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

Shoelid

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...

We can't call the cleric 'healer' for two reasons: Other classes like Bard may have some slight healing capabilities, and Cleric can spec into things other than being a healer.

The Tanking role is solely unique the the Tank archetype. Tanks pull aggro and soak damage. Until there is a different word that describes those functions, they should be called tank. Until there is another archetype that can pull aggro and soak damage, they should be called tank.

The etymology of the term Tank has been brought up enough: there's no reason that the term 'Tank' couldn't be realistically created in the Ashes universe. The reason people don't like the name Tank is for the same reason they don't like the way AoC Dwarves look: they have preconceived notions of what a fantasy setting should be and don't want to give Steven, Intrepid, or AoC a chance to do any proper world building.

Conrad

Shoelid wrote: »

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...

We can't call the cleric 'healer' for two reasons: Other classes like Bard may have some slight healing capabilities, and Cleric can spec into things other than being a healer.

The Tanking role is solely unique the the Tank archetype. Tanks pull aggro and soak damage. Until there is a different word that describes those functions, they should be called tank. Until there is another archetype that can pull aggro and soak damage, they should be called tank.

The etymology of the term Tank has been brought up enough: there's no reason that the term 'Tank' couldn't be realistically created in the Ashes universe. The reason people don't like the name Tank is for the same reason they don't like the way AoC Dwarves look: they have preconceived notions of what a fantasy setting should be and don't want to give Steven, Intrepid, or AoC a chance to do any proper world building.

Isn't that false tho? Pretty sure it was mentioned other classes can tank as well? 🤔

Shoelid

Conrad wrote: »

Shoelid wrote: »

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...

We can't call the cleric 'healer' for two reasons: Other classes like Bard may have some slight healing capabilities, and Cleric can spec into things other than being a healer.

The Tanking role is solely unique the the Tank archetype. Tanks pull aggro and soak damage. Until there is a different word that describes those functions, they should be called tank. Until there is another archetype that can pull aggro and soak damage, they should be called tank.

The etymology of the term Tank has been brought up enough: there's no reason that the term 'Tank' couldn't be realistically created in the Ashes universe. The reason people don't like the name Tank is for the same reason they don't like the way AoC Dwarves look: they have preconceived notions of what a fantasy setting should be and don't want to give Steven, Intrepid, or AoC a chance to do any proper world building.

Isn't that false tho? Pretty sure it was mentioned other classes can tank as well? 🤔

I might've missed something, but I doubt it. My understanding is that a role with Tank as a secondary archetype can have some offtank potential, and that's about it.

Cold 0ne FTB

Valentine wrote: »

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

Sure honestly. I don't care what they call it. Change it if you want. It's just a name. Either case the class will fill the tank role. I am much more interested in what Bard and Summoner will do. They seem to be pretty unique.

Noaani

Marcet wrote: »

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.

That right there is lazy writing - but not for the reason you think.

Unless the name of a class has a very specific in world definition (such as Cleric or Necromancer), or is a specific title that one gains via education or some such, NPC's in the game world should almost never refer to a player by their class.

Sathrago

Noaani wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

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.

That right there is lazy writing - but not for the reason you think.

Unless the name of a class has a very specific in world definition (such as Cleric or Necromancer), or is a specific title that one gains via education or some such, NPC's in the game world should almost never refer to a player by their class.

it happens all the time in wow and is most likely why he mentioned it. That's not to say its bad in wow, as it works quite well.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

That right there is lazy writing

it happens all the time in wow

This doesn't surprise me at all.

daveywavey

Marcet wrote: »

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?"

I'm fine with that.

Vhaeyne

daveywavey wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

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?"

I'm fine with that.

I am fine with the tank part, but that "Nightshield" stuff just sounds lame.

daveywavey

Vhaeyne wrote: »

I am fine with the tank part, but that "Nightshield" stuff just sounds lame.

I wonder what we could change Nightshield to? Any suggestions, guys?!

Vhaeyne

daveywavey wrote: »

I wonder what we could change Nightshield to? Any suggestions, guys?!

Gornlord? Terminator? JK

Real ideas:
Reaver, Dark Knight, Void Knight, Fell Knight...

No offense to the guys who came up with the class names, but I will agree with anyone who says the class names we have now feels like a first or second draft.

Dygz

Plenty of time for the devs to change class names if they choose to.
It's a quick and easy change programming-wise. I wonder what the non-English languages will choose to do.
Threads with alternative names popped up immediately after the class names dropped.

daveywavey

Maybe we could re-name all the Tank classes to be types of RL Tank?!

Azherae

Fantasy games use different names, but in warfare, generally, combatants are simply named by whatever they do, or what weapon they carry.

We've got Bowmen, Swordsmen, Spearmen, even Riflemen, and Cannoneers. Mage is literally 'one using magic'.

So in the sense that the 'term', realistic, shoehorned or otherwise, for 'taking attention and mitigating damage' has become 'tanking', then it is fine to call them 'tanks'.

We can't call them Shieldmen, because they don't all use shields, but historical precedent indicates that this was done too (Hoplites). And Ashes doesn't force you to wear heavy armor...

If it did, there would be a simple solution.

We would just call them Mailmen.

Marcet

Shoelid wrote: »

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...

We can't call the cleric 'healer' for two reasons: Other classes like Bard may have some slight healing capabilities, and Cleric can spec into things other than being a healer.

The Tanking role is solely unique the the Tank archetype. Tanks pull aggro and soak damage. Until there is a different word that describes those functions, they should be called tank. Until there is another archetype that can pull aggro and soak damage, they should be called tank.

The etymology of the term Tank has been brought up enough: there's no reason that the term 'Tank' couldn't be realistically created in the Ashes universe. The reason people don't like the name Tank is for the same reason they don't like the way AoC Dwarves look: they have preconceived notions of what a fantasy setting should be and don't want to give Steven, Intrepid, or AoC a chance to do any proper world building.

Fighters are gonna soak up damage too, if you have a Cleric and a Fighter who is gonna "tank"?? It's gonna be the fighter. What you just said is so subjective it doesn't even make sense.

If bards are off-healers as you say, fighters are off-tanks too. Your comment is completely wrong im sorry.

Re-name Clerics to healers and bards to off-healers/buffers.

Noaani

daveywavey wrote: »

Maybe we could re-name all the Tank classes to be types of RL Tank?!

Best idea yet to come from one of these threads.

Dygz

Fighter is not going to have every ability they use generate additional threat to the same degree as a Tank.
Same with damage mitigation.

Other Primary Archetypes besides the Mage will be using magical abilities.

CptBrownBeard

daveywavey wrote: »

Maybe we could re-name all the Tank classes to be types of RL Tank?!

Panzers I through LXIV

Sov54

Shoelid wrote: »

Conrad wrote: »

Shoelid wrote: »

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...

We can't call the cleric 'healer' for two reasons: Other classes like Bard may have some slight healing capabilities, and Cleric can spec into things other than being a healer.

The Tanking role is solely unique the the Tank archetype. Tanks pull aggro and soak damage. Until there is a different word that describes those functions, they should be called tank. Until there is another archetype that can pull aggro and soak damage, they should be called tank.

The etymology of the term Tank has been brought up enough: there's no reason that the term 'Tank' couldn't be realistically created in the Ashes universe. The reason people don't like the name Tank is for the same reason they don't like the way AoC Dwarves look: they have preconceived notions of what a fantasy setting should be and don't want to give Steven, Intrepid, or AoC a chance to do any proper world building.

Isn't that false tho? Pretty sure it was mentioned other classes can tank as well? 🤔

I might've missed something, but I doubt it. My understanding is that a role with Tank as a secondary archetype can have some offtank potential, and that's about it.

Bards will have some offhealing potential, and that's it. It's safe to rename clerics as "healers" by your logic.

If a fighter/tank can hold aggro and augment his defenses for a brief period of time, he is, in fact, tanking.

If a tank/mage groups with a, let's say, tank/tank and avoids getting aggro and just does damage, he is, in fact, acting as a DPS. He is in no way tanking.

Dygz

I mean...a Cleric/Cleric could choose to DPS and never heal.
A Tank/Tank could also choose to act as DPS and let the Tank/Mage be main tank.
A Fighter/Tank can tank, of course, but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank.

Child Item