SunScript wrote: » Related to this, I have realized that due to my perspective being heavily influenced by FFXI, I sort of expect most if not all classes to involve belonging to an organization. In that game, Dancers and various Mage classes belong to famous schools. Dragoons, Paladins, Warriors belong in the Royal Knights, Temple Knights or Iron Musketeers. Summoners are specifically referred to as Summoners because it's a 'forbidden' type of magic. It's also not uncommon to hear NPCs say things like "walking the path of the Samurai/Ninja/Dark Knight" etc. and in that game it doesn't really break immersion when they do so, because every class comes with its lore, traditions, quests, storylines and so on. Basically, they make it clear each one of those is both a way of life and often times (part of) an organization. But it goes further. Mobs also have names for classes, and it helps us identify what they are before we attack. But mobs themselves also belong to organizations, sometimes implied and sometimes specific. For example, when you fight the Divine Sentinels, you always know you are fighting a White Mage. And they are an elite squad of White Mages belonging to the Theocracy of the Yagudo during the Crystal War. Anyway, not trying to drop FFXI lore here, moreso I am saying it's certainly possible to refer to classes by their names in the actual world without breaking immersion. As long as it isn't named "Tank", I mean godamn that is uninspired. I want to leave you all with a question. When I find myself a humanoid mob whose class is Tank, is the mob name going to be "Kaelar Tank" or is it going to be something less jarring? If the answer is the latter, then why not apply the same standard to the player characters?
teje 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? Nah, your logic is unsound.
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?
Noaani wrote: » teje 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? Nah, your logic is unsound. Your logic is unsound. You are using old english roots of words - but you have no idea what the Verran roots of any of the words in question are! Fact is, players will call the class "tanks", so the game may as well.
Summpwner wrote: » Doesn't seem to be a big deal. What with Tank being the only Tank primary, i would imagine that secondary Tank still won't be tank-role, which will ease the confusion... I wouldn't ever say I'm playing Assassin in Guild Wars unless that was my primary class. When someone says they play Tank, there likely won't be cases where they aren't playing Tank/x.
akabear wrote: » Throughout this timeline, the term "tank" has evolved and adapted as MMORPGs have evolved. While the core concept of a durable character fulfilling a protective role remains constant, specific mechanics, abilities, and class names may vary across different games. Nonetheless, the term "tank" continues to be widely recognized and used by MMORPG players to refer to this important role in group-based gameplay.
Noaani wrote: » Fact is, players will call the class "tanks", so the game may as well.
Sathrago wrote: » Summpwner wrote: » Doesn't seem to be a big deal. What with Tank being the only Tank primary, i would imagine that secondary Tank still won't be tank-role, which will ease the confusion... I wouldn't ever say I'm playing Assassin in Guild Wars unless that was my primary class. When someone says they play Tank, there likely won't be cases where they aren't playing Tank/x. ok so now this is something to discuss. Steven has said that summoners will be able to tank. What do we do now?
Shoximity wrote: » I don’t know about you @mcstackerson, but I’ve never seen a class in my fantasy RPG games that rolls around and shoots artillery shells in my party of fighters, wizards, and healers.
SirChancelot wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Summpwner wrote: » Doesn't seem to be a big deal. What with Tank being the only Tank primary, i would imagine that secondary Tank still won't be tank-role, which will ease the confusion... I wouldn't ever say I'm playing Assassin in Guild Wars unless that was my primary class. When someone says they play Tank, there likely won't be cases where they aren't playing Tank/x. ok so now this is something to discuss. Steven has said that summoners will be able to tank. What do we do now? When did he say that?
rikardp98 wrote: » While players might use the term 'tank,' it doesn’t necessarily mean the game’s lore should adopt it.
Marcet wrote: » The day you said that a literal water tank made sense cause its a metal shell encapsulating a body of water instead of flesh and that's why Verrans would end up calling people in armor "tanks" is the day I stopped taking you seriously.
