You would think something as simple as this would be pointless, but imagine if they named everything in the game without much thought. People take notice and it bothers them subconsciously. If they named all the cities, npc, territories, and bosses all really lame names people would take note and it would bother them. “Tank” just seems like a lack of effort, an error with consistency, or disregard for true fantasy immersion. It’s like the first boss we encountered was just named “Dragon”.
My point is that language is constantly evolving. The are many words with different definitions. There are words we use daily that originally meant something completely different. I would not be surprised that in the near future Websters dictionary adds a definition to the word "tank" as the big guy in a video game that stands up front facing down the enemy encouraging them to hit him instead of his teammates behind him. A great day when we, the gamers of the world, have forced a new definition for a word. Who would of thought that could happen 25 years ago.
In the first mmo's when you needed a meat shield people would shout looking for "Tank" not looking for Protector or Defender. I think that validates Tank as a solid archetype nomenclature
Protector and Defender can be substituted with Guardian
I think you misunderstand. We aren't talking about replacing the 'tank' role in the role Trinity, we are talking about renaming the tank archetype.
To counter your example, in old MMOs when people were looking for DPS (or DD), they didn't shout "Looking for Ranger," or "Looking for Fighter.". They shouted "Looking for DPS," YET there is no class called "DPS.".
The term "tank" is a general descriptor for a role, not a class. You will have more than one type of tank, so why name a class of the tank role, tank? Seems redundant and silly and inconsistent with the other naming conventions
You would think something as simple as this would be pointless, but imagine if they named everything in the game without much thought. People take notice and it bothers them subconsciously. If they named all the cities, npc, territories, and bosses all really lame names people would take note and it would bother them. “Tank” just seems like a lack of effort, an error with consistency, or disregard for true fantasy immersion. It’s like the first boss we encountered was just named “Dragon”.
My point is that language is constantly evolving. The are many words with different definitions. There are words we use daily that originally meant something completely different. I would not be surprised that in the near future Websters dictionary adds a definition to the word "tank" as the big guy in a video game that stands up front facing down the enemy encouraging them to hit him instead of his teammates behind him. A great day when we, the gamers of the world, have forced a new definition for a word. Who would of thought that could happen 25 years ago.
I wouldn’t call a dog a cat. Why should I use a name for a military vehicle to call a fantasy character in video game? We use the phrase “x is built like a tank” meaning it/they can take a lot of damage or is strong and sturdy. It makes sense because we know what a tank is, but do Verra citizens know what a tank is? How did they get the vocab lol. Logically, tank makes sense, but it’s still not cohesive and it’s not immersive for a fantasy game.
We don’t know how the class as a whole will be referred to. When looking for party members it may be “looking for tank”. Could mean any of the subclasses or it could be that another class takes “tank” as it’s secondary and can legitimately still tank without it being its main role. Just an example, but it could get annoying and confusing. Also, people just learning the game may have a preconceived notion that “Tanks” will only ever tank. That may be the intended case, but what if it turns out that tank + a certain sub class is a better option for healing, dps, or utility?
Yeah man, I get what you are saying about the confusion that it can cause: class vs actual role, playstyle, etc. I too can agree that it could also be called defender or protector. Though I am pretty indifferent if it happens or not because I think it won't make a difference in the long run. But that's just me.
And if it doesn't fit the intended design, it should be appropriately balanced.
Imagine quests with references to archetype/class names. If an NPC in a tavern says to me something like "I heard there's a cleric from <random place> sitting in the corner table", it sound pretty legit. Compare that to "I heard there's a tank from <random place> sitting in the corner table". This to me sounds awful. It just doesn't fit a fantasy themed game (other than on the meta level).
I'm not a fan of many of the other class names either but "tank" is the worst offender by a huge margin.
I don’t know about you @/mcstackerson, but I’ve never seen a class in my fantasy RPG games that rolls around and shoots artillery shells in my party of fighters, wizards, and healers.
Well they will prob use the class names instead of archetype names in quests. The way they structured it is you aren't even an adventurer until 25 when you get your class. That's the kind of vibe I get from the class system in relation to the world.
You will likely choose 1 of the 8 Archetypes when you are creating your character. If “Tank” is one of them, forevermore that archetype will be referenced on every single wiki, site, YouTube video, etc. So, even if they avoid using it in game, Tank will be very much be referenced somewhere. I think it looks tacky and would be annoying to reference a particular archetype as “tank”. Wish they would consider changing it.
I mean they may not. They may use terms we would to refer to part time jobs as people without a class. They may only use the archetypes to refer to things only we can see in our godly positions, but the people in the world refer to them as that guard. That mercenary. That hunter. That old lunatic playing the banjo.
I think having "Tank" as an archetype name is similar to having the Cleric archetype be named "Healer". It gets the job done and is perfectly descriptive, but doesn't inherently lend itself to roleplay immersion. It also seems a little out of place when compared to all the other names.
Personally, I would have named it something like Guardian. However, if Tank is what they want to stick to, then I have no doubt they'll do the work they need to in order to make work great.
I also agree Tank is a bad name for the archetype, unless it has a cannon and is made of steel. I would prefer if it was Guardian, Warden, Protector or forgive me for I will sin: Warrior. It would be cool to make a poll about this imho!
Yea, the problem is that tank is used at all to begin with. The definition of “tank”is a military vehicle. We only know the slang meaning of the word as gamers because it’s what we use to define a specific role. They should use warrior or some other Base class name. Tank shouldn’t even be on the list.
As an avid gamer. When I hear tank I don't think about the vehicle. I think about the meat shield taunter in a raid.
Tank wasn't even first used for the vehicle. It was used as a container. eg. A water tank. If I google tank now, all I get is TankJuice and I've never used them.
A tank is what it is. And when you're level 25 you won't be just a tank anymore. Heck, I wouldn't have worried if all the first tier classes were as follows:
healer
big two-hander weapon
dagger user
magi
bow and arrow man
musical man
tank
and well, I can't think of something for the summoner, as it is what it is, like the tank.
As you don't get your true name until you've chosen a sub/second class.
How the actually heck is this still being discussed? How is it a forum post? I don't understand...
THE TITLE ISN'T EVEN ACCURATE
I have never once gotten a tank in an mmo confused with an armored vehicle. I have also never gotten a tank that is an armored vehicle confused with the damage soaking agro getting archetype. Find me one person that in conversation got the two confused and i'll change my opinion.
Tank is an archetype not a class. Yeah if it was a class I'd say come on we can come up with a cooler name. But it isn't a class so who cares? It is a generic term used to describe a group of classes.
How the actually heck is this still being discussed? How is it a forum post? I don't understand...
THE TITLE ISN'T EVEN ACCURATE
I have never once gotten a tank in an mmo confused with an armored vehicle. I have also never gotten a tank that is an armored vehicle confused with the damage soaking agro getting archetype. Find me one person that in conversation got the two confused and i'll change my opinion.
Tank is an archetype not a class. Yeah if it was a class I'd say come on we can come up with a cooler name. But it isn't a class so who cares? It is a generic term used to describe a group of classes.
LOL. No one said they are confused. If you didn't pick up the tongue in cheek, sarcasm, and fact that "Tank" is a lame name to call anything as a formal class, archetype, or w/e... then you are missing the point.
How the actually heck is this still being discussed? How is it a forum post? I don't understand...
THE TITLE ISN'T EVEN ACCURATE
I have never once gotten a tank in an mmo confused with an armored vehicle. I have also never gotten a tank that is an armored vehicle confused with the damage soaking agro getting archetype. Find me one person that in conversation got the two confused and i'll change my opinion.
Tank is an archetype not a class. Yeah if it was a class I'd say come on we can come up with a cooler name. But it isn't a class so who cares? It is a generic term used to describe a group of classes.
LOL. No one said they are confused. If you didn't pick up the tongue in cheek, sarcasm, and fact that "Tank" is a lame name to call anything as a formal class, archetype, or w/e... then you are missing the point.
Oh I think it is very boring. But its a generic term we have been using for over a decade in games. We would need to come up with a generic term that classes could fall under. Tank simply fits the best and no one gets confused.
If its not broken don't fix it I think works best here.
Comments
My point is that language is constantly evolving. The are many words with different definitions. There are words we use daily that originally meant something completely different. I would not be surprised that in the near future Websters dictionary adds a definition to the word "tank" as the big guy in a video game that stands up front facing down the enemy encouraging them to hit him instead of his teammates behind him. A great day when we, the gamers of the world, have forced a new definition for a word. Who would of thought that could happen 25 years ago.
I think you misunderstand. We aren't talking about replacing the 'tank' role in the role Trinity, we are talking about renaming the tank archetype.
To counter your example, in old MMOs when people were looking for DPS (or DD), they didn't shout "Looking for Ranger," or "Looking for Fighter.". They shouted "Looking for DPS," YET there is no class called "DPS.".
The term "tank" is a general descriptor for a role, not a class. You will have more than one type of tank, so why name a class of the tank role, tank? Seems redundant and silly and inconsistent with the other naming conventions
U.S. East
I wouldn’t call a dog a cat. Why should I use a name for a military vehicle to call a fantasy character in video game? We use the phrase “x is built like a tank” meaning it/they can take a lot of damage or is strong and sturdy. It makes sense because we know what a tank is, but do Verra citizens know what a tank is? How did they get the vocab lol. Logically, tank makes sense, but it’s still not cohesive and it’s not immersive for a fantasy game.
Yeah man, I get what you are saying about the confusion that it can cause: class vs actual role, playstyle, etc. I too can agree that it could also be called defender or protector. Though I am pretty indifferent if it happens or not because I think it won't make a difference in the long run. But that's just me.
And if it doesn't fit the intended design, it should be appropriately balanced.
I'm not a fan of many of the other class names either but "tank" is the worst offender by a huge margin.
God I wish
Let's switch it to "M1 Abrams".
U.S. East
You will likely choose 1 of the 8 Archetypes when you are creating your character. If “Tank” is one of them, forevermore that archetype will be referenced on every single wiki, site, YouTube video, etc. So, even if they avoid using it in game, Tank will be very much be referenced somewhere. I think it looks tacky and would be annoying to reference a particular archetype as “tank”. Wish they would consider changing it.
U.S. East
Personally, I would have named it something like Guardian. However, if Tank is what they want to stick to, then I have no doubt they'll do the work they need to in order to make work great.
I vote for PROTECTOR.
U.S. East
Knight would be awesome, but that's already Tank/Fighter. Phalanx would sound good for a skill name, since that's a formation in battle.
Partisan
Chevalier
Brute
Defender
Protector
Bulwark
Liberator
Shield
Barbarian?
U.S. East
U.S. East
As an avid gamer. When I hear tank I don't think about the vehicle. I think about the meat shield taunter in a raid.
Tank wasn't even first used for the vehicle. It was used as a container. eg. A water tank. If I google tank now, all I get is TankJuice and I've never used them.
A tank is what it is. And when you're level 25 you won't be just a tank anymore. Heck, I wouldn't have worried if all the first tier classes were as follows:
healer
big two-hander weapon
dagger user
magi
bow and arrow man
musical man
tank
and well, I can't think of something for the summoner, as it is what it is, like the tank.
As you don't get your true name until you've chosen a sub/second class.
Twitch
Twitter
THE TITLE ISN'T EVEN ACCURATE
I have never once gotten a tank in an mmo confused with an armored vehicle. I have also never gotten a tank that is an armored vehicle confused with the damage soaking agro getting archetype. Find me one person that in conversation got the two confused and i'll change my opinion.
Tank is an archetype not a class. Yeah if it was a class I'd say come on we can come up with a cooler name. But it isn't a class so who cares? It is a generic term used to describe a group of classes.
LOL. No one said they are confused. If you didn't pick up the tongue in cheek, sarcasm, and fact that "Tank" is a lame name to call anything as a formal class, archetype, or w/e... then you are missing the point.
Oh I think it is very boring. But its a generic term we have been using for over a decade in games. We would need to come up with a generic term that classes could fall under. Tank simply fits the best and no one gets confused.
If its not broken don't fix it I think works best here.
Bender the Defender or Hector the protector so I hope it stays or that we get a turtle archetype.