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

daveywavey

Marcet wrote: »

Im gonna go to the new player spawn and laugh at them for being called "Tanks" as a class name until they are lvl 25, and you can't do nothing to stop me.

We can't do anything to stop you laughing, but we absolutely can do something to stop you being there...

Marcet

daveywavey wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

Im gonna go to the new player spawn and laugh at them for being called "Tanks" as a class name until they are lvl 25, and you can't do nothing to stop me.

We can't do anything to stop you laughing, but we absolutely can do something to stop you being there...

bring it on >:(

George_Black

34 pages arguing about an Alpha development place holder?

Sathrago

George Black wrote: »

34 pages arguing about an Alpha development place holder?

HA! shun this non-believer. Tank will live forever!

George_Black

Aigh here is my 2cents.

Tank+fighter = mercenary/deserter/fallen/fallen knight
Tank+tank = Knight
And Guardian becomes the free name for the role of tanks.

A keeper is a guardian base with summoner secondary
A spellshield is a guardian base with mage secondary

A knight is the only VIABLE guardian for tanking raids

JustVine

George Black wrote: »

Aigh here is my 2cents.

Tank+fighter = mercenary/deserter/fallen/fallen knight
Tank+tank = Knight
And Guardian becomes the free name for the role of tanks.

A keeper is a guardian base with summoner secondary
A spellshield is a guardian base with mage secindary

A knight is the only VIABLE guardian for tanking raids

I like your opinion on names. That's a good set of fixes. Your last line otoh I am less sure about, but that's a topic deserving it's own thread of which I think several already exist.

George_Black

Ill give you a hint about the last one...
You use it when fishing

JustVine

George Black wrote: »

Ill give you a hint about the last one...
You use it when fishing

Oh you were baiting, got it. Thanks mate.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

Ill give you a hint about the last one...
You use it when fishing

Oh you were baiting, got it. Thanks mate.

He is the master at it.

George_Black

Truth baits

akabear

A series of experiments by the Admiralty Landships Commitee committee led in September 1915 to the construction of the first tank, called “Little Willie.” A second model, called “Big Willie,” quickly followed.

Why are there no discussions of willies?

HazardNumberSeven

akabear wrote: »

A series of experiments by the Admiralty Landships Commitee committee led in September 1915 to the construction of the first tank, called “Little Willie.” A second model, called “Big Willie,” quickly followed.

Why are there no discussions of willies?

Tanks will from now on be called Willies.

daveywavey

akabear wrote: »

A series of experiments by the Admiralty Landships Commitee committee led in September 1915 to the construction of the first tank, called “Little Willie.” A second model, called “Big Willie,” quickly followed.

Why are there no discussions of willies?

So, tank archetypes are Little Willies, and tank+tanks are Big Willies?

CROW3

daveywavey wrote: »

So, tank archetypes are Little Willies, and tank+tanks are Big Willies?

This sounds entirely reasonable to me.

Warth

Getting closer to A2 i think its high time that we revisit this issue.

Lets just assume, that players who have never paid attention to the game get their first impression through Streams.

The first thing they see when their favorite content creator is in character selection is what?

Exactly, the name of the Archtypes with the name "Tank" standing out like an inflammed pimple in an otherwise immaculate face.

Tank doesn't fit the fantasy setting. Its immersion breaking and it shows a lack of attention to detail on Intrepid's part and let's not forget that attention to detail is the thing that makes great games outstanding instead

daveywavey

@Warth

Noaani

Warth wrote: »

The first thing they see when their favorite content creator is in character selection is what?

Nah, their first thought will be "well, I know what that classes role is, I wonder what a summoner does".

Scarbeus

The logical reason to change it is that there are multiple character combinations capable of tanking. So if you are looking for a tank for a dungeon you are asking for Tanks as well as tanks. So really that's down to whether or not you think that will be an issue. Will people who are capable of tanking but don't have the Tank archetype think you want their help or not?

MrWorldwide45

I don't think this is a big deal but I get your point, tank is a title and not so much a class name. It would be easy for them to call the archetype guardian instead and rename the tank/tank a behemoth or defender or something, but most people probably don't care.

Dygz

Mage and Fighter need to be changed, too, I guess.
Probably Summoner, as well.

Child Item