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

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).

Marcet

Cypher wrote: »

This would solve it all:

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.

Sathrago

Marcet wrote: »

Cypher wrote: »

This would solve it all:

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.

daveywavey

Marcet wrote: »

Cypher wrote: »

This would solve it all:

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.

I'm kinda keen on making a Tank/Mage so I actually can be a Water Tank.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

Cypher wrote: »

This would solve it all:

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.

Asgerr

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.

rikardp98

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Jamation wrote: »

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

Noaani

rikardp98 wrote: »

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.

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

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?

akabear

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.

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

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.

Noaani

akabear wrote: »

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?

Shootersa

Noaani wrote: »

akabear wrote: »

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

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Noaani wrote: »

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?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fighter

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

With the current UI

The game is in alpha.

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.

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

If you provide each base class with an unambiguous enough name, there is no need for this.

but

Noaani wrote: »

Nothing from the UI that we have seen will make it in to the final game.

my point exactly

Cypher

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!

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If you provide each base class with an unambiguous enough name, there is no need for this.

but

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Noaani

Cypher wrote: »

DPS, Tank, Support are roles.

This is true unless/until Intrepid provide a reason for it being the class name.

I have speculated on one route they could take, but there are others.

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

What 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.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Child Item