DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2021
Tank is a word that the people of Verra do use for people who primarily tank.
It's very likely that the people of Verra would also talk about damage per second, but for Ashes the official term for the role is just Damage.
The official Ashes trinity is: Tank, Damage, Support
Tank is a word that the people of Verra do use for people who primarily tank.
It's very likely that the people of Verra would also talk about damage per second, but for Ashes the official term for the role is just Damage.
The official Ashes trinity is: Tank, Damage, Support
No, not fans of the game or player characters. Characters in universe I mean. Like any npc in the game would have no idea what you were talking about because tank isn't a word to them, you know?
Tank is slang used by us as a quick way of someone who can mitigate damage and hold threat. To them that would be a Warrior, any of the other wonderful suggestions are in this thread.
Tank is a word that the people of Verra do use for people who primarily tank.
It's very likely that the people of Verra would also talk about damage per second, but for Ashes the official term for the role is just Damage.
The official Ashes trinity is: Tank, Damage, Support
No, not fans of the game or player characters. Characters in universe I mean. Like any npc in the game would have no idea what you were talking about because tank isn't a word to them, you know?
Tank is slang used by us as a quick way of someone who can mitigate damage and hold threat. To them that would be a Warrior, any of the other wonderful suggestions are in this thread.
You clearly missed a big part of this conversation. They argued for a lot of time that the word "Tank" existed in the lore, because in Verra they had water tanks, you know, tanks to hold water in.
And yes, real people in this thread keep arguing that "Tank" makes sense in the fantasy world of Verra because water tanks resemble people in armor.
Do we know if metallic water tanks existed? No.
Did Steven or anyone confirm that tanks are named like this after water tanks or even that water tanks existed in Verra? No.
Guys, it's not that we are making the literal argument that lul water tanks exist so they just used that to name tanks.
The point was that we dont know the lore yet and it's perfectly plausible for them to create lore that explains and facilitates the use of the term tank in regards to frontline meatshields.
People who don't give a damn about lor eof the game, and yes MANY will not care because that's quite common these days, they will be confusing tanks class and role and this WILL cause issues short and long term.
Honestly, couldn't give a damn about made up lore, there is a reasonable lore and there is stupid lore that should be changed and Tank is one of them. Just call the class a Defender... like ffs, why make stupid names in an mmo instead of going for reasonable choices. I don't understand this mentality. This is almost like with Blizzard.
Like seriously... this isn't a PnP tabletop game, this is an MMO. Lore should be something that makes sense for everyone and not be a mess like that shit with Sylvanas
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
No, not fans of the game or player characters. Characters in universe I mean. Like any npc in the game would have no idea what you were talking about because tank isn't a word to them, you know?
Tank is slang used by us as a quick way of someone who can mitigate damage and hold threat. To them that would be a Warrior, any of the other wonderful suggestions are in this thread.
I am talking about characters in the game.
In the real world, tank, has a specific meaning as video game jargon, but on Sanctus and Verra, Tank is a combat role and a type of Adventurer.
I don't know that water tanks resemble people any more than armored military vehicles resemble people.
The reference is likely heavy, metal water tanks are resistant to damage and plate armor is also resistant to damage.
But, the etymology of the word on Verra is irrelevant. It is the word that people on Verra use.
Seems to me that people really don't want to give Intrepid a chance to develop their own lore. It's happening with tanks, and it's happening with the dwarves; Nothing is allowed to be unique to Ashes of Creation, it all has to be similar to the other three thousand fantasy worlds that we're all familiar with. Any deviation is a mistake, rather than an attempt at innovation or creativity.
None of us know the full extent of Intrepid's worldbuilding. Wait for the full picture before you start cast judgements.
Seems to me that people really don't want to give Intrepid a chance to develop their own lore. It's happening with tanks, and it's happening with the dwarves; Nothing is allowed to be unique to Ashes of Creation, it all has to be similar to the other three thousand fantasy worlds that we're all familiar with. Any deviation is a mistake, rather than an attempt at innovation or creativity.
None of us know the full extent of Intrepid's worldbuilding. Wait for the full picture before you start cast judgements.
I agree with Shoelid. "Tanks" is jargon in our world, but in Verra, why couldn't it mean the type of adventurer / soldier who disrupts combat, draws attention, and is heavily armored. Similar with the dwarves, I initially didn't like how they looked because of my expectation of what 'dwarves' based on Tolkien and WoW, but I'm not going to hold that against Intrepid's designs.
I think they're doing a great job so far and we merely have glimpses into what they are creating.
Seems to me that people really don't want to give Intrepid a chance to develop their own lore. It's happening with tanks, and it's happening with the dwarves; Nothing is allowed to be unique to Ashes of Creation, it all has to be similar to the other three thousand fantasy worlds that we're all familiar with. Any deviation is a mistake, rather than an attempt at innovation or creativity.
None of us know the full extent of Intrepid's worldbuilding. Wait for the full picture before you start cast judgements.
I agree with Shoelid. "Tanks" is jargon in our world, but in Verra, why couldn't it mean the type of adventurer / soldier who disrupts combat, draws attention, and is heavily armored. Similar with the dwarves, I initially didn't like how they looked because of my expectation of what 'dwarves' based on Tolkien and WoW, but I'm not going to hold that against Intrepid's designs.
I think they're doing a great job so far and we merely have glimpses into what they are creating.
Trying to forcefully reinvent the wheel is stupid. In some cases, sure its passable, but when you're trying to make up things that don't make sense... well, Houston we got a problem
I think some of you guys don't understand that lore is fictional. Meaning that you can literally put any random letters together and have it represent something in the setting.
For example, there could be something called a "car" in Verra that was taken from an ancient dwarven word meaning a latch mechanism. It now mainly refers to chains (or any other object for example).
Arguing that "tank" doesn't fit the lore, when you don't even know what the lore is, doesn't even make any sense.
I think some of you guys don't understand that lore is fictional. Meaning that you can literally put any random letters together and have it represent something in the setting.
For example, there could be something called a "car" in Verra that was taken from an ancient dwarven word meaning a latch mechanism. It now mainly refers to chains (or any other object for example).
Arguing that "tank" doesn't fit the lore, when you don't even know what the lore is, doesn't even make any sense.
Problem is, using a gaming jargon for lore doesn't fit any lore. I personally find it pretty lazy and uninspired. How fucking hard must it be to call the class a Defender? But no, instead you have to use a role name and try to justify it with "lore" reasons. Sorry, but I have yet to see 1 valid comment/opinion that would give a solid reasoning behind it.
Why would characters in-game care what real-life military vehicles are called? They wouldn't even know that real-life military vehicles exist. Why would characters in-game care what real-life gaming terms are? They wouldn't even know that real-life gaming exists. So, how can it be immersion-breaking to have "Tank" as an archetype name?
If you've immersed yourself that much into your character that the name of their archetype is going to make you cry, then you won't care about it, cos you (your character) won't know what it is to care about in the first place. This whole thread is bonkers.
Look. Here is the long and short of it: IF YOU have an issue with the tank archetype name then do not call yourself a tank. NO ONE will really care. You wont even be a tank for the majority of your time in ashes you will be what ever your actual class is.
I consider this a pretty low priority problem, but the class names do feel uncreative and inconsistent in general.
The number of stones and shadows compared to knight, necromancer, trickster... Some of these names fit well as the combination of the archetypes, and some feel very much like place holders.
Tank itself feels like a place holder too, if I'm being honest.
I can take it or leave it, but if they did change it, they ought to re-work a lot of the other class names so that they are a bit more relatable to their hybrid combinations. There's plenty of potential class names that could be used that better describe a class. And, frankly, the 2-word descriptive names are... forgettable.
Seems to me that people really don't want to give Intrepid a chance to develop their own lore.
The matter is not only about "lore"
I would have the same problem with cleric if instead it was named "healer" and the ranger "range physical damage dealer"
Tank is a role, it is what we will ask some character to do in some situation. and yes... it will mostly character with tank as first archetype which will do it.
lets go to the wiki
Summoners can summon Tank, DPS or Support summons.
i am not saying that tank summons will do a "tank" archetype character jobs... or ... yes ? Clearly it wont tank world bosses, but with good healer, and enough level/stuff/secundary archetype probably this pet would do a nice work for tanking mob in an area ? Also, the class "Dreadnought" : fighter with secundary tank. again, it wont tank a big boss dragon probably but will probably do a fine job as "tank" in some area.
Over the lore matter i really think it would be better to change the tank name to... anything that is not the word "tank" guardian, shieldbearer, livingarmor, warrior.
Anything... Anything to difference archetype and role.
The matter is not only about "lore"
I would have the same problem with cleric if instead it was named "healer"
Why?
Someone that is sick saying they need to go and see the healer is a perfectly valid thing for them to say.
Hell, even now, some people that are more in to alternatives say exactly this.
If people need to be healed, and they need to go to a specific person that specializes in doing exactly that, them calling that person a healer is 100% valid.
The matter is not only about "lore"
I would have the same problem with cleric if instead it was named "healer"
Why?
Someone that is sick saying they need to go and see the healer is a perfectly valid thing for them to say.
Hell, even now, some people that are more in to alternatives say exactly this.
If people need to be healed, and they need to go to a specific person that specializes in doing exactly that, them calling that person a healer is 100% valid.
You can call someone who heals a healer, yes, like your doctor or whatever, he does the action of healing you. And everybody knows what healing is.
But a tank doesn't tank, because "tanking" is not an action like "healing".
The name precedes the action, and if the name comes from metal water tanks holding water (like you said), the action of tanking in that world would be to be filled with water in your own armor and to hold it.
Not the action of absorbing enemy damage. That comes from modern real life tanks and players adapted it to videogames.
The action of "tanking" means absolutely nothing in Verra and you guys make no sense at all.
So, because YOU think that "tank" is in verra's lore, a job like carpenter, you throw away any side problem like simply... have words to clearly define what you need ?
Because if i need anyone who could do the role of tank, in city, for now i would have to call "looking for role = tank" instead of the simple "looking for a tank" because... the role "tank" can be fit by more than "tank" ...
and NO stop with the stupid "sumoner can at most do off-tank" yes he won't probably be able to "main-tank" do to the prefix... it stays a tank and for some work, it could be enough...
Because i consider that, in the lore, changing "Tank" by "guardian" to stick the word "tank" for the "role = tank" for... easier speak between player (including those who don"t care any second the lore) is nothing that could be harsh on the game... For this i consider the "lore argument" totally stupid
So, because YOU think that "tank" is in verra's lore, a job like carpenter, you throw away any side problem like simply... have words to clearly define what you need ?
Because if i need anyone who could do the role of tank, in city, for now i would have to call "looking for role = tank" instead of the simple "looking for a tank" because... the role "tank" can be fit by more than "tank" ...
and NO stop with the stupid "sumoner can at most do off-tank" yes he won't probably be able to "main-tank" do to the prefix... it stays a tank and for some work, it could be enough...
Because i consider that, in the lore, changing "Tank" by "guardian" to stick the word "tank" for the "role = tank" for... easier speak between player (including those who don"t care any second the lore) is nothing that could be harsh on the game... For this i consider the "lore argument" totally stupid
I'm fairly sure you haven't logically thought out your perspective just yet. You have a perspective, and are trying to work it out as you go.
If you are looking for a tank, you say that you are looking for a tank. Chances are, the people that respond saying "I'm a tank, I would like to join", will be of the tank class. It is also highly likely that almost all instances of summoners tanking in a group will be people that already know each other - you are unlikely to ever have a pick up group with a summoner for the tank.
The reason the lore argument is stupid is because we don't know the lore of the game yet.
I am unsure of where your issue is here.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2021
If you need someone to fight, you only choose a Fighter?
If you need someone for ranged combat, you only choose a Ranger?
If you need someone to use magic you only choose a Mage?
If you want someone to main tank, you should choose Tank. Any other primary archetype will be primarily doing something else while they try to off-tank.
so an off tank is not a tank. ok. interesting.
But a question, do you understand that in a team, if there is only one guy doing the tank role, there is no main tank and no offtank. So time you have anyone (be it sumoner, fighter, cleric or any) who do the "tank role" of the team for what they want to do, he is the tank and not the "off tank" ?
And also magic = bard, sumoner mage, cleric use magic. If i want magic user i take any of them. If i want magic damage dealer, then i take mage.
Ranger = on AoC you are right, on many other game, ranger can be melee. because ranger is not the short of "range weapon user" it is totally different thing. If it was called "Bowman" yes you would be totally right.
It remains fighter but in french we dont use the word to word translation is most universe, we use "guerrier" which is translated as "warrior". But fighter is not even the role of fighter because there is no role "fighter" in MMORPG (and doesnt seems in AoC) it is "melee damage dealer" (or melee DPS) neither bowman/ranger is a role, their role is "ranged damage dealer"
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2021
Is a Summoner a mage?
If you want someone to off-tank, grab someone who can off-tank.
If you want someone who can main tank, grab a Tank.
It's not a rocket science.
Is a Summoner a mage?
If you want someone to off-tank, grab someone who can off-tank.
If you want someone who can main tank, grab a Tank.
It's not a rocket science.
bard, sumoner, mage and cleric uses magic (or maybe wiki is false). There is 4 magic archetype and 4 martial archetype.
And about the role = tank
just, imagine, i want to go with a group do some NPC killing but they are "elite"
not a world boss, no just elite mob. i need anyone who can tank (role) not specifficaly a tank (archetype)
and while i need only one tank : i dont have neither a main tank or a offtank... because these prefix are to define the work of each character dedicated to do tanking (role)... Also, you can use the archetype "tank" to do "offtank" work.
And because i dont want to always say "looking for tank (role)" when i search anyone who can tank... the fact that a class as the name of a role is a real problem...
Just call the archetype "shieldbearer" (for example) seems so scandalous? because i feel would be far easier to communicate.
Is a Summoner a mage?
If you want someone to off-tank, grab someone who can off-tank.
If you want someone who can main tank, grab a Tank.
It's not a rocket science.
bard, sumoner, mage and cleric uses magic (or maybe wiki is false). There is 4 magic archetype and 4 martial archetype.
And about the role = tank
just, imagine, i want to go with a group do some NPC killing but they are "elite"
not a world boss, no just elite mob. i need anyone who can tank (role) not specifficaly a tank (archetype)
and while i need only one tank : i dont have neither a main tank or a offtank... because these prefix are to define the work of each character dedicated to do tanking (role)... Also, you can use the archetype "tank" to do "offtank" work.
And because i dont want to always say "looking for tank (role)" when i search anyone who can tank... the fact that a class as the name of a role is a real problem...
Just call the archetype "shieldbearer" (for example) seems so scandalous? because i feel would be far easier to communicate.
I think its really clear. If you wish for a tank you ask for a tank and you get whatever flavor said tank is. if you want a specific type of tank you use the class name.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2021
If you look at the official Ashes roles, Tank is the only one with the primary role of tank.
All the other Primary Archetypes have a primary role of damage or support.
The primary role of Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Mage is damage.
So, if you want someone to main tank, your best bet is to choose a Primary Archetype Tank.
A Primary Archetype Fighter or Cleric or Summoner might be able to off-tank, sure.
Secondary Archetype Tanks will be able to off-tank.
It's not a Herculean Task to ask for an off-tank, if that's what you're looking for.
Comments
It's very likely that the people of Verra would also talk about damage per second, but for Ashes the official term for the role is just Damage.
The official Ashes trinity is: Tank, Damage, Support
No, not fans of the game or player characters. Characters in universe I mean. Like any npc in the game would have no idea what you were talking about because tank isn't a word to them, you know?
Tank is slang used by us as a quick way of someone who can mitigate damage and hold threat. To them that would be a Warrior, any of the other wonderful suggestions are in this thread.
You clearly missed a big part of this conversation. They argued for a lot of time that the word "Tank" existed in the lore, because in Verra they had water tanks, you know, tanks to hold water in.
And yes, real people in this thread keep arguing that "Tank" makes sense in the fantasy world of Verra because water tanks resemble people in armor.
Do we know if metallic water tanks existed? No.
Did Steven or anyone confirm that tanks are named like this after water tanks or even that water tanks existed in Verra? No.
But they just want to be right.
The point was that we dont know the lore yet and it's perfectly plausible for them to create lore that explains and facilitates the use of the term tank in regards to frontline meatshields.
Honestly, couldn't give a damn about made up lore, there is a reasonable lore and there is stupid lore that should be changed and Tank is one of them. Just call the class a Defender... like ffs, why make stupid names in an mmo instead of going for reasonable choices. I don't understand this mentality. This is almost like with Blizzard.
Like seriously... this isn't a PnP tabletop game, this is an MMO. Lore should be something that makes sense for everyone and not be a mess like that shit with Sylvanas
In the real world, tank, has a specific meaning as video game jargon, but on Sanctus and Verra, Tank is a combat role and a type of Adventurer.
I don't know that water tanks resemble people any more than armored military vehicles resemble people.
The reference is likely heavy, metal water tanks are resistant to damage and plate armor is also resistant to damage.
But, the etymology of the word on Verra is irrelevant. It is the word that people on Verra use.
None of us know the full extent of Intrepid's worldbuilding. Wait for the full picture before you start cast judgements.
I agree with Shoelid. "Tanks" is jargon in our world, but in Verra, why couldn't it mean the type of adventurer / soldier who disrupts combat, draws attention, and is heavily armored. Similar with the dwarves, I initially didn't like how they looked because of my expectation of what 'dwarves' based on Tolkien and WoW, but I'm not going to hold that against Intrepid's designs.
I think they're doing a great job so far and we merely have glimpses into what they are creating.
Trying to forcefully reinvent the wheel is stupid. In some cases, sure its passable, but when you're trying to make up things that don't make sense... well, Houston we got a problem
For example, there could be something called a "car" in Verra that was taken from an ancient dwarven word meaning a latch mechanism. It now mainly refers to chains (or any other object for example).
Arguing that "tank" doesn't fit the lore, when you don't even know what the lore is, doesn't even make any sense.
Problem is, using a gaming jargon for lore doesn't fit any lore. I personally find it pretty lazy and uninspired. How fucking hard must it be to call the class a Defender? But no, instead you have to use a role name and try to justify it with "lore" reasons. Sorry, but I have yet to see 1 valid comment/opinion that would give a solid reasoning behind it.
If you own the IP, you don't build the game around the lore, you build the lore around the game.
If you've immersed yourself that much into your character that the name of their archetype is going to make you cry, then you won't care about it, cos you (your character) won't know what it is to care about in the first place. This whole thread is bonkers.
The number of stones and shadows compared to knight, necromancer, trickster... Some of these names fit well as the combination of the archetypes, and some feel very much like place holders.
Tank itself feels like a place holder too, if I'm being honest.
I can take it or leave it, but if they did change it, they ought to re-work a lot of the other class names so that they are a bit more relatable to their hybrid combinations. There's plenty of potential class names that could be used that better describe a class. And, frankly, the 2-word descriptive names are... forgettable.
The matter is not only about "lore"
I would have the same problem with cleric if instead it was named "healer" and the ranger "range physical damage dealer"
Tank is a role, it is what we will ask some character to do in some situation. and yes... it will mostly character with tank as first archetype which will do it.
lets go to the wiki
i am not saying that tank summons will do a "tank" archetype character jobs... or ... yes ? Clearly it wont tank world bosses, but with good healer, and enough level/stuff/secundary archetype probably this pet would do a nice work for tanking mob in an area ? Also, the class "Dreadnought" : fighter with secundary tank. again, it wont tank a big boss dragon probably but will probably do a fine job as "tank" in some area.
Over the lore matter i really think it would be better to change the tank name to... anything that is not the word "tank" guardian, shieldbearer, livingarmor, warrior.
Anything... Anything to difference archetype and role.
Why?
Someone that is sick saying they need to go and see the healer is a perfectly valid thing for them to say.
Hell, even now, some people that are more in to alternatives say exactly this.
If people need to be healed, and they need to go to a specific person that specializes in doing exactly that, them calling that person a healer is 100% valid.
You can call someone who heals a healer, yes, like your doctor or whatever, he does the action of healing you. And everybody knows what healing is.
But a tank doesn't tank, because "tanking" is not an action like "healing".
The name precedes the action, and if the name comes from metal water tanks holding water (like you said), the action of tanking in that world would be to be filled with water in your own armor and to hold it.
Not the action of absorbing enemy damage. That comes from modern real life tanks and players adapted it to videogames.
The action of "tanking" means absolutely nothing in Verra and you guys make no sense at all.
It's insane to me that you think this is perfectly fine to say when you have no clue what the lore is.
A tank is the person in a group of adventurers that tries to maintain the focus of the enemy.
In the same way you can call a person that heals a healer, you can call a person that tanks a tank.
Because if i need anyone who could do the role of tank, in city, for now i would have to call "looking for role = tank" instead of the simple "looking for a tank" because... the role "tank" can be fit by more than "tank" ...
and NO stop with the stupid "sumoner can at most do off-tank" yes he won't probably be able to "main-tank" do to the prefix... it stays a tank and for some work, it could be enough...
Because i consider that, in the lore, changing "Tank" by "guardian" to stick the word "tank" for the "role = tank" for... easier speak between player (including those who don"t care any second the lore) is nothing that could be harsh on the game... For this i consider the "lore argument" totally stupid
I'm fairly sure you haven't logically thought out your perspective just yet. You have a perspective, and are trying to work it out as you go.
If you are looking for a tank, you say that you are looking for a tank. Chances are, the people that respond saying "I'm a tank, I would like to join", will be of the tank class. It is also highly likely that almost all instances of summoners tanking in a group will be people that already know each other - you are unlikely to ever have a pick up group with a summoner for the tank.
The reason the lore argument is stupid is because we don't know the lore of the game yet.
I am unsure of where your issue is here.
If you need someone for ranged combat, you only choose a Ranger?
If you need someone to use magic you only choose a Mage?
If you want someone to main tank, you should choose Tank. Any other primary archetype will be primarily doing something else while they try to off-tank.
But a question, do you understand that in a team, if there is only one guy doing the tank role, there is no main tank and no offtank. So time you have anyone (be it sumoner, fighter, cleric or any) who do the "tank role" of the team for what they want to do, he is the tank and not the "off tank" ?
And also magic = bard, sumoner mage, cleric use magic. If i want magic user i take any of them. If i want magic damage dealer, then i take mage.
Ranger = on AoC you are right, on many other game, ranger can be melee. because ranger is not the short of "range weapon user" it is totally different thing. If it was called "Bowman" yes you would be totally right.
It remains fighter but in french we dont use the word to word translation is most universe, we use "guerrier" which is translated as "warrior". But fighter is not even the role of fighter because there is no role "fighter" in MMORPG (and doesnt seems in AoC) it is "melee damage dealer" (or melee DPS) neither bowman/ranger is a role, their role is "ranged damage dealer"
If you want someone to off-tank, grab someone who can off-tank.
If you want someone who can main tank, grab a Tank.
It's not a rocket science.
bard, sumoner, mage and cleric uses magic (or maybe wiki is false). There is 4 magic archetype and 4 martial archetype.
And about the role = tank
just, imagine, i want to go with a group do some NPC killing but they are "elite"
not a world boss, no just elite mob. i need anyone who can tank (role) not specifficaly a tank (archetype)
and while i need only one tank : i dont have neither a main tank or a offtank... because these prefix are to define the work of each character dedicated to do tanking (role)... Also, you can use the archetype "tank" to do "offtank" work.
And because i dont want to always say "looking for tank (role)" when i search anyone who can tank... the fact that a class as the name of a role is a real problem...
Just call the archetype "shieldbearer" (for example) seems so scandalous? because i feel would be far easier to communicate.
I think its really clear. If you wish for a tank you ask for a tank and you get whatever flavor said tank is. if you want a specific type of tank you use the class name.
All the other Primary Archetypes have a primary role of damage or support.
The primary role of Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Mage is damage.
So, if you want someone to main tank, your best bet is to choose a Primary Archetype Tank.
A Primary Archetype Fighter or Cleric or Summoner might be able to off-tank, sure.
Secondary Archetype Tanks will be able to off-tank.
It's not a Herculean Task to ask for an off-tank, if that's what you're looking for.