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

Asgerr

Warth wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

Can we have WanderingMist or any other mod close this god forsaken (aka Tulnar) thread down once and for all?

I swear I'll start having PTSD about this whole stupid ordeal

If you don't like it, don't read it.

Oh but I've read it and participated multiple times, across multiple servers. Nothing gets put forward beyond the "I don't like it cause vroom vroom tanks are a thing, please change it or I whine some more".

By now they are aware of the opinion, and I get the feeling they don't care.

So let's leave the front page of the forums (cause we know no one clicks to go to page 2, let's be honest), for newer and more constructive topics.

And if you don't like my complaining about this issue, don't read it. Sounds dumb doesn't it ya troll?

are you saying that the opinions of new people joining don't matter? Why shouldn't they be allowed to state their topic on an issue that is apparently large enough to spawn 24 pages. Or are you saying that you stated all your opinions on the topic, so nobody else should discuss it? Both seem very egocentric to me

In other threads people complain that existing threads aren't utilized and new ones are crrated every time. Here you state the exact opposite. You can't have it both ways @Asgerr

Also, i perceive that there are better options than tank, i just dont believe its a big deal

Have you read all 24 pages of it? Because I have over the months. It boils down to: "I don't like it - here is a name I like" and the opposite stance of "It's a good name" or "There are bigger issues than a class name".

Seeing as nothing has progressed over 24 pages, then yes. I say we put the argument and thread to rest and allow the devs to decide for themselves with all 24 pages of lackluster feedback.

Also mind you, this isn't the only thread about this. We used to have 3 of them at once at one point. All pretty much repeating themselves.

New people's opinion is going to boil down to the same again: offering an alternative name that won't please anyone. And whoever didn't like Tank as a name will continue on disliking it, and the others will continue liking it.

No progress/interesting feedback > no merit being on the front page of the forum stealing spot away from other better topics.

Noaani

Asgerr wrote: »

No progress/interesting feedback > no merit being on the front page of the forum stealing spot away from other better topics.

If there were enough topics of merit to push this thread to the second page, this thread would be on the second page.

The very fact that it is still on the first page is reason enough to keep the thread open.

If all threads that weren't offering feedback were closed, these forums would be a very barren place.

Khronus

Ok, my thought process has changed over time as I used to really want it to not be tank. I am a tank so my opinion has merit....IMO (lol). Ultimately, the name Tank is shit. It's shit. Really it is if it was a final title. If you don't think so and you are not going to play a tank, your opinion is dog water. If you don't think so and you ARE going to play tank, I respect your opinion.

Luckily, It's only a title until level 25. After that, we ALL change our title based on our secondary choices. One day, we will probably be memorizing all 64 of the class titles which will be the only names that matter. So at the end of the day, this is a silly argument we have all participated in.

Noaani

Khronus wrote: »

Ok, my thought process has changed over time as I used to really want it to not be tank.

This was my opinion for a while too.

I thought the name was stupid, and that anyone could do better. This was almost a year ago. Some of the older posts in this thread probably have me arguing against the name

I still can't think of a better name, and no one else has come up with one. So I have no real option other than to admit my previous position was wrong, and that the name tank is acceptable.

Jirue

Yeah, probably pointless comment at this point but putting in my +1 for "Vanguard" as an alternative. Matches closely to the same thought that "Tank" brings without the modern machinery connotation. Granted, it's not a perfect match because while all "Tank" roles are "Vanguard" types, it's not necessarily true that all "Vanguard" types are "Tank" roles. But it is the first role that comes to my mind when I think of a "Vanguard" at least. Plus it's not already being used on the chart.

I'd say my biggest gripe I have with using "Tank" is that I've always thought of "Tank" as a role and not a class.
So having a base class called "Tank" just seems too on the nose with highlighting that these 8-15 classes are the definitive "Tank" role selections and everything else can be safely assumed to be DPS or Support. Strips away that thought of "maybe this class has tanking capabilities" by straight up telling you. Not necessary a bad thing, just not what I'm used to seeing from high fantasy games that usually put a coat of paint on the mechanics and gives players a bit of discovery whether a class is capable of a certain role or not. Like now, I don't have any presumptions that a "Fighter" is capable of tanking without the "Tank" sub-specialization.

Noaani

Jirue wrote: »

without the modern machinery connotation.

What about this or this?

Jirue

Noaani wrote: »

Jirue wrote: »

without the modern machinery connotation.

What about this or this?

Not sure what you're getting at with this. These examples aren't the common context nor association used with the word "Vanguard" which has a mostly militaristic usage and meaning. It's non-sense to use branded items as an example of association. Or do you wish to apply that same line of reasoning to most the other class names as well?

Minstrel
Soul Weaver
Magician
Trickster
Siren
Cleric
Scryer
High Priest
Templar
Oracle
Protector
Shaman
Apostle
Fighter
Bladedancer
Spellsword
Hunter
Shadowblade
Dreadnought
Mage
Sorcerer
Acolyte
Battle Mage
Archwizard
Spellhunter
Ect... (Tired of looking up company and product brands to make my point)

Noaani

Jirue wrote: »

Not sure what you're getting at with this.

I thought it was obvious.

You said (and I quoted you as saying, for clarity) that Vanguard didn't have the modern machinery connotation associated with it.

I linked you two cars (modern machines) that were both called Vanguard.

I didn't link you a pair of shoes.

Marcet

Change Cleric to Healer

BigRamble

Call them Jobbers as they always take a beating.

Or Super Hotties, as they always attracting being hit on.

Jirue

Noaani wrote: »

Jirue wrote: »

Not sure what you're getting at with this.

I thought it was obvious.

You said (and I quoted you as saying, for clarity) that Vanguard didn't have the modern machinery connotation associated with it.

I linked you two cars (modern machines) that were both called Vanguard.

I didn't link you a pair of shoes.

You're using a brand as an example. Brands do not have a inherent tie between what the word means and an item it is branded to. The word "Tank" has a very specific connotation to a specific design pattern of mechanized vehicle (among it's other definitions). It's not some brand labeling, it's a very specific meaning and connotation. You are taking my sentence's words and trying to expand it's meaning to include a category of words (branding) which have no actual link to the object the words are associated to. This is a non-sensical misinterpretation of my words, so yeah... no clue what you're getting at with trying to do that.

Noaani

Jirue wrote: »

You are taking my sentence's words and trying to expand it's meaning to include a category of words (branding) which have no actual link to the object the words are associated to.

People that owned a Vanguard in the 70's associate that word with that car still. It is the first thing they think of when they hear the word Vanguard.

The first thing I hear when I hear that word is the MMORPG Vanguard.

However, this part up here is amusing. The only reason the word "tank" is associated with landships (what they were first called) was because the British needed a cover for what they were doing, and so they made it seem like all the steel and welders that were heading off to make landships were instead making tanks (in this case, tanks for warships).

So, you are saying that the word Vanguard only applies to those vehicles because that is what someone called them, I am saying the word tank only applied to them because that is what someone called them.

Interestingly, when I hear the word "tank", neither the MMO class nor the vehicle are my first association.

Vhaeyne

Noaani wrote: »

People that owned a Vanguard in the 70's associate that word with that car still. It is the first thing they think of when they hear the word Vanguard.

Don't drive your gremlin to the gas station for a fill up past midnight... or something like that.

Glad to see this thread is still going strong in 2021.... four more years!!!

Shoximity

I came back to check on this thread that I started and it still looks to be going strong!

A lot of people have brought up the argument that "It won't matter what they are called because it is just an archetype and their class is going to change anyway". That is a cop out answer and is inherently flawed. That is like taking a silver necklace and painting gold and trying to sell it and calling it gold because no one will know (extreme analogy, but you get the point). ALSO, it does break the immersion to those that don't like the name because as you are leveling up before you change classes, the NPCs in game address you by name/class - "Thank you, Cleric", "Well Done, Bard", "Help me slay the demons, TANK". It just sounds like a lazy name and they could have done a better job at picking something that doesn't break immersion. I don't think it is a BIG deal or game breaking, just a simple polish to address it is all. IF they are ok with the name, it's fine. It's their game. These forums allow us to voice an opinion. They don't have to listen to it, but obviously there is enough of dislike for the name for it to be brought up over and over. Ultimately, it's not going to change whether the game is good or not, but it could be a little bit better if they made a slight change IMO. If they don't, I still am going to play the game regardless, just a little less immersed and it will give me a good laugh.

daveywavey

Cripsus wrote: »

I came back to check on this thread that I started and it still looks to be going strong!

Asgerr

And to think people attacked me when I pointed out that the arguments haven't evolved since page 1 of this thread....

Welcome back to all the "It's a modern armored vehicle!" and all the "It was called that because of a water container". Let's not forget the "It breaks immersion!", and the subsequent "It doesn't for me".

Truly, people don't read the threads and just like to throw their opinion in no matter how trite and repetitive they are.

But tell me again how I'm the egocentric bad guy.

Noaani

Asgerr wrote: »

But tell me again how I'm the egocentric bad guy.

You're the egocentric bad guy.

But for real, new people shouldn't be expected to read every thread on the forums, or any much at all of a thread as long as this.

Sure, they may come in to the thread with what they think is a new idea, even though it is the 25th time that exact point has been bought up - but they are still welcome to bring the point up.

Honestly, the number of new ideas on these forums has been at near zero for over a year, so by your logic we should just shut the forums down.

People come here to discuss the game and be a part of it's community - in what ever form that takes. That is more important than you being a little annoyed at reading the same argument for the 25th time, or me making the exact same counterpoint for the 25th time.

Warth

@Jirue that's just not true though. There are multiple examples where the name of the object is substituted with the name if the brand.

Happens for food items, cigarettes, cars, other machinery...

daveywavey

Warth wrote: »

Jirue that's just not true though. There are multiple examples where the name of the object is substituted with the name if the brand.

Happens for food items, cigarettes, cars, other machinery...

Ugh, my wife calls our vacuum cleaner a Hoover even though it's a Dyson. Does my nut in....

Yeah, I have problems...

Warth

daveywavey wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

Jirue that's just not true though. There are multiple examples where the name of the object is substituted with the name if the brand.

Happens for food items, cigarettes, cars, other machinery...

Ugh, my wife calls our vacuum cleaner a Hoover even though it's a Dyson. Does my nut in....

Yeah, I have problems...

sounds like a valid reason for divorce @daveywavey

Child Item