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

winner909098

Sylvanar wrote: »

I agree, though I would like to nominate two more classes:
- Ranger
- Fighter

Class name should imply the role of the class and not be the role itself.
I mean all the classes will have fighting capability and I doubt mage & other healers will have melee option.

ranger is a d&d class, as is fighter

Sent

Bard, cleric, fighter, mage, ranger, rogue and summoner are well established class names. Most of them date back to the oldest editions of D&D.

To me, those names come with quite a lot of assumption about what the class will do and, more importantly, how will do it.

I guess you cannot mistake what the tank archetype role will be.

But that's kind of a problem, I don't like being pigeonholed into a role.
We don't know enough about augments but, will a tank+fighter be taken seriously as a DPS in a raid?
It still sounds like a (off)tank to me.

Elgaroth

I have to agree that, from the moment I read the "Tank" label, I felt like it was out of place.

In my mind, all the other class names fit well into the paradigm of what a class name should be... a categorical or professional title that you might find a character using in person. "I'm a Ranger" or "I'm a Sorcerer". Cultural knowledge of these titles will then provide the player with a hint of what that class can do... and from there you can meta-game-think about where they may fall in the Tank/Heal/DPS trinity.

In my experience, that's basically the traditional separation of the thought processes. Class names on one hand, and trinity focus on the other. Why keep these two things separate? Simple... it helps immersion. Yes, it's a small detail... but immersion is a delicate thing. It doesn't take much to shatter the illusion... especially when it comes to traditional "gamer-culture" traditions, like class names.

Also, I think the problem is made worse by the fact that the word in question is "Tank". I'm a long-time gamer and a history buff... so I admit that I'm probably biased... but a "Tank" is not a profession or a class, it's a multi-ton armored vehicle that gained prominence in World War 1 & 2. When I hear "Tank" in that in-character sense, it yanks me right out of High Fantasy and pulls me into Blitzkrieg. In a meta-game context, not a problem at all... because it conveys a concept. As a class name, though, it's a major break from the genre... at least to me.

Emotionally, it's like if they re-named one of the other classes "DPS". Seriously... could you see a character saying "I'm Korvath... a DPS of the Dwarven Lands." LoL... obviously not.

So ultimately, I think those are the two biggest sticking points in this issue. First, class name and trinity role are two separate things... using a trinity role AS a class name breaks the logical pattern and, indeed, may pigeon-hole people's thinking about the classes in general. Second, the word "Tank" just doesn't fit into High Fantasy... I think changing it would be a benefit to immersion.

Just a thought... and my 2 cents' worth.

Have a great day, everybody.

Damokles

Just call him Champion/Defender/etc and be done with it.

apmax

My main problem with the naming is that Tank is a combat role, not a class archetype, and thus doesn't fit in with the rest of the archetype names.
Tank is part of the holy trinity, Tank/Healer/DPS. The class archetype that fills the combat role of "tank" would be guardian or defender or something along those lines, similar to how the class archetype that fills the combat role of "healer" is cleric.
If Tank is to be called Tank, I do not see why Cleric is not called Healer. There is no archetype named "Healer". There is no archetype named "Ranged Physical DPS" or "Ranged Magical DPS".
Either go for generic combat role descriptors like that or go for proper archetype names. Having everything be themed one way and then just throwing in "Tank" as an odd one out doesn't make all that much sense. Pick a theme and stick to it.

CaptnChuck

Its not just Tank either; so many of the class names are repetitive. Just look at how many times they've repeated the name "Shadow" for different classes. You could easily use other synonyms like night/void etc. to make it sound a little different. But they haven't.

Kezzic

I would also really like it changed to something more fantasy related. Tank is a meta gamer term. I’d prefer Vanguard or Defender or Protector or Guardian or something. Defender probably is the most neutral and would make sense related to the other Primary Class words like “Fighter” or “Ranger”.

Rhaelah

maouw wrote: »

I like "Vanguard" <--- such a pretty word.
but I dunno if people will miss the meaning.

This.

Marcet

I agree 100%.

It should be changed to something like Protector, Vanguard, etc.

I don't like a class named "tank".

That's my opinion.

PlagueMonk

maouw wrote: »

I like "Vanguard" <--- such a pretty word.
but I dunno if people will miss the meaning.

Actually that's a really good word AND descriptor for the role they are going to perform.

There is also a dictionary and/or google for those that do not know it's meaning. Will help to expand their vocabulary a bit!

I mentioned this in a previous, similar thread but if we are going to change things, Dreadnought should be changed as well.

Vhaeyne

Tank is a fine name.

Chunks

I enjoy Tank more than some traditional alternatives that sound kinda cheesy, but I'm on board for that change

BaSkA_9x2

Has Steven ever talked about this specific matter? Is there any chance they would consider changing the class name? Would an official poll made by Intrepid Studios here, on Reddit, etc be enough to at least bring some attention to this?

I don't think a bad class name is a big deal, but at the same time I don't see any reason to have bad class names.

nidriks

I agree with this. It's the one thing that I haven't liked since I heard it in AoC. I'd much rather see a class named warrior or protector.

I guess the main reason they must have went with tank is not using up a name they wanted for the augmented class names.

I do look at the primary class names and they all seem to be pretty standard to me though. What I think would be cool is to have your class name vary in some way before you reach the stage at which you augment. Depending on what abilities you favour you'll get a different pre-augmentation title. For example (and this is just quick off me head), a tank that tries to dps more will be known as a ruffian, but if they do tank more then they'll be a page (trying to think of a better one).

A summoner that goes full on dps could be a magician and one that relies on their pet chiefly could be a master (or something less advanced sounding).

Either that or I'd like to see augmentation come in stages. Maybe get some abilities at 10 or 15 then more at 25. I'd like to see some choices to branch your playstyle out before 25. 1 to 25 in an MMO can seem a long time.

Hurf Derfman

Meh.

You'll only be playing a "tank" until level 25. After that you'll have eight other names for your class to pick from.

And everyone will still refer to you as a tank regardless of what the archetype is named.

Hurf Derfman

Noaani wrote: »

Sent wrote: »

Since you are MMO experts

That is saying a little bit too much.

Edit; though I agree, the archetype name should be changed.

I think they should remain "tank" with the tank/tank combo being called Supatank, and they would have an exclusive class skill called: DPS Meter.

In addition to seeing the entire party/raid's DPS it would also allow the Supatank to delete the account of any player that has lower DPS than the Supatank.

CaptnChuck

BaSkA13 wrote: »

Has Steven ever talked about this specific matter? Is there any chance they would consider changing the class name? Would an official poll made by Intrepid Studios here, on Reddit, etc be enough to at least bring some attention to this?

I don't think a bad class name is a big deal, but at the same time I don't see any reason to have bad class names.

Jahlon asked Steven. He asked him to change the tank name and a few other class names as well. But Steven was unwilling to do so.

Gruntag

This is such a silly post. Nothing to see here.

Keep tank as named and designed

FuryBladeborne

Someone should merge all of these threads into a megathread.

Hurf Derfman

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

Someone should merge all of these threads into a megathread.

Top 3 mega threads:
DPS meters
Corruption and why I don't understand it
Rename the Tank archetype

Child Item