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.
If Intrepid actually made the word "tank" into the lore and described what a tank is within the fantasy world and inside Verra, then by all means leave the name tank. If they make the assumption that we as a player have to accept the term "tank" to be the norm within Verra without context or explanation... Then that is pure laziness, poor writing, and/or poor choice of class archetype naming. If I want to be immersed in the lore and game, I shouldn't ever go to an npc and they address me as "Mr. Tank". To me, it's just like a ranger going up to an NPC and them saying hello "Mr. Damage". It just doesn't feel right. Tank is the only archetype name that is like that. Just seems like pure laziness or that they really think there is going to be a significant amount of players that don't know what a tank is/does and they have to "dumb it down" instead of treating us as smart players that can figure things out.
Yes, Intrepid, thank you for spoon feeding me and everyone else on this forum that the role I picked is a ... Tank. I really couldn't figure that out by myself in your character creation screen that should/will say "This archetype tanks enemies, disrupts battle, mitigates damage, and controls the battlefield. Choose this archetype if you want to have a high health pool, defense, and lead your party into battle." Definitely need the NPCs in game and my character sheet to remind me daily that I am in fact a tank.
It's not a Herculean Task to ask for an off-tank, if that's what you're looking for.
How could i need one off tank if i need only 1 guy doing tank job ?
if i want a guy who can tank, any, for the content i just need anything that can fit this job... (so not necessarely a "primary achetype tank"). What do i call if i want to call them all ?
you didnt answer this question
also, you didnt answer where was the problem to finally get "tank" archetype renamed "shieldbearer" or anything that fit this.
The trinity role is "tank, support, damage dealer" so to form my group i will call those 3 role. i could be more specific (like range damage dealer, buffing support, healer, etc) but for one role, if i call the role, there will always be a question "does he want the 8 class bind with tank archetype, or anybuild that can tank what he aim for"
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
32 pages later, still not convinced the bulk of players will:
a) be better off with a tank name change and
b) be using the individual archetype names so much anyhow
The way I see it, with 8 primaries plus a few selected of the more common archetypes will become commonly discussed and known only.
With 64 archetypes it is great for diversity but going to be mightily hard to remember and only a select few players will know what they are / mean and to cover the reset players will be asking questions like, "What is a Guardian?", to which there will be replies along the lines of " Tank + Tank".
If Intrepid actually made the word "tank" into the lore and described what a tank is within the fantasy world and inside Verra, then by all means leave the name tank.
In other words, wait and see when Intrepid actually release the lore associated with the game - which isn't likely to happen until the game goes live.
It's not a Herculean Task to ask for an off-tank, if that's what you're looking for.
How could i need one off tank if i need only 1 guy doing tank job ?
if i want a guy who can tank, any, for the content i just need anything that can fit this job... (so not necessarely a "primary achetype tank"). What do i call if i want to call them all ?
you didnt answer this question
also, you didnt answer where was the problem to finally get "tank" archetype renamed "shieldbearer" or anything that fit this.
The trinity role is "tank, support, damage dealer" so to form my group i will call those 3 role. i could be more specific (like range damage dealer, buffing support, healer, etc) but for one role, if i call the role, there will always be a question "does he want the 8 class bind with tank archetype, or anybuild that can tank what he aim for"
You'll have to excuse Dygz.
His idea of a perfect group in a 5 man group game would be a tank and healer as the first two spots, an offtank and backup healer for the next two, and just in case something happens, someone that can back up either the tank or healer as the fifth person in the group.
32 pages later, still not convinced the bulk of players will:
a) be better off with a tank name change and
b) be using the individual archetype names so much anyhow
The way I see it, with 8 primaries plus a few selected of the more common archetypes will become commonly discussed and known only.
With 64 archetypes it is great for diversity but going to be mightily hard to remember and only a select few players will know what they are / mean and to cover the reset players will be asking questions like, "What is a Guardian?", to which there will be replies along the lines of " Tank + Tank".
I think you are basically right here.
I honestly don't think people will care at all about the secondary class others are running, outside of very top end stuff. To people not playing a tank, a tank is any tank. To people not playing a cleric, a healer is any cleric. To people not playing a fighter, a fighter is any fighter.
The only real exception I can see to this is a necromancer - I can see people in a group with a necro referring to them as such, as opposed to calling them a summoner.
The only time people will even care about a sub-class is when it is one they have the ability to play.
The only real exception I can see to this is a necromancer - I can see people in a group with a necro referring to them as such, as opposed to calling them a summoner.
The only time people will even care about a sub-class is when it is one they have the ability to play.
I think in the end we will speak about the 8 archetype for PvE. the 8 classes you can have on each feels more like "specialisation" than really "class" the fact you can change (with some work) the secundary archetype make me really consider this way.
but I think for sumoner, depending augment, it will focus a little more to one role the "broodwarden" will allow to have a quite nice tanking pet, while the spellmancer will be a better choice if you want your summons to deal big damages. Like in FFXI puppet master allowed you to build your puppet to fit a specific job role. So while all rogue will be damage dealers, all cleric will be healers and all tank will be tank, sumoner will show some variety. (disclaimer : i just imagine what we will have, probably i just said will be totally bullshit ! )
But ninja on FFXI was a DD job... devs announced it like this, and maintain this speech a long time... for some boss, ninja was the perfect tank. On wow vanilla, for some leveling dungeons we used paladin or shaman, while "only warrior is good tank" was a common thought. on retail in all expansion, Fury warrior was used to tank some dungeons (mainly when stuff made it more than enough). On Aion, Gladiator was often tank also in leveling content.
This is why i have matter with a primary archetype having the name of his role... (aaaand... wont say again more, i already said it too much)
about this team composition you spoke about, i think , we are never too carefull ?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It's not a Herculean Task to ask for an off-tank, if that's what you're looking for.
How could i need one off tank if i need only 1 guy doing tank job ?
if i want a guy who can tank, any, for the content i just need anything that can fit this job... (so not necessarely a "primary achetype tank"). What do i call if i want to call them all ?
you didnt answer this question
also, you didnt answer where was the problem to finally get "tank" archetype renamed "shieldbearer" or anything that fit this.
The trinity role is "tank, support, damage dealer" so to form my group i will call those 3 role. i could be more specific (like range damage dealer, buffing support, healer, etc) but for one role, if i call the role, there will always be a question "does he want the 8 class bind with tank archetype, or anybuild that can tank what he aim for"
If you ask for a Tank, I doubt people will question whether you want a Fighter or whether you want a Tank.
Just as if you call for a Fighter, I doubt people will question whether you want a Rogue, a Tank or a Fighter.
Just as if you ask for a Mage, people will not question whether you want a Summoner, a Bard or a Mage.
If you ask for a Tank, I doubt people will question whether you want a Fighter or whether you want a Tank.
This is my problem with the archetype "tank" getting the same word as the role "tank"
because for some content, i want to be to easily call for a "tank" but not limited to the 8 tank classes, but also some like ... dreadnought if it shows to be a decent tank (heavy fighter with tank augments. i wouldnt be surprise to be more than enough for many content
AND i speak while i want only ONE character to do the "tank role" so don't come again with "call offtank to have dreadnought". . .
*read back what Noaani said" hum probably i lose my time . . .
So while all rogue will be damage dealers, all cleric will be healers and all tank will be tank, sumoner will show some variety. (disclaimer : i just imagine what we will have, probably i just said will be totally bullshit ! )
This is all fairly true.
The reason I say that necromancers will be the only class people will look at as being the specific class rather than the primary class is because of it's uniqueness visually.
Imagine you are in a group with 7 other players you do not know, and there is a summoner present.
Now, this summoner is not likely to have tank as their secondary, because summoners are not likely to be used as tanks outside of players that are familiar with each other (I can see people leaving pick up groups that are planning on running without a tank class).
From there, you are unlikely going to pay a whole lot of attention to that summoners specific class. You aren't likely to even know if they have summoner or mage as their secondary, or fighter or rogue. I mean, I am sure these classes will be different, but if you are not a summoner yourself, you aren't going to care, or even notice.
What you will notice, however, is if there are a pile of skeletons all around you as you are fighting.
Every sub-class on the list is able to be debated in terms of it's identity - except necromancer. While many people will look at Warden or Shaman (just as examples) and think that it is like WoW's version of those classes, that is absolutely not a guarantee - and there are many other examples that are far removed from that example that Intrepid could pull from.
Necromancers, however, play with dead things. That isn't really up for debate.
As such, players will recognize necromancer as it's own identity in terms of classes, while all 8 primary classes will also have their own identity as a primary class.
While this isn't that helpful to the general thread, it is how I see things going in terms of player perception of classes.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This is my problem with the archetype "tank" getting the same word as the role "tank"
because for some content, i want to be to easily call for a "tank" but not limited to the 8 tank classes, but also some like ... dreadnought if it shows to be a decent tank (heavy fighter with tank augments. i wouldnt be surprise to be more than enough for many content
But...
That the way Ashes is designed is: There is only one Primary Archetype that officially has the primary role of tank and that is Tank.
Even if Tank is relabeled something else, there will only be one Primary Archetype that officially has the primary role of tank.
A Fighter with Tank augments will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank in an 8-person group.
Also a Fighter with Cleric augments will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric in an 8-person group.
Also a Bard with Mage augments will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Mage in an 8-person group.
A Fighter with Tank augments will be able to off-tank.
If you want a main tank, you should ask for a Primary Archetype Tank. And...to do that, just ask for a Tank.
AND i speak while i want only ONE character to do the "tank role" so don't come again with "call offtank to have dreadnought". . .
If that's what you want, you are stuck with Primary Archetype Tank.
That is the only Primary Archetype that officially has the primary role of tank.
The primary role of a Primary Archetype Fighter is damage. That includes Dreadnought.
If you want only ONE character to be a main tank, you should ask for a Tank and if a Dreadnought appears, you should not expect a Dreadnought to be a viable main tank because Fighters are not designed/balanced to be main tanks - even if they have Tank augments.
Similarly, if you ask for a Cleric and a Highsword appears, you should not expect a Highsword to be a viable main Cleric.
If you ask for a Summoner and a Bladecaller appears, you should not expect a Bladecaller to be a viable main Summoner.
There will be no confusion about what you're asking for because combat is balanced around having one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group. So ask for the Primary Archetype you seek. There's no point in asking for "ranged dps" or "ranged damage" if what you want is a Mage.
If you want a Mage, ask for a Mage. No one should be thinking you're asking for a Summoner or a Spellsword.
If you want a Fighter, ask for a Fighter. No one should be thinking you're asking for a Rogue or a Duelist.
If you want a Tank, ask for a Tank. No one should be thinking you are asking for a Fighter or a Dreadnought.
If that's what you want, you are stuck with Primary Archetype Tank.
so you think that even if you go to content that needs only 4 or 5 man, you will specifically need a "tank primary" ?
Did you ever play any other mmorpg ?
You will need a tank more or less depending on what's happening in the environment. Certainly in dungeons you will need a tank.
Here tank refers to the primary archetype because i took this from the archetype page.
Although traditional roles are present, players should not feel branded by their primary archetype.[2][4]
Skill augments available through the class system allow characters to be personalized outside of their primary role.[2][4][5]
this will be my last post to try to explain you i spoke about "not top end content" . . .
even the wiki says the "tank archetype" is not needed 100% of time. most of time but not all time.
And won't list all common situation in mmorpg where DPS class, designed in DPS way can tank some content because those content are easy enough to have a DPS class doing tank work.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Ashes isn't any other MMORPG.
I haven't said anything about "top end content".
If you want to try to do content with 4 or 5 people without a (primary role) tank, you can try to do so.
But, that is like asking for a (primary role) support and instead accepting 4 people with primary role damage.
You could ask for a Mage and accept a Bard or Cleric, sure.
You could try to have a Bard main tank, if you want to.
Fighter is not the only Primary Archetype that can fight.
Mage is not the only Primary Archetype that can use magic.
Ranger is not the only Primary Archetype that can do ranged damage.
Summoner is, technically, not the only Primary Archetype that can summon.
And, yes, Tank is not the only Primary Archetype that can tank.
I liked Sentinel as a stand in name from above. Looking at the class chart, it seems like it would line up with each class combo just as well as before, except it has a bit more flavor to it.
I think it's important to bear in mind that regardless of what the game designates you at the character screen players in the game will almost always in all cases revert to calling you by one of the holy trinity (Heals/DPS/Tank). As far as this character screen selection it's an Alpha test. Patience is key. This will sort itself out.
If that doesn't suit you I'm sure there will be a Roleplaying server you can call home. It's what they are for.
0
Options
TeylouneMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2021
Alternative name for the Tank Archetype: Vanguard, Stalwart.
Or we could change the Tank Archetype into Sentinel, and then we can give the Ranger + Tank a name like Skirmisher for example.
I've stayed away hoping it would die, but since it's immortal, I'll just throw in my two cents and become immortal myself.
We in fact don't have a class called Tank. The title and the premise is factually wrong. We have an archetype called Tank. So what is an archetype? Well, it's defined as
a very typical example of a certain person or thing
An Archetype is not a Class. When people start at level 1, they don't have a class yet.
Since this is an MMORPG, they went with some known MMORPG names for archetypes, because that is what makes the most sense. All that etymology nonsense is pointless to discuss. What matters is that the archetypes are well known in the MMORPG/gaming community, so most people know what to expect.
Yes, some of the archetype names coincide with class names of other games. That is confusing to some. Hence this thread.
Edit: To clarify, I understand people not liking the archetype name. It's not exactly my preferred name either.
I've stayed away hoping it would die, but since it's immortal, I'll just throw in my two cents and become immortal myself.
We in fact don't have a class called Tank. The title and the premise is factually wrong. We have an archetype called Tank. So what is an archetype? Well, it's defined as
a very typical example of a certain person or thing
An Archetype is not a Class. When people start at level 1, they don't have a class yet.
Since this is an MMORPG, they went with some known MMORPG names for archetypes, because that is what makes the most sense. All that etymology nonsense is pointless to discuss. What matters is that the archetypes are well known in the MMORPG/gaming community, so most people know what to expect.
Yes, some of the archetype names coincide with class names of other games. That is confusing to some. Hence this thread.
Edit: To clarify, I understand people not liking the archetype name. It's not exactly my preferred name either.
Yea, you don't have a "class" yet, but you have to be classified as something levels 1-25. You aren't nothing you are identified as a tank because that is your archetype. This is just semantics. If you are level 12 and someone asked you what class are you playing in AoC. Are you really going to say, "It's an Archetype not a class, nerd". I hope not, because it would make more sense to just say "I play a tank". Just would be cooler to say, "I play a warrior", or "I play a sentinel". Because of reasons stated throughout the entire thread, tank is lame and ruins the immersion.
Comments
If Intrepid actually made the word "tank" into the lore and described what a tank is within the fantasy world and inside Verra, then by all means leave the name tank. If they make the assumption that we as a player have to accept the term "tank" to be the norm within Verra without context or explanation... Then that is pure laziness, poor writing, and/or poor choice of class archetype naming. If I want to be immersed in the lore and game, I shouldn't ever go to an npc and they address me as "Mr. Tank". To me, it's just like a ranger going up to an NPC and them saying hello "Mr. Damage". It just doesn't feel right. Tank is the only archetype name that is like that. Just seems like pure laziness or that they really think there is going to be a significant amount of players that don't know what a tank is/does and they have to "dumb it down" instead of treating us as smart players that can figure things out.
Yes, Intrepid, thank you for spoon feeding me and everyone else on this forum that the role I picked is a ... Tank. I really couldn't figure that out by myself in your character creation screen that should/will say "This archetype tanks enemies, disrupts battle, mitigates damage, and controls the battlefield. Choose this archetype if you want to have a high health pool, defense, and lead your party into battle." Definitely need the NPCs in game and my character sheet to remind me daily that I am in fact a tank.
How could i need one off tank if i need only 1 guy doing tank job ?
if i want a guy who can tank, any, for the content i just need anything that can fit this job... (so not necessarely a "primary achetype tank"). What do i call if i want to call them all ?
you didnt answer this question
also, you didnt answer where was the problem to finally get "tank" archetype renamed "shieldbearer" or anything that fit this.
The trinity role is "tank, support, damage dealer" so to form my group i will call those 3 role. i could be more specific (like range damage dealer, buffing support, healer, etc) but for one role, if i call the role, there will always be a question "does he want the 8 class bind with tank archetype, or anybuild that can tank what he aim for"
a) be better off with a tank name change and
b) be using the individual archetype names so much anyhow
The way I see it, with 8 primaries plus a few selected of the more common archetypes will become commonly discussed and known only.
With 64 archetypes it is great for diversity but going to be mightily hard to remember and only a select few players will know what they are / mean and to cover the reset players will be asking questions like, "What is a Guardian?", to which there will be replies along the lines of " Tank + Tank".
You'll have to excuse Dygz.
His idea of a perfect group in a 5 man group game would be a tank and healer as the first two spots, an offtank and backup healer for the next two, and just in case something happens, someone that can back up either the tank or healer as the fifth person in the group.
Saying he has no idea would be an understatement.
I honestly don't think people will care at all about the secondary class others are running, outside of very top end stuff. To people not playing a tank, a tank is any tank. To people not playing a cleric, a healer is any cleric. To people not playing a fighter, a fighter is any fighter.
The only real exception I can see to this is a necromancer - I can see people in a group with a necro referring to them as such, as opposed to calling them a summoner.
The only time people will even care about a sub-class is when it is one they have the ability to play.
I think in the end we will speak about the 8 archetype for PvE. the 8 classes you can have on each feels more like "specialisation" than really "class" the fact you can change (with some work) the secundary archetype make me really consider this way.
but I think for sumoner, depending augment, it will focus a little more to one role the "broodwarden" will allow to have a quite nice tanking pet, while the spellmancer will be a better choice if you want your summons to deal big damages. Like in FFXI puppet master allowed you to build your puppet to fit a specific job role. So while all rogue will be damage dealers, all cleric will be healers and all tank will be tank, sumoner will show some variety. (disclaimer : i just imagine what we will have, probably i just said will be totally bullshit ! )
But ninja on FFXI was a DD job... devs announced it like this, and maintain this speech a long time... for some boss, ninja was the perfect tank. On wow vanilla, for some leveling dungeons we used paladin or shaman, while "only warrior is good tank" was a common thought. on retail in all expansion, Fury warrior was used to tank some dungeons (mainly when stuff made it more than enough). On Aion, Gladiator was often tank also in leveling content.
This is why i have matter with a primary archetype having the name of his role... (aaaand... wont say again more, i already said it too much)
about this team composition you spoke about, i think , we are never too carefull ?
Just as if you call for a Fighter, I doubt people will question whether you want a Rogue, a Tank or a Fighter.
Just as if you ask for a Mage, people will not question whether you want a Summoner, a Bard or a Mage.
This is my problem with the archetype "tank" getting the same word as the role "tank"
because for some content, i want to be to easily call for a "tank" but not limited to the 8 tank classes, but also some like ... dreadnought if it shows to be a decent tank (heavy fighter with tank augments. i wouldnt be surprise to be more than enough for many content
AND i speak while i want only ONE character to do the "tank role" so don't come again with "call offtank to have dreadnought". . .
*read back what Noaani said" hum probably i lose my time . . .
The reason I say that necromancers will be the only class people will look at as being the specific class rather than the primary class is because of it's uniqueness visually.
Imagine you are in a group with 7 other players you do not know, and there is a summoner present.
Now, this summoner is not likely to have tank as their secondary, because summoners are not likely to be used as tanks outside of players that are familiar with each other (I can see people leaving pick up groups that are planning on running without a tank class).
From there, you are unlikely going to pay a whole lot of attention to that summoners specific class. You aren't likely to even know if they have summoner or mage as their secondary, or fighter or rogue. I mean, I am sure these classes will be different, but if you are not a summoner yourself, you aren't going to care, or even notice.
What you will notice, however, is if there are a pile of skeletons all around you as you are fighting.
Every sub-class on the list is able to be debated in terms of it's identity - except necromancer. While many people will look at Warden or Shaman (just as examples) and think that it is like WoW's version of those classes, that is absolutely not a guarantee - and there are many other examples that are far removed from that example that Intrepid could pull from.
Necromancers, however, play with dead things. That isn't really up for debate.
As such, players will recognize necromancer as it's own identity in terms of classes, while all 8 primary classes will also have their own identity as a primary class.
While this isn't that helpful to the general thread, it is how I see things going in terms of player perception of classes.
That the way Ashes is designed is:
There is only one Primary Archetype that officially has the primary role of tank and that is Tank.
Even if Tank is relabeled something else, there will only be one Primary Archetype that officially has the primary role of tank.
A Fighter with Tank augments will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank in an 8-person group.
Also a Fighter with Cleric augments will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric in an 8-person group.
Also a Bard with Mage augments will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Mage in an 8-person group.
A Fighter with Tank augments will be able to off-tank.
If you want a main tank, you should ask for a Primary Archetype Tank. And...to do that, just ask for a Tank.
If that's what you want, you are stuck with Primary Archetype Tank.
That is the only Primary Archetype that officially has the primary role of tank.
The primary role of a Primary Archetype Fighter is damage. That includes Dreadnought.
If you want only ONE character to be a main tank, you should ask for a Tank and if a Dreadnought appears, you should not expect a Dreadnought to be a viable main tank because Fighters are not designed/balanced to be main tanks - even if they have Tank augments.
Similarly, if you ask for a Cleric and a Highsword appears, you should not expect a Highsword to be a viable main Cleric.
If you ask for a Summoner and a Bladecaller appears, you should not expect a Bladecaller to be a viable main Summoner.
There will be no confusion about what you're asking for because combat is balanced around having one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group. So ask for the Primary Archetype you seek. There's no point in asking for "ranged dps" or "ranged damage" if what you want is a Mage.
If you want a Mage, ask for a Mage. No one should be thinking you're asking for a Summoner or a Spellsword.
If you want a Fighter, ask for a Fighter. No one should be thinking you're asking for a Rogue or a Duelist.
If you want a Tank, ask for a Tank. No one should be thinking you are asking for a Fighter or a Dreadnought.
so you think that even if you go to content that needs only 4 or 5 man, you will specifically need a "tank primary" ?
Did you ever play any other mmorpg ?
Here tank refers to the primary archetype because i took this from the archetype page.
this will be my last post to try to explain you i spoke about "not top end content" . . .
even the wiki says the "tank archetype" is not needed 100% of time. most of time but not all time.
And won't list all common situation in mmorpg where DPS class, designed in DPS way can tank some content because those content are easy enough to have a DPS class doing tank work.
I haven't said anything about "top end content".
If you want to try to do content with 4 or 5 people without a (primary role) tank, you can try to do so.
But, that is like asking for a (primary role) support and instead accepting 4 people with primary role damage.
You could ask for a Mage and accept a Bard or Cleric, sure.
You could try to have a Bard main tank, if you want to.
Fighter is not the only Primary Archetype that can fight.
Mage is not the only Primary Archetype that can use magic.
Ranger is not the only Primary Archetype that can do ranged damage.
Summoner is, technically, not the only Primary Archetype that can summon.
And, yes, Tank is not the only Primary Archetype that can tank.
You'll have to excuse the absolute nonsense he spews on occasion, as he thinks he knows what he is talking about, despite, well, playing Wizard101.
Click on the little profile arrow next to your icon, and select "Preferences".
On the right-hand side, go to "Ignore List".
In the "Ignore Someone" text box, type "Dygz".
Problem solved. You'll only ever have to see their posts when somebody else Quotes them.
If that doesn't suit you I'm sure there will be a Roleplaying server you can call home. It's what they are for.
Or we could change the Tank Archetype into Sentinel, and then we can give the Ranger + Tank a name like Skirmisher for example.
Tank still works for me.
Every forum has its local 'hill to die on' I suppose.
Nice to see you back!
I've stayed away hoping it would die, but since it's immortal, I'll just throw in my two cents and become immortal myself.
We in fact don't have a class called Tank. The title and the premise is factually wrong. We have an archetype called Tank. So what is an archetype? Well, it's defined as An Archetype is not a Class. When people start at level 1, they don't have a class yet.
Since this is an MMORPG, they went with some known MMORPG names for archetypes, because that is what makes the most sense. All that etymology nonsense is pointless to discuss. What matters is that the archetypes are well known in the MMORPG/gaming community, so most people know what to expect.
Yes, some of the archetype names coincide with class names of other games. That is confusing to some. Hence this thread.
Edit: To clarify, I understand people not liking the archetype name. It's not exactly my preferred name either.
I vote no name, because then we will all just call them tanks.
I mean, if the archetypes were given a symbol instead of a name, the names they have are the names players would use.
Yea, you don't have a "class" yet, but you have to be classified as something levels 1-25. You aren't nothing you are identified as a tank because that is your archetype. This is just semantics. If you are level 12 and someone asked you what class are you playing in AoC. Are you really going to say, "It's an Archetype not a class, nerd". I hope not, because it would make more sense to just say "I play a tank". Just would be cooler to say, "I play a warrior", or "I play a sentinel". Because of reasons stated throughout the entire thread, tank is lame and ruins the immersion.
You never know what you have until you noticed it missing.
I really tank this thread for granted.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.