The problem with having “Tank” as a class name

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*

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Maciej

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

I think that it speaks leagues more that there's not a definitive reason to re-name the entire combat-role across all genres speaks any louder than the traditional name for the role; *Why* would we re-name the tank role, in the Tank/DPS/Heals, spectrum?

But I'm not arguing about renaming the role? Using tank OOC to describe the role is perfectly fine, I've no problems with it, I've been using the word "tank" as both a noun and verb for years and there is nothing wrong with it as a meta/out of character word.

I'm arguing about renaming the archetype/base class, because "Tank" is not a fantasy term, it's a modern gaming term, and "Tank" is the only of the 8 archetypes/base classes that does that.

Edit: To use a more visceral example, if Gimli during the battle of Helm's Deep said "I'm going to tank these orcs over there", it would be as appropriate for him as if he just invoked the script, the director, or the camera. It's not wrong because the audience doesn't know what camera, director, script, or tanking is, it's wrong because it breaks the 4th wall and makes the whole world you are watching less real.

Vhaeyne

Maciej wrote: »

I'm arguing about renaming the archetype/base class, because "Tank" is not a fantasy term, it's a modern gaming term, and "Tank" is the only of the 8 archetypes/base classes that does that.

I may be a little off here, but my understanding is this.

Mage= Is short hand for Magic User. It does not come from the latin Magus directly. Magus became magician. Magician became magic user. Magic user became mage. Which I would argue is that a modern gaming term because I believe it was not used before 1970s fantasy games.

With the exception of cleric, bard, and rouge. All of the archetypes tell you exactly what they do in their name.

Tank only doesn't make sense because in English when we were trying to figure out what to call the armored vehicles we now call tanks. Nothing sounded right. Tank caught on because they looked like the kind of tanks that were used for storage early in production. The Germans however just used the word panzer which means armor. I don't know if the equivalent sentence to something like "We need more armors on the front line." sounds off in German, but in English we must have agreed it was confusing or sounded off.

In any case. It could be worst. It could be called "Armor". Which works as a fantasy term, and sounds awful as a class name.

What bugs me more is that a Mage can become a Magician.

Marcet

Why not call Clerics "Healers"??? Sounds dumb and out of place for a class right?

Then why call them "Tanks"? It makes no sense whatsoever.

I vote to change Clerics to "Healers" and Fighters to "Melee DPS" so everything makes sense okay???

Marcet

"Tank" is a GAMER TERM to refer to an absorbing damage individual, it means nothing lorewise or in fantasy.

Maciej

Vhaeyne wrote: »

With the exception of cleric, bard, and rouge. All of the archetypes tell you exactly what they do in their name.

You might have to add Ranger to that list too, since the etymology is about ranging over an area, not being a ranged combatant (especially since rangers don't have to be ranged, the most iconic D&D ranger certainly isn't).

But yes, you are right. The class roles do typically describe what the character does, but all of them do so using appropriate terminology, and "Defender" would be such a term here (although Reddit seems to prefer "Guardian" with subsequent renaming of current "Guardian" to "Juggernaut").

Re: mage/magic user, I can't tell whether it came from D&D or fantasy novels first, but, unlike tank, both mage and magic user appeared in fantasy novels around the time the (TT)RPG were born.

Between all editions of D&D and Pathfinder, the only time we got strictly defined combat roles that are recognisable to MMO audience was 4th edition of D&D, and even then WoTC named them appropriately to the setting: defender, striker, leader, and controller.

Vhaeyne

Maciej wrote: »

Between all editions of D&D and Pathfinder, the only time we got strictly defined combat roles that are recognisable to MMO audience was 4th edition of D&D, and even then WoTC named them appropriately to the setting: defender, striker, leader, and controller.

4e was a hot mess, but yeah those names do sound better. I think City of Heros used similar names.

Who knows, maybe there is some galaxy brained lore reason they are called tanks in AOC, and we just have not gotten to see it yet. My money is still on the idea that intrepid thinks this is funny, and will keep the joke going as long as people keep getting upset.

Maciej

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Who knows, maybe there is some galaxy brained lore reason they are called tanks in AOC, and we just have not gotten to see it yet.

It's possible, but I wish someone would just come out and say it. Like with UI addons and damage meters, Intrepid's decision not to include them might be controversial (for the record, I'm happy without addons), but at least we know why they are doing what they are doing because Steven explained in every interview he was asked about it. As far as I can tell, and I've looked at every thread, either here or Reddit, and asked on Discord, there has never been any official response wrt Tank as a name.

The only explanation people brought up back in 2017 was that Tank was never going to be the name of the class since you'd pick your second archetype, but we now know (since July 2020) that this is not the case till level 25.

bigepeen

FFS, not this thread again. If you people keep making threads on this topic, it'll only turn public opinion against you.

Class archetypes are meant to be descriptive. As long as the name of the archetypes are immediately clear and obvious as to what the strength of the archetype is, then it doesn't matter.

Tank is probably the best descriptor for the archetype that Intrepid envisions, because it refers specifically to defensive capacity. Warrior, barbarian, or other names are not as clear. Why should a "warrior" or "barbarian" focus on defense anyway?

You can refer to yourself as your actual class name, which is not generalized as the archetype name. You don't have to refer to yourself as your primary archetype name.

Maciej

bigepeen wrote: »

Class archetypes are meant to be descriptive. As long as the name of the archetypes are immediately clear and obvious as to what the strength of the archetype is, then it doesn't matter.

Can a Fighter tank? Can a Mage be a healer like in Dragon Age? How about Bard? Is rogue a DPS archetype, or is it more of a skill-based character (scouting, lock picking, disarming traps) as it used to be historically? Those are all ambiguous names.

bigepeen wrote: »

Tank is probably the best descriptor for the archetype that Intrepid envisions, because it refers specifically to defensive capacity. Warrior, barbarian, or other names are not as clear. Why should a "warrior" or "barbarian" focus on defense anyway?

This was already addressed multiple times. You can't just provide one example of an alternative name and go "see, all other names are ambiguous". Defender would not be ambiguous at all.

bigepeen wrote: »

You can refer to yourself as your actual class name, which is not generalized as the archetype name. You don't have to refer to yourself as your primary archetype name.

You only have the primary archetype till level 25. Class name should be a word that can be used either by NPCs in scripted quest dialogues (don't know if that will be commonplace in AoC, but it certainly happens in games), or by PCs when people are roleplaying that doesn't break the 4th wall.

Sathrago

Maciej wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

No you misunderstood. I never meant that you had authority, I was pointing out that your opinion is not the be all end all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Call me stupid, but I dont understand what the point of throwing a wiki page at me proved other than your amazing skill at referencing things. Except when it comes to gaming culture, you seem to be tone death in that department.

I'm familiar with Pathfinder, and I can tell you that there is no character type in Pathfinder called "Tank", either first or second edition. Is it a meta term used by players to describe characters? Yes. Is it in the source material? No.

Obviously I was not talking about the mechanical and literal naming sense of the pathfinder rulebooks. My point is that the term Tank has bled heavily into the game world of many, many different homebrewed worlds be it intentional or otherwise. Its extremely common for players to say in character that they need a tank for their party if they are looking for someone to take up the frontlines. Because in ashes and many tabletops, fighters clerics, mages, rangers, rogues, bards etc are all a foundation or general term for a character but each and everyone of them has an archetype of some sort that allows them to be a tank, melee dps, ranged dps, magic caster, support specialist, dodge tank, armored tank, meatsheild tank, magic tank, healer, etc. Tank is just another acceptable foundation in my opinion.

Well, if that were true, how come you can't give me one example?

so if I go and link you an anime, manga, light novel, or homebrew tabletop campaign where the term tank is used in a setting similar to a pathfinder game I win? Do you really want to take this bet? Because I'm literally running a 5th edition dnd game where this happens quite often in character, in the world, and no one has an issue with it. So that's all I need to disprove you, right? Or are you going to give some stupid excuse saying my homebrew campaign is less valid than Steven's?

Tread carefully~

Everyone playing the archetype will be using its name for their base class till level 25. And it's not like it's just me feeling this way given how often it comes up, which it does, because "Tank" is a silly name.

One of these is not like the others:

Again, tank is a general and descriptive term for the characters adventurer class. Like hey, clerics are devout religious figures that draw power from a god to grant blessings or woes. It's the same for the term tank. Hey, tanks are defensive focused figures that prevent an enemy's attacks from harming their friends or contractors in various ways.

In regards to your comparison, you start getting better results if you are more specific. Try medieval fantasy tank and you will undoubtably start getting fully armored humanoids as well as rolling fortresses and different types of medieval styled mechanical tanks. Sure it's not as prominent as the rest butit still has a presence that you cannot disregard.

Maciej

Sathrago wrote: »

Call me stupid, but I dont understand what the point of throwing a wiki page at me proved other than your amazing skill at referencing things. Except when it comes to gaming culture, you seem to be tone death in that department.

Chill man, I don't call people names. You said: "I never meant that you had authority, I was pointing out that your opinion is not the be all end all.". To "speak from authority" (the exact phrase I used) means to have a decisive voice in an argument, either as an expert ("CDC is an authority on covid") or original author/source ("he quoted the Bible as the only authority"). Argument from authority can often be a fallacy, so to allude that someone speaks from authority ("who are you to say...?") is to allude that my argument is fallacious. When you say "your opinion is not the be all end all", that's equivalent with saying that I don't have the authority on the subject, and I agree. I have never claimed to have the authority on the matter, my opinion is just that, an opinion. Makes sense?

And no, I'm not tone-deaf (not "tone death" btw) about gaming culture, I know what the term "Tank" means, but my fantasy characters are not part of the gaming culture, they are part of whatever culture they are in the world they live in.

Sathrago wrote: »

Do if I go and link you an anime, manga, light novel, or homebrew tabletop campaign where the term tank is used in a setting similar to a pathfinder game I win? Do you really want to take this bet? Because I'm literally running a 5th edition dnd game where this happens quite often in character, in the world, and no one has an issue with it. So that's all I need to disprove you, right? Or are you going to give some stupid excuse saying my homebrew campaign is less valid than Steven's?

Tread carefully~

What you do at your table is your business, for all I care your characters can be wearing baseball caps, RGB headphones, sunglasses, and hoodies with Twitch branding on them. Find me a roleplaying game (MMO or otherwise), a published novel, or any TTRPG rulebook or supplement (need not be official, but ideally is at least published as a physical book) that:

1. Has in world references to Tanks as characters (WoW uses "Tank" in the group finder UI, which is a perfectly acceptable way to use it since it's not in world, thus doesn't break the 4th wall).
2. Has a western fantasy setting, since that's the setting of Ashes of Creation (Steven's description, not mine).

Manga I'd expect to be more of eastern fantasy than western fantasy, but if you have examples in Manga I'd actually be genuinely curious about it.

Tyranthraxus

Maciej wrote: »

But I'm not arguing about renaming the role? Using tank OOC to describe the role is perfectly fine, I've no problems with it, I've been using the word "tank" as both a noun and verb for years and there is nothing wrong with it as a meta/out of character word.

Ah ha - yours truly owes you an apology, sir! I had not garnered from your OP that you were speaking about the in-game, to-be class-name 'Tank'.

Yeah, it's a little odd to see it as an *actual* class-name, in a video game.

Yours truly could go either way, on it. I'm not bothered by it, and won't be bothered, if they decide to change it. To be fair, it's probably the best name to describe the intended role for the to-be class/archetype.

Mushin

So would anyone care if it was changed no, do people care if it stays tank yes.

bloodprophet

Mushin

So then what's the point of this forum and our feedback.

Maciej

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

Ah ha - yours truly owes you an apology, sir! I had not garnered from your OP that you were speaking about the in-game, to-be class-name 'Tank'.

Honest mistake, I've edited the title to hopefully make it clear.

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

Yours truly could go either way, on it. I'm not bothered by it, and won't be bothered, if they decide to change it. To be fair, it's probably the best name to describe the intended role for the to-be class/archetype.

Yeah, it's a good name mechanically. I think most folks who are in the "Tank is fine" camp, even those who argue against changing it, would be fine with whatever the change is, which really is the crux of things: the game would be more appealing to a wider audience (ergo better since it's an MMO) if the change was made (I haven't seen anyone argue the opposite either).

It is a minor thing, and I'm still likely to play despite it, but the cost of the change is also trivial, so being relatively new here I'm slightly flabbergasted we haven't even gotten some official rationale that isn't "it's not a class".

bloodprophet wrote: »

This is the point I made earlier. WE sat down at Steven's Table. Steven calls them tanks. I fail to see why this thread exists any longer.

Does he call them tanks in character? I'm a DM, and I will call characters tanks if it's appropriate, but only ever as a description for the players, not in dialogue. If he does call them tanks in character, is there a reason (are there mechanical steam tanks so that the reference holds)? I'm not trying to be picky or annoying, help me suspend my disbelief.

bloodprophet

He has kept pretty tight lipped on lore so I would guess only he and his inner circle know the answer to that.
I would guess the answer is yes. As to why, is anyone's guess. I for one am willing to accept the answer "Because I can."

Would it be safe to say you primary concern over the name is purely for RP reasons?

Maciej

bloodprophet wrote: »

He has kept pretty tight lipped on lore so I would guess only he and his inner circle know the answer to that.
I would guess the answer is yes. As to why, is anyone's guess. I for one am willing to accept the answer "Because I can."

Would it be safe to say you primary concern over the name is purely for RP reasons?

Not RP per say (I don't RP in MMOs), but it's a good proxy so let's say yes.

Sholer

I really can't understand the people who don't approve the idea of change the name. I mean if you don't care is ok but that means you don't care about if the name is tank or is changed or for lore or whatever.

Obviously the name "TANK" is not ok for RP or lore reasons, so if you don't care about lore or rp or whatever why are you on this thread?

Anyone with reasoning or with understanding on the subject is not going to be ok with the name "tank" for a class.

bloodprophet

What if they changed the name to doodads? I still wouldn't care. We give words meaning. The question is the intent.
Asking an artist to change his painting because I don't like the color he chose because I don't think it fits seems ..... off to me some how. Why should an artist change their work to fit what the viewer thinks?

Child Item