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

Mag7spy

Nepoke wrote: »

Personally I don't think Tank is a very good name for a class.
Every other archetype (other than mage, which is synonymous to wizard) derives from a common sense DnD class which describe a set of abilities, not their role.

Tank is going to be difficult to bruteforce into the lore vernacular. Any mention to a "tank" in the lore is going to be jarring.

If any other archetype other than Tank is used as a tank within the group, this will cause confusion. And this WILL happen outside of high end pve content.

There is still time to reconsider the name before it's set in stone in Alpha 2!

These are some of the worst points I've ever seen. Nothing is confusing tis eastremely easy to understand.

Tank means you will be more tanky skill wise.. So if your main class is tank you will be a lot heavier a tank. If it is your sub class you will be in more of a tank position.

You know the term used for mmorpgs since you were in diapers. The term still used in every single god damn game. People out here actually doing some necro post for no reason. When did i start playing dead Space?

Strevi

Dygz wrote: »

Fighter is Fighter
Mage is Mage
Ranger is Ranger
Tank is Tank

They are all lore-friendly.
Everyone already knows that the English language has some irregularities.

Indeed these classes try to be as generic as possible by players.
Just that in if you would really living in a real medieval (fantasy) world, people would not say their profession is tank
Also summoner is a bit unusual, as that could be a mage too.
Alternatively, if they don't care about the immersion then they could use the word healer instead of cleric.

Guardian would have been a better name instead of tank.

Nepoke

Mag7spy wrote: »

These are some of the worst points I've ever seen. Nothing is confusing tis eastremely easy to understand.

Tank means you will be more tanky skill wise.. So if your main class is tank you will be a lot heavier a tank. If it is your sub class you will be in more of a tank position.

You know the term used for mmorpgs since you were in diapers. The term still used in every single god damn game. People out here actually doing some necro post for no reason. When did i start playing dead Space?

These are some of the worst counter arguments I've ever seen. Nothing you say disagrees with anything I wrote.

By your logic, if Tank is an acceptable main class name because everyone uses the term "Tank" to describe their role, then DPS should be an acceptable main class as well! DPS is used in every single god damn game since you were in diapers. If your main class is DPS, you will be doing heavier damage. If it's the sub class, you are in a more dps positon. No confusion!

So problem solved! Rename all archetypes according to the role people will call them!

Or maybe just give Tank another name. There are no benefits and only downsides to the current setup. No other game does this, no game should.

Dygz

Since the game is balanced for an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype, we should expect people to call for the unfilled Primary Archetype spots, rather than "healer" or "dps".

Nepoke

Dygz wrote: »

Since the game is balanced for an 8-person group

This is true.

Dygz wrote: »

with one of each Primary Archetype

I don't think this is the case. The talks I've heard have been about having a diversity of the trinity roles in a party and not strictly all the archetypes.

Anyway your point still stands in the way that if a dungeon group needs a secret door open, they will be yelling for a "Rogue" and not for a "melee dps."

Why is that? Well because Rogue invokes an image of a certain skillset (inherited from early tabletop games), which has nothing to do with their role in the trinity. A rogue could also not even be DPS. I imagine with some debuffing configuration it could be a support or with a tankier configuration even an evasion offtank.

This brings us to the name "Tank". Tank is an accepted name for the role in the trinity, but now Steven wants it to describe a skillset as well. This makes sense if these two conditions apply:

Tanks are the only ones who can tank
Tanks can only fill the tank role, and no other roles

I don't think either of these points will be true, so people will always have to specify if they are talking about the role or the class when they talk about "tanks".

I just don't see why all this hassle? What is the big benefit we gain from this? It seems that now we will have to spend more time communicating rather than less. And finally there's the lore question. I acknowledge that "Tank" would be many times more lore friendly than "DPS" to have the people of Verra talk about. But surely you agree that for example "Guardian" would be more lore friendly than "Tank". I can see someone describing Gondar The Stout establishing the "Order of The Guardian". This is significantly less jarring than the "Order of The Tank" to me. Would you have been okay with a "Tank" class in Everquest?

Dygz

More time communicating is great in any case.
But, it not an issue.
If you want a Tank, ask for a Tank.
If you want a Fighter, ask for a Fighter.
If you want a Rogue, ask for a Rogue.

Takes less time to ask for a Tank than it does to ask for a Guardian. And that's about the difference of one second.

Sathrago

Ravar

Sathrago wrote: »

So say we all

Mag7spy

Nepoke wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

These are some of the worst points I've ever seen. Nothing is confusing tis eastremely easy to understand.

Tank means you will be more tanky skill wise.. So if your main class is tank you will be a lot heavier a tank. If it is your sub class you will be in more of a tank position.

You know the term used for mmorpgs since you were in diapers. The term still used in every single god damn game. People out here actually doing some necro post for no reason. When did i start playing dead Space?

These are some of the worst counter arguments I've ever seen. Nothing you say disagrees with anything I wrote.

By your logic, if Tank is an acceptable main class name because everyone uses the term "Tank" to describe their role, then DPS should be an acceptable main class as well! DPS is used in every single god damn game since you were in diapers. If your main class is DPS, you will be doing heavier damage. If it's the sub class, you are in a more dps positon. No confusion!

So problem solved! Rename all archetypes according to the role people will call them!

Or maybe just give Tank another name. There are no benefits and only downsides to the current setup. No other game does this, no game should.

I see you continue to make stupid takes, and are counting an abbreviation as a potential class name as your argument now.

Actual no brain with some of the dumbest feedback I've seen. Clearly you don't play games, tank has always be an acceptable name. You want some weird shit that makes no sense clearly.

Cleric is a cleric,
Warrior is a warrior
Ranger is a ranger
tank is a tank
ETc

Please don't be this dumb about actual pointless feedback with names that fit fine.

Mag7spy

Actually cant under stand some of the stupidity. Call the class by the more fancy class names you don't need to say tank if you want to be that different.

Nepoke

Dygz wrote: »

More time communicating is great in any case.
But, it not an issue.
If you want a Tank, ask for a Tank.
If you want a Fighter, ask for a Fighter.
If you want a Rogue, ask for a Rogue.

Takes less time to ask for a Tank than it does to ask for a Guardian. And that's about the difference of one second.

You illustrate the problem perfectly!

If you want a Fighter because you need someone in the group that has "disarming blow" fighter skill, you get a fighter.
If you want a Rogue because you need someone to use "detect traps" rogue skill, you get a rogue.

If you want more dps in your group, you ask for a DPS, and you'll get people who are specced and geared into dps.
If you want more healing, you ask for a healer, and you'll get a cleric or a bard who can heal.

If you ask for a tank, what are you referring to? Just asking for a tank in general might get you a full strength dps/cc build Tank, who can't tank mobs but can give team buffs that only a Tank can while being very good at PvP. Or you might get a mage/cleric that is custom built to flash farm the content you are doing with self heals, blink and cc that will tank using resist gear and max constitution stat.

In my world if I want a tank, I'll get a tank
If I want a dps, I'll get a dps.
If I want a healer, I get a healer.

If I ask for a guardian, I get a guardian.
If I ask for a fighter, I get a fighter.

But I still haven't heard why having Tank as an archetype name is good. Why change this if it isn't broken? Why give the same name to two things that aren't strictly the same thing? Who benefits and why?

Nepoke

Mag7spy wrote: »

I see you continue to make stupid takes, and are counting an abbreviation as a potential class name as your argument now.

Actual no brain with some of the dumbest feedback I've seen. Clearly you don't play games, tank has always be an acceptable name. You want some weird shit that makes no sense clearly.

Cleric is a cleric,
Warrior is a warrior
Ranger is a ranger
tank is a tank
ETc

Please don't be this dumb about actual pointless feedback with names that fit fine.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Actually cant under stand some of the stupidity. Call the class by the more fancy class names you don't need to say tank if you want to be that different.

I see you have no arguments or are incapable of processing anything I said while also being rude about it. Thanks for reacting at least I guess.

Mag7spy

Nepoke wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I see you continue to make stupid takes, and are counting an abbreviation as a potential class name as your argument now.

Actual no brain with some of the dumbest feedback I've seen. Clearly you don't play games, tank has always be an acceptable name. You want some weird shit that makes no sense clearly.

Cleric is a cleric,
Warrior is a warrior
Ranger is a ranger
tank is a tank
ETc

Please don't be this dumb about actual pointless feedback with names that fit fine.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Actually cant under stand some of the stupidity. Call the class by the more fancy class names you don't need to say tank if you want to be that different.

I see you have no arguments or are incapable of processing anything I said while also being rude about it. Thanks for reacting at least I guess.

There is no argument needed to defend the name tank where the name fits the role....The fact you are arguing against it is weird more than anything. It is clear the names are meant to be basic and straight froward and the fancy names are the two fused together.

This is why people say you are giving bad feedback.

JustVine

I think Mitigater sounds way cooler than Tank and would lead to far less frustrating and confusing instances than the current implementation would. If you really want to compare fighter and ranger to tank, that or Defender are the far more reasonable linguistic comparisons.

Not that it matters. As long as people argue 'Steven said he's not changing it' and use that as an excuse to support all of his terrible name choices (Spellmancer? really?) this 'conversation' is the opposite of discourse.

I'll continue to recommend cooler names though. It's a free Bingo space.

This threads' class is clearly Death Knight not tank.

Mag7spy

Nepoke wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

More time communicating is great in any case.
But, it not an issue.
If you want a Tank, ask for a Tank.
If you want a Fighter, ask for a Fighter.
If you want a Rogue, ask for a Rogue.

Takes less time to ask for a Tank than it does to ask for a Guardian. And that's about the difference of one second.

You illustrate the problem perfectly!

If you want a Fighter because you need someone in the group that has "disarming blow" fighter skill, you get a fighter.
If you want a Rogue because you need someone to use "detect traps" rogue skill, you get a rogue.

If you want more dps in your group, you ask for a DPS, and you'll get people who are specced and geared into dps.
If you want more healing, you ask for a healer, and you'll get a cleric or a bard who can heal.

If you ask for a tank, what are you referring to? Just asking for a tank in general might get you a full strength dps/cc build Tank, who can't tank mobs but can give team buffs that only a Tank can while being very good at PvP. Or you might get a mage/cleric that is custom built to flash farm the content you are doing with self heals, blink and cc that will tank using resist gear and max constitution stat.

In my world if I want a tank, I'll get a tank
If I want a dps, I'll get a dps.
If I want a healer, I get a healer.

If I ask for a guardian, I get a guardian.
If I ask for a fighter, I get a fighter.

But I still haven't heard why having Tank as an archetype name is good. Why change this if it isn't broken? Why give the same name to two things that aren't strictly the same thing? Who benefits and why?

People know what a tank is and what they refer to.....You are making shit up.

The same thing applies to this guardian (i have no clue what you are trying to copy smite names) that could be doing the same thing as a tank and making a more heavy dps with less taunt....

You are giving not jsut bad feedback but its pointless, tank is fine. If tank was name something like rogue, then you can make a point about it being confusing....

Nepoke

Mag7spy wrote: »

This is why people say you are giving bad feedback.

By people you mean yourself. And if this is such a common sense thing, why isn't any other mmo naming their class Tank? Could it be because you can tank with many classes, and the classes that can tank can also do other things than tank such as dps or healing?

The only places where something is called a Tank is in games where characters are split into a roles, like in Overwatch. The inverse of this would be Overwatch having the roles "Tank, Defense, Offense, Support and Wizard". If you saw this you'd go, "wtf wizard isn't a role, that's a character type that can be a Defence, Offence or Support role (or a Tank sometimes too.)"

But anyway just keep calling me stupid, I'm sure that makes you right.

Mag7spy

Nepoke wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

This is why people say you are giving bad feedback.

By people you mean yourself. And if this is such a common sense thing, why isn't any other mmo naming their class Tank? Could it be because you can tank with many classes, and the classes that can tank can also do other things than tank such as dps or healing?

The only places where something is called a Tank is in games where characters are split into a roles, like in Overwatch. The inverse of this would be Overwatch having the roles "Tank, Defense, Offense, Support and Wizard". If you saw this you'd go, "wtf wizard isn't a role, that's a character type that can be a Defence, Offence or Support role (or a Tank sometimes too.)"

But anyway just keep calling me stupid, I'm sure that makes you right.

You must not read comments.

People have been calling tanks, tanks since the beginning of time. This is why i know you have no clue what you are talking about trying to cite overwatch. As overwatch took that term from MMORPGS, because overwatch was originally created to be a mmorpg......

Dygz

Nepoke wrote: »

If you want more dps in your group, you ask for a DPS, and you'll get people who are specced and geared into dps.
If you want more healing, you ask for a healer, and you'll get a cleric or a bard who can heal.

Uh. No.
In Ashes, you primarily ask for the Primary Archetype you need to fill one of the 8 slots in your group.
If you want more healing, you probably request people with Life School augments.
If you want more DPS, you probably request people with Rogue augments or Mage augments - by School - so you know how to best synergize with them.

Nepoke wrote: »

If you ask for a tank, what are you referring to? Just asking for a tank in general might get you a full strength dps/cc build Tank, who can't tank mobs but can give team buffs that only a Tank can while being very good at PvP. Or you might get a mage/cleric that is custom built to flash farm the content you are doing with self heals, blink and cc that will tank using resist gear and max constitution stat.

In Ashes, if you ask for a Tank, you are asking for a Primary Archetype Tank.
Just as, if you ask for a Fighter, you are asking for a Primary Archetype Fighter and if you ask for a Mage, you are asking for a Primary Archetype Mage.

Nepoke wrote: »

In my world if I want a tank, I'll get a tank
If I want a dps, I'll get a dps.
If I want a healer, I get a healer.

But...
Ashes is not your world.
Ashes is not EQ.
Ashes is not WoW.
You should probably adapt your gameplay to match Ashes gameplay. If you're going to play Ashes.

Nepoke wrote: »

But I still haven't heard why having Tank as an archetype name is good. Why change this if it isn't broken? Why give the same name to two things that aren't strictly the same thing? Who benefits and why?

Having Tank as an Archetype label is a dev choice.
People can adapt. Just as they will adapt to the difference between an Archetype and a Class.

Nepoke

Dygz wrote: »

Uh. No.
In Ashes, you primarily ask for the Primary Archetype you need to fill one of the 8 slots in your group.
If you want more healing, you probably request people with Life School augments.
If you want more DPS, you probably request people with Rogue augments or Mage augments - by School - so you know how to best synergize with them.

This is just not true from any of the material that's been released. If you want more healing, you don't want someone side specced into Life Augments (which are mostly self heals according to what I read), but you want another cleric or a bard who is building for the primary role of a healer.
Also while the balance is around 8 man groups, most groups will be bigger or smaller than strictly 8 depending on the content. If you have a 20 man group and want more dps, you absolutely will pick a mage/fighter full dps build over a cleric/rogue or tank/mage.

Dygz wrote: »

But...
Ashes is not your world.
Ashes is not EQ.
Ashes is not WoW.
You should probably adapt your gameplay to match Ashes gameplay. If you're going to play Ashes.

Dygz wrote: »

Having Tank as an Archetype label is a dev choice.
People can adapt. Just as they will adapt to the difference between an Archetype and a Class.

What if the dev decision is bad? Aren't you against the open seas pvp change? That was a dev choice and you should be adapting to it.

And again, nobody is saying why this name change is good. Why should I accept something that has only downsides but no notable upsides? Why are people defending this so heavily O.o?

Nepoke

Mag7spy wrote: »

You must not read comments.

Go read the comments since I made mine. Count the number of people calling my feedback bad.

You might have a multiple personality disorder my dude.

Child Item