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

Myosotys wrote: »

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.

That would be called this...

Mag7spy

Thinking about it by default this thread make names no sense.

The sixty four (64) classes are partitioned into eight primary archetypes.

So they are complaining about the terminology used to define the archetypes which are used to make the different classes and names by default.

Sapiverenus

I think Fighter/ Fighter should be called Savage or Rager.

Tank/ Tank called Grappler.

Shoximity

Mag7spy wrote: »

Thinking about it by default this thread make names no sense.

The sixty four (64) classes are partitioned into eight primary archetypes.

So they are complaining about the terminology used to define the archetypes which are used to make the different classes and names by default.

I hate when people say this in this thread. It is false. For the first 25 levels of so as you are leveling and doing dungeons you only have 1 "archetype". You don't get both till mid game at level 25 or so (as they have said in the past). The exact level may change or w/e but you don't start with the both archetypes. Therefore... you are JUST TANK for quite some levels. Whether you call it an archetype or a class it is just semantics... the point is your ARE labeled as tank without a unique, immersive, fantasy like class/archetype name.

Sathrago

Shoximity wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Thinking about it by default this thread make names no sense.

The sixty four (64) classes are partitioned into eight primary archetypes.

So they are complaining about the terminology used to define the archetypes which are used to make the different classes and names by default.

I hate when people say this in this thread. It is false. For the first 25 levels of so as you are leveling and doing dungeons you only have 1 "archetype". You don't get both till mid game at level 25 or so (as they have said in the past). The exact level may change or w/e but you don't start with the both archetypes. Therefore... you are JUST TANK for quite some levels. Whether you call it an archetype or a class it is just semantics... the point is your ARE labeled as tank without a unique, immersive, fantasy like class/archetype name.

Tank is the fantasy name in this world unless they decide to change it. Again, they could call tanks "blergadergadoos" if they wanted to as long as it was the "name" they chose for their fantasy world to use for tank characters. But instead they made it easy and chose a word that already relates to it.

Noaani

Shoximity wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Thinking about it by default this thread make names no sense.

The sixty four (64) classes are partitioned into eight primary archetypes.

So they are complaining about the terminology used to define the archetypes which are used to make the different classes and names by default.

I hate when people say this in this thread. It is false. For the first 25 levels of so as you are leveling and doing dungeons you only have 1 "archetype". You don't get both till mid game at level 25 or so (as they have said in the past).

So, what you are saying here is that it will be an issue for 12.5% of the population, for about 5% of the time they spend playing the game.

When people are looking for someone to fill the role in a group, they are going to say that they are looking for a tank. As far as I am concerned, that puts an end to basically all arguments against the class name. You are complaining that you will be labeled a tank by the game for 25 levels, yet seem to have forgotten that you will be labeled as a tank by players for ever - regardless of what Intrepid calls the archetype.

Mag7spy

Shoximity wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Thinking about it by default this thread make names no sense.

The sixty four (64) classes are partitioned into eight primary archetypes.

So they are complaining about the terminology used to define the archetypes which are used to make the different classes and names by default.

I hate when people say this in this thread. It is false. For the first 25 levels of so as you are leveling and doing dungeons you only have 1 "archetype". You don't get both till mid game at level 25 or so (as they have said in the past). The exact level may change or w/e but you don't start with the both archetypes. Therefore... you are JUST TANK for quite some levels. Whether you call it an archetype or a class it is just semantics... the point is your ARE labeled as tank without a unique, immersive, fantasy like class/archetype name.

Ima be calling you a tank at lvl 50 btw, like I have been doing for every single other mmorpg for the past 20 years.

If you are good then you can be acknowledged by your class name, literarily no one is going to be trying to say exact archtypes that just sounds overall confusing for 0 reason but wanting to be a special name. If i need a fighter ill say that mage that to, tank I'll say that as well.

Shoximity

When people are looking for someone to fill the role in a group, they are going to say that they are looking for a tank. As far as I am concerned, that puts an end to basically all arguments against the class name. You are complaining that you will be labeled a tank by the game for 25 levels, yet seem to have forgotten that you will be labeled as a tank by players for ever - regardless of what Intrepid calls the archetype.[/quote]

I won't be playing a tank. However... I have not forgotten that PLAYERS reference the holy trinity - tank, dps, healer... The argument isn't about what the players will do. It is what Intrepid is choosing to do when they could have chosen a name that is more immersive. It just sounds unpolished and tacky. That is all there is to it. I just hope that if they are set on using the tank archetype/name that the title "tank" is incorporated in their world in lore, quests, cinematics, npc dialogue, etc. If they choose "tank" and then don't talk about it anywhere in their actual game then that is a fail as well. Just like they should reference ranger, cleric, summoner, etc.

Noaani

Shoximity wrote: »

I just hope that if they are set on using the tank archetype/name that the title "tank" is incorporated in their world in lore, quests, cinematics, npc dialogue, etc. If they choose "tank" and then don't talk about it anywhere in their actual game then that is a fail as well. Just like they should reference ranger, cleric, summoner, etc.

See, using any class name in game is tacky to me.

Classes in an MMO are a system thing, they shouldn't be a lore concern at all.

Classes are a construct for players, not for storytelling.

Marcet

"Tank" is completely disconnected from a fantasy world, its real life terminology, wich reduces escapism. That's the truth.

WHIT3ROS3

Marcet wrote: »

"Tank" is completely disconnected from a fantasy world, its real life terminology, wich reduces escapism. That's the truth.

As has been mentioned over a dozen times on this thread. Tank was used long before the advent of modern-day military vehicles. Ranger is real-life terminology, does that reduce your escapism too? A Tank is a large receptacle to hold (mainly) liquid. It's literally where the modern term for the armored vehicle comes from, as the Brits used the term Tank to try and hide the new weapons as water tanks.

The use of the word goes back hundreds of years and is entirely appropriate to describe a large container of health. Which is what a tank is.

Marcet

WHIT3ROS3 wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

"Tank" is completely disconnected from a fantasy world, its real life terminology, wich reduces escapism. That's the truth.

As has been mentioned over a dozen times on this thread. Tank was used long before the advent of modern-day military vehicles. Ranger is real-life terminology, does that reduce your escapism too? A Tank is a large receptacle to hold (mainly) liquid. It's literally where the modern term for the armored vehicle comes from, as the Brits used the term Tank to try and hide the new weapons as water tanks.

The use of the word goes back hundreds of years and is entirely appropriate to describe a large container of health. Which is what a tank is.

I don''t care if they called military tanks after water tanks, It's a really bad argument. I doubt Verrans would call their armored warriors after water tanks. I understand the role of a tank in a game like this, but this goes beyond the fantasy of the game. The truth is the truth, even if you want to argue it.

WHIT3ROS3

It might be your truth, (your delusion) but it isn't objective truth. It does not go beyond the fantasy of the game. It makes perfect sense, is well understood, and is not changing. So that's that.

Shoximity

WHIT3ROS3 wrote: »

It might be your truth, (your delusion) but it isn't objective truth. It does not go beyond the fantasy of the game. It makes perfect sense, is well understood, and is not changing. So that's that.

Again… the word tank in mmo terminology was made up to describe the action of the role that is being played… “one who tanks damage”… it is not the same as ranger because ranger is a specific role and label. A better example would be a “DPSer” but we don’t have any archetypes named that. Why? Well it would be silly right? “Tank” would make more sense if there were other archetypes named similarly, but it is the only one like that. So again… it doesn’t fit the immersion and a different name used in place of tank would make more sense. Though it describes a purpose of the role it does a disservice to the fantasy world and immersion. I’m not arguing that it doesn’t make sense in a practical and new player understanding way. However, it is almost like they are too fearful of using descriptive words in character creation to describe what a tank does. Instead it seems like they feel they need to put it in the name so people know what they are creating and what they are supposed to do with that role. I feel like they think the player base is dumb or unwilling to learn how to correlate a different made up fantasy name with the role of “tanking”. I’m debating it because everything else is well thought out and immersive name wise but “Tank” is not.

WHIT3ROS3

You don't know how the word "Tank" is used in Verra. The word Tank where I come from is used to describe large, strong people who are able to take a lot of damage. Nothing to do with MMO's.

Shoximity

Exactly. The thread is to help illustrate the importance of making sure that “Tank” is either used within Verra as the norm from lore, NPCs, cinematics, texts, quests, etc. Or, don’t use it all and come up with a better name, if they just name tanks as “tanks” and don’t use their archetype name within the quests, story, and game then they have failed. It may be small and not all that relevant in the larger scheme of things, but small details add up and people remember small things that bug them about games. This is one of them that seems to have a decent split within the player base.

Marcet

WHIT3ROS3 wrote: »

You don't know how the word "Tank" is used in Verra. The word Tank where I come from is used to describe large, strong people who are able to take a lot of damage. Nothing to do with MMO's.

Because where you come from, in the past, you had large metallic military vehicles made to take a lot of damage. It makes sense that you use the word tank. Unfortunately in Verra they haven't reached WW1 yet.

Marcet

Shoximity wrote: »

WHIT3ROS3 wrote: »

It might be your truth, (your delusion) but it isn't objective truth. It does not go beyond the fantasy of the game. It makes perfect sense, is well understood, and is not changing. So that's that.

Again… the word tank in mmo terminology was made up to describe the action of the role that is being played… “one who tanks damage”… it is not the same as ranger because ranger is a specific role and label. A better example would be a “DPSer” but we don’t have any archetypes named that. Why? Well it would be silly right? “Tank” would make more sense if there were other archetypes named similarly, but it is the only one like that. So again… it doesn’t fit the immersion and a different name used in place of tank would make more sense. Though it describes a purpose of the role it does a disservice to the fantasy world and immersion. I’m not arguing that it doesn’t make sense in a practical and new player understanding way. However, it is almost like they are too fearful of using descriptive words in character creation to describe what a tank does. Instead it seems like they feel they need to put it in the name so people know what they are creating and what they are supposed to do with that role. I feel like they think the player base is dumb or unwilling to learn how to correlate a different made up fantasy name with the role of “tanking”. I’m debating it because everything else is well thought out and immersive name wise but “Tank” is not.

Thank you for saying for the 500th time the correct and logic argument that we present.

Dolyem

The necromancer showcase came early and rose this thread from the dead again.

Ludullu

And I still find the premise of this entire god damn 39-page thread quite silly

Child Item