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

So I've thought about this a bit longer to see if there is a plausible resolution that doesn't leave folks unhappy or have this endless advocacy coming up time and time again.

The problem, I believe, is that we have two values that found themselves at conflict.

Value 1: The archetype name should be simple, precise, and as unambiguous as possible.
Value 2: The archetype name should fit the game, the genre, and the setting of the world for roleplaying / immersion purposes.

Of the 8 archetypes Tank is unique in that it fits Value 1 perfectly, it's arguably the least ambiguous and most precise name of the 8 archetypes (not that others are bad, but they are at least open to some interpretation) but it does so at the cost of Value 2.

I believe there is a blind spot around Value 2 here. Certainly a number of folks don't mind the name "Tank", or their suspension of disbelief is not disturbed by a presence of a modern neologism in a fantasy setting, and that's ok, but I also think it's fair to say that a sizeable portion of the community does get irked by it given the length of this thread.

Possible solutions:

1. Compromise slightly on Value 1 and pick a less perfect name that satisfies both values. Defender is still my pick, there is a good precedence coming from D&D 4e, and it should still be good enough to fit the premise of Value 1.
2. Don't compromise on Value 1, but reassure folks that who care about Value 2 that it is not going to be compromised because Archetypes are meant to be meta terms only (so no "Tank Trainer"s, "Tank Guild"s, or NPCs speaking to PCs using "Tank" in the quest dialogue).
3. State clearly that per Ashes design principles Value 1 trumps Value 2. This is the only option that will alienate a portion of the player base, so in my eyes also the worst, but it is a definitive end to the conversation.

I can try to massage this longer, but I think this is a sufficient gist of the situation.

mcstackerson

Maciej wrote: »

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.

I don't think it's that far fetched that people in a fantasy universe could come use the word tank to describe a field of study. Players did that once they started playing in these universes.

Yes, it's not a common name fantasy stories but the role also isn't common as it's only when humans can reach super human levels of durability that a person is really considered a tank. In games, tanking is usually something multiple classes have access to through specializations and isn't core to any of the classes themselves.

In ashes, tanking is something the people in the universe have recognized as a useful role in combat and is something people focus on learning. Instead of them learning to be a warrior then specializing in defense, they specialize in defense from day one and focus on being a tank. It's only after they have mastered the basics of tanking that they specialize in how they tank.

Maciej

mcstackerson wrote: »

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.

bloodprophet

Perhaps Tank in Ancient Verran has a meaning and purpose we don't understand. Maybe in Verran culture it is a great honor to be called a Tank? Like being a gardener in the Shire. Point is we don't have any frame of reference of word etymology on Sanctus/Verra.

From dictionary.com
Origin of tank
1610–20; perhaps jointly <Gujarati tānkh reservoir, lake, and Portuguese tanque, contraction of estanque pond, literally, something dammed up, derivative of estancar (<Vulgar Latin *stanticāre) to dam up, weaken; adopted as a cover name for the military vehicle during the early stages of its manufacture in England (December, 1915)

mcstackerson

Maciej wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

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.

Maciej

mcstackerson wrote: »

Maciej wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

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?

bloodprophet wrote: »

Perhaps Tank in Ancient Verran has a meaning and purpose we don't understand.

It's a bit of a cop-out, but if Steven wants to enshrine it in the lore that would be one way to do it, though from everything I've seen so far I don't think that was the motivation.

Songcaller

I forget the game name but in one MMO there was a Bombardier which literally was a Bombardier...I see no reason why Tank can't represent Tank. It's not like Tank will be used in End Game...at that point the secondary choice will form the Class Name. The main reason why Tank would be referenced is because Tank Archetype should be able to 'tank' most encounters. The class basics really scream Tank though, its not like a Tank has varied damage abilities or a second spec choice at low level. If you roll Tank you will be a Tank.

We call a Spade a Spade, I have no qualms with calling a Tank, a Tank.

Maciej

Neurath wrote: »

I forget the game name but in one MMO there was a Bombardier which literally was a Bombardier...

Bombardier is a historical term for a person using a bombard canon, not a modern neologism.

Songcaller

If you've studied historical combat you will know Knights are called Tanks in reference to modern day. Snipers in some games are called snipers even if said sniper uses a Bow and Arrow. Ninja classes are called Ninja too. There are countless examples of classes and functions matching with no error and no deviation.

The benefit of Tank being a Tank is that it isn't an off-shoot like Dark Templar in Age of Conan (Tanked with a pet). We can be certain a Tank is a full fledged solo Tank. Sure the Tank can have combat pets, but, the Tank is a Tank without combat pets.

If you want to argue modern neologisms then you should reference Light Tank, Medium Tank and Heavy Tank. Tank in its standalone state just doesn't cut your argument.

Maciej

Neurath wrote: »

If you've studied historical combat you will know Knights are called Tanks in reference to modern day. Snipers in some games are called snipers even if said sniper uses a Bow and Arrow. Ninja classes are called Ninja too. There are countless examples of classes and functions matching with no error and no deviation.

Ok, this (Sniper in particular) is actually the first good argument I've heard for bolting modern terminology onto a setting where the etymology root would not exist in-world, I don't have any intuitive objections to the word sniper being used in fantasy games. So good job sir.

Neurath wrote: »

If you want to argue modern neologisms then you should reference Light Tank, Medium Tank and Heavy Tank. Tank in its standalone state just doesn't cut your argument.

I meant Tank as a personal descriptor we use in games being a neologism of Tank as a vehicle, not the vehicle itself. Even then you don't have to add anything to the word, a new usage of an old word is already a neologism, and with Tank it's neologisms all the way down

Sathrago

im gonna laugh really hard if steven has literal tanks in the world. The chances of this are quite high due to the lore.

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

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.

akabear

Cripsus wrote: »

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.

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

Neither of these are particular examples of Intrepid changing things based on player feedback,

Intrepid changing things based on player feedback are not examples of Intrepid changing things based on player feedback. Got it.

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Ravudha

Noaani wrote: »

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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"

Noaani

Ravudha wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

daveywavey

Noaani wrote: »

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..."

Child Item