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

Maciej

bloodprophet wrote: »

What if they changed the name to doodads? I still wouldn't care. We give words meaning. The question is the intent.
Asking an artist to change his painting because I don't like the color he chose because I don't think it fits seems ..... off to me some how. Why should an artist change their work to fit what the viewer thinks?

What if the viewer wants the artist to be successful, and the suggested change would make the painting better and more appealing to the public, and the artist has been publicly giving interviews asking people for critique?

Steven is of course free to develop whatever game he wishes with his money, screw the public, but you can't tell me there is anything wrong with giving him feedback when he did ask for it.

As to the word itself: Ashes has a very explicit art style, with semi-realistic armor, architecture, no oversized weapons etc., those are all excellent in their merit and they make the world grounded and believable. So if we care about the setting visually, should we not care about the language spoken in the world?

AntVictus

no one really cares, if it changes then it changes. if not whoopty do.

Jamation

I have no personal preference on the matter.

However, in regards to those who are worried about immersion in the world, the people who will use the term "Tank" will be players. Otherwise, most NPC's most likely will never refer to someone as a Tank (unless there is some sort of "Tank trainer") and will probably refer to other NPCs as their class (such as Knight, Warden, Paladin, etc).

The term tank is a general common term used throughout many gaming communities. Regardless if the in game name is changed people will still call out "Looking For Tank!" so the end result is the same. It's like the nuance between calling something a clan or guild, it's just a term people use depending on what they're accustomed to.

Maciej

Jamation wrote: »

I have no personal preference on the matter.

However, in regards to those who are worried about immersion in the world, the people who will use the term "Tank" will be players. Otherwise, most NPC's most likely will never refer to someone as a Tank (unless there is some sort of "Tank trainer") and will probably refer to other NPCs as their class (such as Knight, Warden, Paladin, etc).

Yeah, that's fair, but it still leaves a hole. What word would my level 1 tank character use in "I am a ______" when describing their background/training? This is not a deal breaker for me, but as just stated, I don't RP in MMOs.

Jamation wrote: »

The term tank is a general common term used throughout many gaming communities. Regardless if the in game name is changed people will still call out "Looking For Tank!" so the end result is the same. It's like the nuance between calling something a clan or guild, it's just a term people use depending on what they're accustomed to.

Yup, and that's all good.

Elo

Maciej wrote: »

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.

I think this quote is the key point. If we picked primary and secondary both at level 1, then using "tank" wouldn't matter much. But since secondary is chosen at 25, the word feels awkward as part of an immersive fantasy setting. NPC's may say things like, "Oh, I see you're a ranger", or "Oh, I see your a rogue." If they say, "Oh, see you're a tank," it's weird. At the tavern, "Tanks drink free on Tuesdays!" The signs above the doors say "Rogue's Guild", "Mage's Guild", "Fighter's Guild", and "Tank's Guild". It's awkward. Not a huge deal, but whenever an NPC says "tank", it will be a little bit of a jolt out of immersion.

Because the secondary archetype is chosen at level 25, we can expect that "tank" would be part of the vocabulary of the NPCs.

Tyranthraxus

Sholer wrote: »

Anyone with reasoning or with understanding on the subject is not going to be ok with the name "tank" for a class.

Paladins, Necromancers, probably Rangers, and sometimes Clerics might refer to themselves using the same terminology for them that you or I - as players - would refer to them. However, a *massive* amount of the sub-classes could all be referred to as 'fighters', 'wizards', 'priests', etc.

Given that the specific names are used to identify a class's specific abilities to us as *players*, it feels somewhat moot to argue about what the Roleplay terminology should be, given that someone in-character could darn well call themselves just about anything. For example:

An in-character Mage may never even have heard the term 'mage', instead calling themselves wizards, warlocks, or shamans - but that doesn't change what class they are, to the player.

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

Everyone playing the archetype will be using its name for their base class till level 25.

Actually, everyone will be using it for the duration of the game.

Once you hit level 25, players are not going to suddenly start looking for specific classes, and most players will still refer to themselves by their primary archtype. The reason for this is simple - it is the fastest way to communicate what it is you will do for a group.

Since groups will want one of each primary archtype in order to maximize non-combat abilities, groups looking for players are absolutly going to want a ranger, or a bard, or a fighter. This is what will be asked for in chat when looking for players to fill out a party. Groups that have 7 players but no tank aren't going to care if you are a Warden, a Keeper or a Paladin, all they will care about is that you can tank.

As such, a tank will be referred to as a tank for the entire time they are playing Ashes - just as in virtually every MMO ever.

In addition to that, even if the name of the class is changed, players will still say they are looking for a tank, because that is the basic and accepted parlance among MMO players.

So, not only will players that pick the tank class be called tanks for the entire time they play the game, but even if Intrepid did change the class name, they will still be called tanks.

Ergo, I don't see the point.

LieutenantToast

Hellloooo lovely folks! As there have been several relatively popular threads regarding this topic in recent memory, I've merged together a few of them here for further discussion all in one place

Unfortunately Vanilla's merge functionality leaves a bit to be desired in terms of how it informs and redirects you all when these changes are made, so I've made some notes on how we can improve that moving forward!

ariatras

You could make the same argument for ranger. It too is a modern word. The dictionary definition has nothing to do with archery and the like. Or doesn't it count because dungeons and dragons has it as a class name?

For most groups you'll be seeing this.

Looking for tank
Looking for healer
Looking for dps

Unless some specific place requires you to bring a specific class.

Tank as a name is fine. It's descriptive. Given the long list of class names.

If it helps, think of it as one of those games that give weird names to their archetype classes. First thing you do. "Oh, that's a healer, that's a hunter/archer/ranger etc."

Shootersa

I don't understand why people want to deviate from the standard in almost all MMO's. In almost all MMO's the class that absorbs damage and can hold aggro is called a Tank.

Even in Archeage where you have classes that aren't called Tank such as Skullknight. But even if that is the case people will still ask for the role tank if they need it. I think that it should just be the way it is, after all eventually you will ask for the standard roles anyways such as DPS, Healer or Tank.

Maciej

ariatras wrote: »

You could make the same argument for ranger. It too is a modern word.

The Etymology Online Dictionary says the word is “attested from 1660s in sense of ‘man (often mounted) who polices an area.'” The dictionary traces ranger to “range”, which is derived from from an Old French root. The 14th century use of “range” in Middle English, however, is given as “‘row or line of persons’ (especially hunters or soldiers)”.

Ranger is perfectly fine, and the etymology is uncomplicated.

LXIX wrote: »

I don't understand why people want to deviate from the standard in almost all MMO's. In almost all MMO's the class that absorbs damage and can hold aggro is called a Tank.

Even in Archeage where you have classes that aren't called Tank such as Skullknight. But even if that is the case people will still ask for the role tank if they need it. I think that it should just be the way it is, after all eventually you will ask for the standard roles anyways such as DPS, Healer or Tank.

it's is called a Tank, but it's not literally named Tank, and for as many people that argue this I've yet to see an example of this being a naming convention rather than gaming vocabulary.

Tank (gaming) is a neologism, its etymology in English depends on Tank (vehicle), so for the etymology to make roleplaying/immersive sense in the world, there have to be Tanks (vehicles) in the world, and they have to be common enough for an average person to know what their name is. This gets even weirder when you move away from English, because in plenty of languages the word for Tank (gaming) is the English word "Tank", which is both a neologism and a foreign import disjoint from the literal Tank (vehicle) translation.

What the name is matters for the same reason that the style of the armor worn by the characters and the weapons they wield matters. If we care about the visual representation of the fantasy setting, we should care about the language used in that setting.

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

it's is called a Tank, but it's not literally named Tank, and for as many people that argue this I've yet to see an example of this being a naming convention.

Here is an example.

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

Maciej wrote: »

it's is called a Tank, but it's not literally named Tank, and for as many people that argue this I've yet to see an example of this being a naming convention.

Here is an example.

Very funny.

Edit: to your point earlier, nobody (literally 0 people) argues that we should stop calling tanks tanks as gamers OOC, so it's a mighty fine straw man that you spent good couple paragraphs defeating.

daveywavey

ariatras wrote: »

You could make the same argument for ranger. It too is a modern word. The dictionary definition has nothing to do with archery and the like. Or doesn't it count because dungeons and dragons has it as a class name?

And "Rogue". A Rogue has nothing to do with being sneaky or stealthy or assassin-like, and yet nobody (else!) seems to have a problem with that.

Rogue:
"noun
a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel.
a playfully mischievous person; scamp.
a tramp or vagabond."

I really don't see what the problem is with "Tank".

Maciej

daveywavey wrote: »

And "Rogue". A Rogue has nothing to do with being sneaky or stealthy or assassin-like, and yet nobody (else!) seems to have a problem with that.

Rogue is not a neologism (an average person living in the world is not going to be confused about it), and it is an established name in the fantasy genre, including novels.

Also, thank you for pointing out that archetype names aren't necessarily descriptive of the archetype's role.

Shootersa

Maciej wrote: »

LXIX wrote: »

I don't understand why people want to deviate from the standard in almost all MMO's. In almost all MMO's the class that absorbs damage and can hold aggro is called a Tank.

Even in Archeage where you have classes that aren't called Tank such as Skullknight. But even if that is the case people will still ask for the role tank if they need it. I think that it should just be the way it is, after all eventually you will ask for the standard roles anyways such as DPS, Healer or Tank.

it's is called a Tank, but it's not literally named Tank, and for as many people that argue this I've yet to see an example of this being a naming convention rather than gaming vocabulary.

Tank (gaming) is a neologism, its etymology in English depends on Tank (vehicle), so for the etymology to make roleplaying/immersive sense in the world, there have to be Tanks (vehicles) in the world, and they have to be common enough for an average person to know what their name is. This gets even weirder when you move away from English, because in plenty of languages the word for Tank (gaming) is the English word "Tank", which is both a neologism and a foreign import disjoint from the literal Tank (vehicle) translation.

What the name is matters for the same reason that the style of the armor worn by the characters and the weapons they wield matters. If we care about the visual representation of the fantasy setting, we should care about the language used in that setting.

I understand that it might not fit for the roleplaying/immersive side of things like given our knowledge and interpretation of the word Tank it means something completely different. However that doesn't mean that the word means the same thing in Ashes. Ashes is a world were tanks (as we know it) don't exist until we bring them into the picture.

Maybe a better word for tank would be Defender or Champion or Beserker however in the end the playerbase and the people playing the game will still refer to the role as tank. I don't care what it is called in the end. Sure it might look weird but its just a minor thing that will only be an annoyance to roleplayers or people who want to completely immerse themselves.

Maciej

LXIX wrote: »

Maybe a better word for tank would be Defender or Champion or Beserker however in the end the playerbase and the people playing the game will still refer to the role as tank.

Bingo, and that's all we want

Shootersa

Maciej wrote: »

LXIX wrote: »

Maybe a better word for tank would be Defender or Champion or Beserker however in the end the playerbase and the people playing the game will still refer to the role as tank.

Bingo, and that's all we want

Still, i don't care tank = tank even if it makes no sense from a lore perspective

Samson1

Maciej

LXIX wrote: »

Maciej wrote: »

LXIX wrote: »

Maybe a better word for tank would be Defender or Champion or Beserker however in the end the playerbase and the people playing the game will still refer to the role as tank.

Bingo, and that's all we want

Still, i don't care tank = tank even if it makes no sense from a lore perspective

Yup, that's all good. If we change the name:

Folks who don't care, still won't care.
Folks who think Tank is fine aren't likely to object to Defender, Guardian, Protector, etc. either.
Folks who do care what the archetype is called because of roleplaying, immersion, or an unhealthy obsession with etymology of words in fantasy settings, will stfu and join everyone else in enjoying game.

The goal isn't to stop calling tanks tanks, the goal is to make the game more appealing to more people. If you can make the game more appealing at no additional cost other than trivial amount of work it takes to change a label, why wouldn't you?

Child Item