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

CROW3

Well, considering how long the ‘tank’ thread has held threat on the forums for the last 3+ years, the archetype has kind of earned its name…

Mag7spy

Nepoke wrote: »

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.

Please read the post and take your time, they are there. This is a bad take, your arguments don't hold up.

You simply want to copy smite names.

Serithis

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?

Huge difference. Tank is an internet slang to describe a role, summoner is how one might identify someone who does exactly what one who summons does, no different than calling a cook a "cook". It also avoids attaching a type of summoner so there's more flexibility. (Not a demon or undead summoner warlock/necromancer type)
fighter is meant to be ambiguous like the term warrior-- because they can come in many forms, as a swordsman, soldier, berserker, etc.

Imagine having no class names and just renaming them all "DPS, Tank, Healer" technically healer could pass, but it would be lazy.

Sathrago

Serithis 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?

Huge difference. Tank is an internet slang to describe a role, summoner is just what exactly one who summons does no different than calling a cook a "cook",
fighter is meant to be ambiguous like the term warrior-- because they can come in many forms, as a swordsman, soldier, berserker, etc.

Imagine having no class names and just renaming them all "DPS, Tank, Healer" technically healer could pass, but it would be lazy.

Healer is prominently used throughout history and in modern times. The obvious reason is that there were people that were adept at helping others through sicknesses or injuries. Our history never had a need to tank monsters the size of houses. It didn't have fast-acting magical healing abilities that would prolong the life of someone being repeatedly hit by deadly blows.

If it did, there would be a word similar to Tank that fit that role. However we live in a world where it was not the norm, but this fantasy world is different. It does have all of those things, and a culture around adventurers teaming up, with a trinity of roles + supports to achieve goals. Be it fighting monsters or bandit, a tank is invaluable in these situations, so it is absolutely reasonable for there to be a generic name for such people in that sort of world. Just like we call Doctors, medicine men/women, witch doctors, wiccans, etc, Healers.

Serithis

Serithis 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?

Huge difference. Tank is an internet slang to describe a role, summoner is how one might identify someone who does exactly what one who summons does, no different than calling a cook a "cook". It also avoids attaching a type of summoner so there's more flexibility. (Not a demon or undead summoner warlock/necromancer type)
fighter is meant to be ambiguous like the term warrior-- because they can come in many forms, as a swordsman, soldier, berserker, etc.

Imagine having no class names and just renaming them all "DPS, Tank, Healer" technically healer could pass, but it would be lazy.

I will also add to this that.. okay, technically the classes themselves are not being called Tank, just the combined class archetypes defining your class. Still iffy for me but not as bad

Voidwalkers

My random take:
How about we just grab a random synonym of defender/protector/guardian/meat-shield/whatever and translate it to Latin and call it a day?

Serithis

A better name would be along the lines of "General", Legionary/Legionnaire or Captain as it signifies an authoritative position, one that combines well with any sort of tanking / heavy armor role.

Nepoke

Voidwalkers wrote: »

My random take:
How about we just grab a random synonym of defender/protector/guardian/meat-shield/whatever and translate it to Latin and call it a day?

I looked up and at least for defender and protector you end up with something sounding very similar to the english word. Guardian seems to be Custos according to google, and that makes tanking sound like a janitorial job. No cool latin for us beefybros

Tbh I would just take any of those english words over tank, though meat-shield might be pushing it!

Serithis wrote: »

A better name would be along the lines of "General", Legionary/Legionnaire or Captain as it signifies an authoritative position, one that combines well with any sort of tanking / heavy armor role.

I can't find a source for this, but I think they wanted to decouple tank from the raid leader role. Also in the last discord community hours tank discussion the implication I got was that they want groups to have multiple tanks, not just maintank and offtank. Though I could be mixing up the community opinion with the dev opinion.

So maaaybe a leadership related name might be misleading?

Serithis

Nepoke wrote: »

I can't find a source for this, but I think they wanted to decouple tank from the raid leader role. Also in the last discord community hours tank discussion the implication I got was that they want groups to have multiple tanks, not just maintank and offtank. Though I could be mixing up the community opinion with the dev opinion.

So maaaybe a leadership related name might be misleading?

You could be right, I haven't dug into the whole game plan to know all the details for the big picture of the game design, but if that's the case I would agree with you.

On this thought, there is still something that is commanding and organized about the role of a tank whether they're an active leader or not. They're the one heading the fight, taking charge to intercept the enemy defending allies, so it's hard to not see them as a leadership role. Even if it's distributed or exchanged between themselves it may just be just another kind of hot potato, Like various captains leading their units on different fronts

CROW3

Serithis wrote: »

Nepoke wrote: »

I can't find a source for this, but I think they wanted to decouple tank from the raid leader role. Also in the last discord community hours tank discussion the implication I got was that they want groups to have multiple tanks, not just maintank and offtank. Though I could be mixing up the community opinion with the dev opinion.

So maaaybe a leadership related name might be misleading?

You could be right, I haven't dug into the whole game plan to know all the details for the big picture of the game design, but if that's the case I would agree with you.

On this thought, there is still something that is commanding and organized about the role of a tank whether they're an active leader or not. They're the one heading the fight, taking charge to intercept the enemy defending allies, so it's hard to not see them as a leadership role. Even if it's distributed or exchanged between themselves it may just be just another kind of hot potato, Like various captains leading their units on different fronts

I don’t think being a tank automatically promotes you to being a leader. Though, I think a lot of good tanks with poor leadership skills agree with you.

Some tanks are good leaders, but I’ve seen a number of high performing raid groups where the best leaders play heals or dps. Since there’s greater perspective on the fight.

Leadership is a person/player skill, and not tied to class or group role.

Chillmaw

Honestly what's the plan for if they decide to add more tanking classes? Or non-tanking Tanks as a viable playstyle? "LF Tank (tanking) and Tank (class)" is gonna look silly

Dygz

Nepoke wrote: »

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.

All this tells us is that you aren’t very familiar with what’s been released.

Nepoke wrote: »

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.

Depends on how much more dps you want.

Nepoke wrote: »

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.

1: What if it’s not bad?
2: How do you define bad?
3: I’m not against the Open Seas PvP change. It’s just a server rule set that I won’t play. That rule change is not bad. It’s great for people who enjoy PvP.

Nepoke wrote: »

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?

As far as I know, there has been no name change.
That Archetype name has always been Tank.
It’s a dev choice. Can’t please all of the people all of the time.
If you don’t want to accept it, don’t accept it.
People are defending the name so heavily because they think it’s fine.
Different strokes for different folks.

Nepoke

@Dygz
I don't think I can convince you if we perceive the information available about the game differently. I guess the final statement I have to you is that I can clearly state why I think it's bad to have an archetype name collide with a trinity role name. At the same time, the people defending the name can't state any reason why this is good, but rather that "it's not bad".

If the defenders of the name are just neutral about the situation, I don't see a reason not to go with the standard mmo class naming. Clearly all of you would be just as okay with any other name if Steven had proposed it. If people are only either negative or neutral about an issue, it's a good idea to do something about it.

Serithis

CROW3 wrote: »

I don’t think being a tank automatically promotes you to being a leader. Though, I think a lot of good tanks with poor leadership skills agree with you.

Some tanks are good leaders, but I’ve seen a number of high performing raid groups where the best leaders play heals or dps. Since there’s greater perspective on the fight.

Leadership is a person/player skill, and not tied to class or group role.

I'm speaking purely from a game immersion point of view of what tank roles represent. I agree it doesn't magically put you in a leadership role to define you as one behind the screen, and can also give people the wrong impression that they are entitled to be treated like one.

We also see characters acting as heavy armor or using their big size to be the "shield wall" for a leader like a bodyguard to a president or mobster, but in game they are kind of a shot caller, due to how game mechanics work. The rest of the group falls apart or probably dies if tank doesn't hold aggro, if the wrong people are making pulls it leads to them getting 1 shot or almost dying, the one who holds the aggro controls where the fight happens and where it faces. And if you translated that into traits of a character from a fictional point of view, you can't just be any schmuck, you're a trained professional that has a bit more directive over the situation.
Unless they're really taking away that lead to make fighting more distributed, making tanks slightly weaker fighters that live longer and used to endure certain high pressure enemy burst windows instead of holding mob attention the whole fight, then I can see it changing

CROW3

Serithis wrote: »

I'm speaking purely from a game immersion point of view of what tank roles represent. I agree it doesn't magically put you in a leadership role to define you as one behind the screen, and can also give people the wrong impression that they are entitled to be treated like one.

Exactly. Well said. 👍

I’ve left waay too many groups where the tank acts like a douche because they think that’s some sort of leadership trait.

Noaani

While many tanks dont appreciate it, I make a point of reminding tanks new to grouping/raiding with me that they are in fact meat shields.

I do this to dispel any initial notion they may have that they are in some sort of leadership position due to their function in the group/raid.

Function in a group/raid is a product of your class/build/gear choices, leadership is a product of your personality and ability - and must be earned over time.

Abarat

Noaani wrote: »

While many tanks dont appreciate it, I make a point of reminding tanks new to grouping/raiding with me that they are in fact meat shields.

I do this to dispel any initial notion they may have that they are in some sort of leadership position due to their function in the group/raid.

Function in a group/raid is a product of your class/build/gear choices, leadership is a product of your personality and ability - and must be earned over time.

You seem very smart and in charge. Thank you for correcting all those other people who think they are smart and in charge. You do a great service to humanity.

Noaani

Abarat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

While many tanks dont appreciate it, I make a point of reminding tanks new to grouping/raiding with me that they are in fact meat shields.

I do this to dispel any initial notion they may have that they are in some sort of leadership position due to their function in the group/raid.

Function in a group/raid is a product of your class/build/gear choices, leadership is a product of your personality and ability - and must be earned over time.

You seem very smart and in charge. Thank you for correcting all those other people who think they are smart and in charge. You do a great service to humanity.

Oh hey, sarcasm on the internet! Quick, post some picture of your cats, you can be the first to do TWO things on the internet today!

In all seriousness, what?

If I am organizing a group or raid, obviously I will be the leader. If you are organizing it, obviously you will. If you are organizing a group or raid and the tank thinks they are in charge, what are you going to do about it? Let them run proceedings?

Rule number 1 of leadership is that people should know who is in charge. Everyone should know that without anyone having to ever say it, and ideally without the person in charge having to act as if they are in charge (this requires a high degree of ability from everyone on the team though). You wont ever see me telling a new tank that *I am in charge*, I will simply tell them that they are not.

Dygz

Nepoke wrote: »

@Dygz
I don't think I can convince you if we perceive the information available about the game differently.

You certainly can't convince me.
If the devs wish to change the names, they will change the names. If they don't wish to change the names, they won't.
It's unlikely to be a dealbreaker for the vast majority of players.

Myosotys

Shoximity wrote: »

Oh, I play a tank! Yea, but like what class? TANK!! *insert meme of a tank with a face on it... drooling*

I was thinking exactly the same. How “Tank” can be a class. Tank just mean heavy armor and lots of HP. So we can be Wizard tank, magician tank or whatever but not just “tank”. Hi hope they gonna change it as it looks ridiculous.

Child Item