I think your personal qualms with the word "tank" matters little. it's a word the vast majority is already familiar with and its used to describe a purpose.
If a class is only called guardian , sentinel, warden, protector or whatever then what does that even mean? Is it a tank, healer, support or some beefy damage dealer? As an example there's games who have used warden as a druid nature based class and other games that have used it for a holy priest/cleric type.
My point is the name of the class doesnt matter, the description does and you're gonna have to write walls of text that still fails to accurately describe the playstyle just to avoid the word "tank".
Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies).
Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'...
Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it.
Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies).
Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'...
Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it.
Just a suggestion and opinion.
Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol.
Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies).
Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'...
Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it.
Just a suggestion and opinion.
Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol.
And 'Nightshield' shortens to...... yeah, I'm not gonna go there...
But, I'm quite happy for you to call my Bard/Tank Siren "Sir".
Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies).
Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'...
Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it.
Just a suggestion and opinion.
Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol.
And 'Nightshield' shortens to...... yeah, I'm not gonna go there...
But, I'm quite happy for you to call my Bard/Tank Siren "Sir".
Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies).
Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'...
Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it.
Just a suggestion and opinion.
If people really need a "logical" reason as to why it's called tank. Here's one. Different cultures and languages uses different terms to describe different things. Language was made up from the very beginning and new words are made everyday. Some words are used to describe specific things. In Verra, they quite possibly decided that tank was the jumble of consonants and vowels to articulate "Hey that person over there that is standing in dragon breath and not dying."
There are MANY fantasy words out there that are just madeup on the fly and evolve to mean certain things. Some of them are made up so purely that they have no real root in reality aside from the imagination of the creator. A perfect example of this is H.P. Lovecraft. Dude had some demons in his head that people were not expecting to see when they read his writings.
Now, bringing it back to the term tank, is it really so crazy that a fantasy world uses a word differently than we do?
Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol.
Is this actually a thing? Do WoW players in Europe not call it Prot pally/warrior? Serious question I’ve never heard this before.
On topic I get why “tank” doesn’t really have good optics, but I feel like everyone is just going to ask for a “tank” anyway, unless they want a specific primary archetype tank class. Feels like they’re cutting out the middle man, so it really doesn’t bother me if it stays.
If they did change it I like a lot of the ideas in this thread. Some additional ideas: commander, oppressor, arbiter, templar(this is only because of aion, I tend to think of aion’s templar when I think of fun tanks it games).
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.
Yeah this whole thread is about semantics
Guardian or some such would probably have been better, but I am starting to care less and less either way. They could call it Kampvogn for all I care now. (Danish for tank, literally means battle wagon)
CypherMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
How about this:
Currently, Tank + Fighter = Knight. I propose instead that “Tank” be replaced with “Knight” and then Knight + Fighter = Crusader
If you dislike that for whatever reason, replace “Tank” with “Guard” or “Guardsman” and achieve the same result. (I’d prefer the former solution personally though)
(I’m neutral and don’t care if it’s called Tank or not, but this is a viable solution to this non-issue).
I honestly dont see it as a problem per se.
regardless of what you call it people will be like
"what is that?"
"a tank"
"oh, ok thanks!"
The fact that using it as a dual purpose in relation to secondary archetypes pairs well with class naming.
I'm down for whatever its name is whether it be a vanguard, tank, meat shield etc
A dual tank archetype = guardian
so you'd be a guardian not a tank tank.
So it's not really calling tank a class so much as an archetype.
Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies).
Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'...
Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it.
Just a suggestion and opinion.
Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol.
And 'Nightshield' shortens to...... yeah, I'm not gonna go there...
But, I'm quite happy for you to call my Bard/Tank Siren "Sir".
you sure you're fine with siren and not rock lobster?
not sure if you've seen this or not, It reminds me of armoured bards
Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype
Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype
I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name
to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead.
It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices.
Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank?
probably not but it's hard to say this early in development
Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype
I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name
to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead.
It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices.
Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank?
probably not but it's hard to say this early in development
yea, my main point is that, this thread is pointless cuz we can make a similar one to every single primary archetype, mage is mage, fighter is fighter, ranger is ranger, tank is tank, rogue is rogue
And if u say that tank is not a thing.. ranger is not a thing too, same as fighter. Real names u have when u combain two archetypes like u said
Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies).
Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'...
Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it.
Just a suggestion and opinion.
Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol.
That's quite the over reach. Prot is used so much in mmos that very very veeerrryyyy few would would think about it that way. Its so often used that ppl know prot is protection generally
Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype
I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name
to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead.
It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices.
Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank?
probably not but it's hard to say this early in development
yea, my main point is that, this thread is pointless cuz we can make a similar one to every single primary archetype, mage is mage, fighter is fighter, ranger is ranger, tank is tank, rogue is rogue
And if u say that tank is not a thing.. ranger is not a thing too, same as fighter. Real names u have when u combain two archetypes like u said
Riiiight, not in the first 25 levels tho. Everyone will see tank not the main class you going for. So 25 levels you will literally be running as a tank
Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype
I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name
to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead.
It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices.
Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank?
probably not but it's hard to say this early in development
yea, my main point is that, this thread is pointless cuz we can make a similar one to every single primary archetype, mage is mage, fighter is fighter, ranger is ranger, tank is tank, rogue is rogue
And if u say that tank is not a thing.. ranger is not a thing too, same as fighter. Real names u have when u combain two archetypes like u said
Problem is, fighters can tank as well generally. Sure, not in Ashes, but trying to reinvent the wheel is always stupid af
Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype
I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name
to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead.
It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices.
Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank?
probably not but it's hard to say this early in development
yea, my main point is that, this thread is pointless cuz we can make a similar one to every single primary archetype, mage is mage, fighter is fighter, ranger is ranger, tank is tank, rogue is rogue
And if u say that tank is not a thing.. ranger is not a thing too, same as fighter. Real names u have when u combain two archetypes like u said
Riiiight, not in the first 25 levels tho. Everyone will see tank not the main class you going for. So 25 levels you will literally be running as a tank
sure, but ranger is not relevent too, should be archer
Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype
I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name
to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead.
It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices.
Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank?
probably not but it's hard to say this early in development
yea, my main point is that, this thread is pointless cuz we can make a similar one to every single primary archetype, mage is mage, fighter is fighter, ranger is ranger, tank is tank, rogue is rogue
And if u say that tank is not a thing.. ranger is not a thing too, same as fighter. Real names u have when u combain two archetypes like u said
Problem is, fighters can tank as well generally. Sure, not in Ashes, but trying to reinvent the wheel is always stupid af
Yeah, I can agree that 'tank' doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting, because afaik there aren't any tanks in AoC universe (if there are, my apologies).
Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'...
Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it.
Just a suggestion and opinion.
Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol.
That's quite the over reach. Prot is used so much in mmos that very very veeerrryyyy few would would think about it that way. Its so often used that ppl know prot is protection generally
Literally never heard it used that way till you all brought it up. We probably just play different games. Like I said it probably isn't that big a deal just 'could be'. For now it doesn't get any complaints from me as already noted. Not my first choice (I am team Guardian but its taken by the duplicate archtype ) but I wouldn't complain.
Idk why anyone is continuing this. But class name tank is same as class name Mage, or Ranger, its all calling cat "Cat". And real class name u have in this table, where u combain it with second archetype
I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name
to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead.
It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices.
Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank?
probably not but it's hard to say this early in development
yea, my main point is that, this thread is pointless cuz we can make a similar one to every single primary archetype, mage is mage, fighter is fighter, ranger is ranger, tank is tank, rogue is rogue
And if u say that tank is not a thing.. ranger is not a thing too, same as fighter. Real names u have when u combain two archetypes like u said
Riiiight, not in the first 25 levels tho. Everyone will see tank not the main class you going for. So 25 levels you will literally be running as a tank
sure, but ranger is not relevent too, should be archer
Not really. A ranger is something that existed outside of Games. And tbh, probably fits more than an archer since an archer can also be a fighter who just uses bows.
Comments
So lets call it Caliber.
If a class is only called guardian , sentinel, warden, protector or whatever then what does that even mean? Is it a tank, healer, support or some beefy damage dealer? As an example there's games who have used warden as a druid nature based class and other games that have used it for a holy priest/cleric type.
My point is the name of the class doesnt matter, the description does and you're gonna have to write walls of text that still fails to accurately describe the playstyle just to avoid the word "tank".
Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'...
Protector or something. Meat shield? I dunno lol. It's just a name, shouldn't be too difficult to improve on if they want to. It's also not the end of the world if they leave it.
Just a suggestion and opinion.
Hmm... I could get behind protector but there is a hidden problem. It will colloquially be shortened down to 'prot' a sometimes derogatory term for protestant in Ireland/North Ireland. That being said I do think its a fairly good substitute for tank. After all Assassin shortens to ass lol.
And 'Nightshield' shortens to...... yeah, I'm not gonna go there...
But, I'm quite happy for you to call my Bard/Tank Siren "Sir".
Lol. I think I will stick to the two syllables.
I'm absolutely going to alt an Ambulance.
If people really need a "logical" reason as to why it's called tank. Here's one. Different cultures and languages uses different terms to describe different things. Language was made up from the very beginning and new words are made everyday. Some words are used to describe specific things. In Verra, they quite possibly decided that tank was the jumble of consonants and vowels to articulate "Hey that person over there that is standing in dragon breath and not dying."
There are MANY fantasy words out there that are just madeup on the fly and evolve to mean certain things. Some of them are made up so purely that they have no real root in reality aside from the imagination of the creator. A perfect example of this is H.P. Lovecraft. Dude had some demons in his head that people were not expecting to see when they read his writings.
Now, bringing it back to the term tank, is it really so crazy that a fantasy world uses a word differently than we do?
Is this actually a thing? Do WoW players in Europe not call it Prot pally/warrior? Serious question I’ve never heard this before.
On topic I get why “tank” doesn’t really have good optics, but I feel like everyone is just going to ask for a “tank” anyway, unless they want a specific primary archetype tank class. Feels like they’re cutting out the middle man, so it really doesn’t bother me if it stays.
If they did change it I like a lot of the ideas in this thread. Some additional ideas: commander, oppressor, arbiter, templar(this is only because of aion, I tend to think of aion’s templar when I think of fun tanks it games).
Yeah this whole thread is about semantics
Guardian or some such would probably have been better, but I am starting to care less and less either way. They could call it Kampvogn for all I care now. (Danish for tank, literally means battle wagon)
Currently, Tank + Fighter = Knight. I propose instead that “Tank” be replaced with “Knight” and then Knight + Fighter = Crusader
If you dislike that for whatever reason, replace “Tank” with “Guard” or “Guardsman” and achieve the same result. (I’d prefer the former solution personally though)
(I’m neutral and don’t care if it’s called Tank or not, but this is a viable solution to this non-issue).
No not really. Paladin is much more cleric/tank-y lol
regardless of what you call it people will be like
"what is that?"
"a tank"
"oh, ok thanks!"
The fact that using it as a dual purpose in relation to secondary archetypes pairs well with class naming.
I'm down for whatever its name is whether it be a vanguard, tank, meat shield etc
A dual tank archetype = guardian
so you'd be a guardian not a tank tank.
So it's not really calling tank a class so much as an archetype.
you sure you're fine with siren and not rock lobster?
not sure if you've seen this or not, It reminds me of armoured bards
I think you mean archetype + archetype = class name
to be fair, I believe conversation evolved into calling the guardian a tank instead.
It doesn't matter if archetype 1 = tank, every secondary archetype is still technically a tank after that, just a different form of it in relation to secondary archetypes choices.
Will it be a better or equally good as tank + tank?
probably not but it's hard to say this early in development
archetype 2 = anything
class = some form of tank
yea, my main point is that, this thread is pointless cuz we can make a similar one to every single primary archetype, mage is mage, fighter is fighter, ranger is ranger, tank is tank, rogue is rogue
And if u say that tank is not a thing.. ranger is not a thing too, same as fighter. Real names u have when u combain two archetypes like u said
That's quite the over reach. Prot is used so much in mmos that very very veeerrryyyy few would would think about it that way. Its so often used that ppl know prot is protection generally
Riiiight, not in the first 25 levels tho. Everyone will see tank not the main class you going for. So 25 levels you will literally be running as a tank
Problem is, fighters can tank as well generally. Sure, not in Ashes, but trying to reinvent the wheel is always stupid af
sure, but ranger is not relevent too, should be archer
Fighter/Tank
Literally never heard it used that way till you all brought it up. We probably just play different games. Like I said it probably isn't that big a deal just 'could be'. For now it doesn't get any complaints from me as already noted. Not my first choice (I am team Guardian but its taken by the duplicate archtype
Not really. A ranger is something that existed outside of Games. And tbh, probably fits more than an archer since an archer can also be a fighter who just uses bows.