Revisiting an old topic: The Tank (And why I don't like the name.)

ArchivedUser

Spun666 said:

Put my question in the q/a thread. 

👍

ArchivedUser

Flameh0t said:

But a tanky class primarily focused on taking damage will always be a tank xD

Of course it will always be a tank. At least everyone in real life will refer to that archetype as tank and that's absolutely fine for me. But there's a barrier between real and game world. On the one side there's island dwarves, desert people and roman elves, on the other side there's Aelune, Niküa and Empyrean. On the one side there's pink bushes and tanks, on the other side... well, whatever fancy names you may pick for those pink bushes and tanks

But you don't mix the two sides. Otherwise you break immersion and that's the only thing all this is about.

ArchivedUser

Rumbleforge said:

Flameh0t said:

c0ug4r said:

Flameh0t said:

But if Tank is the gamer slang that's used to define what a protector/defender/tough-to-bring-down class is called, isn't it going to be referred to as that anyway? So who cares what the original, unused name is going to be..

I guess when it comes to gathering we'll just call the plants Red Flower, Blue Bush, Yellow Mushroom... I mean noone's gonna care for some fancy names anyway

It has been said several times now: It's not about a comprehensible class name, it's about immersion. Besides every other class has been given a proper name except Tankster McTankelton.

That's different though, that's variety, for gathering.. Not a single specific with a set use.. If your gathering was to only gather a single herb that looks like a pink bush, I'd be more than happy to just call it pink bush picking.. But a tanky class primarily focused on taking damage will always be a tank xD

But that's like calling all people in the rural US south "hillbillies." Just became a lot of people do it doesn't make it right.  

Uhh.. What?

ArchivedUser

c0ug4r said:

Flameh0t said:

But a tanky class primarily focused on taking damage will always be a tank xD

Of course it will always be a tank. At least everyone in real life will refer to that archetype as tank and that's absolutely fine for me. But there's a barrier between real and game world. On the one side there's island dwarves, desert people and roman elves, on the other side there's Aelune, Niküa and Empyrean. On the one side there's pink bushes and tanks, on the other side... well, whatever fancy names you may pick for those pink bushes and tanks

But you don't mix the two sides. Otherwise you break immersion and that's the only thing all this is about.

Ohhh, so you want there to be the fantasy name, to remove the "modern day" tank-talk.. That's fair enough.. What's something hefty and solid that would be hard for fantasy infantry to take down?

ArchivedUser

I feel like this has moved into the territory of "Kleenex" or "Q-Tip" where a name is synonymous with the object in question, to the point people will call it said name regardless of if it has another name or not.

ArchivedUser

I'd have to agree, Tank is more of a role descriptor rather than a class name and it always felt very lazy.

It's one of the names that I've noticed other potential players rubbishing because it's not very creative at all.

I'd like something like protector or bulwark that invokes the whole 'defensive' type role but without being just so explicit with it.

The issue will become apparent when Tank/Cleric, Tank/Fighter, Tank/Tank, etc. are all just called 'Tank' because it's the role that they'll most likely be playing in the game.

ArchivedUser

Flameh0t said:

Ohhh, so you want there to be the fantasy name, to remove the "modern day" tank-talk.. That's fair enough.. What's something hefty and solid that would be hard for fantasy infantry to take down?

Colossus?

There is also Shieldsman (and Shieldswoman), though I think shields are optional for the tank role.

ArchivedUser

Nefelia said:

Flameh0t said:

Ohhh, so you want there to be the fantasy name, to remove the "modern day" tank-talk.. That's fair enough.. What's something hefty and solid that would be hard for fantasy infantry to take down?

Colossus?

There is also Shieldsman (and Shieldswoman), though I think shields are optional for the tank role.

Oh I like Colossus not heard that one for a while reminds me of ironclad or Dreadnought

ArchivedUser

In my opinion they should have gone with "knight".  That already evokes images of protection and resilience in both a physical and mental standpoint.

ArchivedUser

Nefelia said:

Flameh0t said:

Ohhh, so you want there to be the fantasy name, to remove the "modern day" tank-talk.. That's fair enough.. What's something hefty and solid that would be hard for fantasy infantry to take down?

Colossus?

There is also Shieldsman (and Shieldswoman), though I think shields are optional for the tank role.

You can't have shieldsman or shieldswoman, that's presumptuous of gender, so it's an act of violence.. It has to be Shieldsperson.
#equalgenderrights #mentallyillfeminist

ArchivedUser

Flameh0t said:

Nefelia said:

Flameh0t said:

Ohhh, so you want there to be the fantasy name, to remove the "modern day" tank-talk.. That's fair enough.. What's something hefty and solid that would be hard for fantasy infantry to take down?

Colossus?

There is also Shieldsman (and Shieldswoman), though I think shields are optional for the tank role.

You can't have shieldsman or shieldswoman, that's presumptuous of gender, so it's an act of violence.. It has to be Shieldsperson.
#equalgenderrights #mentallyillfeminist

see this is why I like undead the dead have no desires, no petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace

ArchivedUser

nagash said:

Flameh0t said:

Nefelia said:

Flameh0t said:

Ohhh, so you want there to be the fantasy name, to remove the "modern day" tank-talk.. That's fair enough.. What's something hefty and solid that would be hard for fantasy infantry to take down?

Colossus?

There is also Shieldsman (and Shieldswoman), though I think shields are optional for the tank role.

You can't have shieldsman or shieldswoman, that's presumptuous of gender, so it's an act of violence.. It has to be Shieldsperson.
#equalgenderrights #mentallyillfeminist

see this is why I like undead the dead have no desires, no petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace

Did you get that last line off Thanos?
I think you're just jealous that your skeletons don't have reproductive organs

ArchivedUser

nagash said:

Flameh0t said:

Nefelia said:

Flameh0t said:

Ohhh, so you want there to be the fantasy name, to remove the "modern day" tank-talk.. That's fair enough.. What's something hefty and solid that would be hard for fantasy infantry to take down?

Colossus?

There is also Shieldsman (and Shieldswoman), though I think shields are optional for the tank role.

You can't have shieldsman or shieldswoman, that's presumptuous of gender, so it's an act of violence.. It has to be Shieldsperson.
#equalgenderrights #mentallyillfeminist

see this is why I like undead the dead have no desires, no petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace

ArchivedUser

I must admit, I like the base class being called a tank. 

ArchivedUser

Could call it the "guy who says the healer isn't good enough". :-)

ArchivedUser

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarme_(historical)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx

I also think that the 'tank' name has become recursive and boring.
It would be cool to have some more mythological name for them for a change.