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*
Well, technically, the "Tank" name ISN"T the Class name, but just the archetype of role you're playing more-or-less. The class names come after you obtain the second archetype to meld with your primary, THEN that's when you have a legitimate Class name: Tank/Cleric = Paladin. The logic behind the "Tank only being a military vehicle, so it doesn't make sense to have it as a name of a class/archetype" is kind of flawed, in my opinion. Because, the same could be said about any of the rest of the archetype names: Ranger being a French word/name/term used to mean "warden" or "forest guardian". So to use Ranger as just a basic class type that relies on bow and arrows, and have nothing related to being a "warden" or "forest guardian" would mean it doesn't deserve be called that.
Though, I guess it doesn't help the argument, when you have the other archetypes have names like, Cleric, Mage, Bard, Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger, compared to just, Tank. Though, I'd say that Tank is fine, for the most part, but I can understand where you're coming from. It just sticks out as the oddball, if they were going to just name the role you're playing, it would've been better to have given Cleric -> Healer, Mage -> Nuker(though Mage in itself is pretty general overall as a role and a class name), Bard -> Support, Fighter -> Warrior(it's really the same case as Mage), Rogue -> Assassin(again, same as Mage), and Ranger -> Hunter(yet again, same situation as Mage).
The archetype names are just too broad in themselves, just like Tank, but we're so used to seeing them as regular Classes in most games, no one would bat an eye at it really. Plenty of games would give Mage as your Class to select from the start, next to a Ranger, or Cleric, and the Tanks would usually be the Fighter or Warrior; but eventually throughout the game you'd upgrade that Class to a more advanced Class(Priest, Berserker, Hunter, etc) they'd be more defined in playstyle and move skill set. Some games just give you the most established Class from the start and you level it(Necromancer, Guardian, Paladin, Beast Master, Druid, etc).
TL;DR, The name Tank is for the archetype, or role you're playing, like all the other names for the given roles you'll select. The only real Class names are after you gained your secondary archetype; so you could say your official Class isn't complete till you've gained it.
This is literally a semantics thread. If a MMO player comes to this game and see's the class called Tank and thinks its a military weapon or vehicle something's not right. Do I think it's the best name? No. Do I think it serves its purpose? Yes
3
Options
AdlehydeMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This is literally a semantics thread. If a MMO player comes to this game and see's the class called Tank and thinks its a military weapon or vehicle something's not right. Do I think it's the best name? No. Do I think it serves its purpose? Yes
Basically yeah. It serves it's purpose, but no one really likes it.
True, semantics. But, when you have a project that you know you want to be successful and as polished as it can be, wouldn't you want to make sure to fix any "small" potential problems? IF they don't see it as an issue, then yea sure leave it, but I would think since it's so out of place compared to the rest of the names it wouldn't hurt to modify it if the majority of the player base sees it as a positive change (not saying there is a majority, but there seems to be a strong opinion that it could be better based on this thread). Of course there are more things they can focus on in the game, but tweaking an archetype name to have a more positive experience for everyone wouldn't be that hard. They are just seemingly not willing to budge.
I don’t think the name tank is a problem at all. It fits perfectly. There’s nothing else to call it that wouldn’t confuse anyone. Someone needs to take all the damage. A tank is big, durable and armored. That’s exactly the role. That’s how language works right?
The only other way would be to make up a completely new word which would just be plain weird
People in my opinion are far too quick to dismiss this argument.
There is a problem with stating you have a trinity and there being HEALER, DPS and TANK roles. The issue is you literally have a class called tank. Most players who are brand new and have absolutely no idea how this game works in depth flat out will just see the name "Tank" and be like "Ohhhh okay so that is the tank I see I see "
Then they see a summoner who has tank secondary and is a brood warden (who I presume is a valid tank capable of tanking content) and they are like "THIS ISN'T A TANK. HOW DARE YOU BRING THIS, YOU LITERALLY AREN'T A TANK LEAVEEE".
Sadly I'd say that people wouldn't just do that but I've played long enough to know that the naming of particular things does trickle. Reputations are built sometimes off the dumbest things.
I'm on the fence here. Tank seems to be a weird class name. But it's descriptive. Then again the Cleric isn't called Healer, or the rouge called Stabby. But, what's the alternative? Perhaps trade the Fighter name, and rename fighter to something else, like Deulest?
I'm on the fence here. Tank seems to be a weird class name. But it's descriptive. Then again the Cleric isn't called Healer, or the rouge called Stabby. But, what's the alternative? Perhaps trade the Fighter name, and rename fighter to something else, like Deulest?
I would use Guardian, Protector or Defender. All of those sound way more fitting (and cooler imo) in a fantasy setting than "tank". Some of my suggestions are already used for a class, but you can just do a switcharoo and come up with something else for tank/tank.
I'm hardcore into RP, and I wouldn't be bothered by this if on a dedicated RP server. It only makes up half of what their class is, and l it likely wouldn't be posted across their nameplate or anything. A lot of games have options to turn HUDs off even it it did for extra immersion. I plan to roll a Guardian at some point, and I will refer to my role as Guardian, not tank, even at lower levels.
“Where words fail, music speaks.” ― Hans Christian Andersen
Also, what happens when they introduce another primary archetype capable of tanking (in an expansion for example)? I'm eager to see how the "LF1M tank" type of messages are going to work then.
"LF1M tank, but not that archetype specifically! You can also be archetype X" :>
0
Options
NelsonRebelMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2020
I really have no problem with it.
They could name it knight and the meaning of it would be the same.
You could pretty up the name, but the name "tank" is pretty straightforward in its meaning.
When people see special names through their own perspectives they think it means other things and complain later when they "say" that it was an ambiguous name choice for a class and demand changes to the class to fit their perspective "idea" of a class name.
There is nothing ambiguous about "tank" in an MMO game. Just like summoner, and fighter. Tank in the gaming community has been pretty concretly defined and fits just as well as fighter, sorcerer, summoner, etcc...
For those who dont have a problem with Tank, can you at least see the inconsistency in the naming vs all the other archetypes with obviously fantasy-like names? For those who find it an apt descriptor since a tank relates quite well to an armored vehicle; tough, towering, indomitable, can you at least see the departure to fantasy? This is after all. mmoRpg. Ok so some of you don't care about the roleplay aspect of games, that's fine but many of us care about some level of believability in the game.
Think of it this way, most mainstream MMORPG NPCs will not refer to your character by the mechanical terms like DPS because it's close to breaking the 4th wall. Healer may be the only exception in my mind because it is not a gamey acronym or an analog to a military vehicle.
For those who argue that there are no other names that don't become confusing, I've listed a few that I think would fit a fantasy world (some better than others) that do a decent job of expressing the idea behind the archetype.
I agree it's not a huge deal, since it is semantics, but if we stripped flavor from everything we'd have a pretty bland game. So flavor has importance.
What if they come out with a “Mech” archetype in a future expansion, so if you go Mech/tank. You can become a literal tank and my dream will be fulfilled. I can roll around with my fellow tank buddies and shoot artillery shells during castle sieges.
People in my opinion are far too quick to dismiss this argument.
There is a problem with stating you have a trinity and there being HEALER, DPS and TANK roles. The issue is you literally have a class called tank. Most players who are brand new and have absolutely no idea how this game works in depth flat out will just see the name "Tank" and be like "Ohhhh okay so that is the tank I see I see "
Then they see a summoner who has tank secondary and is a brood warden (who I presume is a valid tank capable of tanking content) and they are like "THIS ISN'T A TANK. HOW DARE YOU BRING THIS, YOU LITERALLY AREN'T A TANK LEAVEEE".
This is the same thing I thought when I first saw the class chart. It was right after I had learned that the game would be based around the trinity system. The name "Tank" stands out to me not so much that it's not "fantasy enough" or even that it's the name of a vehicle, but that this is a game with specific roles in a party. One of those roles is literally the same as the name of one of the archetypes.
While yes I do think it won't cause much confusion when creating your character as to what you're getting into. I think it will cause unneeded confusion and discrimination when it comes time to form a party.
It has more to do with the others being names associated with mmos for like 30 years. Tanks were always called Tanks despite their name. People in classic WoW do not call Warriors who Tank Warriors. They call them the Tank.
It's why they don't call the other classes anything else because they are just using the class names people are familiar with by playing for years. They should have probably named Ranger, Archer though. Most people are probably going to call them Archers regardless.
It's not really going to matter anyway cuz it's not a class name. I don't think people are going to use anything but the class names except for before level 24.
They might still call Tanks, Tank generally though.
Out of the 64 available classes... none are called "Tank".
You know, this is an excellent point. While yes, "Tank" is the only real descriptor, they are all just categories and not actual class names.
And looking at the actual class names, I'm surprised people take issue with "Tank" but don't have a problem with Dreadnought? That is literally the exact same thing (Dreadnought being a classification of battleship and frequently used in SPACE games to refer to ship sizes)
Seems semantic...
How are you going to unword "Tank" that has been in use for decades?
I mean to say, even if you can't really force people to use the terms you want. Change the label, sure, but what's the point in the effort if it just gets called the original term anyway?
Seems semantic...
How are you going to unword "Tank" that has been in use for decades?
I mean to say, even if you can't really force people to use the terms you want. Change the label, sure, but what's the point in the effort if it just gets called the original term anyway?
Very semantic sure... But you didn't address any of the counterpoints already made about your argument.
Very semantic sure... But you didn't address any of the counterpoints already made about your argument.
That is a true statement and accurate observation. But I just don't care heheh I'm going to call it Tank no matter what (more than likely). I wish you all, all the best.
It’s not that we shouldn’t use the word tank at all when referring to mmorpgs. It’s that they are literally calling an archetype “tank” rather than the role it will fill as a tank. They are borderline breaking the fourth wall in a fantasy world setting. A lot of people in this thread are missing the point. Of course the term tank is fine and should be used, just not as a primary class/archetype.
Hold on... Until you select your second class, are you referred by your double-class name? (E.g. tank/tank being guardian)? If this is the case, there really is no argument.
Out of the 64 available classes... none are called "Tank".
You know, this is an excellent point. While yes, "Tank" is the only real descriptor, they are all just categories and not actual class names.
And looking at the actual class names, I'm surprised people take issue with "Tank" but don't have a problem with Dreadnought? That is literally the exact same thing (Dreadnought being a classification of battleship and frequently used in SPACE games to refer to ship sizes)
/throws fuel on the fire
oh yes, let the arguing re-commence!
Good point. Now I hate the cool name dreadnought. Thanks 😄
It’s not that we shouldn’t use the word tank at all when referring to mmorpgs. It’s that they are literally calling an archetype “tank” rather than the role it will fill as a tank. They are borderline breaking the fourth wall in a fantasy world setting. A lot of people in this thread are missing the point. Of course the term tank is fine and should be used, just not as a primary class/archetype.
Out of the 64 available classes... none are called "Tank".
however all the tank/* whatever will be referred to as tank when looking for group etc or having any conversation regarding the class/archetype.
if they're going with the class roles it'd be more logical to have a base archetype named 'healer' instead of cleric and cleric would be a fighter/healer hybrid.
also have a sense the majority of players are going to be disappointed with the "64" mostly nebulous classes and would have rather had a smaller pool of more focused and accurate archetypes.
I agree the class name "tank" lacks creativity but it certainly conveys an image that is easily identified by most MMO players. I wouldn't knock it just because it is a gaming/fantasy trope. there are lots of fantasy tropes out there in both table top and video games, doesn't necessarily mean they are bad?
0
Options
giftedfoxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I am not a fan of tank only characters to be honest.
Out of the 64 available classes... none are called "Tank".
however all the tank/* whatever will be referred to as tank when looking for group etc or having any conversation regarding the class/archetype.
They were going to be referred to as a tank anyway though. No matter what name they give the archetype people are going to be saying looking for a tank. So they just made the term correct while they were at it.
Comments
Well, technically, the "Tank" name ISN"T the Class name, but just the archetype of role you're playing more-or-less. The class names come after you obtain the second archetype to meld with your primary, THEN that's when you have a legitimate Class name: Tank/Cleric = Paladin. The logic behind the "Tank only being a military vehicle, so it doesn't make sense to have it as a name of a class/archetype" is kind of flawed, in my opinion. Because, the same could be said about any of the rest of the archetype names: Ranger being a French word/name/term used to mean "warden" or "forest guardian". So to use Ranger as just a basic class type that relies on bow and arrows, and have nothing related to being a "warden" or "forest guardian" would mean it doesn't deserve be called that.
Though, I guess it doesn't help the argument, when you have the other archetypes have names like, Cleric, Mage, Bard, Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger, compared to just, Tank. Though, I'd say that Tank is fine, for the most part, but I can understand where you're coming from. It just sticks out as the oddball, if they were going to just name the role you're playing, it would've been better to have given Cleric -> Healer, Mage -> Nuker(though Mage in itself is pretty general overall as a role and a class name), Bard -> Support, Fighter -> Warrior(it's really the same case as Mage), Rogue -> Assassin(again, same as Mage), and Ranger -> Hunter(yet again, same situation as Mage).
The archetype names are just too broad in themselves, just like Tank, but we're so used to seeing them as regular Classes in most games, no one would bat an eye at it really. Plenty of games would give Mage as your Class to select from the start, next to a Ranger, or Cleric, and the Tanks would usually be the Fighter or Warrior; but eventually throughout the game you'd upgrade that Class to a more advanced Class(Priest, Berserker, Hunter, etc) they'd be more defined in playstyle and move skill set. Some games just give you the most established Class from the start and you level it(Necromancer, Guardian, Paladin, Beast Master, Druid, etc).
TL;DR, The name Tank is for the archetype, or role you're playing, like all the other names for the given roles you'll select. The only real Class names are after you gained your secondary archetype; so you could say your official Class isn't complete till you've gained it.
Basically yeah. It serves it's purpose, but no one really likes it.
The only other way would be to make up a completely new word which would just be plain weird
There is a problem with stating you have a trinity and there being HEALER, DPS and TANK roles. The issue is you literally have a class called tank. Most players who are brand new and have absolutely no idea how this game works in depth flat out will just see the name "Tank" and be like "Ohhhh okay so that is the tank I see I see
Then they see a summoner who has tank secondary and is a brood warden (who I presume is a valid tank capable of tanking content) and they are like "THIS ISN'T A TANK. HOW DARE YOU BRING THIS, YOU LITERALLY AREN'T A TANK LEAVEEE".
Sadly I'd say that people wouldn't just do that but I've played long enough to know that the naming of particular things does trickle. Reputations are built sometimes off the dumbest things.
You're sassy. I like that.
"LF1M tank, but not that archetype specifically! You can also be archetype X" :>
They could name it knight and the meaning of it would be the same.
You could pretty up the name, but the name "tank" is pretty straightforward in its meaning.
When people see special names through their own perspectives they think it means other things and complain later when they "say" that it was an ambiguous name choice for a class and demand changes to the class to fit their perspective "idea" of a class name.
There is nothing ambiguous about "tank" in an MMO game. Just like summoner, and fighter. Tank in the gaming community has been pretty concretly defined and fits just as well as fighter, sorcerer, summoner, etcc...
Just my thoughts here
Think of it this way, most mainstream MMORPG NPCs will not refer to your character by the mechanical terms like DPS because it's close to breaking the 4th wall. Healer may be the only exception in my mind because it is not a gamey acronym or an analog to a military vehicle.
For those who argue that there are no other names that don't become confusing, I've listed a few that I think would fit a fantasy world (some better than others) that do a decent job of expressing the idea behind the archetype.
I agree it's not a huge deal, since it is semantics, but if we stripped flavor from everything we'd have a pretty bland game. So flavor has importance.
This is the same thing I thought when I first saw the class chart. It was right after I had learned that the game would be based around the trinity system. The name "Tank" stands out to me not so much that it's not "fantasy enough" or even that it's the name of a vehicle, but that this is a game with specific roles in a party. One of those roles is literally the same as the name of one of the archetypes.
While yes I do think it won't cause much confusion when creating your character as to what you're getting into. I think it will cause unneeded confusion and discrimination when it comes time to form a party.
It's why they don't call the other classes anything else because they are just using the class names people are familiar with by playing for years. They should have probably named Ranger, Archer though. Most people are probably going to call them Archers regardless.
It's not really going to matter anyway cuz it's not a class name. I don't think people are going to use anything but the class names except for before level 24.
They might still call Tanks, Tank generally though.
U.S. East
You know, this is an excellent point. While yes, "Tank" is the only real descriptor, they are all just categories and not actual class names.
And looking at the actual class names, I'm surprised people take issue with "Tank" but don't have a problem with Dreadnought?
/throws fuel on the fire
oh yes, let the arguing re-commence!
How are you going to unword "Tank" that has been in use for decades?
I mean to say, even if you can't really force people to use the terms you want. Change the label, sure, but what's the point in the effort if it just gets called the original term anyway?
Very semantic sure... But you didn't address any of the counterpoints already made about your argument.
That is a true statement and accurate observation. But I just don't care heheh I'm going to call it Tank no matter what (more than likely). I wish you all, all the best.
It’s not that we shouldn’t use the word tank at all when referring to mmorpgs. It’s that they are literally calling an archetype “tank” rather than the role it will fill as a tank. They are borderline breaking the fourth wall in a fantasy world setting. A lot of people in this thread are missing the point. Of course the term tank is fine and should be used, just not as a primary class/archetype.
Good point. Now I hate the cool name dreadnought. Thanks 😄
That's fair.
however all the tank/* whatever will be referred to as tank when looking for group etc or having any conversation regarding the class/archetype.
if they're going with the class roles it'd be more logical to have a base archetype named 'healer' instead of cleric and cleric would be a fighter/healer hybrid.
also have a sense the majority of players are going to be disappointed with the "64" mostly nebulous classes and would have rather had a smaller pool of more focused and accurate archetypes.
They were going to be referred to as a tank anyway though. No matter what name they give the archetype people are going to be saying looking for a tank. So they just made the term correct while they were at it.
U.S. East