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

Jubilum

I vote we change it to "The big guy up front encouraging the enemy to hit him instead of us". Seriously, is this really a discussion, are we getting bored again? Another pointless discussion, like the 3-4 threads of DPS meter pointlessness. Who gives a crap.

WMC51

I agree but it doesn't bother me

Damokles

jubilum wrote: »

are we getting bored again?

YES!

Shoximity

@jubilum

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”.

Adlehyde

Jexz wrote: »

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

They also shouted "looking for healer" not "looking for cleric."

Songcaller

When a Tank Class exists you know its a Trinity System

Yuyukoyay

Cleric sounds nicer though. Sounds better than priest. I'd rather a term not tied to the leading cause of pedophilia.

GodsThesis

Cripsus wrote: »

@jubilum

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”.

But what if they don't and this is actually pretty insignificant. If you start out as a tank and then you choose to double down on it as a 2nd archetype, you become a Guardian. Is anyone really going to never pass level 25 or never pick up a secondary archetype?

I feel like if we gonna pick a name to fuss over about it should at least be Keeper (Tank + Summoner). Cuz I know he ain't one. That ain't my man's.

Shoximity

@GodsThesis

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?

Drek

roguewolf552 wrote: »

If that was the case, there would be 4 options; Tank, DPS, Healer, and Mixyboi. I like 'Guard' personally!

But then we'd only have 16 classes

That said, i know it's a bit tongue in cheek of you but you're looking at it way too simplistically , because a role is more then just a combat role, it's a package of multiple things, there's first and foremost the roleplaying aspect, a combat aspect and a utility aspect (and probably other things i can't think of right now.)

In short sure "dps" is doing damage, but a player still won't know how he will do it.

Jubilum

Cripsus wrote: »

@jubilum

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.

daxiongmao87

Jexz wrote: »

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

Yuyukoyay

Well at least they can say there is only 1 tank now.

Shoximity

jubilum wrote: »

Cripsus wrote: »

@jubilum

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.

GodsThesis

Cripsus wrote: »

@GodsThesis

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.

Xolzec

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.

Beekeeper

It does feel weird, yes. If the cleric was called "healer", it would feel strange too, even if that's ultimately what the cleric is about.

MrScrewtape

I love the name "tank" makes me feel powerful.

Caeryl

Leave TankTank alone you bully, it’s not his fault his name sucks

Cripsus wrote: »

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.

God I wish

daxiongmao87

screwtape wrote: »

I love the name "tank" makes me feel powerful.

Let's switch it to "M1 Abrams".

Child Item