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

Myosotys

Shoximity wrote: »

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*

With all the respect I have for the game, the class "tank" is the most ridiculous class I have never seen in a MMORPG

Villefort

NiKr wrote: »

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

I clicked on this thread for the first time today and then saw it was time stamped on page 1 in 2020....I'm' like...oh lord can this topic really be a 2 year discussion? lol

WHIT3ROS3

Marcet wrote: »

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.

There are uses in this context starting in the 16th century. When was WW1 again?

TyranthraxusEQ

We prefer the term Meat-Wall...

Mag7spy

I prefer the term tank.

Solvryn

allow me to pour a little gasoline on this thread.

Ludullu

Solvryn wrote: »

allow me to pour a little gasoline on this thread.

Don't see how this is fuel.

effusivemind

Fully agree. The archetype name doesn't match with the rest.

I also don't understand the gaslighting going on around this topic. It's obvious the name "tank" sticks out, when was the last time you played an RPG of this sort where your character selection was called tank, instead of your player role.

And that's another thing that doesn't make sense, tank is both the archetype and the role in this game, whereas bard and cleric are listed as supports, for example.

Solvryn

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

allow me to pour a little gasoline on this thread.

Don't see how this is fuel.

Didn't have the desired effect.

MybroViajero

Noaani

effusivemind wrote: »

And that's another thing that doesn't make sense, tank is both the archetype and the role in this game, whereas bard and cleric are listed as supports, for example.

I mean, this is WHY it makes sense.

You can't call cleric or bard support, because that is two archetypes.

You can, however, call tank "tank", because there is only one tank archetype. Since there is only one archetype, since players will call the archetype "tank" anyway, and since this is literally only communication between developers and players (I do not expect to ever have my class stated in game), calling it tank is perfectly acceptable.

If it turned out that Intrepids plan was that fighters were also viable tanks in their own right (ie, without needing to take tank secondary), then I would agree that name of the "tank" aerchetype needs to change.

As long as it is the only class intended to tank, calling it tank is fine. Since it is the only class where this is the case (all other roles in Ashes have multiple classes to fulfil them), the fact that it stands out a little bit is to be expected.

AdaegusFreewinter

Craby wrote: »

This thread is silly.

Not as sailly as having "Tank" as the name of a class. It's like naming a mage "DPSer". It's moronic and immersion breaking.

Noaani

Malthyr Telvariil wrote: »

Craby wrote: »

This thread is silly.

Not as sailly as having "Tank" as the name of a class. It's like naming a mage "DPSer". It's moronic and immersion breaking.

Why is it immersion breaking?

At what point while you are immersed in the game would the name of the class be in front of you?

I mean, chances are, the only way you'll ever see the word "tank" in game is on the UI. How can you consider a word to be immersion breaking, when the UI itself isn't?

NishUK

Everything about Tank IS immersion breaking.

What kind of bizarre human is hard jugging an imagination about a single under 7ft creature being able to soak up the damage and be immovable from any attack from a creature the size of a house AND stare into its eyes/bang into a shield/cast a foreign spell that somehow averts every bit of outside disturbance.

Even anime that showcases overpowered beings doesn't even potray something this ridiculously bland...but if you guys want to support a gameplay aspect that degrades the mmo genre SURE THING

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

but if you guys want to support a gameplay aspect that degrades the mmo genre SURE THING

Degrades the MMO genre?

The Trinity - and thus tanking - IS the MMO genre.

Sure, some games are trying to move away from it (mostly unsuccessfully), but the trinity is literally the foundation of the genre. It is what literally all of the great MMOs of the past have been built on.

Saying the gameplay of a tank degrades the MMO genre is about like saying wheels degrade cars.

Antonio_Banderas

Guardian sounds sweet tbh and is different than previous mmos and thats what aoc represents right? Doing what nobody does........

Noaani

Antonio_Banderas wrote: »

Guardian sounds sweet tbh and is different than previous mmos and thats what aoc represents right? Doing what nobody does........

Guardian was one of the main tank classes in EQ2 - when you consider how many ex-EQ2 developers have worked on Ashes, that isn't exactly "doing what nobody does".

NishUK

Noaani wrote: »

The Trinity - and thus tanking - IS the MMO genre.

What a creationless attitude! (for lack of a better word!).

The "Trinity system" ie the system to simplify user PvE gameplay so that it's not only accessible to gamers lacking a lot of fundamental skill but also to elevate a formulated/scripted instance of which I bet you support fully...

I'm all for many classes, many skill variations and weaknesses+depencies but having something simplistic as how Tank is usually designed to answer for "1 hit" damage scenerio's has got to be the most forced gameplay mechanic in all of gaming WHICH was perfectly acceptable when gaming genres were in their infancy back in the early/mid 2000's. How also does a Tank translate for PvP...a simple monkey wrench "no point attacking it!" "here for cc only" "I lost target on something, stupid taunt!", what kind of in demand gameplay interaction is this? No one in their right mind would make a great competitive game that has immersive gameplay with something moving around that has only the mission of stopping your gameplay...and then on top of that you can't even retaliate against it!

This "class" has some serious evolving to do if it is to meet the demands of competitive and immersive gameplay.

Noaani wrote: »

Sure, some games are trying to move away from it (mostly unsuccessfully), but the trinity is literally the foundation of the genre. It is what literally all of the great MMOs of the past have been built on.

Put a name to those games right now, I'll bet anything that they didn't live up to their potential for bigger reasons that were NOT related to gameplay!

Mag7spy

Malthyr Telvariil wrote: »

Craby wrote: »

This thread is silly.

Not as sailly as having "Tank" as the name of a class. It's like naming a mage "DPSer". It's moronic and immersion breaking.

Tank is not immersion breaking it is a name and straight to the point as well. Again all you can do is say its slang. Stop trying to compare abbreviation of "DPS" as to the same thing as tank. If people called tanks anything else throughout the years you would be making the same argument..

Mag7spy

MybroViajero wrote: »

Wait did you revive this thread when there is another thread there just to post a meme and troll?

Why?

Child Item