Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

The problem with having “Tank” as a class name

1303133353644

Comments

  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    It feels incomplete to resurrect this topic without our resident necromancer. Where is @Nagash?
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    If tank's name changed it would be a shell of it's former self.

    So lets call it Caliber.
    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • BarkbatBarkbat Member
    edited August 2021
    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".
  • daveywaveydaveywavey Member, Alpha Two
    Figured I'd necro my old Tank piccy, too...

    4v9tka.jpg
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/


    giphy-downsized-large.gif?cid=b603632fp2svffcmdi83yynpfpexo413mpb1qzxnh3cei0nx&ep=v1_gifs_gifId&rid=giphy-downsized-large.gif&ct=s
  • HazardNumberSevenHazardNumberSeven Member, Alpha Two
    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.
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    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.
    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • daveywaveydaveywavey Member, Alpha Two
    JustVine wrote: »
    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".
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/


    giphy-downsized-large.gif?cid=b603632fp2svffcmdi83yynpfpexo413mpb1qzxnh3cei0nx&ep=v1_gifs_gifId&rid=giphy-downsized-large.gif&ct=s
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    daveywavey wrote: »
    JustVine wrote: »
    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".

    Lol. I think I will stick to the two syllables.
    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    edited August 2021
    Tank feels very meta and OOC. It's like if cleric's class was actually called 'ambulance'...

    I'm absolutely going to alt an Ambulance.

    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    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?
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • HumblePuffinHumblePuffin Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    JustVine wrote: »
    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).
  • NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2021
    Cripsus wrote: »
    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 :D

    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)
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    I’m beginning to lean toward ‘pain train.’ 😳
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • CypherCypher Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    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).
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    'Crusader' is kinda cleric-y isn't it? :D
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • CypherCypher Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    CROW3 wrote: »
    'Crusader' is kinda cleric-y isn't it? :D

    No not really. Paladin is much more cleric/tank-y lol
  • edited August 2021
    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.

  • edited August 2021
    daveywavey wrote: »
    JustVine wrote: »
    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
    86d01afa8532bf43bcd643fa511616cb.jpg
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    "It's nawt a TOOBAH!"
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • SnekkersSnekkers Member, Alpha Two
    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
  • edited August 2021
    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 :wink:

    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 1 = tank
    archetype 2 = anything
    class = some form of tank
  • SnekkersSnekkers Member, Alpha Two
    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 :wink:

    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
  • ConradConrad Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    JustVine wrote: »
    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
  • ConradConrad Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    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 :wink:

    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
  • ConradConrad Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    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 :wink:

    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
  • SnekkersSnekkers Member, Alpha Two
    Conrad wrote: »
    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 :wink:

    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
  • SnekkersSnekkers Member, Alpha Two
    Conrad wrote: »
    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 :wink:

    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

    Fighter/Tank :open_mouth:
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Conrad wrote: »
    JustVine wrote: »
    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 :neutral: ) but I wouldn't complain.
    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • ConradConrad Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Conrad wrote: »
    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 :wink:

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.