Which class name instead of "TANK" ?

Smaashley

In my mind, tank is a role and not a class. A Bard with lots of defense can be as a tank role...

Texas

Smaashley wrote: »

In my mind, tank is a role and not a class. A Bard with lots of defense can be as a tank role...

To that end, Clerics and Fighters have been some of the best tanks in old DnD rulesets.

Vaknar

Changing my answer to "Spank" 🛡👋

Smaashley

Texas wrote: »

Smaashley wrote: »

In my mind, tank is a role and not a class. A Bard with lots of defense can be as a tank role...

To that end, Clerics and Fighters have been some of the best tanks in old DnD rulesets.

Exactly, tank is a role that every class can be depending on their setting. That's why I think "Tank" shouldn't be an archetype in AoC because that would deviate from their freedom of class choosing. If you pick a tank, you are gonna tank.

I hope it won't be like that but who knows

arkileo

For me the name tank is an anachronism. A tank is literally a modern machine of war, named after a liquid tank by the British in order to conceal what it really was during WW1. I can't shake that. For the in-universe name for this type of warrior to be "tank" is perplexing when you put yourself in a Verran's shoes. It's unimmersive.

There are loads of better options. Vanguard, Guardian, Knight, Reiter, Chevalier, Shield, Defender, Protector, all of these convey what they do.

Aszkalon

Myosotys wrote: »

CRUSADER

I could imagine a " Fighter " with Second/SubClass " Cleric " - to be a " Crusader ".
Highsword sounds cool and okay,
but Crusader sounds WAY cooler. .

Mag7spy

arkileo wrote: »

For me the name tank is an anachronism. A tank is literally a modern machine of war, named after a liquid tank by the British in order to conceal what it really was during WW1. I can't shake that. For the in-universe name for this type of warrior to be "tank" is perplexing when you put yourself in a Verran's shoes. It's unimmersive.

There are loads of better options. Vanguard, Guardian, Knight, Reiter, Chevalier, Shield, Defender, Protector, all of these convey what they do.

These all sound like class names someone is attached to and trying to be fancy and not an archetype meant to be basic and readable for people.

Texas

Erm...Cleric, and a ranger that's not even a ranger but more like an archer.

Endowed

Battlemaster.

Xeph

That's why those are Archetype and not class.
The only other name I can think of is Sentinel. And event then, its already taken by the Tank/Ranger class.

Dolyem

Otr

Why Cleric + Ranger = Protector?

Saabynator

I like Tank, its to the point. Allready one named Fighter. The name Tank, describes exactly what the guy is. When you hear the name, your not in doubt at all. If you named him Champion, it might be a whole other thing.

Noaani

arkileo wrote: »

For me the name tank is an anachronism. A tank is literally a modern machine of war, named after a liquid tank by the British in order to conceal what it really was during WW1. I can't shake that. For the in-universe name for this type of warrior to be "tank" is perplexing when you put yourself in a Verran's shoes. It's unimmersive.

There are loads of better options. Vanguard, Guardian, Knight, Reiter, Chevalier, Shield, Defender, Protector, all of these convey what they do.

Consider the class name list to be simply a mechanism to communicate to players, rather than some specific thing in the game.

If you do this, you will quickly realise that since players will call this class "tank" anyway, the name not only makes sense, but no other name makes any sense.

Dimitraeos

Guardian or Protector

arkileo

Noaani wrote: »

Consider the class name list to be simply a mechanism to communicate to players, rather than some specific thing in the game.

Is this factual though? Or will I talk to the first NPC and they'll say "Greeting young tank!"

And I'll look at them like:

Noaani

arkileo wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Consider the class name list to be simply a mechanism to communicate to players, rather than some specific thing in the game.

Is this factual though? Or will I talk to the first NPC and they'll say "Greeting young tank!"

Well, if you see any in game dialouge calling people tanks, how about we start this conversation up again then?

To me, as long as this isn't happening, there is no issue.

Vhaeyne

It's been so many years of these tank name threads that I would be disappointed if the name changed. The name is like an iconic part of AOC to me now.

Myosotys

I suggest :

Cistern or Master Cistern
Container
Receptacle
Basin
Panzer

arkileo

Myosotys wrote: »

I suggest :

Cistern or Master Cistern
Container
Receptacle
Basin
Panzer

Maybe Armored Fighting Vehicle?

ReLamas

I think it's great to explore different names that evoke strength and prestige for the tank class. Names like Champion, Hero, and War Chief bring a sense of valor and leadership, which can resonate well with players who embody the role of protecting their allies on the battlefield.

The additional suggestions like Crusader, Royal Guard, Enforcer, Guardian, Knight, Warlord, Protector, Defender, Vanguard, and "SENTINEL" also carry strong connotations of resilience and guardianship, reflecting the role of the tank in absorbing damage and leading the charge.

Ultimately, the name should not only sound appealing but also resonate with the essence of the class's role in gameplay.

Ayeveegaming1

Reading through the comments, there are a couple good takes IMO. Perhaps we should change the thinking a bit. Let's evolve the conversation to instead of having the class "tank" it should be a role, as stated a couple times above. However, within this we do have to name the "tank" something. Would it be acceptable to break it down to race? Maybe each race could have racial names for each class. A racial name for healer, dps, and tank. The trinity. I understand that the classes have names when you combine for augmentation, but that is class, not race. So lets have some racial names for tanks. Example: Ren'Kai (tank) - Valient or Dünir (tank) - Stoutskin. So on and so on.
(side note: Using the idea as "tank" for a role, instead of a class, in raid groups the "tank" should have the ability to be selected for any char in the raid settings, not auto selected like wow does. Maybe there could be a toggle for autoselect...hrmm)

Aszkalon

Myosotys wrote: »

Which class name instead of "TANK" ?

FRANK.







(heheheheheheh x'D)

No, honestly. I understand why " Dolyem " seems to be slightly and mildly annoyed with this topic.

Ripteye

Why do people have issues with Tank as a class? Seems odd to me.

daveywavey

Solmyr

Ripteye wrote: »

Why do people have issues with Tank as a class? Seems odd to me.

It's the only archetype that's named after its role. Fighter isn't called DPS, Cleric isn't called Healer, and Bard isn't called Support. Every other archetype gets some cool/thematic monicker that adds a bit of flavor, while the tank is literally just Tank.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Otr

Myosotys wrote: »

I am currently thinking about few options to make the class more sexy... TANK sounds too ridiculous !

I am suggesting :

CHAMPION
HERO
(WAR)CHIEF

Edit with suggestions from posters :

CRUSADER
ROYAL GUARD
ENFORCER
GUARDIAN
KNIGHT
WARLORD
PROTECTOR
DEFENDER
VANGUARD

ROYAL GUARD feels like the advanced class of the more basic (generic) Guardian
DEFENDER doesn't feel a class name but could become if the NPCs refer to it in the lore.

Low level characters, before having a secondary archetype, should have an in-game profession to which the quest givers, NPCs and lore can refer too. "Tank" cannot be used in story dialogues.

The same way would be a bad choice to sell capes or banners with the words "Ashes of Creation" or "Intrepid Studio" on them. Or letting Alchemists create Red Bull potions.

Tyranthraxus

Tank is fine.

CROW3

Well, we made it over a year with this topic buried deep in the High Fells where no light could reach.

No one will care after level 25, it’s the class name (i.e. archetype combo) that counts.