I think most people understand what an Earth Tank is...
It is a vessel for holding a large amount of water or other liquid.
Tanks as armored vehicles were named after these tanks, no small part due to the fact that the British wanted to keep their development secret, and referring to them as water carriers rather than Landships made them seem significantly less interesting to foreign intelligence.
If it were not for early tanks rudimentary similarity to metal water tanks, we may well know them now as landships rather than tanks. I would have a hard time finding a link from a person in full plate armor to the word "landship", but I have no issue in establishing a potential link in a fantasy setting between someone in full plate armor and a metal water tank.
In fact, that link seems to me to be even more than the link between such water tanks and what would otherwise now be known as landships.
To me, the issues here only start when people look at "landships" as being where the tank class got their name from. If people take a step back and look at the reason landships are now called tanks, those issues should melt away entirely.
Sadly, most people aren't willing to expand their horizons in this manner.
Did you know that most water tanks are in plastic and not metal? Metal water tanks = rust = holes = no water
I think most people understand what an Earth Tank is...
It is a vessel for holding a large amount of water or other liquid.
Tanks as armored vehicles were named after these tanks, no small part due to the fact that the British wanted to keep their development secret, and referring to them as water carriers rather than Landships made them seem significantly less interesting to foreign intelligence.
If it were not for early tanks rudimentary similarity to metal water tanks, we may well know them now as landships rather than tanks. I would have a hard time finding a link from a person in full plate armor to the word "landship", but I have no issue in establishing a potential link in a fantasy setting between someone in full plate armor and a metal water tank.
In fact, that link seems to me to be even more than the link between such water tanks and what would otherwise now be known as landships.
To me, the issues here only start when people look at "landships" as being where the tank class got their name from. If people take a step back and look at the reason landships are now called tanks, those issues should melt away entirely.
Sadly, most people aren't willing to expand their horizons in this manner.
Did you know that most water tanks are in plastic and not metal? Metal water tanks = rust = holes = no water
I fail to see the relevance.
We are talking about potential water tanks in a fantasy setting where we can be fairly sure plastics don't exist, or about water tanks in 1916, only a few years after plastics became commercially viable, and many years before they became commonplace.
If we want to shoehorn Tank (liquid container) as the etymology root here (which I've been convinced isn't necessary), I'd like to point out that in plenty of languages that didn't straight up import the English word, namely: French, German, Italian, Swedish, Finish, Polish, and probably more that I didn't bother checking, the word for Tank (vehicle) has nothing to do with Tank (liquid container). The easiest here is the German Panzer, which literally translates to just Armor (although it is a shorthand for Panzerkampfwagen - armored combat vehicle). The Swedish word is literally Combat Vehicle, Finish is full Armored Combat Vehicle, French Char for heavy vehicle comes from Latin and has similar root as English Chariot, and Polish is probably weirdest with its Crawler (loosely translated).
Dunno if the game is ever to be localized, but there is that.
If we want to shoehorn Tank (liquid container) as the etymology root here (which I've been convinced isn't necessary), I'd like to point out that in plenty of languages that didn't straight up import the English word, namely: French, German, Italian, Swedish, Finish, Polish, and probably more that I didn't bother checking, the word for Tank (vehicle) has nothing to do with Tank (liquid container). The easiest here is the German Panzer, which literally translates to just Armor (although it is a shorthand for Panzerkampfwagen - armored combat vehicle). The Swedish word is literally Combat Vehicle, Finish is full Armored Combat Vehicle, French Char for heavy vehicle comes from Latin and has similar root as English Chariot, and Polish is probably weirdest with its Crawler (loosely translated).
Dunno if the game is ever to be localized, but there is that.
With this point, you are still making the assumption that the class is named after the vehicle, which is exactly what I am saying is not an assumption that should be made.
This point is only valid if the localized version of the tank class in this game uses the word from the associated language for the vehicle.
I somehow doubt they will do that though. It is far more likely they will either not translate it at all, or will use the language appropriate word for the liquid storage vessel.
That's possible, but I don't think that's the conundrum we're having here. The most often proposed alternatives (Defender, Guardian, etc.) aren't objected to because they are immersion breaking (Guardian is currently a class name, and nobody makes 15 pages long threads about it), they are objected to because they aren't as precise as Tank in describing the role of the archetype.
Wait what? This makes it sound like Defender/Guardian are the things being objected against?
So it's not my immersion vs your immersion, it's more of subjective immersion of some portion of the playerbase vs does the name function as an accurate descriptor and satisfies the standard Intrepid set out for the names.
Wait was this to describe the thread to me or for something else? I'm a little confused today on this reply.
Those two statements are separate issues though. They might have overlap, but in general are two different points. The first, the subjectivity of immersion, would still be immersion vs immersion as the word "Defender" would play into the same problems I have with "Fighter". Because of this, every term used would break immersion for someone. Sure a 16+ page thread might not pop up, but that can be said about a lot of things. And I think the vocal minority are just...very vocal on this one making it appear as a more important issue than it actually is.
The second part about "standard" seems a little high and mighty if that's what people are complaining about. That'd be like a fan-fiction writer telling an author that they could've written the story better than them. A certain level of creative freedom must be given to the people actually putting in the work to create and fund the game, otherwise why would they want to invest their time making something that they can't even recognize as their own? The game isn't out yet, but people are complaining about something as small as a 4 letter word and how it is impacting a "standard"? That's just...not right.
Wait what? This makes it sound like Defender/Guardian are the things being objected against?
I've pushed both as suggestions (former due to 4e precedence, latter due to it being the most upvoted suggestion on reddit), and both got objected to as to being less adequate than "Tank". Our friend Noaani here even went as far as to claim that Tank is the only suitable term ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Those two statements are separate issues though. They might have overlap, but in general are two different points. The first, the subjectivity of immersion, would still be immersion vs immersion as the word "Defender" would play into the same problems I have with "Fighter". Because of this, every term used would break immersion for someone. Sure a 16+ page thread might not pop up, but that can be said about a lot of things. And I think the vocal minority are just...very vocal on this one making it appear as a more important issue than it actually is.
That's fair, though I think it also matters how big that minority really is, if it is a minority at all. To my knowledge nobody has done any polls on the matter. The closest to anything quantifiable would be the reddit thread from 2020, which had 66% upvotes, which isn't really saying much, and I reckon most folks downvoting (as plenty of folks in this thread) are just tired of it coming back rather than opposed to the change as such, but that's just my conjecture. My best educated guess is that the actual majority/prularity opinion on this whole is issue is "don't really care either way", and should the name change there would be little to no pushback asking "bring Tank back".
There is the old joke from WoW, which I think it applies to most human endeavours:
- How many World of Warcraft players does it take to change the lightbulb?
- What do you mean "change"!?
The second part about "standard" seems a little high and mighty if that's what people are complaining about. That'd be like a fan-fiction writer telling an author that they could've written the story better than them. A certain level of creative freedom must be given to the people actually putting in the work to create and fund the game, otherwise why would they want to invest their time making something that they can't even recognize as their own? The game isn't out yet, but people are complaining about something as small as a 4 letter word and how it is impacting a "standard"? That's just...not right.
Not a formal standard per say, I'm just referring to the criteria Steven gave in the Q&A from 2017 that daveywavey linked where he directly addressed it, paraphrasing:
Name should be bland not to overshadow class names.
Name should make clear what role the archetype embodies, so that when you're choosing the archetype you are not confused about it.
Those are both pretty reasonable. With those criteria Tank is a great fit, and I'd agree with mcstackerson that Defender, while adequate, is not as good. That said, I do think other archetypes aren't as snug of a fit as Tank is, and your point on Fighter is a pretty good example, so opting for something less ideal but also arguably less problematic should be fine. Either way we will have more than just the name to go by when choosing the primary archetype in the character creator.
So you prefer to manipulate the lore and change it mid development to say that people in Sanctus thought armored people looked like water tanks??
I'm not writing for this game, so I have no control over the lore.
If what you are trying to say here is that I would prefer it if Intrepids writers manipulated the lore for whatever reason, I would then point out to you that writers manipulating lore is what most of us would call "writing", and that absolutely is something i want Intrepids writers to do.
And then on top of that you try to suggest that it was our fault for not realizing all along it was WATER TANKS?? hahahahahahah no shame at all man.
I am saying no such thing. I am simply saying that you don't know that this isn't the case.
Since water tanks are where tanks got their name from, it does make absolute sense that tanks as a class (specifically an armor wearing class) could get it's name in the exact same way.
To say that this couldn't happen would be something of a mistake, as that is how tanks that we have got their name.
Basically, I am saying that in a fantasy world like Verra/Sanctus, it is perfectly, 100% reasonable to assume tanks as a class could have arrived at that name in the exact same manner as tanks that we have arrived at that name.
Again, I am not saying that is the case, I am saying that you don't know that is not the case, and as such have no place saying that this *IS* an issue for you.
The best you have is to say that without an in game reason for this being the name of the class, you have an issue with it.
That is literally the best argument you have here.
Those are both pretty reasonable. With those criteria Tank is a great fit, and I'd agree with mcstackerson that Defender, while adequate, is not as good. That said, I do think other archetypes aren't as snug of a fit as Tank is, and your point on Fighter is a pretty good example, so opting for something less ideal but also arguably less problematic should be fine. Either way we will have more than just the name to go by when choosing the primary archetype in the character creator.
Ah thanks! I don't really have anything to add, just wanted to say thanks. That was well thought out and explained! Thanks for the clarity!
So you prefer to manipulate the lore and change it mid development to say that people in Sanctus thought armored people looked like water tanks??
We don't know the lore of Sanctus so it can't be "manipulated", but I explained earlier how an actual literally pew pew shooty tank could easily have been a part of Sanctus' history.
2
Options
CypherMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This would solve it all:
Currently, Tank + Fighter = Knight.
I propose instead that “Tank” be replaced with “Knight” and then Knight + Fighter = Crusader
Knight might not satisfy the "be bland" criteria for the archetype, but I dunno, apparently in Lineage 2 "Knight" is on the same class progression level as "Rogue". I'd be happy with it.
Crusader sounds like a better name for Highsword (Fighter/Cleric) due to religious connotation (I'm surprised they didn't go with Crusader there actually, maybe they thought it would be confusing with Templar?). Champion is unused and neutral there.
My money is still on Defender, it's bland, it's on point, you don't have to rename any of the classes, and 4e D&D established a precedence for it, which can be used as a benchmark for acceptance among gamers (albeit table top).
Currently, Tank + Fighter = Knight.
I propose instead that “Tank” be replaced with “Knight” and then Knight + Fighter = Crusader
Problem solved for everyone involved.
Naaah, Knight?? we don't really know if knights existed in Sanctus, it's kinda immersion breaking.
I'll stick to Water Tank.
Yeah knight pidgeon-holes the entire archetype pool with a restrictive attachment to knight orders and such that could really screw up the lore.
Indeed.
Knight suggests as code of chivalry, whereas tank is neutral in all such aspects.
In every way I can think of, "tank" is the name for the class that makes the most sense, from a game design perspective. All players instantly know what the class is, but as much to the point is that all players instantly know that a fighter is not a tank. Change the name of the tank class, and people will assume that fighters can tank.
The only thing that is naturally missing is explaining to players why that is the name of the class - which as pointed out can be achieved in the exact same way that actual tanks managed to pick up the name.
I haven't gone through the 16 pages of answers, so feel free to roast me if I'm repeating someone else's point.
Da Vinci already designed Tanks. They may not have been called so in the Renaissance, but that is what they are to us.
Thus, I posit (look at me being all cool with nice words) that if they existed in concept, or practical application, in an era that could somewhat fit within the sphere of inspiration for much of the AoC designs and art, we're to agree to on it existing as an Archetype name.
Also:
If your immersion isn't broken by people with dumb names floating over their heads, managing inventories that should break you character's back, suffering from dehydration while wearing full plate in a desert, weapons disappearing when sheathed, swimming in full armor etc.... then you're just looking to complain and you should be ignored.
I think most people understand what an Earth Tank is...
It is a vessel for holding a large amount of water or other liquid.
Tanks as armored vehicles were named after these tanks, no small part due to the fact that the British wanted to keep their development secret, and referring to them as water carriers rather than Landships made them seem significantly less interesting to foreign intelligence.
If it were not for early tanks rudimentary similarity to metal water tanks, we may well know them now as landships rather than tanks. I would have a hard time finding a link from a person in full plate armor to the word "landship", but I have no issue in establishing a potential link in a fantasy setting between someone in full plate armor and a metal water tank.
In fact, that link seems to me to be even more than the link between such water tanks and what would otherwise now be known as landships.
To me, the issues here only start when people look at "landships" as being where the tank class got their name from. If people take a step back and look at the reason landships are now called tanks, those issues should melt away entirely.
Sadly, most people aren't willing to expand their horizons in this manner.
Did you know that most water tanks are in plastic and not metal? Metal water tanks = rust = holes = no water
I fail to see the relevance.
We are talking about potential water tanks in a fantasy setting where we can be fairly sure plastics don't exist, or about water tanks in 1916, only a few years after plastics became commercially viable, and many years before they became commonplace.
Well it is relevant because throughout history the least used material for water tanks is metal. First it was wood, ceramic and stone. Then for a shirt while metal (which didn't do that well), and now we have plastic water tanks.
So if we really think about it, naming a class after a water tank that didn't do its job that well isn't great xD
So if we really think about it, naming a class after a water tank that didn't do its job that well isn't great xD
It seems to have done just fine for the tracked tanks that we all know of today - since that is where they got their name from.
It seems kind of odd that you are suggesting that something in a fantasy world can't basically emulate something that happened in real life - which is exactly what you are doing here.
Tanks the vehicle are named that because of tanks the liquid vessel. Ergo, it is reasonable that tanks the fantasy class that in real life are named after tanks the vehicle, couldn't instead skip the tanks the vehicle stage and simply be named after tanks the liquid vessel - which is something that is perfectly reasonable to assume existed in Sanctus, and there is no reason at all to assume they couldn't be made of metal.
In every way I can think of, "tank" is the name for the class that makes the most sense, from a game design perspective. All players instantly know what the class is, but as much to the point is that all players instantly know that a fighter is not a tank. Change the name of the tank class, and people will assume that fighters can tank.
Wow, we are actually going to agree on something. Fighter is indeed an ambiguous name when it comes to its role in the trinity, while Tank is not. Radical idea: how about we tell players right there in the character creation UI what the role of the archetype is, like that other game?
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
fighter (n.)
Old English feohtere; agent noun from fight (v.). Compare Dutch vechter, German Fechter. Old English also had feohtling in this sense. Meaning "fast military airplane used for combat" is from 1917.
Radical idea: how about we tell players right there in the character creation UI what the role of the archetype is
If you provide each base class with an unambiguous enough name, there is no need for this.
With the names the base classes have now, there is no ambiguity. The only exception to this is in regards to Cleric/Bard. This class combination has the same ambiguity to it that tank/fighter would if the tank class were renamed to anything.
With the tank class being called what it is, there is no scope for people to think that fighters can tank, because tanks tank, obviously. No one is going to make a fighter and then complain later on that they thought they would be able to tank with it.
WIth cleric/bard, there is scope for people to think that bards heal. If a bard can in fact be a healer for a group, then this is fine.
If, however, bards are a support class rather than a healer class, then the cleric class should be - imo - renamed to healer in order to remove this ambiguity.
Based purely on the names, there is reason to think that a bard could heal, as there is no specific class whose name jumps out to say "I'm the one that does *all* of the healing" as there is a class that jumps out saying that about tanking. This is true even if we all know that clerics do indeed perform that function - there is nothing to say whether they do *all* of the healing or not.
fighter (n.)
Old English feohtere; agent noun from fight (v.). Compare Dutch vechter, German Fechter. Old English also had feohtling in this sense. Meaning "fast military airplane used for combat" is from 1917.
Interesting point.
Why are people complaining about tanks being named after a military vehicle and not complaining about fighters being also named after a military vehicle developed during the same war?
fighter (n.)
Old English feohtere; agent noun from fight (v.). Compare Dutch vechter, German Fechter. Old English also had feohtling in this sense. Meaning "fast military airplane used for combat" is from 1917.
Interesting point.
Why are people complaining about tanks being named after a military vehicle and not complaining about fighters being also named after a military vehicle developed during the same war?
Because they are special unicorns and don't want their immersion to implode
With the names the base classes have now, there is no ambiguity. The only exception to this is in regards to Cleric/Bard. This class combination has the same ambiguity to it that tank/fighter would if the tank class were renamed to anything.
With the current UI you don't even see all the names until you click on the icons for them, so having the archetype names make sense only in the context of other archetype names is already kind of meh. Summoner doesn't have a precise role in the trinity, and there are games where Mages can heal (Dragon Age series), so between Fighter (if you ignore it depending on context), Mage, Bard, Summoner, and arguably Cleric the exception is actually the norm.
Whether they change the name or not, adding role descriptors to the character creator UI would be a straight up improvement. They already have the longer natural language descriptions, which help but aren't quick to scan.
Why are people complaining about tanks being named after a military vehicle and not complaining about fighters being also named after a military vehicle developed during the same war?
Nothing from the UI that we have seen will make it in to the final game.
This is the weakest argument in this thread yet.
Summoner doesn't have a precise role in the trinity
Summoners are not likely to fit neatly in to the trinity when the game releases, so players not being able to instantly identify their place is absolutely fitting. Additionally, there are no mainstream MMO's where mages can heal in any meaningful way.
Based on that, both of those classes are exactly where they should be.
Bard is in the game because Intrepid want to break the trinity mold by bringing back support - which is what bards are for. This is a class that is named perfectly for those that know what a support class is (as many games have had them in the past), but would be largely unfamiliar to people that have never played a game with a support class.
Again, that is a perfect fit for a name.
This just leaves Cleric, as I said earlier. However, if it turns out that bards can indeed heal (which would not inherently detract from their support role), then it is perfectly fine to call them clerics rather than healers.
Nothing from the UI that we have seen will make it in to the final game.
my point exactly
0
Options
CypherMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 2021
I’m fine with just about whatever, just made a suggestion earlier.
What is a little odd to me though is having things like Rogue, Cleric, Bard, etc in the same list as “Tank”. It’s not a bother and anyone who has their immersion broken by it needs to chill out, but it does seem out of place in a list of actual class titles.
DPS, Tank, Support are roles. You can mix and match, hybridize or overlap but at the end of the day those are the roles. Where as Rogue, Ranger, Cleric, Bard, Mage, etc are all titles. Tank is a role not a title. Do I care if that’s what the class is called in the final product? No.
Still, strange!
Nothing from the UI that we have seen will make it in to the final game.
my point exactly
What point?
You said they could put the role of the class in the UI, I said there is no need for that if the names of the classes are unambiguous enough.
You then made an unrelated complaint about the games alpha UI, and when I pointd out that the current UI is in alpha and we should not expect anything from it to make it to the live game, you claimed that as being your point.
My point that UI is going to go through iterations, and adding role descriptors to it eventually is both common sense and industry standard, so I'd expect it to appear.
You then made an unrelated complaint about the games alpha UI
No, I was making a dib a the names being interdependent (which we agree they are), not complaining about the UI not having the names on the list view (I like the icons). I'll grant you can see this is easy to read both ways depending on where you stand on names though.
Comments
Did you know that most water tanks are in plastic and not metal? Metal water tanks = rust = holes = no water
We are talking about potential water tanks in a fantasy setting where we can be fairly sure plastics don't exist, or about water tanks in 1916, only a few years after plastics became commercially viable, and many years before they became commonplace.
Dunno if the game is ever to be localized, but there is that.
This point is only valid if the localized version of the tank class in this game uses the word from the associated language for the vehicle.
I somehow doubt they will do that though. It is far more likely they will either not translate it at all, or will use the language appropriate word for the liquid storage vessel.
Wait what? This makes it sound like Defender/Guardian are the things being objected against?
Wait was this to describe the thread to me or for something else? I'm a little confused today on this reply.
Those two statements are separate issues though. They might have overlap, but in general are two different points. The first, the subjectivity of immersion, would still be immersion vs immersion as the word "Defender" would play into the same problems I have with "Fighter". Because of this, every term used would break immersion for someone. Sure a 16+ page thread might not pop up, but that can be said about a lot of things. And I think the vocal minority are just...very vocal on this one making it appear as a more important issue than it actually is.
The second part about "standard" seems a little high and mighty if that's what people are complaining about. That'd be like a fan-fiction writer telling an author that they could've written the story better than them. A certain level of creative freedom must be given to the people actually putting in the work to create and fund the game, otherwise why would they want to invest their time making something that they can't even recognize as their own? The game isn't out yet, but people are complaining about something as small as a 4 letter word and how it is impacting a "standard"? That's just...not right.
So you prefer to manipulate the lore and change it mid development to say that people in Sanctus thought armored people looked like water tanks??
Instead of simply admitting Steven was lazy when giving the name to this archtype?? hahhaha
And then on top of that you try to suggest that it was our fault for not realizing all along it was WATER TANKS?? hahahahahahah no shame at all man.
I've pushed both as suggestions (former due to 4e precedence, latter due to it being the most upvoted suggestion on reddit), and both got objected to as to being less adequate than "Tank". Our friend Noaani here even went as far as to claim that Tank is the only suitable term ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
That's fair, though I think it also matters how big that minority really is, if it is a minority at all. To my knowledge nobody has done any polls on the matter. The closest to anything quantifiable would be the reddit thread from 2020, which had 66% upvotes, which isn't really saying much, and I reckon most folks downvoting (as plenty of folks in this thread) are just tired of it coming back rather than opposed to the change as such, but that's just my conjecture. My best educated guess is that the actual majority/prularity opinion on this whole is issue is "don't really care either way", and should the name change there would be little to no pushback asking "bring Tank back".
There is the old joke from WoW, which I think it applies to most human endeavours:
- How many World of Warcraft players does it take to change the lightbulb?
- What do you mean "change"!?
Not a formal standard per say, I'm just referring to the criteria Steven gave in the Q&A from 2017 that daveywavey linked where he directly addressed it, paraphrasing:
- Name should be bland not to overshadow class names.
- Name should make clear what role the archetype embodies, so that when you're choosing the archetype you are not confused about it.
Those are both pretty reasonable. With those criteria Tank is a great fit, and I'd agree with mcstackerson that Defender, while adequate, is not as good. That said, I do think other archetypes aren't as snug of a fit as Tank is, and your point on Fighter is a pretty good example, so opting for something less ideal but also arguably less problematic should be fine. Either way we will have more than just the name to go by when choosing the primary archetype in the character creator.If what you are trying to say here is that I would prefer it if Intrepids writers manipulated the lore for whatever reason, I would then point out to you that writers manipulating lore is what most of us would call "writing", and that absolutely is something i want Intrepids writers to do.
I am saying no such thing. I am simply saying that you don't know that this isn't the case.
Since water tanks are where tanks got their name from, it does make absolute sense that tanks as a class (specifically an armor wearing class) could get it's name in the exact same way.
To say that this couldn't happen would be something of a mistake, as that is how tanks that we have got their name.
Basically, I am saying that in a fantasy world like Verra/Sanctus, it is perfectly, 100% reasonable to assume tanks as a class could have arrived at that name in the exact same manner as tanks that we have arrived at that name.
Again, I am not saying that is the case, I am saying that you don't know that is not the case, and as such have no place saying that this *IS* an issue for you.
The best you have is to say that without an in game reason for this being the name of the class, you have an issue with it.
That is literally the best argument you have here.
Ah thanks! I don't really have anything to add, just wanted to say thanks. That was well thought out and explained! Thanks for the clarity!
We don't know the lore of Sanctus so it can't be "manipulated", but I explained earlier how an actual literally pew pew shooty tank could easily have been a part of Sanctus' history.
Currently, Tank + Fighter = Knight.
I propose instead that “Tank” be replaced with “Knight” and then Knight + Fighter = Crusader
Problem solved for everyone involved.
Crusader sounds like a better name for Highsword (Fighter/Cleric) due to religious connotation (I'm surprised they didn't go with Crusader there actually, maybe they thought it would be confusing with Templar?). Champion is unused and neutral there.
My money is still on Defender, it's bland, it's on point, you don't have to rename any of the classes, and 4e D&D established a precedence for it, which can be used as a benchmark for acceptance among gamers (albeit table top).
Naaah, Knight?? we don't really know if knights existed in Sanctus, it's kinda immersion breaking.
I'll stick to Water Tank.
Yeah knight pidgeon-holes the entire archetype pool with a restrictive attachment to knight orders and such that could really screw up the lore.
I'm kinda keen on making a Tank/Mage so I actually can be a Water Tank.
Indeed.
Knight suggests as code of chivalry, whereas tank is neutral in all such aspects.
In every way I can think of, "tank" is the name for the class that makes the most sense, from a game design perspective. All players instantly know what the class is, but as much to the point is that all players instantly know that a fighter is not a tank. Change the name of the tank class, and people will assume that fighters can tank.
The only thing that is naturally missing is explaining to players why that is the name of the class - which as pointed out can be achieved in the exact same way that actual tanks managed to pick up the name.
Da Vinci already designed Tanks. They may not have been called so in the Renaissance, but that is what they are to us.
Thus, I posit (look at me being all cool with nice words) that if they existed in concept, or practical application, in an era that could somewhat fit within the sphere of inspiration for much of the AoC designs and art, we're to agree to on it existing as an Archetype name.
Also:
If your immersion isn't broken by people with dumb names floating over their heads, managing inventories that should break you character's back, suffering from dehydration while wearing full plate in a desert, weapons disappearing when sheathed, swimming in full armor etc.... then you're just looking to complain and you should be ignored.
Well it is relevant because throughout history the least used material for water tanks is metal. First it was wood, ceramic and stone. Then for a shirt while metal (which didn't do that well), and now we have plastic water tanks.
So if we really think about it, naming a class after a water tank that didn't do its job that well isn't great xD
It seems kind of odd that you are suggesting that something in a fantasy world can't basically emulate something that happened in real life - which is exactly what you are doing here.
Tanks the vehicle are named that because of tanks the liquid vessel. Ergo, it is reasonable that tanks the fantasy class that in real life are named after tanks the vehicle, couldn't instead skip the tanks the vehicle stage and simply be named after tanks the liquid vessel - which is something that is perfectly reasonable to assume existed in Sanctus, and there is no reason at all to assume they couldn't be made of metal.
Wow, we are actually going to agree on something. Fighter is indeed an ambiguous name when it comes to its role in the trinity, while Tank is not. Radical idea: how about we tell players right there in the character creation UI what the role of the archetype is, like that other game?
Old English feohtere; agent noun from fight (v.). Compare Dutch vechter, German Fechter. Old English also had feohtling in this sense. Meaning "fast military airplane used for combat" is from 1917.
With the names the base classes have now, there is no ambiguity. The only exception to this is in regards to Cleric/Bard. This class combination has the same ambiguity to it that tank/fighter would if the tank class were renamed to anything.
With the tank class being called what it is, there is no scope for people to think that fighters can tank, because tanks tank, obviously. No one is going to make a fighter and then complain later on that they thought they would be able to tank with it.
WIth cleric/bard, there is scope for people to think that bards heal. If a bard can in fact be a healer for a group, then this is fine.
If, however, bards are a support class rather than a healer class, then the cleric class should be - imo - renamed to healer in order to remove this ambiguity.
Based purely on the names, there is reason to think that a bard could heal, as there is no specific class whose name jumps out to say "I'm the one that does *all* of the healing" as there is a class that jumps out saying that about tanking. This is true even if we all know that clerics do indeed perform that function - there is nothing to say whether they do *all* of the healing or not.
Interesting point.
Why are people complaining about tanks being named after a military vehicle and not complaining about fighters being also named after a military vehicle developed during the same war?
Because they are special unicorns and don't want their immersion to implode
With the current UI you don't even see all the names until you click on the icons for them, so having the archetype names make sense only in the context of other archetype names is already kind of meh. Summoner doesn't have a precise role in the trinity, and there are games where Mages can heal (Dragon Age series), so between Fighter (if you ignore it depending on context), Mage, Bard, Summoner, and arguably Cleric the exception is actually the norm.
Whether they change the name or not, adding role descriptors to the character creator UI would be a straight up improvement. They already have the longer natural language descriptions, which help but aren't quick to scan.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fighter
Nothing from the UI that we have seen will make it in to the final game.
This is the weakest argument in this thread yet. Summoners are not likely to fit neatly in to the trinity when the game releases, so players not being able to instantly identify their place is absolutely fitting. Additionally, there are no mainstream MMO's where mages can heal in any meaningful way.
Based on that, both of those classes are exactly where they should be.
Bard is in the game because Intrepid want to break the trinity mold by bringing back support - which is what bards are for. This is a class that is named perfectly for those that know what a support class is (as many games have had them in the past), but would be largely unfamiliar to people that have never played a game with a support class.
Again, that is a perfect fit for a name.
This just leaves Cleric, as I said earlier. However, if it turns out that bards can indeed heal (which would not inherently detract from their support role), then it is perfectly fine to call them clerics rather than healers.
but
my point exactly
What is a little odd to me though is having things like Rogue, Cleric, Bard, etc in the same list as “Tank”. It’s not a bother and anyone who has their immersion broken by it needs to chill out, but it does seem out of place in a list of actual class titles.
DPS, Tank, Support are roles. You can mix and match, hybridize or overlap but at the end of the day those are the roles. Where as Rogue, Ranger, Cleric, Bard, Mage, etc are all titles. Tank is a role not a title. Do I care if that’s what the class is called in the final product? No.
Still, strange!
What point?
You said they could put the role of the class in the UI, I said there is no need for that if the names of the classes are unambiguous enough.
You then made an unrelated complaint about the games alpha UI, and when I pointd out that the current UI is in alpha and we should not expect anything from it to make it to the live game, you claimed that as being your point.
I have speculated on one route they could take, but there are others.
My point that UI is going to go through iterations, and adding role descriptors to it eventually is both common sense and industry standard, so I'd expect it to appear.
No, I was making a dib a the names being interdependent (which we agree they are), not complaining about the UI not having the names on the list view (I like the icons). I'll grant you can see this is easy to read both ways depending on where you stand on names though.