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

Dygz

Tank is a word that the people of Verra do use for people who primarily tank.
It's very likely that the people of Verra would also talk about damage per second, but for Ashes the official term for the role is just Damage.
The official Ashes trinity is: Tank, Damage, Support

Adaegus Wintermight

Dygz wrote: »

Tank is a word that the people of Verra do use for people who primarily tank.
It's very likely that the people of Verra would also talk about damage per second, but for Ashes the official term for the role is just Damage.
The official Ashes trinity is: Tank, Damage, Support

No, not fans of the game or player characters. Characters in universe I mean. Like any npc in the game would have no idea what you were talking about because tank isn't a word to them, you know?

Tank is slang used by us as a quick way of someone who can mitigate damage and hold threat. To them that would be a Warrior, any of the other wonderful suggestions are in this thread.

Marcet

Adaegus Wintermight wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Tank is a word that the people of Verra do use for people who primarily tank.
It's very likely that the people of Verra would also talk about damage per second, but for Ashes the official term for the role is just Damage.
The official Ashes trinity is: Tank, Damage, Support

No, not fans of the game or player characters. Characters in universe I mean. Like any npc in the game would have no idea what you were talking about because tank isn't a word to them, you know?

Tank is slang used by us as a quick way of someone who can mitigate damage and hold threat. To them that would be a Warrior, any of the other wonderful suggestions are in this thread.

You clearly missed a big part of this conversation. They argued for a lot of time that the word "Tank" existed in the lore, because in Verra they had water tanks, you know, tanks to hold water in.

And yes, real people in this thread keep arguing that "Tank" makes sense in the fantasy world of Verra because water tanks resemble people in armor.

Do we know if metallic water tanks existed? No.
Did Steven or anyone confirm that tanks are named like this after water tanks or even that water tanks existed in Verra? No.

But they just want to be right.

Sathrago

Guys, it's not that we are making the literal argument that lul water tanks exist so they just used that to name tanks.

The point was that we dont know the lore yet and it's perfectly plausible for them to create lore that explains and facilitates the use of the term tank in regards to frontline meatshields.

Conrad

People who don't give a damn about lor eof the game, and yes MANY will not care because that's quite common these days, they will be confusing tanks class and role and this WILL cause issues short and long term.

Honestly, couldn't give a damn about made up lore, there is a reasonable lore and there is stupid lore that should be changed and Tank is one of them. Just call the class a Defender... like ffs, why make stupid names in an mmo instead of going for reasonable choices. I don't understand this mentality. This is almost like with Blizzard.

Like seriously... this isn't a PnP tabletop game, this is an MMO. Lore should be something that makes sense for everyone and not be a mess like that shit with Sylvanas

Dygz

Adaegus Wintermight wrote: »

No, not fans of the game or player characters. Characters in universe I mean. Like any npc in the game would have no idea what you were talking about because tank isn't a word to them, you know?

Tank is slang used by us as a quick way of someone who can mitigate damage and hold threat. To them that would be a Warrior, any of the other wonderful suggestions are in this thread.

I am talking about characters in the game.
In the real world, tank, has a specific meaning as video game jargon, but on Sanctus and Verra, Tank is a combat role and a type of Adventurer.

I don't know that water tanks resemble people any more than armored military vehicles resemble people.
The reference is likely heavy, metal water tanks are resistant to damage and plate armor is also resistant to damage.
But, the etymology of the word on Verra is irrelevant. It is the word that people on Verra use.

Shoelid

Seems to me that people really don't want to give Intrepid a chance to develop their own lore. It's happening with tanks, and it's happening with the dwarves; Nothing is allowed to be unique to Ashes of Creation, it all has to be similar to the other three thousand fantasy worlds that we're all familiar with. Any deviation is a mistake, rather than an attempt at innovation or creativity.

None of us know the full extent of Intrepid's worldbuilding. Wait for the full picture before you start cast judgements.

Holyoak

Shoelid wrote: »

Seems to me that people really don't want to give Intrepid a chance to develop their own lore. It's happening with tanks, and it's happening with the dwarves; Nothing is allowed to be unique to Ashes of Creation, it all has to be similar to the other three thousand fantasy worlds that we're all familiar with. Any deviation is a mistake, rather than an attempt at innovation or creativity.

None of us know the full extent of Intrepid's worldbuilding. Wait for the full picture before you start cast judgements.

I agree with Shoelid. "Tanks" is jargon in our world, but in Verra, why couldn't it mean the type of adventurer / soldier who disrupts combat, draws attention, and is heavily armored. Similar with the dwarves, I initially didn't like how they looked because of my expectation of what 'dwarves' based on Tolkien and WoW, but I'm not going to hold that against Intrepid's designs.

I think they're doing a great job so far and we merely have glimpses into what they are creating.

Solvryn

Tank isn't the name of a Class, it's the name of the Archetype.

Conrad

Holyoak wrote: »

Shoelid wrote: »

Seems to me that people really don't want to give Intrepid a chance to develop their own lore. It's happening with tanks, and it's happening with the dwarves; Nothing is allowed to be unique to Ashes of Creation, it all has to be similar to the other three thousand fantasy worlds that we're all familiar with. Any deviation is a mistake, rather than an attempt at innovation or creativity.

None of us know the full extent of Intrepid's worldbuilding. Wait for the full picture before you start cast judgements.

I agree with Shoelid. "Tanks" is jargon in our world, but in Verra, why couldn't it mean the type of adventurer / soldier who disrupts combat, draws attention, and is heavily armored. Similar with the dwarves, I initially didn't like how they looked because of my expectation of what 'dwarves' based on Tolkien and WoW, but I'm not going to hold that against Intrepid's designs.

I think they're doing a great job so far and we merely have glimpses into what they are creating.

Trying to forcefully reinvent the wheel is stupid. In some cases, sure its passable, but when you're trying to make up things that don't make sense... well, Houston we got a problem

bigepeen

I think some of you guys don't understand that lore is fictional. Meaning that you can literally put any random letters together and have it represent something in the setting.

For example, there could be something called a "car" in Verra that was taken from an ancient dwarven word meaning a latch mechanism. It now mainly refers to chains (or any other object for example).

Arguing that "tank" doesn't fit the lore, when you don't even know what the lore is, doesn't even make any sense.

Conrad

bigepeen wrote: »

I think some of you guys don't understand that lore is fictional. Meaning that you can literally put any random letters together and have it represent something in the setting.

For example, there could be something called a "car" in Verra that was taken from an ancient dwarven word meaning a latch mechanism. It now mainly refers to chains (or any other object for example).

Arguing that "tank" doesn't fit the lore, when you don't even know what the lore is, doesn't even make any sense.

Problem is, using a gaming jargon for lore doesn't fit any lore. I personally find it pretty lazy and uninspired. How fucking hard must it be to call the class a Defender? But no, instead you have to use a role name and try to justify it with "lore" reasons. Sorry, but I have yet to see 1 valid comment/opinion that would give a solid reasoning behind it.

Noaani

Conrad wrote: »

Problem is, using a gaming jargon for lore doesn't fit any lore.

It fits the lore if the lore is made to fit it, as was explained in the post you just quoted.

If you own the IP, you don't build the game around the lore, you build the lore around the game.

daveywavey

Why would characters in-game care what real-life military vehicles are called? They wouldn't even know that real-life military vehicles exist. Why would characters in-game care what real-life gaming terms are? They wouldn't even know that real-life gaming exists. So, how can it be immersion-breaking to have "Tank" as an archetype name?

If you've immersed yourself that much into your character that the name of their archetype is going to make you cry, then you won't care about it, cos you (your character) won't know what it is to care about in the first place. This whole thread is bonkers.

Sathrago

daveywavey wrote: »

This whole thread is fun.

fixed

Leviojima

Look. Here is the long and short of it: IF YOU have an issue with the tank archetype name then do not call yourself a tank. NO ONE will really care. You wont even be a tank for the majority of your time in ashes you will be what ever your actual class is.

WizardTim

I consider this a pretty low priority problem, but the class names do feel uncreative and inconsistent in general.

The number of stones and shadows compared to knight, necromancer, trickster... Some of these names fit well as the combination of the archetypes, and some feel very much like place holders.

Tank itself feels like a place holder too, if I'm being honest.

I can take it or leave it, but if they did change it, they ought to re-work a lot of the other class names so that they are a bit more relatable to their hybrid combinations. There's plenty of potential class names that could be used that better describe a class. And, frankly, the 2-word descriptive names are... forgettable.

Aerlana

Shoelid wrote: »

Seems to me that people really don't want to give Intrepid a chance to develop their own lore.

The matter is not only about "lore"
I would have the same problem with cleric if instead it was named "healer" and the ranger "range physical damage dealer"

Tank is a role, it is what we will ask some character to do in some situation. and yes... it will mostly character with tank as first archetype which will do it.

lets go to the wiki

Summoners can summon Tank, DPS or Support summons.

i am not saying that tank summons will do a "tank" archetype character jobs... or ... yes ? Clearly it wont tank world bosses, but with good healer, and enough level/stuff/secundary archetype probably this pet would do a nice work for tanking mob in an area ? Also, the class "Dreadnought" : fighter with secundary tank. again, it wont tank a big boss dragon probably but will probably do a fine job as "tank" in some area.

Over the lore matter i really think it would be better to change the tank name to... anything that is not the word "tank" guardian, shieldbearer, livingarmor, warrior.
Anything... Anything to difference archetype and role.

Noaani

Aerlana wrote: »

The matter is not only about "lore"
I would have the same problem with cleric if instead it was named "healer"

Why?

Someone that is sick saying they need to go and see the healer is a perfectly valid thing for them to say.

Hell, even now, some people that are more in to alternatives say exactly this.

If people need to be healed, and they need to go to a specific person that specializes in doing exactly that, them calling that person a healer is 100% valid.

Marcet

Noaani wrote: »

Aerlana wrote: »

The matter is not only about "lore"
I would have the same problem with cleric if instead it was named "healer"

Why?

Someone that is sick saying they need to go and see the healer is a perfectly valid thing for them to say.

Hell, even now, some people that are more in to alternatives say exactly this.

If people need to be healed, and they need to go to a specific person that specializes in doing exactly that, them calling that person a healer is 100% valid.

You can call someone who heals a healer, yes, like your doctor or whatever, he does the action of healing you. And everybody knows what healing is.

But a tank doesn't tank, because "tanking" is not an action like "healing".

The name precedes the action, and if the name comes from metal water tanks holding water (like you said), the action of tanking in that world would be to be filled with water in your own armor and to hold it.

Not the action of absorbing enemy damage. That comes from modern real life tanks and players adapted it to videogames.

The action of "tanking" means absolutely nothing in Verra and you guys make no sense at all.

Child Item