The problem with having “Tank” as a class name

Hello all, I believe this discussion may have come up before, but I really would like Steven and friends to reconsider the name “Tank”. Overall, they have done a good job at naming the other classes and subclasses, but they ruin the immersion of the game by using the class name “tank”. Tank was a code name given to military vehicles being created in 1915. It has been a slang term for classes and archetypes in many video games given to the role that is used to absorb/mitigate or “tank” damage. Having a class name feels very uncharacteristic compared to the other class names. It’s like naming your cat “Cat”. It’s cute and punny, but is that what they really want for their game? What class do you play? Oh, I play a tank! Yea, but like what class? TANK!! *insert meme of a tank with a face on it... drooling*

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Dygz

I think no matter what term Tolkien used instead of tank, the prose would have been way better than yours, and his use of Tank in his own prose would have sounded wondrous.

"Do you really mean that Sathrago is one of the people of the old Kings? I thought they had all vanished long ago. I thought he was only a Tank."
"Only a Tank! My dear Frodo, that is precisely who the Tanks are: the last remnant in the North of the great people, the Men of the East."

"Lonely men are we Tanks of the Undermountain, soldiers - but soldiers ever in battle with the servants of the Enemy; for they are found in many places, not in Mordor only."

Works fine for me.

Noaani

Marcet wrote: »

Yeah dude! let's defend the indefensible

It is not indefensible.

The class could have taken it's name in the exact same way as tank vehicles took their name. It is no less ludicrous that the vehicles we know of ass tanks are called tanks - we just all live with that fact because we don't know any better.

Additionally, it can be defended by the simple fact that it is what players are going to call them regardless of what Intrepid calls them.

Calling something indefensible when there are two perfectly valid defenses in front of you is a really weird thing to do - even if you don't personally like those defenses.

Marcet

I very much agree with you Nooani

Conrad

Well, since Tank Tank is already Guardian, I dont see the point of such a stupid class name as Tank

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Classes#Classes_by_archetype_combination

Marcet

Dygz wrote: »

I think no matter what term Tolkien used instead of tank, the prose would have been way better than yours, and his use of Tank in his own prose would have sounded wondrous.

"Do you really mean that Sathrago is one of the people of the old Kings? I thought they had all vanished long ago. I thought he was only a Tank."
"Only a Tank! My dear Frodo, that is precisely who the Tanks are: the last remnant in the North of the great people, the Men of the East."

"Lonely men are we Tanks of the Undermountain, soldiers - but soldiers ever in battle with the servants of the Enemy; for they are found in many places, not in Mordor only."

Works fine for me.

Im sorry, I tried. Im from spain so my english is very poor. What you wrote was dope tho.

Dygz

Marcet wrote: »

Im sorry, I tried. Im from spain so my english is very poor. What you wrote was dope tho.

Hablas inglés mejor que yo hablo español.
I should think about trying to read the Hobbit in Spanish. I wish I had thought of trying to do that when I was in High School!

Asgerr

Dygz wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

Im sorry, I tried. Im from spain so my english is very poor. What you wrote was dope tho.

Hablas inglés mejor que yo hablo español.
I should think about trying to read the Hobbit in Spanish. I wish I had thought of trying to do that when I was in High School!

It's honestly not a bad translation either. Read it myself in Spanish and it retains quite well some of the Tolkienisms, although it perhaps feels less.... ancient? Still it's very a much a children's book so perhaps the level of depth from Lotr and the Silmarillion is not warranted.

SirChancelot

If you're calling the tank class 'tank'
Why not have the cleric called 'heal'
That's why I thought the tank was an odd name choice...
Just call it guardian and have a guardian/guardian be a phalanx or some such...

daveywavey

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

If you're calling the tank class 'tank'
Why not have the cleric called 'heal'
That's why I thought the tank was an odd name choice...
Just call it guardian and have a guardian/guardian be a phalanx or some such...

A "phalanx" is a unit of soldiers, not an individual soldier. To call it a phalanx would be even more ridiculous.

Sathrago

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

If you're calling the tank class 'tank'
Why not have the cleric called 'heal'
That's why I thought the tank was an odd name choice...
Just call it guardian and have a guardian/guardian be a phalanx or some such...

Not all flavors of tank fall under guardian yet they all fall under tank. You forget that tank will be used as an augment as well.

Yuyukoyay

I support the name Tank because if it's not named that then you will see people try to argue that they are supposed to DPS as the Tank class. People will fully expect pretty much all tanks in the game to be tanks for every party in the game. With few exceptions because I doubt they will ever do comparable damage to any other archetype.

I expect them to be Tank/support with dps rotations you are naturally going to do to increase the groups dps, but I doubt their damage is going to compare to primary damage archetypes. Since if they did do comparable damage then they would unbalance PvP completely and make the game suck since a full group of tanks would overpower every combination in PvP.

So for that reason it's a really good name because it destroys stupid people's dreams of doing top dps as a tank which likely won't be possible.

Vanilla WoW had a couple extremely shitty builds in it that people picked. Melee hunters, Balance Druids, and Arcane Mages are all good examples of what picking a Tank for DPS will probably be like in this game. So the name Tank doesn't give you any stupid ideas of what they fully expect the primary archetype to do. xD

Dygz

We could call a Cleric a Healer. That's just not the word the game happens to use - especially since Ashes Clerics are not as focused on primarily healing as they are in previous MMORPGs.
Tank for people who tank is no worse than Fighter for people who fight.

Tanks soak damage, so that fits with a heavy, metal plated object that soaks up something, like water.

Yuyukoyay

Cleric gives you the idea that healing should be their primary concern. All others should be secondary concerns unless there are ways to both heal and do damage. Which there likely will be with clerics. However, Tanking and DPS are generally opposition to each other. Since in most MMO's classes take damage cuts if their survivability is meant to be high.

Tanking doesn't have the same balance associated with it that hybrids generally would be. Since High Threat Generation is a trait they have at the expense of others.

SirChancelot

daveywavey wrote: »

A "phalanx" is a unit of soldiers, not an individual soldier. To call it a phalanx would be even more ridiculous.

He is tank/tank the shield'iest of shields... One might say a one man phalanx...

Noaani

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

A "phalanx" is a unit of soldiers, not an individual soldier. To call it a phalanx would be even more ridiculous.

He is tank/tank the shield'iest of shields... One might say a one man phalanx...

One might not say that as well.

Not all tanks will use shields. As such, Phalanx is automatically inappropriate.

Sathrago

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

A "phalanx" is a unit of soldiers, not an individual soldier. To call it a phalanx would be even more ridiculous.

He is tank/tank the shield'iest of shields... One might say a one man phalanx...

I want to re-suggest my favorite alternative. TankyMcTankFace

Cold 0ne FTB

Jesus people really are passionate about this one. 830 comments. Lol it's just a name. It's not even your final class's name.

Marcet

Cold 0ne FTB wrote: »

Jesus people really are passionate about this one. 830 comments. Lol it's just a name. It's not even your final class's name.

Exactly, is the primary class, archetype or whatever you wanna call it. That doesn't make it better.

Just imagine an NPC telling you: "You are a brave TANK, adventurer, and I know you want to become a Nightshield... but you have to first do this quest that will prove you are a true Nightshield, and not a TANK, because you know you are a simple TANK right now, but you will stop being a TANK to be a Nightshield, okay TANK?"

The game is gonna be like that and don't tell me otherwise.

Dygz

"You are a brave Tank. You will need to accrue quite a bit of experience before you become a Nightshield."

Sounds, perfect to me.
A Nightshield is a type of Tank, so there is no point where a Nightshield is not a Tank.

Valentine

Cold 0ne FTB wrote: »

Jesus people really are passionate about this one. 830 comments. Lol it's just a name. It's not even your final class's name.

To be fair there are a lot better names for the final ones too, though I will be a cultist I think so as long as I don't change class I'll be fine =p

Child Item