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

Damokles

insomnia wrote: »

Does OP not have anything better to do, than complain about a class name

It is still in Alpha 1 so yes, he doesnt have anything better to do. xD

bigepeen

insomnia wrote: »

Does OP not have anything better to do, than complain about a class name

The funny thing is, it's not even a class name. It's an archetype name. People aren't going to run around saying "I'm a tank". No, they will be saying "I'm a guardian" or "I'm a knight", based on their primary and secondary archetype combination.

Medrash1

@Jamaina

Jamaina wrote: »

Tank is a bad name for a class and should be changed, it doesn't descipe the class outside of combat or in roleplay at all. The cleric isn't called healer either or bard for buffer. Cleric has a roleplay implications that healer wouldn't. Calling tank for shieldmaster, defender or protector would've led to a more proper class name and would define the class for more than just it's combat

Ya i had the same problem and posted a similar but more complex and messy discussion about classes.
It is actually a rule and not a class and it must change, the whole class system have some flaws.
I propose Paladins, it's an iconic tank class, historically and in rpgs too, and it adds a bit of religion to the class too, so we don't have only the cleric one. To give more depth on the religion aspect of the game.
Also the Tank has some spells that are pretty common to paladins in other rpgs.

Anyway they will change it, they said, so don't worry about that.

I whould like to see a better class system development.

Medrash1

@Sov54

Sov54 wrote: »

I guess those who say that it's fine because it's the archetype not the class would prefer to change "cleric" for "healer". Just for consistency.

Otherwise they make no sense at all.

To say you are a classless archetype during 25 levels BUT just in case you choose "tank" as your starting class is ridiculous, really.

Ya it's pretty bad, it seems just few people are actually capable to see all those flaws in the Class system. I have done a discussion in the past month , about classes, but it didn't get enough credit, and i don't see too much attention to the peoples post by the devs. I know there is a lot to read xD too much sometimes, expecially if they do all those non sense dev questions to get the feedback. It takes a lot of time to read them all. Anyway , maybe it's too late to change it, but i hope they will revolutionate the Class System.

Choose a class! ... that is not a class (smal print)

Nagash

We should just rename the tank to meat shield

Medrash1

@vmangman @Jamaina

vmangman wrote: »

Tank isn't a class. It's an archetype. You will be able to roleplay as any of the 8 classes that use tank as their primary archetype (Argent, Paladin, Knight, Spellshield, Warden, Nightshield, Keeper, Guardian).

Exactly ... Tank is not a Class, so why it's listed as a Class? You cannot play an archetype, the archetype is the base idea to build a class.
It's pretty boring to choose the Tank xD .
- Hey what are you going to choose? Do you want to be a Paladin that follow the light magic or dark one, defender of the weak people, man of justice ... or the tank? xD ...
-what is it .. a patrol tank?
-Nono .. it's a rule , the archetype , you .. defend things.
-wait wait ... but what's your goal? you ideals? Assotiations? Style?
-Shut up kid, it's just a tank.

I just want to point out that everything can have archetypes, but archetypes are not classes.
You can play 8 different Classes? But you said, few words before, that the tank is not a Class .. this is pretty confusing, you will play the Tank, an archetype, with another archetype mixed (es. magic archetype, stealthy archetype) and then call it a Class? So now mixing archetypes is the way to make classes right? xD No.

If you mix the idea of a damage taker with the idea of a damage dealer you will simply get the archetype of a powerful beeings, capable of doing everything. It's not a class, just a mix of archetypes.
So if you consider the other archetypes a Class you should add the tank too as a class. Using a Class name maybe, and not an archetype one.
And then, even if you get the new "Class", made with the primary archetype of a tank and a secondary one, you still have as a primary and predominant ... "class" ... an archetype, and not a class actually.
Archetypes are not Classes.
A class is the "profession" or "social status" of the person.

Medrash1

@Nagash

Nagash wrote: »

We should just rename the tank to meat shield

Approved! I don't know why i thought about the puri-puri prisoner of One punch man xD who knows.
A naked tank is so badass xD

insomnia

Medrash wrote: »

@Jamaina

Jamaina wrote: »

Tank is a bad name for a class and should be changed, it doesn't descipe the class outside of combat or in roleplay at all. The cleric isn't called healer either or bard for buffer. Cleric has a roleplay implications that healer wouldn't. Calling tank for shieldmaster, defender or protector would've led to a more proper class name and would define the class for more than just it's combat

Ya i had the same problem and posted a similar but more complex and messy discussion about classes.
It is actually a rule and not a class and it must change, the whole class system have some flaws.
I propose Paladins, it's an iconic tank class, historically and in rpgs too, and it adds a bit of religion to the class too, so we don't have only the cleric one. To give more depth on the religion aspect of the game.
Also the Tank has some spells that are pretty common to paladins in other rpgs.

Anyway they will change it, they said, so don't worry about that.

I whould like to see a better class system development.

Paladin will be in. That is tank/cleric

consultant

I suggested tank class be called Knight class in another post. Think it is more appropriate.

Nagash

consultant wrote: »

I suggested tank class be called Knight class in another post. Think it is more appropriate.

I still say meat shield or punching bag is better

Sathrago

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)

maouw

@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)

Geronimo

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!)

Sokken

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.

daveywavey

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.

mcstackerson

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.

Sov54

mcstackerson 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

mcstackerson 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.

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

Glad I could help.

CROW3

mcstackerson 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.

maouw

CROW3 wrote: »

mcstackerson 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

mcstackerson

Sov54 wrote: »

mcstackerson 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

mcstackerson 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.

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: »

mcstackerson 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?

Child Item