Guild Wars 2

So yeah, here it is my question. (Yeah I know it’s been presented already but mine is just a question to see what the other players think about it in a lore perspective)

Do you like the name Scrapper for the Eng elite specialization?
I personally was so happy to hear speculations about it to be the Forge, Scrapper seems like a joke to me.
Talking about the lore, Scrapper is a term used for a rank of charr, so why using the same term for something else? Is the Scrapper E.S. somewhat connected to the charr ranking? What if my Eng is not a charr?
And what if he is! The Gw2 Wiki reports this in the Charr lore “Scrapper is the catch-all term for a warband on punishment duty, no matter what their official rank.” (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Legions_of_the_Charr)
Does that means that Eng that take on the Scrapper E.S. will be labelled as on punishment duty by the charr?
Will we be introduced in any way to the E.S. with the story then?
Also I see all the other names : Reaper, Chronomancer, Tempest, Berserker(that’s a little confusing too but sounds good XD), Daredevil, Dragonhunter, Herald….Scrapper for me doesn’t fit in at all..

I just checked the Gw2 Hot site and the Eng E.s is still on (Coming Soon!) so maybe there’s still hope?

Please leave comments like “who cares about the name, what’s important is the gameplay” aside, we know it already and this is not a post about it.

short and sweet: No i detest it

also OP.. just play the loyal soldier PS as a charr and you get to them eventually…and thats also why i do detest it myself. Degraded from a centurio to a scrapper.. thanks a bunch a-net

It makes sense lorewise with all the debris lying around, and I don’t see how the name would not ‘fit’ with the others. That said, I am not a native English speaker, so perhaps there is some negative connotation to the name that I’m not feeling.

Yup, I’m good with the double meaning they’re playing on.

Yes I do like it and a lot more than Forge (which wa stupid imo).

Both definitions of scrapper fit Elite Spec theme perfectly.

Actually prefer it to every other name because it’s not so lol-high-fantasy-like like reaper for example.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scrapper

Reaper and Druid are also lore terms as well:

those trees with faces around wychmire swamp? Druids.

Reapers are specifically stated to be grenth’s seven assistants, you even MEET one of them.

if you complain that the Scrapper is already a lore term, you also have to accept that those need changing too

I love it its far better then Forge imo.

Yes, I like it, it fits. The name Forge was obviously a placeholder term, it would be weird if they were called that. It’s not a name that can be attributed to a person.

While a scrapper might be a term in charr society, it’s also a perfectly correct term for a tough close combat fighter. You can’t remove a word just because it has a slang meaning somewhere else. Mind that in lore terms, class names as they are in game do not always exist. It’s just an in game term to allow us to make our characters fit to various archetypes. Classes aren’t always rigid in lore.

I think a good example to explain this discrepancy is: throughout RPG’s there’s an archetype called Thief, or Rogue. Does that mean that such a character would necessarily be called that? Of course not, in most case that would be an insult. They would instead be called assassins, swashbucklers, scouts, brigands and such.

Just like for example a Guardian wouldn’t go ‘oh I’m a Dragonhunter now’ (unless that proves to be a group or faction of course). And neither would it be likely that a Berserker references to himself as one.

I do. I hope i can hop on my engi and scrap every opponent in pvp. Hammer time baby.

Taken from the reveal article of a french site this is the explanation

“At First, Scrapper was a Charr insult used against defying, insubordinate, or low cast members. The misfit fighters or the trouble maker were forced to collect scrap and work in scrapyard instead of fighting in the battlefront. But with time, those mechanic turned their punishment into a symbol of honor, turning rusted scrap and broken mechanism into machine and weapons, Inspiring oppressed members of other races to join them and to do the same. Scrappers are the masters of mechanical improvisation. Who care of how a machine look, or what other thinks of you when the work is done? The philosophy of this specialization is to bring to this game a brawler tenacious in close combat and able to weaken his foes.”

Source:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/3l6kw0/and_the_french_translation_of_scrapper_is/

Actually i prefet it way more than forge..at least it’s not the name of a thing, but a profession ;-) It seems to fit better, too

I don’t hate the new name. Actually I prefer it to Forge. It make more sense to the specialisation. Scrapper make more sense because he’s basically creating drone from scrap. It is also the name of a profession, not the name of an object.

I never heard of the meaning Scrapper for a char before and frankly couldn’t give more of a kitten.

That said, the French version of the name is way cooler than the English name (for once). I would have love Mechamancer or Mechatronician or something around that.

Scrapper, in this case, has a wonderful double-meaning, both of which fit the specialization.

I’d say it’s a perfect name choice.

I love the name, the concept, the drones, how the hammer is huge when wielded by an asura, etc! Everything! Deliver it, ANet.

Its Ok. Forge was ok too, but scrapper sounds more “MadMax” style, so I’m happy.

I wasn’t in any beta, so I’m asking myself: Is there any visual indication ingame that you are a scrapper or a daredevil, like does your icon change?
Or is it just the name of the spec in the traits, in which case I don’t get all the fuzz around the names of the elite specs.
I just see those like gameplay variations of my thief, engineer or whatever and I couldn’t care less about their name (lorewise or rp wise).

My main thief is specced Duel/acrobatics but for me he’s just a Swashbuckler

Back to topic: Scrapper sounds good. I’m waiting to see what the french translation will be. What we got till now was rather funny ^^

I love it.

When we get the “Forge” elite spec at a later date (with the mace), it needs to be based around fire and steam.

Scrapper just fits what we are getting now (which I am very excited about) much better.

Phineas Drayke.6381:

I wasn’t in any beta, so I’m asking myself: Is there any visual indication ingame that you are a scrapper or a daredevil, like does your icon change?
Or is it just the name of the spec in the traits, in which case I don’t get all the fuzz around the names of the elite specs.
I just see those like gameplay variations of my thief, engineer or whatever and I couldn’t care less about their name (lorewise or rp wise).

My main thief is specced Duel/acrobatics but for me he’s just a Swashbuckler

Back to topic: Scrapper sounds good. I’m waiting to see what the french translation will be. What we got till now was rather funny ^^

No, the only indication of you using the elite spec is your new weapon and new set of skills. Your class name doesn’t change, your icon doesn’t change either.

These elite spec names are merely the names of the spec, in the same way as the already existing specs for the thief are named Deadly Arts, Critical Strikes, Shadow Arts, Acrobatics and Trickery. Daredevil (in the thief’s case) will just be the name of the elite spec line.

Yesterday, I hated it. Having had a night to sleep on it, I think I’m more accepting of it now.

It’s just going to be one of those words that can have two, very different meanings. It’s like when you call someone “special” or say food has an “interesting” flavor. It could mean something good or something bad, depending on tone and context.

It sounds like a back alley boxer. I liked forge a little more.

But it’s all in how it handles.

It’s fitting, and a lot better than Dragonhumper.

Scapper is awesome. Its double fitting and was well received by other engi’s that I know. I think it was a good choice. Definitely prefer it over the potential we had for Forge or Forger.

Yes i like it. Much better then a cliche name like “Forge”. One name from the Marvel universum is more then enough (Daredevil).
Gonna Make a Charr Engineer right now. Just had a perfect vision of a Charr Scrapper name :-p

Phineas Drayke.6381:

I wasn’t in any beta, so I’m asking myself: Is there any visual indication ingame that you are a scrapper or a daredevil, like does your icon change?
Or is it just the name of the spec in the traits, in which case I don’t get all the fuzz around the names of the elite specs.
I just see those like gameplay variations of my thief, engineer or whatever and I couldn’t care less about their name (lorewise or rp wise).

My main thief is specced Duel/acrobatics but for me he’s just a Swashbuckler

Back to topic: Scrapper sounds good. I’m waiting to see what the french translation will be. What we got till now was rather funny ^^

They said that the elite specializations would have a new class icon. The phrasing is unclear whether or not the name changes. Possibly that won’t.

http://www.tentonhammer.com/news/guild-wars-2/guild-wars-2-heart-thorns-specializations-and-jon-peters-qa
Also, the more stuff you add to an existing profession, the harder it is when you see that profession to know what it is they do. We haven’t revealed this yet, but with elite specializations, each one is going to have its own unique profession icon and to help call it out as different from the existing profession. We really are treating them as something different. So when you make your ranger a druid, you are a druid, you have a druid profession icon and players can know that’s a druid and they have a good idea of what a druid does and what the druid profession mechanics are. That means as we continually add more and more of these elite specs, there’s a sense of when you see them in the world, you have a pretty good idea of what they do.

So we won’t really see the name outside of the trait window. So I really don’t understand the problem everyone has with those names :p

Oh and there we have it now. In french the scrapper is called mechatronics. Ha! You like Scrapper now, don’t you?

‘Forge’ was, let’s admit it, a pretty awful name. Maybe not Dragonhunter awful…but honestly, I’d rather be a Dragonhunter than a ‘Forge’. One of those hunts dragons; the other one gets hit by hammers a lot.

‘Scrapper’ is a pretty solid name choice for the spec. It’s evocative of what the spec does in multiple ways – you’re (theoretically) a close-combat powerhouse meant to stick to targets and make them hate you, and you’re also a tinkerer of mechanics that probably works with scrap. I like it.

What I don’t like are a few of the mechanics and the incredible ripoff that is the function gyro…but that’s a discussion for another thread. The name’s perfectly fine, even for charr. Words can have multiple meanings even to the same person. It’s all in the context.

Doesn’t bother me at all but for argument sake I would be fine with it being changed to Junker, Scrapsman, Forge, or whatever.

Great name, couldve been worse, like basically any other name fans are trying to come up with.

Still the opposite problem for dragonhunter though :P

• Chronomancer is an awesome name and the only one of the new specs I love.
• Scrapper is second best — it sounds like a feisty engineer type.
• Reaper, Druid, and Berserker are pretty standard conventions for RPGs; nothing wrong with them and nothing interesting about them either.
• Tempest & Daredevil are a little more interesting; they don’t happen to inspire me at all, but I can see how they might be cool to others.
• Harold, well, who names their kid that? (Ok, yeah, I know it’s “Herald” — that makes even less sense to me.)
• Dragonhunter… I really can’t support ANet’s reasoning here. Every player character hunts dragons. There were just so many other choices.

I don’t have an issue with the name, even given the lore ties. It fits for engineer. It should also make for some interesting RP (for people into that). Additionally, the other 4 races don’t necessarily use the term in the same fashion as the charr.

its a bad name, like most of the others (revenant, tempest, daredevil, dragonhunter)
Only Berserker , Druid and Chronomancer are perfect choices.
Reaper works, but there would have been a better name that isnt bound to lore so much and humans, beign a better race neutral term, that woudl have fitted alot better juzst for everyone – Dervish

Scraapper in this case is just a silly backdoor replacement name, because Anet seems tpo have changed their mind over tiem from a fire based Engineer E Spec to make now suddenly an electricity based one and that then naturally wouldn’t fit anymore a name like “Forger”, a kind of heat and fire resistant battlesmith. so they had to come up quickly now with a replacement name, that somehow fits as best as possible with the changed theme of the design and usign the hammer, most likely having THOR in their mind suddenly, so Thor used lightnings (Mjollnir) with his famous hammer…

Artificer would have been the much better name, that would work as a mixture between fire and electricity design and the high specialization into technic like gyros, having the knowledge and the finger desterity to be able to construct such complex and tiny things like those gyro technique drones.
Heck even a name like Mechanic would have worked alot bette,r but I’m sure, they didn’t want to use that, because it woudl have been the same name a class of FF14 has lately!!

This whole package over over uniqueness names our Elite Specs got just screams out lout everywhere, as if Anet was fulll in fear not to run into any copyright and trademark issues with other MMOs, while trying vey hard to come up with the most unsuspectful and unfitting names, one could think off (just my impression!)

For me personally its very disappointing as thats not what I personally envisioned for the game, when I proposed in the CDI the idea of Sub Classes, what practically lead to where we are now.
Sure, some unique class names are always very good, they are still naturally a part for the games’s overall uniqueness and its also part of marketing…
But one shouldn’t overexaggerate it with over uniqueness names non stop , like Anet currently does that in my opinion.

A ratio of 80% more generic, maybe lore bonded names and 20% absolute unique names is more than enough and not like in this case practicaly vice versa… like 30% generic classical working iconic names and 70% over unique names that are merely there for attention seeking and marketing reasons and in 1 special absolute obvious case even only because of complete HoT story related reasons and motives, which get foreced upon all our throats, if we like it or not, together with a retconned in faction that just out of a sudden appears, but gets spoken off, as if it always has been existing sicne beginning of the pact of the races…

I just can hope, that Set 2 will become alot better and not so much in the face marketing attention seeking – take it or ignore it.

Orpheal.

REAPERS. ARE. NOT. DERVISHES.

Stop demanding ArenaNet change that one. Your naming sense stinks, man. It really does. I have yet to see a name suggestion from you that didn’t make me do the Excalibur Face. Man I’m glad ArenaNet ignores the community on the naming front…

devil, you completely missed the point. sit 6

What point?

Seriously: what friggin’ fraggin’ froggin’ point?

You just claimed personal credit for the entire idea of elite specializations. Don’t remember doing that? Let me refresh your memory. Ahem:

“For me personally its very disappointing as thats not what I personally envisioned for the game, when I proposed in the CDI the idea of Sub Classes, what practically lead to where we are now.”

When you type something like that, you give up all credibility, dude. Here’s the deal – I don’t give a fat rat what you ‘personally envisioned’ for the game, and if you were personally and solely responsible for ArenaNet developing elite specializations I will eat my pants without sauce.

Seriously. Every time I see you post it’s to castigate ArenaNet over their name choices and to push for your own incredibly awful ideas. Clue for you: “Artificer” is a crafting discipline. It cannot also be a profession. Dervishes were devout followers of the Six who made use of godly avatar forms and weird enchantment mechanics. The only similarity between Dervishes and Reapers is that the Reaper has a gigantic spirit scythe in its Shroud form and Dervishes used weaponized farming implements also referred to as ‘scythes’.

Just…knock it off already, will ya? Either that or apply to ArenaNet and see if they’re willing to pay you for your ideas. I’m fairly sure I know how the interview will go.

I love the name. Thankful it isn’t Scrap Hunter.

Wondrouswall.7169:

I love the name. Thankful it isn’t Scrap Hunter.

Genuine lol

@ devil, lol take a chill pill… or go take some fresh air, you clearly overreact too much now.

1) I do claim nothing at all here, and that wasn’t at all the thing what I meant that you missed the point.
Honestly I absolutely don’t care about it what someone like you thinks about my ideas, just so that we two understand us clearly.
Fact is, wouldn’t I have participated in the Horizontal Character Progression CDI and presentated there the idea, that it would be a great way to give the game more horizontal progression via Sub Classes (and Elite Specializations are essentially nothing else than that, just with a different term to avoid the usage of the generic term of Sub Class, whats in per se a wise decision and something I would have never thought about), I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t end up now with Elite Specializations and who knows, maybe would get back something silly like the Dual Class System of GW1 back instead or get somethign even completrely different.
If you have followed that CDI, you should have recognized that since I brought up to the discussion the idea of Sub Classes (and since the point where Chris Whiteside even mentioned that he likes the idea, and I’m pretty sure, we got Elite Specializations now only thanks to him mostly and his support for that idea to convince more Devs, that this is the way for GW2’s future (like they officially said later it will be…) become more and more growing and taking upperhand in the discussions to the point, that Chris even went that far to propose to give that idea its very own CDI one day… (which is by now not neccessary anymore, as the general idea was as it seems at this point already so convincign for Anet, that they just started on working on it to prepare stuff about it, so that it can make it as Feature for HoT, which i guess was already at thta point in planning phase and anet just used all of the CDIs as a huge idea collection to get to know, what we all wish for GW2 the most, so that they know, what they should put into HoT!)

If I would seriously try here to claim for anything at all about an idea, which I willingly gave to Anet with the intention, that they make use of it to improve the game, I would use other methods for that… and not post in this forum.

2. You also don’t seem to recognize it, that it doesn’t matter at all, if there are already existing terms for other things in the game, that Anet gives Elite Specializations also names, which share terms for other things in the game …
Reaper, its also a term for an achievement title.
Berserker, its also a term for the mots powerful Damage Prefix for our Equipment Upgrades
Druid.. theres also those nature spirits called Druids in GW1

So please, stop making yourself look like a fool and coming up with such weak arguments, when its clear, that Anet surely woudn’t have any problems at all giving the Engineer Elite Specialization the term Artificer, when they had also no problems at all with that for the Berserker and Reaper.
Otherwise, please give me a good reason that is plausible, why Anet should make a stop at Artificer for an E.S. name, when they clearly had no holdbacks at all for Berserker and Reaper, which also share their names with terms for other things in the game so far.

This is ANet’s game and ANet practically can always rename whatever they want, when it would be required or simply better to prevent confusions.
Artificer in itself is just a synonym. If Anet would name the Engineer E.S Artificers, theres tons of variations for how Anet could rename the crafting job, if seriously needed to prevent confusions (Constructeur, Alchemist, Chemist, Scientist), because Artificers are all about constructing things, building up stuff and technical mathematics (Architects), because Artificer is just an synonym for Architect.

But the crafting job you are speaking off is nothing at all about technics, mathematics, building up stuff and constructing technical complex things like gyro drones.
They are about Potions!! Staffs, Scepters, Tridents, Focus and finishing/enhancing things up as also creating consumeables (again potions).
The crafting job has nothing technical related that would suit to a term like Artificer! BUT THE ELITE SPECIALITION HAS, ITS FREAKING ALL ABOUT TECHNIC, that anyone with eyes in a head should instantly recognize. Lets see ..

• Gyro Technique Drones – Technical Stuff Checked v
• Advanced Tools – Technical Stuff Checked v
• Gadgets – Technical Stuff Checked v
• Turrets – Technical Stuff Checked v
• Hammers – the Weapon of a Technician/Mechanic Checked v

3. I didn’t compared the Reaper Design with the GW1 Dervish, I say just only, with some right tweaks here and there ANet could turn the Reaper into a for GW2 fittign unique Dervish without having to copy it 1:1 into GW2, what would just be impossible anyway. But its just simply more than enough, if ANet would take over for the Dervish integrated into the basics of the original reaper Design some elements of the Dervish over to make it fit.. they already use for the reaper skill/trait terms that were earlier part of the Dervish – see Chilling Victory!!
The Necromancer offers already with his Shroud gameplay the perfect mechanic that could be used for Dervish Shapeshifts, just that they aren#t this time God Avatar related, but get for GW2 a different theme, like for example NEGATIVE EMOTIONS, having instead an Avatar of Hatred, Avatar of Sorrow, Avatar of Greed, Avatar of Fear, Avatar of Agony ect. pp.
My point with all this is simply to proof, that it would have been easily possible to give the class also a racial and lore neutral Elite Specialization Name, instead of Reaper, which is all about Human Lore, that is not connected at all with any of the other playable races, because Reapers are a Grenth only connected lore!!

DevilLordLaser.8619:

When you type something like that, you give up all credibility, dude. Here’s the deal – I don’t give a fat rat what you ‘personally envisioned’ for the game, and if you were personally and solely responsible for ArenaNet developing elite specializations I will eat my pants without sauce.

Orpheal was certainly actively involved .

You might find these interesting reading~

The New Masters – Suggesting releasing New Weapons, Utilities, and weapons skins as a package to expand class options without adding sub-classes. Others would later refine the idea to adding a new line of utility skills with a common tag like we see today.

Here’s the studio design director getting on board. Note he’s the one suggesting what we now see in terms on linear tracks for trait lines that that you buy your way through in order.

Here’s the magic moment where sub-classes become not an additional trait line but a substitute trait line. Of course we didn’t know back then that they’d be locking us into three trait lines at a time, and I admit I’m a bit surprised we can combine an Espec line with the old class trait lines (the 5th line always being linked to class mechanics). But is was quite gratifying to see the idea get used.

Of course I might have had some inkling…

Scrapper works lorewise. I don’t mind it. Only other thing that comes to mind potentially for the same attributes is possibly ‘tinker’

I wonder if Forge is the name of the hammer or helmet that the Scrapper is using.

Nike.2631:

Orpheal was certainly actively involved .

You might find these interesting reading~

The New Masters – Suggesting releasing New Weapons, Utilities, and weapons skins as a package to expand class options without adding sub-classes. Others would later refine the idea to adding a new line of utility skills with a common tag like we see today.

Here’s the studio design director getting on board. Note he’s the one suggesting what we now see in terms on linear tracks for trait lines that that you buy your way through in order.

Here’s the magic moment where sub-classes become not an additional trait line but a substitute trait line. Of course we didn’t know back then that they’d be locking us into three trait lines at a time, and I admit I’m a bit surprised we can combine an Espec line with the old class trait lines (the 5th line always being linked to class mechanics). But is was quite gratifying to see the idea get used.

Of course I might have had some inkling…

I don’t doubt that the horizontal progression CDI was important to ArenaNet formulating the idea for elite specs, no. Heh, but the CDI was also hundreds of players all contributing ideas and potential improvements – for any one single player to believe that they are the ones solely/primarily responsible for the implementation of something as momentous as elite specs is…less than fully cognizant of the realities of game development, shall we say?

I’m aware Orpheal posts a lot, and I’m a nobody. Heh, trust me, I get that. I am, however, sick unto death of the man demanding ArenaNet call the Reaper ‘Dervish’ on the grounds of ‘Dervish’ being race-neutral when it is no such g’danged thing. Dervishes were among the GW1 professions most closely affiliated with the Six, and they had absolutely nothing in common with the Reaper save for the verymost superficial overlaps (multi-target focus, the existence of a scythe). I’ve seen him push the notion on people at least half a dozen times now, and I’ll admit – I snapped.

As for the rest of it? Well, it’s the Dragonhunter problem all over again – Dragonhunter is an awful name, the only name worse than Dragonhunter is all the things the community wanted to call it. ‘Artificer’ has nothing to do with a hammer-swinging melee bruiser with semi-disposable drones dive-bombing the enemy – it’s a word that evokes a man sitting in a lab somewhere tinkering with watches or crafting delicate mechanical dolls.

‘Reaper’, as a word, evokes the image of just exactly what the Reaper is – a lifetaker cloaked in deathly energies that reaps a harvest of his enemies’ faces. Were they also the title given to servants of Grenth back in the day? Sure – but the basic language the game is played in attaches a much more impactful and broadly applicable meaning to the word which means it makes perfectly fine sense as the name for the spec.

Anyways. Apologies for the bitterness, at the very least. I’m not having the best day, and between this and the Function Gyro nonsense in the Engineer PvP Compalints subforum…-_-

Ehh, sounds better than Dragonhunter.

Better than forge, but forgemaster would have still been better IMO.

What’s not to like? It’s Mad Max meets Batteries Not Included.

Scrapper is a fun name.

I’d of picked nothing else for it. <3

It’s a great name, scrapper as in someone who engages in scraps/melee fights or salvages scrap metal. Fits perfectly.

Sorry. What will happen, if the Elite spec is underpowered or useless to play, people will call it The Crapper.

I like the name Scrapper, pleasantly suprised that it had a basis in lore, hope they fill out it’s backstory more(and all specializations for that matter) in HoT

Do you prefer “dragon mechanic” ?

Forge was awful. Scrapper is okay~ish. Considering that my engineer is a charr character, I suppose I’m just going to have to stand down my Centurion rank and become a scrapper, right?…

Ok, in all seriousness, I do prefer the name Scrapper over Forge just because a “forge” is an object, not a person, in theory. That being said, I still wish Anet would reconsider the name from a lore perspective!

At first I hated it, since I really loved the previous name of Forge…. But after I learned about Charr lore of Scrappers and the high concepts, I really began to like it more.

It’s similar to Dragon Hunter, minus the silly.