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

Sum12hate

Still say it should be custodian with all the crap they have to put up with

Sathrago

Marcet wrote: »

Like always I vote to change the Cleric name to Healer, as everyone knows what a healer is, right?

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.

djhifi

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.

Sathrago

djhifi wrote: »

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.

Hellfar

The tank archetype is fine. Think outside the box.

BobzUrUncle

What is in a name? Just leave it as a Tank. Very descriptive.

Marcet

Sathrago wrote: »

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.

Sathrago

Marcet wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

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.

St_Nyack

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

Sathrago

StNyack wrote: »

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

Why do you think I wouldn't be playing a tank?

akabear

And then we could change the name tank to some a symbol with no known pronunciation and settle this argument that way!

ie Hollow circle above downward arrow crossed with a curlicued horn-shaped symbol and then a short bar, a stout middle with edges asunder.

Just sayin!

Vhaeyne

These "TANK?!?!?!!" threads are starting to run together. Did anyone cover the part where archetypes are only meant to help define roles and not be flavor text? or that class fantasy is not really a thing in AOC since the classes are just nomenclature for the slight variants on the eight different play styles?

St_Nyack

Sathrago wrote: »

StNyack wrote: »

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

Why do you think I wouldn't be playing a tank?

Are you going to play as a container that holds a liquid or are you going to play modern armored unit , or are you going to play something else ?

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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?

Actually, if you go back through that thread, the first time I mention it is in a reply to another poster (who was quoted in said post). You and I were in a discussion about a different point (the fact that you will only be a "tank" by name for about 3% of your play time), and then you decided to jump ship from that debate you had no room left to move in, on to the discussion I was having with someone else that was about an aspect that you didn't care about - and had even said as much in the thread.

You specifically said you didn't see the issue of immersion being something worth arguing in that thread, yet others still did. I was in discussion with those others on that point that you specifically said you did not see as being worth arguing, when you came in and started arguing that point.

Again, for the third or fourth time now, learn to follow discussions, not just taking snippets out of context.

Or, if you want, you can keep on arguing a point you have already said you don't think is worth arguing, even if you said that long before you started arguing it.

Sathrago

StNyack wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

StNyack wrote: »

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

Why do you think I wouldn't be playing a tank?

Are you going to play as a container that holds a liquid or are you going to play modern armored unit , or are you going to play something else ?

I mean, I think the argument is over at this point. You are just foaming at the mouth and grasping for straws at this point.

Noaani

StNyack wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

StNyack wrote: »

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

Why do you think I wouldn't be playing a tank?

Are you going to play as a container that holds a liquid or are you going to play modern armored unit , or are you going to play something else ?

I assume it has gone completely over your head that the modern armored unit was named after the container that holds a liquid.

This is the core of the argument as to why it *could* be the case in Ashes. This is what happened in World War One, when the British were developing Landships (as they then called them). Since it has happened in *our* world, there is no reason to assume it couldn't also happen in Sanctus.

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

You specifically said you didn't see the issue of immersion being something worth arguing in that thread

Correction: I've said that whether Tank is immersion breaking or not is subjective, arguing about idiosyncratic preferences like that is pointless. That there is a large amount of people that do find the name to be immersion breaking on the other hand is an objective fact, and that is worth discussing.

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

You specifically said you didn't see the issue of immersion being something worth arguing in that thread

Correction: I've said that whether Tank is immersion breaking or not is subjective, arguing about idiosyncratic preferences like that is pointless. That there is a large amount of people that do find the name to be immersion breaking on the other hand is an objective fact, and that is worth discussing.

Cool, let's discuss.

All Intrepid need to do to sate that crowd is provide an in-universe reason as to why that is the name of the archetype.

One possible way they could do this, if they want, is to essentially copy the way tanks (as in, vehicles used in war) were named that. Funny story that you may not know, those tanks were actually named after water tanks! If it can happen in real life, there is no option but to understand that it could happen in game!

Maciej

Noaani wrote: »

All Intrepid need to do to sate that crowd is provide an in-universe reason as to why that is the name of the archetype.

No, because now you are trying to convince people who don't like the name for subjective idiosyncratic reasons that it's fine.

- I don't like strawberries.
- Strawberries are good for you, and if you buy them you will help local farmers, so you have plenty of reasons to like them!
- That's cool, I still don't like strawberries.

The best you can do if you want to keep the name, is just hope that it will grow on people over time. Or you can change the name from something that some people object to, to something that ~no people object to. We have 7 archetypes that everyone is fine with, it is not a hard problem, and the cost of change is trivial.

Noaani

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

All Intrepid need to do to sate that crowd is provide an in-universe reason as to why that is the name of the archetype.

No, because now you are trying to convince people who don't like the name for subjective idiosyncratic reasons that it's fine.

- I don't like strawberries.
- Strawberries are good for you, and if you buy them you will help local farmers, so you have plenty of reasons to like them!
- That's cool, I still don't like strawberries.

The best you can do if you want to keep the name, is just hope that it will grow on people over time. Or you can change the name from something that some people object to, to something that ~no people object to. We have 7 archetypes that everyone is fine with, it is not a hard problem, and the cost of change is trivial.

See, you're doing that thing where you take the answer to a specific issue, and attempt to attribute it to a different issue.

If you don't like the flavor of strawberries, try combining them with other things. Balsamic vinegar and a little sugar is an interesting combination.

If you don't like them because of the texture, try cooking them, or making a sauce out of them.

If you don't like them because of the color, get white strawberries.

Each of these is an appropriate solution to each specific complaint about strawberries, yet none of them are appropriate to any of the other complaints.

If you want immersion in a game, and the game provides you with an in game reason as to why a thing is the way it is, it is then on you to apply the suspension of disbelief and just run with it. This is the same basic principle of how and why we are able to accept magic in a fantasy setting.

If the game provides you with an explanation of a thing, and you are not happy with that explanation, then the issue is you, not the thing.

If you want to fix the issue, look to where the issue exists.

Child Item