Personally, I don't mind the title.

Shooter...

When I hear "ranger" I think of the Elven Rangers from Warcraft 2. Many other games (electronic or otherwise) associate ranger with, well, range so it seems to fit pretty well.

Eh, if you look up the word "ranger" on Wikipedia you already get well over 100 entries. Sure it's an overused word at this point but I figure I'd eventually be able to get used to its new use in this new game.

How about Rangeder?

I like Gunner, but that would kinda limit the overall view of the perceived powers to guns, as caster does the same for magic. I think Longshot would be a pretty good name for ranged weapons

Ya, don't want any lawsuits =/ Hahaha I would love to make a mutation pew-pew!!

Xnarl wrote:

"Engineer" for Pets/Support

Try "Herder" instead, and don't get upset when the Aggro Magnets complain at you for stealing their shtick.

Winter wrote:

Instead of Ranger, what about:

Hunter

Personally never worried about the name of the ATs. It's not like my heroes in CoH called themselves Scrappers, Brutes, Tankers. That was merely a game mechanic name. It's not like Spider-Man went around saying "I'm a Scrapper lft" Or for those who don't think of Spidey as a Scrapper (he totally is), replace Spider-Man with Wolverine :p

Rooster Gold wrote:

Or just call it what it really is "Glass Cannon"

Let's hope that isn't the case, or it's failure already. :/

Marks[b]man[/b]?

Too sexist!

Vote Pew-Pew!

Artillery. :)

Redlynne wrote:

Kiyori Anoyui wrote:
And I was thinking, if people don't like Ranger, what about Ranged, Deadeye, Sharpshooter, Triggerman, Rifleman?

Am I the only one who recognizes that most of these terms pertain to Gunnery and Firearms, as opposed to being more "generic" in the way that "Blaster" was?
"So you're an Archer?"
"No, I'm a Rifleman.
"But you don't have a gun.
"Correct."
"And you use a bow?"
"Yes."
"But you're not an archer?"
"Nope, I'm a rifleman."
See what I'm getting at?

While I don't care for either of those names myself. The name of the AT should all be OOC anyways. Not something one would use IC.

I don't want to hear an NPC call me a "Blaster/Scrapper/Tanker" Like in CoH, maybe my Fire Armor/ Tanker wasn't really a tanker, but more like a scrapper but Fire Armor wasn't an option.

Name's of the ATs should never be uttered outside of the choose classification screen.

ZM, then I would just want to make a punny alt named "Lobb-ster" who uses pincers as cannons :P

Launcher? "I Shoot Things"? :P

Chucker.
[br]
Tosser.

[img]http://v.cdn.cad-comic.com/comics/sillies-20100715-06a5e.gif[/img]

I like "Pew Pew"

JayBezz wrote:

*prays to dev gods for a nameless system*
If anything, let the government have their own terminology for supers and abilities.. its a fun part of lore. "They call us capes" "Yeah well I heard she's a boot (MDPS)" "Looks like we have a shooter (RDPS)" "Oh No, it's a Sap! (controller)"
No matter what you call them people will still call themselves Tanks and Healers LOL. Ranger? Meh.. but I would find it hilarious if the in-game NPCs had just as much fun naming us as we are...

I just hope not to hear an NPC call us by our ATs. I hated when my Scrapper was called a scrapper. She was a crime fighter. Giving ATs names and then linking them to it...terrible and was an immersion breaker.

Was just as bad as an NPC telling me "You're level 15" We don't see Spider-Man being told what level he is.

Also just as bad as players (ICly btw...OOC no problem) saying "Level 50 +3 Scrapper looking for team"

I want to feel like I'm in a comic book, as close as a game can get to it. That means some things need to be left as OOC game mechanics (like wardrobe...no tailors...and no need for an IC auction house).

Brand X wrote:

I like "Pew Pew"

Me too!

I may already have mentioned this once or twice.

Pew-Pew!

Winter wrote:

On the subject of named ATs and how that affects the game: The devs have already established that the "name" of our "archetype" is largely going to hinge on our secondary powers (specifications). No one is going to be advertising themselves as, nor searching for, a "Ranger Hunter." We will just be saying, "level 20 Hunter, lft" or "Any Partisans out there looking for a team?" (Guardians will simply be referred to as Sentinels, Vindicators, or Wardens, and so on.)
As long as that continues to be the case, the names of the Classifications could be done away with entirely, leaving just Primary Power Categories (Ranged Damage, Melee Damage, Support, Control, Defense, and Pets) similar to the iteration of the Character Creator that was live when CoX was shut down. Not as fancy, but certainly cleaner and more user-friendly, especially toward new/inexperienced players.

I'd actually prefer them to name the ATs something so simple, but the general audience may not.

JayBezz wrote:

You have a "acid looking burn melee attack" that doesn't mean I want it to be called "Acid Punch".. especially when the attack could be animated as a kick.
I hope when we gain abilities and techniques they just montage us learning a new power and let the powers chart define them by animation and damage type.
No Capes! .. Wait.. I mean No Names!

Or let us assign names to them for that character. :) Probably too pointless a cosmetic feature to be worth the storage and dev time, but it would be amusing to folks.

If 'tossers' is too double entendre, then how about Throwjobs?*

[i]*(There's the line, don't cross it. ;) )[/i]

Ah, my point is you can go as far as that line. Just don't go over it. IOW, make your double entendre non-obvious so that a pre-teen is likely *not* to get it. wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

We can go with a part of ZM's earlier suggestion and add "'teers" to anything that's ranged.

Musketeers.
Rifleteers.
Missileteers.
Flying Monkey Punchteers.

[size=4]Pew-Pew 4 Life[/size]

Launcheteers!

Ballisteers! Trajecteers! Disgonnaendinteers!

Sir, I believe you mean ranged attacketeer.

Winter wrote:

On the subject of named ATs and how that affects the game: The devs have already established that the "name" of our "archetype" is largely going to hinge on our secondary powers (specifications). No one is going to be advertising themselves as, nor searching for, a "Ranger Hunter." We will just be saying, "level 20 Hunter, lft" or "Any Partisans out there looking for a team?" (Guardians will simply be referred to as Sentinels, Vindicators, or Wardens, and so on.)

I hope this is not the case. We should be defined by our primary sets. Not by our secondaries. I don't want to ever see a situation where someone goes "GLF hunter, partisans not welcome!"

Currently I can't even remember which subclass goes where. How many we have in total anyway? 18?

Northie wrote:

I hope this is not the case. We should be defined by our primary sets. Not by our secondaries. I don't want to ever see a situation where someone goes "GLF hunter, partisans not welcome!"
Currently I can't even remember which subclass goes where. How many we have in total anyway? 18?

That's just it: we have three different "archetypes" defined under the primary power set of "ranged offense" (the Ranged/Support Partisan, the Ranged/Armor Gunner, and the Ranged/Manipulation Hunter). There is no way to simply define our characters by primaries. It would be like trying to group "Blaster" and "Corruptor" under the same archetypical name: while they could both lay down ranged damage, and therefore both be categorized under "Ranged Damage," they did not play the same as each other and thus deserved their own titles. The new archetypes will be no different (it's impossible for a Ranged/Support character to play the same as a Ranged/Armor character). My suggestion is that rather try and put an archetype-like name (Ranger) on what is effectively just a category of primary powers (Ranged Damage), we should just call the group of archetypes "Ranged Damage." Then your character's archetype name becomes simply Hunter, Gunner, or Partisan, rather than having the word "Ranger" shoe-horned in somewhere.

While I appreciate your desire to avoid archetypical preference/discrimination, and agree with it, the likelihood of the devs creating a system completely devoid of it is highly improbable. There will be players who will "craft" their teams. The best the devs can do is design a game that, given the right difficulty settings and whatnot, can be traversed by a team full of one archetype or a team balanced across all archetypes. If someone has a team lacking in the "buff/debuff" department, they might prefer a Partisan over a Hunter or Gunner. There is certainly a better way to do it than "Hunters/Gunners not welcome!" but there is nothing wrong with trying to build a balanced team. Personally, I just hope there are slight variations in the numbers to keep it all fair. (i.e. similar to how the average Corruptor, while buffing the team and debuffing the enemy, could not quite put out the damage numbers that the average Blaster could)

Kiyori Anoyui wrote:

And I was thinking, if people don't like Ranger, what about Ranged, Deadeye, Sharpshooter, Triggerman, Rifleman?

Having the title be Ranged would make life really easy since you get the emphasis on ranged melee without it feeling too fairy tale with the "er" behind it.

What about simply "shooter"?

Any thing a ranger does will involve "shooting" something, whether it is with a gun, a mental blast, or a fireball.

If "shooter" is too specific, and precludes someone throwing hand-held weapons (knives, axes, grenades) there is also "launcher", which is about as generic as I can imagine.

On the off-topic note of the name of Commander, the controller analog, I have the same feelings: I feel it makes it sound way more like a MM than a controller.

I suggest [b] Inhibitor[/b] and [b] Equalizer [/b]

Thanks, and that makes a lot more sense, the first poster spelled it that way and I guess I still managed to have missed a couple. The post has been edited.

Darth Fez wrote:

desviper wrote:
-Each member of Group D has it's own issue: Attacketeer is cacophonous; Deadeye is okay, but has some Group A issues; Pew Pew...silly*; Ranged and Rangeder are uncreative, and are lame compared to other classes; and Zapper sounds specific to electricity.
*Maybe It wasn't serious, idk :p

Pew Pew is serious! This is serious business!
SRS BSNS! >:(
Although now I'm considering reserving Deadeye Pew Pew as a character name.

The rangedest rangedist of them all.

I figure it has been over six months since I wrote the following, and it is still relevant, so it is okay to quote myself :P

Winter wrote:

On the subject of named ATs and how that affects the game: The devs have already established that the "name" of our "archetype" is largely going to hinge on our secondary powers (specifications). No one is going to be advertising themselves as, nor searching for, a "Ranger Hunter." We will just be saying, "level 20 Hunter, lft" or "Any Partisans out there looking for a team?" (Guardians will simply be referred to as Sentinels, Vindicators, or Wardens, and so on.)
As long as that continues to be the case, the names of the Classifications could be done away with entirely, leaving just Primary Power Categories (Ranged Damage, Melee Damage, Support, Control, Defense, and Pets) similar to the iteration of the Character Creator that was live when CoX was shut down. Not as fancy, but certainly cleaner and more user-friendly, especially toward new/inexperienced players.

"Caster" is not a generic blaster-type name. It's very specific to those with magic-based powers. It's an even more loaded name than "Ranger".

"Hunter" is practically synonymous with "Ranger" thanks to World of Warcraft.

"Lobber", "Chucker", and "Tosser" are all specific to people who throw weapons and don't fit with any blaster or shooter type, so shouldn't be considered generic either.

"Striker" has nothing about it that even implies ranged combat, and sounds more like a melee fighter type name.

Really, the only generic blaster-type name that seems legitimate is "Emitter" which is a synonym for "Projector". I was going to suggest it, but I thought it would be rejected since it sounds a bit awkward. I would support it as a replacement for "Ranger", however. It's probably my favorite option up there, honestly, it's pretty generic.

By the way, "Launcher" was my suggestion as a generic name because you can "launch" a fireball, or ray of cold, or anything else. It doesn't have to be related to military weaponry, though the name probably first brings to mind "rocket launcher" or "grenade launcher". The term literally means "something that sets something else in motion".

Sooo.. defenders would have been considered Blasters too right?

I think everyone is Stuck on the RANGED aspect... and not so much on the DMG aspect, because Huge DMG would set this Classification apart from the rest, right!?!?

Why not come up with a few generic names that could define what it is to be a Huge DMG'ing classification? :)

ex:
- Annihilator
- Decimator
- Devastator, or the DesViper ;)
- etc...

What about Masterblaster? :)

desviper wrote:

Don't all non-defenders and non-controllers also be considered Decimators, Annihilators, Obliterators, and Eviscerators (not a bad name for enforcers btw)?
I hope ranged damage isn't fundamentally higher than melee damage.

Of course not. Range is defense!

*ducks the tomatoes lobbed in his direction*

desviper wrote:

Any qualms with "Lancer, Burster, [and] Ballista"?

Lancer has almost nothing to do with ranged combat.

[img]http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/garfiled_6210.png[/img] :D

If they are just add 'inator' to the end:
Tankinator
Blasterinator (Blastinator)
Controllerinator (Controlinator
Defenderinator (Defendinator)
Scrapperinator (Scrapinator)
Mastermindinator (Petinator)
Corruptorinator (Corruptinator)
Brutinator (Smashinator)

:)