More time communicating is great in any case.
But, it not an issue.
If you want a Tank, ask for a Tank.
If you want a Fighter, ask for a Fighter.
If you want a Rogue, ask for a Rogue.
Takes less time to ask for a Tank than it does to ask for a Guardian. And that's about the difference of one second.
You illustrate the problem perfectly!
If you want a Fighter because you need someone in the group that has "disarming blow" fighter skill, you get a fighter.
If you want a Rogue because you need someone to use "detect traps" rogue skill, you get a rogue.
If you want more dps in your group, you ask for a DPS, and you'll get people who are specced and geared into dps.
If you want more healing, you ask for a healer, and you'll get a cleric or a bard who can heal.
If you ask for a tank, what are you referring to? Just asking for a tank in general might get you a full strength dps/cc build Tank, who can't tank mobs but can give team buffs that only a Tank can while being very good at PvP. Or you might get a mage/cleric that is custom built to flash farm the content you are doing with self heals, blink and cc that will tank using resist gear and max constitution stat.
In my world if I want a tank, I'll get a tank
If I want a dps, I'll get a dps.
If I want a healer, I get a healer.
If I ask for a guardian, I get a guardian.
If I ask for a fighter, I get a fighter.
But I still haven't heard why having Tank as an archetype name is good. Why change this if it isn't broken? Why give the same name to two things that aren't strictly the same thing? Who benefits and why?
I see you continue to make stupid takes, and are counting an abbreviation as a potential class name as your argument now.
Actual no brain with some of the dumbest feedback I've seen. Clearly you don't play games, tank has always be an acceptable name. You want some weird shit that makes no sense clearly.
Cleric is a cleric,
Warrior is a warrior
Ranger is a ranger
tank is a tank
ETc
Please don't be this dumb about actual pointless feedback with names that fit fine.
Actually cant under stand some of the stupidity. Call the class by the more fancy class names you don't need to say tank if you want to be that different.
I see you have no arguments or are incapable of processing anything I said while also being rude about it. Thanks for reacting at least I guess.
I see you continue to make stupid takes, and are counting an abbreviation as a potential class name as your argument now.
Actual no brain with some of the dumbest feedback I've seen. Clearly you don't play games, tank has always be an acceptable name. You want some weird shit that makes no sense clearly.
Cleric is a cleric,
Warrior is a warrior
Ranger is a ranger
tank is a tank
ETc
Please don't be this dumb about actual pointless feedback with names that fit fine.
Actually cant under stand some of the stupidity. Call the class by the more fancy class names you don't need to say tank if you want to be that different.
I see you have no arguments or are incapable of processing anything I said while also being rude about it. Thanks for reacting at least I guess.
There is no argument needed to defend the name tank where the name fits the role....The fact you are arguing against it is weird more than anything. It is clear the names are meant to be basic and straight froward and the fancy names are the two fused together.
This is why people say you are giving bad feedback.
I think Mitigater sounds way cooler than Tank and would lead to far less frustrating and confusing instances than the current implementation would. If you really want to compare fighter and ranger to tank, that or Defender are the far more reasonable linguistic comparisons.
Not that it matters. As long as people argue 'Steven said he's not changing it' and use that as an excuse to support all of his terrible name choices (Spellmancer? really?) this 'conversation' is the opposite of discourse.
I'll continue to recommend cooler names though. It's a free Bingo space.
This threads' class is clearly Death Knight not tank.
More time communicating is great in any case.
But, it not an issue.
If you want a Tank, ask for a Tank.
If you want a Fighter, ask for a Fighter.
If you want a Rogue, ask for a Rogue.
Takes less time to ask for a Tank than it does to ask for a Guardian. And that's about the difference of one second.
You illustrate the problem perfectly!
If you want a Fighter because you need someone in the group that has "disarming blow" fighter skill, you get a fighter.
If you want a Rogue because you need someone to use "detect traps" rogue skill, you get a rogue.
If you want more dps in your group, you ask for a DPS, and you'll get people who are specced and geared into dps.
If you want more healing, you ask for a healer, and you'll get a cleric or a bard who can heal.
If you ask for a tank, what are you referring to? Just asking for a tank in general might get you a full strength dps/cc build Tank, who can't tank mobs but can give team buffs that only a Tank can while being very good at PvP. Or you might get a mage/cleric that is custom built to flash farm the content you are doing with self heals, blink and cc that will tank using resist gear and max constitution stat.
In my world if I want a tank, I'll get a tank
If I want a dps, I'll get a dps.
If I want a healer, I get a healer.
If I ask for a guardian, I get a guardian.
If I ask for a fighter, I get a fighter.
But I still haven't heard why having Tank as an archetype name is good. Why change this if it isn't broken? Why give the same name to two things that aren't strictly the same thing? Who benefits and why?
People know what a tank is and what they refer to.....You are making shit up.
The same thing applies to this guardian (i have no clue what you are trying to copy smite names) that could be doing the same thing as a tank and making a more heavy dps with less taunt....
You are giving not jsut bad feedback but its pointless, tank is fine. If tank was name something like rogue, then you can make a point about it being confusing....
This is why people say you are giving bad feedback.
By people you mean yourself. And if this is such a common sense thing, why isn't any other mmo naming their class Tank? Could it be because you can tank with many classes, and the classes that can tank can also do other things than tank such as dps or healing?
The only places where something is called a Tank is in games where characters are split into a roles, like in Overwatch. The inverse of this would be Overwatch having the roles "Tank, Defense, Offense, Support and Wizard". If you saw this you'd go, "wtf wizard isn't a role, that's a character type that can be a Defence, Offence or Support role (or a Tank sometimes too.)"
But anyway just keep calling me stupid, I'm sure that makes you right.
This is why people say you are giving bad feedback.
By people you mean yourself. And if this is such a common sense thing, why isn't any other mmo naming their class Tank? Could it be because you can tank with many classes, and the classes that can tank can also do other things than tank such as dps or healing?
The only places where something is called a Tank is in games where characters are split into a roles, like in Overwatch. The inverse of this would be Overwatch having the roles "Tank, Defense, Offense, Support and Wizard". If you saw this you'd go, "wtf wizard isn't a role, that's a character type that can be a Defence, Offence or Support role (or a Tank sometimes too.)"
But anyway just keep calling me stupid, I'm sure that makes you right.
You must not read comments.
People have been calling tanks, tanks since the beginning of time. This is why i know you have no clue what you are talking about trying to cite overwatch. As overwatch took that term from MMORPGS, because overwatch was originally created to be a mmorpg......
If you want more dps in your group, you ask for a DPS, and you'll get people who are specced and geared into dps.
If you want more healing, you ask for a healer, and you'll get a cleric or a bard who can heal.
Uh. No.
In Ashes, you primarily ask for the Primary Archetype you need to fill one of the 8 slots in your group.
If you want more healing, you probably request people with Life School augments.
If you want more DPS, you probably request people with Rogue augments or Mage augments - by School - so you know how to best synergize with them.
If you ask for a tank, what are you referring to? Just asking for a tank in general might get you a full strength dps/cc build Tank, who can't tank mobs but can give team buffs that only a Tank can while being very good at PvP. Or you might get a mage/cleric that is custom built to flash farm the content you are doing with self heals, blink and cc that will tank using resist gear and max constitution stat.
In Ashes, if you ask for a Tank, you are asking for a Primary Archetype Tank.
Just as, if you ask for a Fighter, you are asking for a Primary Archetype Fighter and if you ask for a Mage, you are asking for a Primary Archetype Mage.
In my world if I want a tank, I'll get a tank
If I want a dps, I'll get a dps.
If I want a healer, I get a healer.
But...
Ashes is not your world.
Ashes is not EQ.
Ashes is not WoW.
You should probably adapt your gameplay to match Ashes gameplay. If you're going to play Ashes.
But I still haven't heard why having Tank as an archetype name is good. Why change this if it isn't broken? Why give the same name to two things that aren't strictly the same thing? Who benefits and why?
Having Tank as an Archetype label is a dev choice.
People can adapt. Just as they will adapt to the difference between an Archetype and a Class.
Uh. No.
In Ashes, you primarily ask for the Primary Archetype you need to fill one of the 8 slots in your group.
If you want more healing, you probably request people with Life School augments.
If you want more DPS, you probably request people with Rogue augments or Mage augments - by School - so you know how to best synergize with them.
This is just not true from any of the material that's been released. If you want more healing, you don't want someone side specced into Life Augments (which are mostly self heals according to what I read), but you want another cleric or a bard who is building for the primary role of a healer.
Also while the balance is around 8 man groups, most groups will be bigger or smaller than strictly 8 depending on the content. If you have a 20 man group and want more dps, you absolutely will pick a mage/fighter full dps build over a cleric/rogue or tank/mage.
But...
Ashes is not your world.
Ashes is not EQ.
Ashes is not WoW.
You should probably adapt your gameplay to match Ashes gameplay. If you're going to play Ashes.
Having Tank as an Archetype label is a dev choice.
People can adapt. Just as they will adapt to the difference between an Archetype and a Class.
What if the dev decision is bad? Aren't you against the open seas pvp change? That was a dev choice and you should be adapting to it.
And again, nobody is saying why this name change is good. Why should I accept something that has only downsides but no notable upsides? Why are people defending this so heavily O.o?
How is this any different to names like summoner or fighter? Yes, those names have been used for classes in the past but isn't it a similar situation where a fighter is someone who fights and a summoner is someone who summoners?
Huge difference. Tank is an internet slang to describe a role, summoner is how one might identify someone who does exactly what one who summons does, no different than calling a cook a "cook". It also avoids attaching a type of summoner so there's more flexibility. (Not a demon or undead summoner warlock/necromancer type)
fighter is meant to be ambiguous like the term warrior-- because they can come in many forms, as a swordsman, soldier, berserker, etc.
Imagine having no class names and just renaming them all "DPS, Tank, Healer" technically healer could pass, but it would be lazy.
How is this any different to names like summoner or fighter? Yes, those names have been used for classes in the past but isn't it a similar situation where a fighter is someone who fights and a summoner is someone who summoners?
Huge difference. Tank is an internet slang to describe a role, summoner is just what exactly one who summons does no different than calling a cook a "cook",
fighter is meant to be ambiguous like the term warrior-- because they can come in many forms, as a swordsman, soldier, berserker, etc.
Imagine having no class names and just renaming them all "DPS, Tank, Healer" technically healer could pass, but it would be lazy.
Healer is prominently used throughout history and in modern times. The obvious reason is that there were people that were adept at helping others through sicknesses or injuries. Our history never had a need to tank monsters the size of houses. It didn't have fast-acting magical healing abilities that would prolong the life of someone being repeatedly hit by deadly blows.
If it did, there would be a word similar to Tank that fit that role. However we live in a world where it was not the norm, but this fantasy world is different. It does have all of those things, and a culture around adventurers teaming up, with a trinity of roles + supports to achieve goals. Be it fighting monsters or bandit, a tank is invaluable in these situations, so it is absolutely reasonable for there to be a generic name for such people in that sort of world. Just like we call Doctors, medicine men/women, witch doctors, wiccans, etc, Healers.
How is this any different to names like summoner or fighter? Yes, those names have been used for classes in the past but isn't it a similar situation where a fighter is someone who fights and a summoner is someone who summoners?
Huge difference. Tank is an internet slang to describe a role, summoner is how one might identify someone who does exactly what one who summons does, no different than calling a cook a "cook". It also avoids attaching a type of summoner so there's more flexibility. (Not a demon or undead summoner warlock/necromancer type)
fighter is meant to be ambiguous like the term warrior-- because they can come in many forms, as a swordsman, soldier, berserker, etc.
Imagine having no class names and just renaming them all "DPS, Tank, Healer" technically healer could pass, but it would be lazy.
I will also add to this that.. okay, technically the classes themselves are not being called Tank, just the combined class archetypes defining your class. Still iffy for me but not as bad
My random take:
How about we just grab a random synonym of defender/protector/guardian/meat-shield/whatever and translate it to Latin and call it a day?
A better name would be along the lines of "General", Legionary/Legionnaire or Captain as it signifies an authoritative position, one that combines well with any sort of tanking / heavy armor role.
My random take:
How about we just grab a random synonym of defender/protector/guardian/meat-shield/whatever and translate it to Latin and call it a day?
I looked up and at least for defender and protector you end up with something sounding very similar to the english word. Guardian seems to be Custos according to google, and that makes tanking sound like a janitorial job. No cool latin for us beefybros
Tbh I would just take any of those english words over tank, though meat-shield might be pushing it!
A better name would be along the lines of "General", Legionary/Legionnaire or Captain as it signifies an authoritative position, one that combines well with any sort of tanking / heavy armor role.
I can't find a source for this, but I think they wanted to decouple tank from the raid leader role. Also in the last discord community hours tank discussion the implication I got was that they want groups to have multiple tanks, not just maintank and offtank. Though I could be mixing up the community opinion with the dev opinion.
So maaaybe a leadership related name might be misleading?
I can't find a source for this, but I think they wanted to decouple tank from the raid leader role. Also in the last discord community hours tank discussion the implication I got was that they want groups to have multiple tanks, not just maintank and offtank. Though I could be mixing up the community opinion with the dev opinion.
So maaaybe a leadership related name might be misleading?
You could be right, I haven't dug into the whole game plan to know all the details for the big picture of the game design, but if that's the case I would agree with you.
On this thought, there is still something that is commanding and organized about the role of a tank whether they're an active leader or not. They're the one heading the fight, taking charge to intercept the enemy defending allies, so it's hard to not see them as a leadership role. Even if it's distributed or exchanged between themselves it may just be just another kind of hot potato, Like various captains leading their units on different fronts
I can't find a source for this, but I think they wanted to decouple tank from the raid leader role. Also in the last discord community hours tank discussion the implication I got was that they want groups to have multiple tanks, not just maintank and offtank. Though I could be mixing up the community opinion with the dev opinion.
So maaaybe a leadership related name might be misleading?
You could be right, I haven't dug into the whole game plan to know all the details for the big picture of the game design, but if that's the case I would agree with you.
On this thought, there is still something that is commanding and organized about the role of a tank whether they're an active leader or not. They're the one heading the fight, taking charge to intercept the enemy defending allies, so it's hard to not see them as a leadership role. Even if it's distributed or exchanged between themselves it may just be just another kind of hot potato, Like various captains leading their units on different fronts
I don’t think being a tank automatically promotes you to being a leader. Though, I think a lot of good tanks with poor leadership skills agree with you.
Some tanks are good leaders, but I’ve seen a number of high performing raid groups where the best leaders play heals or dps. Since there’s greater perspective on the fight.
Leadership is a person/player skill, and not tied to class or group role.
Honestly what's the plan for if they decide to add more tanking classes? Or non-tanking Tanks as a viable playstyle? "LF Tank (tanking) and Tank (class)" is gonna look silly
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This is just not true from any of the material that's been released. If you want more healing, you don't want someone side specced into Life Augments (which are mostly self heals according to what I read), but you want another cleric or a bard who is building for the primary role of a healer.
All this tells us is that you aren’t very familiar with what’s been released.
Also while the balance is around 8 man groups, most groups will be bigger or smaller than strictly 8 depending on the content. If you have a 20 man group and want more dps, you absolutely will pick a mage/fighter full dps build over a cleric/rogue or tank/mage.
What if the dev decision is bad? Aren't you against the open seas pvp change? That was a dev choice and you should be adapting to it.
1: What if it’s not bad?
2: How do you define bad?
3: I’m not against the Open Seas PvP change. It’s just a server rule set that I won’t play. That rule change is not bad. It’s great for people who enjoy PvP.
And again, nobody is saying why this name change is good. Why should I accept something that has only downsides but no notable upsides? Why are people defending this so heavily O.o?
As far as I know, there has been no name change.
That Archetype name has always been Tank.
It’s a dev choice. Can’t please all of the people all of the time.
If you don’t want to accept it, don’t accept it.
People are defending the name so heavily because they think it’s fine.
Different strokes for different folks.
@Dygz
I don't think I can convince you if we perceive the information available about the game differently. I guess the final statement I have to you is that I can clearly state why I think it's bad to have an archetype name collide with a trinity role name. At the same time, the people defending the name can't state any reason why this is good, but rather that "it's not bad".
If the defenders of the name are just neutral about the situation, I don't see a reason not to go with the standard mmo class naming. Clearly all of you would be just as okay with any other name if Steven had proposed it. If people are only either negative or neutral about an issue, it's a good idea to do something about it.
I don’t think being a tank automatically promotes you to being a leader. Though, I think a lot of good tanks with poor leadership skills agree with you.
Some tanks are good leaders, but I’ve seen a number of high performing raid groups where the best leaders play heals or dps. Since there’s greater perspective on the fight.
Leadership is a person/player skill, and not tied to class or group role.
I'm speaking purely from a game immersion point of view of what tank roles represent. I agree it doesn't magically put you in a leadership role to define you as one behind the screen, and can also give people the wrong impression that they are entitled to be treated like one.
We also see characters acting as heavy armor or using their big size to be the "shield wall" for a leader like a bodyguard to a president or mobster, but in game they are kind of a shot caller, due to how game mechanics work. The rest of the group falls apart or probably dies if tank doesn't hold aggro, if the wrong people are making pulls it leads to them getting 1 shot or almost dying, the one who holds the aggro controls where the fight happens and where it faces. And if you translated that into traits of a character from a fictional point of view, you can't just be any schmuck, you're a trained professional that has a bit more directive over the situation.
Unless they're really taking away that lead to make fighting more distributed, making tanks slightly weaker fighters that live longer and used to endure certain high pressure enemy burst windows instead of holding mob attention the whole fight, then I can see it changing
I'm speaking purely from a game immersion point of view of what tank roles represent. I agree it doesn't magically put you in a leadership role to define you as one behind the screen, and can also give people the wrong impression that they are entitled to be treated like one.
Exactly. Well said. 👍
I’ve left waay too many groups where the tank acts like a douche because they think that’s some sort of leadership trait.
While many tanks dont appreciate it, I make a point of reminding tanks new to grouping/raiding with me that they are in fact meat shields.
I do this to dispel any initial notion they may have that they are in some sort of leadership position due to their function in the group/raid.
Function in a group/raid is a product of your class/build/gear choices, leadership is a product of your personality and ability - and must be earned over time.
While many tanks dont appreciate it, I make a point of reminding tanks new to grouping/raiding with me that they are in fact meat shields.
I do this to dispel any initial notion they may have that they are in some sort of leadership position due to their function in the group/raid.
Function in a group/raid is a product of your class/build/gear choices, leadership is a product of your personality and ability - and must be earned over time.
You seem very smart and in charge. Thank you for correcting all those other people who think they are smart and in charge. You do a great service to humanity.
While many tanks dont appreciate it, I make a point of reminding tanks new to grouping/raiding with me that they are in fact meat shields.
I do this to dispel any initial notion they may have that they are in some sort of leadership position due to their function in the group/raid.
Function in a group/raid is a product of your class/build/gear choices, leadership is a product of your personality and ability - and must be earned over time.
You seem very smart and in charge. Thank you for correcting all those other people who think they are smart and in charge. You do a great service to humanity.
Oh hey, sarcasm on the internet! Quick, post some picture of your cats, you can be the first to do TWO things on the internet today!
In all seriousness, what?
If I am organizing a group or raid, obviously I will be the leader. If you are organizing it, obviously you will. If you are organizing a group or raid and the tank thinks they are in charge, what are you going to do about it? Let them run proceedings?
Rule number 1 of leadership is that people should know who is in charge. Everyone should know that without anyone having to ever say it, and ideally without the person in charge having to act as if they are in charge (this requires a high degree of ability from everyone on the team though). You wont ever see me telling a new tank that *I am in charge*, I will simply tell them that they are not.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@Dygz
I don't think I can convince you if we perceive the information available about the game differently.
You certainly can't convince me.
If the devs wish to change the names, they will change the names. If they don't wish to change the names, they won't.
It's unlikely to be a dealbreaker for the vast majority of players.
Oh, I play a tank! Yea, but like what class? TANK!! *insert meme of a tank with a face on it... drooling*
I was thinking exactly the same. How “Tank” can be a class. Tank just mean heavy armor and lots of HP. So we can be Wizard tank, magician tank or whatever but not just “tank”. Hi hope they gonna change it as it looks ridiculous.
Comments
You illustrate the problem perfectly!
If you want a Fighter because you need someone in the group that has "disarming blow" fighter skill, you get a fighter.
If you want a Rogue because you need someone to use "detect traps" rogue skill, you get a rogue.
If you want more dps in your group, you ask for a DPS, and you'll get people who are specced and geared into dps.
If you want more healing, you ask for a healer, and you'll get a cleric or a bard who can heal.
If you ask for a tank, what are you referring to? Just asking for a tank in general might get you a full strength dps/cc build Tank, who can't tank mobs but can give team buffs that only a Tank can while being very good at PvP. Or you might get a mage/cleric that is custom built to flash farm the content you are doing with self heals, blink and cc that will tank using resist gear and max constitution stat.
In my world if I want a tank, I'll get a tank
If I want a dps, I'll get a dps.
If I want a healer, I get a healer.
If I ask for a guardian, I get a guardian.
If I ask for a fighter, I get a fighter.
But I still haven't heard why having Tank as an archetype name is good. Why change this if it isn't broken? Why give the same name to two things that aren't strictly the same thing? Who benefits and why?
I see you have no arguments or are incapable of processing anything I said while also being rude about it. Thanks for reacting at least I guess.
There is no argument needed to defend the name tank where the name fits the role....The fact you are arguing against it is weird more than anything. It is clear the names are meant to be basic and straight froward and the fancy names are the two fused together.
This is why people say you are giving bad feedback.
Not that it matters. As long as people argue 'Steven said he's not changing it' and use that as an excuse to support all of his terrible name choices (Spellmancer? really?) this 'conversation' is the opposite of discourse.
I'll continue to recommend cooler names though. It's a free Bingo space.
This threads' class is clearly Death Knight not tank.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
People know what a tank is and what they refer to.....You are making shit up.
The same thing applies to this guardian (i have no clue what you are trying to copy smite names) that could be doing the same thing as a tank and making a more heavy dps with less taunt....
You are giving not jsut bad feedback but its pointless, tank is fine. If tank was name something like rogue, then you can make a point about it being confusing....
By people you mean yourself. And if this is such a common sense thing, why isn't any other mmo naming their class Tank? Could it be because you can tank with many classes, and the classes that can tank can also do other things than tank such as dps or healing?
The only places where something is called a Tank is in games where characters are split into a roles, like in Overwatch. The inverse of this would be Overwatch having the roles "Tank, Defense, Offense, Support and Wizard". If you saw this you'd go, "wtf wizard isn't a role, that's a character type that can be a Defence, Offence or Support role (or a Tank sometimes too.)"
But anyway just keep calling me stupid, I'm sure that makes you right.
You must not read comments.
People have been calling tanks, tanks since the beginning of time. This is why i know you have no clue what you are talking about trying to cite overwatch. As overwatch took that term from MMORPGS, because overwatch was originally created to be a mmorpg......
In Ashes, you primarily ask for the Primary Archetype you need to fill one of the 8 slots in your group.
If you want more healing, you probably request people with Life School augments.
If you want more DPS, you probably request people with Rogue augments or Mage augments - by School - so you know how to best synergize with them.
In Ashes, if you ask for a Tank, you are asking for a Primary Archetype Tank.
Just as, if you ask for a Fighter, you are asking for a Primary Archetype Fighter and if you ask for a Mage, you are asking for a Primary Archetype Mage.
But...
Ashes is not your world.
Ashes is not EQ.
Ashes is not WoW.
You should probably adapt your gameplay to match Ashes gameplay. If you're going to play Ashes.
Having Tank as an Archetype label is a dev choice.
People can adapt. Just as they will adapt to the difference between an Archetype and a Class.
This is just not true from any of the material that's been released. If you want more healing, you don't want someone side specced into Life Augments (which are mostly self heals according to what I read), but you want another cleric or a bard who is building for the primary role of a healer.
Also while the balance is around 8 man groups, most groups will be bigger or smaller than strictly 8 depending on the content. If you have a 20 man group and want more dps, you absolutely will pick a mage/fighter full dps build over a cleric/rogue or tank/mage.
What if the dev decision is bad? Aren't you against the open seas pvp change? That was a dev choice and you should be adapting to it.
And again, nobody is saying why this name change is good. Why should I accept something that has only downsides but no notable upsides? Why are people defending this so heavily O.o?
Go read the comments since I made mine. Count the number of people calling my feedback bad.
You might have a multiple personality disorder my dude.
Please read the post and take your time, they are there. This is a bad take, your arguments don't hold up.
You simply want to copy smite names.
Huge difference. Tank is an internet slang to describe a role, summoner is how one might identify someone who does exactly what one who summons does, no different than calling a cook a "cook". It also avoids attaching a type of summoner so there's more flexibility. (Not a demon or undead summoner warlock/necromancer type)
fighter is meant to be ambiguous like the term warrior-- because they can come in many forms, as a swordsman, soldier, berserker, etc.
Imagine having no class names and just renaming them all "DPS, Tank, Healer" technically healer could pass, but it would be lazy.
Healer is prominently used throughout history and in modern times. The obvious reason is that there were people that were adept at helping others through sicknesses or injuries. Our history never had a need to tank monsters the size of houses. It didn't have fast-acting magical healing abilities that would prolong the life of someone being repeatedly hit by deadly blows.
If it did, there would be a word similar to Tank that fit that role. However we live in a world where it was not the norm, but this fantasy world is different. It does have all of those things, and a culture around adventurers teaming up, with a trinity of roles + supports to achieve goals. Be it fighting monsters or bandit, a tank is invaluable in these situations, so it is absolutely reasonable for there to be a generic name for such people in that sort of world. Just like we call Doctors, medicine men/women, witch doctors, wiccans, etc, Healers.
I will also add to this that.. okay, technically the classes themselves are not being called Tank, just the combined class archetypes defining your class. Still iffy for me but not as bad
How about we just grab a random synonym of defender/protector/guardian/meat-shield/whatever and translate it to Latin and call it a day?
I looked up and at least for defender and protector you end up with something sounding very similar to the english word. Guardian seems to be Custos according to google, and that makes tanking sound like a janitorial job. No cool latin for us beefybros
Tbh I would just take any of those english words over tank, though meat-shield might be pushing it!
I can't find a source for this, but I think they wanted to decouple tank from the raid leader role. Also in the last discord community hours tank discussion the implication I got was that they want groups to have multiple tanks, not just maintank and offtank. Though I could be mixing up the community opinion with the dev opinion.
So maaaybe a leadership related name might be misleading?
You could be right, I haven't dug into the whole game plan to know all the details for the big picture of the game design, but if that's the case I would agree with you.
On this thought, there is still something that is commanding and organized about the role of a tank whether they're an active leader or not. They're the one heading the fight, taking charge to intercept the enemy defending allies, so it's hard to not see them as a leadership role. Even if it's distributed or exchanged between themselves it may just be just another kind of hot potato, Like various captains leading their units on different fronts
I don’t think being a tank automatically promotes you to being a leader. Though, I think a lot of good tanks with poor leadership skills agree with you.
Some tanks are good leaders, but I’ve seen a number of high performing raid groups where the best leaders play heals or dps. Since there’s greater perspective on the fight.
Leadership is a person/player skill, and not tied to class or group role.
Depends on how much more dps you want.
1: What if it’s not bad?
2: How do you define bad?
3: I’m not against the Open Seas PvP change. It’s just a server rule set that I won’t play. That rule change is not bad. It’s great for people who enjoy PvP.
As far as I know, there has been no name change.
That Archetype name has always been Tank.
It’s a dev choice. Can’t please all of the people all of the time.
If you don’t want to accept it, don’t accept it.
People are defending the name so heavily because they think it’s fine.
Different strokes for different folks.
I don't think I can convince you if we perceive the information available about the game differently. I guess the final statement I have to you is that I can clearly state why I think it's bad to have an archetype name collide with a trinity role name. At the same time, the people defending the name can't state any reason why this is good, but rather that "it's not bad".
If the defenders of the name are just neutral about the situation, I don't see a reason not to go with the standard mmo class naming. Clearly all of you would be just as okay with any other name if Steven had proposed it. If people are only either negative or neutral about an issue, it's a good idea to do something about it.
I'm speaking purely from a game immersion point of view of what tank roles represent. I agree it doesn't magically put you in a leadership role to define you as one behind the screen, and can also give people the wrong impression that they are entitled to be treated like one.
We also see characters acting as heavy armor or using their big size to be the "shield wall" for a leader like a bodyguard to a president or mobster, but in game they are kind of a shot caller, due to how game mechanics work. The rest of the group falls apart or probably dies if tank doesn't hold aggro, if the wrong people are making pulls it leads to them getting 1 shot or almost dying, the one who holds the aggro controls where the fight happens and where it faces. And if you translated that into traits of a character from a fictional point of view, you can't just be any schmuck, you're a trained professional that has a bit more directive over the situation.
Unless they're really taking away that lead to make fighting more distributed, making tanks slightly weaker fighters that live longer and used to endure certain high pressure enemy burst windows instead of holding mob attention the whole fight, then I can see it changing
Exactly. Well said. 👍
I’ve left waay too many groups where the tank acts like a douche because they think that’s some sort of leadership trait.
I do this to dispel any initial notion they may have that they are in some sort of leadership position due to their function in the group/raid.
Function in a group/raid is a product of your class/build/gear choices, leadership is a product of your personality and ability - and must be earned over time.
You seem very smart and in charge. Thank you for correcting all those other people who think they are smart and in charge. You do a great service to humanity.
Oh hey, sarcasm on the internet! Quick, post some picture of your cats, you can be the first to do TWO things on the internet today!
In all seriousness, what?
If I am organizing a group or raid, obviously I will be the leader. If you are organizing it, obviously you will. If you are organizing a group or raid and the tank thinks they are in charge, what are you going to do about it? Let them run proceedings?
Rule number 1 of leadership is that people should know who is in charge. Everyone should know that without anyone having to ever say it, and ideally without the person in charge having to act as if they are in charge (this requires a high degree of ability from everyone on the team though). You wont ever see me telling a new tank that *I am in charge*, I will simply tell them that they are not.
If the devs wish to change the names, they will change the names. If they don't wish to change the names, they won't.
It's unlikely to be a dealbreaker for the vast majority of players.
I was thinking exactly the same. How “Tank” can be a class. Tank just mean heavy armor and lots of HP. So we can be Wizard tank, magician tank or whatever but not just “tank”. Hi hope they gonna change it as it looks ridiculous.