Should Archetype names be side-specific?

Ever since I6, Archetypes were divided into the red and blue ones. There was never a need for another way to check a character's alignment. A Blaster was a hero, a Stalker was a villain. You logged on, you glanced at your friends list, you knew who was playing on which side. The arrival of GR upset this, with side-switching and characters created in Praetoria being allowed to pick sides freely. Still, there was a certain amount of inertia -a redside archetype was much more likely to be a redside character.

I21 promises to change that, doing away completely with the sides taken by non-epic archetypes. I think it's a good point to ask ourselves, would it be best if the archetypes were allowed to change names, depending on whether they're heroes or villains?

Personally, I think that yes, they should, but only if the devs (...and us, really) can come up with some names that eclipse the archetypes really well - and not the in-game archetypes, either. The comic book character archetypes is what I'm referring to here, the ones that the original devs in one of their blogs talked about when explaining their choices.

Another good question to rise is, what about those characters who start in Praetoria? A third set of name, one that is only used for 20 levels, and only adds to the confusion? Somehow I doubt it. I for one would vouch that they use the heroic names, since they are members of the Powers Division, so at least in theory, at least as a cover story, the good guys. But then, having Loyalists use Hero names and Resistance use Villain ones would be just delectably ironic.

But let me start this discussion off with a few choice suggestions.

Destroyer, Destructor and Devastator show a clear villainous meaning and a simplicity of purpose - untamed damage. A fitting name for a villainous Blaster.

Bruiser shows a certain amount of brutality but also puts some emphasis on offense. Good for a villainous Scrapper or a heroic Brute, with the latter having the added bonus of the added alliterative appeal.

Nictus is really a no-brainer name for a villainside Warshade. Their Peacebringer counterparts are tricker however. Perhaps something to the tune of Fallen Peacebringer, which while not too handy, is to the point.

Commander, Leader, Officer and similar all work well to describe the commanding type of Nick Fury type that a heroic Mastermind would be.

Juggernaut, while a very good descriptor of a villainside Tanker, is in fact too good, infringing on, well. You know who.

I'm sure others can be found, but, well. Nothing of sufficient quality comes to me now. Thoughts, people?

Bruiser

Sorry to say that I think it is simply easier to just stay with what we have.

The game being so old now and you want to muddy the waters with different names would just add confusion to returning players and current players.

Heh. This opens a whole can of worms. What then happens to inherents? Does a heroic corruptor still scourge? Is a villainous defender still 'vigilant?'
Does the text have to change on all archetype/inherent power descriptions?

*shrugs*

I find most names to be generic enough that it doesn't bother me. There's nothing evil about being a 'brute.' Stalker maybe a little, but dominator certainly not. They dominate, in a good or bad way. Defenders seem the least generic, coming off as protective nice guys, but even they can be explained as helping for purely selfish reasons, if you need.

I just think it would be easier to add an alignment display to the target display, friends list, etc. Whether it's text or just the appropriate icon.

In a game where I still see people asking "what side is that on?" when people are forming TFs, SFs, Trials, I think adding 10 new archetype names simply for the minor difference in tone they evoke would be needlessly confusing.

People just shorten names down to 1-2 syllables or an abbreviation most of the time anyway.

First, I'll just say that I agree that it will be very weird to create a "heroic" Corruptor or Stalker from level 1.

That said, I think trying to change the names retroactively will do more harm than good, especially if we are making new names depending on which side your on (red, blue, or yellow). Nowadays, if you tell someone "I'm a Corruptor" they know what type of character they are getting in terms of powers. Trying to learn 2 new names for a Corruptor style toon with the same types of powers would just be confusing as hell.

Corruptors were originally called destroyers.

Besides the name change being unnecessary, I have one major problem with this idea.

Any names you can come up with would be better suited to whole new AT's.

For example Destroyer or Devastator could easily be applied to the oft requested Buff-Debuff/Assault AT.

Bruiser would be appropriate for that Assault/Armor AT.

So why rename the ATs we have, when any names will be perfectly suitable for net ATs?

I disagree with this. Vehemently. The original hero names are not "heroic." They are descriptive. A Blaster blasts, a Tanker is tough to kill, a Scrapper fights with things, you know how it goes. These didn't need "villainous" counterparts that sounded evil. Same for "Influence." The word "influence" is not good or evil, it's descriptive, it just means you have influence over a person, an organisation or an authority. Whether you have influence over them because they eternally grateful to you or whether you have influence over them because they know you'll kill them to the last if they don't kowtow to your every will is irrelevant. It's still influence. Adding "Infamy" was completely pointless, because it's an "evil" counterpart to a neutral term.

And then there's the term "villain group." Villain groups never exited, and they never will. The term is and always has been Super Group. That's why there is a Super Group register in Port Oaks and why villains have a Super Group base portal and Super Group bases and Super Group ranks. There's no such thing as a "villain group" in this game, at least nothing system-defined. And the term "super group" isn't heroic to need a counterpart to begin with. There are as many SUPER heroes as there are SUPER villains in fiction, after all.

I'm very much against playing with the names of in-game systems without a VERY good reason. After all, I can make an argument that the "Quit" button on the team interface is demeaning to my characters because they're not quitters and would never quit. They would "leave" or "withdraw" or "attack in the opposite direction" or what have you. Should we rename the Quit Team button to "Solitude," then? Should we call perhaps call our Accuracy enhancements "Benedict Tech Adv. Targeting Eye," instead, then, perhaps? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Names of systems, classes, powers, options and other items important for gameplay should be static, self-evident and concise, because it's more important that we be able to use them than that they have interesting names. We can always expand on generic names for game subsystems by explaining what they mean for our specific character, but what matters first and foremost is that we know what they are and know what they do without having to have a glossary on hand. The existing AT names already carry a great deal of information with them that new names won't, after all.

And, finally, do you honestly think that calling an evil Scrapper, say, a Killer will stop people from calling it a "Villain Scrapper" anyway? I mean, I still have the odd slip of mind and occasionally call Bastion by his old name. A Scrapper by any other name would hit just as hard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

<qr to title>

No.

See my Guides and Tutorials

Having a way to check someones alignment would be good - perhaps toss it in the ID window.

Using new names to distinguish alignment is a HORRIBLE idea. We already have 14 AT names. We don't need 14 more for something that can be done in a manner that is:
a) Simpler.
b) Easier for new players to learn/comprehend.

I don't get the purpose of this thread. Why do you need to know someone else's alignment?

I think a thread from two weeks ago is only Mostly Dead rather than All Dead.

On the topic, I'd say that changing archetype names to reflect alignment is muddying the waters for no particularly useful purpose. In a co-op zone you don't care and in an aligned zone you know they're the same alignment as you by virtue of their presence. Never mind the confusion when someone decides to change alignment.

"Pancake it! I'm a pancaking Brute, not a pancaking Gladiator! I was born a pancaking Brute and I'll always be a pancaking Brute!"