"tank" has a historical, real-life meaning.
There is no need to give a special definition to "tank in a game" which is a different than "tank outside a game".
There is no need to combine "to tank" and "to attract/control enemy aggression".
They are entirely different actions even if refuse to believe it.
A tank is simply something which can absorb significant damage.
And the ability to focus/attract enemy fire is not exclusive to tanks.
I suggest using (at least) two words/phrases: "tank" and "hold aggro".
For example:
We need a tank which can hold enemy aggro for high dps team.
You may wonder .... why do I care about the definition of tank?
because mmo players sometimes simplify definitions of words and it bothers me because word simplification can result in unnecessary confusion.
Wrong and absolutely unhelpful in so many ways.
First off, I don't think you are even clear on the what a 'real life' tank does. You've given no examples that prove that you do. If you see an swat vehicle on television, that isn't necessarily a 'tank'. Not saying that you think it is, but I'm not ruling it out either. Especially as the name 'tank' was taken from the usage of the words 'water tank' to hide the true nature of the English "land ships" from the Germans. Such a shame YOU weren't around to point out the injustice that was being done to language, the water tank industry, and the understanding of the populace at large.
Anyway, enough about THAT part of your failings. On to more of them.
A game tank isn't simply something that can absorb significant damage. That is a gross simplification on your part.
Tanking is a valid game term. The word could have been "Phleeeeming". And the unit that performed "Phleeeeeming" in a game could have been the "Phleeeem". Less bothersome to you?
There's a reason why we call a car a 'car' and not a 'self propelled conveyance' and yet EVERYONE knows what we mean when we say it.
On a more serious note, if you really really honestly just aren't aware of this, the issue you are raging against isn't unique to gamers. Sure, as a group, they often get their own conventions wrong (for example, every poster and his slow cousin talking about global cool downs in STO when there are none) that still doesn't make them unique among trades that have their own vocabulary.
I mean, just in case you weren't trolling and were really really offended by the correct usage of the term 'tank' inside of a gaming community.
Added a 'way back' link. About a year ago. Anyways there's a bit on the game tank in STO. In particular it lays out the situation where you can actually have a tank. And here's the pertinent bit:
You need to have players and those players need to have NPC opponents. Those NPC’s need to have a threat table. The attacks must be substantially single target . If those three components aren’t present, you can’t have or don’t need a tank.
Pretty simple really. If those conditions aren't meant, you're talking about something else.
A tank without the ability to hold aggro has no reason to exist.
1. According to my definition, Most (or all) ships in STO are tanks. Why? because they have some ability to absord/withstand/sustain damage before being destroyed. Some ships are better at withstanding damage than other ships.
It is nonsense for you to say "A tank without the ability to hold aggro has no reason to exist".
It's a contradiction.
.... what is a tank? By your definition, all real tanks must be able to hold aggro and not die. Therefore, according to your definition of tank, your sentence can be rewritten "a ship which can withstand damage and hold aggro, without the ability to hold aggro, has no reason to exist". It's a nosense statement.
2. I can create a new,alternate definition of tank which is different than the traditional definition but there is no need. To conflate "withstand damage" and "control/attract agro", you are creating confusion and possibly a reduction in knowledge to people who read your comments.
In a different mmo, a player once told me that he "tanked the boss". In reality, he solo'd the boss while dodging to avoid damage. He was not withstanding damage because his character is a dps character with little ability to absord damage. It was this player's story which caused me to realize that mmo players are being dumbed down.
To aggro the enemy, while dodging to avoid damage, is not tanking. It is "holding aggro", but not tanking. The two concepts are entirely different. To me, such sloppy and confusing use of language (either in or outside a mmo) is unacceptable.
I can run into a safe room, in a mmo, where I am 100% shielded from damage, and attract enemy fire with some special ability or simply by shooting out from inside the room. I can survive even if I only have 1 hitpoint. This is not tanking. A tank is not required to do this.
1. According to my definition, Most (or all) ships in STO are tanks. Why? because they have some ability to absord/withstand/sustain damage before being destroyed. Some ships are better at withstanding damage than other ships.
It is nonsense for you to say "A tank without the ability to hold aggro has no reason to exist".
It's a contradiction.
.... what is a tank? By your definition, all real tanks must be able to hold aggro and not die. Therefore, according to your definition of tank, your sentence can be rewritten "a ship which can withstand damage and hold aggro, without the ability to hold aggro, has no reason to exist". It's a nosense statement.
2. I can create a new,alternate definition of tank which is different than the traditional definition but there is no need. To conflate "withstand damage" and "control/attract agro", you are creating confusion and possibly a reduction in knowledge to people who read your comments.
In a different mmo, a player once told me that he "tanked the boss". In reality, he solo'd the boss while dodging to avoid damage. He was not withstanding damage because his character is a dps character with little ability to absord damage. It was this player's story which caused me to realize that mmo players are being dumbed down.
To aggro the enemy, while dodging to avoid damage, is not tanking. It is "holding aggro", but not tanking. The two concepts are entirely different. To me, such sloppy and confusing use of language (either in or outside a mmo) is unacceptable.
I can run into a safe room, in a mmo, where I am 100% shielded from damage, and attract enemy fire with some special ability or simply by shooting out from inside the room. I can survive even if I only have 1 hitpoint. This is not tanking. A tank is not required to do this.
Stop being dense. If you don't know what an evasion tank is, you don't know. If you don't know that dodge is an integral mechanic not only in STO but in other mmo's well you don't know. If you're actually serious, invest some time in learning about the topic. Or stop posting. You aren't being helpful. Let me continue to pound away at that.
Do you just not understand yet that you don't know what you're talking about.
It's only sloppy and confusing to you. I'm sorry that people you know in social settings don't use common terms correctly. I'm sure they would appreciate if you point this out to them.
When millions of people are on one side, including the people who design and construct the format and on the other side is angry guy that isn't quite as good with his own language as he likes to think he is, guess what side really isn't even aware that the other exists?
tanks redirect enemy attacks or attention toward themselves [...] Since this role often requires them to suffer large amounts of damage, they rely on large amounts of vitality or armor, healing by other party members, evasiveness and misdirection, or self regeneration
First off, I don't think you are even clear on the what a 'real life' tank does. You've given no examples that prove that you do. If you see an swat vehicle on television, that isn't necessarily a 'tank'. Not saying that you think it is, but I'm not ruling it out either. Especially as the name 'tank' was taken from the usage of the words 'water tank' to hide the true nature of the English "land ships" from the Germans. Such a shame YOU weren't around to point out the injustice that was being done to language, the water tank industry, and the understanding of the populace at large.. If those conditions aren't meant, you're talking about something else.
While the meaning of tank is relevant to this discussion, the origins of the word "tank" are irrelevant to me and probably most forum readers.. Do not attempt to change topic by discussing "water tanks". I have already stated my definition of "tank", which is to absorb/sustain/withstand damage. If you disagree with that definition, feel free to post your definition of tank.
"You need to have players and those players need to have NPC opponents. Those NPCs need to have a threat table. The attacks must be substantially single target . If those three components arent present, you cant have or dont need a tank."
Is this seriously your definition of tank? tanks only exist in pve? Please reconsider the meaning of "tank" if you wish to further discuss this. Without a clear and accurate definition of "tank", there is little point in further discussion between us.
tanks redirect enemy attacks or attention toward themselves [...] Since this role often requires them to suffer large amounts of damage, they rely on large amounts of vitality or armor, healing by other party members, evasiveness and misdirection, or self regeneration
ANY character and ship can "redirect enemy attacks or attention toward themselves".
But some characters and ships do it better than others. There is definitely a difference between a "good tank" and "bad tank", although the precise meaning of "good" and "bad" are vague.
"large amounts" is a relative term.
I can stay in a 100% shielded spawn room and shoot out which attracts enemy agro and withstand all incoming damage. I can survive even with only 1 hitpoint. This is hardly "tanking".
If I enter a console command which causes all enemy attacks to miss, this is not "tanking", this is "avoidance". Avoidance is a good technique when you can not tank. If you can tank, then you don't need to avoid damage.
Please seriously think about what is a proper definition of "tank".
While the meaning of tank is relevant to this discussion, the origins of the word "tank" are irrelevant to me and probably most forum readers.. Do not attempt to change topic by discussing "water tanks". I have already stated my definition of "tank", which is to absorb/sustain/withstand damage. If you disagree with that definition, feel free to post your definition of tank.
"You need to have players and those players need to have NPC opponents. Those NPC’s need to have a threat table. The attacks must be substantially single target . If those three components aren’t present, you can’t have or don’t need a tank."
Is this seriously your definition of tank? tanks only exist in pve? Please reconsider the meaning of "tank" if you wish to further discuss this. Without a clear and accurate definition of "tank", there is little point in further discussion between us.
You're definition of tank is...not important. No one cares. You aren't Merriam Webster OR Ghostcrawler. You're some angry guy that just gets upset at **** he can't understand.
You are the person that first brought in the 'real world definition' of the word tank and stated that it didn't need to be changed. If you are so slow that you don't see that languages change I can't help you. You're offended because people are using the word tank in a game to mean something that it doesn't in 'real life' yet in real life the word 'tank' AS IT WAS APPLIED TO ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLES meant...a container for water. Please. Catch up to your own argument.
You're a lost cause. I gave you the a very clear and exact definition of the circumstances that must exist for a tank to exist. If you don't understand that convention, you don't understand it.
My definition concisely fits the understanding of millions of people that participate in MMO's.
Yours on the other hand...does not.
As far as my definition of tank is not meaningful to the game...huh? Do you even understand my definition? I don't think you do.
This isn't our problem. It's yours. Go and educate yourself, or continue to rage, won't matter to the rest of us.
EDIT: And here's where you start to lose at your attempt at "Forum Tanking"...you're dropping off our threat table. You just can't hold aggro.
You are the person that first brought in the 'real world definition' of the word tank and stated that it didn't need to be changed. If you are so slow that you don't see that languages change I can't help you. You're offended because people are using the word tank in a game to mean something that it doesn't in 'real life' yet in real life the word 'tank' AS IT WAS APPLIED TO ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLES meant...a container for water. Please. Catch up to your own argument.
Armored fighting vehicles are not named "water tank".
"tank" and "water tank" are different words and have not the same meaning.
If real-life "tanks" were named "water tanks", then absolutely I would protest against that and I hope you would too.
I am aware the word "tank" can mean a container ... not only for water of course.
A real-life tank is a mobile armored container which contains soldiers and weapons.
The key word is armored because artillery has weapons but is not inside a container.
Artillery can be mobile and inflict damage and attract agro but withstand little or no damage. Hence, artillery is not a tank. Yes, there is armored artillery which could be called a "tank" (because it can absorb some damage) or more accurately "armored artillery".
Comments
Wrong and absolutely unhelpful in so many ways.
First off, I don't think you are even clear on the what a 'real life' tank does. You've given no examples that prove that you do. If you see an swat vehicle on television, that isn't necessarily a 'tank'. Not saying that you think it is, but I'm not ruling it out either. Especially as the name 'tank' was taken from the usage of the words 'water tank' to hide the true nature of the English "land ships" from the Germans. Such a shame YOU weren't around to point out the injustice that was being done to language, the water tank industry, and the understanding of the populace at large.
Anyway, enough about THAT part of your failings. On to more of them.
A game tank isn't simply something that can absorb significant damage. That is a gross simplification on your part.
Tanking is a valid game term. The word could have been "Phleeeeming". And the unit that performed "Phleeeeeming" in a game could have been the "Phleeeem". Less bothersome to you?
There's a reason why we call a car a 'car' and not a 'self propelled conveyance' and yet EVERYONE knows what we mean when we say it.
On a more serious note, if you really really honestly just aren't aware of this, the issue you are raging against isn't unique to gamers. Sure, as a group, they often get their own conventions wrong (for example, every poster and his slow cousin talking about global cool downs in STO when there are none) that still doesn't make them unique among trades that have their own vocabulary.
I mean, just in case you weren't trolling and were really really offended by the correct usage of the term 'tank' inside of a gaming community.
Have a tanky day!:D
Added a 'way back' link. About a year ago. Anyways there's a bit on the game tank in STO. In particular it lays out the situation where you can actually have a tank. And here's the pertinent bit:
You need to have players and those players need to have NPC opponents. Those NPC’s need to have a threat table. The attacks must be substantially single target . If those three components aren’t present, you can’t have or don’t need a tank.
Pretty simple really. If those conditions aren't meant, you're talking about something else.
1. According to my definition, Most (or all) ships in STO are tanks. Why? because they have some ability to absord/withstand/sustain damage before being destroyed. Some ships are better at withstanding damage than other ships.
It is nonsense for you to say "A tank without the ability to hold aggro has no reason to exist".
It's a contradiction.
.... what is a tank? By your definition, all real tanks must be able to hold aggro and not die. Therefore, according to your definition of tank, your sentence can be rewritten "a ship which can withstand damage and hold aggro, without the ability to hold aggro, has no reason to exist". It's a nosense statement.
2. I can create a new,alternate definition of tank which is different than the traditional definition but there is no need. To conflate "withstand damage" and "control/attract agro", you are creating confusion and possibly a reduction in knowledge to people who read your comments.
In a different mmo, a player once told me that he "tanked the boss". In reality, he solo'd the boss while dodging to avoid damage. He was not withstanding damage because his character is a dps character with little ability to absord damage. It was this player's story which caused me to realize that mmo players are being dumbed down.
To aggro the enemy, while dodging to avoid damage, is not tanking. It is "holding aggro", but not tanking. The two concepts are entirely different. To me, such sloppy and confusing use of language (either in or outside a mmo) is unacceptable.
I can run into a safe room, in a mmo, where I am 100% shielded from damage, and attract enemy fire with some special ability or simply by shooting out from inside the room. I can survive even if I only have 1 hitpoint. This is not tanking. A tank is not required to do this.
Stop being dense. If you don't know what an evasion tank is, you don't know. If you don't know that dodge is an integral mechanic not only in STO but in other mmo's well you don't know. If you're actually serious, invest some time in learning about the topic. Or stop posting. You aren't being helpful. Let me continue to pound away at that.
Do you just not understand yet that you don't know what you're talking about.
It's only sloppy and confusing to you. I'm sorry that people you know in social settings don't use common terms correctly. I'm sure they would appreciate if you point this out to them.
When millions of people are on one side, including the people who design and construct the format and on the other side is angry guy that isn't quite as good with his own language as he likes to think he is, guess what side really isn't even aware that the other exists?
Yup, now you're getting it.
Case closed.
While the meaning of tank is relevant to this discussion, the origins of the word "tank" are irrelevant to me and probably most forum readers.. Do not attempt to change topic by discussing "water tanks". I have already stated my definition of "tank", which is to absorb/sustain/withstand damage. If you disagree with that definition, feel free to post your definition of tank.
"You need to have players and those players need to have NPC opponents. Those NPCs need to have a threat table. The attacks must be substantially single target . If those three components arent present, you cant have or dont need a tank."
Is this seriously your definition of tank? tanks only exist in pve? Please reconsider the meaning of "tank" if you wish to further discuss this. Without a clear and accurate definition of "tank", there is little point in further discussion between us.
ANY character and ship can "redirect enemy attacks or attention toward themselves".
But some characters and ships do it better than others. There is definitely a difference between a "good tank" and "bad tank", although the precise meaning of "good" and "bad" are vague.
"large amounts" is a relative term.
I can stay in a 100% shielded spawn room and shoot out which attracts enemy agro and withstand all incoming damage. I can survive even with only 1 hitpoint. This is hardly "tanking".
If I enter a console command which causes all enemy attacks to miss, this is not "tanking", this is "avoidance". Avoidance is a good technique when you can not tank. If you can tank, then you don't need to avoid damage.
Please seriously think about what is a proper definition of "tank".
You are the person that first brought in the 'real world definition' of the word tank and stated that it didn't need to be changed. If you are so slow that you don't see that languages change I can't help you. You're offended because people are using the word tank in a game to mean something that it doesn't in 'real life' yet in real life the word 'tank' AS IT WAS APPLIED TO ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLES meant...a container for water. Please. Catch up to your own argument.
You're a lost cause. I gave you the a very clear and exact definition of the circumstances that must exist for a tank to exist. If you don't understand that convention, you don't understand it.
My definition concisely fits the understanding of millions of people that participate in MMO's.
Yours on the other hand...does not.
As far as my definition of tank is not meaningful to the game...huh? Do you even understand my definition? I don't think you do.
This isn't our problem. It's yours. Go and educate yourself, or continue to rage, won't matter to the rest of us.
EDIT: And here's where you start to lose at your attempt at "Forum Tanking"...you're dropping off our threat table. You just can't hold aggro.
If you truly belive I am a lost cause, then please stop replying to this discussion.
Thank you in advance.
Armored fighting vehicles are not named "water tank".
"tank" and "water tank" are different words and have not the same meaning.
If real-life "tanks" were named "water tanks", then absolutely I would protest against that and I hope you would too.
I am aware the word "tank" can mean a container ... not only for water of course.
A real-life tank is a mobile armored container which contains soldiers and weapons.
The key word is armored because artillery has weapons but is not inside a container.
Artillery can be mobile and inflict damage and attract agro but withstand little or no damage. Hence, artillery is not a tank. Yes, there is armored artillery which could be called a "tank" (because it can absorb some damage) or more accurately "armored artillery".