Guild Wars 2

I know I keep changing my mind but I feel like Watchman is probably the good one.

I mean it is supposed to watch from distance, control the terrain or defend it with its traps, and then jumps into action to intervene. This is a bit different from the Guardian but stays close to its theme at the same time.
It has the support connotation, but the* aggressive intervention* too. The use of the bow seems logical. Even the new version of the virtues can fit with it.

Well, probably my favorite for now.

Eggs.3142:

What if we just change the hunter part? Wha about Dragonbane

That would be pretty neat. Sure everyone is a dragon hunter…but these are supposed to be specialists at it…which would mean they are hated even more so than any other class.

Eggs.3142:

What if we just change the hunter part? Wha about Dragonbane

Not really, because that part of the name is not that good either. Really the whole thing feels wrong. Both hunting and draconic theme.

Whats wrong with the dragon part? Dragons are cool. From Puff to Smaug, Pete’s to Shooting Star. Glint was a dragon, she was pretty awesome.

waSte.8640:

All you Dragonhaters been drinkin’ Dragonhateorade.

Nah that’s what guardians have been drinking. Because they, like, hunt dragons now.

Eggs.3142:

What if we just change the hunter part? Wha about Dragonbane

I was in the first round of posters to suggest Dragonbane. I think if the changed the look of the wings and maybe give another longbow attack a dragon motif, Dragonbane (heck, just Dragon Hunter) would fit a lot easier.

I’m leaning a lot toward Inquisitor and Exorcist now. I also think Farlight is a fitting one too. Archlight or Arcwing wouldn’t be out of place if they ditch the ‘hunter’ theme which doesn’t feel that hunt like except for the spear.

With wings, it reminds me of the Paragon! For me it is his name: Paragon!

I’d like to add my vote for a name change as well and possible theme/description change (although I imagine it’s possibly too late for that).

This is the name and description of the specialisation –
“Dragonhunter – a ferocious big-game hunter that specializes in ranged combat and back-line support.”

Dragonhunter is a terrible name, but not because everyone in Tyria is technically a dragon hunter and because it sounds like an 8 year old came up with it. I don’t like the name because it sounds like it has no connection to the Guardian class. The same can also be said about the description, ‘ferocious big-game hunter’, if anything the Dragonhunter sounds more like a Ranger specialization than anything else. Surely ArenaNet could name the specialization something more Guardian-like, for example the Arbiter and instead of the big-game hunter type theme, have a holy judgement type theme.

Shadow Piercer could have worked you know lots of light fighting evil firing arrows pierce stuff get it?

Eggs.3142:

Im going to stop my discussion here, because the bold part hits the nail on the head. You are admiting that you think that its wrong for people to prioritize the cool sounding names over other ones. The ES plays fine. It looks great in the Ready up. Now we are here just arguing because… because… we all just want a cool name. We are prioritizing a cool sounding name over everything else. Lets just call it Elite Spec. 1.

No, the problem is you think you get to decide for the rest of us, what the cool sounding names are.

You need to learn to discern the difference between your subjective opinion, and actual objective fact. Simply because you post that something is or is not cool, does not make it definitively so.

Have to admit I am not thrilled about the name either. I don’t have any good suggestions (that haven’t been given already) but a more unique/smooth/pleasant name that fits the same theme would be welcome (and I go by the assumption this specialisation is the result of a guardian learning a few tricks from a ranger. specifically, Braham from Eir).

I don’t really like any of those names.

Without doing a bunch of big research into them and going by regular context with perhaps a bit of fantasy background to pepper the imagination:

Crusader/Templar don’t seem bad but neglects the point of the profession that uses light, bows and most importantly, “traps”. Nothing resembles the profession being created.

Seeker? That’s so generic, it’d rather keep Dragonhunter. Seeker has even less context; nothing linking it to justice, due punishment or anything. In the context of the profession, the only thing that brings about a seeker context is the trap that reveals.

Justicar isn’t bad, I could live with it. I feel the spear of justice shackling foes and locking down groups with the longbow 5 feels right so that’s 1 out of your 6…

Patron? Everytime someone suggests patron, I think of customer or financial supporter. With the relatively recent Patron site allowing people to support projects directly, it will definitely keep that connotation to many. And it’s a large stretch to link all the definitions of Patron to Patron Saint without some sort of religious overtone which, you yourself, seem to want to avoid with your list of bad names.

Warden? Has a link to traps. Has no link to longbow or light or anything like that. It doesn’t not work, but it’s a hammy choice. I wouldn’t oppose it but like Seeker, it’s very generic and boring. Doesn’t incite wonder and hardly brings about a vibe of the class.

Lastly, I feel you left out some of the best names as options from your discussion, namely the french name Draconnier. If the devs choose to go with a dragon theme, that is definitely the one I’d go with. It’s not a bad thing and it actually brings about a sense of wonder, awe and imagination of what it could do and stand for vs trying to pinpoint what a fantasy job is via already existing words. People put too much emphasis on existing words and don’t understand that imaginary fantasy things can have imaginary fantasy names to go with them that have a lot more impact than trying to fit square pegs in round holes.

Lastly, I think your thread will be merged soon…

My vote is for Seeker. It channels Virtues through arrows that seek the target. They are on a mission to “seek” or hunt down big game. Plus they could be referred to as Seekers of Truth, Seekers of Justice, Seekers of Vengeance, etc…

I think the issue is that the Guardian – and the description they have given for the new specialization – feels like it should be inspired by St. George or maybe Beowulf – eg, someone fighting the dragons to protect civilization. The term Dragonhunter, on the other hand, feels more like a tracker or ranger-focused role – someone hunting dragons for profit.

I know many would have issue with this name as well, but I would have gone with the more descriptive and simple “Dragonslayer.”

Leo G.4501:

Ojyh.9842:

When Karl McLain (I think that’s his name ?) shortly explained the idea behind this spec he basically said this “oh he wants to destroy everything about dragons…”
This is clearly the WORST thing he could have said. He just officially confirmed that there is nothing intelligent or coherent behind this. Just “hey dragon killas r kool u no !”
Plus there is now clearly no link with the Guardian, although it totally looks like Guardian.
I know, maybe they don’t want to spoil the bigger things behind it. But I really can’t see anything to justify Dragonhunter as a name and as a theme for the spec.

So then Zealot might work as a name after all.

Or twisted a bit, you could get Confessor?
[one who gives heroic evidence of faith but does not suffer martyrdom]
Has GW history as well.

Patron is gender-specific. Matron is the feminine form.

Paragon, Paladin, Dark Knight, Dragon Knight, Aetherknight, Mystic Knight, Mystic Warrior, Aether Ranger, Aether Warrior….(too lazy/tired to think of more right now)

Dragonhunter just doesn’t fit to me…the guardian basically becomes a more magic oriented ranger? Meh… :\

Personally I’d have done something like Celestial Warden or Spectral Warden to give more of a guardian feel and keep with the light theme. I’d also change the “traps” to wards. Wards of lights that have effects when triggered. Sounds more in line with the base class of a guardian.

JonPeters.5630:

A couple notes on Dragonhunter. We went with this name because we felt it was evocative of the medieval witch hunters. 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. I understand this is a lot more high concept than Mesmer but at the end of the day we felt like we wanted to try and push a more mature theme here. I hope this helps explain our thinking. We had other generic names in mind but felt like it was important to have a mix of spec names that are generic fantasy, more Tyrian fantasy, and more high concept. This one falls more in the third category.

Thanks,

Jon

Sometimes you can go a little too “high concept” or have too many “subtle nuances” where the message is either lost or overly convoluted. I have to squint real hard to see anything related to medieval witch hunters with the new Guardian spec.

Personally the way the spec works in gameplay should be where the “high concept” stuff should be, but the name should be clear, concise and to the point.

Nike.2631:

JonPeters.5630:

A couple notes on Dragonhunter. We went with this name because we felt it was evocative of the medieval witch hunters. 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. I understand this is a lot more high concept than Mesmer but at the end of the day we felt like we wanted to try and push a more mature theme here. I hope this helps explain our thinking. We had other generic names in mind but felt like it was important to have a mix of spec names that are generic fantasy, more Tyrian fantasy, and more high concept. This one falls more in the third category.

Thanks,

Jon

Christ that is terrible reasoning. “Other generic names”. What could be more generic than “Dragonhunter”? And there is NOTHING subtle or nuanced about “Dragonhunter.”

There is absolutely nothing about this name that evokes imagery of witch-hunters and the fact they have to come out and defend the name proves it’s a terrible name. Additionally, the description of “big game hunter” doesn’t mesh with witch hunting either!

On top of this, it’s insulting that he defends the name by pretending it’s somehow hard to grasp… as if it’s a mature concept that escapes us. NO, no it’s not Mr. Peters. There is nothing “high concept” about this…. and there’s nothing highbrow about the name or difficult to get. In fact, it’s quite “lowbrow” that you’re going with the generic “dragons r evil” route. Previously, the lore held that dragons were akin to forces of nature; part of the natural cycle of magic in Tyria. Would we have Tornadohunters? Earthquakehunters?

Yeah, when he was explaining the whole witch hunt parallels and protecting innocents, the whole “big game” part is completely unrelated as is hunting dragons with a bow or trying to link witch hunting with literal hunting. None of that really works.

I like how people keep calling the utility skills ‘traps’.

Sure, they go off when some red creature steps into them but then again so do Necromancer marks… which are essentially necromancer traps but aren’t called that because traps aren’t magic-y enough and are ground targeted. Since guardians already HAD symbols (which generally aren’t ground targeted) they called these ‘traps’ even though their names sound more symbol-like to me. The only thing that makes them traps is the .5 second set-up and .5 trigger times which is faster than some of the symbols Guardian’s already have that take a little bit to cast (mace anyone?) due to needlessly slow animations to account for cast times. So, essentially these traps act like symbols when in melee, even faster than some symbols.

Actually reading the skills/traits, very little really ties this to ‘Dragon Hunter’ beyond 3/13 skills and 3/12 traits. Basically 24% of this Elite Spec is actually a Dragon Hunter. The rest is Guardian 2.0 because the traps look more like Symbols with a slight alteration to their mechanics, the longbow has nice- though divine/spiritual instead of dragon/hunter inspired and somewhat generic- attacks, and left field reasons (Witch hunter comparison back peddle of big game hunter [which sounds, in my opinion, too ranger-ish]) to be called ‘Dragon Hunter’ instead of something more in line with Guardians.

Looking at the Chronomancer – 9/9 skills are arguably named around the class’s theme and the 2 traits given to us are as well. So far, 100% of Chronomancer is actually Chronomancer (this will likely go down with the release of the other traits- unless of course the devs on the Mesmer’s spec keep up the good work). Even taken very literally 7/9 skills are time oriented and 1/2 traits released are which is still 72%.

I get the feeling the two specs are being designed by two very different teams with very little directional cohesion for the DH and a considerable amount for the Chronomancer. I kinda get the feeling DH was named that because the lead liked the name and didn’t give a kitten about how it would actually tie into the pre-established themes of what a Guardian is.

If it’s lore fueled- then most likely it’ll be because Braham Eirsson becomes Braham Dragonhunter (this fits Norn naming patterns) for whatever reason, thus forcing all Guardians (human, sylvari, charr, and asuran) to have a spec named by Norn naming traditions for last names, unfortunately I’m not Braham. And only one character of mine- oddly enough a Guardian- is a Norn. But she’s Yulia Lightseeker because she’s searching for a way to forge the lights of the far shiverpeaks (like the Aurora Borealis) into a weapon to fight Jormag, not Yulia Dragonhunter. He can be Dragon Hunter all he wants, I’d rather be something that feels more Guardian even if I just continue referring to myself as a Guardian and forget I’m specced into DH.

Basically what I’m getting at is that it is all well and good to name a spec after its weapon and mechanics, but ultimately it should clearly- with very little room to wiggle- relate to its parent spec which is why Dragonhunter just doesn’t do it for me for Guardian. For Warrior or Ranger I could buy it, but not for Guardian.

Nike.2631:

JonPeters.5630:

A couple notes on Dragonhunter. We went with this name because we felt it was evocative of the medieval witch hunters. 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. I understand this is a lot more high concept than Mesmer but at the end of the day we felt like we wanted to try and push a more mature theme here. I hope this helps explain our thinking. We had other generic names in mind but felt like it was important to have a mix of spec names that are generic fantasy, more Tyrian fantasy, and more high concept. This one falls more in the third category.

Thanks,

Jon

Dang that reasoning is even worse than I thought it would be. Really? ‘Dragon Hunter’ is more akin to High Concept than generic fanatasy? lol ‘Dragon Hunter’ is nothing but generic fanatsy. What’s next adding Dwarves and Elves and calling them ‘High Concept’. At this point you couldn’t possibly get more cliche than ‘Dragon Hunter’ is in the fantasy drama.

More subtle and mature theme here? There is nothing subtle and mature about ‘eradication of Dragons and their Minions.’ By that logic I guess we should start burning down the Pale Tree. Or does that not count because they aren’t strictly under the Dragon’s power? Or maybe ‘eradicating Dragons and their minions’ isn’t a subtle and mature theme at all but a immature one devoid of nuance.

If we interpret “Dragonhunter” along the specific context of it being exactly what it is – a specialisation WITHIN no other but the Guardian profession – then I don’t really see any issue. It does not need to be a class/profession name because it isn’t.

We have the Guardian profession, and within this profession there are those among them who choose to devote their training to deal more proficiently with the various kinds of threat the Elder Dragons and their minions pose, than their core Guardian training would have been able to provide.

Dragon Hunter != Dragonhunter

I get the point that the purpose of this profession specialization is in taking out the dragons, But it is Very poorly communicated. Traditionally the language to refer to such an opposite would be used with words like Bane, or Slayer, maybe even DragonKnight to get that offensive vibe. With the Hunt, verbs such as Tracking, and patience come to mind, which undermines the whole light magic theme.

Now I get that the traps don’t trigger right away after being set, but I don’t like the idea of a weakness being framed for the namesake. Chronomancers and druids, manipulate time and attune to nature in this expansion as they are Hunting dragons too. that’s the Plot of our story as their ends to justify their means, which doesn’t justify the Name for DH. We have to objectify the methods for which we are going for our results.

Now I’ve done more searching, and would again advise names such as LightSlinger, or DivineHunter be more fitting, as they entail the actions of which makes this a specialization, and can be identified with Guardians. Anet has made it clear they don’t want anymore Class merging in their plan, and Calling this Specialization Dragonhunter not only goes against that plan, but brings about much inconsistency.

there shouldn’t even be dragon in the name

The spec seems cool and I am excited to use traps and a longbow but seriously the name is lame and not well thought out at all. Anet just change it to Demon Hunter (2 words) or Witch Hunter or something. I am a huge supporter of this game and I have been playing my guardian since launch but even I cringed when I read what the new specialization was called.

Gawd…..ok fine…..Spirit Guardian! or if you go down the line of other words for Spirit..
Life Force>Vital Principle>command post, focal point, headquarters, hotbed, HQ, control center, core, epicenter, esoteric reality, focus, ganglion, heart, hub, inner reality, intrinsic reality, switchboard, vital center

So Ya….Spirit Guardian

Grail Knight? sounds good to me

No offense intended, but Jon Peter’s explanation did not convince me one iota. I am not seeing any legitimacy in his explanation. In fact his answer only compounded the rationality of such generic name. There’s absolutely no sophistication or “high concept”. This was clearly a bad choice whether Jon wants to admit it or not.

Honestly I think the Paragon name would’ve been the safest choice. It might have even appeased older GW1 fans.

Someone tossed out Arclight a while back. I was solidly in the arbiter camp but I think Arclight/Archlight works very well considering the bow….

Craywulf.5793:

No offense intended, but Jon Peter’s explanation did not convince me one iota. I am not seeing any legitimacy in his explanation. In fact his answer only compounded the rationality of such generic name. There’s absolutely no sophistication or “high concept”. This was clearly a bad choice whether Jon wants to admit it or not.

Honestly I think the Paragon name would’ve been the safest choice. It might have even appeased older GW1 fans.

i think his justification was actually pretty patronizing/borderline insulting. It was basically “if you don’t like it, it’s because you don’t get it because it’s too complex for you.” Ick.

GW2, please take the hint. My vote is for Arbiter. I voted for Arbiter on Reddit, I will vote for it on GW2 Forums and I will forever refer to the “Dragon Hunter” as an Arbiter and encourage the community to do the same. Please don’t make new specialization names so specific. Thank you in advance for a great game, I cannot wait to try the new Arbiter Elite Specialization

Alice.5360:

Craywulf.5793:

No offense intended, but Jon Peter’s explanation did not convince me one iota. I am not seeing any legitimacy in his explanation. In fact his answer only compounded the rationality of such generic name. There’s absolutely no sophistication or “high concept”. This was clearly a bad choice whether Jon wants to admit it or not.

Honestly I think the Paragon name would’ve been the safest choice. It might have even appeased older GW1 fans.

i think his justification was actually pretty patronizing/borderline insulting. It was basically “if you don’t like it, it’s because you don’t get it because it’s too complex for you.” Ick.

Yeah I could have done a better job at PR than that, While Still designing, the game, and fulfilling my commitments. This Economy has made me a kitten good Multitask er.

jbwoodward.4791:

GW2, please take the hint. My vote is for Arbiter. I voted for Arbiter on Reddit, I will vote for it on GW2 Forums and I will forever refer to the “Dragon Hunter” as an Arbiter and encourage the community to do the same. Please don’t make new specialization names so specific. Thank you in advance for a great game, I cannot wait to try the new Arbiter Elite Specialization

This has been brought up too many times to count, but Arbiter literally doesn’t fit what this specialization does. There are better names for it, maybe, but Arbiter is not one of them.

Calling the spec “Hammerlock” would have been a better option if they want to stick with the big game hunter route.

MiniEquine.6014:

jbwoodward.4791:

GW2, please take the hint. My vote is for Arbiter. I voted for Arbiter on Reddit, I will vote for it on GW2 Forums and I will forever refer to the “Dragon Hunter” as an Arbiter and encourage the community to do the same. Please don’t make new specialization names so specific. Thank you in advance for a great game, I cannot wait to try the new Arbiter Elite Specialization

This has been brought up too many times to count, but Arbiter literally doesn’t fit what this specialization does. There are better names for it, maybe, but Arbiter is not one of them.

I think they need to scrap the entire “hunter” idea and go with something refined. I was behind arbiter but other names have popped up that fit the ticket. Arclight/Archlight was a very strong contender. So were Harbinger, Sentinel, Warder, Bastion, Stalwart ,Valkyr and Seeker.

I really dislike the name “Dragonhunter”.

Jinn Kazuma.2163:

Calling the spec “Hammerlock” would have been a better option if they want to stick with the big game hunter route.

Sadly, I like that even better than Dragonhunter. Seriously.

I like the names Paragon and Templar. And Paragon suits the guardian specialisation considering there’s a virtue and/or skill to do with spears, and there’s a wing animation too.

Divinehunter

Fellhunter

Spirithunter

I just saw the ready up video: all i can say is, I feel sorry for Guardian Profession. Their new Dragon Hunter look very boring and feel like total disconnection from the Guardian Profession in all ways. I see no relationship the Dragon Hunter have with them.

Like i always said before: it is not only the name Dragon Hunter is the problem: it is the role relationship it have with the guardian profession. The Role of the Dragon Hunter have with the guardian profession do not make sense at all. Burning! You serious!! Guardian already have access to Burning lol

This is my opinion only I feel Arena net did this intentionally to the Guardian Profession- giving them something worthless because they are afraid to un-balance the guardian profession. So they attach a attractive name to trick the guardian players to think that they innovated the Guardian profession and so far: many guardian players refuse to see that*

Even few guardian players include non-Guardian players and new Guardian Players already caught that and is not happy about it-angry. One Last Time: it is not the name is the problem- it is the role the Dragon Hunter/ Witch Hunter play with the guardian profession that is the problem.

Read Arena net: John Peter reply in this thread:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/guardian/Liked-the-ready-up-name-still-doesn-t-fit/first

Ok

I am done repeating myself over and over. I play guardian profession and i am very disappointed with this change.

Divinehunter

Spirithunter

Spellhunter

Fellhunter

This is a compromise maintaining the hunter aspect, using traps and longbow, while tying it in intrinsically to the Guardian and making it relevant throughout Tyria and the GW2 Universe (with or without Dragons)

i feel insulted that John tried to break down such a simple theme for us like that. im sure he didnt intend for it to come off condescending, its not complicated john its just crass and poorly thought out in a game thats not just about PVE.
High Concept? high on what exactly? im gunna laugh if half the specs r Dragon_____

IF the goal was to make everyone a dragon hunting spec i could see this from a pve rp standpoint but what about pvp?

ANNNNNDDDDDwhy are the traps not shootable or atleast placeable within a 600 area, can we fluff up the bow skills a little more animation wise?

also will trueshot +the KB trait KB everyone hit or just first target

Honestly, if they truly want to keep the “dragonhunter” then they could use another language for it, since it doesn’t sound great in English.

In Latin, it would be Dracovenator, if we merge the words Draco (Dragon) and Venator (Hunter). Sure, it isn’t perfect, but the touch of exoticism could do wonder, I think. Or Dracovenor, if they use the verb to hunt with Draco. And if they want a modern language, the French Draconnier seems more in tune with what the Dragonhunter “high concept” is supposed to be, IMHO.

And from what I read elsewhere, the mechanisms of the Dh are very well welcomed by a lot of players. But, just like the Chronomancer, it doesn’t fit everyone’s way of playing their class, and honestly, it shouldn’t do. The point of the new trait systems is to have meaningful choices, and the Dh seems at least to provide such choices for the Guardians, with very different ways to play the class.

I’m OK with the play style CHANGE THE NAME PLEASE!! If not i guess its time i played Thief

Dark Saviour.9410:

Patron is gender-specific. Matron is the feminine form.

Gender specific would it be, if only Patrons would exist.

Compare this with Valkyrie, where they exist clearly only as females. There exist no male Valkyries in the form of “Valkyrs”. This word simply doesn’t exist and thats the big difference between Patron/Matron and Valkyrie, where Valkyries are truly gender specific as its a term, which simply exists only for females.
You can’t say here, there exists a male version form of the word valkyrie by just exchanging the first letter from Valkyrie into say for example a P and call it Palkyrie to let that be the male version. Simply doesn’t work this way.

A Matron by definition is also something completely different, than a Patron.
So I say you are incorrect here, because both words have nothingto do with each other, despite sounding very similar up to 1 letter at the beginning.

But nice try :P

PS: and those 4 compromises there above are even tons of times more terrible, than the original >.>

PPS: Mordeus exactly gets it right

Please change the name.

Confessor, Sentinel, Envoy. Something like that. If it must be, scrap the bow and gauntlets and sell them on the black lion store.

Name is a no-go, really

“Sandwichmancer” ~WP