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

akabear

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..

Sathrago

akabear wrote: »

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.

Rando88 wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Also,

Rando88 wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

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?

Sathrago

LogicalLynx wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

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.

CROW3

I propose ‘sponge.’

Furighteous

I agree, Tank is a role, not a class. Guardian/Protector/Bulwark would be better.

Asraiel

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.

Songcaller

The term tank comes from Britain who called the vehicles 'tank' to confuse the Germans.

CROW3

Furighteous wrote: »

I agree, Tank is a role, not a class. Guardian/Protector/Bulwark would be better.

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

Mag7spy

Imagine having a post about class names and you don't like them over more important feedback lmao.

Warth

@Mag7spy what kind of important feedback are we talking about?
There isnt exactly much important feedback to give while A2 hasnt been released yet.

Dolyem

How about "Meat-Shield"

Mag7spy

Warth wrote: »

@Mag7spy what kind of important feedback are we talking about?
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...

Asraiel

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.

Dygz

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.

WHIT3ROS3

I think all the names are good. They are thematic and make sense. Some things need to be done and done.

TheWolfofGar

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.

Warth

Would you consider Tank to be immersion breaking?

daveywavey

Warth wrote: »

Would you consider Tank to be immersion breaking?

Nope. It's fine.

Dygz

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.

Scarbeus

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

Child Item