little details like that.
  • oOKingOooOKingOo Member, Alpha Two
    Guardian is best in my opinion
    For the empyre !!!
  • MyosotysMyosotys Member
    edited July 26
    oOKingOo wrote: »
    Guardian is best in my opinion

    Already used. Guardian is a Tank/Tank (Primary and secondary).

    I think Defender would be the best. It's neutral and easy to fit with any secondary archetype.

    Vanguard also.

    But in case they would like a more Epic name, I'd like Aegis

    z204qj7t207f.png
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Tankz0r is the best class name for the tank
  • Night WingsNight Wings Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    6 pages did not bother reading all the comments other then the OP

    If I am understanding this right you dont like that the class name is tank?????

    there are going to be subclasses that changes how the tank class is played soooo choose the one that sounds cool?

    b774df0c112d4e4685dff98b3f38c110.png


    honestly I can imagine people wont even using the core class names just the other class you combine with like

    tank/bard = argent

    people probably just say im a argent rather saying im a tank.
  • Uncommon SenseUncommon Sense Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    whatever alternative you might suggest you know what its going to be called in world chat regardless...So may as well just call it what it is....
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    people probably just say im a argent rather saying im a tank.
    This would require people memorize 64 class combinations and which primary archetyps make them up.

    Most people won't do this.

    Rather, for most basic level discussion (ie, looking for people to fill out a group), people will simply say something like "I'm a tank".

    However, if the archetype "tank" were altered to something else, be that Aegis, Guardian, what ever, what people will then do when in that same situation is say something like "I'm a tank",

    That is because what people care most about in most discussion on peoples class is what role they fulfil within the group. Regardless of the archetype name, the Tank archetype and it's classes fulfil the tank role, so this is how people will communicate what they bring to a group.

    If you are looking for a group stating you are an Argent, you have no one to blame but yourself if people looking for tanks pass you up.

    Realistically, discussions about specific subclasses are likely to be mostly (not entierly) contained to discussion within people with those primary classes. Clerics will discuss the merits and drawbacks of various Cleric subclasses among themselves, but when presenting themselves to the wider community (be that their friends, their guild, the server, what ever), they will present as a Cleric, or a healer.
  • Myosotys wrote: »
    Neurath wrote: »
    I'm not certain of that. The countless threads asking to change tank have no succeeded and tank has grown in my mind.

    I am happy that you like it... Personally, I find it both funny and ridiculous to have a class with the name of a military vehicle from the second half of the 20th century. Worse! the name of a water reservoir. And "countless threads" show that Im not the only one to hate it...

    "Initially, the post seemed a bit strange to me, but the argument is really valid. Among the suggestions, 'Hero' or 'Titan' are the best options. Probably, everyone is just too used to the existing name, which is unfortunate."

  • Noaani wrote: »
    people probably just say im a argent rather saying im a tank.
    This would require people memorize 64 class combinations and which primary archetyps make them up.

    Most people won't do this.

    Rather, for most basic level discussion (ie, looking for people to fill out a group), people will simply say something like "I'm a tank".

    However, if the archetype "tank" were altered to something else, be that Aegis, Guardian, what ever, what people will then do when in that same situation is say something like "I'm a tank",

    That is because what people care most about in most discussion on peoples class is what role they fulfil within the group. Regardless of the archetype name, the Tank archetype and it's classes fulfil the tank role, so this is how people will communicate what they bring to a group.

    If you are looking for a group stating you are an Argent, you have no one to blame but yourself if people looking for tanks pass you up.

    Realistically, discussions about specific subclasses are likely to be mostly (not entierly) contained to discussion within people with those primary classes. Clerics will discuss the merits and drawbacks of various Cleric subclasses among themselves, but when presenting themselves to the wider community (be that their friends, their guild, the server, what ever), they will present as a Cleric, or a healer.

    The funniest thing is that with the new class name, players continue to write "tank" in the chat.
  • MyosotysMyosotys Member
    edited July 29
    Noaani wrote: »
    However, if the archetype "tank" were altered to something else, be that Aegis, Guardian, what ever, what people will then do when in that same situation is say something like "I'm a tank",

    Players also speak slang or abbreviated to each other. Should we make NPCs talk like that too?
    6 pages did not bother reading all the comments other then the OP

    If I am understanding this right you dont like that the class name is tank?????

    there are going to be subclasses that changes how the tank class is played soooo choose the one that sounds cool?

    b774df0c112d4e4685dff98b3f38c110.png


    honestly I can imagine people wont even using the core class names just the other class you combine with like

    tank/bard = argent

    people probably just say im a argent rather saying im a tank.

    Now, personally, I don't care. This post is a year and a half old so I've had time to get used to it.

    But as they say “details make perfection, and perfection isn't a detail”. And I think it's a bit of a shame to have an anti-RP, anti-immersion name, and I hope it's an exception to Intrepid's vision to not pay attention to these kinds of details.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    However, if the archetype "tank" were altered to something else, be that Aegis, Guardian, what ever, what people will then do when in that same situation is say something like "I'm a tank",

    Players also speak slang or abbreviated to each other. Should we make NPCs talk like that too?
    NPC's shouldn't be using class names in speech for the most part, so I don't see the point of this argument.

    Games that do this just have lazy writing. The only exceptions to this are class names that are also vocations (clerics), or require training through a specific school or organization (monks). There should also be situations where one class is referred to as another (NPC's calling Paladins "clerics" because they don't know any better).

    Something as generic as a mage should be referred to by NPC's as a "magic user', 'caster', 'wizard', 'arcanist', etc.

    A tank, on the other hand, should be referred to by NPC's as a 'holder of the front line', or generally referred to by the function that they perform in combat - not by some random class name.
  • MyosotysMyosotys Member
    edited July 29
    Noaani wrote: »
    NPC's shouldn't be using class names in speech for the most part, so I don't see the point of this argument.

    I didn't make myself clear.
    Your point is that players will use the term “Tank” regardless of the class name. I'm answering you by asking whether MMO scripts should use a style similar to the way players talk ? (By the way the players talk, I mean in abbreaviated or slang).

    Imagine a NPC telling : "Hi buddy, wtf r u doing, go to make your damn quest". It would break immersion, right ?

    I think it's the same with a class "Tank".

    And for your new argument, it's hardly possible to attribute a historical or fantasy context to the “Tank” as you do for the “Cleric” or the “Monk” because as sb said above the Tank is a role before being a class.

    In all the MMOs I've known, you could be a Tank and still be almost any class. Often with a predisposition for Paladin, Warrior or Knight (heavy armor classes).

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 29
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    NPC's shouldn't be using class names in speech for the most part, so I don't see the point of this argument.

    I didn't make myself clear.
    Your point is that players will use the term “Tank” regardless of the class name. I'm answering you by asking whether MMO scripts should use a style similar to the way players talk ?
    And I answered with a longer version of "no", while including the fact that NPC's shouldn't be referring to class names either.

    NPC's talking about class names is the same thing as NPC's talking about hit points. Both are systems designed to communicate things from developers to players - they are not things that are supposed to exist within the game world.
  • VosphaVospha Member, Alpha Two
    Myosotys wrote: »
    I am currently thinking about few options to make the class more sexy... TANK sounds too ridiculous !

    I am suggesting :

    CHAMPION
    HERO
    (WAR)CHIEF
    AEGIS
    SENTINEL
    COLOSSUS
    SHIELDBEARER


    Edit with suggestions from posters :

    CRUSADER
    ROYAL GUARD
    ENFORCER
    GUARDIAN
    KNIGHT
    WARLORD
    PROTECTOR
    DEFENDER
    VANGUARD

    I vouch for vanguard or crusader, they both sound pleasing to me.
    zdtha4wxk248.gif
  • MyosotysMyosotys Member
    Noaani wrote: »
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    NPC's shouldn't be using class names in speech for the most part, so I don't see the point of this argument.

    I didn't make myself clear.
    Your point is that players will use the term “Tank” regardless of the class name. I'm answering you by asking whether MMO scripts should use a style similar to the way players talk ?
    And I answered with a longer version of "no", while including the fact that NPC's shouldn't be referring to class names either.

    NPC's talking about class names is the same thing as NPC's talking about hit points. Both are systems designed to communicate things from developers to players - they are not things that are supposed to exist within the game world.

    This is so wrong. Class names are mentioned by NPCs in most MMOs and form an integral part of the storytelling.

    In addition to being regularly mentioned by NPCs and having its own narrative context, the class impacts the entire immersion experience.

    To reduce the class to a simple developer to player code is to give no importance to the narrative of an MMO.

    And an MMO without a narrative is a bit like a big-budget movie with famous actors and special effects, but a completely shitty storyline.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 29
    I was going to reply to the above post in full, but decided the following to be more important
    Myosotys wrote: »
    And an MMO without a narrative is a bit like a big-budget movie with famous actors and special effects, but a completely shitty storyline.
    This is quite a hyperbolic leap in logic here - going from saying NPC's shouldn't refer to player characters by their class (most of the time), to that somehow meaning the game has no narrative.

    That is not an acceptable debating tactic.

    You need to retract the above, clarify it stating that it is your opinion without presenting it as something you think is anything close to what I said, or explain why you think it is something even close to what I said.

    Once that is done (and only once that is done), I'm happy to carry on this discussion.
  • MyosotysMyosotys Member
    Noaani wrote: »
    I was going to reply to the above post in full, but decided the following to be more important
    Myosotys wrote: »
    And an MMO without a narrative is a bit like a big-budget movie with famous actors and special effects, but a completely shitty storyline.
    This is quite a hyperbolic leap in logic here - going from saying NPD's shouldn't refer to player characters by their class (most of the time), to that somehow meaning the game has no narrative.

    That is not an acceptable debating tactic.

    You need to retract the above, clarify it stating that it is your opinion without presenting it as something you think is anything close to what I said, or explain why you think it is something even close to what I said.

    Once that is done (and only once that is done), I'm happy to carry on this discussion.

    Why I should retract my point of view ? No, but I can clarify.
    You exclude class narratives because, according to you, classes are just a communication tool between players and developers.

    On the contrary, I think that classes are a pillar of the MMO storytelling, without which the narrative is deprived of a fundamental aspect.

    So fundamental, in fact, that the game's narrative would become poor and immersion would be impacted negatively.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 29
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Why I should retract my point of view ?
    I didn't ask you to retract your point of view, I asked you to retract comments you made suggesting I had made comments I had not in fact made.

    For example - this is not something I have said.
    Myosotys wrote: »
    You exclude class narratives because, according to you, classes are just a communication tool between players and developers.
    You can have a class narrative just fine without needing to refer to a player characters class at all.

    If you want an example of this, look at any Elder Scrolls game. Player characters aren't referred to by their class at all, ever - they are referred to by their actions (Hero of Kvatch, Champion, Archemage) or birthright (Dragonborn).

    My argument is that there is no need for NPC's to ever utter a player characters class, and that doing this is bad writing. Nothing more. I am not making any comments at all about class based narrative - regardless of how minimal I expect this to be in Ashes.
  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    If the Tank doesn't have an armored gun turret, the Bard shouldn't have musical instruments either! ok?
  • Frosty_ThundertrodFrosty_Thundertrod Member, Alpha Two
    edited July 29
    "Heavy" short for Heavy Infantry
  • AszkalonAszkalon Member, Alpha Two
    Spank* instead of Tank.


    Cause he will take any kind of spanking like a Boss.
    a50whcz343yn.png
    ✓ Occasional Roleplayer
    ✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
  • SoSpokeMikaSoSpokeMika Member
    edited July 29
    Myosotys wrote: »
    I am currently thinking about few options to make the class more sexy... TANK sounds too ridiculous !

    I am suggesting :

    CHAMPION
    HERO
    (WAR)CHIEF
    AEGIS
    SENTINEL
    COLOSSUS
    SHIELDBEARER


    Edit with suggestions from posters :

    CRUSADER
    ROYAL GUARD
    ENFORCER
    GUARDIAN
    KNIGHT
    WARLORD
    PROTECTOR
    DEFENDER
    VANGUARD

    Vanguard, Juggernaut, Protector, Defender-All of those work.

    I wouldnt stop there because I would rename:

    1. Highsword into Crusader.
    2. Archwizard into just Wizard.
    If one day they decide to do something like Ascendancy classes, where do you go after Archwizard in hierarchy?

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 29
    If one day they decide to do something like Ascendancy classes, where do you go after Archwizard in hierarchy?
    So many options.

    You could be ArchArchwizard, SuperArchwizard, UberArchwizard, Toby, Archwizard2 (this last one opens up many further possibilities).

    There really are no limits!
  • willsummonwillsummon Member, Alpha Two
    edited July 30
    "Tank" is nice. Though, "Defender" might work just as well in contrast to the dps "Fighter" name.
  • HardhitHardhit Member, Alpha Two
    Defender works better than tank. Just fix it already...
  • ArtorianArtorian Member, Alpha Two
    As many have mentioned before, it feels very inconsistent that other archetypes have flavorful names such as cleric, summoner, rogue or fighter.

    More subjectively, I feel that 'Tank' undermines the mood of the game. Including slang just feels wrong in the context of a large, immersive world with 7 other archetypes and 64 classes that do not use slang. Other potential archetype names discussed in this thread can easily portray it's role as a tank.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    people probably just say im a argent rather saying im a tank.
    This would require people memorize 64 class combinations and which primary archetyps make them up.

    Most people won't do this.

    Rather, for most basic level discussion (ie, looking for people to fill out a group), people will simply say something like "I'm a tank".

    However, if the archetype "tank" were altered to something else, be that Aegis, Guardian, what ever, what people will then do when in that same situation is say something like "I'm a tank",

    That is because what people care most about in most discussion on peoples class is what role they fulfil within the group. Regardless of the archetype name, the Tank archetype and it's classes fulfil the tank role, so this is how people will communicate what they bring to a group.

    If you are looking for a group stating you are an Argent, you have no one to blame but yourself if people looking for tanks pass you up.

    Realistically, discussions about specific subclasses are likely to be mostly (not entierly) contained to discussion within people with those primary classes. Clerics will discuss the merits and drawbacks of various Cleric subclasses among themselves, but when presenting themselves to the wider community (be that their friends, their guild, the server, what ever), they will present as a Cleric, or a healer.

    The funniest thing is that with the new class name, players continue to write "tank" in the chat.
  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    How about "KNAT" ?
  • AszkalonAszkalon Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    So many options.

    You could be ArchArchwizard, SuperArchwizard, UberArchwizard ... ...


    I am just going to call those Super Wizard One, Two - and Three ... ...






    ( Time/Moment 1:35 in the Video here will tell you why ) . :mrgreen:






    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vayRVov_NdI&t=95s
    a50whcz343yn.png
    ✓ Occasional Roleplayer
    ✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Sign In or Register to comment.