The problem with having “Tank” as a class name

Maciej wrote: »

My point that UI is going to go through iterations, and adding role descriptors to it eventually is both common sense and industry standard, so I'd expect it to appear.

It isn't standard, but even if it is, it is tacky and shouldn't be a thing.

The developers should never tell players outright what they can or can not do. They can give players clues, but never outright tell players.

Noaani wrote: »

Why are people complaining about tanks being named after a military vehicle and not complaining about fighters being also named after a military vehicle developed during the same war?

I imagine that most "freedom fighters" would take issue with you calling them a plane.

daveywavey wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Why are people complaining about tanks being named after a military vehicle and not complaining about fighters being also named after a military vehicle developed during the same war?

I imagine that most "freedom fighters" would take issue with you calling them a plane.

They should be more concerned about the other part of their name being derived from a type of fried potato side dish.

Noaani wrote: »

Maciej wrote: »

My point that UI is going to go through iterations, and adding role descriptors to it eventually is both common sense and industry standard, so I'd expect it to appear.

It isn't standard, but even if it is, it is tacky and shouldn't be a thing.

The developers should never tell players outright what they can or can not do. They can give players clues, but never outright tell players.

LOL

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Maciej wrote: »

My point that UI is going to go through iterations, and adding role descriptors to it eventually is both common sense and industry standard, so I'd expect it to appear.

It isn't standard, but even if it is, it is tacky and shouldn't be a thing.

The developers should never tell players outright what they can or can not do. They can give players clues, but never outright tell players.

LOL

You are aware that this game is a sandbox, right?

The developers aren't even telling us what content we should be doing, let alone what our class can or can not do. In both cases, it should be up to us players to figure out.

After all, this is a game that is not designed for children.

They sure as hell do tell us what the classes can or can not do mate.

I'm wondering what other completely uncontroversial things I can say that you will then proceed on to disagree with because I said it.

Maciej wrote: »

They sure as hell do tell us what the classes can or can not do mate.

I'm wondering what other completely uncontroversial things I can say that you will then proceed on to disagree with because I said it.

No they don't.

They make the class, and then leave it up to us to figure out what we can do with it.

We have our eight base archetypes; and the trinity is a pretty strong influence with regards to the eight base classes. However the area in which we actually begin to play with that line between the trinity is in the secondary classes that you can pick. That's where we begin to blend those spaces and allow people a little bit of influence over their role and whether or not they fit perfectly within a particular category within the trinity

That doesn't sound to me like a developer that is dictating exactly what each archetype can do.

Attempt to guide and direct, sure. Dictate? Nope.

Again, this game is a sandbox, not a themepark. The idea is that the developers give players tools, and players do what we will with them.

Noaani wrote: »

No they don't.

They make the class, and then leave it up to us to figure out what we can do with it.

Dude... this entire thread is about the fact that they named the tank class literally "Tank".

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

No they don't.

They make the class, and then leave it up to us to figure out what we can do with it.

Dude... this entire thread is about the fact that they named the tank class literally "Tank".

Yeah, as that is the best way to suggest to players that this is the class they should roll if they want to be the tank.

We went over that, remember?

If someone wants to try and tank with a mage, the fact that they can pair that with tank, equip plate armor and a shied means they are free to go for it. Add a few buffs to that and you may be successful in some situations.

Adding "Role: Tank" to UI is "tacky and shouldn't be a thing" because "the developers should never tell players outright what they can or can not do",

Literally naming the class "Tank" is "suggeting".

LOL

Noaani wrote: »

If someone wants to try and tank with a mage, the fact that they can pair that with tank, equip plate armor and a shied means they are free to go for it. Add a few buffs to that and you may be successful in some situations.

And we'll never even know the Mage/Tank augments until someone takes one for the team and makes one.

Maciej wrote: »

Adding "Role: Tank" to UI is "tacky and shouldn't be a thing" because "the developers should never tell players outright what they can or can not do",

Literally naming the class "Tank" is "suggeting".

LOL

Correct.

You understand now.

The developers adding a field to each class to way what their role is suggests that this is all they can do. Developers should never tell players what they can't do, especially in a sandbox.

Noaani wrote: »

Correct.

You understand now.

😂

Just put it in the Q&A, and settle it for good.

"Will you be changing the "Tank" name, or not?"

See if they've changed their answer since last time...

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Correct.

You understand now.

😂

If you come over to my house, and ask for a screwdriver, if I give you one, you can use it for things other than driving screws.

If I say to you, "here is my screwdriver, it is for driving screws" you are now in a position where you shouldn't use it for anything other than driving screws.

I assume you see that, I can't make it any clearer.

Just because a thing has a name that matches it's function, that doesn't mean that is all it can do. It does mean that there should be nothing at all that is better at that job that the thing is named after, but it doesn't limit it. As soon as someone in authority says that is the only job the thing can do, then that is the only job that thing should do.

You understand now. I am sure.