I've followed this thread and I'm a bit surprised by the direction it's taken. There's really nothing new in the post other than the icons. Which I think are pretty good. My understanding is that these are more about flavor than function. I expect that there will be some newer more functional icons that you can use for teammate identification. I also see core icons in each of these flowery icons that could be used for that. Based on the title of this post I was hoping for a bit more than we got. There's time for that though.

Quote:

Note that one of the expectations to live up to in City of Titans is the widely revered Scrapperlock ... and "Enforcer" just isn't a term that easily lends itself to that terminology. Try it. Enforcerlock. Say it out loud. Enforcerlock.

An excellent argument. However, I'll see that and raise you "Forcelock" I think it's quite evocative. I'd would also argue that these terms are organic, they grow from the game. I think it is somewhat wrong to try to shoehorn old terms into this game before we've even had a chance to play. The whole driver for the new "scrapperlock" could be momentum and could drive the locking experience and it may be class agnostic. The COH devs didn't sit down and say, lets make a class that causes scrapperlock. They made a class that they thought would fill a role and tried to make that fun. I think they did. I think that is MWM goal too.

freewaydog wrote:

I wonder what the other archetypes in parenthesis will be like?

I think you're referring to the subtypes.

There will be a primary and a secondary powerset for each character. The primary power is being called an Archetype. It is also known as a classification in this table:

The secondary powers will define the subtype, and they are also known as specifications in the table above.

The ones that are underlined are being provided at game launch, the other ones will be provided later. Except we will get the Engineer subtype at launch as well, for a total of six classes at launch, one from each Archetype.

A better description of this all can be found here.

Interdictor wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:
The ones that are underlined are being provided at game launch, the other ones will be provided later. Except we will get the Engineer subtype at launch as well, for a total of six classes at launch, one from each Archetype.
I don't think we're getting the pet class at launch - unless something has changed? Last I heard/read it's going to be 5 classes with one specification each available at launch, with the pet class and other specifications coming later?

I could have sworn I saw an announcement somewhere within the past year or so saying we were going to get the mastermind at launch despite the Kickstarter announcing we were only going to get the other five. I'm having difficulty now trying to find it, so maybe I got my kickstarters mixed up.

If anyone can state with knowledge one way or the other I would appreciate it because I'd hate to be spreading incorrect info.

Alright, so I have another question... is it possible to change the names some of the specifications, without detracting from the time you need to make the game more awesome?

And it's now Specialization, not Specification. (somewhere down the line, the writers saw us going "Spec" and grabbed the wrong term)

Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

[img]http://www.relatably.com/q/img/william-shatner-airplane-2-quotes/BvVfXetIgAA2KnX.jpg[/img]

I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you didn't play on Champion? I don't think anyone would willing post something with that word repeated so many times without cringing and rethinking it. #LordScooterRidesAgain

Alright so, the only problem I see with specification names? Is the centurion, not because it gives off the idea of a type of roman soldier but because, when I think "Centurion" I don't see a durable fellow with control type powers. I see a man with a big shield and a small knife who waits for people to bounce off his shield so that he can stab them while their being pushed off... that's not really control and quite frankly, breakwater doesn't sound epic enough. How about Battlecaster? it rolls off the tongue and it brings to mind a controller type in armour.

Foradain wrote:

Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you didn't play on Champion? I don't think anyone would willing post something with that word repeated so many times without cringing and rethinking it. #LordScooterRidesAgain
There is no telling what a Mad Engineer might be capable of.
And yes, I know I left a preposition dangling there. It's common usage, grammar copper!

I'll let it slide this time with a warning, but NEXT TIME, GADGET! NNEEEXXXTTT TTTIIIMMMMMEEEEE! *DrClawFistShake*
[img]https://img.memesuper.com/f97c32d8f881f1747928be7b36f75b39_so-anti-choice-crowd-next-time-gadget-meme_425-318.jpeg[/img]

Doctor Tyche wrote:

As you think of names, consider how things are named in the real world. Often times, names are based on who or what first popularized an idea. You don't "search" today, you "Google." You don't enjoy some flavored gelatin, you have Jell-o. So, a replacement name not only has to work thematically, but has to have that lore hook. Stalwart, for example, was coined following a bank robbery where the newspaper headline ran "Stalwart Hero Saves Day".
The best example of this is the term "Gladiator." The first popularized Gladiator was the original American Star, Anthem's mentor. She now wears his armor, which, if you'd recall, covers one arm and the chest, just like a classic Roman gladiator's armor. So, when he first made the papers, before he'd announced his name, the headlines all were speaking of the Gladiator who thwarted crime.

Doc,
You've just cited two examples from your own lore. That's pretty awesome that you have such lore-based origins. It really gets me into the game.

You've asked us to go ahead to see if we can come up with other names, but in our ignorance how can we possibly know what is or is not already established lore when it comes to things like this?
.... or is this your way of giving us the go-ahead to incorporate our own lore into the lore you've already established to create a backstory for names we come up with?

For example:

Quote:

a pop-idol singer named Sebastian Starr was also secretly the hero Bastion, who could manipulate sound waves and amplify them with electricty. He made a name for himself with his acts of heroism across the country, primarily by his ability to withstand the worst his enemies could throw at him while being able to take them down both at range or up close and personal. It wasn't long before someone connected his appearances to the tour dates of Sebastian Starr and had him assassinated very publicly during one of his concerts. Afterwards, when someone saw a Stalwart able to attack at range, they called him or her a hero like Bastion, and that was eventually shortened to just a Bastion.

Quote box was provided for emphasis. It wasn't an actual quote from anywhere.

Was this kind of what you were thinking?

Since we're discussing names, the one that I think fits least is Partisan. While is used to refer to a common citizen, not a part of a formal military, who took up arms to harass the enemy, it is used most often now to refer to someone who tends to support a certain political party regardless of what they say or do.

Maybe something as simple as Operative would fit better with the range-support niche.

Doctor Tyche wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:
Doctor Tyche wrote:
As you think of names, consider how things are named in the real world. Often times, names are based on who or what first popularized an idea. You don't "search" today, you "Google." You don't enjoy some flavored gelatin, you have Jell-o. So, a replacement name not only has to work thematically, but has to have that lore hook. Stalwart, for example, was coined following a bank robbery where the newspaper headline ran "Stalwart Hero Saves Day".
The best example of this is the term "Gladiator." The first popularized Gladiator was the original American Star, Anthem's mentor. She now wears his armor, which, if you'd recall, covers one arm and the chest, just like a classic Roman gladiator's armor. So, when he first made the papers, before he'd announced his name, the headlines all were speaking of the Gladiator who thwarted crime.
Doc,
You've just cited two examples from your own lore. That's pretty awesome that you have such lore-based origins. It really gets me into the game.
You've asked us to go ahead to see if we can come up with other names, but in our ignorance how can we possibly know what is or is not already established lore when it comes to things like this?
.... or is this your way of giving us the go-ahead to incorporate our own lore into the lore you've already established to create a backstory for names we come up with?
The latter. I'm curious to see what people come up with.

Oh well in that case... I have an idea... what if the Classifications and specialization are all named after the most famous super identities of those Classes and Specs from different places in time? Like the Gunner got it's name from "The Gunner, the Armoured Gunslinger of the Wild West!!" or the Centurion is called the Centurion because of "The Centurian, who used Jupiter's divine will and his swordmanship to lock down entire armies in ancient Rome!!" what do you think of that?

Tossing out some name possibilities. Some are most likely already there, but just making a 'stream of consciousness' list :

Justicar
Sentinel
Outsider
Vigilant
Guardian
Legend
Shadowmaster
Crusader
Challenger
Champion
Defender
Knight
Marauder
Agent
Commando
Ranger
Investigator
Ronin
Samurai
Striker
Harbinger
Incarnate
Tactician
Strategist
Slayer
Caretaker
Caregiver
Misfit
Trooper
Phalanx
Spearhead
Wrangler
Liberator
Warrior
Trailblazer
Deadeye
Bloodhound
Hussar
Dragoon
Protector
Keeper
Sentry
Bouncer
Conservator
Scout
Citadel
Bulwark
Curator
Overseer
Steward
Ward
Warden
Bastion
Defalcator
Prowler
Scrounger

[img]http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f346/zombie_guy/TPP/CoTats_zps56a08933.png[/img]

[i]Stalwart - Bastion, Bulwark, Centurion[/i]
I'd prefer to see instead ... [b]Stalwart[/b] - [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart][b]Rampart[/b][/url] (Defense/Melee), [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion][b]Bastion[/b][/url] (Defense/Assault), [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican][b]Barbican[/b][/url] (Defense/Manipulation) ... all of which follow a theme of being fortifications.
There is no hero/villain bias in these names and they have associations stretching back centuries and beyond. The differences in the names also aid with the mnemonics of remembering which one is which due to associations with imagery of what the respective fortifications are meant to "do" in practice.

[i]Ranger - Gunner, Hunter, Partisan[/i]
I'd prefer to see instead ... [b]Slinger[/b] - [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper][b]Sniper[/b][/url] (Ranged Offense/Manipulation), [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksman][b]Marksman[/b][/url] (Ranged Offense/Support), [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpshooter][b]Sharpshooter[/b][/url] (Ranged Offense/Defense).
The term Slinger, of course, dates back to antiquity, and denotes someone who "hurls" projectiles (usually with a physical sling weapon), but which has also been used frequently in contexts as well, including magical ones (spell slinger, for example). We even have modern comic book vindication for the use of the term in the form of Spiderman often being called "Web Slinger" as one of his epithets. Although the terms Sniper, Marksman and Sharpshooter are all ones dating back to the 1800s (or earlier) and are thus naturally associated with the ranged weapons of the day (guns and rifles), there is nothing inherently and explicitly exclusionary about their use which makes these terms apply ONLY to guns and gun users. It would be very easy to label a hero such as Hawkeye (an archer in the Marvel universe) as a "bow slinger" or as a sniper, marksman or sharpshooter ... or even apply the same terminology to The Green Archer (popularized on TV) as well as a number of other recognized ranged weapon heroic archetypes. Additionally, the same terms can be used equally well for magic (ab)users, mutant powers, and on and on ... without the terms Slinger, Sniper, Marksman or Sharpshooter having any heroic or villainous connotations directly associated with them.

[i]Enforcer - Striker, Bodyguard, Gladiator[/i]
I'd prefer to see instead ... [b]Enforcer[/b] - [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skirmisher][b]Skirmisher[/b][/url] (Melee Offense/Manipulation), [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyguard][b]Bodyguard[/b][/url] (Melee Offense/Support), [b]Bruiser[/b] (Melee Offense/Defense).
All of these names are selected to inform based on the [i]role[/i] that the combination of Primary and Secondary achieves. The Skirmisher is better suited to the "Stalker(ish)" role of Hit-and-Run and would be the proper place to put something akin to Ninjitsu where the emphasis is as much on efficient combat as it is upon misdirection (i.e. Manipulation) in an effort to disrupt as well as defeat. The Bodyguard is very well named as the Close Support role. Bruiser "explains" in a single word the function of not only delivering damage (Melee Offense) but also being able to withstand it (Defense). Note again that none of these terms have any particularly Heroic or Villainous leanings. And pursuant to my own criticisms earlier upthread Enforcers can (should?) suffer from ... Skirmishlock ... Bodylock ... and of course, Bruiserlock.

[i]Guardian - Sentinel, Vindicator, Warden[/i]
I'd prefer to see instead ... [b]Guardian[/b] - [b]Sentry[/b] (Support/Ranged Offense), [b]Protector[/b] (Support/Assault), [b]Deflector[/b] (Support/Manipulation).
Obviously all of these terms follow a "defensive" naming scheme and are intended to describe what each secondary specialization "does" when combined with the Guardian Primary. The Sentry is intended to engage using ranged attacks. The Protector uses a mixture of melee and ranged attacks. The Deflector combines the Support role with Manipulation to "redirect" in ways that aid their primary Support role. Note again that none of these terms have any particularly Heroic or Villainous leanings, with the possible exception of Protector, which historically has usually had "positive" connotations more in line with the ideals of Heroism, although there have been plenty of [i]corrupt[/i] and/or self-dealing Protectors throughout world history (see: Protection Racket).

[i]Commander - Brigadier, Director, Executor[/i]
I'd prefer to see instead ... [b]Strategist[/b] - [b]Spotter[/b] (Control/Ranged Offense), [b]Agent[/b] (Control/Assault), [b]Disruptor[/b] (Control/Support).
The basic notion here is to fully disambiguate the Archetype away from a possible association with any sort of Pet summoning/commanding type of terminology. The Strategist label describes the sort of mentality that is required to make use of the many status effects their powers can produce, which will do everything from limiting mobility to limiting action and reaction. Spotters are the types who can do "spooky action at a distance" to all kinds of detrimental effect (if they can see you, they can harm you). Agent types tend to be most often engaged as espionage field agents in clandestine services around the world. Disruptors can very literally "turn the tide of battle" from what ought to be a decisive loss towards a winnable circumstance and act as force multipliers. Note again that none of these terms have any particularly Heroic or Villainous leanings, let alone overtones towards being technological versus magic, training versus mutation, military versus civilian, etc.

[i]Operator - Engineer, Ringleader, Taskmaster[/i]
I'd prefer to see instead ... [b]Overseer[/b] - [b]Executor[/b] (Pets/Assault), [b]Ringleader[/b] (Pets/Manipulation), [b]Master[/b] (Pets/Support).
The switch from Operator to Overseer is an attempt to help disambiguate the Archetype away from the Strategist by directly implying a "leadership" role (over Pets). Executors are they types who want to "get their own hands dirty" along with their Minions, rather than simply leading from the rear, and tend to engage directly with their Minions supporting their direct actions. Ringleaders tend to be the types who support their Minions with traps and misdirection while providing leadership and cohesion. Masters are most comfortable with "directing traffic" and issuing orders from the rear to their Minions to get jobs done, acting as the "brains" of their collective groups. Note again that none of these terms have any particularly Heroic or Villainous leanings, let alone overtones towards being technological versus magic, training versus mutation, etc., but rather speak towards hierarchy roles with superiors and (loyal) subordinates.

=====

As a side note, it was only after I'd done the Strategist - Spotter and the Slinger - Sniper that I noticed that if this proposal is accepted (and implemented) it would eventually be perfectly possible to create Team-2 groups pairing a Spotter and a Sniper together for some extremely "spooky action at a distance" that would be entirely in keeping with the way that real world Spotter+Sniper teams [i]are supposed to work[/i] (except now with superpowers!).

Huckleberry wrote:

We're all familiar with the yummy pizza pies delivered by Pizza Pai Gow

[url=https://ninjaburger.com/]Ninja Burger[/url] ([b]nowhere[/b] is outside our delivery range!) objects to unknown sources filing the serial numbers off the stories about their deliveries to low earth orbit.

Ninja Burger. [i]Guaranteed delivery in 30 minutes or less, or we commit Seppuku![/i]

Planet10 wrote:

Doctor Tyche wrote:
or is this your way of giving us the go-ahead to incorporate our own lore into the lore you've already established to create a backstory for names we come up with?
The latter. I'm curious to see what people come up with.
Is there lore out there to prop up the exploits of Ringleader, Taskmaster, Engineer, Brigadier, Director, Executor, Gunner, Hunter, Partisan, Sentinel, Vindicator, Warden, Bodyguard, Striker, Centurion, Bulwark & Bastion?
Is everything (archetypes & specializations) going to have a lore hook? Because if it is, I can't wait to hear about the wondrous exploits of the heroes and villains that are the basis for the archetypes (beyond Stalwart).
It really feels like we are being painted into a corner to satisfy two different sets of criteria. Either you have to have functional (i.e. neutral) names for archetypes & specializations. Or you have to have a lore based naming scheme using the first or most prominent example as the example for all that follow. The current naming scheme seems to employ both strategies (function & lore) and it is confusing to us normals on the other side of the wall.
Is there any concern that users would get confused when choosing between a Bodyguard or Bulwark specialization (they hint at sharing similar functionalities)? Or between a Centurion & a Sentinel? Are users going to have to learn (or just know) the back stories & lore to simply understand what each Archetype & Specialization does? What is the learning curve just to step into the game the first time?
At this point it seems the Archetype / Specialization listing is completely lore based. There is no reason for us to offer alternates if it is already built on lore. Just be warned that it is going to confuse the hell out of people on the front end. And it will potentially limit people's creativity when it comes to building characters due to the evocative nature of some of the names.
If I was Henrik Fisker I don't know that I would want everyone saying that I am an Elon Musk. Yes, we are both CEOs. Yes, we both make electric vehicles. No I do not want to operate in Elon's shadow or have his stigma (good or bad) limit me in any way. I want to be a CEO, the best CEO that I can be, not the best Elon Musk that I can be.

Alright so I think that would be taking things too far... if we are going with the "class and spec names are attached to lore" it should be more of "neat to find out" sort of thing rather than a "You absolutely have to know this in order to play the game" thing. Like sure these names could be big in the world, but not to someone like us who's looking at the world from the outside in. You would see them mentioned in passing conversations, you might even see the occasional statue of them or easter egg about them. Maybe you can even learn about them as part of a puzzle that's not quite necessary to complete the mission but will give you a tip, or other such award. This shouldn't engulf the game, but it should be something neat to discover on your own.

The problem with the word "Operator" is that it requires context, because there are multiple interpretations of the word, with "smooth operator" being only one of them. In this case, the hazard is in the ambiguity of the word. It's a situation where [i]if you already know the right answer[/i] it works just fine ... but [b]if you don't already know[/b] the "correct" interpretation/use of the word then there are enough False Positives available to cause confusion. In that respect, it's kind of like a lot of the Knowledge Bases that I've had to work with professionally, where they will tell you EVERYTHING [b]except[/b] what you want to know.

My problem with the word "Operator" is that it does not innately/inherently guide you towards a singular/correct understanding of the meaning of the term. It has so many possible permutations of understanding/meaning/intent that it actually takes work to comb through the context of how it gets used to eliminate all of the wrong alternatives in order to settle on the "right" way to use the term in the City of Titans context. So once you "know" it, it makes sense ... but until then, it very well may not. As far as I'm concerned, that's a problem that ought to be rectified (by using a different term that is more intuitively descriptive).

Also, being a "smooth operator" can apply to pretty much ANY Archetype when played well/competently/skillfully, not just to types that use a Control Primary.

Is this naming scheme purely to avoid *ahem* legal issues?

Personally I'd have though of the following if so,,

Tanker = Tank
Scrapper = Brawler
Defender = Sentinel
Blaster = Blaster (it's used so much, how could there be an issue?)
Controller = Dominator / Commander / Overseer

But hey... just my brain farts here :)

Solari wrote:

Is this naming scheme purely to avoid *ahem* legal issues?
Personally I'd have though of the following if so:
Tanker = Tank
Scrapper = Brawler
Defender = Sentinel
Blaster = Blaster (it's used so much, how could there be an issue?)
Controller = Dominator / Commander / Overseer
But hey... just my brain farts here :)

I don't see it, even if so. I really don't believe there's any issue, as those names have been used for so long and so widely, that they're practically generic.

That said, Blaster and Controller are the only ones that I've not seen a 'good enough' alternative for, in this thread. Frankly, though, I feel 'Stalwart' would be better as a sub-class of 'Tanker'.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Cobalt Azurean wrote:

Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you didn't play on Champion? I don't think anyone would willing post something with that word repeated so many times without cringing and rethinking it. #LordScooterRidesAgain

Nope, I spent my time on Virtue. I take it that was the name of a toxic player?

The only other Stryker I know of is:

[url=http://www.military.com/equipment/m1126-stryker-combat-vehicle][img]http://images04.military.com/media/equipment/military-vehicles/m1126-stryker-combat-vehicle/stryker-combat-vehicle-05-ts600.jpg[/img][/url]

Radiac wrote:

Fun fact, the words "czar" and "kaiser" are both derived from Caesar. That said I still like Centurion the least among all the names, but until I know the play style, I would be unable to come up with anything better. Assuming they don't all get a spear and a set of roman armor as powers, as well as a 100-person group of soldiers at their command, this seems an oddly cultural and less than ideal name, to me.

Consider that the Centurion's secondary is a hybrid melee/control set. Holds, stuns, mez paired with melee strikes.

Oh that's right, I got my name origin's all muddled. The Centurion used to be called the Gladiator.

Doctor Tyche wrote:

a hybrid melee/control set. Holds, stuns, mez paired with melee strikes.

Still think that Skirmisher makes for a better subclass name.

Redlynne wrote:

Doctor Tyche wrote:

a hybrid melee/control set. Holds, stuns, mez paired with melee strikes.

Still think that Skirmisher makes for a better subclass name.

I agree, 'Skirmisher' is a good name for this sort of mixed attack power, but not so much for a high-Defense archetype. I'd put that in as a 'Scrapper' or 'Blaster' type, rather than 'Tanker'.

Radiac wrote:

Possible replacement names for "Centurion", off the top of my head, based on it being as Doc described above:

Champion

'Champion' isn't bad, either.

Be Well!
Fireheart

In the early days of The Hero Academy, there were several tactical methods taught to up-and-coming heroes. Some of the most famous heroes in the world instructed at The Hero Academy and several generations of heroes, even some active today, once walked through its halls.
It all came tumbling down when it was revealed that the Hero Academy was actually a front for an organization planning world domination, recruiting students it could indoctrinate and gathering pertinent data on potential adversaries. Many a noble hero's reputation was sullied by association with the place.

But despite the bad reputation in the end, while it was active it did help shape the way we understand heroes.

Take [i]skirmishers[/i] for example. In drills and lessons, examples from military history were often tested at The Hero Academy. Before the invention of radio communications and mechanized infantry, armies would send out screens of skirmishers to disrupt and delay opposing armies, giving their main forces the opportunity to form up and prepare for battle. Likewise, at The Hero Academy, it was found that titans who could engage opponents at a distance and who could delay and disrupt them could allow their teammates to fight more manageable combats. When two forces armed with skirmishers were set against each other, it was the duty of skirmishers to take out any opposing skirmishers in an attempt to get control superiority.

Thus anyone knowledgeable of The Hero Academy's lessons would refer to ranged harassers as [i]skirmishers[/i].

(I believe [i]skirmisher[/i] in this context would be most appropriate for what is in the charts above as [i]Executor[/i] (control/ranged offense))

[Edit: Why have The Hero Academy be something from the past? Perhaps we could incorporate this into the Lore today, make it part of character creation and/or the first couple levels (if characters want to choose the academy option, that is) and then later make some investigative missions uncovering it as a front for something like the Vril or Scorpion. Even uncovering some NPC characters we thought we trusted from our early levels to actually be enemy bosses.
And I could even see some heroes turning into villains to pay off their student loans from the place, thereby injecting some contemporary issues that our players could identify with and play out]

Regardless of the existence of a Hero Academy, as long as there are either supers in the military or supers that the military expects to deal with, terms (like skirmisher) that indicate the military role the super would be best at filling will be used by the military. Maybe only "in house", but they would tend to summarize the aspects of a super's powers that the military are most interested in.

With all due respect, the word "Tank" has a distinctly military origin and meaning too, particularly the way it gets used in a superheroic context ... and yet people don't have any problem with thinking of melee ranged aggro magnets while wondering about why they're missing long range artillery powers.

You know ... THIS ...

[img]http://image.trucktrend.com/f/16249135+re0+ar0+st0/0902dp_01_z%2Bm1_abrams_tank%2Bright_front_angle.jpg[/img]

... versus THIS ...

[img]http://img07.deviantart.net/2646/i/2012/177/6/1/city_of_heroes_key_art_2_by_pixel_saurus-d550gtu.jpg[/img]

There are a fair number of common terms for roles that generically appear in MMO games. Terms like "Tank", "DPS" and "Heals" are a part of our triumvirate / holy trinity or whatever you want to call it. The combination of primary and secondary power sets for CoT look like they have the potential to expand upon the typical three.

Does MWM want to just toss all of the above and just function within the world lore to set the standards ([I]make it all lore based[/I])? Or do they want to define/categorize new roles that augment and expand the common archetypes ([I]make the names functional without being weighted towards hero/villain or overtly suggestive[/I])?

I do not believe mixing and matching is going to work. Commit to one approach or the other, don't half-ass it. They either have the lore to backup all of their current choices or they aren't committed to their current approach. We don't know.

And here I thought you were advocating for using "Heavy" instead of using "Stalwart" since that's the natural direction I'd associate that term with.

I could see a Tank being called a 'Heavy' and then a 'Stalwart' might be a sub-class of 'Heavy'.

Be Well!
Fireheart

KnightMask wrote:

What about the term Regulators for the Control Class name? Its a name that just sounds right... at least to me. This along with moving Commander to the Pet Class could be good choices. As far as sub class names, instead of Centurion what about Battler? Then all 3 of the Stalwart subs begin with a B making them easier to remember.

Sorry

[img]https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/62249240/young-guns-regulators-mount-up.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.picslyrics.net/images/244184-warren-g-regulators-mount-up.jpg[/img]

That first picture is what "Regulator" brings to mind for me, as well, and yes, they could be said to be good at control. I don't recognize the source of the second. Was it a good movie?

Everyone else is doing it, therefore I must also do it.

Controller/Dominator = Manipulator (manipulating internal/external forces and/or entities)
Scrapper/Stalker = Striker (to physically hit in the open or from the shadows)
Tank/Brute = Bulwark (the fortification upon which the enemy falters and loses momentum)
Blaster/Corruptor = Ranger (mostly ranged but upon occasion fight in melee [e.g. blapper])
Controller/Mastermind = Overlord (summon and/or control minions and underlings through various means)

My .02.

Hmmm, this does not seem to be a Kickstarter update.

With the latest update I'm curious do we know the Archetype/Class of any of the Paragons as of yet? Or there possible powersets? Inquiring minds need to know!

I think we may be worrying too much on the names for the archetypes/subtypes. Let's assume a player has no foreknowledge of CoT's class system. As they go through character creation they will have the in game descriptions of arch and subtypes to help guide them. And of that is not enough the actual selection of powers is going to make it pretty clear what they are getting into.

Cinnder wrote:

syntaxerror37 wrote:

I think we may be worrying too much on the names for the archetypes/subtypes. Let's assume a player has no foreknowledge of CoT's class system. As they go through character creation they will have the in game descriptions of arch and subtypes to help guide them. And of that is not enough the actual selection of powers is going to make it pretty clear what they are getting into.

I agree. I think it won't take long for players to learn whatever names MWM settles on.

Both of these posts are exactly why we want to get it right the first time, in my opinion; and why I would like the names with the best lore behind them, not just some vanilla descriptive term.

Xnarl wrote:

And a very firm "No." to "lore-based" names. For one, they would be confusing to anyone who is not already versed in the lore of City of Titans. Secondly, binding the specifications to specific characters would be the very opposite of making their flavour more flexible and character-concept-agnostic.

Do you know what an internet troll is?

Where did the term [i]troll[/i] come from? It is certainly a lore-based term that had to have been generated by one community in one location at one time. Yet here we all are using the term [i]troll[/i] to refer to people who intentionally bait people into confrontational and disruptive discussions online. Is it referring to the fisherman's act of putting out a lure and cruising to see what bites, or is it referring to the creatures that wait under a bridge for unwary passersby? In either case, it is certainly a colorful and evocative term and not a vanilla descriptor like [i]forum disruptor[/i]. Or would you rather we use that term instead of [i]troll[/i]? Are you saying that the term [i]troll[/i] is too confusing for people who haven't been on the internet? Perhaps it is, but how long do you think it takes an internet newbie to figure out what a [i]troll[/i] is?

As I stated before, I prefer game worlds that would come up with a term like [i]troll[/i] and [i]newb[/i] instead of [i]forum disruptor[/i] or [i]inexperienced player[/i]. Those are the game worlds that engage and immerse.

I'll leave with the following quote related to the origins of the term rookie:
"The rapid growth of a word from a single seed transplanted in a congenial soil is one of the curiosities of literature. Take a single instance. [u]A few weeks ago[/u] there was not one American soldier in a thousand who knew there was such a word as "rookey." To-day there are few soldiers and ex-soldiers who have not substituted it for "raw recruit." ["The Midland Monthly," December 1898] emphasis added by me.

SisterSilicon wrote:

I'm all for giving the class names their due diligence to make sure each role is clear at a glance. Word origins can factor into it, but evoking an image of the hero in the player's mind should come first.
"Lore-based", on the other hand, can't excuse or compensate for a poorly-chosen name. If I have to read a lore dump on the website to figure out why the ranged DPS class has been named Prootwaddler, I'm going to wonder if this game learned any lessons from Destiny's Grimoire implementation. (I'm also going to hold them to a strict two-drink limit.) I said something similar in the debate over the Cape Chasers discussions in the Kickstarter lore posts: Stuff like this can add depth, tone, and flavor, but it can't be a substitute for getting the fundamentals right.

I can't agree more. I've come up with some lengthy lore-based backgrounds so far in this forum, but in the end, despite the narrative, the names can still make sense standing on their own. Take [i]Tender[/i] for example. It's not too big of a stretch to guess that a [i]Tender[/i] is one of the pet master classes. And in that same post, I proposed naming all pet master pets [i]daemons[/i] as a rule, so we can stop calling ninjas and zippermen and constructs all pets. Don't you see? That's what makes good lore good. The fact that the name can stand on its own, even if it comes out of left field. That's why we should never see a name like Prootwaddler if the loremaster of the game is any good. (full disclosure: I admit guilt that my term [i]Domino[/i] was a bit random for a control/support class; but I couldn't resist that backstory for it, that started as a boardgame in my head with the character moving the pieces around like a controller would and ending up with chinese dominos. I never know where my head is going to take me until I get there)

In CoH we had Corruptor and Dominator, two names that are very evocative of a controlling type player without being 'morally neutral' or vanilla descriptive. So in CoT, why couldn't we have a class called the [i]Hex, Hexslinger[/i] or [i]Hexcaster[/i]? Make it a controller who tends towards the offensive side of things [looking at you, Executor], and voila', you have my blessings to create a really cool backstory for why it is called a [i]Hex[/i]. But anyone else would know, just like [i]Corruptor[/i] and [i]Dominator[/i] what its core concept is all about even without reading the backstory.

@sistersilicon, I know it looks like I'm arguing with you, but I'm not. Not any more than you were arguing with me. I'm just bouncing off your post to stress the point you made that the names can't be so far out that we have no idea what they mean. I just want them to be evocative of more than just a page out of the dictionary. And when we learn the lore behind them, I want a good chuckle, a short silence of respect, or a gape in awe at where the names came from. The game that can pull that off is the game I want to play.

[edit: regarding the [i]Hex[/i] I mentioned above. If the Control/Ranged Offense class were named a Hex, I can see someone making one with an electricity theme and calling her Hexstatic. get it: ecstatic, hexstatic. get it, get it? Oh I kill myself <===sarcasm in case people don't recognize it]

In the spirit of flinging things at the forum wall...

Controller/Dominator - [b]Inveigler[/b]. He/she who leads someone into a situation by cleverness or trickery. The word is unlikely to trigger a preconception, but it is also likely to be alien to many. Some words never get as much love as they deserve. At the very least there's a super name in the wings...

[b]Regulator[/b] is a great synonym for Controller. Like a [b]Valve[/b]. But I like to think Controllers can exacerbate things as much as they tie them down. More of a [b]Manipulator[/b]. A [b]Bivalve[/b] then? No forget I said that. I'd suggest [b]Conductor[/b] except it can be specific to electricity. One step removed is the [b]Composer[/b]. [b]Mezzer[/b] is not yet English but says what is in the can, although it derives from 'mesmerize', a specific power again. Crowd controllers include [b]Messiahs[/b] - someone's going to cry foul. Or there's a personal favorite... [b]Drover[/b]. [b]Rustler[/b] to some. But while I can imagine a drover driving a crowd I image a rustler 'rounding up' - more like taunt. Drover seems mechanical while Inveigler seems much more cunning... I don't know. Still okay with [b]Operator[/b] too.

Awesome, you picked my first suggestion! Tho really just my first verb.

Flinger is awesome. Spears, javelins, mud... I have resisted linking to a monkey on Youtube. It does have quite a vibe. I'm not actually against it at all as a sub for Ranger.

Dark Ether wrote:

Tossing out some name possibilities. Some are most likely already there, but just making a 'stream of consciousness' list :
Justicar
Sentinel
Outsider
Vigilant
Guardian
Legend
Shadowmaster
Crusader
Challenger
Champion
Defender
Knight
Marauder
Agent
Commando
Ranger
Investigator
Ronin
Samurai
Striker
Harbinger
Incarnate
Tactician
Strategist
Slayer
Caretaker
Caregiver
Misfit
Trooper
Phalanx
Spearhead
Wrangler
Liberator
Warrior
Trailblazer
Deadeye
Bloodhound
Hussar
Dragoon
Protector
Keeper
Sentry
Bouncer
Conservator
Scout
Citadel
Bulwark
Curator
Overseer
Steward
Ward
Warden
Bastion
Defalcator
Prowler
Scrounger

The devs in an earlier post said they would make more combinations possible in the future that's why i say we only need 8 good names.
one for each primary. This is making possible more combinations then we really can remember names for.

I'm going to say a few things here:

1. My brain associates green with masterminds and purple with controllers/dominators, and the rank insignia motif certainly has the connotation of being in command of at least a few subordinates, so I suggest not only switching the archetype names but the icons as well.

2. While Ranger is a simple concept and can carry the idea of a ranged character, it is simply too generic as it has been used with many different meanings. Rangers in D&D frequently preferred melee due to class bonuses related to fighting with two weapons at a time, so there's plenty of room for disambiguation. I suggest Artillery or Bombard, as that specifically evokes the idea of a character whose primary focus is on dealing damage at range. Trebuchet, catapault, ballista, canons, mortar...something capable of striking at the enemy at range.

3. The archetype quote for the mastermind-style class is underwhelming. Suggested replacement: "I brought my army. Where's yours?"

I don't mind Bombard. Odd enough to avoid linking to a specific personality or power (as "Bomber" might). Bender is quirky. Not sure if too many ATs starting with "B", but that's maybe petty. Great suggestions.

I even like the pack AT title but Prootwaddler will take a lot of effort to type on the forums.

So many names, so many options, but you know that whatever it is called, if someone makes a character that is basically a meat shield, they'll be called a tank. Tank, blaster, controller....those seem to be fairly iconic names/descriptors of what they do, whereas many other names (including virtually all I've posted here) may not really describe what the character archetype does.

I could see some like Striker, Brick, Bastion/Citadel, Sentinel, Guardian, and so on might be used as they bring a certain archetype/build to mind, which is what I think should be the goal as much as possible. A lot of people could decide that Snuggler is a great name, but people may end up calling them Swordmaster anyway if it suits.