Please change the name Cleric

Honorable Citizens,

To be more in line with the naming convention for the 'Tank', I suggest the Cleric be renamed to 'Healer'.

Also, to further hold true to the history and culture of Vera, class archetypes that focus on damage should be renamed 'DeePeeEs'.

Thank you.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Rhuric

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Solid Sneak wrote: »

Tank is fine as a class name, it means you are heavily armored

Just like all the armored military vehicles we will be seeing in Verra, right? Perfectly fine name.

I assume we'll be seeing Ford Rangers as well, right?

Or is that another name to change?

Fighter Jet goes woosh. Nissan Rogue goes vroom. Ford Ranger goes clunk.

Noaani

Rhuric wrote: »

Nissan Rogue

So, today I learned that this is a thing.

To be fair, it isn't available where I live.

WhitneyHagasMatsumoto

@Rhuric -san
lmao
I may have to ask for a name change since I am a Honda faction.😂

Birdie

Sathrago wrote: »

I agree, lets just turn it into healer to make things simpler.

Let's use our real names as character / family names to make things simpler too!
Some people still think I'm a girl, it would make things less awkward.

Damokles

At first we all wanted Tank to change... Now there are people who want all other names to change to fit the Tank name?!?

Then we could just as well name the other classes:
Slasher (Fighter)
Caster (Mage)
Stabber (Rogue)
Shooter (Ranger)
Caller (Summoner)
Singer (Bard)

Atama

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Solid Sneak wrote: »

Tank is fine as a class name, it means you are heavily armored

Just like all the armored military vehicles we will be seeing in Verra, right? Perfectly fine name.

I assume we'll be seeing Ford Rangers as well, right?

Or is that another name to change?

You know better Noanni, don't troll.

The term "tank" only began to have any connection to armor when tanks were introduced in WW1.

The term "ranger" has nothing to do with vehicles.

Again, you know better. Stop pretending to be stupid.

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

The term "tank" only began to have any connection to armor when tanks were introduced in WW1.

I mean, this is true, but this is also why my argument for tanks makes actual sense - even if others simply refuse to accept it.

Atama

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

The term "tank" only began to have any connection to armor when tanks were introduced in WW1.

I mean, this is true, but this is also why my argument for tanks makes actual sense - even if others simply refuse to accept it.

And what is your argument supposed to be?

We know that archetypes and classes will be referenced in-game. NPCs and quests will mention them. For the game to make any sense they need to stay away from anachronisms. No references to disco, or the Internet, or Tokyo. They should avoid language that doesn’t fit.

So what is your argument? And hopefully it’s not, “Why does it matter?” It matters as much as anything that can ruin immersion.

Sathrago

Atama wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

The term "tank" only began to have any connection to armor when tanks were introduced in WW1.

I mean, this is true, but this is also why my argument for tanks makes actual sense - even if others simply refuse to accept it.

And what is your argument supposed to be?

We know that archetypes and classes will be referenced in-game. NPCs and quests will mention them. For the game to make any sense they need to stay away from anachronisms. No references to disco, or the Internet, or Tokyo. They should avoid language that doesn’t fit.

So what is your argument? And hopefully it’s not, “Why does it matter?” It matters as much as anything that can ruin immersion.

Well I think "hey there Healer" and "Hey there Tanker" are not immersion breaking. They only need to do a tiny bit of lore to explain tanks and healers are already established as a general term for those that specializing in healing. That's why I felt that Healer fit better than Cleric and Tank works fine if lore is added to support it.

People will already be calling them tanks and healers throughout all of our time talking in and out of the game. It's really not that huge of a stretch to do it within the lore too.

Atama

Sathrago wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

The term "tank" only began to have any connection to armor when tanks were introduced in WW1.

I mean, this is true, but this is also why my argument for tanks makes actual sense - even if others simply refuse to accept it.

And what is your argument supposed to be?

We know that archetypes and classes will be referenced in-game. NPCs and quests will mention them. For the game to make any sense they need to stay away from anachronisms. No references to disco, or the Internet, or Tokyo. They should avoid language that doesn’t fit.

So what is your argument? And hopefully it’s not, “Why does it matter?” It matters as much as anything that can ruin immersion.

Well I think "hey there Healer" and "Hey there Tanker" are not immersion breaking. They only need to do a tiny bit of lore to explain tanks and healers are already established as a general term for those that specializing in healing. That's why I felt that Healer fit better than Cleric and Tank works fine if lore is added to support it.

People will already be calling them tanks and healers throughout all of our time talking in and out of the game. It's really not that huge of a stretch to do it within the lore too.

If they bother it’s fine.

My worry is that I’m pretty sure that Intrepid doesn’t care. And that bothers me. It makes me worry about what else they’re going to be careless and stupid about.

These little issues, if they accumulate, can end up ruining the experience for players. I don’t want this game to be another failure because they don’t care about the details. And this is a pretty big detail.

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

So what is your argument?

Tanks (the vehicle) were named after tanks (the liquid container) in part to disguise their existence, and in part because they shared similarities.

It is perfectly within the bounds of video game logic that this exact same set of circumstances could have happened in Verra (or Sanctus) with the development of the first heavy plate armor - someone thought they looked a little like water tanks, and the name stuck.

While I am not saying this is or should be what Intrepid do, it is perfectly, 100% within the bounds of video game logic.

Sathrago

Atama wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

The term "tank" only began to have any connection to armor when tanks were introduced in WW1.

I mean, this is true, but this is also why my argument for tanks makes actual sense - even if others simply refuse to accept it.

And what is your argument supposed to be?

We know that archetypes and classes will be referenced in-game. NPCs and quests will mention them. For the game to make any sense they need to stay away from anachronisms. No references to disco, or the Internet, or Tokyo. They should avoid language that doesn’t fit.

So what is your argument? And hopefully it’s not, “Why does it matter?” It matters as much as anything that can ruin immersion.

Well I think "hey there Healer" and "Hey there Tanker" are not immersion breaking. They only need to do a tiny bit of lore to explain tanks and healers are already established as a general term for those that specializing in healing. That's why I felt that Healer fit better than Cleric and Tank works fine if lore is added to support it.

People will already be calling them tanks and healers throughout all of our time talking in and out of the game. It's really not that huge of a stretch to do it within the lore too.

If they bother it’s fine.

My worry is that I’m pretty sure that Intrepid doesn’t care. And that bothers me. It makes me worry about what else they’re going to be careless and stupid about.

These little issues, if they accumulate, can end up ruining the experience for players. I don’t want this game to be another failure because they don’t care about the details. And this is a pretty big detail.

That is fair and I can agree with that sentiment.

bigepeen

Atama wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

The term "tank" only began to have any connection to armor when tanks were introduced in WW1.

I mean, this is true, but this is also why my argument for tanks makes actual sense - even if others simply refuse to accept it.

And what is your argument supposed to be?

We know that archetypes and classes will be referenced in-game. NPCs and quests will mention them. For the game to make any sense they need to stay away from anachronisms. No references to disco, or the Internet, or Tokyo. They should avoid language that doesn’t fit.

So what is your argument? And hopefully it’s not, “Why does it matter?” It matters as much as anything that can ruin immersion.

Well I think "hey there Healer" and "Hey there Tanker" are not immersion breaking. They only need to do a tiny bit of lore to explain tanks and healers are already established as a general term for those that specializing in healing. That's why I felt that Healer fit better than Cleric and Tank works fine if lore is added to support it.

People will already be calling them tanks and healers throughout all of our time talking in and out of the game. It's really not that huge of a stretch to do it within the lore too.

If they bother it’s fine.

My worry is that I’m pretty sure that Intrepid doesn’t care. And that bothers me. It makes me worry about what else they’re going to be careless and stupid about.

These little issues, if they accumulate, can end up ruining the experience for players. I don’t want this game to be another failure because they don’t care about the details. And this is a pretty big detail.

If anything, the fact that Intrepid doesn't care about this minor issue gives me more faith that AoC might actually be a good game. What you mentioned is not a "pretty big detail".

If Intrepid implements all community feedback, then we would end up with another WoW clone almost exclusively focused on pve raiding (aka New World). Also, players will argue for convenience, because they don't understand that it is detrimental to social aspects of the game (such as group finder removing any need for coordination and communication with other players). Additionally, a lot of people seem to disproportionately focus on frivolous issues such as cosmetics and archetype names, instead of core gameplay mechanics that actually make or break games. If Intrepid prioritizes things based on which threads are popular on the forums, then their priorities would be completely out of whack and they would be distracted from making a decent game.

WhitneyHagasMatsumoto

Is it time to introduce you to another hilarious youtube video?

Atama

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

So what is your argument?

Tanks (the vehicle) were named after tanks (the liquid container) in part to disguise their existence, and in part because they shared similarities.

It is perfectly within the bounds of video game logic that this exact same set of circumstances could have happened in Verra (or Sanctus) with the development of the first heavy plate armor - someone thought they looked a little like water tanks, and the name stuck.

While I am not saying this is or should be what Intrepid do, it is perfectly, 100% within the bounds of video game logic.

Tanks were not given the nickname due to their resemblance to liquid containers. That is incorrect. The shells of tanks (just the main body, without treads or a cannon or anything else that you'd identify as a "tank") were close enough to what were sometimes used in the early 20th century to hold liquids that calling them "tanks" was an attempt to disguise what was being developed, if anyone snooped around. Nobody at any point looked at a tank vehicle and said "that looks like a water storage unit". Nobody would look at a suit of armor and say that either. That's absurd. If that's your argument, that's a very bad one. You're really reaching Noanni.

WhitneyHagasMatsumoto

I think Noaani-san is referring to the metaphorical expression that if you create a history of how the Verra world was named, it will be consistent!

P.S
@Noaani -san
If you use too much sarcasm and say it in a roundabout way, I'll have to speak for you every time, so please say it in a more understandable way! lol

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

If that's your argument, that's a very bad one.

That isn't my argument, my argument is that players will call tanks tanks anyway, so the game may as well do the same.

However, you are incorrect in your earlier claim that I was incorrect.

A part of the reason tanks were chosen as a means to disguise the existence of landships (what tanks were called before they were called tanks) is because the materials and skills needed were the same for both.

If you are spying on your enemy and they send a whole bunch of skilled welders and steel to a specific location, you are going to look in to what it is they are doing there. If they say they are making tanks (fuel tanks for ships - not water tanks that people like to bring up), then you likely don't give it a closer look as of course they are going to need a lot of steel and skilled welders to make those tanks.

I never said they were called it because they looked the same, I said there were similarities.

Those same similarities could be just as easily found in a game as they were in WW1 - but only if people are willing to find them and/or accept them.

That is why, people that don't accept the term really have a "you" problem to deal with, and not much more - no offense to the people that haven't accepted the term yet.

Sum12hate

*laughs in summoner*

WhitneyHagasMatsumoto

Go!
Rationality attack! 🤣

akabear

The earliest usage of the term, "tank" that I was able to find that diverted from the military usage discussed was in BatMUD. It used the term the somewhat the same then as what is now an recognisable role

BatMUD is a medieval fantasy MUD, established in 1990. BatMUD is Finland-based and operated and owned by a non-profit organization, Balanced Alternative Techniques ry ("B.A.T. ry"), officially registered 1994 in Helsinki, Finland.

By 2006, over 100,000 players had frequented the game, making it one of the largest text-based multiplayer games on the Internet. In the beginning of 2008, it had over 30,000 subscriptions. At the end of 2011, number of subscriptions was similarly over 30,000 giving BatMUD a flat growth (number of new players equal those who no longer frequent the game). It has been called a "very popular and complex game".

The game included among other things mages, tanks, healers, hybrids, merchants. Ah, and mages were "blasters", so there is another topic!

Child Item