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

Vhaeyne

Noaani wrote: »

ThexBlackxKnight wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Conrad wrote: »

Just rename tank to Warden. Problem solved

Wardens are basically glorified door guards for valuable places or things, not a good general term for tanks, but Tank is. :P

If you are going to role-play in Ashes , Warden sounds much better then referring to someone as a Tank in a fantasy game. How does the word Tank even fit in a high fantasy world if actual tanks are not in the setting?

If tanks are not in the setting, what do we hold water for irrigating crops in?

Barrels, reservoirs, and jugs... but no tanks!

ThexBlackxKnight

Noaani wrote: »

If tanks are not in the setting, what do we hold water for irrigating crops in?

Fine, so we have a class name after a water storage container.

Blasco

Sathrago wrote: »

ThexBlackxKnight wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Conrad wrote: »

Just rename tank to Warden. Problem solved

Wardens are basically glorified door guards for valuable places or things, not a good general term for tanks, but Tank is. :P

If you are going to role-play in Ashes , Warden sounds much better then referring to someone as a Tank in a fantasy game. How does the word Tank even fit in a high fantasy world if actual tanks are not in the setting?

Roleplay in most cases refers to taking on a role that is lore friendly, right? If they make lore that supports tank as a name will you be happy?

I wouldn't. It would just compound on the problem that the term tank doesn't sound like a fantasy term, but rather just gaming terminology.

It's as if they named an archetype "DPS". Having characters in your fantasy world using gaming terms disrupts the sense of immersion when there are many better names that a fantasy world would believably use to describe a "tank".

Sathrago

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

ThexBlackxKnight wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Conrad wrote: »

Just rename tank to Warden. Problem solved

Wardens are basically glorified door guards for valuable places or things, not a good general term for tanks, but Tank is. :P

If you are going to role-play in Ashes , Warden sounds much better then referring to someone as a Tank in a fantasy game. How does the word Tank even fit in a high fantasy world if actual tanks are not in the setting?

If tanks are not in the setting, what do we hold water for irrigating crops in?

Barrels, reservoirs, and jugs... but no tanks!

Funnily enough a pond in a pasture to give cattle water is also referred to as a stock tank. If this is not common for others, this is commonly used out here in the countryside by farmers.

Asgerr

Truly this topic is like herpes....

Vhaeyne

Sathrago wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

ThexBlackxKnight wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Conrad wrote: »

Just rename tank to Warden. Problem solved

Wardens are basically glorified door guards for valuable places or things, not a good general term for tanks, but Tank is. :P

If you are going to role-play in Ashes , Warden sounds much better then referring to someone as a Tank in a fantasy game. How does the word Tank even fit in a high fantasy world if actual tanks are not in the setting?

If tanks are not in the setting, what do we hold water for irrigating crops in?

Barrels, reservoirs, and jugs... but no tanks!

Funnily enough a pond in a pasture to give cattle water is also referred to as a stock tank. If this is not common for others, this is commonly used out here in the countryside by farmers.

Ya, learn something new every day.

If you keep introducing more real-world examples of tanks this thread will never end. We are at 27 pages now.

Instead of knights having squires clean their armors, maybe they should just hire tank wipes...

Noaani

ThexBlackxKnight wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If tanks are not in the setting, what do we hold water for irrigating crops in?

Fine, so we have a class name after a water storage container.

I mean, in the real world, we have military vehicle type that is named after a liquid storage container - as that is where tanks get their name (it was originally a code name for Landships - which is what tanks were originally called. The British referred to them in communications as tanks so that their rivals would think that the steel and metal workers they were no doubt tracking that were all heading to one area were likely there to make fuel and water tanks for battleships).

I see no reason at all why if we have vehicles in the real world named after tanks, in game can't have a class that is decked out in metal armor also named after tanks.

It honestly isn't even that much of a stretch .

In the real world, the fantasy class "tank" gets it's name from the vehicle, and the vehicle gets its name from the liquid storage vessel. In game, the class gets it's name directly from the liquid storage vessel.

I *REALLY* don't see the issue.

George_Black

Why is this still going on?

Biccus

Noaani wrote: »

In the real world, the fantasy class "tank" gets it's name from the vehicle, and the vehicle gets its name from the liquid storage vessel. In game, the class gets it's name directly from the liquid storage vessel.
I *REALLY* don't see the issue.

That’s assuming they took the archetype name directly from the storage vessel. Which I would argue is an unlikely speculation.

I was always convinced “Tank” was just a placeholder.. Haha

I think that giving an archetype the same name as a role/play style is unnecessarily confusing.
It’s only for the first 25 levels so it’s not a dealbreaker, just kinda lame.

Noaani

Biccus wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

In the real world, the fantasy class "tank" gets it's name from the vehicle, and the vehicle gets its name from the liquid storage vessel. In game, the class gets it's name directly from the liquid storage vessel.
I *REALLY* don't see the issue.

That’s assuming they took the archetype name directly from the storage vessel. Which I would argue is an unlikely speculation.

Even if the developers didn't directly do this, the writers can write it in if they wish.

If the writers don't write it in, and don't provide any reason for the name, players are welcome to fill in the blanks until they do.

The above is that blank filled in for those that care.

Dygz

Blasco wrote: »

Roleplay in most cases refers to taking on a role that is lore friendly, right? If they make lore that supports tank as a name will you be happy?

Tank as a combat role is not confusing if that is the archetype where the majority of the tanking abilities are focused. How lame the term might be for an archetype name is subjective.
The devs already know that some people hate the name and want it changed. Demands for change occurred immediately after the class list was first shared more than 3 years ago, so we'll just have to wait and see if the devs ever choose to change it.

RocketFarmer

Tank is an appropriate name for what the class and role does. It has a specific meaning in the RPG community and that’s who the game is being made for.

On top of that, they’ve got 64 “class” names they are using for the archetype combos, so you already have eight different names for tank if you really have an issue with calling it a tank.

Dygz

For roleplay, you can call the archetypes and classes anything you want - as long as the people you're talking to understand what you mean.
Within a couple of weeks, NPCs will probably be using your class name rather than your Archetype name.
They might even be using your title...and that might kick in before class names.

Marcet

Just imagine you are reading Tolkien or other fantasy book:

Then the Tank charged the enemy with his shield and powerful axe, and the orcs were screaming "Noo! He is the Tank!"

Lmaoo no please

Sathrago

Marcet wrote: »

Just imagine you are reading Tolkien or other fantasy book:

Then the Tank charged the enemy with his shield and powerful axe, and the orcs were screaming "Noo! He is the Tank!"

Lmaoo no please

Well thats the neat thing about ashes, you dont know the lore yet so you shouldnt be complaining when they release something that explains it, right?

Marcet

Sathrago wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

Just imagine you are reading Tolkien or other fantasy book:

Then the Tank charged the enemy with his shield and powerful axe, and the orcs were screaming "Noo! He is the Tank!"

Lmaoo no please

Well thats the neat thing about ashes, you dont know the lore yet so you shouldnt be complaining when they release something that explains it, right?

Hahahaha please explain! I want to know the lore about calling people "Tanks". Are we going again with the "Water tanks" argument? Because they (maybe) had water tanks made of metal in that world and they resemble people in armor?? That's an argument so silly it's ridiculous.

Sathrago

Marcet wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

Just imagine you are reading Tolkien or other fantasy book:

Then the Tank charged the enemy with his shield and powerful axe, and the orcs were screaming "Noo! He is the Tank!"

Lmaoo no please

Well thats the neat thing about ashes, you dont know the lore yet so you shouldnt be complaining when they release something that explains it, right?

Hahahaha please explain! I want to know the lore about calling people "Tanks". Are we going again with the "Water tanks" argument? Because they (maybe) had water tanks made of metal in that world and they resemble people in armor?? That's an argument so silly it's ridiculous.

saying the lore cant support it without knowing what the lore is, in my opinion, the definition of ridiculous.

BigE

This is the first time i've ever heard this brought up. It's tank, healer, dps roles not classes. It's the perfect and simple way to describe your role. Ranger is a damage role. Not one ranger would be offended by being called damage. Tank is a badass term for someone that is on the frontline. That's why it's called a tank. Soldiers hide behind tanks. It's perfect.

Marcet

@Sathrago Yeah dude! let's defend the indefensible instead of admitting they didn't think much of it and decided to leave it like this.

Wich is okay, Steven does what the hell he wants, but the way you guys are trying to excuse him and make it like its all about the lore and perfectly fits the world, its fanatical and sad.

Sathrago

Marcet wrote: »

@Sathrago Yeah dude! let's defend the indefensible instead of admitting they didn't think much of it and decided to leave it like this.

Wich is okay, Steven does what the hell he wants, but the way you guys are trying to excuse him and make it like its all about the lore and perfectly fits the world, its fanatical and sad.

I really don't care that the name is Tank past the fact that I can waste some time in this thread for fun. No sleep or stress lost on my part, what about you?

Child Item