Talk:Tank (video games)

message: I am not sure I agree with the comparison of Meat Shields to Human shields (although I am not sure enough to change it.) Human shields are always non-combatants, whereas Meat Shields are always combatants, even if they are weak, useless ones.
:I disagree that "human shield" always means non-combatant, but I guess it could evoke some wrong ideas.  I changed the wording to "brute force" to maintain the article's meaning with less chance of misunderstanding. --Mrwojo 23:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In light of the recent redirects and such, now Tank (role-playing game terminology) (recently created) redirects here.  While I don't mind this article being called Meat shield, perhaps we can take a moment and think of where it might better fit into the gaming substructure?
The article does talk about both RPGs and FPSs, and I assume the appelation tank applies to paper RPGs as well (though the article doesn't mention pen and papers).
Possible moves I can see off the top of my head:
# move to Tank (role-playing game terminology) (with or without the - in roleplaying, depending on how similar articles are titled)
# move to Tank (computer gaming) (which would cover RPGs AND FPSs, but not pen and paper)
Any thoughts? --Syrthiss 16:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved as per your suggestion #2. --Muchness 07:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move this to [[Tank (computer gaming)]]? 

message: If I heard somebody calling me a meat shield, I'd see how they liked taking a few hundred damage to their soft squishy body.  Who's a meat shield now, clothie? Iceberg3k 14:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By jocular, I meant to convey that "meat shield" is generally a tongue-in-cheek term. A google search doesn't suggest that meat shield is generally intended as an insult, so I'm rephrasing to clarify. --Muchness 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jocularly? 

message: i would disagree that meat shield is synonimous for tank. though they are both designed primarily to distract damage away from more offensive allies, the name tank impies that its a qualty character that has so much armor and/or damage reduction and/or health that it can take a lot of damage without dieing, that its hard to kill, takes damage better then any other character, while a meat shield means that its a cheap character thats only good in dying. i think thats a more then significant difference, in a way, even eachothers opposites. Lygophile has spoken 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Meat" just refers to the fact that a living person is serving as the metaphorical shield or wall for the rest of the team, and his sole purpose (usually) is to take as much damage from the enemy as possible, having little damage output himself. If they weren't any good at defense, they wouldn't be a "shield"—they'd be a "glass cannon", a "squishy", "cannon fodder", etc. Tanks are my favorite class, and I refer to myself as a meat shield all the time. Really, it's just a comment on the silliness of a single person absorbing massive amounts of damage while the rest of the group stands comfortably behind him dealing damage. 98.182.33.64 (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  meat shield? 

message: In some turn-based RPGs, particularly the Pokemon series, tanks could also be referred to as a "wall". Should this be added? Totema1 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall? 

message: Meat shield does not equal cannon fodder. While in most games tanks have high defence and specialised skills (aggro skills, shield blocking etc.) meat shields are in most cases melee warriors with high Hit Points allowing them to survive long. However they are unable to keep aggro on them in other way than dealing damage. But they are in no way 'cheap' or 'useless'.
: Possibly the language has changed (into 'relatively expendable', 'inconsequential' and 'its death is preferred') but I still agree it needs to change. A Tank character is highly valuable in drawing the attention of foes - when the tank is killed, that often signals the imminent destruction of the entire force. 85.227.226.168 07:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree there are games where tough units are sent in to die, as a distraction (and then good armour and many hit points enable that unit to continute the distraction for as long as posssible). While that may be only nuances in intention, I still think that is a different role (one that a human player wouldn't volunteer to - but I guess you don't tell the distraction units what their real purpose is...). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.227.226.168 (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meat Shields 

message: This article is missing an introduction to the main roles available, of which the tank is one. Either as new text or as a link to some page discussing combat roles in general.
(I am specifically missing links to the equivalent page for the healer and damage-dealer respectively)
85.227.226.168 07:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other roles? 

message: The introduction to the article claims that the tank is also known as a "Buffer".  I don't know about other games, but as a longtime WoW player, I've never heard the term "Buffer" used to describe a tank.  A Buffer would be a utility class that casts status bonuses and dispels negative effects from friendly players.  Typically, a Tank is not a class equipped to do that.  159.116.54.138 17:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffer? 

message: I'm just collecting some links that might be useful for references:
* - Good summary of Tanks from OGaming. I don't know the author - unsure about reliability.
*,   two reviews that mention "tank characters"
MarašmusïneTalk 17:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference gathering 

message: I dont know what sort of sites would be considdered good referance, but i have to say that using monk as a main or subjob these days is pretty much never done for tanking purposes. The artlice should be changed to at least referance the fact that changes have resulted in a shift away from using monks as tanks, due to the fact that their high hit points are meaningless without the ability to keep hate as well as other jobs on demand and that the basic system would make the healer have to tank quite a bit as well due to the amount of hate that would be created curing them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.195.21 (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  final fantasy XI 

message: Actually, Speed tanking is not used alot. Only the Minmatar ships actually have a chance of being good 'Speed/Dodge Tankers'. In EVE the majority of Tanks consist of modules repairing armour or shields, and modules increasing the damage being made in the first place with modules increasing the Armour's resistance. The resistance modules can be active (more resistance, needs capacitor power and to be activated to increase resistance) or passive (less resistant, no capacitor power needed and doesn't have you hammering the module's thumbnail when you're attacked.) --121.72.71.239 (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EVE Online 

message: From what I understand, Paladins can also taunt using Righteous Defense.
Warriors are good for mobs that use a combination of physical and spell damage.
Druids are good for taking pure physical damage.
Paladins can handle spike damage well (since they take less when they are low on health).
Warlocks do well in when dealing with pure magical damage (which is rare).Subanark (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  World of warcraft 

message: I did found some links who think this article refers to a Tank (Armored Vehicle with Treads, Cannon and a Machine Gun) in RTS Video Games, not to ~SkArMbLiSs~-Style Tank (Who Absorbs Damage), however, in Pok'emon, Skarmory and Blissey are "Walls" not "Tanks" (Like Snorlax, Swampert and the Physical Dragons (Gyarados and Garchomp) to some extent), as "Walls" deal relatively Small Damage (Defensive Threats), while "Tanks" can Sweep Teams sometimes, and them are also Offensive Threats (That nasty Advance curselax, ALWAYS did give me problems). I think you should change this so links that reference to the Military Tank won't go to the Pokemon-Style Tank. 196.1.52.48 (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think we need to change the name 

message: Shamans don't tank, for reasons too many to list here. They are neither viable as, nor intented to be a tanking class. Unigolyn (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaman tanking in WoW? 

message: Typically tanks have multiple methods of avoiding damage altogether.  Dodge is a member of the Avoidance group of abilities or skills.  Other methods of avoidance are mentioned under this header.  As another example - in world of warcraft a tank's avoidance is their combined chance to Dodge, Block, or Parry an incoming attack. ----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.230 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodge header should be changed to Avoidance 

message: Guardians are certainly the tank of choose in LOTRO, but champions are virtually useless in that roll. Captains however Do have the ability to pull and hold aggro with a series of Marks and Shouts. They were meant to be an off-tank, and thus can fill in when the MT is unavailable or is otherwise occupied. Making the edit to reflect this.   --Coldbourne (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOTRO 

message: "Tanking" made it to the mainstream culture, see like http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/obama.challenges/index.html for an example. How about making the article generic?
:That's different. In that article, "tanking" means "dropping", or "failing". Also, please sign your posts.   Aar  ►  00:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main stream use 

message: I added the section on "types" of tanks, however, if someone has a better explanation by all means edit away.  The only MMO I am familiar with is Final Fantasy XI, which I used as an example, but any other input on other games with these different tank types would be much appreciated.  I'm sure FFXI is not the only game to feature more then the generic "Conan The Barbarian" Tank model...  - Effedup (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood Vs. Blink Tanks 

message: There's a lot of original research/uncited information in this article - not surprising given the topic, but still. The article should be reviewed for compliance with WP:NOR (as well a serious grammar and style review.) 98.206.179.6 (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: "Many basic strategies in games such as StarCraft and Warcraft III revolve around learning to micro-manage units so they attack tanks first so that the tanks do not continually attack units."
Not knowing anything about these games, this sounds illogical. The tank is drawing fire, attacking them is falling for the bait. Why would the tank attacking units be a problem? Isn't it the supposed weaker range units it is tanking for, that is the real problem, which should be dealth with first?
Clearify this.
88.206.149.235 (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  For a non Starcraft player this makes no sense 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:First-person (gaming) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 19:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress