Owlie
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:46:26 +0000
It really bothers me when people use the term "aggro" as a title instead of a statistic condition caused by a statistic.
The tank (or kite, depending on how much running is involved, or even "aggro'er" if you really want to get technical) holds aggro by causing animated to hate them- by healing, causing damage, etc.
Yes, there are shades of grey- people will quibble over the difference between a heal tank and an old fashioned tank, but really, a tank is a tank is a tank.
Every time someone says "DMS 2 SPOTS WE NEED AN AGGRO" it sends a shudder down my spine.
Please, stop. You need a tank HATE TANK. You do not need a statistic, you need a person to manipulate that statistic to your favor.
It seems like this incorrect usage has permeated so deeply into the z!F that it's becoming acceptable.
To be perfectly accurate, 'Aggro' is more a condition, 'Hate' is a statistic, and 'Tank' is a character archetype that does not actually exist within zOMG! - at least in a practical sense. The traditional tank archetype is named so because they are relatively sturdy characters, generally having lots of armor (y'know, like a tank), being extremely bulky (y'know, like a tank), or just being so scary that they draw undue attention to themselves in combat (y'know, like a tank). zOMG! doesn't have "Tanks" in a traditional sense; it has healers who manipulate Aggro. sweatdrop
Mind you, the term 'tank' is pretty commonly stretched in other MMOs as well, but that happens primarily when genuine 'tank' classes do exist, but other classes are able to mimic their functionality through other methods ('dodge tanks' or 'heal tanks', for instance). In games in which the original 'tank' comparison doesn't work, I'd be reluctant to strongly impose 'tank' as the term for characters who serve that role - and if players were interested in finding more accurate terms, starting with "Aggro" (the basic element of their function) actually makes a lot of sense.
The one problem I would have there is that it has the potential to be confusing - using "Aggro" for both the role and the condition can be pretty misleading. It seems to me the most natural evolution of a term in zOMG! would be based around the rings used - if the ring functioned correctly, we'd probably call them "Taunters" and be done with it, since that pretty effectively communicates what they (would) do without unnecessary baggage. Because we don't have any such clear distinction to make currently, though, the name evolved around what the role manipulates, which is "Aggro". If you wanted to get very specific, you might use "Heal-Aggro" - call them "Haggs". dramallama
Honestly, though, I don't see it causing a significant problem for anyone but grammarians - I think it's easy enough to distinguish between a person and an abstract game mechanic implicitly, so there really won't be many cases where the dual-use actually causes a problem. It would obviously be ideal if every term correlated one-to-one with a definition, but that's not the case in any real language I'm familiar with - when the context clarifies the use, it doesn't cause a problem, and when it doesn't cause a problem it isn't likely to change. You and I may cringe a bit, but unless it noticeably inhibits communication, it's probably here to stay; and if it were that problematic, the use of the term likely would not have arisen in the first place... sweatdrop
The tank (or kite, depending on how much running is involved, or even "aggro'er" if you really want to get technical) holds aggro by causing animated to hate them- by healing, causing damage, etc.
Yes, there are shades of grey- people will quibble over the difference between a heal tank and an old fashioned tank, but really, a tank is a tank is a tank.
Every time someone says "DMS 2 SPOTS WE NEED AN AGGRO" it sends a shudder down my spine.
Please, stop. You need a tank HATE TANK. You do not need a statistic, you need a person to manipulate that statistic to your favor.
It seems like this incorrect usage has permeated so deeply into the z!F that it's becoming acceptable.
Red Kutai
Owlie
You do not need a statistic, you need a person to manipulate that statistic to your favor.
To be perfectly accurate, 'Aggro' is more a condition, 'Hate' is a statistic, and 'Tank' is a character archetype that does not actually exist within zOMG! - at least in a practical sense. The traditional tank archetype is named so because they are relatively sturdy characters, generally having lots of armor (y'know, like a tank), being extremely bulky (y'know, like a tank), or just being so scary that they draw undue attention to themselves in combat (y'know, like a tank). zOMG! doesn't have "Tanks" in a traditional sense; it has healers who manipulate Aggro. sweatdrop
Mind you, the term 'tank' is pretty commonly stretched in other MMOs as well, but that happens primarily when genuine 'tank' classes do exist, but other classes are able to mimic their functionality through other methods ('dodge tanks' or 'heal tanks', for instance). In games in which the original 'tank' comparison doesn't work, I'd be reluctant to strongly impose 'tank' as the term for characters who serve that role - and if players were interested in finding more accurate terms, starting with "Aggro" (the basic element of their function) actually makes a lot of sense.
The one problem I would have there is that it has the potential to be confusing - using "Aggro" for both the role and the condition can be pretty misleading. It seems to me the most natural evolution of a term in zOMG! would be based around the rings used - if the ring functioned correctly, we'd probably call them "Taunters" and be done with it, since that pretty effectively communicates what they (would) do without unnecessary baggage. Because we don't have any such clear distinction to make currently, though, the name evolved around what the role manipulates, which is "Aggro". If you wanted to get very specific, you might use "Heal-Aggro" - call them "Haggs". dramallama
Honestly, though, I don't see it causing a significant problem for anyone but grammarians - I think it's easy enough to distinguish between a person and an abstract game mechanic implicitly, so there really won't be many cases where the dual-use actually causes a problem. It would obviously be ideal if every term correlated one-to-one with a definition, but that's not the case in any real language I'm familiar with - when the context clarifies the use, it doesn't cause a problem, and when it doesn't cause a problem it isn't likely to change. You and I may cringe a bit, but unless it noticeably inhibits communication, it's probably here to stay; and if it were that problematic, the use of the term likely would not have arisen in the first place... sweatdrop
