Interesting the claims of looking out for RP while at the same time trying to change a foreign culture to adhere to your preconceived notions of what must be.
The world of Verra has it's own culture and lore of which we know very little of at this time.
If we from the US went forth and started pushing for the rest of the world to change it's norms and positions on calling Football Soccer. There would rightly be mass push back. I see it the same here. We are progressing into a new culture and know very little of it's history or traditions and yet hubris dictates the new culture must conform to our notions of the world and how words and their definitions have to be.
I don't know seems a little authoritarian to go into someone else's home from a culture you know very little about and start renaming their children.
Bro got offended
A little self-mockery on the contrasts of America would not have hurt you!
It didn't and I was not offended in anyway. Sorry I offended you.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Cleric - a priest or religious leader, especially a Christian or Muslim one.
Fighter - a person or animal that fights.
Rogue - a dishonest or unprincipled person.
Ranger - a keeper of a park, forest, or area of countryside.
Bard - a poet, traditionally one reciting epics and associated with a particular oral tradition.
Mage - a magician or learned person.
Summoner - One who summons or evokes, particularly in legal contexts. (historical) An apparitor; An officer of an ecclesiastical court whose job it was to deliver a summons to an offending member of the diocese.
I would argue it's mainly the popularity of D&D and AD&D throughout the last 20-50 years that has turned these words into widely accepted class/role names. So a very recent addition to the meaning of these words really. Maybe you're very young and think that is a long time ago, and that somehow makes them "classic". I think it's only the Cleric name that was part of the original D&D around 50 years ago. The Fighter was called Fighting-man and Rogue was called a Thief for example. Most of the archetype names in Ashes were first seen in AD&D 2nd and 3rd editions. In the D&D universe I mean. I am sure they were used in other less popular games as well, and some were definitely used in fantasy literature before that. I just think the D&D universe is what popularized the names.
The Tank role has mostly been placed under the Warrior umbrella in D&D, but in MMORPGs it has evolved into its own role in the holy trinity system. The Holy Trinity (the Christian concept of God as three entities: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) is another example of a very recent addition to the original meaning, now referring to tank, dps, healer in MMORPG terminology.
All this is just to say that using Tank as a name for an Archetype is not disrespectful or out of place. It's a colloquial name for a specific role that has been used for about 30 years, and just like the other archetype names, it's probably time it's being formalized in a game.
35 years is just the very early beginning of MMO with an apogee on the late 90's (classics). I hope I still can be considered like young If I disovered MMO in the 1990's... Are you a WW2 veteran to consider it as recent ?
And D&D is super inspired by Tolkien which himself self got inspired by others...
At the the same time, Im not a purist neither a progressist. I just try value the beautiful and I consider a video game as a work of art. "Tank" is ugly.
Maybe in my native language it will translated in anoter word... In this case I would be fine if they build the story arround this world only on the English version.
No, I'm not a WW2 vet
I am speaking of recent in terms of the meaning of words and how language changes in general. And yes, Tolkien and folklore in general (which was where Tolkien got his inspiration) and other fantasy works of the time is obviously what inspired D&D and their naming schemes.
It's fine to think the name is ugly. I don't particularly love it myself, but at the same time, it's the word that keeps being used by everyone that plays the genre. Even if they called it a Guardian, which I would prefer in some ways, people would still call it Tank. Myself included.
I'm happy that you admit that you don't like it much. After all, Intrepid is an American studio, so I shouldn't push too hard on good taste. America is great but it's also the country where you fry oysters and wear white socks with a dark suit.
I am not from America, I am from a clearly superior country compared to the USA.
My opinion is that Intrepid Studios could consider changing Tank's name into something else like Protector or Guard etc. because Tank as an archetype name sounds bit dull.
I understand the logic why many people want to keep Tank as an archetype name but could we also use the same logic with Cleric like someone already mentioned and change its name into "Healer" because it is the main healing archetype? (Actually this could work. )
If Tank as a name belongs into Intrepid Studios' visio then I'm fine with this even though Tank could have a better name.
Interesting the claims of looking out for RP while at the same time trying to change a foreign culture to adhere to your preconceived notions of what must be.
The world of Verra has it's own culture and lore of which we know very little of at this time.
If we from the US went forth and started pushing for the rest of the world to change it's norms and positions on calling Football Soccer. There would rightly be mass push back. I see it the same here. We are progressing into a new culture and know very little of it's history or traditions and yet hubris dictates the new culture must conform to our notions of the world and how words and their definitions have to be.
I don't know seems a little authoritarian to go into someone else's home from a culture you know very little about and start renaming their children.
Bro got offended
A little self-mockery on the contrasts of America would not have hurt you!
It didn't and I was not offended in anyway. Sorry I offended you.
No no, I tought I HAVE offended you )) I was just casting an innocent bard. I respect every countries, nations, races and genders.
Let's make sure we're being respectful to one another here. Not everyone will share the same opinion.
With that said, this isn't the first time I've seen this idea discussed. I was surprised to see the amount of differing opinions across the board here. Some interesting suggestions, too!
5
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
As time goes on langue tends to drift and change. New words and meanings come in and old ones change and/or adapt.
Google for example meant nothing to the average person 30 years ago and now is a household name used all the time. What is to say common words used to day will or can survive contact with time and people as culture changes happen. There are a lot of words considered bad by society now that were ok 200 years ago and many that were bad then in common use today. The Verrans left Verra several thousand years ago and are now returning. What words have been altered in that time to mean something different then what they meant when they left. What words are different from how we use them today here on Planet Earth? If we look at this just on this planet. The most spoken langues are different in different parts of the world they have different connotations.
All that to ask why must Tank mean the same thing to a Verran as it does to us?(or maybe I just read to much)
I'm happy that you admit that you don't like it much. After all, Intrepid is an American studio, so I shouldn't push too hard on good taste. America is great but it's also the country where you fry oysters and wear white socks with a dark suit.
It's just a pity to build a wonder without paying attention to the details.
As a non-American, I feel sorry for you if you live in a place where you cant fry your oysters if that is what you want, and you must abstain from wearing white socks with a dark suit if that really is a thing you want to do.
Having the option to do these things will ALWAYS be better than not having the option to do them.
It's a strange form of mockery you have here - you are basically attempting to mock the fact that, should someone want to do them, Americans can do things that would be frowned upon where you are from.
Seems to me to be a little bit of an own-goal, to be honest.
1
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Interesting the claims of looking out for RP while at the same time trying to change a foreign culture to adhere to your preconceived notions of what must be.
The world of Verra has it's own culture and lore of which we know very little of at this time.
If we from the US went forth and started pushing for the rest of the world to change it's norms and positions on calling Football Soccer. There would rightly be mass push back. I see it the same here. We are progressing into a new culture and know very little of it's history or traditions and yet hubris dictates the new culture must conform to our notions of the world and how words and their definitions have to be.
I don't know seems a little authoritarian to go into someone else's home from a culture you know very little about and start renaming their children.
Bro got offended
A little self-mockery on the contrasts of America would not have hurt you!
It didn't and I was not offended in anyway. Sorry I offended you.
No no, I tought I HAVE offended you )) I was just casting an innocent bard. I respect every countries, nations, races and genders.
All is well and glad we are both just poking a little fun. To many people get to excited over little things.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
I'm happy that you admit that you don't like it much. After all, Intrepid is an American studio, so I shouldn't push too hard on good taste. America is great but it's also the country where you fry oysters and wear white socks with a dark suit.
It's just a pity to build a wonder without paying attention to the details.
As a non-American, I feel sorry for you if you live in a place where you cant fry your oysters if that is what you want, and you must abstain from wearing white socks with a dark suit if that really is a thing you want to do.
Having the option to do these things will ALWAYS be better than not having the option to do them.
It's a strange form of mockery you have here - you are basically attempting to mock the fact that, should someone want to do them, Americans can do things that would be frowned upon where you are from.
Seems to me to be a little bit of an own-goal, to be honest.
I can, but I don't want to soak a tasty and noble ingredient in dough and boiling oil ! And I prefer to wear dark socks with a dark costume. I'm just trying to be tasteful, that is why I don't like the class TANK
I understand the logic why many people want to keep Tank as an archetype name but could we also use the same logic with Cleric like someone already mentioned and change its name into "Healer" because it is the main healing archetype? (Actually this could work. )
Yep, I'd prefer "healer" as the archetype name, cause healer implies a person that, well, heals. Cleric implies some kind of a religious dude that does who knows what.
I've ignored this topic in the threads here and there where it's been brought up. Because I don't really care all that much. But I think the term "tank" is less than ideal.
I agree with Noaani though, it's not nearly as much of an issue if it's just the archetype that players refer to, and not referenced as part of the lore or story.
I'm happy that you admit that you don't like it much. After all, Intrepid is an American studio, so I shouldn't push too hard on good taste. America is great but it's also the country where you fry oysters and wear white socks with a dark suit.
It's just a pity to build a wonder without paying attention to the details.
As a non-American, I feel sorry for you if you live in a place where you cant fry your oysters if that is what you want, and you must abstain from wearing white socks with a dark suit if that really is a thing you want to do.
Having the option to do these things will ALWAYS be better than not having the option to do them.
It's a strange form of mockery you have here - you are basically attempting to mock the fact that, should someone want to do them, Americans can do things that would be frowned upon where you are from.
Seems to me to be a little bit of an own-goal, to be honest.
I can, but I don't want to soak a tasty and noble ingredient in dough and boiling oil ! And I prefer to wear dark socks with a dark costume. I'm just trying to be tasteful, that is why I don't like the class TANK
Ok, so, you can do all of those things if you wish, or not do them if you wish.
Americans can do these things if they wish, or not do them if they wish.
Not sure what the point of bringing that up was.
The point of a name within a game system is to clearly communicate. Since all players know the tank archetype as "tank", calling it "tank" is not only appropriate, but it is the ONLY appropriate option.
Since we are literally only talking about a name within the games system, and not a name used in story telling at all, effective communication is the only actual thing that matters.
It isnt just communicating what this archetype would be if it is your primary, but also what it would add if it is your secondary.
All the names with "shield" or some variation fail in this regard. The class does not require a shield, not even for tanking (avoidance tanking will be a thing). Additionally, if you take tank as a secondary, you are taking it to be a little more tank-like, as in more resistant to taking damage - you wont necessarily take it eith the assumption you will need to use a shield
Anything with the word "armor" in it falls foul of the above as well.
Additionally, names like "Knight" aren't appropriate to an archetype. Its fine for an actual class name, but too specific for an entire archetype.
However, the word "tabk" literally communicates everything players need to know. It is simple, and in that simplicity, it is elegant.
I will take elegance of simple, effective communication over what someone else considers "classy" any day.
The point of a name within a game system is to clearly communicate. Since all players know the tank archetype as "tank", calling it "tank" is not only appropriate, but it is the ONLY appropriate option.
However, the word "tabk" literally communicates everything players need to know. It is simple, and in that simplicity, it is elegant.
I will take elegance of simple, effective communication over what someone else considers "classy" any day.
Simple yes, elegant NO... It is not elegant at all, it is vulgaire and clumsy. I still cannot imagine that they don't change it for release, I guess they haven't finished writing the NPC scripts yet to realise how ridiculous this class is.
Simple yes, elegant NO... It is not elegant at all, it is vulgaire and clumsy.
You are a little confused here.
I am not claiming that the "tank" in the game is anything at all.
I am stating outright that the use of that word as a means of communication is elegant.
It is elegant because across the many, many threads complaining about the use of the word, over many years and many iterations of these forums, in all of that, there has not been a single person at all that didn't fully understand exactly what the archetype would be.
We aren't really sure what a mage in Ashes will be - other than someone that uses magic. We don't know if there is a need for a ranger to use a ranged weapon, or if a melee ranger is a viable thing. We have no real idea what a summoner will be, nor a bard.
Cleric is something that we kind of understand from the perspective of a primary archetype, but in terms of secondary, we don't really "get" what it does. How does adding cleric to summoner make a Necromancer?
Yet, we all fully understand tank. No one is confused about it.
That is simple, elegant, effective communication.
Even if you don't like the use of the term, you can not deny it is effective as a piece of communication between Intrepid and us players.
Simple yes, elegant NO... It is not elegant at all, it is vulgaire and clumsy.
You are a little confused here.
I am not claiming that the "tank" in the game is anything at all.
I am stating outright that the use of that word as a means of communication is elegant.
It is elegant because across the many, many threads complaining about the use of the word, over many years and many iterations of these forums, in all of that, there has not been a single person at all that didn't fully understand exactly what the archetype would be.
We aren't really sure what a mage in Ashes will be - other than someone that uses magic. We don't know if there is a need for a ranger to use a ranged weapon, or if a melee ranger is a viable thing. We have no real idea what a summoner will be, nor a bard.
Cleric is something that we kind of understand from the perspective of a primary archetype, but in terms of secondary, we don't really "get" what it does. How does adding cleric to summoner make a Necromancer?
Yet, we all fully understand tank. No one is confused about it.
That is simple, elegant, effective communication.
Even if you don't like the use of the term, you can not deny it is effective as a piece of communication between Intrepid and us players.
That is where it's elegance lies.
If, as you say, the archetype presented is a scheme intended to simplify communication, then this means that it will certainly be subject to modification. This is reassuring.
Simple yes, elegant NO... It is not elegant at all, it is vulgaire and clumsy.
You are a little confused here.
I am not claiming that the "tank" in the game is anything at all.
I am stating outright that the use of that word as a means of communication is elegant.
It is elegant because across the many, many threads complaining about the use of the word, over many years and many iterations of these forums, in all of that, there has not been a single person at all that didn't fully understand exactly what the archetype would be.
We aren't really sure what a mage in Ashes will be - other than someone that uses magic. We don't know if there is a need for a ranger to use a ranged weapon, or if a melee ranger is a viable thing. We have no real idea what a summoner will be, nor a bard.
Cleric is something that we kind of understand from the perspective of a primary archetype, but in terms of secondary, we don't really "get" what it does. How does adding cleric to summoner make a Necromancer?
Yet, we all fully understand tank. No one is confused about it.
That is simple, elegant, effective communication.
Even if you don't like the use of the term, you can not deny it is effective as a piece of communication between Intrepid and us players.
That is where it's elegance lies.
If, as you say, the archetype presented is a scheme intended to simplify communication, then this means that it will certainly be subject to modification. This is reassuring.
I am not saying it is a scheme at all.
However, why would this be the case?
That communication is no less important once the game launches. In fact, it becomes more important post launch than it is now.
I have no problem players using "tank". I will use it too every time I talk with others.
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
I want a different name on wiki so I can defy Steven and override his choice with "tank" in my everyday language.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
Why is this an issue?
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
Why is this an issue?
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
I totally disagree with that because it is a very personal representation of the general interest.
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
Why is this an issue?
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
The reason is that tank, dd and healer are used in mmos by players even if those names are different.
And players talk if that class or the other is a better tank or not.
With 64 classes, I doubt players will use those names.
I also don't like the "archetype" name. I would rather call them classes or primary classes and the game to write the other 64 with small letters in the game.
If players configure their characters "tanky", I want that to be possible through different choices and not because Steven called that group "tank". A healer could also tank if the balancing is to let him out-heal the target. Then what? IF players are looking for a tank, will it mean that they want a specific class or a specific role in fight?
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
Why is this an issue?
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
The reason is that tank, dd and healer are used in mmos by players even if those names are different.
Yeah, so, if there is only one archetype that is a tank, calling it a tank is the correct thing for Intrepid to do.
Since there are technically two archetypes that can heal (Cleric and Bard, apparently), Intrepid can't just name one archetype "healer". Since there are at least four archetypes that are DPS (or dd) you can't really use that as a name.
However, there is only one tank archetype, so calling it tank is absolutely appropriate.
If Intrepid were only planning a single DPS archetype, with melee, ranged, magic and sneaky variants all branching off of that one archetype, I'd be all for it being called DPS. It kills any ambiguity players may have about their role.
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
Why is this an issue?
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
The reason is that tank, dd and healer are used in mmos by players even if those names are different.
Yeah, so, if there is only one archetype that is a tank, calling it a tank is the correct thing for Intrepid to do.
Since there are technically two archetypes that can heal (Cleric and Bard, apparently), Intrepid can't just name one archetype "healer". Since there are at least four archetypes that are DPS (or dd) you can't really use that as a name.
However, there is only one tank archetype, so calling it tank is absolutely appropriate.
If Intrepid were only planning a single DPS archetype, with melee, ranged, magic and sneaky variants all branching off of that one archetype, I'd be all for it being called DPS. It kills any ambiguity players may have about their role.
I disagree
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
Why is this an issue?
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
The reason is that tank, dd and healer are used in mmos by players even if those names are different.
Yeah, so, if there is only one archetype that is a tank, calling it a tank is the correct thing for Intrepid to do.
Since there are technically two archetypes that can heal (Cleric and Bard, apparently), Intrepid can't just name one archetype "healer". Since there are at least four archetypes that are DPS (or dd) you can't really use that as a name.
However, there is only one tank archetype, so calling it tank is absolutely appropriate.
If Intrepid were only planning a single DPS archetype, with melee, ranged, magic and sneaky variants all branching off of that one archetype, I'd be all for it being called DPS. It kills any ambiguity players may have about their role.
This debate can go on for years... There are simply those who do not care about the aesthetics of a class name. And there are those for whom it is important.
But what makes me laugh is that if we renamed all the classes with names like "HEALER", "MELEE DPS", "RANGE DPS", "SUPPORT", half of the people who like the class "TANK" would suddenly understand the issue and turn their coat.
However, we know how MMOs with no story, no RP and Fedex quests end up.
I'm one of those people who like building a character identity, it's one of the fundamentals of MMO for me and "Tank" has no soul.
Comments
It didn't and I was not offended in anyway. Sorry I offended you.
I am not from America, I am from a clearly superior country compared to the USA.
I understand the logic why many people want to keep Tank as an archetype name but could we also use the same logic with Cleric like someone already mentioned and change its name into "Healer" because it is the main healing archetype? (Actually this could work.
If Tank as a name belongs into Intrepid Studios' visio then I'm fine with this even though Tank could have a better name.
Yeah I could go for that too. It fits and isn't used already as a class name.
People will still call it a tank, but it might quell some disapproval.
No no, I tought I HAVE offended you )) I was just casting an innocent bard. I respect every countries, nations, races and genders.
With that said, this isn't the first time I've seen this idea discussed. I was surprised to see the amount of differing opinions across the board here. Some interesting suggestions, too!
Google for example meant nothing to the average person 30 years ago and now is a household name used all the time. What is to say common words used to day will or can survive contact with time and people as culture changes happen. There are a lot of words considered bad by society now that were ok 200 years ago and many that were bad then in common use today. The Verrans left Verra several thousand years ago and are now returning. What words have been altered in that time to mean something different then what they meant when they left. What words are different from how we use them today here on Planet Earth? If we look at this just on this planet. The most spoken langues are different in different parts of the world they have different connotations.
All that to ask why must Tank mean the same thing to a Verran as it does to us?(or maybe I just read to much)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_(linguistics)
As a non-American, I feel sorry for you if you live in a place where you cant fry your oysters if that is what you want, and you must abstain from wearing white socks with a dark suit if that really is a thing you want to do.
Having the option to do these things will ALWAYS be better than not having the option to do them.
It's a strange form of mockery you have here - you are basically attempting to mock the fact that, should someone want to do them, Americans can do things that would be frowned upon where you are from.
Seems to me to be a little bit of an own-goal, to be honest.
All is well and glad we are both just poking a little fun. To many people get to excited over little things.
I can, but I don't want to soak a tasty and noble ingredient in dough and boiling oil ! And I prefer to wear dark socks with a dark costume. I'm just trying to be tasteful, that is why I don't like the class TANK
🤔
Shield Bearer (see Rodeleros)
Targe(s) (Old English 'shield')
Buckler-man / Buckler-maiden
I agree with Noaani though, it's not nearly as much of an issue if it's just the archetype that players refer to, and not referenced as part of the lore or story.
Ok, so, you can do all of those things if you wish, or not do them if you wish.
Americans can do these things if they wish, or not do them if they wish.
Not sure what the point of bringing that up was.
The point of a name within a game system is to clearly communicate. Since all players know the tank archetype as "tank", calling it "tank" is not only appropriate, but it is the ONLY appropriate option.
Since we are literally only talking about a name within the games system, and not a name used in story telling at all, effective communication is the only actual thing that matters.
It isnt just communicating what this archetype would be if it is your primary, but also what it would add if it is your secondary.
All the names with "shield" or some variation fail in this regard. The class does not require a shield, not even for tanking (avoidance tanking will be a thing). Additionally, if you take tank as a secondary, you are taking it to be a little more tank-like, as in more resistant to taking damage - you wont necessarily take it eith the assumption you will need to use a shield
Anything with the word "armor" in it falls foul of the above as well.
Additionally, names like "Knight" aren't appropriate to an archetype. Its fine for an actual class name, but too specific for an entire archetype.
However, the word "tabk" literally communicates everything players need to know. It is simple, and in that simplicity, it is elegant.
I will take elegance of simple, effective communication over what someone else considers "classy" any day.
There are hundreds of better possibilities...
Simple yes, elegant NO... It is not elegant at all, it is vulgaire and clumsy. I still cannot imagine that they don't change it for release, I guess they haven't finished writing the NPC scripts yet to realise how ridiculous this class is.
I am not claiming that the "tank" in the game is anything at all.
I am stating outright that the use of that word as a means of communication is elegant.
It is elegant because across the many, many threads complaining about the use of the word, over many years and many iterations of these forums, in all of that, there has not been a single person at all that didn't fully understand exactly what the archetype would be.
We aren't really sure what a mage in Ashes will be - other than someone that uses magic. We don't know if there is a need for a ranger to use a ranged weapon, or if a melee ranger is a viable thing. We have no real idea what a summoner will be, nor a bard.
Cleric is something that we kind of understand from the perspective of a primary archetype, but in terms of secondary, we don't really "get" what it does. How does adding cleric to summoner make a Necromancer?
Yet, we all fully understand tank. No one is confused about it.
That is simple, elegant, effective communication.
Even if you don't like the use of the term, you can not deny it is effective as a piece of communication between Intrepid and us players.
That is where it's elegance lies.
If, as you say, the archetype presented is a scheme intended to simplify communication, then this means that it will certainly be subject to modification. This is reassuring.
I am not saying it is a scheme at all.
However, why would this be the case?
That communication is no less important once the game launches. In fact, it becomes more important post launch than it is now.
My problem is that it is on wiki and will be in game too.
I want a different name on wiki so I can defy Steven and override his choice with "tank" in my everyday language.
You claiming you want it to change just so you can "defy" it is reason for it to remain as is. It is in everyone's best interest for the game to call it's classes by the same terms that players call their classes.
A bit too 'schield' oriented... Tank = lots of HP + heavy armour but not necessarily with a shield
I totally disagree with that because it is a very personal representation of the general interest.
Great list, the only other thing I could think of that is not on the list would the the good old fashioned "barbarian."
The reason is that tank, dd and healer are used in mmos by players even if those names are different.
And players talk if that class or the other is a better tank or not.
With 64 classes, I doubt players will use those names.
I also don't like the "archetype" name. I would rather call them classes or primary classes and the game to write the other 64 with small letters in the game.
If players configure their characters "tanky", I want that to be possible through different choices and not because Steven called that group "tank". A healer could also tank if the balancing is to let him out-heal the target. Then what? IF players are looking for a tank, will it mean that they want a specific class or a specific role in fight?
Since there are technically two archetypes that can heal (Cleric and Bard, apparently), Intrepid can't just name one archetype "healer". Since there are at least four archetypes that are DPS (or dd) you can't really use that as a name.
However, there is only one tank archetype, so calling it tank is absolutely appropriate.
If Intrepid were only planning a single DPS archetype, with melee, ranged, magic and sneaky variants all branching off of that one archetype, I'd be all for it being called DPS. It kills any ambiguity players may have about their role.
I disagree
This debate can go on for years... There are simply those who do not care about the aesthetics of a class name. And there are those for whom it is important.
But what makes me laugh is that if we renamed all the classes with names like "HEALER", "MELEE DPS", "RANGE DPS", "SUPPORT", half of the people who like the class "TANK" would suddenly understand the issue and turn their coat.
However, we know how MMOs with no story, no RP and Fedex quests end up.
I'm one of those people who like building a character identity, it's one of the fundamentals of MMO for me and "Tank" has no soul.