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

Sathrago

Marcet wrote: »

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

It's insane to me that you think this is perfectly fine to say when you have no clue what the lore is.

Noaani

Marcet wrote: »

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

Sure it is.

A tank is the person in a group of adventurers that tries to maintain the focus of the enemy.

In the same way you can call a person that heals a healer, you can call a person that tanks a tank.

Aerlana

So, because YOU think that "tank" is in verra's lore, a job like carpenter, you throw away any side problem like simply... have words to clearly define what you need ?

Because if i need anyone who could do the role of tank, in city, for now i would have to call "looking for role = tank" instead of the simple "looking for a tank" because... the role "tank" can be fit by more than "tank" ...

and NO stop with the stupid "sumoner can at most do off-tank" yes he won't probably be able to "main-tank" do to the prefix... it stays a tank and for some work, it could be enough...

Because i consider that, in the lore, changing "Tank" by "guardian" to stick the word "tank" for the "role = tank" for... easier speak between player (including those who don"t care any second the lore) is nothing that could be harsh on the game... For this i consider the "lore argument" totally stupid

Noaani

Aerlana wrote: »

So, because YOU think that "tank" is in verra's lore, a job like carpenter, you throw away any side problem like simply... have words to clearly define what you need ?

Because if i need anyone who could do the role of tank, in city, for now i would have to call "looking for role = tank" instead of the simple "looking for a tank" because... the role "tank" can be fit by more than "tank" ...

and NO stop with the stupid "sumoner can at most do off-tank" yes he won't probably be able to "main-tank" do to the prefix... it stays a tank and for some work, it could be enough...

Because i consider that, in the lore, changing "Tank" by "guardian" to stick the word "tank" for the "role = tank" for... easier speak between player (including those who don"t care any second the lore) is nothing that could be harsh on the game... For this i consider the "lore argument" totally stupid

I'm fairly sure you haven't logically thought out your perspective just yet. You have a perspective, and are trying to work it out as you go.

If you are looking for a tank, you say that you are looking for a tank. Chances are, the people that respond saying "I'm a tank, I would like to join", will be of the tank class. It is also highly likely that almost all instances of summoners tanking in a group will be people that already know each other - you are unlikely to ever have a pick up group with a summoner for the tank.

The reason the lore argument is stupid is because we don't know the lore of the game yet.

I am unsure of where your issue is here.

Dygz

If you need someone to fight, you only choose a Fighter?
If you need someone for ranged combat, you only choose a Ranger?
If you need someone to use magic you only choose a Mage?
If you want someone to main tank, you should choose Tank. Any other primary archetype will be primarily doing something else while they try to off-tank.

Aerlana

so an off tank is not a tank. ok. interesting.
But a question, do you understand that in a team, if there is only one guy doing the tank role, there is no main tank and no offtank. So time you have anyone (be it sumoner, fighter, cleric or any) who do the "tank role" of the team for what they want to do, he is the tank and not the "off tank" ?

And also magic = bard, sumoner mage, cleric use magic. If i want magic user i take any of them. If i want magic damage dealer, then i take mage.
Ranger = on AoC you are right, on many other game, ranger can be melee. because ranger is not the short of "range weapon user" it is totally different thing. If it was called "Bowman" yes you would be totally right.
It remains fighter but in french we dont use the word to word translation is most universe, we use "guerrier" which is translated as "warrior". But fighter is not even the role of fighter because there is no role "fighter" in MMORPG (and doesnt seems in AoC) it is "melee damage dealer" (or melee DPS) neither bowman/ranger is a role, their role is "ranged damage dealer"

Dygz

Is a Summoner a mage?
If you want someone to off-tank, grab someone who can off-tank.
If you want someone who can main tank, grab a Tank.
It's not a rocket science.

Aerlana

Dygz wrote: »

Is a Summoner a mage?
If you want someone to off-tank, grab someone who can off-tank.
If you want someone who can main tank, grab a Tank.
It's not a rocket science.

bard, sumoner, mage and cleric uses magic (or maybe wiki is false). There is 4 magic archetype and 4 martial archetype.

And about the role = tank
just, imagine, i want to go with a group do some NPC killing but they are "elite"
not a world boss, no just elite mob. i need anyone who can tank (role) not specifficaly a tank (archetype)
and while i need only one tank : i dont have neither a main tank or a offtank... because these prefix are to define the work of each character dedicated to do tanking (role)... Also, you can use the archetype "tank" to do "offtank" work.

And because i dont want to always say "looking for tank (role)" when i search anyone who can tank... the fact that a class as the name of a role is a real problem...

Just call the archetype "shieldbearer" (for example) seems so scandalous? because i feel would be far easier to communicate.

Sathrago

Aerlana wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Is a Summoner a mage?
If you want someone to off-tank, grab someone who can off-tank.
If you want someone who can main tank, grab a Tank.
It's not a rocket science.

bard, sumoner, mage and cleric uses magic (or maybe wiki is false). There is 4 magic archetype and 4 martial archetype.

And about the role = tank
just, imagine, i want to go with a group do some NPC killing but they are "elite"
not a world boss, no just elite mob. i need anyone who can tank (role) not specifficaly a tank (archetype)
and while i need only one tank : i dont have neither a main tank or a offtank... because these prefix are to define the work of each character dedicated to do tanking (role)... Also, you can use the archetype "tank" to do "offtank" work.

And because i dont want to always say "looking for tank (role)" when i search anyone who can tank... the fact that a class as the name of a role is a real problem...

Just call the archetype "shieldbearer" (for example) seems so scandalous? because i feel would be far easier to communicate.

I think its really clear. If you wish for a tank you ask for a tank and you get whatever flavor said tank is. if you want a specific type of tank you use the class name.

Dygz

If you look at the official Ashes roles, Tank is the only one with the primary role of tank.
All the other Primary Archetypes have a primary role of damage or support.
The primary role of Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Mage is damage.
So, if you want someone to main tank, your best bet is to choose a Primary Archetype Tank.
A Primary Archetype Fighter or Cleric or Summoner might be able to off-tank, sure.
Secondary Archetype Tanks will be able to off-tank.
It's not a Herculean Task to ask for an off-tank, if that's what you're looking for.

Shoximity

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.

If Intrepid actually made the word "tank" into the lore and described what a tank is within the fantasy world and inside Verra, then by all means leave the name tank. If they make the assumption that we as a player have to accept the term "tank" to be the norm within Verra without context or explanation... Then that is pure laziness, poor writing, and/or poor choice of class archetype naming. If I want to be immersed in the lore and game, I shouldn't ever go to an npc and they address me as "Mr. Tank". To me, it's just like a ranger going up to an NPC and them saying hello "Mr. Damage". It just doesn't feel right. Tank is the only archetype name that is like that. Just seems like pure laziness or that they really think there is going to be a significant amount of players that don't know what a tank is/does and they have to "dumb it down" instead of treating us as smart players that can figure things out.

Yes, Intrepid, thank you for spoon feeding me and everyone else on this forum that the role I picked is a ... Tank. I really couldn't figure that out by myself in your character creation screen that should/will say "This archetype tanks enemies, disrupts battle, mitigates damage, and controls the battlefield. Choose this archetype if you want to have a high health pool, defense, and lead your party into battle." Definitely need the NPCs in game and my character sheet to remind me daily that I am in fact a tank.

Aerlana

Dygz wrote: »

It's not a Herculean Task to ask for an off-tank, if that's what you're looking for.

How could i need one off tank if i need only 1 guy doing tank job ?

if i want a guy who can tank, any, for the content i just need anything that can fit this job... (so not necessarely a "primary achetype tank"). What do i call if i want to call them all ?
you didnt answer this question

also, you didnt answer where was the problem to finally get "tank" archetype renamed "shieldbearer" or anything that fit this.

The trinity role is "tank, support, damage dealer" so to form my group i will call those 3 role. i could be more specific (like range damage dealer, buffing support, healer, etc) but for one role, if i call the role, there will always be a question "does he want the 8 class bind with tank archetype, or anybuild that can tank what he aim for"

akabear

32 pages later, still not convinced the bulk of players will:

a) be better off with a tank name change and
b) be using the individual archetype names so much anyhow

The way I see it, with 8 primaries plus a few selected of the more common archetypes will become commonly discussed and known only.

With 64 archetypes it is great for diversity but going to be mightily hard to remember and only a select few players will know what they are / mean and to cover the reset players will be asking questions like, "What is a Guardian?", to which there will be replies along the lines of " Tank + Tank".

Noaani

Cripsus wrote: »

If Intrepid actually made the word "tank" into the lore and described what a tank is within the fantasy world and inside Verra, then by all means leave the name tank.

In other words, wait and see when Intrepid actually release the lore associated with the game - which isn't likely to happen until the game goes live.

Noaani

Aerlana wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

It's not a Herculean Task to ask for an off-tank, if that's what you're looking for.

How could i need one off tank if i need only 1 guy doing tank job ?

if i want a guy who can tank, any, for the content i just need anything that can fit this job... (so not necessarely a "primary achetype tank"). What do i call if i want to call them all ?
you didnt answer this question

also, you didnt answer where was the problem to finally get "tank" archetype renamed "shieldbearer" or anything that fit this.

The trinity role is "tank, support, damage dealer" so to form my group i will call those 3 role. i could be more specific (like range damage dealer, buffing support, healer, etc) but for one role, if i call the role, there will always be a question "does he want the 8 class bind with tank archetype, or anybuild that can tank what he aim for"

You'll have to excuse Dygz.

His idea of a perfect group in a 5 man group game would be a tank and healer as the first two spots, an offtank and backup healer for the next two, and just in case something happens, someone that can back up either the tank or healer as the fifth person in the group.

Saying he has no idea would be an understatement.

Noaani

akabear wrote: »

32 pages later, still not convinced the bulk of players will:

a) be better off with a tank name change and
b) be using the individual archetype names so much anyhow

The way I see it, with 8 primaries plus a few selected of the more common archetypes will become commonly discussed and known only.

With 64 archetypes it is great for diversity but going to be mightily hard to remember and only a select few players will know what they are / mean and to cover the reset players will be asking questions like, "What is a Guardian?", to which there will be replies along the lines of " Tank + Tank".

I think you are basically right here.

I honestly don't think people will care at all about the secondary class others are running, outside of very top end stuff. To people not playing a tank, a tank is any tank. To people not playing a cleric, a healer is any cleric. To people not playing a fighter, a fighter is any fighter.

The only real exception I can see to this is a necromancer - I can see people in a group with a necro referring to them as such, as opposed to calling them a summoner.

The only time people will even care about a sub-class is when it is one they have the ability to play.

Aerlana

Noaani wrote: »

The only real exception I can see to this is a necromancer - I can see people in a group with a necro referring to them as such, as opposed to calling them a summoner.

The only time people will even care about a sub-class is when it is one they have the ability to play.

I think in the end we will speak about the 8 archetype for PvE. the 8 classes you can have on each feels more like "specialisation" than really "class" the fact you can change (with some work) the secundary archetype make me really consider this way.
but I think for sumoner, depending augment, it will focus a little more to one role the "broodwarden" will allow to have a quite nice tanking pet, while the spellmancer will be a better choice if you want your summons to deal big damages. Like in FFXI puppet master allowed you to build your puppet to fit a specific job role. So while all rogue will be damage dealers, all cleric will be healers and all tank will be tank, sumoner will show some variety. (disclaimer : i just imagine what we will have, probably i just said will be totally bullshit ! )

But ninja on FFXI was a DD job... devs announced it like this, and maintain this speech a long time... for some boss, ninja was the perfect tank. On wow vanilla, for some leveling dungeons we used paladin or shaman, while "only warrior is good tank" was a common thought. on retail in all expansion, Fury warrior was used to tank some dungeons (mainly when stuff made it more than enough). On Aion, Gladiator was often tank also in leveling content.

This is why i have matter with a primary archetype having the name of his role... (aaaand... wont say again more, i already said it too much)

about this team composition you spoke about, i think , we are never too carefull ?

Dygz

Aerlana wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

It's not a Herculean Task to ask for an off-tank, if that's what you're looking for.

How could i need one off tank if i need only 1 guy doing tank job ?

if i want a guy who can tank, any, for the content i just need anything that can fit this job... (so not necessarely a "primary achetype tank"). What do i call if i want to call them all ?
you didnt answer this question

also, you didnt answer where was the problem to finally get "tank" archetype renamed "shieldbearer" or anything that fit this.

The trinity role is "tank, support, damage dealer" so to form my group i will call those 3 role. i could be more specific (like range damage dealer, buffing support, healer, etc) but for one role, if i call the role, there will always be a question "does he want the 8 class bind with tank archetype, or anybuild that can tank what he aim for"

If you ask for a Tank, I doubt people will question whether you want a Fighter or whether you want a Tank.
Just as if you call for a Fighter, I doubt people will question whether you want a Rogue, a Tank or a Fighter.
Just as if you ask for a Mage, people will not question whether you want a Summoner, a Bard or a Mage.

Aerlana

this is the

Dygz wrote: »

If you ask for a Tank, I doubt people will question whether you want a Fighter or whether you want a Tank.

This is my problem with the archetype "tank" getting the same word as the role "tank"

because for some content, i want to be to easily call for a "tank" but not limited to the 8 tank classes, but also some like ... dreadnought if it shows to be a decent tank (heavy fighter with tank augments. i wouldnt be surprise to be more than enough for many content

AND i speak while i want only ONE character to do the "tank role" so don't come again with "call offtank to have dreadnought". . .

*read back what Noaani said" hum probably i lose my time . . .

Noaani

Aerlana wrote: »

So while all rogue will be damage dealers, all cleric will be healers and all tank will be tank, sumoner will show some variety. (disclaimer : i just imagine what we will have, probably i just said will be totally bullshit ! )

This is all fairly true.

The reason I say that necromancers will be the only class people will look at as being the specific class rather than the primary class is because of it's uniqueness visually.

Imagine you are in a group with 7 other players you do not know, and there is a summoner present.

Now, this summoner is not likely to have tank as their secondary, because summoners are not likely to be used as tanks outside of players that are familiar with each other (I can see people leaving pick up groups that are planning on running without a tank class).

From there, you are unlikely going to pay a whole lot of attention to that summoners specific class. You aren't likely to even know if they have summoner or mage as their secondary, or fighter or rogue. I mean, I am sure these classes will be different, but if you are not a summoner yourself, you aren't going to care, or even notice.

What you will notice, however, is if there are a pile of skeletons all around you as you are fighting.

Every sub-class on the list is able to be debated in terms of it's identity - except necromancer. While many people will look at Warden or Shaman (just as examples) and think that it is like WoW's version of those classes, that is absolutely not a guarantee - and there are many other examples that are far removed from that example that Intrepid could pull from.

Necromancers, however, play with dead things. That isn't really up for debate.

As such, players will recognize necromancer as it's own identity in terms of classes, while all 8 primary classes will also have their own identity as a primary class.

While this isn't that helpful to the general thread, it is how I see things going in terms of player perception of classes.

Child Item