Yeah how about "Army of one" for the operator

Pyromantic wrote:

I had previously noticed the archetype page and read it. I must say it's nice to see things taking shape.
I'm assuming that the previous suggestions about which classifications and specifications will be ready for launch have not changed? If so, then not all of these will be available, presumably.
I took particular note of one aspect of the description for guardians, that they can provide their teammates with new abilities. This suggests to me something that goes beyond City-of-Heroes-like buffs to attributes like damage or defense--it's possible to actually provide teammates with entirely new powers?

Two words:
Fastball Special

Boy George = Gunner, Gunner, Hunter, Hunter, Partisaaaaaan. I love the role, I love the rooooole.

Doctor Tyche wrote:

Pyromantic wrote:
I had previously noticed the archetype page and read it. I must say it's nice to see things taking shape.
I'm assuming that the previous suggestions about which classifications and specifications will be ready for launch have not changed? If so, then not all of these will be available, presumably.
I took particular note of one aspect of the description for guardians, that they can provide their teammates with new abilities. This suggests to me something that goes beyond City-of-Heroes-like buffs to attributes like damage or defense--it's possible to actually provide teammates with entirely new powers?
Two words:
Fastball Special

Can I... can I worship you?

Redlynne wrote:

Those icons are ... okay ... for big splashy web pages, but you're going to lose a lot when they get reduced down in size and all the details disappear. Might I recommend simplified versions of those icons that can fit into the space of a Power Icon (i.e. 52x52 pixels)?

These are for the character selection and design. We have more license there.

Pyromantic wrote:

I had previously noticed the archetype page and read it. I must say it's nice to see things taking shape.
I'm assuming that the previous suggestions about which classifications and specifications will be ready for launch have not changed? If so, then not all of these will be available, presumably.
I took particular note of one aspect of the description for guardians, that they can provide their teammates with new abilities. This suggests to me something that goes beyond City-of-Heroes-like buffs to attributes like damage or defense--it's possible to actually provide teammates with entirely new powers?

Player X giving player Y new and different abilities (including attacks) is something GW2 has. Frankly, I don't love it in GW2, because it takes away your other powers and requires people to learn other people's classes to the point where they know how eachother's powers work, which is more than I'd usually expect from a PUG teammate. That said, it might be fun to try to get SG mates into synergizing builds to leverage stuff like that in CoT, IDK.

In GW2, my Elementalist has several "Summon Magic Weapon" powers that cause me to conjure up, say, a Lightning Hammer for myself to wield, which replaces my usual 1-5 attacks with a set of new different Lightning Hammer attacks for like 2 min. The Summon Hammer power also throws down a second copy of the hammer on the ground (using telegraphed AoE to locate where it will appear) that someone else can pick up and use, which would then replace their 1-5 attacks with the hammer's. Powers like this have limited usefulness, I've found, but in some cases the content you're doing dictates the need for the different attacks. The Octovine raid, for example, has a part where powers with knockback effects are useful to have, so that one raid is where I use the Lightning Hammer. Otherwise, most people prefer their own powers and don't really want them usurped by the summoned weapon like that.

Now, if you could synergize effects with someone else in a way that DOESN'T take the other person's powers AWAY, but still offers new and different options, that might be awesome. Things like Oil Slicks being set on fire by fire attacks come to mind.

Fireheart wrote:

Aww, nuts! I was hoping for a Defense/Control archetype, like a 'Density/Gravity Control Tanker', so I could jump into a crowd, suck them all towards me with some sort of 'gravity well' power, and then 'Wormhole' myself and all of my new friends back to the waiting team.
Be Well!
Fireheart

Dat's probably a centurion though...

This, admittedly ancient and possibly out-of-date table: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/updated-classification-and-specification-chart lists 'Offensive Mitigation', not 'Control' as the 'secondary' of Centurions. I've not seen, yet, any other break-out of what the sub-archetypes powersets are like.

If you have a new and improved 'Classification/Specification' list/table, I'd be Joyous to see it.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Fireheart wrote:

This, admittedly ancient and possibly out-of-date table: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/updated-classification-and-specification-chart lists 'Offensive Mitigation', not 'Control' as the 'secondary' of Centurions. I've not seen, yet, any other break-out of what the sub-archetypes powersets are like.
If you have a new and improved 'Classification/Specification' list/table, I'd be Joyous to see it.
Be Well!
Fireheart

Control, as it is, frankly would be overpowering as a secondary or tertiary. So, there is a stripped down version developed, although the final name of it hasn't been set. That is what is labelled at various times "Offensive Mitigation" "Manipulation" "Control-ish" or such. In effect, it's Control w/ a few powers substituted, and without the "Nuke" or pets.

Doctor Tyche wrote:

Fireheart wrote:

This, admittedly ancient and possibly out-of-date table: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/updated-classification-and-specification-chart lists 'Offensive Mitigation', not 'Control' as the 'secondary' of Centurions. I've not seen, yet, any other break-out of what the sub-archetypes powersets are like.
If you have a new and improved 'Classification/Specification' list/table, I'd be Joyous to see it.
Be Well!
Fireheart

Control, as it is, frankly would be overpowering as a secondary or tertiary. So, there is a stripped down version developed, although the final name of it hasn't been set. That is what is labelled at various times "Offensive Mitigation" "Manipulation" "Control-ish" or such. In effect, it's Control w/ a few powers substituted, and without the "Nuke" or pets.

Alright, I do see how a direct port of 'Ranged Control' to a melee-centric character would not work. I was thinking of a melee-range redesign of the control powers. If we're using 'Offensive Mitigation' and 'Manipulation' as a catch-alls for hybrid-type attack powers (like they were for Blasters), then I certainly look forward to seeing how that plays out!

Be Well!
Fireheart

Foradain wrote:

It didn't take clever, it just took a habit of looking at what's behind the "What's New" button. Every so often I'd see the Archetypes page had been updated, and I'd go take a look.
BTW, the symbol for the "Commander" looks like a stylized Staff Sergeant's insignia, only upside down, or a CPO's insignia. Which makes a sort of sense, as any good commander relies on his NCOs or POs. ^_^

As a retired military Commander in RL, I picked up on that last part right away too. Plus it didn't give me much of #troller vibe either if you know what I mean. Not a big enough deal to go to war over (get it?...military/war...aww forget it); more of a nitpick.

MWM: Given the fact that some of this information (even the fact that there will be classes at all, as per Empyrean re Facebook followers) is new to folks despite its having been announced before the Kickstarter campaign, maybe it would be useful to remind/inform everyone which subclasses will not be available at launch. Personally, I find that having more than 3 years to come to terms with the fact that I won't be able to play this game's direct analogue to our old Blaster (Hunter: Offence/Offence Mitigation) has helped me in a sort of 'time heals all wounds' sort of way. Assuming Hunters are still not planned for launch, that is.

Empyrean wrote:

One criticism that really isn't a big deal.
While I LOVE the other graphics, and Notears stated he liked the icons, I feel the icons seem a little too busy, and not all of them are particularly evocative of their particular class.

You think that's a minor criticism, Empy -- how's this for a nitpick? Hey, MWM, did you notice that in the text for the Enforcer you started both sentences with the word 'Although'?

All in all, I'm pleased to see that this part of the game hasn't changed since the beginning, and I really like the way the artwork is evocative of the old game without copying it directly.

I heard rumours this was an understudy update for the update that was planned for this week, and that the original update can be expected next week. Is this true?

Also the icons kinda remind me of CoD...take that how you wish :p

Cinnder wrote:

...3 years to come to terms with the fact that I won't be able to play this game's direct analogue to our old Blaster (Hunter: Offence/Offence Mitigation) has helped me in a sort of 'time heals all wounds' sort of way.

Yeah. My old main, Empyrean, would be a true Bastion--but I figure we won't see those for a while :\.

Man, I miss him. He could do it all offensively and defensively. Fire tank with Energy Melee, Pyre Mastery and Pyronic. He even had some pretty serious -damage resistance debuffage when you stacked his tank innate with Melt Armor. Good bit of Disorient too from the Energy stuff.

Oh, how I miss running straight for the biggest baddie while lobbing Melt Armor target-based AOE followed by a jab to both aggro all surrounding mobs and get his damage resistance down, then popping Buildup AND Fiery Embrace and unloading a Total Focus/Energy Transfer combo. KABLOWIE! Big damage :).

Good times, good times.

Ah, so, something to look forward to :)...

PS- Crap. This post made me sad. I may need to go visit my version of him on Champions or DCUO just to let him know a new home is coming :P

Re: some of the comments on the Operator quote -- Even just "I *am* an army" would maybe work even better. You avoid the "of one" tie into the Army slogan, and it still fits the bill. Short and sweet.

The refernce to new powers under Guardians was not meant in the sense of replacing what your chaeacter can do (that could really mess with certain play styles), but rather meant to invoke buffs. Now we may have a Support power that can be cast on an ally that debuffs that's ally's targets, or adds an extra effect to the ally's powers - they are all considered "buffs".

With regards to the names of Commander and Operator, there are a couple of reasons for both. First, it was believed that the names of all ATs needed to be agnostic toward the type of character the player was going to play (hero or villain for example). Which meant avoided names too iconic of a heroic status or ones carrying ambiasmtoward negative connotation.

Manipulator was passed up in lue of Commander partly due to the first reason. The second was that we had two types of power sets at the time using the term Manipulation and the concern was over use of a similar term for both a type of power set and AT.

Operator again was partly due to the first reason. The second is that internally, we didn't classify the summons exactly as "pets". In that the Operator will be able to designate what their "pets"'can do unlike other pets. Some pets don't even come with any complex AI but can be stationary doing one or just a few things. To differentiate between which type of "pet" we were discussing, we began to use the term Operatives for the Operator "pets", and the name of the AT organically derived from that point.

And believe me, the concern over names some of you have, we have had. The names offered up have been considered. We've actually had multiple rounds of discussion on the subject to get where we are at to assuage those who had various concerns to where everyone involved was satisfied enough to move on.

Personally, I would've preferred the quote for Operetors to be "We fight as one", that just so happens to be the name of a certain megapower company with a miuse mascot for a certain show about a bunch of heroes going about some kind of avenging...

Redlynne wrote:

As for the quote ... "All for one and… you know the rest." ... that feels more like a joke than an inspiriation/aspiration. Alternatives such as "I am legion." as well as "I do not stand alone." would in my mind be more evocative of the spirit of the class.

"What army? [i]This[/i] army."

[quote=Redlynne]Aside from the unfortunately similarity with movie X-Men iconography, this symbol does absolutely nothing evocative for me whatsoever in the context of a Pet Herding class. It is a meaningless shape with nice colors that does not imply One Among Many. The name of the class (Operator) also runs counter to my expectations, particularly with "Commander" already in use. I think you would have been better served with an iconography that begins with this kind of a design aesthetic ...
[img]https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1VuXcNFXXXXafapXXq6xXFXXXw/US-UNITED-STATES-font-b-NAVY-b-font-SIX-STAR-GENERAL-font-b-RANK-b-font.jpg[/img]

I STRONGLY vote for this. Genius. Evokes the "one leading many" nature of the class without copying CoH. Top notch.

Okay so.. Doctor Tyche... I have a question for you... is it at all possible for me to make a character based partially around throwing my team mates at people? Like someone who's around 35% or 40% based around throwing my team mates at people?

Also? Get a graphic designer to reupdate the icons.. none of them really pop for me... there's no colour theory to them.. like for instance? Replace the green on the controllers Icon with purple... I mean you see this? [img]http://www.classicshades.com/classicshades/assets/Image/articles/color-wheel.png[/img] This is how you make icons pop out!! You take 2 opposing colours and you mash em up!!

I am liking the way the Guardian sounds. Best icon as well.

I sort of understand why you want to avoid directly re-using the CoH names, but those AT names were already-existing words that described what the class did in very general terms. "Blasters" blast people, "Scrappers" get into scraps, "Tankers" tank, "Controllers" control people, and "Masterminds" sit back and let their minions do the work. That's what those words mean, even not in the context of CoH.

In contrast, most of the class names you've chosen bring to mind very specific images and ideas, which don't always line up with what you want the class to do (especially given that one of your goals is for the classes to be even more generalized than their CoH counterparts). For example:

"Gladiator" brings to mind specifically someone (probably a large bearded man) in Roman armor wielding a Roman sword, fighting for the entertainment of a crowd, not, say, someone with electric fists and a barrier of fire who is fending off an alien invasion or robbing a bank. (Even if Gladiator is no longer Melee/Defense, it's still a very specific image) It's nowhere near as general as Scrapper, Brute, or Stalker, which just express what they do (and not how they do it).

Similarly, over in the Blaster-analogues, the word "gunner" is very specifically "someone who operates or specializes in guns", and doesn't work as a general name. "Hunter", in turn, suggests a stealthy animal-related class (or Elmer Fudd hunting Bugs Bunny), rather than the pure offense Ranged/Manipulation class it is. (And if you're dead-set on not using other games' class names, it's also a WoW class) "Partisan's" main definition is "someone who advocates for something" which makes no sense at all in the context of "shoots people", but even its distant secondary definition of "a guerrilla fighter in WW2", while better as a class name, is, again, too specific a concept. Even "Ranger" itself brings to mind Aragorn from Lord of the Rings or a member of the US armed forces.

Meanwhile, over in the Mastermind-analogue, several subclasses have a weird mechanical theme that doesn't fit most ideas. "Operator" suggests someone who works with machinery (or helps you with phone calls), while "Engineer" suggests someone who builds machinery. They make sense for, say, Robotics/Traps, but no for Beast Mastery/Storm Summoning (or whatever you wind up calling the equivalent or similar powersets). "Taskmaster" is an interesting case, since I did a Google search for it, and the first twelve results were either about the Marvel character or a British game show, neither of which really suggests "Pets/Assault". I had to go pretty far down to find the "boss" definition (and "Taskmaster" specifically means a BAD boss, a slave-driver, not just a boss).

And I really don't like the Controller-analogue names at all (to the extent that it was the entire inspiration for this post, with most of the above added on as afterthoughts), several of which have a military theme that makes even less sense than the Operator's mechanical theme. "Commander" suggests someone who gives orders to a group, while "Brigadier" literally means "Someone who commands a brigade of soldiers". Director and Executor likewise have a leadership theme that doesn't fit the the whole "someone who freezes enemies in ice blocks or crushes them in gravitational fields" nature of the AT. The Control-set class names should suggest "crowd control" (if not outright "body control" or even "enslavement"), not "leadership". The "leadership" naming theme should be used for the Mastermind-equivalent instead. This also applies to the icon, which suggests "leadership".

(The Defender-esque class names are okay. I'm not a big fan of Warden - it brings to mind the person in charge of a prison, especially in the superhero genre - but they're workable)

I'll try to throw out some suggestions (and I'm assuming the class concepts are still the same as they were in that post from 2013), rather than just criticize:

"Fighter" instead of Gladiator for Melee/Defense. It's simple and straightforward, something which is sorely lacking in the class names right now, and extremely nonspecific.
For Control/Assault, "Puppeteer" instead of Brigadier, or possibly "Subjugator" if you want to keep the approximate connotations of "Dominator". "Tactician" instead of Director (because Control/Support is about tactics - controlling the battlefield and aiding allies rather than damaging enemies). Not sure what to do with Control/Ranged - maybe "Overlord", which still has the leadership connotation, but with the implication of being domineering.
Move "Commander" over to Pets/Support (instead of Engineer) and maybe "Brigadier" to Pets/Assault (instead of Taskmaster). Perhaps replace "Ringleader" with "Overseer" for Pets/Manipulation, which has less of a criminal connotation. Maybe go back to "Master" (or "Minion Master") for the overall AT? Or possibly "Honcho" (as in "Head Honcho") for the AT, but that's a bit slang-y.
Stalwart: Why re-invent the wheel here? Replace Centurion (again, a very specific image of a Roman army officer, and one that does not at all match Defense/Manipulation) with Stalwart, and make the overall AT just "Tank". (Not "Tanker", if you want to avoid using CoH names, just Tank)
Don't know what to do with Ranger and its subclasses. Offender? Blitzer? Aggressor? Eruptor? Nothing has the simple elegance of "Blaster".

I'm not sure what to do with all the others, since Controller, Scrapper, Mastermind, and especially Blaster were so perfectly on the nose it's difficult to come up with names that use completely different words but mean the same thing. (In fact, most games don't even try to think of other names: Marvel Heroes has Blasters and Scrappers, and even calls them "Archetypes"; DC Universe Online has Controllers and Tanks. Even Dungeons and Dragons has Brutes and Stalkers as 2e class kits, with Controller and Defender as 4e class roles)

Overall, I think the class names just need to be far, far less specific, since the intent is to make each class cover a wider variety of concepts than CoH ATs (which had very general names to begin with).

Yeah could be worse. If they would have called the page "We Are Heroes (Villains) This Is What We Do: Archetypes" I probably would have had a conniption on the spot.

At first glance, it kind of seems like the "Commander" and "Operator" titles should be switched. What springs to mind immediately upon seeing/hearing "commander" is one who commands others. Operator - I can kind of see the meaning of it as someone who "directs others" if I squint REAL hard, but it's really obtuse.

I also question having names for each individual sub-class - all 18 of 'em. The problem is that it just ads another needless layer of complexity. People will ask "what type of Stalwart are you?", and you will respond "I'm a Bastion", and they will say "....okay...what type of BASTION are you - what are your powers? What exactly can you do?" I'd just stick to having a name for the core class - if people want to know what type of "x class" you are - people will just list their Primary and Secondary power set anyways.

The names I like for each class:

Stalwart: This name works for me, as could any of the sub-class names. Maybe something like "Aegis".

Ranger: My background with D&D brings a very specific image to my mind when I see this, but it works well enough on a descriptive level. Striker could work as well.

Enforcer: This works for me, as could Striker or something like "Brawler"

Guardian: Again - this works on a descriptive level.

Commander: As I mentioned above, for me this fits better with the pet class. For control-heavy classes Director fits I suppose. Maybe something like "Regulator" or "Manipulator" as well?

Operator: Commander is a better fit here I think, though Taskmaster could work as well.

As a side query - I don't know if this has been answered before somewhere, but is the reason we are not using generic terms like "Tank" "Blaster" "Controller" and the like due to the fear of legal ramifications (even though they are widely used in gaming, both video and tabletop)?

I agree that these class names are... well, just ridiculous. I've thought that the struggle to rename the classes was silly from the start.

Too many of the new terms are already associated with specific memes (nobody is ever going to say 'Ranger' without thinking 'Aragorn', or the Army corps). Worse, the new terms simply don't Evoke the classes. I do not believe the community is going to know what any of the new terms mean, no matter how much MWM harps on them. You can re-label them, but people will continue to use the old terms, because they Work.

My advice is to give up on the whole 'must be different' concern and just call the thing a thing.

A Stalwart is a sort of Tanker, and not a overall class or job description.

A Ranger is a sort of Blaster with a pet. A Gunner... operates a gun, usually from a fixed position.

An Enforcer is a thug who works for a criminal group, unless you preface it with 'Law'. You could side-step 'Scrapper', here, but only by calling them a 'Fighter'.

A Guardian... okay, that works in the place of Defender, but you want 'Warder', not 'Warden'. Yes, yes, I know, I study language and I'm aware of the ancient use of the term 'Warden', but it Meant 'Warder'. I have no idea what made you think 'Vindicator' was a good choice. Vindicators only show up after everyone is dead/defeated.

A Controller, is a Controller, is a Controller. You even say so in your definition. The power that a Controller uses is a 'control', not a 'command', not a 'direction', and certainly not an 'execution'.

An Operator controls complex machinery. Sometimes the machinery is not so complex, like a gate-operator. What you want, here, is a Summoner, or a Commander, perhaps a Director. A mastermind by any other name may lead their subordinates, but there's no way they can completely control them.

Just give up on trying to re-name a hammer and call it a Hammer!

Be Well!
Fireheart

You can call me anything you want, just don't call me late for dinner.

Interdictor wrote:

I also question having names for each individual sub-class - all 18 of 'em. The problem is that it just ads another needless layer of complexity. People will ask "what type of Stalwart are you?", and you will respond "I'm a Bastion", and they will say "....okay...what type of BASTION are you - what are your powers? What exactly can you do?" I'd just stick to having a name for the core class - if people want to know what type of "x class" you are - people will just list their Primary and Secondary power set anyways.

To be honest, giving a name to every "flavor" of possible combination seems like overkill. Just looking at the the newly laid out page in the Guides, I can already feel myself discarding the subclass info.

Interdictor wrote:

The names I like for each class:
Stalwart: This name works for me, as could any of the sub-class names.
Ranger: My background with D&D brings a very specific image to my mind when I see this, but it works well enough on a descriptive level. Striker could work as well.
Enforcer: This works for me, as could Striker or something like "Brawler"
Guardian: Again - this works on a descriptive level.
Commander: As I mentioned above, for me this fits better with the pet class. For control-heavy classes Director fits I suppose. Maybe something like "Regulator" as well?
Operator: Commander is a better fit here I think, though Taskmaster could work as well.

Yeah, there are some names that I'd want to see get another wash through the debate before they get put into stone, because some of these are just really not that satisfying.

Currently: Stalwart
Preference: Stalwart

Currently: Ranger
Preference: Enforcer

Currently: Enforcer
Preference: Bruiser

Currently: Guardian
Preference: Guardian

Currently: Commander
Preference: Equalizer

Currently: Operator
Preference: Executive

Note that one of the expectations to live up to in City of Titans is the widely revered [url=https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Scrapperlock]Scrapperlock[/url] ... and "Enforcer" just isn't a term that easily lends itself to that terminology. Try it. Enforcerlock. Say it out loud. Enforcerlock.

I don't know about anyone else, but Enforcerlock just doesn't [i]sound right[/i] to me in the way that Scrapperlock does. Scrapperlock just rolls off the tongue and is immediately evocative of an image of One Against Many. Enforcerlock doesn't do that for me ... probably because of the syllable cadence. Enforcerlock is 4 syllables while Scrapperlock is only 3 syllables to say.

Likewise, nobody ever talked about Brutelock, and it doesn't roll off the tongue like Scrapperlock does. I suspect that's because Brutelock is only 2 syllables to Scrapperlock's 3 syllables.

But Bruiserlock? That's 3 syllables ... and it rolls off the tongue just about as readily as Scrapperlock does.

Meanwhile, Enforcer makes a much better name for a Blaster analog, in my mind, because it doesn't pigeonhole the archetype into being about guns, soldiers or resistance fighters.

=====

To be honest, I'd prefer to have just the "capstones" of the Primaries have names and then annotate the [url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/updated-classification-and-specification-chart]Secondary Classifications[/url] as being two letter codes rather than with different names done up like so:

OM: Offense Melee
OR: Offense Ranged
OA: Offense Assault
MM: Mitigation Manipulation
MS: Mitigation Support
MD: Mitigation Defense

That way you can "at a glance" get a fair approximation of the types of capabilities a character can have just from the name of their Primary and the code for their Secondary so as to be able to easily reference what "flavor" of Secondary is getting blended with the Primary.

So using such a naming scheme and referencing the now [url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/updated-classification-and-specification-chart]3+ years old chart[/url] and using my proposed (re)naming scheme, you wind up with the following:

Blaster = Enforcer MM
Corruptor = Enforcer MS
Controller = Equalizer MS
Dominator = Equalizer OR
Defender = Guardian OR
Mastermind = Executive MS
Scrapper = Bruiser MD
Stalker = Bruiser MD
Brute = Bruiser MD
Tanker = Stalwart OM

... yeah, I guess that looks less than satisfactory. Hmm. What if we just take the names from the Primaries on the chart and match them up to be the same thing on the Secondaries and write them up like so ...

Blaster = Enforcer / Manipulator
Corruptor = Enforcer / Guardian
Controller = Equalizer / Guardian
Dominator = Equalizer / Assault
Defender = Guardian / Enforcer
Mastermind = Executive / Guardian
Scrapper = Bruiser / Stalwart
Stalker = Bruiser / Stalwart
Brute = Bruiser / Stalwart
Tanker = Stalwart / Bruiser

Hmmm ... yeah, that's less than satisfactory too. That just gets too confusing in a hurry, especially if you're not familiar with the terminology and what it means (let alone why).

Tannim222 wrote:

And believe me, the concern over names some of you have, we have had. The names offered up have been considered. We've actually had multiple rounds of discussion on the subject to get where we are at to assuage those who had various concerns to where everyone involved was satisfied enough to move on.

So are you trying to say that the names, icons, descriptions and quotes are final? It seems that most of the responses around here are focusing on what could or should be changed.

Edit: After further investigation the [url=https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/missingworldsmedia/the-phoenix-project-city-of-titans/posts/625583]Kickstarter post from three years ago[/url] ([url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/updated-classification-and-specification-chart]chart form[/url]) use the exact same names for archetypes and subclasses. The only change was Master-->Operator. Has there been any further discussion or brainstorming on the naming scheme between then and now?

I hope something I can mess with is coming soon... I don't mind waiting over three years but website updates and seeing icons like this make me absolutely giddy. Also I approve of all said icons. haha

If the early naming convention has managed to be ideal all along then I'll be happy with almost all of it.

But hopefully they can at least swap the Commander and Operator descriptions around. A commander commands its own troops, not someone else's. Unless it's "Commandeer". A smooth Operator is manipulating others. Right now it looks like it's just a formatting error of the page. The color of the logos are similar to Controller and Mastermind, only reversing the capabilities. The other logo colors are more direct descendants. Mind control has a long affiliation in comics with purple.

Planet10 wrote:

It is a good exercise and a step in a slightly different direction. In a slightly lateral thought progression I saw Breakwater and thought "water break" before I thought about an actual breakwater.

OMG >blushes< I guess that's why we socialize our ideas!

I have... Mixed feelings about the alternative names suggested above. Breakwater sounds like something really cool, but I think that's because it evokes for me a sense of defense and containment. Since a breakwater is designed to defend a harbor or port from the more violent forces of the ocean, that makes sense. But that's the thing: while more based names or cool, I would still want to see names that gave a sense of what they do, you know? Breakwater gives double meaning with this game, since Hurricane Atlas was a devastating event in the history of titan city and no doubt the breakwater was vital to preventing at least some of the damage. If all the archetypes could be like that that would rock, but that might be a big ask.

I echo the notion that commander and operator should be swapped.

Empyrean wrote:

Meh, the names are fine.
The criticisms and suggestions in this thread are all valid, at least from certain perspectives. But I do not envy MWM for having to come up with so many intentionally distinct names--whether that was really necessary or not--and they did a good job. If you look on Facebook and Massively Overpowered, many people love the names and icons.
And how big of a deal is it anyway? Your character will be your character. These names are no more than placeholders for the type of chassis you're going to use to build your character.
I'm not saying it doesn't matter or that discussing and trying to improve it isn't worth doing, I'm just saying that if these are going to be the names, even if you hate them, what could that be other than annoyance--if you even bother to expend the energy to get worked up enough to be annoyed :P.

Yeah. Personally, my only gripe has been feeling that commander and operator are switched, but I haven't had any problems with the archetype names otherwise. The lore based names are cool, imho, but I don't think they're necessary.

Honestly, at this point, I'm just eager to make my enforcer and get into the game! I'm restless!

"The __________ is a master of strategically limiting the options of the opposition. He can deny them movement, opportunities to attack, avenues of defense, and even control of their own bodies and minds."

"Superhuman beings able to generate or summon allies at will are classified as __________, living embodiments of the principle of ‘strength in numbers’. Whether skilled, magical or technological, they are all obedient and powerful."

If those two descriptions are displayed with "Operator" and "Commander" as potential names, and I was asked to choose which went where, I'd put "Commander" in the latter space without hesitation.

Earlier I saw the comment to the effect that "Operator" brought to mind a person at a switchboard placing your call. Maybe it's because I've been reading Drake's RCN series, but that in turn made me think of Signals Officer Mundy, who regularly denied the enemy opportunities to attack...

This has taken a decidedly strong left-hand turn from "What We Can Do".

So I just thought if something... do the names and icons matter all that much? I mean if we revise them the devs might give up precious time, which is a resource they don't have a lot of to begin with, they could use to work on gameplay!! The devs as far as I know still don't have a paycheck right now, they can't do this as a job!!! They need all the time they can get right now!!! I think this whole thing is going too far... the names and icons are good enough for now...

Ok, here is my unsolicited brainstorming on the naming scheme for Archetypes and Specialization subtypes. I do not know anything about the powersets or MWM's explicit intent for the Specialization, so I made a few assumptions based on what I believed to be the functionality of the secondary powerset pairings with the primary. The names needed to be somewhat generic so they can be applied to both sides without being too judgmental or limiting.
Feel free to use any of this.

[ARCHETYPE]
-[SPECIALIZATION]
-[SPECIALIZATION]
-[SPECIALIZATION]

[ENFORCER] >> Enforcer
-[STRIKER] (melee + off/mit) >> Bruiser
-[BODYGUARD] (melee + support) >> Riotguard, Phalanx, Battlemaster
-[GLADIATOR] (melee + defense) >> Gladiator, Striker, Breacher

Enforcer feels like it would fit the archetype to me. One who specializes in the art of laying a beat down (a manipulation secondary) sounds like a Bruiser to me, plus you get to inherit the -lock mentality. A support secondary feels like you would be working in conjunction with others to function optimally. A Phalanx or Riotguard functions as a mutually supportive unit to achieve victory. A Battlemaster feels like a combatant that is above average in most aspects and deficient in none. Now a melee character that employs defense as a tactic uses it to achieve a goal or because they operate independently. A Gladiator has to use defense to survive long enough defeat an enemy. A Breacher evokes a sense of surviving long enough to break the enemy's defense or strategy.

[RANGER] >> Projector, Ranger
-[HUNTER] (ranged + off/mit) >> Hunter, Ambusher
-[PARTISAN] (ranged + support) >> Legionnaire
-[GUNNER] (ranged + defense) >> Annihilator, Marauder, Predator, Raider

A ranged character projects damage, hence [I]Projector[/I], but it starts to hedge slightly into Champions territory. The Marauder/Raider names might be a little evocative of pirates, but they function somewhat loosely because they do not rely on anyone else (aka, ranged + defense). There is almost no way Predator will survive on this list due to the association with the franchise, but it was included for what the name implies (ruthlessly exploiting prey). Legionnaire as a support (or augment) character might function better in groups, like a legion...

[MASTER] >> Summoner, Collaborator, Mobilizer, Recruiter, Musterer, Fabricator
-[TASKMASTER] (pet + assault) >> Leader, Pathfinder
-[RINGLEADER] (pet + off/mit) >> Architect, Overseer
-[ENGINEER] (pet + support) >> Implementor, Strategist

A pet class doesn't just have minions lying around. They find minions, they create minions or they bind subjects to their will (hence the variations in archetype names). A secondary powerset of assault seems to imply that your character is actively involved in the fight with your minions. You are in it hip deep with your minions, leading from the front. Who does that? A Leader does, a Pathfinder does. I imagine the manipulation aspect of a secondary powerset for a pet class would be something that augments your minions to perform beyond specification. An Architect is a character that designs your doom. An Overseer is a character that manages everything through minions, they are a natural extension of one's will. A support secondary evokes a sense of adapting to events as they happen, the plan never fully survives contact with the enemy. A strategist makes the plan, but allows for contingencies.

[COMMANDER] >> Ascendant
-[EXECUTOR] (ctrl + ranged) >> Executor
-[BRIGADIER] (ctrl + assault) >> Dominator
-[DIRECTOR] (ctrl + support) >> Proclamator, Declarant, Controller

The problem I have with [I]Commander, Brigadier & Director[/I] is that they imply that there is a hierarchy of personnel beneath you to take action based on your directives. Now unless all of these characters are mind controllers, no opponent is going to acquiesce to your requests to lie down and submit to defeat. In essence this archetype is built on control variants. Your character is at the pinnacle, the top of the heap, you enact the kill chain. The Executor name seems fitting. A Dominator is a dominator is a dominator. Sometimes being different for the sake of being different doesn't make sense. Just call it a Dominator. You could just as easily just plug 'Controller' back into the matrix and it would not feel out of place. There is some room for variation though, so Proclamator/Declarant were offered as an option for a character that sees the world being ordered in a certain way or imposes their will because that is the only way things make sense.

[STALWART] >> Stalwart
-[BULWARK] (def + melee) >> Bulwark
-[BASTION] (def + assault) >> Interdictor, Bastion
-[CENTURION] (def + off/mit) >> Centrurion, Defiant

Overall I like the Stalwart archetype & specializations. I hesitate with 'Bastion' since the name was familiar from the previous game. In a general sense I like Bastion as a name though.

Doctor Tyche wrote:

Simple changes, like swapping Commander and Operator, is trivial. Redoing, that's a bit more time consuming.

Alright cool, Realy would appreciate that if you did atleast that :] All this other stuff is going to get in the way of more important stuff like, that fastball special you where talking about earlier for example

Doctor Tyche wrote:

Keep in mind as well that Masteries will further change each of the archetypes, making rather unique playstyles

I assume that would be the case seeing as how there are a fair number of holes in the archetype-specification matrix. Given the information at hand, I am not ecstatic with about 50% of the naming structure.

Or:
"We need an Army?? 'laughs' i *AM* an Army!"

Tannim222 wrote:

notears wrote:
Doctor Tyche wrote:
Keep in mind as well that Masteries will further change each of the archetypes, making rather unique playstyles
Alright alright... so Doctor Tyche I have a question... since you said it might be possible to throw my team mate at someone... is it possible that I can throw and enemy at another enemy?
The fast ball special was a bit tongue-in-cheek fun way of saying there will be certain powers which grant new abilities to a group member.
When it comes to throwing around enemies, well possible but we have a TON to do in order to get to it looks more yes than no. Firet we'd have a to have a system for throwing other stuff at enemies. One that doesn't use attribute scores. Not that we haven't thought about it...
But the topic at hand, what i meant earlier about the discussions our team has had wasn't meant to say everything is final, only that everything being said here is eerily similar right down to practical word for word. We've been at it a long time. I've counted 3 rounds of discussions which occurred after the initial chart was made. Which means there were multiple rounds of talks just to get to that point.
There's no harm is you all continuing to discuss, something may come of it that's useful or hasn't been said.

Alright, got it :]