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.
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.
Comments
You seemed to have missed the greater point, though to be fair, I haven't made it clear yet.
We both agree that every player of an MMO understands what a tank is. They exist to absorb as much damage output from rivals as possible. Likewise, every player knows what a cleric is - they are the ones that heal. Every player knows that a mage uses magic to deal damage, a rogue sneaks and stabs, a ranger uses a bow, a fighter is in-your-face melee.
This is what Intrepid will want from their primary class names. They want them to be names that all players will instantly associate with the task that class performs in a group or raid. Every class name is obvious as to what it is, without players needing to make any other associations.
Based on this one requirement of base class names needing to be instantly associated with their role, tank is the only suitable name for the class, as any other name will see players taking that name and associating it with the role of tank. Intrepid are simply skipping that association step, which is a good thing.
As to your point of wanting other examples - why? This is suggesting that Intrepid are not free to do as they wish with Ashes, and can only do what has already been done before.
I am assuming this is not a stance you wish to take in regards to the game as a whole, so why is it that you are taking it here?
That is a really wild claim my dude. Defender is a perfectly suitable name, as is Guardian or Protector or a dozen other labels. Defender was used as a replacement for Tank in 4e D&D and it has never been a problem. [Edit] Actually, it's more suitable, because it describes the role perfectly without depending on familiarity with gaming lingo.
Because your inability to provide examples invalidates your claim that Tank is an established naming convetion.
And for the 10th time, Intrepid is free to do whatever they want with the game, but the are developing the game in the open and ask for feedback. This is feedback. They can take it, ignore it, do whatever they want with it, but there is nothing wrong with giving it in the first place.
Intrepid has more than enough thoughts/opinions from this thread to make a decision regarding the matter.
How did it become an established name? Someone used it where it hadn't generally been used before. Who's to say that the same won't happen for "Tank"?
Not who, but what: etymology. Any author worth their salt considers what words they use in their novels and whether or not they make sense.
[Edit]: To keep things clear, I'm not arguing that Tank is a bad name because it breaks convention, I'm arguing that Tank is a bad name because it breaks immersion.
The argument that it's a good name because it keeps convention is refutable, and has been refuted, and arguing that it's fine because maybe Ashes can set a precedence still does not address the fact that the name breaks immersion.
I recall Steven specifically saying they will develop the game as the see fit, regardless of player complaints. I have seen them post specific questions asking for feedback, many of which are outright not applicable to Ashes, and I have seen them ask for feedback on things like the forums, e-mail formats and the like.
What I have not seen is Intrepid asking for people to just throw what ever thought they have about the game out.
If you agree that Intrepid can indeed do as they like, then your argument here can quite simply be reduced to "you don't like it".
In an interview I watched that made me interested in the game, I recall Steven even saying "take my systems apart".
They are changing the Dwarf model after player complaints.
They are changing the fireball casting animation after player complaints.
I rest my case.
[Edit]: Here is what I think. I think you don't care what the archetype is called and will be happy with Defender or any other alternative name, but at this point you are so invested into this discussion that you'd like to prove me wrong, or render my plea somehow invalid, and you are frustrated because I'm making really good points. Imagine taking all this energy from arguing about things you don't care about, and putting it somewhere productive.
Be careful, this is his specialty.
I can see your point. We know "Tank" because we have RL tanks which are big beefy fighting machines. As far as we know, we don't have those in Verra, so why would they use the word.
In the context of playing the game, though, it's a recognised gaming term for the purpose of the archetype, so I don't personally see the problem. But as had been said, I wouldn't be upset to see it either change or stay the same.
Just like there's no Rogue or summoner.
The class names are a lot more varied.
Summoner Summoner = Conjurer
Rogue Rogue = Assassin
The former is the archetype, which makes it easier for people to understand what's what. The latter is your actual class.
At least that's how I interpret the classes.
You have 64 classes. Not one is called "Tank"
It's technically not a class, but you only become a class at level 25 when you get to pick your second archetype. From levels 1 to 24 you are just "Race/Tank", so it functions as a class and carries all its immersion breaking with itself.
Sidenote: Tank/Tank is currently Guardian, not Juggernaut, but the most popular suggestion on reddit was to rename Guardian to Juggernaut and Tank to Guardian.
He has reiterated that point a number of times.
To be fair, I do know about instances in other games where listening to player feedback made the game worse, so being cautious with changes is admirable. Accepting no suggestions from the community is just as bad as accepting all of it though. I'm pretty happy about most calls made so far, be it rejecting suggestions (addons) or accepting them (dwarves and fireball), which makes me hopeful for this little thing.
As someone mentioned, once you pick your second class the name tank will go away.
It does take away immersion though, and if that doesn't matter, we can replace all the swords with pool noodles, and all the armor with hoodies and sweatpants, the game is going to be mechanically the same, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=58m56s&v=L30qJOqZUAg&feature=youtu.be
Thanks for finding this! I was trying to find a more robust response elsewhere to know exactly what the thought process behind the name is, but couldn't find anything other than the short response on Discord I pasted earlier.
This doesn't really address my objection of Tank being an immersion breaking neologism, blandness is not the problem (Defender is plenty bland), but it is some explanation at least.
It was the "Tanky McTankface who Tanks as a Tank plus Tank" that stuck in my memory...
Hmm, although I totally see his point, basically he wants to clearly communicate that this archetype is the generic MMO tank, so that nobody thinks it's anything different, at the same time he doesn't quite address the fact that it's a bit of a 'meta' term rather than a term that makes sense in-universe.
The problem, I believe, is that we have two values that found themselves at conflict.
Value 1: The archetype name should be simple, precise, and as unambiguous as possible.
Value 2: The archetype name should fit the game, the genre, and the setting of the world for roleplaying / immersion purposes.
Of the 8 archetypes Tank is unique in that it fits Value 1 perfectly, it's arguably the least ambiguous and most precise name of the 8 archetypes (not that others are bad, but they are at least open to some interpretation) but it does so at the cost of Value 2.
I believe there is a blind spot around Value 2 here. Certainly a number of folks don't mind the name "Tank", or their suspension of disbelief is not disturbed by a presence of a modern neologism in a fantasy setting, and that's ok, but I also think it's fair to say that a sizeable portion of the community does get irked by it given the length of this thread.
Possible solutions:
1. Compromise slightly on Value 1 and pick a less perfect name that satisfies both values. Defender is still my pick, there is a good precedence coming from D&D 4e, and it should still be good enough to fit the premise of Value 1.
2. Don't compromise on Value 1, but reassure folks that who care about Value 2 that it is not going to be compromised because Archetypes are meant to be meta terms only (so no "Tank Trainer"s, "Tank Guild"s, or NPCs speaking to PCs using "Tank" in the quest dialogue).
3. State clearly that per Ashes design principles Value 1 trumps Value 2. This is the only option that will alienate a portion of the player base, so in my eyes also the worst, but it is a definitive end to the conversation.
I can try to massage this longer, but I think this is a sufficient gist of the situation.
I don't think it's that far fetched that people in a fantasy universe could come use the word tank to describe a field of study. Players did that once they started playing in these universes.
Yes, it's not a common name fantasy stories but the role also isn't common as it's only when humans can reach super human levels of durability that a person is really considered a tank. In games, tanking is usually something multiple classes have access to through specializations and isn't core to any of the classes themselves.
In ashes, tanking is something the people in the universe have recognized as a useful role in combat and is something people focus on learning. Instead of them learning to be a warrior then specializing in defense, they specialize in defense from day one and focus on being a tank. It's only after they have mastered the basics of tanking that they specialize in how they tank.
It's possible, but the etymology is problematic. You have to differentiate between two types of worlds here, those that have mechanical armored vehicles called tanks, and those that do not. If tanks (vehicles) are not present, you would then have to explain the etymology of tank (character) as a fantasy neologism of tank (large liquid container), which gets really weird really quickly.
From dictionary.com
Origin of tank
1610–20; perhaps jointly <Gujarati tānkh reservoir, lake, and Portuguese tanque, contraction of estanque pond, literally, something dammed up, derivative of estancar (<Vulgar Latin *stanticāre) to dam up, weaken; adopted as a cover name for the military vehicle during the early stages of its manufacture in England (December, 1915)
In the context of an MMO, I'm pretty sure most people know that when you speak of a tank, you are talking about a person. Anyone who doesn't have that understanding would need an explanation anyways, an explanation that would probably involve you using the term tank even if that wasn't what the archetype was called.
I don't remember when this happened but i don't think it was a mind blowing event when i heard someone refer to a person in a game as a tank for the first time.
Have you heard of someone suffering some extreme event when first hearing the term tank being used in an MMO?
And as i said, It's not like the archetype's name being changed would cause players to not use that term to describe tanks so players would still come in contact with it.
No, that's not what the problem is, but I know where you are coming from, you are not the first person to make that argument. The issue isn't about the usage of the word Tank by the players, players are going to call tanks tanks no matter what the archetype name is (unless maybe they play on a RP realm if we have those). The problem is immersion. Do the characters wear appropriate clothing and/or armor? Check. Do the characters use appropriate weapons? Check. Do the characters use appropriate language? ____
You wouldn't expect an NPC in an RPG give you a quest that mentions DPS, would you?
It's a bit of a cop-out, but if Steven wants to enshrine it in the lore that would be one way to do it, though from everything I've seen so far I don't think that was the motivation.
We call a Spade a Spade, I have no qualms with calling a Tank, a Tank.
Bombardier is a historical term for a person using a bombard canon, not a modern neologism.
The benefit of Tank being a Tank is that it isn't an off-shoot like Dark Templar in Age of Conan (Tanked with a pet). We can be certain a Tank is a full fledged solo Tank. Sure the Tank can have combat pets, but, the Tank is a Tank without combat pets.
If you want to argue modern neologisms then you should reference Light Tank, Medium Tank and Heavy Tank. Tank in its standalone state just doesn't cut your argument.
Ok, this (Sniper in particular) is actually the first good argument I've heard for bolting modern terminology onto a setting where the etymology root would not exist in-world, I don't have any intuitive objections to the word sniper being used in fantasy games. So good job sir.
I meant Tank as a personal descriptor we use in games being a neologism of Tank as a vehicle, not the vehicle itself. Even then you don't have to add anything to the word, a new usage of an old word is already a neologism, and with Tank it's neologisms all the way down