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

Nagash

I don't care at this point

Sholer

I agree, they can just put a name class who sound better for a fantasy world like "Guardian" or something like that, there is a lot of options.

Sum12hate

Tanks are angry loud meat walls that just HAVE to be the center of attention anyways (preferably the enemies) I vote we name them Custodian's you know because it's definition is "a person who has responsibility for or looks after something." And we all know they're just here to clean up whatever mess the dps got themselves into until a healer shows up..

MoGod

I would think it will be up to the person playing the actual character at this point not the lore ...........

Samson1

I really don't care either way. Glad Intrepid is sticking to their guns though and not letting the mob dictate every aspect of the game.

Maciej

Samson wrote: »

I really don't care either way. Glad Intrepid is sticking to their guns though and not letting the mob dictate every aspect of the game.

That's overly dramatic, Intrepid is developing the game in the open by choice, community giving feedback is not "mob dictating", and you obviously do care since you've replied to this and the last thread about it.

Samson1

I guess you could label it as an 'overly dramatic' response if you'd like.

I just support Intrepid's stance on the matter. Numerous threads have been created for this silly topic and everyone says the same thing. How long will people beat a dead horse?

Maciej

As long as new people become interested in the game, and then read the wiki and find out the archetype literally named "Tank" is my guess, I'm in that category (joined December).

The fact that people with different backgrounds across 3 years get irked by it, and come with the same explanations as to why, should be a pretty strong sign that something is off.

bloodprophet

Maciej wrote: »

Samson wrote: »

I really don't care either way. Glad Intrepid is sticking to their guns though and not letting the mob dictate every aspect of the game.

That's overly dramatic, Intrepid is developing the game in the open by choice, community giving feedback is not "mob dictating", and you obviously do care since you've replied to this and the last thread about it.

Interesting statement considering this is the 15th thread at least for this topic.
Personally I hope they keep it. Stevens invited us to join HIS Pathfinder campaign. I think it rude to tell the GM I don't like what you named something is your make believe world. Change it!
Seems a little overly dramatic.

Maciej

Well, no, that's not quite right. I've listened to an interview with Steven, and he has pretty explicitly asked for feedback. I'll never understand the need to defend a developer from what is polite, reasoned out, and articulated argument. This is not going to make or break the game for me, but I do believe the game would be better if this trivial change was made, that's all.

bloodprophet wrote: »

Interesting statement considering this is the 15th thread at least for this topic.

And that's just making my point for me, thank you. Do you have links to all of those? I'm happy to add them to the post on top

Ravudha

Originally, I would've just thought "well that's the naming convention in this world, I can live with it", but after seeing how quickly they turned around on dwarves due to comments on their proportions, it makes me wonder why they don't want to change 'Tank' when the topic has had as much, if not more, attention/backlash.

Dragonwaz

Ravudha wrote: »

Originally, I would've just thought "well that's the naming convention in this world, I can live with it", but after seeing how quickly they turned around on dwarves due to comments on their proportions, it makes me wonder why they don't want to change 'Tank' when the topic has had as much, if not more, attention/backlash.

Probably cause they aren't even ready to showcase the class yet. The difference between Tank and Cleric/priest is that the Cleric/priest has their base kit decided and the video is already out. They have a kit for tank but it isn't ready yet so why rename the class before even the simplest form is set.

I'm more concerned that there's only one full tank class. They seem to have at least 2 mostly support classes in the Cleric and Bard. Summoner is confirmed to be a sort of Jack of all trades with summons for DPS, support, and tanking, but all the other classes I'm remembering seem to be mainly DPS focused unless your second class is tank and even then I don't see how added tank flavor to a rogue is going to make you a tank unless they go full hog with the tank flavoring and make unique tanks like Dodge tanks or spell barrier tanks.

There just being one pure tank is either a sign that tanking was just a given and they didn't care to actually create a tank beyond filling the holy Trinity which would be why it's just named tank or they are really putting effort into making the class and the subclass versions of it unique and distinct from each other and the name is just cause they haven't settled on the theme for the base tank.

Damokles

Khronus

Personally, the name tank is kind dumb.

Tank - 1. a large receptacle or storage chamber, especially for liquid or gas.
2. a heavy armored fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.

I have my fingers crossed that when the game comes out and I am discussing it I don't have to say "Hey there, I am currently main tanking as a tank/tank. Like......wtf is that garbage.

Ravudha

Dragonwaz wrote: »

Ravudha wrote: »

Originally, I would've just thought "well that's the naming convention in this world, I can live with it", but after seeing how quickly they turned around on dwarves due to comments on their proportions, it makes me wonder why they don't want to change 'Tank' when the topic has had as much, if not more, attention/backlash.

They have a kit for tank but it isn't ready yet so why rename the class before even the simplest form is set.

I doubt that's the reason. They already know the core design goals and direction of the class, which is enough to pick a name. Implementation is just a matter of how to execute the design vision. Sure, there might be some design changes, but I don't see it deviating from the core of what the class is meant to be.

Like visual particle effects, combat, and dwarves, if they wanted to change the name, they could simply announce the intent to in the future.

ariatras

Most of the time, you'll be finding people in an OOC capacity anyway (out of character) tank/healer/dps are just ways to express the type of role you want/need. It's also an easy and convenient way to communicate the type of role you'll be occupying.

However, if you recruit people in an IC basis. Your whole approach would be different. Provided you recruit people you don't know. You could instead ask for a "frontliner" or something along those lines. But the RP there would probably change the entire nature of the run itself.

In short, there's nothing wrong with the current role names.

MoGod

Khronus wrote: »

Personally, the name tank is kind dumb.

Tank - 1. a large receptacle or storage chamber, especially for liquid or gas.
2. a heavy armored fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.

I have my fingers crossed that when the game comes out and I am discussing it I don't have to say "Hey there, I am currently main tanking as a tank/tank. Like......wtf is that garbage.

Ok how about I am a taunt person because that is what I do taunt stuff so my party can stay alive lol or shield barrier because I have a shield and protect people from dying either way it will be up to the person playing that character.................. But I see your point.

Sathrago

Maciej 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?

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.

No you misunderstood. I never meant that you had authority, I was pointing out that your opinion is not the be all end all. As for proof of a fantasy setting that has characters that say they are a tank, I already explained that. This game is literally pulling from a pathfinder campaign that Steven ran. It is perfectly reasonable for the descriptor "Tank" to be used in a different manner in a fantasy world full of adventurers. Over many, many years of video games, tabletop games, manga, and light novels the term "Tank" has been adapted as the name for the frontline defensive fighters that protect the party from major bodily harm. This is adventuring lingo 101 and not at all weird for someone familiar with this sort of setting.

I am so sorry that you feel the name doesn't fit. However it is quite silly to be this adamant about a class name that your character will never be stuck with since you will always be using an archetype name. Maybe Steven will come out and say it was a placeholder later on, who knows, but until then this is what you get.

Maciej

Sathrago wrote: »

No you misunderstood. I never meant that you had authority, I was pointing out that your opinion is not the be all end all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Sathrago wrote: »

As for proof of a fantasy setting that has characters that say they are a tank, I already explained that. This game is literally pulling from a pathfinder campaign that Steven ran. It is perfectly reasonable for the descriptor "Tank" to be used in a different manner in a fantasy world full of adventurers.

I'm familiar with Pathfinder, and I can tell you that there is no character type in Pathfinder called "Tank", either first or second edition. Is it a meta term used by players to describe characters? Yes. Is it in the source material? No.

Sathrago wrote: »

Over many, many years of video games, tabletop games, manga, and light novels the term "Tank" has been adapted as the name for the frontline defensive fighters that protect the party from major bodily harm. This is adventuring lingo 101 and not at all weird for someone familiar with this sort of setting.

Well, if that were true, how come you can't give me one example?

Sathrago wrote: »

I am so sorry that you feel the name doesn't fit. However it is quite silly to be this adamant about a class name that your character will never be stuck with since you will always be using an archetype name. Maybe Steven will come out and say it was a placeholder later on, who knows, but until then this is what you get.

Everyone playing the archetype will be using its name for their base class till level 25. And it's not like it's just me feeling this way given how often it comes up, which it does, because "Tank" is a silly name.

One of these is not like the others:

Tyranthraxus

Maciej wrote: »

As long as new people become interested in the game, and then read the wiki and find out the archetype literally named "Tank" is my guess, I'm in that category (joined December).

The fact that people with different backgrounds across 3 years get irked by it, and come with the same explanations as to why, should be a pretty strong sign that something is off.

I think that it speaks leagues more that there's not a definitive reason to re-name the entire combat-role across all genres speaks any louder than the traditional name for the role; *Why* would we re-name the tank role, in the Tank/DPS/Heals, spectrum?

Oh, right.... Because every now and then someone thinks that because Tank roles don't involve actually being in a wheels-and-cannon tank means that we need to re-name the combat-role entirely will somehow stick across all games and all genres?

Dude - the guy keeping the aggro is a Tank! I (and I don't feel it's arrogant to say that 'most' people) don't feel *ANY* need to argue across the Internets that we should instead begin calling the role "Aggro-Farmer Supreme!" - nor any other name you can think of to replace it - simply because actual wheel-and-cannon tanks won't be in the game.

Child Item