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

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Maciej wrote: »

it's is called a Tank, but it's not literally named Tank, and for as many people that argue this I've yet to see an example of this being a naming convention.

Here is an example.

Very funny.

Edit: to your point earlier, nobody (literally 0 people) argues that we should stop calling tanks tanks as gamers OOC, so it's a mighty fine straw man that you spent good couple paragraphs defeating.

You seemed to have missed the greater point, though to be fair, I haven't made it clear yet.

We both agree that every player of an MMO understands what a tank is. They exist to absorb as much damage output from rivals as possible. Likewise, every player knows what a cleric is - they are the ones that heal. Every player knows that a mage uses magic to deal damage, a rogue sneaks and stabs, a ranger uses a bow, a fighter is in-your-face melee.

This is what Intrepid will want from their primary class names. They want them to be names that all players will instantly associate with the task that class performs in a group or raid. Every class name is obvious as to what it is, without players needing to make any other associations.

Based on this one requirement of base class names needing to be instantly associated with their role, tank is the only suitable name for the class, as any other name will see players taking that name and associating it with the role of tank. Intrepid are simply skipping that association step, which is a good thing.

As to your point of wanting other examples - why? This is suggesting that Intrepid are not free to do as they wish with Ashes, and can only do what has already been done before.

I am assuming this is not a stance you wish to take in regards to the game as a whole, so why is it that you are taking it here?

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

tank is the only suitable name for the class, as any other name will see players taking that name and associating it with the role of tank.

That is a really wild claim my dude. Defender is a perfectly suitable name, as is Guardian or Protector or a dozen other labels. Defender was used as a replacement for Tank in 4e D&D and it has never been a problem. [Edit] Actually, it's more suitable, because it describes the role perfectly without depending on familiarity with gaming lingo.

Noaani wrote: »

As to your point of wanting other examples - why?

Because your inability to provide examples invalidates your claim that Tank is an established naming convetion.

Noaani wrote: »

This is suggesting that Intrepid are not free to do as they wish with Ashes, and can only do what has already been done before.

And for the 10th time, Intrepid is free to do whatever they want with the game, but the are developing the game in the open and ask for feedback. This is feedback. They can take it, ignore it, do whatever they want with it, but there is nothing wrong with giving it in the first place.

Samson1

Of course there is nothing wrong with providing feedback.

But there comes a point when a topic has been exhausted and discussed to the point that the conversation just keeps going in circles.

Intrepid has more than enough thoughts/opinions from this thread to make a decision regarding the matter.

daveywavey

Maciej wrote: »

Rogue is ... an established name in the fantasy genre, including novels.

How did it become an established name? Someone used it where it hadn't generally been used before. Who's to say that the same won't happen for "Tank"?

Maciej

daveywavey wrote: »

Maciej wrote: »

Rogue is ... an established name in the fantasy genre, including novels.

How did it become an established name? Someone used it where it hadn't generally been used before. Who's to say that the same won't happen for "Tank"?

Not who, but what: etymology. Any author worth their salt considers what words they use in their novels and whether or not they make sense.

[Edit]: To keep things clear, I'm not arguing that Tank is a bad name because it breaks convention, I'm arguing that Tank is a bad name because it breaks immersion.

The argument that it's a good name because it keeps convention is refutable, and has been refuted, and arguing that it's fine because maybe Ashes can set a precedence still does not address the fact that the name breaks immersion.

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

And for the 10th time, Intrepid is free to do whatever they want with the game, but the are developing the game in the open and ask for feedback.

Where did they ask?

I recall Steven specifically saying they will develop the game as the see fit, regardless of player complaints. I have seen them post specific questions asking for feedback, many of which are outright not applicable to Ashes, and I have seen them ask for feedback on things like the forums, e-mail formats and the like.

What I have not seen is Intrepid asking for people to just throw what ever thought they have about the game out.

If you agree that Intrepid can indeed do as they like, then your argument here can quite simply be reduced to "you don't like it".

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

Where did they ask?

In an interview I watched that made me interested in the game, I recall Steven even saying "take my systems apart".

Noaani wrote: »

I recall Steven specifically saying they will develop the game as the see fit, regardless of player complaints.

They are changing the Dwarf model after player complaints.
They are changing the fireball casting animation after player complaints.
I rest my case.

[Edit]: Here is what I think. I think you don't care what the archetype is called and will be happy with Defender or any other alternative name, but at this point you are so invested into this discussion that you'd like to prove me wrong, or render my plea somehow invalid, and you are frustrated because I'm making really good points. Imagine taking all this energy from arguing about things you don't care about, and putting it somewhere productive.

Marcet

Maciej wrote: »

at this point you are so invested into this discussion that you'd like to prove me wrong, or render my plea somehow invalid

Be careful, this is his specialty.

daveywavey

Maciej wrote: »

[Edit]: To keep things clear, I'm not arguing that Tank is a bad name because it breaks convention, I'm arguing that Tank is a bad name because it breaks immersion.

I can see your point. We know "Tank" because we have RL tanks which are big beefy fighting machines. As far as we know, we don't have those in Verra, so why would they use the word.

In the context of playing the game, though, it's a recognised gaming term for the purpose of the archetype, so I don't personally see the problem. But as had been said, I wouldn't be upset to see it either change or stay the same.

ariatras

Tank isn't exactly the class though, is it? Even if you double up. It'll be a Juggernaught. There's no "in-game" tank
Just like there's no Rogue or summoner.

The class names are a lot more varied.

Summoner Summoner = Conjurer
Rogue Rogue = Assassin

The former is the archetype, which makes it easier for people to understand what's what. The latter is your actual class.

At least that's how I interpret the classes.

You have 64 classes. Not one is called "Tank"

Maciej

ariatras wrote: »

Tank isn't exactly the class though, is it? Even if you double up. It'll be a Juggernaught. There's no "in-game" tank
Just like there's no Rogue or summoner.

The class names are a lot more varied.

Summoner Summoner = Conjurer
Rogue Rogue = Assassin

The former is the archetype, which makes it easier for people to understand what's what. The latter is your actual class.

At least that's how I interpret the classes.

You have 64 classes. Not one is called "Tank"

It's technically not a class, but you only become a class at level 25 when you get to pick your second archetype. From levels 1 to 24 you are just "Race/Tank", so it functions as a class and carries all its immersion breaking with itself.

Sidenote: Tank/Tank is currently Guardian, not Juggernaut, but the most popular suggestion on reddit was to rename Guardian to Juggernaut and Tank to Guardian.

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Where did they ask?

In an interview I watched that made me interested in the game, I recall Steven even saying "take my systems apart".

And the interview that got me interested in the game he said he wasn't that interested in players opinions, he was developing the game as he wanted it, with the input of his staff.

He has reiterated that point a number of times.

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

And the interview that got me interested in the game he said he wasn't that interested in players opinions, he was developing the game as he wanted it, with the input of his staff.

He has reiterated that point a number of times.

To be fair, I do know about instances in other games where listening to player feedback made the game worse, so being cautious with changes is admirable. Accepting no suggestions from the community is just as bad as accepting all of it though. I'm pretty happy about most calls made so far, be it rejecting suggestions (addons) or accepting them (dwarves and fireball), which makes me hopeful for this little thing.

Elivo

Calling a class tank takes nothing away from the game at all. How is this topic still going?

As someone mentioned, once you pick your second class the name tank will go away.

Maciej

Elivo wrote: »

Calling a class tank takes nothing away from the game at all. How is this topic still going?

It does take away immersion though, and if that doesn't matter, we can replace all the swords with pool noodles, and all the armor with hoodies and sweatpants, the game is going to be mechanically the same, right?

BigPapa1

I find it a little silly that some people are providing so much resistance when it comes to changing a simple class name. If you made a poll anywhere, you would find that most people don't find the term "Tank" fitting as an official class name. Has anybody confirmed that this is the final class name, anyway? It could be a placeholder.

daveywavey

BigPapa wrote: »

I find it a little silly that some people are providing so much resistance when it comes to changing a simple class name. If you made a poll anywhere, you would find that most people don't find the term "Tank" fitting as an official class name. Has anybody confirmed that this is the final class name, anyway? It could be a placeholder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=58m56s&v=L30qJOqZUAg&feature=youtu.be

Maciej

daveywavey wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=58m56s&v=L30qJOqZUAg&feature=youtu.be

Thanks for finding this! I was trying to find a more robust response elsewhere to know exactly what the thought process behind the name is, but couldn't find anything other than the short response on Discord I pasted earlier.

This doesn't really address my objection of Tank being an immersion breaking neologism, blandness is not the problem (Defender is plenty bland), but it is some explanation at least.

daveywavey

Yeah, I knew I remembered it from somewhere, so I went and had a look for it!

It was the "Tanky McTankface who Tanks as a Tank plus Tank" that stuck in my memory...

BigPapa1

daveywavey wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=58m56s&v=L30qJOqZUAg&feature=youtu.be

Hmm, although I totally see his point, basically he wants to clearly communicate that this archetype is the generic MMO tank, so that nobody thinks it's anything different, at the same time he doesn't quite address the fact that it's a bit of a 'meta' term rather than a term that makes sense in-universe.

Child Item