Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
Ya I know but so?
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
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?
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.
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.
"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."
The funniest thing is that with the new class name, players continue to write "tank" in the chat.
Players also speak slang or abbreviated to each other. Should we make NPCs talk like that too?
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.
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.
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).
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.
I vouch for vanguard or crusader, they both sound pleasing to me.
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.
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.
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.
For example - this is not something I have said. 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.
Cause he will take any kind of spanking like a Boss.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Currently no guild !! (o_o)
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?
You could be ArchArchwizard, SuperArchwizard, UberArchwizard, Toby, Archwizard2 (this last one opens up many further possibilities).
There really are no limits!
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.
The funniest thing is that with the new class name, players continue to write "tank" in the chat.
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 ) .
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Currently no guild !! (o_o)