Oh boy my favorite thread. Look folks, it's gonna come down to what "tank" means in this world of might and magic. Tank could be used just like Mage is used to give a generalized title to someone preforming a specific role or actions. They could easily say that Tank is the name that the people use in reference to a person able to distract and focus an enemies ire on themselves so that their teammates do not suffer mortal injury.
It's all about the word-play here, and if their world uses tank in this way, then you have to accept it regardless of how you feel. You could replace "tank" with any gibberish name like blarkenark and it would be the same. Fighter and Mage were created to describe the roles/generic actions they take and that is what tank will be.
Tank is only fine if they write something into the lore to justify it. If the historians of the AoC world use lingo like "and then he stalled long enough and "tanked" the enemies so that his party could sneak past and grab the crystal" then it makes sense to have a class named tank. If "tank" is never mentioned anywhere in quests, lore, random npc quotes, and in game descriptions... then the name "tank" breaks immersion (compared to the other class/archetype names). The problem is tanking is a gamer slang term that was created to easily identify a role. You don't have an archetype named "DPSer" because it sounds stupid. You could use the term "healer" because that is literally what they are doing. But, you wouldn't say I'm a "Damager Per Second" class/archetype. I think "Meat Shield" would be equal to "tank" in terms of archetpye name choice design.
How is this any different to names like summoner or fighter? Yes, those names have been used for classes in the past but isn't it a similar situation where a fighter is someone who fights and a summoner is someone who summoners?
How is this any different to names like summoner or fighter? Yes, those names have been used for classes in the past but isn't it a similar situation where a fighter is someone who fights and a summoner is someone who summoners?
It's like having a class named "DPS"
Summoners summon fighters fight tanks tank. Oh wow it perfectly fit.
How is this any different to names like summoner or fighter? Yes, those names have been used for classes in the past but isn't it a similar situation where a fighter is someone who fights and a summoner is someone who summoners?
It's like having a class named "DPS"
Summoners summon fighters fight tanks tank. Oh wow it perfectly fit.
Summoners either use their summons for support, tank or dps though. It's like having a class called "support". Or "healer".
Yea, the problem is that tank is used at all to begin with. The definition of “tank”is a military vehicle. We only know the slang meaning of the word as gamers because it’s what we use to define a specific role. They should use warrior or some other Base class name. Tank shouldn’t even be on the list.
I can see that. Warrior is pretty basic. Might be just to assist the players to better choose their class with a name like Tank. They know what it is from the big class table.
Language is a funny thing. Tank means more than a military vehicle at this point. We know mages in WoW give out conjured water, so they get called vending machines.
Definitely could be a quick fix for them, but there is probably some rationale behind their choice. I wonder what happens when you target someone, will it say Tank or say their actual chosen class of Guardian, Keeper, Nightshield... I suppose that could break your immersion. Not sure if it is a big deal to me.
The problem is, Tank is a bad name for the arch-type.
Most Tanks, especially 'modern tanks' have huge guns on them. What I'm saying is, most Tanks 1-Shot non-Tanks. Literally, 1 Shell... 1 Dead HMVVW. 1 Shell, 1 Dead Squad. They do huge damage, that can armor pierce, and can AoE... while still being 'Heavy Armor'. And they have no CC... they CC by Huge Damage. Yes, they can apply that Huge Damage to say... the wheels of a HMMVW, but the problem is the damage doesn't JUST hit the wheels, that HMMVW is now blown into the air and destroyed.
But the Arch-type isn't supposed to do damage, and is supposed to control the battlefield with CC. Nothing like a Tank at all.
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I imagine LFG will be "Tank LFG, Healer LFG, DPS LFG, and what ever buffer becomes the flavor".. all individual class names will become of secondary importance as there are just too many types.. Unless there ends up being imbalance and certain Metas..
I imagine LFG will be "Tank LFG, Healer LFG, DPS LFG, and what ever buffer becomes the flavor".. all individual class names will become of secondary importance as there are just too many types.. Unless there ends up being imbalance and certain Metas..
Oh contrare I believe class names will be important due to the utility and strength differences brought by each primary class.
From what steven has said at least. We still gotta wait and see to be sure.
How is this any different to names like summoner or fighter? Yes, those names have been used for classes in the past but isn't it a similar situation where a fighter is someone who fights and a summoner is someone who summoners?
It's like having a class named "DPS"
Summoners summon fighters fight tanks tank. Oh wow it perfectly fit.
Summoners either use their summons for support, tank or dps though. It's like having a class called "support". Or "healer".
Yes and tanks will evade, block, kite, cc, regenerate or flat out negate damage. Their role is and always will be the gathering of targets attention and making sure they themselves dont die while others support them during the fight to kill the targets.
Tank encompasses all variants of that type of character. No other suggested name can do the same. Or do you really think the tank/rogue swashbuckling pirate is a "guardian"? Is he guarding someone or just really good at distracting an enemy while not dying?
do you really think the tank/rogue swashbuckling pirate is a "guardian"?
The rogue/tank is literally called a Shadow Guardian. And the tank/rogue a Nightshield. You keep making these strange false equivalency arguments to justify naming an archetype as a class role.
First of all, that isn't a Tank name. It's a rogue name. Because the primary class decides what role you take on, not the secondary. Secondly, all of these are place holder, including TANK and subject to change. So while tank has always had the potential to be changed, so do all of these names and the flavor tied to them due to such a change. Using them as evidence that "Guardian" would fit all of their name-sakes does not suddenly mean that "Guardian" will fit any of the changes that are almost guaranteed to happen to the class naming and designs due to iteration and optimization.
That swashbuckling pirate I mentioned earlier has just about as much chance of being the name for tank/rogue as anything else does.
i must say from other games i played it was ingame written the class name to be tank.
shure its also used in the RL military. 1915 and so on this was 1st and 2nd ww and since in both was also germany involved wy not call then the class Panzer and the role Tank. tecnicly its the same only translated. but Tank in german means Tank as in term of Watertank or gasolinetank. so i guess highly that it did origin from there.
befor the RL tank was the Panzerwagen or armored car which later did morph into tank car. silmply easyer and faster to say.
but back to topic im totaly fine if it remains tank. but it could also be Knight since that does come the look of the class the closest. full body plate armor with shield and sword or grand sword.
while for the 2nd class with metal armor could go with gladiator due to its fight style.
well i dont see a reason for any change in nameing it tank. and even once in the game peoples will keep nameing it tank and tanking, i dont belive they will change that so much since many players are simply used to call it thatway.
maybe the fighter could be gladiator since fighter tecnicly does go for any class that does fight.
and instead of mage maybe wizard, cause mage or better named "magiciants" IRL usualy are into illusions or slight of hands, but not in real magic or wizardry
and Mage/mage is Archwizard so it could be tecnicly be wizard
but just some thougths
ingame i think peoples will call it main class/augment class and not useing the 64 diffrent names so if you may play mage/mage or Fighter/hunter or else. i hope that the class/archetype selection name is displayed to the player and maybe others of a group by name or symbol to see it. it will for me definetly needing time until i memorize all 64 classes and have a basic knowledge of what they could do, or what their augment does.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
How long ago was it that the class chart dropped?
It was fairly unlikely that names on the chart would change within the couple of years to launch in 2020.
Now that we are 2 years past the original launch date and launch is probably not before 2024/2025...
we can expect that there has been and will be plenty of time for the devs to contemplate different names for some of the classes...and possibly for some of the Archetypes.
Well this topic seems like it's been pretty beaten but that's never stopped me from throwing my 2 cents in,
I understand/agree that Tank as a name is a bit janky lore wise however that's simply because there is no english word that constitutes everything a "tank" does in game.
A Tank serves three ish functions Hold Aggro / Soak Damage / Control Pace so for naming you can narrow in on one of the three eg:
you could capture a tanks primary function of holding aggro and go with something like Provoker/Goader/Instigator.
you could capture a tanks defensive capabilities with something like Bastion/Defender/Warden perhaps make up some thing analogous to Steward but Wyrreward (old english war + ward)
You could emphasize a tanks role in setting the pace of the fight and leading their party forward with Leader/Overseer/Captain
you could make a case for each of these but the reality is I do not think there is a word that easily communicates all the secondary functions a tank has beyond the word tank and since it's not an actual class name but rather an architype I think it does a sufficient job in communicating what you are expected to do/will be doing.
The only thing we will need to see to determine whether or not it ought to be changed imo is how easy will it be for secondary tanks to main tank, eg are you fine bringing just a broodwarden and/or Sentinel, or are you required to take primary tanks to act as a main tank. If you need primary tanks to main leave the name tank its w/e, if you can get by with secondary tanks alone I would say you should probably shift it to something above and I lean towards Provoker/Goader/Instigator because imo the most important thing a tank needs to do is provoke/hold aggro if you kite and evade damage instead of soaking your doing your job, if the boss is hitting your dps/healer you've already failed.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Tank as an Archetype name is not immersion-breaking. Tanks were made out heavy metal back in the day.
It's always a matter of context. And we will know what the Verran context is.
This is going to look really silly if the devs announce it was a placeholder name for their least finished character or something! How about we leave issues for this until they do the class reveal and see if they have a new name for it or not. /thread
Comments
It's all about the word-play here, and if their world uses tank in this way, then you have to accept it regardless of how you feel. You could replace "tank" with any gibberish name like blarkenark and it would be the same. Fighter and Mage were created to describe the roles/generic actions they take and that is what tank will be.
Deal with it.
It's like having a class named "DPS"
Also,
Summoners summon fighters fight tanks tank. Oh wow it perfectly fit.
Summoners either use their summons for support, tank or dps though. It's like having a class called "support". Or "healer".
The problem is, Tank is a bad name for the arch-type.
Most Tanks, especially 'modern tanks' have huge guns on them. What I'm saying is, most Tanks 1-Shot non-Tanks. Literally, 1 Shell... 1 Dead HMVVW. 1 Shell, 1 Dead Squad. They do huge damage, that can armor pierce, and can AoE... while still being 'Heavy Armor'. And they have no CC... they CC by Huge Damage. Yes, they can apply that Huge Damage to say... the wheels of a HMMVW, but the problem is the damage doesn't JUST hit the wheels, that HMMVW is now blown into the air and destroyed.
But the Arch-type isn't supposed to do damage, and is supposed to control the battlefield with CC. Nothing like a Tank at all.
It's always been a lazy term.
I vote for renaming mages to houdini's
Oh contrare I believe class names will be important due to the utility and strength differences brought by each primary class.
From what steven has said at least. We still gotta wait and see to be sure.
Yes and tanks will evade, block, kite, cc, regenerate or flat out negate damage. Their role is and always will be the gathering of targets attention and making sure they themselves dont die while others support them during the fight to kill the targets.
Tank encompasses all variants of that type of character. No other suggested name can do the same. Or do you really think the tank/rogue swashbuckling pirate is a "guardian"? Is he guarding someone or just really good at distracting an enemy while not dying?
First of all, that isn't a Tank name. It's a rogue name. Because the primary class decides what role you take on, not the secondary. Secondly, all of these are place holder, including TANK and subject to change. So while tank has always had the potential to be changed, so do all of these names and the flavor tied to them due to such a change. Using them as evidence that "Guardian" would fit all of their name-sakes does not suddenly mean that "Guardian" will fit any of the changes that are almost guaranteed to happen to the class naming and designs due to iteration and optimization.
That swashbuckling pirate I mentioned earlier has just about as much chance of being the name for tank/rogue as anything else does.
shure its also used in the RL military. 1915 and so on this was 1st and 2nd ww and since in both was also germany involved wy not call then the class Panzer and the role Tank. tecnicly its the same only translated. but Tank in german means Tank as in term of Watertank or gasolinetank. so i guess highly that it did origin from there.
befor the RL tank was the Panzerwagen or armored car which later did morph into tank car. silmply easyer and faster to say.
but back to topic im totaly fine if it remains tank. but it could also be Knight since that does come the look of the class the closest. full body plate armor with shield and sword or grand sword.
while for the 2nd class with metal armor could go with gladiator due to its fight style.
Just to be clear, it’s not a class name, it’s an archetype name. The tank/x class names are things like ‘Guardian’, ‘Knight’ etc.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Class
There isnt exactly much important feedback to give while A2 hasnt been released yet.
They have lives streams every month, literally anymore is more important then complaining about names...
well i dont see a reason for any change in nameing it tank. and even once in the game peoples will keep nameing it tank and tanking, i dont belive they will change that so much since many players are simply used to call it thatway.
maybe the fighter could be gladiator since fighter tecnicly does go for any class that does fight.
and instead of mage maybe wizard, cause mage or better named "magiciants" IRL usualy are into illusions or slight of hands, but not in real magic or wizardry
and Mage/mage is Archwizard so it could be tecnicly be wizard
but just some thougths
ingame i think peoples will call it main class/augment class and not useing the 64 diffrent names so if you may play mage/mage or Fighter/hunter or else. i hope that the class/archetype selection name is displayed to the player and maybe others of a group by name or symbol to see it. it will for me definetly needing time until i memorize all 64 classes and have a basic knowledge of what they could do, or what their augment does.
It was fairly unlikely that names on the chart would change within the couple of years to launch in 2020.
Now that we are 2 years past the original launch date and launch is probably not before 2024/2025...
we can expect that there has been and will be plenty of time for the devs to contemplate different names for some of the classes...and possibly for some of the Archetypes.
I understand/agree that Tank as a name is a bit janky lore wise however that's simply because there is no english word that constitutes everything a "tank" does in game.
A Tank serves three ish functions Hold Aggro / Soak Damage / Control Pace so for naming you can narrow in on one of the three eg:
you could capture a tanks primary function of holding aggro and go with something like Provoker/Goader/Instigator.
you could capture a tanks defensive capabilities with something like Bastion/Defender/Warden perhaps make up some thing analogous to Steward but Wyrreward (old english war + ward)
You could emphasize a tanks role in setting the pace of the fight and leading their party forward with Leader/Overseer/Captain
you could make a case for each of these but the reality is I do not think there is a word that easily communicates all the secondary functions a tank has beyond the word tank and since it's not an actual class name but rather an architype I think it does a sufficient job in communicating what you are expected to do/will be doing.
The only thing we will need to see to determine whether or not it ought to be changed imo is how easy will it be for secondary tanks to main tank, eg are you fine bringing just a broodwarden and/or Sentinel, or are you required to take primary tanks to act as a main tank. If you need primary tanks to main leave the name tank its w/e, if you can get by with secondary tanks alone I would say you should probably shift it to something above and I lean towards Provoker/Goader/Instigator because imo the most important thing a tank needs to do is provoke/hold aggro if you kite and evade damage instead of soaking your doing your job, if the boss is hitting your dps/healer you've already failed.
The Wolves of Verra
are recruiting: https://discord.gg/Rt8G3sNYac
Nope. It's fine.
It's always a matter of context. And we will know what the Verran context is.