TomaszJaworski wrote: » Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » TomaszJaworski wrote: » Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead. It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices. Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank? probably not but it's hard to say this early in development
JustVine wrote: » HazardNumberSeven wrote: » Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies). Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'... Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it. Just a suggestion and opinion. Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol.
HazardNumberSeven wrote: » Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies). Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'... Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it. Just a suggestion and opinion.
TomaszJaworski wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » TomaszJaworski wrote: » Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead. It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices. Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank? probably not but it's hard to say this early in development yea, my main point is that, this thread is pointless cuz we can make a similar one to every single primary archetype, mage is mage, fighter is fighter, ranger is ranger, tank is tank, rogue is rogue And if u say that tank is not a thing.. ranger is not a thing too, same as fighter. Real names u have when u combain two archetypes like u said
Conrad wrote: » TomaszJaworski wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » TomaszJaworski wrote: » Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead. It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices. Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank? probably not but it's hard to say this early in development yea, my main point is that, this thread is pointless cuz we can make a similar one to every single primary archetype, mage is mage, fighter is fighter, ranger is ranger, tank is tank, rogue is rogue And if u say that tank is not a thing.. ranger is not a thing too, same as fighter. Real names u have when u combain two archetypes like u said Riiiight, not in the first 25 levels tho. Everyone will see tank not the main class you going for. So 25 levels you will literally be running as a tank
Conrad wrote: » TomaszJaworski wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » TomaszJaworski wrote: » Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead. It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices. Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank? probably not but it's hard to say this early in development yea, my main point is that, this thread is pointless cuz we can make a similar one to every single primary archetype, mage is mage, fighter is fighter, ranger is ranger, tank is tank, rogue is rogue And if u say that tank is not a thing.. ranger is not a thing too, same as fighter. Real names u have when u combain two archetypes like u said Problem is, fighters can tank as well generally. Sure, not in Ashes, but trying to reinvent the wheel is always stupid af
Conrad wrote: » JustVine wrote: » HazardNumberSeven wrote: » Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies). Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'... Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it. Just a suggestion and opinion. Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol. That's quite the over reach. Prot is used so much in mmos that very very veeerrryyyy few would would think about it that way. Its so often used that ppl know prot is protection generally
TomaszJaworski wrote: » Conrad wrote: » TomaszJaworski wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » TomaszJaworski wrote: » Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead. It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices. Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank? probably not but it's hard to say this early in development yea, my main point is that, this thread is pointless cuz we can make a similar one to every single primary archetype, mage is mage, fighter is fighter, ranger is ranger, tank is tank, rogue is rogue And if u say that tank is not a thing.. ranger is not a thing too, same as fighter. Real names u have when u combain two archetypes like u said Riiiight, not in the first 25 levels tho. Everyone will see tank not the main class you going for. So 25 levels you will literally be running as a tank sure, but ranger is not relevent too, should be archer
JustVine wrote: » Conrad wrote: » JustVine wrote: » HazardNumberSeven wrote: » Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies). Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'... Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it. Just a suggestion and opinion. Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol. That's quite the over reach. Prot is used so much in mmos that very very veeerrryyyy few would would think about it that way. Its so often used that ppl know prot is protection generally Literally never heard it used that way till you all brought it up. We probably just play different games. Like I said it probably isn't that big a deal just 'could be'. For now it doesn't get any complaints from me as already noted. Not my first choice (I am team Guardian but its taken by the duplicate archtype ) but I wouldn't complain.
Teyloune wrote: » Alternative name for the Tank Archetype: Vanguard, Stalwart. Or we could change the Tank Archetype into Sentinel, and then we can give the Ranger + Tank a name like Skirmisher for example.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » not sure if you've seen this or not, It reminds me of armoured bards
daveywavey wrote: » Oh man, don't show that to Margaret... it'll be next month's Cosmetic!
daveywavey wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » not sure if you've seen this or not, It reminds me of armoured bards Oh man, don't show that to Margaret... it'll be next month's Cosmetic!
Vhaeyne wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Oh man, don't show that to Margaret... it'll be next month's Cosmetic! Do!
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » JustVine wrote: » HazardNumberSeven wrote: » Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies). Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'... Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it. Just a suggestion and opinion. Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol. And 'Nightshield' shortens to...... yeah, I'm not gonna go there... But, I'm quite happy for you to call my Bard/Tank Siren "Sir". you sure you're fine with siren and not rock lobster? not sure if you've seen this or not, It reminds me of armoured bards
daveywavey wrote: » JustVine wrote: » HazardNumberSeven wrote: » Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies). Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'... Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it. Just a suggestion and opinion. Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol. And 'Nightshield' shortens to...... yeah, I'm not gonna go there... But, I'm quite happy for you to call my Bard/Tank Siren "Sir".
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » @Sathrago flash back to the 90's but with tubas! Also reminded me of the OTV rust server event on twitch when they'd be playing music through in-game instruments, those kittens... meow.
