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

mcstackerson

Maciej wrote: »

Question though: on a scale of 1 to 10, where "Tank" is 10, how would you score "Defender" as a fitting descriptor for the archetype?

Hard for me to say but probably an 8 as it isn't a bad replacement and would work fine if it was switched.
This is easily debatable but I think the only argument against it would be the name sounds like it focuses on the defense aspect of tanking and doesn't acknowledge the control/offensive component of the role.

Cypher

Let’s have the primary class be called Dwayne and the subclass be Johnson. Combined we have “The Rock”.

Cypher

Cripsus wrote: »

@StevenSharif is this true good sir? You aren’t willing to adjust class names? I believe I bring some valid points, and I would like to know your reasoning behind the name choice.

Yuyukoyay wrote: »

Well it won't be the only name. They get a real name when they form any of their 8 classes.

Yeah you’re just choosing your archetype and sub archetype. Together they make a named class. Don’t sweat over the word “tank” when again, it’s just the archetype.

TarkusBlack

(Backs out of thread slowly)

Khronus

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.

When the tank/dps/healer meta was created. WE the people created the term because it fit the job description. We will all definitely still use the term and say "ok now we need a tank" when forming a group but that does not make it right to call someone a tank lol. It has no value as a title when considering the word itself came to be from a modern day machine and a container to carry liquids or whatever the word actually means. We are all here to be taken away into this virtual world of wonder and it stops when having to choose something that is overwhelmingly considered lame.

I will be tanking today as a tank/tank.....it's just plain dumb.

Maciej

Cypher wrote: »

Yeah you’re just choosing your archetype and sub archetype. Together they make a named class. Don’t sweat over the word “tank” when again, it’s just the archetype.

That you play as until level 25. This was a convincing argument when the assumption was that you'd start as a Guardian, Paladin, etc., but you don't, you play a Tank for a considerable length of time.

Shootersa

I'm impressed this has filled 15 pages already

daveywavey

LXIX wrote: »

I'm impressed this has filled 15 pages already

I wonder if we'll need to start up the "pie vs cake" debate again.

Shootersa

daveywavey wrote: »

LXIX wrote: »

I'm impressed this has filled 15 pages already

I wonder if we'll need to start up the "pie vs cake" debate again.

Oh that's easy. Pie

bloodprophet

Pie

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

Cypher wrote: »

Yeah you’re just choosing your archetype and sub archetype. Together they make a named class. Don’t sweat over the word “tank” when again, it’s just the archetype.

That you play as until level 25. This was a convincing argument when the assumption was that you'd start as a Guardian, Paladin, etc., but you don't, you play a Tank for a considerable length of time.

Level 25 is probably 25% of the time it would take to level to the cap, if even that

90% of the game will be played at the level cap.

This means that you are arguing in regards to around 2.5% of player time.

Not a great basis for an argument.

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

Nothing you or I say here will have any impact on the game.

Noaani wrote: »

Maciej wrote: »

Cypher wrote: »

Yeah you’re just choosing your archetype and sub archetype. Together they make a named class. Don’t sweat over the word “tank” when again, it’s just the archetype.

That you play as until level 25. This was a convincing argument when the assumption was that you'd start as a Guardian, Paladin, etc., but you don't, you play a Tank for a considerable length of time.

Level 25 is probably 25% of the time it would take to level to the cap, if even that

90% of the game will be played at the level cap.

This means that you are arguing in regards to around 2.5% of player time.

Not a great basis for an argument.

I've never seen anyone so involved in a discussion they think don't matter as you, Noaani. Moving the goalpost does not address any of the concerns folks have over the name.

Kelwald

daveywavey wrote: »

LXIX wrote: »

I'm impressed this has filled 15 pages already

I wonder if we'll need to start up the "pie vs cake" debate again.

Obviously cake it is.

Samson1

Kelwald wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

LXIX wrote: »

I'm impressed this has filled 15 pages already

I wonder if we'll need to start up the "pie vs cake" debate again.

Obviously cake it is.

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Nothing you or I say here will have any impact on the game.

Noaani wrote: »

Maciej wrote: »

Cypher wrote: »

Yeah you’re just choosing your archetype and sub archetype. Together they make a named class. Don’t sweat over the word “tank” when again, it’s just the archetype.

That you play as until level 25. This was a convincing argument when the assumption was that you'd start as a Guardian, Paladin, etc., but you don't, you play a Tank for a considerable length of time.

Level 25 is probably 25% of the time it would take to level to the cap, if even that

90% of the game will be played at the level cap.

This means that you are arguing in regards to around 2.5% of player time.

Not a great basis for an argument.

I've never seen anyone so involved in a discussion they think don't matter as you, Noaani. Moving the goalpost does not address any of the concerns folks have over the name.

There is a difference between being here to try and change the game, and trying to change people's perception of the game.

One is futile, the other has merit, if the person in question has an understanding of an aspect of the game that is likely wrong or misguided.

You have made that argument before in this thread and I opted to only point out one of the flaws in your reasoning at the time. That flaw should have been enough for you to not bother with making that argument any more, but since you made it again I am simply pointing out further issues with trying to make that point.

Sometimes, if I think people can handle it, I'll point out several issues I can see with things people have said. If I don't think people can handle it, I'll point them out one at a time.

That isn't shifting goal posts. It isn't my fault you are clinging to an argument with multifaceted flaws.

Rhinehold

I'm in agreement with the idea that "Tank" is on odd name for a class, when all the others are "in character" from an role play perspective.

I agree that it breaks immersion, much like it would if there were other in-game names like Spell DPS, Knife DPS, Bow DPS, Heals, etc. Tank is a generic team, not a genre-defining RP term, appropriate for an mmoRPg. Spellweaver invokes imagery, imagination, fantasy, and adventure. Ranged DPS is a term used by gamers as a short-form archetypal colloquialism. I feel the same about Tank.

It seems like a small thing, and because of that, should be a easy enough adjustment. I like some of the proposed options in this tread: Defender, Protector, or even Shield.

Love the conversation, and desire from the community to help the Devs make this game as great as it can be. Appreciate the folks at Intrepid considering these thoughts.

Maciej

Sort of a tangent, but I haven't seen anyone mention it.

It should be fairly simple to add "Role: Tank" (or "Role: Melee Damage" etc. for other archetypes) to the character creation UI. Between that, the detailed description, and the iconography, the burden of relying on the name itself to convey what the archetype does should be fairly low.

Jamation

I don't mean to belittle anyone that thinks this is important, but why does it matter what it's called in the end? If a single word is all it takes to break immersion, then there is something else going on.

Maciej

Jamation wrote: »

I don't mean to belittle anyone that thinks this is important, but why does it matter what it's called in the end? If a single word is all it takes to break immersion, then there is something else going on.

Funnily, I came into this thread thinking "surely it's obvious that it is immersion breaking". The main takeaway, for me at least, is that whether it is immersion breaking or not is super subjective, so pushing that argument either way isn't going to be productive.

Jamation

Maciej wrote: »

Funnily, I came into this thread thinking "surely it's obvious that it is immersion breaking". The main takeaway, for me at least, is that whether it is immersion breaking or not is super subjective, so pushing that argument either way isn't going to be productive.

I was wondering how a single word could impact overall immersion. So I wasn't pushing an argument, but now I guess I will explain further because why not.

As you said, it's subjective. So no matter what word is used, someone isn't going to like the "immersion" created. Which puts the issue into the "not everyone can be happy" category. I personally am not a fan of the term "fighter" as it's open ended on what it means. What type of fighter? Does that make every other archetype not a fighting class? What happens if fighters are fighting for different sides?

But in the end it doesn't matter because it gets the point across and I suspend my disbelief as I do when I see
children flying on broomsticks or dogs playing basketball. Suspension of disbelief is a fundamental concept in any piece of story telling, which includes video games. I'm not going to get hung up on the details in order to ruin my own enjoyment. If that was the case every fantasy story I've ever watched or read would be a miserable experience because magic isn't real so none of this should be happening.

Basically, I'm confused how people so invested in immersion can't suspend their disbelief for a high fantasy role playing world.

Child Item