The problem with having “Tank” as a class name

Artharion wrote: »

Guardian would be a good name.

Guardian is already the Tank/Tank combination.
Defender would still be open as an option.

Artharion

Warth wrote: »

Artharion wrote: »

Guardian would be a good name.

Guardian is already the Tank/Tank combination.
Defender would still be open as an option.

What about Sentinel?

Taken by another combination. I can look up which later.

MaiWaifu

Maybe masochist?

PenguinPaladin

Cosidering its an archtype name, and not a class name, who cares.

Sentinel is Ranger/Tank.

The perceived issue with the ‘Tank’ archetype name is that it conflates a role with an archetype label. So, the most crucial question to ask is whether there is a class combination that doesn’t include a ‘tank’ that can actually play in the tank role.

If ‘yes’ then Intrepid has some work to do.
If ‘no’ then it’s fine until @Warth rez’s the topic in 4 months.

Daggial

rename Tank to Guardian
Guardian + Guardian = Juggernaut or something

Kovrm

Shoximity wrote: »

Oof, unfortunate that he stated it won’t change. I was really trying to fix mine and others future immersion. Well, they better give the class a transformers like feature so I can roll around and shoot artillery from my cannon arms.

Lol.

CROW3 wrote: »

Sentinel is Ranger/Tank.

The perceived issue with the ‘Tank’ archetype name is that it conflates a role with an archetype label. So, the most crucial question to ask is whether there is a class combination that doesn’t include a ‘tank’ that can actually play in the tank role.

If ‘yes’ then Intrepid has some work to do.
If ‘no’ then it’s fine until @Warth rez’s the topic in 4 months.

Can you play a Rogue/Rogue who fights? If yes, Fighter might need some work.
Can you play a Rogue/Rogue who wields magic? If yes, Mage might need some work.

Dygz wrote: »

Can you play a Rogue/Rogue who fights? If yes, Fighter might need some work.
Can you play a Rogue/Rogue who wields magic? If yes, Mage might need some work.

You already know my rebuttal, but for the youts: neither 'fighter' nor 'mage' are MMO group roles: e.g. 'tank', 'healer', 'dps', or 'support.' I mean it would be awkward if we renamed 'Fighter' to 'melee dps.' Rogues would be like 'WTF!?'

It wouldn't be appropriate to label the Cleric archetype as 'Healer' because Bards can also serve in that role. If no other archetype could heal, then Cleric could be Healer. So it follows that if any other archetype can be a viable tank, then the 'tank' archetype label fails because you have one label meaning two different things.

None of the labels matter as long as everyone knows how the game uses the labels.

Dygz wrote: »

None of the labels matter as long as everyone knows how the game uses the labels.

Totally. But if a label means two different things in the same game, the label literally fails at a functional level.

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Cosidering its an archtype name, and not a class name, who cares.

@PenguinPaladin its the first impression new players get so it matters quite a lot.

According to Intrepid, you'll also spend quite some time within the game before getting your secondary.

CROW3 wrote: »

Sentinel is Ranger/Tank.

The perceived issue with the ‘Tank’ archetype name is that it conflates a role with an archetype label. So, the most crucial question to ask is whether there is a class combination that doesn’t include a ‘tank’ that can actually play in the tank role.

If ‘yes’ then Intrepid has some work to do.
If ‘no’ then it’s fine until @Warth rez’s the topic in 4 months.

Its been 12 months <.<

Aalso its @daveywavey 's fault for reminding me that this exists

You're both busted.

CROW3 wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

None of the labels matter as long as everyone knows how the game uses the labels.

Totally. But if a label means two different things in the same game, the label literally fails at a functional level.

It won't really mean the same thing. In Ashes, Tanks tank.
Any other meaning of tank is going to be similar to a Rogue fighting.
A Fighter can tank just as a Rogue can fight.

Especially in a game that is balanced around having one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group...
When you are looking for a Tank, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Tank. Just as when you are looking for a Fighter, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Fighter.

Dygz wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

None of the labels matter as long as everyone knows how the game uses the labels.

Totally. But if a label means two different things in the same game, the label literally fails at a functional level.

It won't really mean the same thing. In Ashes, Tanks tank.
Any other meaning of tank is going to be similar to a Rogue fighting.
A Fighter can tank just as a Rogue can fight.

Especially in a game that is balanced around having one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group...
When you are looking for a Tank, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Tank. Just as when you are looking for a Fighter, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Fighter.

Nobody will use the class names anyway. 64 is far too much to remember for it to be productive.

For any communication they will prolly be abbreviated into.

Ta/Fi or similar

Dygz wrote: »

Especially in a game that is balanced around having one of each Primary Archetype in an 8-person group...
When you are looking for a Tank, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Tank. Just as when you are looking for a Fighter, you are looking for a Primary Archetype Fighter.

Yup.