Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

The problem with having “Tank” as a class name

17810121343

Comments

  • SathragoSathrago Member
    edited October 2020
    The question to ask here is if when you refer to another character as their primary class will it make sense for what they do? Will a cleric primary class always be the healer role? Will asking a ranger to join the party fill the same role if they have any of the secondary choices?

    We don't know yet. So this whole argument is not only pointless, it is also premature.

    (Edit: tank sounds fine to me)
    5000x1000px_Sathrago_Commission_RavenJuu.jpg?ex=661327bf&is=6600b2bf&hm=e6652ad4fec65a6fe03abd2e8111482acb29206799f1a336b09f703d4ff33c8b&
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited October 2020
    @Sathrago
    I don't have sources but I heard somewhere that augments from secondary archetypes aren't intended to encroach on primary archetype roles (plus that's the vibe I get from comments like "If I am a Tank archetype and a Mage is my counter, I can take a Mage secondary and kind of bridge the divide slightly; and then move my identity that direction ever so slightly")

    On the other hand from the wiki: "Although traditional roles are present, players should not feel branded by their primary archetypes"

    So that's a bunch of words, as tester's we'll need to help find the balance between these.

    (coz honestly, with 64 classes, I can imagine common use just referring to them by their primary archetype)
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • GeronimoGeronimo Member
    edited October 2020
    Usually I do a tank role, at first I didn't notice any problem with the archetype naming. I simply saw where my role was on the table and then looked at what my possible classes are. I didn't really even look at the other archetypes and classes.

    Now this thread ruined it for me completely, I cannot help but feel like I am a banana in a bowl of oranges :'(

    I definitely considered it, but I am not sure that I agree with Inixia that we should ALL be bananas:
    Inixia wrote: »
    I think we can all agree that Tank is perfect as is,
    I've decided to fix the other class names for you guys though since people are concerned that its more of a role /s

    Old -> New Name
    Bard -> 'Support'
    Cleric -> 'Healer'
    Fighter -> 'Melee DPS'
    Mage -> 'Magic DPS'
    Ranger -> 'Ranged DPS'
    Rogue -> 'Stealth DPS'
    Summoner -> 'Pet DPS'

    (That layout does seem to align with Steven's comments here though)

    Instead I think I should get to be an orange too:

    Old -> New Name
    Tank -> 'Defender'

    I expect/hope this game will pull in new MMO fans, people who have never heard of the trinity and don't care to research it but just want to play an immersive MMO. If I was a first-time MMO player, and heard the word "tank" describing a character I would be just as likely to think it was someone with a very powerful ranged attack as to think of someone who was heavily armored.

    Aside from not confusing people who play AoC as their first MMO, I think it would be much better from an RP perspective also. While it's nice to feel valuable for PVE, a "defender" has so many better connotations for thing like sieges and caravan protection, etc.

    I'm not a fan of "Vanguard" (proposed earlier), it will confuse too many people. Ideally all people would know what the word means but there will be many pre-teen players and ESL that will just have no idea, I think "defender" communicates to most anyone.

    I realize a "defender" can use two-handed weapon, but a bard can also wear a shield so I think that is an irrelevant argument. The name is based more on the archetype skills which all lean to a defensive type playstyle because it causes mobs/players to attack yourself.

    My 2c (and first post, hello everyone!)
  • SokkenSokken Member
    edited October 2020
    This really seems like a non-issue in my book. Tank isn't a class, it's an archetype. The class is either Guardian, Keeper, etc. But they all fit in under the tanky, defensive archetype. Like how priests, shamans etc. are your archetypical healers that mostly fall under the category of religious official, or cleric, with healing powers.

    The archetype names clearly communicates what umbrella their respective classes fall under. All classes under the mage archetype will be your archetypical magic using spellslingers. All classes under the Rogue archetype will be your archetypical sneaky type.
    vH8mBZL.gif
  • daveywaveydaveywavey Member
    edited October 2020
    I dislike the name Rogue more than the name Tank.

    The word "Rogue" doesn't have any meaning even remotely associated with being sneaky or stealthy, whereas a Tank is at least a vehicle that takes punishment and hits back.

    And changing "Rogue" to something else would also cut out the number of times we see "rouge" instead.
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I also don't see this as an issue.

    I know tank isn't a traditional name but i don't see it as being different from names like fighter or summoner. Hell, even ranger is a little weird when you think about it.
  • I also don't see this as an issue.

    I know tank isn't a traditional name but i don't see it as being different from names like fighter or summoner. Hell, even ranger is a little weird when you think about it.

    Emmm the equivalent role
    I also don't see this as an issue.

    I know tank isn't a traditional name but i don't see it as being different from names like fighter or summoner. Hell, even ranger is a little weird when you think about it.

    Well, the equivalent to the "tank" role in a ranger would be "Ranged DPS" or "Physical Ranged DPS" role.

    Glad I could help.
  • even ranger is a little weird when you think about it.

    The etymology of 'ranger' has to do with wandering the wilds e.g. 'ranging.' It doesn't have anything to do with ranged weaponry.

    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    CROW3 wrote: »
    even ranger is a little weird when you think about it.

    The etymology of 'ranger' has to do with wandering the wilds e.g. 'ranging.' It doesn't have anything to do with ranged weaponry.

    Yep!
    This is the most obvious in LotR where Aragorn is a ranger - but it's Legolas who goes piew piew
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited October 2020
    Sov54 wrote: »
    I also don't see this as an issue.

    I know tank isn't a traditional name but i don't see it as being different from names like fighter or summoner. Hell, even ranger is a little weird when you think about it.

    Emmm the equivalent role
    I also don't see this as an issue.

    I know tank isn't a traditional name but i don't see it as being different from names like fighter or summoner. Hell, even ranger is a little weird when you think about it.

    Well, the equivalent to the "tank" role in a ranger would be "Ranged DPS" or "Physical Ranged DPS" role.

    Glad I could help.

    I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here?
    CROW3 wrote: »
    even ranger is a little weird when you think about it.

    The etymology of 'ranger' has to do with wandering the wilds e.g. 'ranging.' It doesn't have anything to do with ranged weaponry.

    Ok.... I don't see your point. if a ranger is someone who does ranging, is it weird to call someone who does tanking a tank?

    Should it instead be called a tanker?
  • Sov54Sov54 Member
    edited October 2020
    I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here?

    Ahh, I was afraid you would not be able to understand the concept, given the premise of your initial post. Sorry for my bad english:

    Healer = role
    DPS = role
    Tank = role

    Cleric = class
    Ranger = class
    "Guardian" = class

    If my english skills are not proficient enough for you to understand the concept, I'm sorry but I tried to be as basic as I could.
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Sov54 wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here?

    Ahh, I was afraid you would not be able to understand the concept, given the premise of your initial post. Sorry for my bad english:

    Healer = role
    DPS = role
    Tank = role

    Cleric = class
    Ranger = class
    "Guardian" = class

    If my english skills are not proficient enough for you to understand the concept, I'm sorry but I tried to be as basic as I could.

    Yea, I don't think you got my point either.

    Before I go farther, the tank isn't a class name, it's the name of an archetype which is more synonymous with a role. If you choose it to be your primary, you will receive your class name when you select your secondary. For example, if you choose tank as your primary and secondary, Guardian will be your class.

    Now back to what we are talking about.

    My point is we have other archetypes that are named similarly like fighter and summoner. Fighters fight and summoners summon which I don't think are much different from a tank being named after tanking. Even ranger is named after the activity of ranging which another user pointed out.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member
    edited October 2020
    Ok.... I don't see your point. if a ranger is someone who does ranging, is it weird to call someone who does tanking a tank?

    No, I think it's totally reasonable. Though I think "Taunter" has a certain ring to it. My point was just clarifying that the name 'ranger' has nothing to do with a role of being ranged - which it so often jammed into.

    We're all allowed our sensitivities, after all. :D
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Did you all know a summoner summons things
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Nagash wrote: »
    Did you all know a summoner summons things

    iEXd_dvE6JLmpkMCHb1Xy8uywVJ-6FTWi01ccIfTvHQby6YI9HLIGJkISAJzpLGN78dwuLtlAm9E1nfePE_jn94HJyjdMJYJCJJ62vsXu4O69EqQm1LgDWRSW-BWUmMB6Q

    Stirring Intensifies
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • maouw wrote: »
    Nagash wrote: »
    Did you all know a summoner summons things

    iEXd_dvE6JLmpkMCHb1Xy8uywVJ-6FTWi01ccIfTvHQby6YI9HLIGJkISAJzpLGN78dwuLtlAm9E1nfePE_jn94HJyjdMJYJCJJ62vsXu4O69EqQm1LgDWRSW-BWUmMB6Q

    Stirring Intensifies

    He was always the best character!
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
  • My point is we have other archetypes that are named similarly like fighter and summoner. Fighters fight and summoners summon which I don't think are much different from a tank being named after tanking. Even ranger is named after the activity of ranging which another user pointed out.

    I want a Jerk Archetype. Whatever the combination it allows for play with only one hand.
    5000x1000px_Sathrago_Commission_RavenJuu.jpg?ex=661327bf&is=6600b2bf&hm=e6652ad4fec65a6fe03abd2e8111482acb29206799f1a336b09f703d4ff33c8b&
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • MaciejMaciej Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited January 2021
    Just a brief summary from the Discord conversation.

    Why?

    Because "I am a Tank" is not a sentence that a character in a fantasy setting would utter. The class names should use terminology that befits the world the characters live in. It's okay to use Tank when talking about class roles, since those are meta conversations happening outside of the game world, but using them for class/archetype roles breaks the 4th wall and the immersion said 4th wall is meant to hold. It's also not consistent with other archetypes, a Cleric is a Cleric, not a "Healer" (and even then, a "Healer" would be a more fitting term than "Tank").

    Bikeshedding

    There is probably a dozen names that could be used here, some are taken by one of the 64 classes in the class chart, but there are still good names that befit the archetype that are free, like "Defender" or "Champion".

    So a bikeshedding about the name will inevitably follow this discussion, and I think it's important to note that the community's inability to agree on what the term should be does not make the argument what the term should not be void.

    I've witnessed a lot of bikeshedding arguments, with many hours poured into what the right choice should be and why. Ultimately picking a new name here that does not have the same problems that "Tank" has, will stop the bikeshed. Players don't have strong opinions about renaming "Cleric" to "Priest", and they won't have strong opinions about renaming "Defender" to "Guardian", or "Champon", or any other fitting term, as long as the chosen term is, indeed, fitting. "Tank" is not such a term.

    [Edit] Other discussions where it comes up (and when):

    Reddit 6 days ago
    Reddit November 2020
    Forums September 2020
    Forums September 2020 (different thread)
    Forums August 2020
    Forums July 2020 (loose fit)
    Forums August 2018
    Forums August 2017
    Reddit May 2017

    [Edit Jan 18] re: Tank is not a class because you pick a secondary archetype that forms your class.

    After scrubbing through Forums, Reddit, and Discord I only found this as the official response regarding renaming the Tank:

    Screenshot_from_2021-01-18_15-55-23.png?width=1612&height=1246

    This is from January 2020, which to the best of my investigative ability is prior to level 25 requirement for secondary archetype was mentioned in an interview (July 2020) and subsequently added to the wiki (November 2020). Good folks at Discord say this was known to be somewhere in the level 20-30 range for a couple years now, but so far I can't find any sources for that.

    Regardless, as things stand today, picking Tank as primary archetype, you are literally called Tank in game (whether the label is "class" or "archetype" is immaterial) from level 1 to 24.
  • No. (Yes, "no" again)
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
  • MaciejMaciej Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    daveywavey wrote: »
    No. (Yes, "no" again)

    For the record, do you disagree because you think it's fine if the archetype name does not fit the setting, or do you disagree because you think the term fits the setting, or some other reason?
  • palabanapalabana Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Makes sense. Do we know if Tank means anything lore-wise?
  • Maybe in this fantasy world they do use "Tank". Who are you to decide that's not a valid way to address a heavily defense oriented character who keeps the attention of creatures off their allies?
    5000x1000px_Sathrago_Commission_RavenJuu.jpg?ex=661327bf&is=6600b2bf&hm=e6652ad4fec65a6fe03abd2e8111482acb29206799f1a336b09f703d4ff33c8b&
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • Sathrago wrote: »
    Maybe in this fantasy world they do use "Tank". Who are you to decide that's not a valid way to address a heavily defense oriented character who keeps the attention of creatures off their allies?

    What a stupid answer.

    Everybody is entitled to give feedback.

    I was around when Jedi Wizard was the name of one of the advanced classes of Swtor. People gave feedback. You know how it went down.
  • MaciejMaciej Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited January 2021
    Sathrago wrote: »
    Maybe in this fantasy world they do use "Tank". Who are you to decide that's not a valid way to address a heavily defense oriented character who keeps the attention of creatures off their allies?

    Even in fantasy settings that have literal tanks (like Warhammer Fantasy) it's still not a valid personal descriptor.

    - What's your role in military young lad?
    - I am a tank.
    - ...you mean you are a tank operator?
    - No, I'm literally a tank.

    If you can find an example where someone in any fantasy setting says "I am a tank", meaning what we all understand this to mean (as opposed to "a large liquid container"), feel free to share. I'll be waiting. Until then, please refrain from alluding that I speak from authority rather than common sense.
  • VhaeyneVhaeyne Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I am very skeptical that they will keep the name till launch. I am betting this is a ongoing joke for intrepid, and they would have fixed it sooner if these threads did not keep popping up.

    That said. Keep these threads coming.
    TVMenSP.png
    If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
  • Tanks are health reservoir. Fitting.
    Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
  • MaciejMaciej Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Percimes wrote: »
    Tanks are health reservoir. Fitting.

    It's as fitting as calling Mages in classic WoW water dispensers.

    oCI3A6g.jpeg
  • Wizbane wrote: »
    Sathrago wrote: »
    Maybe in this fantasy world they do use "Tank". Who are you to decide that's not a valid way to address a heavily defense oriented character who keeps the attention of creatures off their allies?

    What a stupid answer.

    Everybody is entitled to give feedback.

    I was around when Jedi Wizard was the name of one of the advanced classes of Swtor. People gave feedback. You know how it went down.

    Apples and oranges baby rage. Star wars has a very established lore. This game is in pre-alpha and originates from a pathfinder game where the term tank is quite often used.

    5000x1000px_Sathrago_Commission_RavenJuu.jpg?ex=661327bf&is=6600b2bf&hm=e6652ad4fec65a6fe03abd2e8111482acb29206799f1a336b09f703d4ff33c8b&
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • 'Tank' seems just fine - because it's not the characters in the game that are acknowledging their roles in a Roleplay setting; it's we players that are acknowledging the role in an out-of-character group-role setting.

    Otherwise, the 1st-person in-character role would be something along the lines of "Vanguard" or "Vanguardsman" - but that's typically not just one or two people; It's a role of an entire group that charges first into the fighting, in a military-sized battle. If there were 8 total people somewhere about to enter battle IRL/out-of-character, you wouldn't classify 1 or 2 people as your army's vanguard. 8 people aren't an army!


  • MaciejMaciej Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    'Tank' seems just fine - because it's not the characters in the game that are acknowledging their roles in a Roleplay setting; it's we players that are acknowledging the role in an out-of-character group-role setting.

    That would be fine if all archetypes were named after their roles, but with a loose exception for Summoner, no other archetype is named after its role, not even the main healer.
    'Otherwise, the 1st-person in-character role would be something along the lines of "Vanguard" or "Vanguardsman" - but that's typically not just one or two people; It's a role of an entire group that charges first into the fighting, in a military-sized battle. If there were 8 total people somewhere about to enter battle IRL/out-of-character, you wouldn't classify 1 or 2 people as your army's vanguard. 8 people aren't an army!



    There is plenty of good names to pick from, so that's a moot point.
Sign In or Register to comment.