Guild Wars 2

Nike.2631:

Nike.2631:

“I’m a Reader, and I get to tell you the Author you’re WRONG about your world setting and you have to listen because I bought your book and you want me to by your next book too!”

People write fantasy and sci-fi settings instead of contemporary fiction specifically to NOT have to put up with (much of) that sort of nonsense.

Genesis.8572:

Just because you write your own setting does not mean that you write it well nor does it somehow liberate you from criticism. Speculative fiction is not immune to the death of the author.

Having published both fantasy and contemporary settings, its one thing to have a reader tell me “You got the length of a particular assault rifle wrong in chapter 4” and something entirely different to have someone tell me “Fireball spells don’t work that way.”

The first person I thank and maybe make a mental note if it’s going to come up again. If its convenient I might change the existing reference for the next printing/release.

The second I stare at with my mouth open because WHO THE KITTEN ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW MAGIC WORKS IN MY SETTING?!??!

Look, I’ve raked the writers here over the coals as brutally as anyone, but there is a necessary understanding when something is a question of broadly accepted form and when it’s a matter of personal preference vs. the author’s right to set the terms of their own setting. It’s their livelihood, their risk, and their call. Canon does NOT belong to the fans, no matter how much they tell themselves otherwise. An argument based on “that’s inconsistent with other aspects of the setting” is very, VERY different than “well I don’t like it because of influences outside of the setting — influences possibly unique to me.”

“Guardians consider themselves protectors of the innocent. Followers of their faith be it in honor, valor, etc. The origin of the Dragonhunter is a more subtle nuanced version of this. Guardians fight for justice and the Dragonhunter faction believes justice is the eradication of dragons and their minions.”

…Isn’t something they have to justify. Its something they can SET as true in the world of Tyria. Will it be nice to see some support and fleshing out of that manifest through NPC dialogues or in-game locations? Absolutely! But for a pre-ship preview, summing up really is sufficient.

So, because Anet made it, it’s perfectly ok for them to make 0 sense on their own lore and we cannot call them up on it because they made it, so they have control over it.

Nike.2631:

Nike.2631:

“I’m a Reader, and I get to tell you the Author you’re WRONG about your world setting and you have to listen because I bought your book and you want me to by your next book too!”

People write fantasy and sci-fi settings instead of contemporary fiction specifically to NOT have to put up with (much of) that sort of nonsense.

Genesis.8572:

Just because you write your own setting does not mean that you write it well nor does it somehow liberate you from criticism. Speculative fiction is not immune to the death of the author.

Having published both fantasy and contemporary settings, its one thing to have a reader tell me “You got the length of a particular assault rifle wrong in chapter 4” and something entirely different to have someone tell me “Fireball spells don’t work that way.”

The first person I thank and maybe make a mental note if it’s going to come up again. If its convenient I might change the existing reference for the next printing/release.

The second I stare at with my mouth open because WHO THE KITTEN ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW MAGIC WORKS IN MY SETTING?!??!

Look, I’ve raked the writers here over the coals as brutally as anyone, but there is a necessary understanding when something is a question of broadly accepted form and when it’s a matter of personal preference vs. the author’s right to set the terms of their own setting. It’s their livelihood, their risk, and their call. Canon does NOT belong to the fans, no matter how much they tell themselves otherwise. An argument based on “that’s inconsistent with other aspects of the setting” is very, VERY different than “well I don’t like it because of influences outside of the setting — influences possibly unique to me.”

“Guardians consider themselves protectors of the innocent. Followers of their faith be it in honor, valor, etc. The origin of the Dragonhunter is a more subtle nuanced version of this. Guardians fight for justice and the Dragonhunter faction believes justice is the eradication of dragons and their minions.”

…Isn’t something they have to justify. Its something they can SET as true in the world of Tyria. Will it be nice to see some support and fleshing out of that manifest through NPC dialogues or in-game locations? Absolutely! But for a pre-ship preview, summing up really is sufficient.

We’re not talking about the fundamentals of Magic, we’re talking about a name. A Name based on their Own Rules, and their Own promises of avoiding class mixing. We’re going off of Their reasoning, and what Lore, and premise They have provided, and base on these Anet is contradicting themselves.

As a writer you should know the weakness of crafting your universe are the loose ends that don’t add up. Often because when books were written for a series it was never expected. Nobody is perfect, that is why we have peer reviews, and editors, both of which seemed to have fallen through for the DragonHunter.

Ephemiel.5694:

So, because Anet made it, it’s perfectly ok for them to make 0 sense on their own lore and we cannot call them up on it because they made it, so they have control over it.

Honest question: how does this make zero sense:

“Guardians consider themselves protectors of the innocent. Followers of their faith be it in honor, valor, etc. The origin of the Dragonhunter is a more subtle nuanced version of this. Guardians fight for justice and the Dragonhunter faction believes justice is the eradication of dragons and their minions.”

If you thought something else about the nature of Guardians, enjoy the opportunity to understand better how ArenaNet sees them, because THAT is the vision that underlies the work past and future. Or at least Jon’s take from his office about 90 feet from the writing team’s lair. I’m sure he has a lot more opportunity to chat with them than we do.

What is the established lore you see as contradicting the above?

Harvest.2506:

We’re not talking about the fundamentals of Magic, we’re talking about a name. A Name based on their Own Rules, and their Own promises of avoiding class mixing.

Can you show me the text of this ‘promise’? I’d like to read it directly rather than just accept your interpretation.

We’re going off of Their reasoning, and what Lore, and premise They have provided, and base on these Anet is contradicting themselves.

I am listening. Walk me through it. I took my own stab at shifting the name, maybe you can provide me with better ammo .

As a writer you should know the weakness of crafting your universe are the loose ends that don’t add up. Often because when books were written for a series it was never expected. Nobody is perfect, that is why we have peer reviews, and editors, both of which seemed to have fallen through for the Dragonhunter.

It’s valid concern, but so far I don’t see it as applying here.

Nike.2631:

Ephemiel.5694:

So, because Anet made it, it’s perfectly ok for them to make 0 sense on their own lore and we cannot call them up on it because they made it, so they have control over it.

Honest question: how does this make zero sense:

“Guardians consider themselves protectors of the innocent. Followers of their faith be it in honor, valor, etc. The origin of the Dragonhunter is a more subtle nuanced version of this. Guardians fight for justice and the Dragonhunter faction believes justice is the eradication of dragons and their minions.”

If you thought something else about the nature of Guardians, enjoy the opportunity to understand better how ArenaNet sees them, because THAT is the vision that underlies the work past and future. Or at least Jon’s take from his office about 90 feet from the writing team’s lair. I’m sure he has a lot more opportunity to chat with them than we do.

What is the established lore you see as contradicting the above?

Harvest.2506:

We’re not talking about the fundamentals of Magic, we’re talking about a name. A Name based on their Own Rules, and their Own promises of avoiding class mixing.

Can you show me the text of this ‘promise’? I’d like to read it directly rather than just accept your interpretation.

We’re going off of Their reasoning, and what Lore, and premise They have provided, and base on these Anet is contradicting themselves.

I am listening. Walk me through it. I took my own stab at shifting the name, maybe you can provide me with better ammo .

As a writer you should know the weakness of crafting your universe are the loose ends that don’t add up. Often because when books were written for a series it was never expected. Nobody is perfect, that is why we have peer reviews, and editors, both of which seemed to have fallen through for the Dragonhunter.

It’s valid concern, but so far I don’t see it as applying here.

I’m not paid to go digging. the premise is base on other specialization names, someone else can go find that no class mixing thing, I’m tried and i have better things to do on a saturday night. me or genesis or some others wrote our reasoning already back when we where young this trend is ancient now.

Harvest.2506:

I’m not paid to go digging. the premise is base on other specialization names, someone else can go find that no class mixing thing, I’m tried and i have better things to do on a saturday night. me or genesis or some others wrote our reasoning already back when we where young this trend is ancient now.

No worries. It just seemed you felt it so intensely I thought you might have the link handy .

purecontact.1680:

I don’t like Dragonhunter, here is why :

First point:
I think this name doesn’t fit in the guardian’s archetype

Hunter is in the rogue archetype.
Guardian is in the soldier archetype.

No matter how you twist it, the “hunter” name will stay in the rogue archetype.

You can make a hunter wearing heavy armor, using mace and shield or light magic, it will always be in the rogue archetype:
“Hunter” is connoted and you can’t break this connotation just because of your background: it won’t fit better to a soldier than a rogue archetype.

Second point:
It is very hard to justify this name

Dragon is a specific enemy.
By using this prefix, you close a lot of doors.
I see a centaur attacking my allies but nope, I won’t kill it because it is set in stone: I’m a Dragonhunter/slayer/bane/knight/whatever
I got that Dragon means Evil in Tyria but Witch hunter didn’t hunt bandits or scoundrels and as I have my root in the Guardian’s archetype, I have to keep defending people from this kind of enemies (or hunt them, the main purpose of this spec).

The only way to justify that a Dragoninsertname attack something which isn’t related to Dragon is to say that you have draconic magic in the game and a specialization use this magic.
It can fit with Silvary but it won’t fit with any of the other races.

Third point:
It is a very confusing name

Dragonhunter is both generic and specific.

It’s generic because like a lot people said : we tracked mordremoth during season 2 and that make all of us dragonhunter.

It’s very specific because you gave this class a specific goal : hunting dragons (and all their minions) and like I said before, it closes doors.

Why Sentinel should prevail:

Gameplay
Sentinel adapts to the soldier archetype.
Sentinel wears heavy armour and a longbow.
Sentinel sets traps to defend his camp.
Sentinel tracks intruders.

Background
Sentinels are border guard.
During wartime however the Border guard withdraw from the Border outposts and provide assistance in a limited capacity to the country’s regular army.
Wartime assistance of the Border guard to the Army is essential as they are familiar with the local terrain having patrolled it on a daily basis during peacetime.

It makes sense:
We are in a war against mordremoth, Guardian pursue mordrem intruders from inside frontier to the maguuma jungle.
They have to specialize themselves into Sentinels, becoming familiar with jungle threats.

As a sentinel, you learned how to prepare a battleground efficiently (traps) and how to always keep an advantage on your enemies (longbow).
Moreover, your mastery in this specialization allows you to keep enemies under control until allies comes (immobilize, cripple, stun).

As as sentinel, you’re not a lonely hunter tracking dragons/enemies, you’re a part of a team.

Extra!
-There is no religious connotation.
-It is flat enough to set up the roleplay that the player want.

This ^
(Even if you don’t like the name Sentinel, this post explain pretty well the “dragonhunter problem”)

Thund.2795:

purecontact.1680:

I don’t like Dragonhunter, here is why :

First point:
I think this name doesn’t fit in the guardian’s archetype

Hunter is in the rogue archetype.
Guardian is in the soldier archetype.

No matter how you twist it, the “hunter” name will stay in the rogue archetype.

You can make a hunter wearing heavy armor, using mace and shield or light magic, it will always be in the rogue archetype:
“Hunter” is connoted and you can’t break this connotation just because of your background: it won’t fit better to a soldier than a rogue archetype.

Second point:
It is very hard to justify this name

Dragon is a specific enemy.
By using this prefix, you close a lot of doors.
I see a centaur attacking my allies but nope, I won’t kill it because it is set in stone: I’m a Dragonhunter/slayer/bane/knight/whatever
I got that Dragon means Evil in Tyria but Witch hunter didn’t hunt bandits or scoundrels and as I have my root in the Guardian’s archetype, I have to keep defending people from this kind of enemies (or hunt them, the main purpose of this spec).

The only way to justify that a Dragoninsertname attack something which isn’t related to Dragon is to say that you have draconic magic in the game and a specialization use this magic.
It can fit with Silvary but it won’t fit with any of the other races.

Third point:
It is a very confusing name

Dragonhunter is both generic and specific.

It’s generic because like a lot people said : we tracked mordremoth during season 2 and that make all of us dragonhunter.

It’s very specific because you gave this class a specific goal : hunting dragons (and all their minions) and like I said before, it closes doors.

Why Sentinel should prevail:

Gameplay
Sentinel adapts to the soldier archetype.
Sentinel wears heavy armour and a longbow.
Sentinel sets traps to defend his camp.
Sentinel tracks intruders.

Background
Sentinels are border guard.
During wartime however the Border guard withdraw from the Border outposts and provide assistance in a limited capacity to the country’s regular army.
Wartime assistance of the Border guard to the Army is essential as they are familiar with the local terrain having patrolled it on a daily basis during peacetime.

It makes sense:
We are in a war against mordremoth, Guardian pursue mordrem intruders from inside frontier to the maguuma jungle.
They have to specialize themselves into Sentinels, becoming familiar with jungle threats.

As a sentinel, you learned how to prepare a battleground efficiently (traps) and how to always keep an advantage on your enemies (longbow).
Moreover, your mastery in this specialization allows you to keep enemies under control until allies comes (immobilize, cripple, stun).

As as sentinel, you’re not a lonely hunter tracking dragons/enemies, you’re a part of a team.

Extra!
-There is no religious connotation.
-It is flat enough to set up the roleplay that the player want.

This ^
(Even if you don’t like the name Sentinel, this post explain pretty well the “dragonhunter problem”)

Yeah, Sentinel fixes all of the problems. And you don’t even have to change the skins/skills. Just go for the “it’s an intimidation tactic” and it’s done.
+1

Sentinel would be a so much better name .

Thund.2795:

purecontact.1680:

I don’t like Dragonhunter, here is why :

First point:
I think this name doesn’t fit in the guardian’s archetype

Hunter is in the rogue archetype.
Guardian is in the soldier archetype.

No matter how you twist it, the “hunter” name will stay in the rogue archetype.

You can make a hunter wearing heavy armor, using mace and shield or light magic, it will always be in the rogue archetype:
“Hunter” is connoted and you can’t break this connotation just because of your background: it won’t fit better to a soldier than a rogue archetype.

Second point:
It is very hard to justify this name

Dragon is a specific enemy.
By using this prefix, you close a lot of doors.
I see a centaur attacking my allies but nope, I won’t kill it because it is set in stone: I’m a Dragonhunter/slayer/bane/knight/whatever
I got that Dragon means Evil in Tyria but Witch hunter didn’t hunt bandits or scoundrels and as I have my root in the Guardian’s archetype, I have to keep defending people from this kind of enemies (or hunt them, the main purpose of this spec).

The only way to justify that a Dragoninsertname attack something which isn’t related to Dragon is to say that you have draconic magic in the game and a specialization use this magic.
It can fit with Silvary but it won’t fit with any of the other races.

Third point:
It is a very confusing name

Dragonhunter is both generic and specific.

It’s generic because like a lot people said : we tracked mordremoth during season 2 and that make all of us dragonhunter.

It’s very specific because you gave this class a specific goal : hunting dragons (and all their minions) and like I said before, it closes doors.

Why Sentinel should prevail:

Gameplay
Sentinel adapts to the soldier archetype.
Sentinel wears heavy armour and a longbow.
Sentinel sets traps to defend his camp.
Sentinel tracks intruders.

Background
Sentinels are border guard.
During wartime however the Border guard withdraw from the Border outposts and provide assistance in a limited capacity to the country’s regular army.
Wartime assistance of the Border guard to the Army is essential as they are familiar with the local terrain having patrolled it on a daily basis during peacetime.

It makes sense:
We are in a war against mordremoth, Guardian pursue mordrem intruders from inside frontier to the maguuma jungle.
They have to specialize themselves into Sentinels, becoming familiar with jungle threats.

As a sentinel, you learned how to prepare a battleground efficiently (traps) and how to always keep an advantage on your enemies (longbow).
Moreover, your mastery in this specialization allows you to keep enemies under control until allies comes (immobilize, cripple, stun).

As as sentinel, you’re not a lonely hunter tracking dragons/enemies, you’re a part of a team.

Extra!
-There is no religious connotation.
-It is flat enough to set up the roleplay that the player want.

This ^
(Even if you don’t like the name Sentinel, this post explain pretty well the “dragonhunter problem”)

Totally agree! Sentinel is really good choice IMO.

Nike.2631:

What is the established lore you see as contradicting the above?

All you have to do is visualize the dragonhunter coming face to face with his prey in a dark valley in some remote corner of the world. What’s he gonna do? Arrest it? Tell it to straighten up and fly right? He sure as nerfs ain’t gonna kill it with traps or arrows or anything else at his disposal short of a Pact fleet with mass quantities of airships bristling with guns and some sort of megalaser or maybe a tactical nuke. Or two. A dragonhunter doesn’t have those things unless he’s Trahearne, and even then, “Fire! Uh. Oops.”

The idea of dragonhunter might work elsewhere, but in this game, with its established dragon lore, dragonhunter is a silly name.

I think the name is dumb and it doesn’t fit.

How can you be some one that Protect and some one that Hunt at the same time ?

This doesn’t make sense and I don’t understand Anet answers and trying to defend this.

Want a good “comparison” Anet ? Neanderthals , the hunter is the dude who goes in the wold to hunt and kill stuff, while some where there to protect the pack.

Look at purecontact’s post. Does anyone need MORE than that?

AikunFelcis.7258:

Thund.2795:

This ^
(Even if you don’t like the name Sentinel, this post explain pretty well the “dragonhunter problem”)

Totally agree! Sentinel is really good choice IMO.

I don’t like the name Sentinel because it is just a synonym of Guardian. Sure, that poster made the name sound cool with his flavorful definition as a boarder guard, but the broad definition (the one that’s not some specific classification used by an organization) is just a guard that keeps watch. That’s all a sentinel is, someone who keeps watch and challenges those who pass. You don’t even have to be a soldier to be a sentinel. It’s just a guard, a custodian, a keeper, a lookout, a warden, a watchman. They all pretty much amount to people that watch over stuff. I don’t think the devs are aiming to make a synonym of the Guardian. Names like Justicar, Inquisitor, Exorcist, Arbiter or even Seeker have a more authoritative connotation to it that flavors it differently from the origins of its base profession to warrant an elite spec.

One should really look more critically when making suggestions. I know Sentinel sounds cool, but so does Sentry but they all mean the same thing. Might as well use the name Custodian while you’re at it. It means the same thing.

Ephemiel.5694:

Look at purecontact’s post. Does anyone need MORE than that?

Okay, I’ll take a look. I think I might have replied to it already though but I’ll do a personal analysis on it:

purecontact.1680:

I don’t like Dragonhunter, here is why :

First point:
I think this name doesn’t fit in the guardian’s archetype

Hunter is in the rogue archetype.
Guardian is in the soldier archetype.

No matter how you twist it, the “hunter” name will stay in the rogue archetype.

You can make a hunter wearing heavy armor, using mace and shield or light magic, it will always be in the rogue archetype:
“Hunter” is connoted and you can’t break this connotation just because of your background: it won’t fit better to a soldier than a rogue archetype.

I think you could make the Hunter connotation work for a soldier. I never played Monster Hunter but if you took inspiration from it, and made it so a soldier hunted down these beasts to use as weapons, power, armor or somehow incorporate monsters’ strength into their own, I think it would fit just fine. It’s a soldier who fights for whatever purpose but he does so by taking monsters’ attributes into their selves.

How that could transfer to GW2 is beyond me though. It’s not impossible but I’m not going to go off on that hypothetical to prove it. I’ll just conclude with that it’d likely be very difficult.

purecontact.1680:

Second point:
It is very hard to justify this name

Dragon is a specific enemy.
By using this prefix, you close a lot of doors.
I see a centaur attacking my allies but nope, I won’t kill it because it is set in stone: I’m a Dragonhunter/slayer/bane/knight/whatever
I got that Dragon means Evil in Tyria but Witch hunter didn’t hunt bandits or scoundrels and as I have my root in the Guardian’s archetype, I have to keep defending people from this kind of enemies (or hunt them, the main purpose of this spec).

The Dragon title doesn’t have to mean you specifically target dragons. Actually, depending on the type of amended name (such as bane), it only means you’re a pest, a nuisance, a nightmare, a curse or plauge to something. It doesn’t mean you can’t go do other things in your power…but if you’re a nightmare or curse to a dragon, it’d be hard not to be the same to lots of lesser threats.

purecontact.1680:

The only way to justify that a Dragoninsertname attack something which isn’t related to Dragon is to say that you have draconic magic in the game and a specialization use this magic.
It can fit with Silvary but it won’t fit with any of the other races.

Not impossible. Didn’t Professor Gorr discover more about how Dragon magic interacted with other magic latent in the world and ended up using a technique to turn dragon magic against dragons? Perhaps it’s not impossible to wield dragon magic as a person rather than just through a device. Maybe there’s a danger to being corrupted though which is why mainly only Guardians (or specifically ‘Dragonhunters’) do it?

purecontact.1680:

Third point:
It is a very confusing name

Dragonhunter is both generic and specific.

It’s generic because like a lot people said : we tracked mordremoth during season 2 and that make all of us dragonhunter.

It’s very specific because you gave this class a specific goal : hunting dragons (and all their minions) and like I said before, it closes doors.

No argument there. That all said, already talked about why I don’t like Sentinel so that’s about it.

Tachenon.5270:

All you have to do is visualize the dragonhunter coming face to face with his prey in a dark valley in some remote corner of the world. What’s he gonna do? Arrest it? Tell it to straighten up and fly right? He sure as nerfs ain’t gonna kill it with traps or arrows or anything else at his disposal short of a Pact fleet with mass quantities of airships bristling with guns and some sort of megalaser or maybe a tactical nuke.

His “prey” are Dragon MINIONS, not the whole kitten dragon. The one victory the People of Tyria have had over dragons has come from taking apart its powerbase one lieutenant at a time until the beast was finally made vulnerable. Here we have a faction – as in many – of Guardians who are no longer satisfied to stand watch and wait and guard – they are training to go out and find and kill those lieutenants and knock the legs out from under the armies of other dragons after the success in Orr.

Nike.2631:

Tachenon.5270:

All you have to do is visualize the dragonhunter coming face to face with his prey in a dark valley in some remote corner of the world. What’s he gonna do? Arrest it? Tell it to straighten up and fly right? He sure as nerfs ain’t gonna kill it with traps or arrows or anything else at his disposal short of a Pact fleet with mass quantities of airships bristling with guns and some sort of megalaser or maybe a tactical nuke.

His “prey” are Dragon MINIONS, not the whole kitten dragon. The one victory the People of Tyria have had over dragons has come from taking apart its powerbase one lieutenant at a time until the beast was finally made vulnerable. Here we have a faction – as in many – of Guardians who are no longer satisfied to stand watch and wait and guard – they are training to go out and find and kill those lieutenants and knock the legs out from under the armies of other dragons after the success in Orr.

Sooo Dragonminionhunter?

Sooo evocative rather than literal?

Ephemiel.5694:

Look at purecontact’s post. Does anyone need MORE than that?

I think some of us need a name that reflects the Devs clearly stated intent that this is a branch of Guardians who are not on defense, not standing watch, not shouting ‘halt, who goes there’ in the night but are instead playing offense, going out into the wilds, stalking and killing the servants of Dragons. Pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of “Sentinels” in fact. But maybe we can persuaded the Devs that not only do we not like the name, they’re entirely wrong in having characters in the setting take hope from the victory over Zhaitan and shift from a century-long holding action and retreat after retreat to taking the war to the enemy.

Me, I’d look for a name that reflects the more aggressive nature they feel inspired this E-spec.

Nike.2631:

Ephemiel.5694:

Look at purecontact’s post. Does anyone need MORE than that?

I think some of us need a name that reflects the Devs clearly stated intent that this is a branch of Guardians who are not on defense, not standing watch, not shouting ‘halt, who goes there’ in the night but are instead playing offense, going out into the wilds, stalking and killing the servants of Dragons. Pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of “Sentinels” in fact. But maybe we can persuaded the Devs that not only do we not like the name, they’re entirely wrong in having characters in the setting take hope from the victory over Zhaitan and shift from a century-long holding action and retreat after retreat to taking the war to the enemy.

Me, I’d look for a name that reflects the more aggressive nature they feel inspired this E-spec.

Actually i didn’t meant the name he mentioned, i meant his argument as to why Dragonhunter didn’t really fit.

Nike.2631:

I think some of us need a name that reflects the Devs clearly stated intent that this is a branch of Guardians who are not on defense, not standing watch, not shouting ‘halt, who goes there’ in the night but are instead playing offense, going out into the wilds, stalking and killing the servants of Dragons.

Sounds like this makes them regular guardians as opposed to dragonhunters.

Jeff Grubb: With the turmoil in Elona and the spread of the Order of Whispers into other lands, more Paragon teaching showed elsewhere in Tyria. These teachings melded with other traditions, and over time, the Guardians and their abilities can be found throughout the world and among all the races. They are not tied to a particular race, philosophy, or group of gods but rather to a larger concept of proactive defense, of taking the fight to a foe and protecting those you fight alongside while appealing equally to humanity’s defensive nature and the Charr’s desire to rule the battlefield.

So basically what you are describing of the dragonhunter adds nothing new to the preexisting guardian concept, which is another reason why I dislike the dragonhunter name. It does not appear that ArenaNet is aware of their own conception of the guardian and what their lore developer said about the profession to begin with.

Me, I’d look for a name that reflects the more aggressive nature they feel inspired this E-spec.

Inquisitor?

1. Mentioning Monster Hunter shows that you didn’t really understand what he said since both games are completely different. The archetypes have existed pretty much since fantasy existed. If you give a “Hunter” heavy armor and a greatsword for example, it’s still a “Hunter”, that’s what he’s known to be. As another example, in GW2 we don’t call the Mesmer something different for using a Greatsword.

In Monster Hunter, we ARE hunters, our job is to go out there and hunt these giant creatures, we don’t have a set class. I can be a hunter with a bow right now and change to a giant hammer. This logic doesn’t apply to the Dragonhunter.

2. You say that “The Dragon title doesn’t have to mean you specifically target dragons”. ……the title is DRAGONhunter, it speaks for itself, it means, 100%, that they specifically target and hunt dragons. If a sword was named Dragonsbane, why would you think it’s named that? If a character was called, using my username as an example, Ephemiel the Dragonhunter, why would you think the character is named that?

3. The Asura managing to use draconic magics through TECHNOLOGY is nowhere near the same as a person being able to. Unless the dragon itself allowed it, it should be near impossible for us. The Guardian, after we’ve all been shown how they are, would likely be the last person to even suggest personally using draconic power. Someone like the Warrior however would likely do it, but that’s not the point.

Now, as to a name? I don’t got any and any i can think of would likely sound bad to someone. Inquisitor, Sentinel, Protector, Watcher, Liberator, Seeker. All good names.

Genesis.8572:

Inquisitor?

No less terrible than last time it came up . Torturers and murderers aren’t generally a heroic archetype. Tyria had them before and seems to largely be glad to be rid of them.

Nike.2631:

Tachenon.5270:

All you have to do is visualize the dragonhunter coming face to face with his prey in a dark valley in some remote corner of the world. What’s he gonna do? Arrest it? Tell it to straighten up and fly right? He sure as nerfs ain’t gonna kill it with traps or arrows or anything else at his disposal short of a Pact fleet with mass quantities of airships bristling with guns and some sort of megalaser or maybe a tactical nuke.

His “prey” are Dragon MINIONS, not the whole kitten dragon. The one victory the People of Tyria have had over dragons has come from taking apart its powerbase one lieutenant at a time until the beast was finally made vulnerable. Here we have a faction – as in many – of Guardians who are no longer satisfied to stand watch and wait and guard – they are training to go out and find and kill those lieutenants and knock the legs out from under the armies of other dragons after the success in Orr.

And therefore, they’re not ‘dragonhunters’ after all, neither in the sense of hunting for ‘big game’, nor as the Tyrian equivalent of a witchhunter. The name makes no sense in the context of GW2.

Nike.2631:

Genesis.8572:

Inquisitor?

No less terrible than last time it came up . Torturers and murderers aren’t generally a heroic archetype. Tyria had them before and seems to largely be glad to be rid of them.

Neither were witch hunters, but ANet is trying to draw parallels to them and the Dragonhunter: the specialization of their perhaps most “selfless/heroic” class.

Legit question now: has there been any other statements since Peters’ post about the name?

Mikhail.4961:

Nike.2631:

Genesis.8572:

Inquisitor?

No less terrible than last time it came up . Torturers and murderers aren’t generally a heroic archetype. Tyria had them before and seems to largely be glad to be rid of them.

Neither were witch hunters, but ANet is trying to draw parallels to them and the Dragonhunter: the specialization of their perhaps most “selfless/heroic” class.

Legit question now: has there been any other statements since Peters’ post about the name?

Nope.

Nike.2631:

No less terrible than last time it came up .

And still miles ahead of your precious ‘dragonbane.’

Torturers and murderers aren’t generally a heroic archetype. Tyria had them before and seems to largely be glad to be rid of them.

ArenaNet said they were going for a “witch hunter” archetype, which is also neither “a heroic” archetype. Long story short, there is plenty of room for the ‘inquisitor.’ How much you want to bet that ‘inquisitor’ was one of ArenaNet’s most viable alternative names?

Mikhail.4961:

Nike.2631:

Genesis.8572:

Inquisitor?

No less terrible than last time it came up . Torturers and murderers aren’t generally a heroic archetype. Tyria had them before and seems to largely be glad to be rid of them.

Neither were witch hunters, but ANet is trying to draw parallels to them and the Dragonhunter: the specialization of their perhaps most “selfless/heroic” class.

Legit question now: has there been any other statements since Peters’ post about the name?

I can’t see anything they could say for now.

I think that if they had already taken a negative decision they would have told us.
But if they’re okay to change the name I believe they will wait a bit more. Maybe after all the spec reveals, because maybe some others will be problematic… And then it would be better to see everything at once.
Or maybe they just want to keep the DH as long as possible so it will be easier for us to accept the other names while we’re concentrated on this one.

But I think they’re not even sure right now. They certainly prefer to keep DH as it is, it’s always annoying to go back on something they already did and announced. It only depends on how the feedback will keep going. Will we convince them or not ?

In other words… we’re probably still at the same point since the begining :p

Ephemiel.5694:

1. Mentioning Monster Hunter shows that you didn’t really understand what he said since both games are completely different. The archetypes have existed pretty much since fantasy existed. If you give a “Hunter” heavy armor and a greatsword for example, it’s still a “Hunter”, that’s what he’s known to be. As another example, in GW2 we don’t call the Mesmer something different for using a Greatsword.

In Monster Hunter, we ARE hunters, our job is to go out there and hunt these giant creatures, we don’t have a set class. I can be a hunter with a bow right now and change to a giant hammer. This logic doesn’t apply to the Dragonhunter.

So you understand Monster Hunter. Now take the context of the game and apply it to GW2, is what I’m saying. No other profession takes the carcass, magic or strength of a dragon (or monster in general…although Ranger does take the capabilities of some animals for its attacks) then applies it to their own. That’s what I was trying to say. Especially if it actually provides some sort of edge you don’t have normally. Take Vampire Hunters, for instance. They don’t (always) take the supernatural strength of vampires to hunt them but they utilize specific weaknesses to give them an edge they didn’t.

Now don’t jump to conclusions and compare it to current DH spec. I was addressing the point as a hypothetical, specifically the “No matter how you twist it, the “hunter” name will stay in the rogue archetype” point. When it comes to stuff like this, especially if you’ve got a well enough off backstory and lore, never say never. I could write at least 3 ways to make a hunter out of a Guardian. But what the problem is, is that much of the “witch hunter” theme isn’t going to be reflected in the abilities but in the story. Some people might have a problem with it, but I don’t. Story is as important as mechanics to me.

Ephemiel.5694:

2. You say that “The Dragon title doesn’t have to mean you specifically target dragons”. ……the title is DRAGONhunter, it speaks for itself, it means, 100%, that they specifically target and hunt dragons. If a sword was named Dragonsbane, why would you think it’s named that? If a character was called, using my username as an example, Ephemiel the Dragonhunter, why would you think the character is named that?

And you can name anything Dragonsbane. If a shield is named Dragonsbane, are you going to jump to conclusions about what it does? Regardless, the point was that the amended name can tell you the full title doesn’t just target dragons. Dragonguard would be a defense corp, it doesn’t even have to do anything with dragons, it could just be a title for a group that takes defense very seriously. Dragonsoar could simply mean they are airborne. Dragonbane (not Dragon’s Bane, no ‘s’ in between) is still ambiguous. Specifically, it’s ambiguous in not telling you what you do regarding dragons, you are simply their bane and considering how powerful dragons are, the association is the point.

Ephemiel.5694:

3. The Asura managing to use draconic magics through TECHNOLOGY is nowhere near the same as a person being able to. Unless the dragon itself allowed it, it should be near impossible for us. The Guardian, after we’ve all been shown how they are, would likely be the last person to even suggest personally using draconic power. Someone like the Warrior however would likely do it, but that’s not the point.

You have no idea what is possible because what is possible is what is written and what is written does not support what you say. We simply don’t know. The point I mentioned it is because the possibility isn’t off the table.

And before you go mentioning some hyperbole analogy like using waffle magic to defeat dragons or some such nonsense, reread the quote I was responding to. He put the possibility on the table, he just couldn’t justify it for anyone but Sylvari. If Asuran technology can do something, MAGIC isn’t an impossibility. I mean, come on. It’s magic. You’d have to have zero imagination if you couldn’t figure out some sort of loophole to make it fit.

Genesis.8572:

Nike.2631:

No less terrible than last time it came up .

And still miles ahead of your precious ‘dragonbane.’

It’s not that precious to me .

Please understand the context for me – The entire structure of E-specs is based off of a couple of documents I wrote for ArenaNet (yes, it’s evolved since then, which is a good thing). I wrote that design doc after having made it extremely clear I thought sub-classes were a terrible idea (in no small part because of the issue of naming them – sound familiar?). But IF sub-classes were going to be ‘a thing’ then here’s how I would go about minimizing the damage they’d to. Because I don’t have to like an idea to want to understand it and improve it.

Basically I prophesized this entire argument IN DETAIL 18 months ago. So in many ways the Dragonbane post is the same thing as the E-spec design doc – I felt the need to legitimately play for the other side, to see if I could craft an argument FOR changing the name and frame it in a way that wasn’t wasting my breath. On the whole I’m pretty satisfied with how it went, but I’m not gonna cry if it doesn’t turn into another case of ‘be careful what you wish for…’ There is the possibility of a better name — there always was — but I find most of what’s been pitched to be generic drivel that ignores the intent that’s been put forward and the visual work already done.

Nike.2631:

Please understand the context for me – The entire structure of E-specs is based off of a couple of documents I wrote for ArenaNet (yes, it’s evolved since then, which is a good thing). I wrote that design doc after having made it extremely clear I thought sub-classes were a terrible idea (in no small part because of the issue of naming them – sound familiar?). But IF sub-classes were going to be ‘a thing’ then here’s how I would go about minimizing the damage they’d to. Because I don’t have to like an idea to want to understand it and improve it.

Basically I prophesized this entire argument IN DETAIL 18 months ago. So in many ways the Dragonbane post is the same thing as the E-spec design doc – I felt the need to legitimately play for the other side, to see if I could craft an argument FOR changing the name and frame it in a way that wasn’t wasting my breath. On the whole I’m pretty satisfied with how it went, but I’m not gonna cry if it doesn’t turn into another case of ‘be careful what you wish for…’ There is the possibility of a better name — there always was — but I find most of what’s been pitched to be generic drivel that ignores the intent that’s been put forward and the visual work already done.

Whoopty-freakin’-doo. Want a cookie for it?

Is that really all that much work? Some generic looking dragon gear? That’s it? So how difficult would it be to change all that visual work? Just put the gear on the Black Lion shop and then they can milk us dry for it. Give NCSoft a needed boost in quarterly earnings. Then ArenaNet can make some other gear for a more appropriate guardian e-spec.

Genesis.8572:

Whoopty-freakin’-doo. Want a cookie for it?

I already got a cookie for it — Superior Rune of the Trapper. Mmm. Delicious.

Is that really all that much work? Some generic looking dragon gear? That’s it? So how difficult would it be to change all that visual work? Just put the gear on the Black Lion shop and then they can milk us dry for it. Give NCSoft a needed boost in quarterly earnings. Then ArenaNet can make some other gear for a more appropriate guardian e-spec.

And there you’ve made the argument for a change more effective. I would totally include that in any serious proposal, because it shows an awareness of their process and the steps they’re on/have already taken. Doesn’t address the skill FX, but that’s only the elite.

Maybe some of these names being tossed out willy-nilly can be made more credible by including how you’d like the armor, weapon and skill FX to work with it? Present the whole package instead of just one word as if that’s all that goes into picking an E-spec name.

Nike.2631:

Genesis.8572:

Whoopty-freakin’-doo. Want a cookie for it?

I already got a cookie for it — Superior Rune of the Trapper. Mmm. Delicious.

Mmmm…thank you. I may have to get me a cookie also.

Nike.2631:

And there you’ve made the argument for a change more effective. I would totally include that in any serious proposal, because it shows an awareness of their process and the steps they’re on/have already taken. Doesn’t address the skill FX, but that’s only the elite.

Skill animations have been changed before and they will be changed again. I’m not too concerned about it. Others have noted that the guardian e-spec shares attack animations with rangers, so that should probably change as well.

Maybe some of these names being tossed out willy-nilly can be made more credible by including how you’d like the armor, weapon and skill FX to work with it? Present the whole package instead of just one word as if that’s all that goes into picking an E-spec name.

An excellent idea. It’s a bit sad that the azureflame bow has become even more iconic for the dragonhunter spec than the dragonbow due to that amazing piece of concept art.

Genesis.8572:

Skill animations have been changed before and they will be changed again. I’m not too concerned about it.

Its work. “Not being concerned” about casually committing them to more work is a good way to get ignored by Devs when you’re trying to be persuasive. More work will always be a weight in the pan against change. Not an insurmountable weight, but any good proposal is going to either take steps minimize those costs or try to convince the Devs the costs are worth the results.

Others have noted that the guardian e-spec shares attack animations with rangers, so that should probably change as well.

Things could go either way on that. If they are concerned enough about blurring the lines between profession they may add new animations to punch up the unique identity and flavor. If you’ve got a good theme you think would highlight the kinesthetic feel of a new name, DEFINITELY include it. The case has been made that since DH’s have longer cast times for some of their shots, a more daikyu/zen-archery style draw-motion might look cool and set them part from Ranger/Warrior archers.

OTOH a bow is a bow to most people and a trap a trap. There may be some advantages in uniformity beyond conservation of art department man-hours.

Basically it comes down to pick your fights in your proposal. Does it add enough cool to make animations a thing you want to delve into.

Genesis.8572:

Maybe some of these names being tossed out willy-nilly can be made more credible by including how you’d like the armor, weapon and skill FX to work with it? Present the whole package instead of just one word as if that’s all that goes into picking an E-spec name.

An excellent idea.

Even if I’m ok with the current name, I want to see the best counter-proposals possible .

It’s a bit sad that the azureflame bow has become even more iconic for the dragonhunter spec than the dragonbow due to that amazing piece of concept art.

I immediately went and bought all the necessary components to build an Azureflame the day that picture came out . Picked up mats for Wintersbite too, for my evil Jormag-infused Guardian who will totally be rocking the icebow…

If I have one real bone of contention with the Dragonhunter its that the Wings of Resolve FX aren’t a third as awesome as that concept art. The misty white wings are cute and all, but I want me some iconic blue fire of righteous whupus dancing along those pinions.

Nike, could you try being at least fifty percent less patronizing? Thanks.

Why would they have to change anything but the name?

Tachenon.5270:

Why would they have to change anything but the name?

Because the name, the armor, the weapon, and in some cases the skill FX work together. They are not independent parts of the design process.

Would wells be so readily accepted as the Chronomancer’s new skill type if they didn’t look like big clock faces?

Genesis.8572:

Nike, could you try being at least fifty percent less patronizing? Thanks.

Your point is well taken. I’ll try to moderate my tone. But I’m not shooting for any more than a 14% reduction .

Nike.2631:

Tachenon.5270:

Why would they have to change anything but the name?

Because the name, the armor, the weapon, and in some cases the skill FX work together. The are not independent parts of the design process.

Would wells be so readily accepted as the Chronomancer’s new skill type if they didn’t look like big clock faces?

There’s nothing about the spec that makes it specifically a ‘dragonhunter’. Not the bow, not the traps, not the anything. The spec is fine. The name is silly and is incompatible with the setting.

Tachenon.5270:

Nike.2631:

Tachenon.5270:

Why would they have to change anything but the name?

Because the name, the armor, the weapon, and in some cases the skill FX work together. The are not independent parts of the design process.

Would wells be so readily accepted as the Chronomancer’s new skill type if they didn’t look like big clock faces?

There’s nothing about the spec that makes it specifically a ‘dragonhunter’. Not the bow, not the traps, not the anything. The spec is fine. The name is silly and is incompatible with the setting.

That’s true ! The visuals of the DH, despite the elite skill FX, are not related to dragons, and not really to hunting.
As an example : the chronomancer’s wells look like clocks to evoke time magic, the DH traps look like magic spells (not even traditionnal traps a hunter would use) but in this case they just evoke the magical aspect of the Guardian, nothing about hunting, dragons or hunting dragons.
We don’t even need to change what the skills look like (except dragon’s maw maybe) because they don’t have any specific visual identity. They’re nothing more than basic Guardian skills. That’s also one of the reasons why the name feels like a misfit.
We could just change their names, and it’s done !

Hey Nike ! you know that the armor they showed on the DH is already in the game right ? Only the gloves are new.
The Chronomancer only got new shoulders. The Reaper a new hat. The DH new gloves. Nothing more.
Gloves + Bow : it’s not that much to change. They even might have something ready to replace them already considering they probably have abandonned concept arts or models they never used before and that could fit.

Ojyh.9842:

Hey Nike ! you know that the armor they showed on the DH is already in the game right ? Only the gloves are new.

The Chronomancer only got new shoulders. The Reaper a new hat. The DH new gloves. Nothing more.

Gloves + Bow : it’s not that much to change. They even might have something ready to replace them already considering they probably have abandonned concept arts or models they never used before and that could fit.

I would be in favor of an inquisitor helm. Amusingly enough, the Dragon Age Inquisitor Helm does have a dragon design. The inquisitor bow could be designed to look like a set of balancing scales that imply a weighing of moral goodness in the determination of judgment.

Ojyh.9842:

Hey Nike ! you know that the armor they showed on the DH is already in the game right ? Only the gloves are new.
The Chronomancer only got new shoulders. The Reaper a new hat. The DH new gloves. Nothing more.

Certainly — and I’m pretty sure I know why: because we’re going to pay 5 hero points to unlock the skin and it comes before some traits/skills so having different numbers of armor pieces would make some E-spec tracks more difficult to complete than others. They ALL have exactly 1 new armor piece.

Gloves + Bow : it’s not that much to change. They even might have something ready to replace them already considering they probably have abandonned concept arts or models they never used before and that could fit.

Could be – but the point is that pulling something at random out of the discards isn’t creating a unified theme. The name was chosen before the graphical assets were developed. If they’re open to change then it might be helpful to try to inspire/intrigue them with some ideas for the armor and weapon skin that would have to be made for the new name. The ‘scales of justice-as-bow’ for the Arbiter seems like a clever example of linking Name and visual theme .

And keep in mind some of the names that have been put forward… even if they aren’t used for this first Guardian spec as a replacement for Dragonhunter with its longbow/traps mechanics, are still probably going into a scratch file somewhere to be re-examined when it comes time to plan out the next round of E-specs.

(I for one am happy we aren’t getting the Paragon yet – as arguably the most quintessential of all Guardian branches/influences, I think they’ll do a better job of it after having gained some practical experience making E-specs. Oh, and when they have the tech in hand to give us terrestrial spears, either as 2h weapons or with their stats scaling down to 1H levels when used in an on-land main hand slot so we can combine them with focus/shield/torch)

I kinda doubt we’ll be getting the Paragon as how we remember from GW1. Especially since the Reaper is a spiritual successor to the Dervish’s Avatar of Grenth. Or like how GW2’s version of the Assassin is the Thief with some new quirks. Or how the concept of the spirit summoning light armored Ritualist has been repackaged in as the heavy armored Revenant. Or how the Monk was turned into the Guardian with bits of the Paragon blended in.

The spear, shield and wings of the Paragon being linked to the Dragonhunter’s profession mechanic makes it seem like the same pattern has been followed. Where GW1 professions that were left on the cutting room floor have been chopped up and divvied up into new professions or specs.

If they do invent the terrestrial spear, it would seem like a waste of resources to do so just for a single spec or for limited use among a couple of others. Much simpler to just give a Paragon spec an existing ranged weapon or have that weapon be seen in the profession mechanic (Dervish Scythe = Reaper’s Scythe skill, Paragon’s Spear = Dragonhunter’s Spear skill) , instead of working on new character animations for the spear to be thrown like a javelin. Besides the specs don’t have too much scope with just 1 new weapon, 6 new skills and a twist on the profession mechanic. Big parts of the Paragon’s identity will have to be left behind just because of these constraints. At the moment a little part of the Paragon exists in the Dragonhunter and we might see another spec incorporate another part like something similar to Chants. But to get a full bodied Paragon in the mold of how they were in GW1 is wishful thinking.

It’s like expecting that the Revenant spec will be the Ritualist or like how people expected this Guardian spec to be the Paragon before it was unveiled. There’s not much to show that ArenaNet is in the business of recycling the past in an obvious way. If anything they’ve been reinterpreting or purposely going on tangents for the sake of doing something new. To me the Dragonhunter makes the Paragon seem less likely of ever happening. Maybe if the Dragonhunter’s profession mechanic was something else besides the Spear, Shield and Wings. But when you take something that was iconic from the Paragon and reuse it in something else, it just gives the impression that the Paragon has been superseded by something new. If they had switched traps with something Mantra styled Chants you’d have gotten the Paragon or as close as a spec could get to the Paragon.

For those who wanted it, the DH e-spec was the best and last chance for a Paragon. It’s clear looking through the DH’s virtues that the Paragon was gutted for the DH.

Genesis.8572:

Nike, could you try being at least fifty percent less patronizing? Thanks.

Against the ignorance that most people demonstrate, I think he’s holding back. People underestimate the amount of work and thinking that have gone behind this name, regardless of what we think of it and it’s actually pretty insulting to the devs seeing the way I’ve seen most people marginalize and critique the work. Nike speaks with a solid knowledge of these things.

Obtena.7952:

Genesis.8572:

Nike, could you try being at least fifty percent less patronizing? Thanks.

Against the ignorance that most people demonstrate, I think he’s holding back. People underestimate the amount of work and thinking that have gone behind this name, regardless of what we think of it and it’s actually pretty insulting to the devs seeing the way I’ve seen most people marginalize and critique the work. Nike speaks with a solid knowledge of these things.

….yeah, i can imagine the “work” that went into the name when the fans are poking holes all over what they said and even thinking of superior ideas.

Can people like you and Nike PLEASE stop defending Anet for no reason and at least accept they screwed this up? They didn’t spend work AT ALL with this name and background, just look at this thread and you’d easily realize that.

I haven’t read most of this so where does it stand? Mostly for or against the name? I don’t think it goes with the profession at all. It should be changed to something that invokes thoughts of the base class in a more focused way. Dragon hunter in no way evokes thoughts of what a Guardian stands for or does.

Ephemiel.5694:

….yeah, i can imagine the “work” that went into the name when the fans are poking holes all over what they said and even thinking of superior ideas.

And that right there is why you are wasting your time. There is NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH to that statement. You like some of the ideas here more, but be realistic – 99% of what’s been pitched is straight off of page 1 of the ‘my first time writing fantasy: a guide to generic as KITTEN names’. Spouting tier 1 drivel does NOT a compelling argument make. The team that owns the canon – the office where the buck stops on what IS and IS NOT “modern Tyria” are on board with this. The mechanics guys didn’t just sneak their 9-year old’s pet name through no matter how clever folks think they are claiming that’s how it went down.

Dragonhunter didn’t come out of a hat. Its been compared to and overcome probably every dammed name thrown out here and it did it 6 months ago. Is it set in stone? Not for another 3 months, but for pity’s sake UNDERSTAND if you want to change it you’re not going to insult them into action and you’re not gonna get a petition of 18 random posters and 11 bloggers who all like page 1 generic names to change their minds either.

You think something’s better? Great. Make a compelling pitch. Stamping your foot and saying “you’re so dumb!” to the Devs is screaming at them that you’re not operating on a level they should (or will) pay attention to.

Iason Evan.3806:

I haven’t read most of this so where does it stand? Mostly for or against the name?

Where it stands is its not now nor has it ever been up for a vote or the end product of a popularity contest.

I don’t think it goes with the profession at all.

Nothing wrong with that, and you’re not alone.

It should be changed to something that invokes thoughts of the base class in a more focused way. Dragon hunter in no way evokes thoughts of what a Guardian stands for or does.

I think it’s pretty clear they DON’T want the E-specs to be considered close to the base profession. Its not supposed to evoke “more Guardian” its supposed to evoke “something new (that shares some techniques with Guardians)”

Nike.2631:

Dragonhunter didn’t come out of a hat. Its been compared to and overcome probably every dammed name thrown out here and it did it 6 months ago. Is it set in stone? Not for another 3 months, but for pity’s sake UNDERSTAND if you want to change it you’re not going to insult them into action and you’re not gonna get a petition of 18 random posters and 11 bloggers who all like page 1 generic names to change their minds either.

Dragonhunter is a silly name and the concept from which it was derived is incompatible with the setting of GW2.

Tachenon.5270:

Nike.2631:

Dragonhunter didn’t come out of a hat. Its been compared to and overcome probably every dammed name thrown out here and it did it 6 months ago. Is it set in stone? Not for another 3 months, but for pity’s sake UNDERSTAND if you want to change it you’re not going to insult them into action and you’re not gonna get a petition of 18 random posters and 11 bloggers who all like page 1 generic names to change their minds either.

Dragonhunter is a silly name and the concept from which it was derived is incompatible with the setting of GW2.

That’s a great premise, now show it’s true and you might have something worth discussing and a decent reason to change the name.

Nike.2631:

Spouting tier 1 drivel does NOT a compelling argument make.

And here is where i stopped reading because you show, yet again, that you understand nothing.

You know what, i’m tired of repeating myself and seeing others repeat themselves, it’s clear that you, along with a few others, are completely blind and can’t see what a mistake this is even after it’s been told countless times.