The problem with having “Tank” as a class name

Noaani wrote: »

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 dont 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.

I'm really, honestly trying to understand you. None of those suggestions would change how a person feels about raw strawberries, right? The name "Tank" is what's on the menu, I can't change it or alter it in any way, only Intrepid can.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

I've added emphasis to where our thinking diverts. I don't like "Tank" as a class/archetype name, not because I think it is wrong, but because I feel it is wrong for the setting. There is an excellent book by Jonathan Haidt - "The Elephant and the Rider" - that goes to great lengths in explaining, amongst other things, why rationalizing emotions is pretty much always bullshit, but even better is just this one quote from Dale Carnegie:

"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still"

This is why this whole topic gets so heated while going nowhere.

Maciej wrote: »

I've added emphasis to where our thinking diverts. I don't like "Tank" as a class/archetype name, not because I think it is wrong, but because I feel it is wrong for the setting.

Oh.

In that case, are you able to give me a bit of background info in regards to the lore and history of Verra/Sanctus?

What's that? You can't, because Intrepid hasn't released any information on it?

Well, I'm not sure how you can have any "feelings" about what is right or wrong for a setting you literally know nothing about.

That feeling you have that it is wrong, that is a feeling that it is wrong for the assumption you have made about the setting Ashes is in. I am not trying to change your emotion, I am trying to point out to you that your assumption as to the setting is wrong.

I need nothing in terms of proof for this other than the fact that your assumptions as to the setting for this game leads you to feel that a class named "tank" is out of place, yet the setting does indeed have a class called tank. Ergo, without any real scope for debate, your assumption as to the setting for this game is wrong.

Assuming your "feeling" is that the name is wrong for the setting, if you change your assumption of what the setting is (since it is obviously wrong), then your "feeling" as to whether the name is right or wrong for the setting is required to change.

The only way your "feeling" about it wouldn't change if you change your assumption about the setting is if you have allowed your "feeling" about the name to be purely and solely about the name, independent of the setting.

Again, I don't much care about your "feeling" on the matter. I am trying to alter your assumption as to the setting. If the setting Ashes is in has a reason for the class name to be as it is, then your feeling simply can't exist, unless it is disassociated from the setting entirely - but you are claiming it is attached to that setting.

Maciej wrote: »

I'm really, honestly trying to understand you. None of those suggestions would change how a person feels about raw strawberries, right? The name "Tank" is what's on the menu, I can't change it or alter it in any way, only Intrepid can.

Again, it totally depends on WHY the person doesn't like strawberries. People don't just not like things for no reason, there is always something about it that they don't like. Texture is most common, then smell, flavor and appearance. Most foods that people dislike are due to exactly one of these, and if you take a food that someone doesn't like due to one of these factors and remove that aspect of the item in question, many people will find that they really enjoy other aspects of that food item.

While you may not have the choice of changing the name tank (for the dozen or so hours you play until you have leveled past it), if you find out WHY you don't like it and work through that, then you should be fine.

Again though, that is on you. Intrepid should not need to change their game because you don't like strawberries.

@Noaani good god man, that was painful to read. Have a nice day.

Sathrago

Maciej wrote: »

@Noaani good god man, that was painful to read. Have a nice day.

Yeah well he had to beat you to near death with his words because you were not understanding the point...

Maciej wrote: »

Noaani good god man, that was painful to read. Have a nice day.

Being faced with essentially irrefutable proof that a point you have been arguing for a while is largely redundant can indeed be hard.

[self censorship]

Removing my reply here, I have better things to do with my time than deconstruct @Noaani's nonsense. Once again, have a nice day.

@Maciej I feel like a better comparison is why some people do not like some names.

We have previous experience with names and connect that name with a curtain person or thing. And because of that we like or dislike a curtain name.

People whi do not like the name tank as an archetype/class name (me included), are people that connects the name to a totally different setting or role.

rikardp98 wrote: »

People whi do not like the name tank as an archetype/class name (me included), are people that connects the name to a totally different setting or role.

What setting or role do you connect the name tank with - in the context of an MMORPG.

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

People whi do not like the name tank as an archetype/class name (me included), are people that connects the name to a totally different setting or role.

What setting or role do you connect the name tank with - in the context of an MMORPG.

I wouldn't say I have "strong connects", the first thing I think about when I hear the word "tank" is, a person doing a specific action within a game. And that action is not limited to any class or archetype, but rather who is holding aggro and can survive the best.

And I understand that the archetype Tank is meant to be that person, which is why I don't necessarily hate the name, but I have in many occasions seen "non-tanks" taking the role of a tank.
I hate to bring up wow again but here I go xD

In wow classic for example, the raid AQ40 there is a boss where the best tank for the job is a warlock. No one would call a warlock a tank archetype, but for that boss they are a tank.

Songcaller

rikardp98 wrote: »

In wow classic for example, the raid AQ40 there is a boss where the best tank for the job is a warlock. No one would call a warlock a tank archetype, but for that boss they are a tank.

I've tried to discourage a similar disposition in Ashes. I would consider the contestation to require the best team one can muster. It does no good to be wiped every time because a team is outnumbered in PvP. The contestation parameters and 40% 60% damage split is a difficult concept to balance already. We don't want roles to be so blurry. So far, The Devs have stated Tank Archetype is the Tank and haven't iterated any other mechanism or deviation from The Holy Trinity. It is rather ironic that a Warlock is a disruption to The Holy Trinity in my opinion lol.

Edit: Holy Trinity is Tank, DPS and Support. I understand Bards are a deviation from Tank, DPS and Healer.

maouw

It doesn't bother me too much, but I still like throwing in ideas for alternatives:

Howabout "Armsman"?
It's general enough to be an archetype, and kindof suggests tankiness?

kill

Tank is a role.
DPS is a role
Healer is a role

Tank is not a class in the same way that DPS and Healer are not classes. Tank/DPS/Healer define the specific role of other classes given the situation the solo player or group is in but they are not classes themselves.

Not sure why this is so difficult for folks to grasp lol.

Mushin

Just change all the others, healer, melee dps, range caster dps etc

bloodprophet

Some people are placing word meaning onto a foreign cultures ideas. Look at how words in our own language have drifted the differences here in the States from area to area is even more pronounced from continent to continent. Never mind language to language and how words never truly match.
Placing our ideas of what a word HAS to mean onto how a foreign culture we barley understand usually has very negative consequences.

rikardp98 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

People whi do not like the name tank as an archetype/class name (me included), are people that connects the name to a totally different setting or role.

What setting or role do you connect the name tank with - in the context of an MMORPG.

I wouldn't say I have "strong connects", the first thing I think about when I hear the word "tank" is, a person doing a specific action within a game. And that action is not limited to any class or archetype, but rather who is holding aggro and can survive the best.

And I understand that the archetype Tank is meant to be that person, which is why I don't necessarily hate the name, but I have in many occasions seen "non-tanks" taking the role of a tank.
I hate to bring up wow again but here I go xD

In wow classic for example, the raid AQ40 there is a boss where the best tank for the job is a warlock. No one would call a warlock a tank archetype, but for that boss they are a tank.

In Ashes, if there is a need for a character of a different primary archetype to tank a piece of content - whether by design of the content or by player choice - that character will take tank as their secondary archetype.

To me, this point of yours reinforces why the name is appropriate.

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

People whi do not like the name tank as an archetype/class name (me included), are people that connects the name to a totally different setting or role.

What setting or role do you connect the name tank with - in the context of an MMORPG.

I wouldn't say I have "strong connects", the first thing I think about when I hear the word "tank" is, a person doing a specific action within a game. And that action is not limited to any class or archetype, but rather who is holding aggro and can survive the best.

And I understand that the archetype Tank is meant to be that person, which is why I don't necessarily hate the name, but I have in many occasions seen "non-tanks" taking the role of a tank.
I hate to bring up wow again but here I go xD

In wow classic for example, the raid AQ40 there is a boss where the best tank for the job is a warlock. No one would call a warlock a tank archetype, but for that boss they are a tank.

In Ashes, if there is a need for a character of a different primary archetype to tank a piece of content - whether by design of the content or by player choice - that character will take tank as their secondary archetype.

To me, this point of yours reinforces why the name is appropriate.

Looking at the primary archetype names again and seeing them as archetypes and not classes, I noticed that most of the names are very broad, maybe except the cleric which is oddly very specific.

So seeing it as a archetype name (which it is xD), then I will actually agree with you that the name is fitting.

I guess I have had a hard time not seeing it as a class, since in most games you choose your class first and then a path within that class. While in ashes you take a broad archetype first and then you choose your class after lvl 10 (I think xD).

So next topic, let's change the name of the cleric to a more broader name.

Sathrago

rikardp98 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

People whi do not like the name tank as an archetype/class name (me included), are people that connects the name to a totally different setting or role.

What setting or role do you connect the name tank with - in the context of an MMORPG.

I wouldn't say I have "strong connects", the first thing I think about when I hear the word "tank" is, a person doing a specific action within a game. And that action is not limited to any class or archetype, but rather who is holding aggro and can survive the best.

And I understand that the archetype Tank is meant to be that person, which is why I don't necessarily hate the name, but I have in many occasions seen "non-tanks" taking the role of a tank.
I hate to bring up wow again but here I go xD

In wow classic for example, the raid AQ40 there is a boss where the best tank for the job is a warlock. No one would call a warlock a tank archetype, but for that boss they are a tank.

In Ashes, if there is a need for a character of a different primary archetype to tank a piece of content - whether by design of the content or by player choice - that character will take tank as their secondary archetype.

To me, this point of yours reinforces why the name is appropriate.

Looking at the primary archetype names again and seeing them as archetypes and not classes, I noticed that most of the names are very broad, maybe except the cleric which is oddly very specific.

So seeing it as a archetype name (which it is xD), then I will actually agree with you that the name is fitting.

I guess I have had a hard time not seeing it as a class, since in most games you choose your class first and then a path within that class. While in ashes you take a broad archetype first and then you choose your class after lvl 10 (I think xD).

So next topic, let's change the name of the cleric to a more broader name.

The cleric is a broad name. They draw power from a god. We dont know the specifics but this essentially allows you to do anything with the cleric. If anything it's too broad if the original intent was for it to be the "healer" archetype.

Then again, this could be explained away with lore. Perhaps divine magic is the only type of magic that can heal. We don't know yet.

rikardp98 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

People whi do not like the name tank as an archetype/class name (me included), are people that connects the name to a totally different setting or role.

What setting or role do you connect the name tank with - in the context of an MMORPG.

I wouldn't say I have "strong connects", the first thing I think about when I hear the word "tank" is, a person doing a specific action within a game. And that action is not limited to any class or archetype, but rather who is holding aggro and can survive the best.

And I understand that the archetype Tank is meant to be that person, which is why I don't necessarily hate the name, but I have in many occasions seen "non-tanks" taking the role of a tank.
I hate to bring up wow again but here I go xD

In wow classic for example, the raid AQ40 there is a boss where the best tank for the job is a warlock. No one would call a warlock a tank archetype, but for that boss they are a tank.

In Ashes, if there is a need for a character of a different primary archetype to tank a piece of content - whether by design of the content or by player choice - that character will take tank as their secondary archetype.

To me, this point of yours reinforces why the name is appropriate.

Looking at the primary archetype names again and seeing them as archetypes and not classes, I noticed that most of the names are very broad, maybe except the cleric which is oddly very specific.

So seeing it as a archetype name (which it is xD), then I will actually agree with you that the name is fitting.

I guess I have had a hard time not seeing it as a class, since in most games you choose your class first and then a path within that class. While in ashes you take a broad archetype first and then you choose your class after lvl 10 (I think xD).

So next topic, let's change the name of the cleric to a more broader name.

This is basically the way I see it as well.

As to cleric, most of my MMO experience has been in a game with two cleric classes, so I am used to there being various different types of cleric in a game.