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.
The thing is, both dwarves and the fireball animation were still being iterated on when players saw them and complained.
Intrepid basically said that they heard players and will continue to work on them when they were still only half way through working on them
Neither of these are particular examples of Intrepid changing things based on player feedback, it just so happened that player feedback was generally in line with where Intrepid wanted to take them.
As an example of Intrepid not really listening, just watch the game launch with login rewards. Because it will.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Hello all, I believe this discussion may have come up before, but I really would like Steven and friends to reconsider the name “Tank”. Overall, they have done a good job at naming the other classes and subclasses, but they ruin the immersion of the game by using the class name “tank”. Tank was a code name given to military vehicles being created in 1915. It has been a slang term for classes and archetypes in many video games given to the role that is used to absorb/mitigate or “tank” damage. Having a class name feels very uncharacteristic compared to the other class names. It’s like naming your cat “Cat”. It’s cute and punny, but is that what they really want for their game? What class do you play? Oh, I play a tank! Yea, but like what class? TANK!! *insert meme of a tank with a face on it... drooling*
Original comments spurred an interest. Depending on where you look there are quite varying thoughts of the origins of the word. I was not able to find any reference to above but enjoyed the 5min of exploration.
One interesting account suggests the word, "tank" has less to do with the military as the OP suggested and more towards an extension of the common construction use for tanking (protective barriers). and was applied in modern use in gaming through BatMUD`s in the early 90`s.
But then again, Wizardry from 1982 manual mentions being armored as well as a Sherman Tank!
Wizardry for its time was a great game!
So who knows, so thanks for the diversion. But to be honest, quite happy with the name if it is used.
Neither of these are particular examples of Intrepid changing things based on player feedback,
Intrepid doing what Intrepid was going to do is not an example of Intrepid changing things based on player feedback. Got it.
Fixed that for you.
You're welcome.
I don't know, Toast's reply in the animation thread sounds pretty much like IS changing things based on player feedback:
"Hiya! As a few folks above have noted, some of your early feedback on skills you're seeing (such as those in the Mage video) have led to direct changes from our team. For example, here's a quote from Steven on Discord from shortly before the holiday break:
Steven: I've asked the anim team to replace the jump and twirl anim on fireball to a grounded anim"
Neither of these are particular examples of Intrepid changing things based on player feedback,
Intrepid doing what Intrepid was going to do is not an example of Intrepid changing things based on player feedback. Got it.
Fixed that for you.
You're welcome.
I don't know, Toast's reply in the animation thread sounds pretty much like IS changing things based on player feedback:
"Hiya! As a few folks above have noted, some of your early feedback on skills you're seeing (such as those in the Mage video) have led to direct changes from our team. For example, here's a quote from Steven on Discord from shortly before the holiday break:
Steven: I've asked the anim team to replace the jump and twirl anim on fireball to a grounded anim"
Never turn your back on a chance to say you are doing something based on customer feedback when that thing they are asking is exactly what you were about to do anyway.
This game isn't going to go live with flashy animations like that fireball one was. It never was.
Never turn your back on a chance to say you are doing something based on customer feedback when that thing they are asking is exactly what you were about to do anyway.
This game isn't going to go live with flashy animations like that fireball one was. It never was.
So, let me get this straight. When Steven says he wants player feedback and for people to "take his systems apart", he is lying. When Toast says things are going to change based on player feedback, she is lying. Instead of developing the game behind the closed doors like Bethesda, they develop it in the open, so that they can get player feedback, and then actively ignore it, but then still do changes that match player feedback because that was their big brain plan all along? What kind of bizzaro Catch 22 logic is that?
Never turn your back on a chance to say you are doing something based on customer feedback when that thing they are asking is exactly what you were about to do anyway.
This game isn't going to go live with flashy animations like that fireball one was. It never was.
So, let me get this straight. When Steven says he wants player feedback and for people to "take his systems apart", he is lying. When Toast says things are going to change based on player feedback, she is lying.
I'm not saying it is a lie, I am saying it is customer relations. "We'll take your feedback into consideration" is a statement that every customer service representative is familiar with, but that feedback is never taken in to consideration.
This isn't so much a lie as it is a statement to get customers to leave, but in a way where they are happy and think they made a change.
It is, essentially, the same kind of 'lie' that a mother tells her children to get them to shut up so she can carry on with what ever she is doing.
Want to know how you can tell if player feedback made a difference with the fireball or dwarf thing? If Steven presents us with the next iteration and asks for feedback before carrying on to the following iteration. That is how you know the changes are being made based ln player feedback, rather than being changes that were already planned.
I'm not saying it is a lie, I am saying it is customer relations. "We'll take your feedback into consideration" is a statement that every customer service representative is familiar with, but that feedback is never taken in to consideration.
I can't tell you how many times I've had to say that to a customer, knowing full well that the Product Team isn't going anywhere near it...
"I'll send this through to our internal feedback forum..."
I'm not saying it is a lie, I am saying it is customer relations. "We'll take your feedback into consideration" is a statement that every customer service representative is familiar with, but that feedback is never taken in to consideration.
This is getting silly, you didn't even check the quotes, did you?
Jahlon: @Steven 😇 were some of these combat changes things you wanted to do, but were holding off until the back end testing? Like a fix one thing at a time sort of deal?
Steven: @Jahlon No, they were based on feedback from the community during the 20th test
This is a complete contradiction of what you are trying to say.
I'm not saying it is a lie, I am saying it is customer relations. "We'll take your feedback into consideration" is a statement that every customer service representative is familiar with, but that feedback is never taken in to consideration.
I can't tell you how many times I've had to say that to a customer, knowing full well that the Product Team isn't going anywhere near it...
"I'll send this through to our internal feedback forum..."
Being on the product team (in charge of my team, at least), I can't tell you how much we appreciate CS people that know the difference between the 99.99% of "feedback" that you guys have to deal with every day, and the 0.01% of it that is actually worth us looking at.
@Noaani You are down to make a worst game just for the sake of winning an argument, you always do the same, obsessed on winning internet arguments over making a better game. And in the case that you see no way out of the hole you've put yourself in, you just try to force a stalemate.
Your last points of this discussion are straight saying Steven is lying and missrepresenting clear quotes from him and the dev team to fit your narrative. Then bashing player feedback, saying this forum and us are completely useless and this is just Steven wanting us to feel heard so we shut up. What are you doing here then??
You are down to warp reality and manipulate statements from the Devs just to win an argument on this forum, then saying all of this is pointless and its going to the void once the game is released. This is pathetic, you have no shame at all.
Now that you see you can't "win", you just drag everyone down the well with you! Yeah!
I've been saying for several years now that the main thing that got me interested in this game was Stevens statement in 2017 to the effect of "we are not really interested in player feedback, we are making the game as per the vision we have, and if others want to play it, cool".
Not taking player feedback is not an inherently bad thing, as you inexplicably seem to think it is. It is, in fact, a very, very good thing.
Listening to feedback doesn't mean that they have to actually act on all of the feedback. Some things are "red lines" for them and set in stone. If they didn't have any such things, that would show lack of confidence.
Listening to feedback doesn't mean that they have to actually act on all of the feedback.
Intrepid have a several thousand page design document for this game.'
You and I do not have access to that document.
Everything in that document is a "red line", as that is the game they are making.
In what way would you or I be able to make productive suggestions for the game that fit in with that several thousand page document, that actual industry veterans with decades of individual experience - or centuries of combined experience - wouldn't have already have thought of?
I really don't understand the thinking behind people when they assume they know better than actual veterans of a specific industry. It's like people think Ashes is some mod for a game made by a bunch of people trying to break in to the gaming industry, rather than a game staffed by people pulled from almost all western MMO's.
Listening to feedback doesn't mean that they have to actually act on all of the feedback.
Intrepid have a several thousand page design document for this game.'
You and I do not have access to that document.
Everything in that document is a "red line", as that is the game they are making.
In what way would you or I be able to make productive suggestions for the game that fit in with that several thousand page document, that actual industry veterans with decades of individual experience - or centuries of combined experience - wouldn't have already have thought of?
I really don't understand the thinking behind people when they assume they know better than actual veterans of a specific industry. It's like people think Ashes is some mod for a game made by a bunch of people trying to break in to the gaming industry, rather than a game staffed by people pulled from almost all western MMO's.
There are already several things documented that Steven has been explaining to various groups in the community, things that come from that 4k page Game Design Document, and when he starts explaining them the original design doesn't survive initial contact.
For example, why has the military node blog been delayed? Because they had a major design change after listening to feedback and making a change.
Steven: Military Node Leadership is going to be based on 1v1 Combat in a tournament style....
Players: Uh Steven, you aren't balancing combat for 1v1 combat so how is that going to work...
Steven: Yeah good point.....
<<a short while later>>
Steven: Ok, so we are still going to have 1v1 Combat, but you are doing to engage in that combat with a champion that you build so that all players of all main archetypes can have an equal chance to be the mayor of a military node.
Listening to feedback doesn't mean that they have to actually act on all of the feedback.
Intrepid have a several thousand page design document for this game.'
You and I do not have access to that document.
Everything in that document is a "red line", as that is the game they are making.
In what way would you or I be able to make productive suggestions for the game that fit in with that several thousand page document, that actual industry veterans with decades of individual experience - or centuries of combined experience - wouldn't have already have thought of?
I really don't understand the thinking behind people when they assume they know better than actual veterans of a specific industry. It's like people think Ashes is some mod for a game made by a bunch of people trying to break in to the gaming industry, rather than a game staffed by people pulled from almost all western MMO's.
There are already several things documented that Steven has been explaining to various groups in the community, things that come from that 4k page Game Design Document, and when he starts explaining them the original design doesn't survive initial contact.
For example, why has the military node blog been delayed? Because they had a major design change after listening to feedback and making a change.
Steven: Military Node Leadership is going to be based on 1v1 Combat in a tournament style....
Players: Uh Steven, you aren't balancing combat for 1v1 combat so how is that going to work...
Steven: Yeah good point.....
<<a short while later>>
Steven: Ok, so we are still going to have 1v1 Combat, but you are doing to engage in that combat with a champion that you build so that all players of all main archetypes can have an equal chance to be the mayor of a military node.
A few points in relation to that:
It was pointed out to Steven before any of the experienced members of the team put any work in to military nodes (before they had actually fleshed them out as a team). So this was something the developers would have no doubt got to when they started working on fleshing that node type out. Essentially, this was one MMO player spotting a flaw in another MMO players design for a game. That MMO players game may be getting made, but since that aspect of it had not gone through the filter of experience at Intrepid as of that point in time, it was still in the state of simply being an MMO players design for an MMO.
It was pointed out by simply saying "I think this could be an issue" and then leaving it up to Intrepid to decide if it is or isn't an issue, and what they should do about it if they decide it is. This is how all such things players think could be an issue should be presented.
As an issue, it was one of game design, rather than one of preference as is the case here.
Now, I don't personally like the way Intrepid decided to fix that issue, but hey, it's Stevens game, we are all just here for the ride.
0
Options
MushinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Intrepid have a several thousand page design document for this game.'
You and I do not have access to that document.
Everything in that document is a "red line", as that is the game they are making.
In what way would you or I be able to make productive suggestions for the game that fit in with that several thousand page document, that actual industry veterans with decades of individual experience - or centuries of combined experience - wouldn't have already have thought of?
I really don't understand the thinking behind people when they assume they know better than actual veterans of a specific industry. It's like people think Ashes is some mod for a game made by a bunch of people trying to break in to the gaming industry, rather than a game staffed by people pulled from almost all western MMO's.
We don't really know what is "red lines" and what isn't. Not everything in their design is set in stone. If something doesn't work, they can change it. That doesn't mean that they will change everything people are asking, but it won't be nothing either. Some things sound great on paper but don't work in practice.
I don't think the experience you are talking about matters in this particular case. You could argue that in every other single game that has teams of even greater experience, we've never seen the term "tank" used in-game as a class descriptor. This isn't a case of people saying that the fireball should have a lower cast time, it's a more aesthetic thing.
Of course they can still choose to keep it, but there's nothing that makes them right and us wrong. It's a matter of preference. I don't find it particularly consistent personally.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
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.
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?
Could you imagine an NPC referring to someone as a healer?
I see tank as being a similar word to healer.
DPS is a reference to the game's damage mechanics, tank is not.
I don't see it as immersion breaking and almost see it as the opposite as it shows the characters in the universe are aware of the role and how it's used in engagements.
Could you imagine an NPC referring to someone as a healer?
I see tank as being a similar word to healer.
DPS is a reference to the game's damage mechanics, tank is not.
I don't see it as immersion breaking and almost see it as the opposite as it shows the characters in the universe are aware of the role and how it's used in engagements.
"Healer" is definitely not problematic in the same way as "tank" is. "Tank" literally derives from well... tanks, a modern day vehicle. Healers have existed throughout history from ancient times, and were often even called literally healers.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Could you imagine an NPC referring to someone as a healer?
I see tank as being a similar word to healer.
DPS is a reference to the game's damage mechanics, tank is not.
I don't see it as immersion breaking and almost see it as the opposite as it shows the characters in the universe are aware of the role and how it's used in engagements.
"Healer" is definitely not problematic in the same way as "tank" is. "Tank" literally derives from well... tanks, a modern day vehicle. Healers have existed throughout history from ancient times, and were often even called literally healers.
Just because we have something that we refer to as a tank, doesn't mean the word can't be used to describe something else, especially in another universe. As it was pointed out, we actually call multiple things tanks that serve different functions.
Yes, healers have existed in our universe but the idea of someone tanking hasn't, probably because people can't reach the levels of durability required to tank. In Ashes universe, people can become so durable that they can perform the role of what has been called a "tank."
This is my point, we aren't used to the word tank being used this way because the concept doesn't exist in our world but in ashes it does and because it does, i don't think it's a stretch for the characters in the universe to refer to it as a tank.
Just because we have something that we refer to as a tank, doesn't mean the word can't be used to describe something else, especially in another universe. As it was pointed out, we actually call multiple things tanks that serve different functions.
Yes, healers have existed in our universe but the idea of someone tanking hasn't, probably because people can't reach the levels of durability required to tank. In Ashes universe, people can become so durable that they can perform the role of what has been called a "tank."
This is my point, we aren't used to the word tank being used this way because the concept doesn't exist in our world but in ashes it does and because it does, i don't think it's a stretch for the characters in the universe to refer to it as a tank.
I suppose that point makes sense. I still don't like it too much but it doesn't bother me too much either. Besides in-game everyone will be calling them tanks anyway so that neuters the issue further.
Well, in both Verra and Sanctus, they frequently use a water tank to hold lots of water.
When fighting, they needed somebody who could hold off lots of enemies.
For this reason, the people on Verra and Sanctus took to calling this role a "Tank", because of the similarity.
Could you imagine an NPC referring to someone as a healer?
I see tank as being a similar word to healer.
Yeah, that's fair. Neurath made a good point earlier that convinced me that you don't necessarily need etymological root for a term to make sense in a fantasy setting, and there is precedence here for bolting modern neologism retroactively.
DPS is a reference to the game's damage mechanics, tank is not.
Well, no, Tank is a reference to game mechanics, it even functions as a verb for that purpose, and that's also why it was chosen (so far as I can tell from Steven's explanations) for the archetype: to make it crystal clear what the archetype does. That doesn't mean it can't also be a term in-world of course.
I don't see it as immersion breaking and almost see it as the opposite as it shows the characters in the universe are aware of the role and how it's used in engagements.
I've softened my position on this somewhat through this thread, and I think I've grown more appreciation for folks who do care about immersion and for whom it's not immersion breaking. It still feels off for me though, but at this point I don't really have a good rationale why. It might be because in my native language we import the English "tank" when talking about tanking and tanks in RPGs instead of the translation of it, so it feels more artificial to me than it would be for a native English speaker, but that's just my idiosyncratic nonsense that has no bearing on anyone else's experience.
Question though: on a scale of 1 to 10, where "Tank" is 10, how would you score "Defender" as a fitting descriptor for the archetype?
Well, in both Verra and Sanctus, they frequently use a water tank to hold lots of water.
When fighting, they needed somebody who could hold off lots of enemies.
For this reason, the people on Verra and Sanctus took to calling this role a "Tank", because of the similarity.
There you go. You're welcome.
Or, perhaps back in Sanctus when people went out and put all that armor on, others looking on laughed because they thought they looked like those same water tanks, and so started calling them that.
It is entirely possible that in the thousands of years we were in Sanctus, this term could have easily come to mean one in full armor.
All you need to do is look at how it is used now, it is used in both gaming and sport, as well as military, and that is after only a little over 100 years.
This isn't even a stretch of the imagination here. It is almost an echo of what actually happened.
Comments
Intrepid basically said that they heard players and will continue to work on them when they were still only half way through working on them
Neither of these are particular examples of Intrepid changing things based on player feedback, it just so happened that player feedback was generally in line with where Intrepid wanted to take them.
As an example of Intrepid not really listening, just watch the game launch with login rewards. Because it will.
Original comments spurred an interest. Depending on where you look there are quite varying thoughts of the origins of the word. I was not able to find any reference to above but enjoyed the 5min of exploration.
One interesting account suggests the word, "tank" has less to do with the military as the OP suggested and more towards an extension of the common construction use for tanking (protective barriers). and was applied in modern use in gaming through BatMUD`s in the early 90`s.
But then again, Wizardry from 1982 manual mentions being armored as well as a Sherman Tank!
Wizardry for its time was a great game!
So who knows, so thanks for the diversion. But to be honest, quite happy with the name if it is used.
Intrepid changing things based on player feedback are not examples of Intrepid changing things based on player feedback. Got it.
Fixed that for you.
You're welcome.
I don't know, Toast's reply in the animation thread sounds pretty much like IS changing things based on player feedback:
"Hiya! As a few folks above have noted, some of your early feedback on skills you're seeing (such as those in the Mage video) have led to direct changes from our team. For example, here's a quote from Steven on Discord from shortly before the holiday break:
Steven: I've asked the anim team to replace the jump and twirl anim on fireball to a grounded anim"
Never turn your back on a chance to say you are doing something based on customer feedback when that thing they are asking is exactly what you were about to do anyway.
This game isn't going to go live with flashy animations like that fireball one was. It never was.
So, let me get this straight. When Steven says he wants player feedback and for people to "take his systems apart", he is lying. When Toast says things are going to change based on player feedback, she is lying. Instead of developing the game behind the closed doors like Bethesda, they develop it in the open, so that they can get player feedback, and then actively ignore it, but then still do changes that match player feedback because that was their big brain plan all along? What kind of bizzaro Catch 22 logic is that?
Steven saying he is listening to feedback:
https://discord.com/channels/256164085366915072/256164085366915072/783500127456722944
https://discord.com/channels/256164085366915072/256164085366915072/791439936855212082
https://discord.com/channels/256164085366915072/256164085366915072/732684185998983262
https://discord.com/channels/256164085366915072/256164085366915072/624328489272606720
That's just most recent things I found with a quick search on discord.
This isn't so much a lie as it is a statement to get customers to leave, but in a way where they are happy and think they made a change.
It is, essentially, the same kind of 'lie' that a mother tells her children to get them to shut up so she can carry on with what ever she is doing.
Want to know how you can tell if player feedback made a difference with the fireball or dwarf thing? If Steven presents us with the next iteration and asks for feedback before carrying on to the following iteration. That is how you know the changes are being made based ln player feedback, rather than being changes that were already planned.
I can't tell you how many times I've had to say that to a customer, knowing full well that the Product Team isn't going anywhere near it...
"I'll send this through to our internal feedback forum..."
This is getting silly, you didn't even check the quotes, did you?
This is a complete contradiction of what you are trying to say.
Being on the product team (in charge of my team, at least), I can't tell you how much we appreciate CS people that know the difference between the 99.99% of "feedback" that you guys have to deal with every day, and the 0.01% of it that is actually worth us looking at.
Life would be so much easier without customers.
Your last points of this discussion are straight saying Steven is lying and missrepresenting clear quotes from him and the dev team to fit your narrative. Then bashing player feedback, saying this forum and us are completely useless and this is just Steven wanting us to feel heard so we shut up. What are you doing here then??
You are down to warp reality and manipulate statements from the Devs just to win an argument on this forum, then saying all of this is pointless and its going to the void once the game is released. This is pathetic, you have no shame at all.
Nothing you or I say here will have any impact on the game.
I was wondering when you're going to admit that all you are here for is to argue for sport.
Now that you see you can't "win", you just drag everyone down the well with you! Yeah!
Next time you see someone winning on life, just tell him, "We are all gonna die"
Not taking player feedback is not an inherently bad thing, as you inexplicably seem to think it is. It is, in fact, a very, very good thing.
You and I do not have access to that document.
Everything in that document is a "red line", as that is the game they are making.
In what way would you or I be able to make productive suggestions for the game that fit in with that several thousand page document, that actual industry veterans with decades of individual experience - or centuries of combined experience - wouldn't have already have thought of?
I really don't understand the thinking behind people when they assume they know better than actual veterans of a specific industry. It's like people think Ashes is some mod for a game made by a bunch of people trying to break in to the gaming industry, rather than a game staffed by people pulled from almost all western MMO's.
@Noaani May want to quit while you are ahead.
There are already several things documented that Steven has been explaining to various groups in the community, things that come from that 4k page Game Design Document, and when he starts explaining them the original design doesn't survive initial contact.
For example, why has the military node blog been delayed? Because they had a major design change after listening to feedback and making a change.
Steven: Military Node Leadership is going to be based on 1v1 Combat in a tournament style....
Players: Uh Steven, you aren't balancing combat for 1v1 combat so how is that going to work...
Steven: Yeah good point.....
<<a short while later>>
Steven: Ok, so we are still going to have 1v1 Combat, but you are doing to engage in that combat with a champion that you build so that all players of all main archetypes can have an equal chance to be the mayor of a military node.
A few points in relation to that:
It was pointed out to Steven before any of the experienced members of the team put any work in to military nodes (before they had actually fleshed them out as a team). So this was something the developers would have no doubt got to when they started working on fleshing that node type out. Essentially, this was one MMO player spotting a flaw in another MMO players design for a game. That MMO players game may be getting made, but since that aspect of it had not gone through the filter of experience at Intrepid as of that point in time, it was still in the state of simply being an MMO players design for an MMO.
It was pointed out by simply saying "I think this could be an issue" and then leaving it up to Intrepid to decide if it is or isn't an issue, and what they should do about it if they decide it is. This is how all such things players think could be an issue should be presented.
As an issue, it was one of game design, rather than one of preference as is the case here.
Now, I don't personally like the way Intrepid decided to fix that issue, but hey, it's Stevens game, we are all just here for the ride.
We don't really know what is "red lines" and what isn't. Not everything in their design is set in stone. If something doesn't work, they can change it. That doesn't mean that they will change everything people are asking, but it won't be nothing either. Some things sound great on paper but don't work in practice.
I don't think the experience you are talking about matters in this particular case. You could argue that in every other single game that has teams of even greater experience, we've never seen the term "tank" used in-game as a class descriptor. This isn't a case of people saying that the fireball should have a lower cast time, it's a more aesthetic thing.
Of course they can still choose to keep it, but there's nothing that makes them right and us wrong. It's a matter of preference. I don't find it particularly consistent personally.
Could you imagine an NPC referring to someone as a healer?
I see tank as being a similar word to healer.
DPS is a reference to the game's damage mechanics, tank is not.
I don't see it as immersion breaking and almost see it as the opposite as it shows the characters in the universe are aware of the role and how it's used in engagements.
"Healer" is definitely not problematic in the same way as "tank" is. "Tank" literally derives from well... tanks, a modern day vehicle. Healers have existed throughout history from ancient times, and were often even called literally healers.
Just because we have something that we refer to as a tank, doesn't mean the word can't be used to describe something else, especially in another universe. As it was pointed out, we actually call multiple things tanks that serve different functions.
Yes, healers have existed in our universe but the idea of someone tanking hasn't, probably because people can't reach the levels of durability required to tank. In Ashes universe, people can become so durable that they can perform the role of what has been called a "tank."
This is my point, we aren't used to the word tank being used this way because the concept doesn't exist in our world but in ashes it does and because it does, i don't think it's a stretch for the characters in the universe to refer to it as a tank.
I suppose that point makes sense. I still don't like it too much but it doesn't bother me too much either. Besides in-game everyone will be calling them tanks anyway so that neuters the issue further.
When fighting, they needed somebody who could hold off lots of enemies.
For this reason, the people on Verra and Sanctus took to calling this role a "Tank", because of the similarity.
There you go. You're welcome.
Yeah, that's fair. Neurath made a good point earlier that convinced me that you don't necessarily need etymological root for a term to make sense in a fantasy setting, and there is precedence here for bolting modern neologism retroactively.
Well, no, Tank is a reference to game mechanics, it even functions as a verb for that purpose, and that's also why it was chosen (so far as I can tell from Steven's explanations) for the archetype: to make it crystal clear what the archetype does. That doesn't mean it can't also be a term in-world of course.
I've softened my position on this somewhat through this thread, and I think I've grown more appreciation for folks who do care about immersion and for whom it's not immersion breaking. It still feels off for me though, but at this point I don't really have a good rationale why. It might be because in my native language we import the English "tank" when talking about tanking and tanks in RPGs instead of the translation of it, so it feels more artificial to me than it would be for a native English speaker, but that's just my idiosyncratic nonsense that has no bearing on anyone else's experience.
Question though: on a scale of 1 to 10, where "Tank" is 10, how would you score "Defender" as a fitting descriptor for the archetype?
Or, perhaps back in Sanctus when people went out and put all that armor on, others looking on laughed because they thought they looked like those same water tanks, and so started calling them that.
It is entirely possible that in the thousands of years we were in Sanctus, this term could have easily come to mean one in full armor.
All you need to do is look at how it is used now, it is used in both gaming and sport, as well as military, and that is after only a little over 100 years.
This isn't even a stretch of the imagination here. It is almost an echo of what actually happened.