Tank as a class name is perfect fine, if we are given an in game reason as to where the name came from. This need be nothing more than someone thousands of years earlier looking at someone in full plate armor and commenting that they look like a metal water tank, and that name just sticking.
Are you still arguing that the German localization should use Behälter instead of Panzer?
I never argued that point either way. That is something a native German speaker should consider, not me.
Yes you did:
With this point, you are still making the assumption that the class is named after the vehicle, which is exactly what I am saying is not an assumption that should be made.
This point is only valid if the localized version of the tank class in this game uses the word from the associated language for the vehicle.
I somehow doubt they will do that though. It is far more likely they will either not translate it at all, or will use the language appropriate word for the liquid storage vessel.
No I didn't.
With this point, you are still making the assumption that the class is named after the vehicle, which is exactly what I am saying is not an assumption that should be made.
This point is only valid if the localized version of the tank class in this game uses the word from the associated language for the vehicle.
I somehow doubt they will do that though. It is far more likely they will either not translate it at all, or will use the language appropriate word for the liquid storage vessel.
What I am saying here is that this is what they could do, I am not arguing what I think they should do.
That is fairly basic English right there, the start of the paragraph set it up perfectly so that a reasonable reader would understand that I am talking about what they could do, and in total there are three things talked about in the post that could be done. I am not discounting any of them - I am simply saying I think one is less likely and two are more likely. There is no argument there for any option, which is what you think you were posting.
Either you lack reading comprehension to be able to understand full thoughs and are only interested/able to digest bite sized snippets, or you are being completely disingenuous.
I don't care which it is, but it is one of those two.
They'll toss this on the proverbial pile tomorrow - and good riddance! 'Tank' is fine.
This argument is beginning to feel a bad case of herpes. No matter how long you work to suppress it, it seemingly just flares up again, at some point....
What I am saying here is that this is what they could do, I am not arguing what I think they should do.
Which of course makes no sense in any language other than English where Tank (vehicle) and Tank (liquid container) share a word.
As I said (this is the third time now), there are several ways they could do it, I am not the person to ask, and I do not care.
They could call the class "tank" in every language for all I care. Most MMO players would understand it straight away, without needing translation.
There is literally no situation at all ever where the way a thing may translate in to a different language should have any impact on how that thing is developed in its native language.
There is literally no situation at all ever where the way a thing may translate in to a different language should have any impact on how that thing is developed in its native language.
Sure, but you are the guy that keeps on suggesting that there might be / could be some lore explanation for Tank as the archetype name being named after the liquid container, and that the fact that the class is named after the vehicle is just an assumption I'm making. Tank (vehicle) functions as a descriptor for a person in heavy medieval-esque armor just fine, in any language. It's fine to disagree whether that word is fitting for the theme of the game or not, but this:
Tank as a class name is perfect fine, if we are given an in game reason as to where the name came from. This need be nothing more than someone thousands of years earlier looking at someone in full plate armor and commenting that they look like a metal water tank, and that name just sticking.
is just silly. I know where the name comes from, you know where the name comes from, everyone knows where the name comes from.
I know where the name comes from, you know where the name comes from, everyone knows where the name comes from.
Indeed.
However, there are people that dislike it, and the only validnreasin for this is based on lore/immersion.
That point was the specific reason I said there ar many ways the name could be justified in game,being named after a water tank being but one that I suggested.
So,the whole thing was only mentioned in the first place as one potential example of how the name could be justified in game in order to put to rest the argument about lore/immersion,and some people (no names) decided to take that and run with it in actual absurd directions, like what about translations of the game, and we dont need justifocationbecause we all know where it came from.
Honestly, learn to follow the whole topic, not snippets of it.
So,the whole thing was only mentioned in the first place as one potential example of how the name could be justified in game in order to put to rest the argument about lore/immersion,and some people (no names) decided to take that and run with it in actual absurd directions, like what about translations of the game, and we dont need justifocationbecause we all know where it came from.
I know why you mentioned it, your argument went into absurd directions because it was an absurd argument. You've claimed that you are here to convince people the name is fine, but I don't see it. Other people made much more sensible, good faith arguments for that case, one has convinced me that I was wrong (which I admit with no shame) in my assumption that etymological root needs to make literal sense in the setting, as there are other terms we use that fail that test and are perfectly fine. You on the other hand are so stubborn about appearing correct, that when presented with direct evidence that contradicts your points, like quotes from Steven publicly admitting about having done changes that were not planned solely on player feedback, you just double down. And then you do snarky shit like this:
For me Tank is more of a Role Definition.
Like Warriors Can Be Tanks And Damage Dealers.
Paladins can be Tanks and healers and Damage Dealers.
Cant recall a game where the Class was named Tank(I don't talk for Mobile games).
Even in FFXIV Warriors and Paladins and Dark Knights are Tank roles but not named tanks.
I also do hope they will change it something else but its ok even if they leave it like that.
Other people made much more sensible, good faith arguments for that case, one has convinced me that I was wrong
That is because other people addressed the issue you had - which I neither know nor care.
I was addressing a specific person that had a specific issue with the name. You decided that the point I put forward to address their issue didn't address your issue, and therefor is a b.ad faith argument (which is just odd from a number of perspectives).
It's basically like two people going to a car dealership and looking at the same car. One doesn't like the color, and the other doesn't like the range available with the fuel tank. The sales person that the color complaint has tells them they are able to get the car in any color they want, and the sales person the range complaint talks to tells them they can get it with a larger fuel tank.
All is well, and that should be the end of it, but then the person with the range complaint hears the sales person tell the other customer about the color options, and starts talking about how that is a bad faith argument because it doesn't address the range issue.
Honestly, that is what you have done here, because you didn't even attempt to follow the conversation, you just wanted to take snippets out of context.
I would like to see how this discussion ends up with only people who will be playing the class. It's so funny seeing people who plan to play other classes but say "TaNk iS a FiNe NaMe CaUsE FaNtAsy BrUh!!"
I would like to see how this discussion ends up with only people who will be playing the class. It's so funny seeing people who plan to play other classes but say "TaNk iS a FiNe NaMe CaUsE FaNtAsy BrUh!!"
I mean, everyone that doesn't play a tank will just call the class tank anyway.
I would like to see how this discussion ends up with only people who will be playing the class. It's so funny seeing people who plan to play other classes but say "TaNk iS a FiNe NaMe CaUsE FaNtAsy BrUh!!"
It'll end up the same as all the other threads on this same topic. With "Tank" being the archetype name.
I was addressing a specific person that had a specific issue with the name. You decided that the point I put forward to address their issue didn't address your issue, and therefor is a b.ad faith argument (which is just odd from a number of perspectives).
You literally quote replied to me with that stuff on previous page mate, if you want to address someone else, maybe @ them instead next time?
0
Options
VolgaireMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Not a fan of the name but it's not a make or brake for me either since I won't play the archetype, if I did I might be more opposed to it. I'd say if a majority are against it Intrepid would be willing to change it in the future. They might be keeping it for the lols right now.
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
To call a spade a spade would be to call a tank a tank! Keep on tankin!
I agree that calling Tank to a class, makes little to no sense. I'm used to WoW and that might throw it off, but I really think its not usual to see classes named after specs.
I agree that calling Tank to a class, makes little to no sense. I'm used to WoW and that might throw it off, but I really think its not usual to see classes named after specs.
Wow has set classes with determined specs that fulfill roles.
Ashes has hundreds of class combinations that can fulfill a role depending on their primary archetype choice. Meaning archetypes are another way to say role when speaking of ashes of creation's characters.
Tank has the same reasoning, where their ability to grab the attention of enemies while reducing damage taken by themselves is the key focus.
What?? no no, the "tank" name comes from water tanks, i thought this was made clear in the last thread.
there is a difference between speculating how tank is used in the lore part of the game, and the actual definition of what a tank is in a fantasy rpg setting with adventurers.
Anybody ask the tanks what their opinion is?
"tank" main here .
I'm not keen on the name of the archetype being "Tank" and I'm not keen on the job description being known as "tank" or "tanking"
I much prefer "Vanguard" but I know that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening , so I have to live with it . Part of being a "tank" is having thick skin
Anybody ask the tanks what their opinion is?
"tank" main here .
I'm not keen on the name of the archetype being "Tank" and I'm not keen on the job description being known as "tank" or "tanking"
I much prefer "Vanguard" but I know that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening , so I have to live with it . Part of being a "tank" is having thick skin
Comments
No I didn't. What I am saying here is that this is what they could do, I am not arguing what I think they should do.
That is fairly basic English right there, the start of the paragraph set it up perfectly so that a reasonable reader would understand that I am talking about what they could do, and in total there are three things talked about in the post that could be done. I am not discounting any of them - I am simply saying I think one is less likely and two are more likely. There is no argument there for any option, which is what you think you were posting.
Either you lack reading comprehension to be able to understand full thoughs and are only interested/able to digest bite sized snippets, or you are being completely disingenuous.
I don't care which it is, but it is one of those two.
This argument is beginning to feel a bad case of herpes. No matter how long you work to suppress it, it seemingly just flares up again, at some point....
/TopicalCream
Which of course makes no sense in any language other than English where Tank (vehicle) and Tank (liquid container) share a word.
As I said (this is the third time now), there are several ways they could do it, I am not the person to ask, and I do not care.
They could call the class "tank" in every language for all I care. Most MMO players would understand it straight away, without needing translation.
There is literally no situation at all ever where the way a thing may translate in to a different language should have any impact on how that thing is developed in its native language.
Sure, but you are the guy that keeps on suggesting that there might be / could be some lore explanation for Tank as the archetype name being named after the liquid container, and that the fact that the class is named after the vehicle is just an assumption I'm making. Tank (vehicle) functions as a descriptor for a person in heavy medieval-esque armor just fine, in any language. It's fine to disagree whether that word is fitting for the theme of the game or not, but this:
is just silly. I know where the name comes from, you know where the name comes from, everyone knows where the name comes from.
Indeed.
However, there are people that dislike it, and the only validnreasin for this is based on lore/immersion.
That point was the specific reason I said there ar many ways the name could be justified in game,being named after a water tank being but one that I suggested.
So,the whole thing was only mentioned in the first place as one potential example of how the name could be justified in game in order to put to rest the argument about lore/immersion,and some people (no names) decided to take that and run with it in actual absurd directions, like what about translations of the game, and we dont need justifocationbecause we all know where it came from.
Honestly, learn to follow the whole topic, not snippets of it.
I know why you mentioned it, your argument went into absurd directions because it was an absurd argument. You've claimed that you are here to convince people the name is fine, but I don't see it. Other people made much more sensible, good faith arguments for that case, one has convinced me that I was wrong (which I admit with no shame) in my assumption that etymological root needs to make literal sense in the setting, as there are other terms we use that fail that test and are perfectly fine. You on the other hand are so stubborn about appearing correct, that when presented with direct evidence that contradicts your points, like quotes from Steven publicly admitting about having done changes that were not planned solely on player feedback, you just double down. And then you do snarky shit like this:
Like Warriors Can Be Tanks And Damage Dealers.
Paladins can be Tanks and healers and Damage Dealers.
Cant recall a game where the Class was named Tank(I don't talk for Mobile games).
Even in FFXIV Warriors and Paladins and Dark Knights are Tank roles but not named tanks.
I also do hope they will change it something else but its ok even if they leave it like that.
I vote Panzer.
I was addressing a specific person that had a specific issue with the name. You decided that the point I put forward to address their issue didn't address your issue, and therefor is a b.ad faith argument (which is just odd from a number of perspectives).
It's basically like two people going to a car dealership and looking at the same car. One doesn't like the color, and the other doesn't like the range available with the fuel tank. The sales person that the color complaint has tells them they are able to get the car in any color they want, and the sales person the range complaint talks to tells them they can get it with a larger fuel tank.
All is well, and that should be the end of it, but then the person with the range complaint hears the sales person tell the other customer about the color options, and starts talking about how that is a bad faith argument because it doesn't address the range issue.
Honestly, that is what you have done here, because you didn't even attempt to follow the conversation, you just wanted to take snippets out of context.
I mean, everyone that doesn't play a tank will just call the class tank anyway.
It'll end up the same as all the other threads on this same topic. With "Tank" being the archetype name.
You literally quote replied to me with that stuff on previous page mate, if you want to address someone else, maybe @ them instead next time?
there is a clear difference between cleric and healer. One worships a god-like being for power and the other might not.
Tank has the same reasoning, where their ability to grab the attention of enemies while reducing damage taken by themselves is the key focus.
Wow has set classes with determined specs that fulfill roles.
Ashes has hundreds of class combinations that can fulfill a role depending on their primary archetype choice. Meaning archetypes are another way to say role when speaking of ashes of creation's characters.
What?? no no, the "tank" name comes from water tanks, i thought this was made clear in the last thread.
there is a difference between speculating how tank is used in the lore part of the game, and the actual definition of what a tank is in a fantasy rpg setting with adventurers.
"tank" main here .
I'm not keen on the name of the archetype being "Tank" and I'm not keen on the job description being known as "tank" or "tanking"
I much prefer "Vanguard" but I know that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening , so I have to live with it . Part of being a "tank" is having thick skin
Why do you think I wouldn't be playing a tank?