Guild Wars 2

I hope they put a giant “dragonhunter” watermark across the screen of everyone who started a thread.

cerulean moth.2743:

I think DragonHunter makes a lot of sense. People seem to be looking at the name for this Specialization from the view of a player character. The argument, “We’re all dragon hunters, hunting Elder Dragons keeps coming up.” Of course the player characters are all hunting dragons, that’s what the game is about. The PC is always an exception to the rule.

In the lore of Tyria, however, the Dragon Hunters will be a splinter group of highly specialized Guardians that have seen the horrors the Dragons and their minions have wrought. This explains the NPC faction and the reason. Not all Mesmers are dedicated to fighting dragons, not all Chronomancers are either.

Dragon Hunters are. It fits perfectly in the lore.

Yes, these guys are called Vigil and in extension the Pact.
The Vigil was formed to help and defend the ones harmed by the elder dragons.

The Priory was a institution for knowledge who turned their efforts towards understanding the dragons and finding ways to combat them.

The Order of Whispers was a secret group who gathered information on the dragons, to defeat them from the shadows.

All of them can be considerered dragon hunters. Mostly the Vigil in regards in terms of direct confrontation with all dragons and their minions..

All of them came together with one goal: “defeating the elder dragons and their minions”, calling themselves The Pact. The biggest multiracial army modern tyria has ever seen. To protect their people and defeat the dragons.

So yeah. Why do we need a splinter faction again who has the same goal as the biggest army on the continent?
It is not a small splinter faction. This army was the goal of the personal story and even before that the smaller factions excisted.

There is no reason for a distinction here. There is no reason to single a group out and call them dragonhunters, since that is the goal of the biggest military effort already.

Guardians are not special. They are not the only ones capable to fight dragons and their minions and they are not the only ones who have trained to fight them, because they have seen the horror of the dragons.

Jaken.6801:

All of them can be considerered dragon hunters. Mostly the Vigil in regards in terms of direct confrontation with all dragons and their minions..

All of them came together with one goal: “defeating the elder dragons and their minions”, calling themselves The Pact. The biggest multiracial army modern tyria has ever seen. To protect their people and defeat the dragons.

So yeah. Why do we need a splinter faction again who has the same goal as the biggest army on the continent?

Maybe because The Pact failed, their fleet destroyed and this splinter group believes The Pact can no longer defeat the Elder Dragons or are taking too long to regroup & they have a chance and can do it better.

Or maybe their a group of Pact survivors that witness the fleets destruction and exterminating the Elder Dragons & their corruption has consumed their whole goal for life. Now calling themselves Dragonhunters.

Maybe. Who knows. This is something I would hope I could find out in game or from books. Only Arenanet has the answers.

Wwefan.4982:

And where is the evidence from the developers that says we are getting one every 2 years as I remember correctly from the pax announcement Colin said that these can be rolled out through live updates just like the masteries.

That wasn’t my point.
This specialization is not “just a part of a serie”, it is the first.

Please Arenanet, don’t screw it up.

Bezagron.7352:

Other players are also liking the name, others are indifferent with most posting here disliking it.

It’s a feedback thread, if you like it and don’t tell it here, I suppose you’re just indifferent.

Btw, lot of people here don’t like it at all and I haven’t read (I may have missed) someone said “Please, keep the Dragonhunter name, it is just perfect for this specialization”.

macon.4065:

see that’s what I thought off. It just seems that the Dragonhunter utility and main skills seem like repetitions as the other class already have them. The title also is not a great title. I mean we are all Dragonhunters to a tee, their are 7 Elder dragons. So like I was saying perhaps focusing on Healing, Smiting or just the use of Holy would be more productive. Different arms and a different flavor would make it better as well. It just feels like rinse and repeat again. And I don’t really see the value with the same skills, want traps play a Ranger, want a unique shot play a thief, etc etc.

I do want to say something about titles though. See if they went with Smite you could call it a Zealot. If they want more Holy or Smite on a Weapon I’d like to suggest Crusader, Templar or something along that line. A weapon like a bow does not fit this type of character. I mean if your Asian perhaps but Europeans and Americans this isn’t going to fit. Also the only Warrior class that really used a longbow (which by the way is a European Title) was the Samurai or the Ninja. The Ninja fits more to say a Thief class though and the Samurai would be more fitting a Warrior class.

Are you saying that the bow doesn’t fit to a soldier or a hunter? If yes, you are wrong. Or are you saying it doesn’t fit to the concept you came up with? Then come up with a better concept.

And no, we are not all Dragonhunters. We fight the dragons, we don’t hunt them.

Bezagron.7352:

Jaken.6801:

All of them can be considerered dragon hunters. Mostly the Vigil in regards in terms of direct confrontation with all dragons and their minions..

All of them came together with one goal: “defeating the elder dragons and their minions”, calling themselves The Pact. The biggest multiracial army modern tyria has ever seen. To protect their people and defeat the dragons.

So yeah. Why do we need a splinter faction again who has the same goal as the biggest army on the continent?

Maybe because The Pact failed, their fleet destroyed and this splinter group believes The Pact can no longer defeat the Elder Dragons or are taking too long to regroup & they have a chance and can do it better.

Or maybe their a group of Pact survivors that witness the fleets destruction and exterminating the Elder Dragons & their corruption has consumed their whole goal for life. Now calling themselves Dragonhunters.

Maybe. Who knows. This is something I would hope I could find out in game or from books. Only Arenanet has the answers.

Exactly! There’s a lot of room for “Dragon Hunter” to be an excellent addition to the game, and people seem to be ignoring those possibilities. It’s clear the name signifies a more radical/ruthless approach to dragon extermination. I’m hopeful it matches the dark tone that HoT seems to set.

purecontact.1680:

Wwefan.4982:

And where is the evidence from the developers that says we are getting one every 2 years as I remember correctly from the pax announcement Colin said that these can be rolled out through live updates just like the masteries.

That wasn’t my point.
This specialization is not “just a part of a serie”, it is the first.

Please Arenanet, don’t screw it up.

Bezagron.7352:

Other players are also liking the name, others are indifferent with most posting here disliking it.

It’s a feedback thread, if you like it and don’t tell it here, I suppose you’re just indifferent.

Btw, lot of people here don’t like it at all and I haven’t read (I may have missed) someone said “Please, keep the Dragonhunter name, it is just perfect for this specialization”.

You have indeed missed numerous instances of variations of that statement being said. I’m personally okay with the name, but with the caveat that there should definitely be some sort of better explanation that comes up in game. I like the notion that, since the Pact failed, some Guardians (protectors of the races of Tyria) have taken it upon themselves to take up a more focused role of exterminating the Dragons. I honestly don’t see anything particularly wrong with that explanation, even if the name is a little goofy, it still fits the class exactly. So yea, in this context and with regard to what the Guardian elite spec skill set contains, I would agree that Dragonhunter does fit it quite well.

The real question, I think, should be whether or not Anet should have made this spec for Guardians or not in the first place. It’s rather a moot point right now because it’s pretty much finished in production. But, recall that we’re getting around 5 elite specs per class as time goes on; certainly these are going to have odd skillsets and names that don’t necessarily sit right, but they’re not just throwing darts at a board and saying, “yea, that’s the name now”.

Bezagron.7352:

Jaken.6801:

All of them can be considerered dragon hunters. Mostly the Vigil in regards in terms of direct confrontation with all dragons and their minions..

All of them came together with one goal: “defeating the elder dragons and their minions”, calling themselves The Pact. The biggest multiracial army modern tyria has ever seen. To protect their people and defeat the dragons.

So yeah. Why do we need a splinter faction again who has the same goal as the biggest army on the continent?

Maybe because The Pact failed, their fleet destroyed and this splinter group believes The Pact can no longer defeat the Elder Dragons or are taking too long to regroup & they have a chance and can do it better.

Or maybe their a group of Pact survivors that witness the fleets destruction and exterminating the Elder Dragons & their corruption has consumed their whole goal for life. Now calling themselves Dragonhunters.

Maybe. Who knows. This is something I would hope I could find out in game or from books. Only Arenanet has the answers.

That is the thing.
How much of the Pact has failed? Was that the whole force? How many are still in the back? Even if they call themselves dragonhunter, why only guardians?
Why don`t the other classes take up arms with the same belief and call them selves dragonhunter.

Is it because they were group of guardians who served together and thus call themselves dragonhunter? How does the PC become one then, if he didn`t fall with them. Does he earn the right?
What if other groups call themselves dragonhunter as well? How about an elementalist squad, who rains down meteors on dragon forces?
What about engineer who rebuild the fallen pact equipment into anti-dragon-minion-weapons to protect themselves?

That again are questions they need to answer. Yes, only Anet may know the answers, however right now their answer is “kinda witch hunter big game hunter thingy. Protecting and hunting and stuff, you know.”

No details, no lore. Nothing.
It can still work, if they explain it right. However right now more things work against the name instead for it.
That is the problem with a story, where a lot of powerful people are involved. As long as the “special one” doesn`t have anything that makes them special (and no, the dragonhunter does not. Does he do more damage against dragons or their minions? No. That would be stupid, because then it would be unbalanced, as everyone would roll a dragonhunter to fight dragon enemies for extra damage, etc).

Even in fiction if there is a group of specialists, there are always some who have a different focus. Some use swords, some use lances, some use bows. Rarely they use an uniform equipment, since they need to be able to react to anything. Subsequently spreading out the talents is much more usefull to not get countered in the end.

Look at the army. There are normal soldiers, then there is the one with the heavy MG, the one with the radio and then there is the leader, who is usually only lightly armed.

Even if the dragonhunter is the grunt, the normal soldier against dragons and their minions, he will have problems if the enemy suddenly goes “nope, don`t care for your conditions, traps or burning. I am immune against your abilities, but oh whats that? Water magic? Nooo my only weakness”

Yes I am exagarating here. Very much I know. It`s just my mind going on wild ride here, but seriously. If there are so many questions that can pop up and there are no real answers, then the concept is a bit doubtfull.

cerulean moth.2743:

Bezagron.7352:

Jaken.6801:

All of them can be considerered dragon hunters. Mostly the Vigil in regards in terms of direct confrontation with all dragons and their minions..

All of them came together with one goal: “defeating the elder dragons and their minions”, calling themselves The Pact. The biggest multiracial army modern tyria has ever seen. To protect their people and defeat the dragons.

So yeah. Why do we need a splinter faction again who has the same goal as the biggest army on the continent?

Maybe because The Pact failed, their fleet destroyed and this splinter group believes The Pact can no longer defeat the Elder Dragons or are taking too long to regroup & they have a chance and can do it better.

Or maybe their a group of Pact survivors that witness the fleets destruction and exterminating the Elder Dragons & their corruption has consumed their whole goal for life. Now calling themselves Dragonhunters.

Maybe. Who knows. This is something I would hope I could find out in game or from books. Only Arenanet has the answers.

Exactly! There’s a lot of room for “Dragon Hunter” to be an excellent addition to the game, and people seem to be ignoring those possibilities. It’s clear the name signifies a more radical/ruthless approach to dragon extermination. I’m hopeful it matches the dark tone that HoT seems to set.

Yeah, ignoring all the questions.
What makes them different from the groups before?
Why only Guardians?
What do they have and other classes not?
How is trapper and big game hunter playstyle better then nuking them from the heavins with giant meteors of elementalists?
Is it some exclusive club?
Aren`t Rangers able to do the same thing?
etc…

Yes, there could be a group calling themselves dragonhunter. I don`t deny that.
However, look up to the questions. Why is it guardian exclusive? What makes them special? Why no other class?

Judge – simple, link. Magistrate.
Lightbringer – so true + link to elona/oow. Lightbender.
Dragonhunter can stay, when its stated already it can be there.

cerulean moth.2743:

Exactly! There’s a lot of room for “Dragon Hunter” to be an excellent addition to the game, and people seem to be ignoring those possibilities. It’s clear the name signifies a more radical/ruthless approach to dragon extermination. I’m hopeful it matches the dark tone that HoT seems to set.

If the name is meant to evoke a darker theme, then it misses the mark, because there’s nothing “dark” about the actual spec. It’s still a light-wielding battlemage that just happens to use a bow and “traps”. It just doesn’t fit.

Black Box.9312:

cerulean moth.2743:

Exactly! There’s a lot of room for “Dragon Hunter” to be an excellent addition to the game, and people seem to be ignoring those possibilities. It’s clear the name signifies a more radical/ruthless approach to dragon extermination. I’m hopeful it matches the dark tone that HoT seems to set.

If the name is meant to evoke a darker theme, then it misses the mark, because there’s nothing “dark” about the actual spec. It’s still a light-wielding battlemage that just happens to use a bow and “traps”. It just doesn’t fit.

It’s darker morality-wise. Do you expect a guardian’s power to visually become darker if they behave more ruthlessly?

RabbitUp.8294:

Black Box.9312:

cerulean moth.2743:

Exactly! There’s a lot of room for “Dragon Hunter” to be an excellent addition to the game, and people seem to be ignoring those possibilities. It’s clear the name signifies a more radical/ruthless approach to dragon extermination. I’m hopeful it matches the dark tone that HoT seems to set.

If the name is meant to evoke a darker theme, then it misses the mark, because there’s nothing “dark” about the actual spec. It’s still a light-wielding battlemage that just happens to use a bow and “traps”. It just doesn’t fit.

It’s darker morality-wise. Do you expect a guardian’s power to visually become darker if they behave more ruthlessly?

Yes…? If you’re going to fall down the moral scale, I’d like to think that you’d try to seek power in darker magic. It’s all figurative, of course, but it still makes more sense that way to me.

Jaken.6801:

cerulean moth.2743:

Bezagron.7352:

Jaken.6801:

All of them can be considerered dragon hunters. Mostly the Vigil in regards in terms of direct confrontation with all dragons and their minions..

All of them came together with one goal: “defeating the elder dragons and their minions”, calling themselves The Pact. The biggest multiracial army modern tyria has ever seen. To protect their people and defeat the dragons.

So yeah. Why do we need a splinter faction again who has the same goal as the biggest army on the continent?

Maybe because The Pact failed, their fleet destroyed and this splinter group believes The Pact can no longer defeat the Elder Dragons or are taking too long to regroup & they have a chance and can do it better.

Or maybe their a group of Pact survivors that witness the fleets destruction and exterminating the Elder Dragons & their corruption has consumed their whole goal for life. Now calling themselves Dragonhunters.

Maybe. Who knows. This is something I would hope I could find out in game or from books. Only Arenanet has the answers.

Exactly! There’s a lot of room for “Dragon Hunter” to be an excellent addition to the game, and people seem to be ignoring those possibilities. It’s clear the name signifies a more radical/ruthless approach to dragon extermination. I’m hopeful it matches the dark tone that HoT seems to set.

Yeah, ignoring all the questions.
What makes them different from the groups before?
Why only Guardians?
What do they have and other classes not?
How is trapper and big game hunter playstyle better then nuking them from the heavins with giant meteors of elementalists?
Is it some exclusive club?
Aren`t Rangers able to do the same thing?
etc…

Yes, there could be a group calling themselves dragonhunter. I don`t deny that.
However, look up to the questions. Why is it guardian exclusive? What makes them special? Why no other class?

If I wanted to kill a deer, the easiest way is probably to just burn down the entire forest and the deer with it. It’s easy and effective to set a fire, but it’s not always the only effective way to accomplish a task (collateral damage withstanding). They probably chose the Guardian because of the mindset that is usually required for a Guardian/Paladin/Crusader archetype class; they fight, but they fight for justice, with zeal and passion, and sometimes they hunt out the forces of darkness and become exorcist/inquisitor/vanquisher archetypes. If you went through the gamut of class available to us, who else exactly would this role fit better if not the Guardian? Only the Warrior even stands a chance of getting close to that, but Warriors fight to fight, not necessarily for a particular reason. That is why it’s the Guardian.

The execution of this class (specifically the name) could have been looked at again, but it doesn’t make much sense to say that what this spec does would fit another one of the classes better.

It’s not a good name, regardless of Jon’s attempts at providing insight into why it was chosen.

Black Box.9312:

Yes…? If you’re going to fall down the moral scale, I’d like to think that you’d try to seek power in darker magic. It’s all figurative, of course, but it still makes more sense that way to me.

GW doesn’t really embrace the concept of white and black magic. Guardians are not inherently good and Necromancers are not inherently evil.

Why would a guardian need to change the school of magic they subscribe to according to which foe they face or what state of mind they are in while fighting said foe. If you can use light magic to kills centaurs and whatnot as a vanilla guardian, you can use light magic to commit a Sylvari genocide as a Dragonhunter.

Guys it’s a fantasy world, no need to compare to the grim reality of medieval witch hunting. In a fantasy world you can have things like pure evil and complete justification for hunting that evil down. And even if the story goes into a more morally gray area, that can still add a lot of flavor to the setting.

I doubt the name will change TBH.

RabbitUp.8294:

Black Box.9312:

Yes…? If you’re going to fall down the moral scale, I’d like to think that you’d try to seek power in darker magic. It’s all figurative, of course, but it still makes more sense that way to me.

GW doesn’t really embrace the concept of white and black magic. Guardians are not inherently good and Necromancers are not inherently evil.

Why would a guardian need to change the school of magic they subscribe to according to which foe they face or what state of mind they are in while fighting said foe. If you can use light magic to kills centaurs and whatnot as a vanilla guardian, you can use light magic to commit a Sylvari genocide as a Dragonhunter.

Regardless of the effects, my point is that a “backline support” spec that relies on a bow and defensive traps hardly fits the idea of a darker theme for the class.

Ezrael.6859:

Not change the name of a traitline based on the whining of an incredibly small vocal minority.

Give everyone that created a whine thread the in-game title: Dragonhunter.

Why do you have such a personal vendetta against anyone who disagrees with your opinion on the subject? I think you need to calm down a bit.

Black Box.9312:

Ezrael.6859:

Not change the name of a traitline based on the whining of an incredibly small vocal minority.

Give everyone that created a whine thread the in-game title: Dragonhunter.

Why do you have such a personal vendetta against anyone who disagrees with your opinion on the subject? I think you need to calm down a bit.

Yeah I just responded to his post on the big thread. How about the whining entitlement of players who like to whine about other peoples’ legitimate complaints?

Personally, I call that hypocrisy.

I’d actually be willing to bet the majority of players raised an eyebrow at the name, even if they don’t care enough about it to post on the forum about it.

Just because it’s a more physical or fanatic theme doesn’t make it darker at all.

I’ll jump in one more time. Re: the dragonhunters are like witchhunters ‘cept different ’high concept’:

If anet really wanted to go for the witchhunter ‘high concept’, a pistol would have been a better weapon choice. Nudge nudge wink wink Solomon Kane. Ahem.

Anyway. Ye olde witchhunter could go out hunting witches and if he found what he thought was a witch, he could deal with it.

Given the nature of Tyrian dragons, a dragonhunter, no matter how high concept, who goes out hunting dragons in Tyria is a prime candidate (see also: poster child) for the Tyrian equivalent of the Darwin Awards.

Unless they meant for the dragonhunters to be like, ya know, spies. Spotters. Target callers. Commandos! “That’s a big chicken.” In which case the title dragonhunter is still pretty darned cheesy.

What does “high concept” even mean?

Gibson.4036:

What does “high concept” even mean?

It means “we’re not even sure ourselves but we try to find excuses by telling you that you are idiots if you don’t understand”.

MiniEquine.6014:

If I wanted to kill a deer, the easiest way is probably to just burn down the entire forest and the deer with it. It’s easy and effective to set a fire, but it’s not always the only effective way to accomplish a task (collateral damage withstanding). They probably chose the Guardian because of the mindset that is usually required for a Guardian/Paladin/Crusader archetype class; they fight, but they fight for justice, with zeal and passion, and sometimes they hunt out the forces of darkness and become exorcist/inquisitor/vanquisher archetypes. If you went through the gamut of class available to us, who else exactly would this role fit better if not the Guardian? Only the Warrior even stands a chance of getting close to that, but Warriors fight to fight, not necessarily for a particular reason. That is why it’s the Guardian.

The execution of this class (specifically the name) could have been looked at again, but it doesn’t make much sense to say that what this spec does would fit another one of the classes better.

Then answer me this. What makes the new class and it`s techniques, specs, or whatever you call it, better at hunting a pletora of different elder dragons and their many minions?

Putting out traps? Thief and Ranger cover that.
Hard and directed shots? Warrior rifle comes to mind.
AoE from above? The elementalist wants to have word with you.

Here is the problem.
The name says these are guys who hunt dragons and their minions.
That always begs the question: Why them and no others?
We saw several others doing the same.
So we can ask: What makes them special?
And we can answer: Nothing.
Neither their background nor their abilities makes them any better in eradicating the dragons and their minions.

We have several factors here that just don`t play nice with each other.
We have the shown theme: Big game hunter with traps and support. Nothing that screams dragonhunter, or something specific for dragon minions (no skillnames, design, etc. one is even summoning a dragon)

We have the orgin: Spiritual protector (“holy”) who likes to burn things (Guardian).

We have a name that should be applied to it: Dragonhunter, someone who hunts dragons and their minions.

We have a szenario: Dragons and their minions are everyones enemy and many people hunt them. Many people train to protect others. Not only guardians.
Various dragon minions and various styles of attack. No dragon is the same and the weakness of one can be the strenght of another.

We have a supposed theme: He should be similiar to a witchhunter. However a witchunter goes for infestation mostly and not to the frontlines. As soon as he does that he is just a soldier.
If they are going straight for anything dragon, does that mean Sylvari are the first to die? Are Sylvari not able to become dragonhunter? etc.

Bottom line. We are described a specialist in hunting dragons and their minions to protect others. Something that can be a wide variety. Something that the guardian class or specialization is not alone in. A motivation for thousand of other people. Something that is not restricted to guardians. Something that is allready in motion.

He wants to be special in world where everyone is like him. He is the reflection of the Player Character in short.

I think they started to make this spec knowing the bow would be the weapon. Then they probably added traps. And so it made them believe it was some kind of hunter… Which is pretty lame. And then they added all this big-game-witch-dragon-hunter theme around to try to give it some substance, even if it is not really coherent anyway and was not particularly linked to how they have built the character before.

Bows do fit to Guardians. As much as they do for Warriors.

Actually most of the weapons can fit to any profession. Because A.Net made something really great about their professions : they gave them clear and specific themes that never run over each other and adapted each weapon a profession has to its unique style. That way they could use conventionnal weapons, and more inconventionnal ones that were perfectly integrated in the theme in the end. And on top of that they chose names that cover the whole concepts.

That’s why Dragonhunter feels so wrong :
There is no reason a Guardian would change so much thematically just because of a bows and traps. Because when it’s well made, any addition to a profession can fit into it just fine.
They stuck to their style standard considering that the bow and traps on the Guardian are actually what you could expect for a Guardian using those tools (the bow shoots light rays and the traps are magical marks made of light). So the name and the theme had no reason to be turned into something so distant from what the Guardian is.
When you look at the Dragonhunter you can see it is clearly a Guardian, and it has nothing from a Dragonhunter. Or at least nothing you could expect. So the name is pretty inconsistent.

That’s why the background Jon Peters tried to give us wasn’t convincing. Actually it wasn’t even in connection with what the blog article said, which is in itself a proof that they’re not really sure about what they did, and was probably mostly given as an excuse more than an explanation. But what is sure is that it doesn’t respect what the Guardian is about (although the visuals and the style still do, which again makes the whole thing incoherent) and feels like something that has been dropped at the last minute.
So this spec is clearly mixing different things coming from different horizons. And in the end not only it makes no sense, but if they had made a real Dragonhunter that really made sense by itself it would be in a total disconnection with the base Guardian anyway from any point of views.
In the end it shows that the 2 concepts are almost incompatible.

Now some will say that specs are about turning the character into something else… An so I respond :
Even with the spec your character keeps ALL the options it had before. They’re still the same thing, just with a little different flavor. If there is too much distance between the profession and its spec, it’s like creating a whole new concept thus a whole new profession (that’s why I already said that having a Dragonhunter as a profession could have worked)
A.Net told us they considered the specs as something that expands a domain in which the profession is not very developped while keeping a connection with it. Dragonhunter developped that new domain, kept the connection in the visual style, but went for something completely far-fetched and disconnected for the name and background.
And remember : they gave professions clear and specific themes that never run over each other. Could you say that about the Dragonhunter ?

They’re going to do absolutely nothing about the name. Jon Peter’s post in a different thread basically translates to “You are more than welcome to voice your concerns but this is what we are going with”.

End of story. Move on.

Gibson.4036:

What does “high concept” even mean?

According to dictionary.com, high concept is a…

noun
1. a simple and often striking idea or premise, as of a story or film, that lends itself to easy promotion and marketing.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-concept

Example: ‘What if there was a world dominated by giant cave asura who ran around terrorizing people with their limited vocabularies and big clubs!’

Star Trek, for another example, was pitched to the TV guys as ‘Wagon Train to the stars!’, Wagon Train being a western TV show about a (wait for it) wagon train making its way from Missouri to California. So the ‘Wagon Train to the stars!’ was the high concept there.

Jaken.6801:

MiniEquine.6014:

-Snip-

-Snip-

I already explained why the other classes aren’t considered “hunters”.

I guess it really comes down to what a “hunter” is viewed as being. An Elementalist is not a hunter. An engineer is not a hunter. Heck, a Guardian is not a hunter either, but only as a base class. There’s nothing wrong with them having picked any of the classes and making their elite spec focused on hunting the dragons and their minions (not just killing them; you are not a hunter if you kill things, you’re a hunter if you hunt them). They picked Guardian, and the sense behind it is quite subjective so we might just have to agree on that at least.

Tachenon.5270:

Gibson.4036:

What does “high concept” even mean?

According to dictionary.com, high concept is a…

noun
1. a simple and often striking idea or premise, as of a story or film, that lends itself to easy promotion and marketing.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-concept

Example: ‘What if there was a world dominated by giant cave asura who ran around terrorizing people with their limited vocabularies and big clubs!’

Star Trek, for another example, was pitched to the TV guys as ‘Wagon Train to the stars!’, Wagon Train being a western TV show about a (wait for it) wagon train making its way from Missouri to California. So the ‘Wagon Train to the stars!’ was the high concept there.

Thanks, that’s not at all what I would have expected.

And doesn’t really seem to fit the Dragonhunter.

Yeah, it’s best to move on guys. I’m not a fan of the name either but it would be insane to waste any more resources and time on it, I want my frigging expansion preferably this year. This specialization will be the DH with traps. I can still armour and dye him up to look like a shiny knight and the weapon skills got all the light blue effects, so I’m satisfied.

“Dragon” – dragons are bad aren’t they dad? I’m gonna fight dragons when I grow up! I understand that Elder dragons are bit different, but stuffing dragon in specialisation name gives me feeling of making it for 12 years old max. Now, I never liked how gw2 story revolves around dragons so much when there is so much more of other cool stuff. Naming specialisation dragon hunter kinda shows – its only about dragons and nothing else Also name is not universal, it’s not timeproof – thats the word!

“Hunter” – hunter is even worse. My main is not hunter. I like bow, I wanted bow, its kitten cool. Traps were unexpected but great. But I NEVER wanted hunter. I like ranger the least from all gw2 proffessions for multiple reasons which are too much to share here. Hunter is even worse, it embodies everything noob from mmos in general and also attracts no-clue whatever playerbase. If I am to use bow i want it to be more of a magic/faith business and NOT dexterity and proficiency with bow. It also feels like robbing ranger which already is not so loved anet child.

Original, timeproof and sounding like specialisation name? Difficult* one too unfortunately. Best ones in my opinion are taken by Orders ranks.

Tactician – traps, ranged, still a guardian. Feels great to protect, command and plan and doesn’t interfere with offensive nature at all. Vigil rank

Cruader – highly guardianlike, feels offensive in manner. It feels not so good as Tactician, crusader strikes me more as frontline, heavy weapon charge (perhaps some ground spear or axe ) Vigil rank

Lightbringer – feels even better than Tactician. Sounds much more guardian like. Longbow, backline is no issue here. Traps fit perfectly with their light exposing enemies. Also would be much more universal for future use.

Shame that none of those can be used
Also shows how specialisations weren’t planned at all at launch.

*is edit, jeez I wouldn’t even notice. This censorship shows towards who this game is addressed. Kids that won’t even read story nor learn correct gameplay.

For the games sake, please rename it finally.
Don’t you realize Anet, what kitten you have at your front door thanks to this childish unfitting name that is absolutely not “high concept” at all, what was like even putting oil into the fire, that unthought out comment from Jon …

We provided so far together as community more than enough good alternatives, which would basically get all accepted.
All you have to do now is choosing out one of those options that you think, fits best for your design and change appropiately to that rename the traits and skill names so that do get into line with the new elite specialization name hand in hand.

The community so far has 3 strong names most people are referring to as “best” rename candidates

• Sentinel
• Seeker
• Arbiter

Due to Sentinel being alrerady given as name in the game for Charr NPCs and Arbiters being too much into the face of being “judges” which thing of thenmself like being rulers with power over everythign to decide, which is in my opinion not “mature and suble nuanced”, like Jon would basically say for sure, this leaves open personally just Seeker as the most best option, which would fit the most th the trap gamplay, would fit most to the holy/justice driven concept and design of the elite specialization, which would fit most to the bow weapon (please change it to shortbow with trait range expander, warriors already have longbows!!) and Seekers fit the most to the whole theme and comparison to witchhunters as sacred hunters, which agitate from the backline to support their allies to seek for justice, finding the truth to punish all who are guilty in their view and bringing back order to Tyria by getting rid of the Elder Dragons

Seekers are the perfect Elite Specialization for Guardians who changed their Path of Life from being protecting the ones they love via only their virtues to a more offensive Path of Life, protecting the ones they love far more proactively by being those, who search and destroy those, that might be a harm, before they become a dangerous threat and before situations become too late and escalate, where you can only protect liek a guardian only to reduce the harm as good as possible.

Guardians by their mentality are persons, which wait until the threat is there and comes at them.
Seekers are the other way around, they search and destroy the threat, before the threat had a chance to do it first.

Manimarco Devil.1790:

Despite your irrational complaining about the name, don’t start labeling anything as unanimous or even majority.

So in saying not to make sweeping generalisations you insinuate that everyone who dislikes the name is irrational? Slow clap

As for the argument about the forums representing only a small portion of the playerbase, so what? All that means is that there is a percentage of the playerbase whose views are unknown, you don’t get to implicitly claim them as people who like the name.

There are a great deal of people on these forums who dislike the name. Reddit is full of people who hate the name. In game I’ve seen people who are vocal with their dislike of the name in map and guild chat. And yes, some people are also fine with name.

Despite no one having the statistics, it’s clear however that a significant number of people dislike the name. For evidence of this all you need to do is look at the chronomancer, druid or tempest, did those names evoke anywhere near the same reaction? No.

I really do hate people who try and silence or discredit the views of others, be that the Jon Peters way of insinuating that the people who dislike the name aren’t mature enough to grasp such a high concept, or by labelling the collective view of everyone who dislikes the name irrational, or by pretending that only a vocal minority dislike the name. The disingenuousness of people is disgusting.

What are they gonna do about? Not a G****n thing. Learn to live with it and move on.

Thanks Jaken and Miki.

The clarification makes more sense to me. I see now the combination and your right. The confusion is the mix I think but I see the value in having a little bit of everything to fit the genre.

Your also correct about those other games. Totally did not think of Shadow run or the other parts with the tech in those games. Now mind you part of the problem could be that I have not done these games in years. Thanks

The problem is not just the name: It is the role of the name!!!

Ojyh.9842:

That’s why Dragonhunter feels so wrong :
There is no reason a Guardian would change so much thematically just because of a bows and traps. Because when it’s well made, any addition to a profession can fit into it just fine.
They stuck to their style standard considering that the bow and traps on the Guardian are actually what you could expect for a Guardian using those tools.

Moreover, you can spec as a “Dragonhunter” without using bow.
If I tell you “Chronomancer”, it doesn’t limit the concept of the class to the shield.

As I said before, Dragonhunter is both too generic and very specific.

I think the basis of the “dragonhunter” concept wasn’t very healthy.
Instead of starting from the Guardian’s concept, they started from the bow & traps things, they thought about “hunter” and then, they tried to hang it on guardian basis trying to use the “witchhunter” link.
I’m not in their heads but that’s the reasoning I see behind “Dragonhunter”.

DarkSyze.8627:

The problem is not just the name: It is the role of the name!!!

Darksyze im disappointed. You forgot to quote some irrelevant literature.

I’ll just point out that in less than a week, this thread has begun garnering more than half the posts of the Engineers’ infamous “hobosack” thread that encouraged ArenaNet to change kit back pieces.

Stop saying you all hunt dragons, you are just deceiving yourselves XD you fight dragons we past guardians hunt them! It’s not generic, truth hurts but now you are our support. You still fight them but you don’t HUNT them which is totally different. Your role is helping the weak, distracting the minions, sure it’s not the best role but it’s important too don’t be jealous. But the name is not generic, from now on, your are helping the Dragonhunters fulfill their destiny xD you can be Druids and play with trees or Chronomancers and play with time, from now we HUNT dragons. I Hope this post explained the difference my little helpers XD

I like how everyone quotes the definition of hunter but always leaves off the second half…

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

2. a person who searches for or seeks something

So please tell me how that is any different than “seeker”

Alternatively you can tell me how that confines the spec to only bows and traps.

Stop posting half the argument and leaving out the points that render your claims pointless.

Drennon.7190:

DarkSyze.8627:

The problem is not just the name: It is the role of the name!!!

Darksyze im disappointed. You forgot to quote some irrelevant literature.

“Just because one puts out fires, does not make one a FireFighter”

“Just because one judges, does not make one a Judge?”

“Just because one sings, does not make one a singer”

“Just because one write, does not make one a writer”

“Just because one responds to medical emergencies, does not make one a Paramedic”

“Just because one treats wounds, does not make one a doctor”

“Just because one talks politicss does not make you one Politician”

“Just because one makes good plannings, does not make one a Planner”

“Just because one runs, does not makes one a runner?”

“Just because one shoots bows, does not make one a hunter?”

“Just because one shoots at ranges, does not make one a ranger”

“Just because one eats vegetables, does not make one a vegetarian”

“Just because one dances, does not make one a dancer”

“Just because one teaches, does not make one a teacher”

Just because Guardian Profession hunt dragons, makes them a Dragon Hunter?

We all will be fighting and hunting dragons would that make us all Dragon Hunters?

It make no sense right?

“If it make no sense, there’s no sense in doing it”.

Please! redesign and rename Dragon Hunter for Guardian Profession

I will laugh so much if this ends up killing the class as in every one goes to play a new class i my self will be deleting my 80 guard if the name don’t change since it wont make any since to my Sylvari at all

And yes Names matter allot to some ppl that have to make some since with the toon they are playing / Race and this name Destroys any one playing Sylvari Guard

Orpheal.8263:

The community so far has 3 strong names most people are referring to as “best” rename candidates

• Sentinel
• Seeker
• Arbiter

Please don’t listen to these posters who want to name your profession a position in a sport played by riding on witch brooms, a referee or just a synonym for Guardian.

Please listen to the people that are actually creative. Just use your own work and name the profession Draconnier!+

Leo G.4501:

Orpheal.8263:

The community so far has 3 strong names most people are referring to as “best” rename candidates

• Sentinel
• Seeker
• Arbiter

Please don’t listen to these posters who want to name your profession a position in a sport played by riding on witch brooms, a referee or just a synonym for Guardian.

Please listen to the people that are actually creative. Just use your own work and name the profession Draconnier!+

I wonder what their reservations would be to changing it to the French variant. We have so many loan words from French as it is, it’s not like this will confuse people a lot or anything. That, and it keeps the spirit of the elite spec that they want.

Ranatoa.4869:

I like how everyone quotes the definition of hunter but always leaves off the second half…

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

2. a person who searches for or seeks something

So please tell me how that is any different than “seeker”

Alternatively you can tell me how that confines the spec to only bows and traps.

Stop posting half the argument and leaving out the points that render your claims pointless.

The other counter to this is, what if you are a Warrior or Elementalist who has seen the corruption of the dragons, has a searing hatred for them and thus seeks out all dragons and their minions in order to vanquish them from existence?

The thing is, the motivation behind this spec isn’t something unique to a profession, but to a person. Anyone could basically see eye to eye with this spec’s goal and be resolved to do as they do, hunt down anything dragon-related and destroy it.

Honestly, if they want to specify something more unique to this spec, just say that the Guardian’s magic is a strong source of purifying the corruption thus this new spec seeks to magnify that strength to its nth degree…but it hardly has anything to do with hunting or seeking since the dragons’ corruption is quite obvious. All you need to do is go into the Maguuma Jungle or Blazeridge stepps and you’ve got dragon corruption as far as the eye can see! Just name it something that has less to do with “big game hunting” and more to do with “purging/purifying” such as Dragonbane, or make up a word that encapsulates all the features you want and define it with the story (Draconnier) instead of forcing existing words to not mean what they currently do and make them mean something they weren’t meant to mean.

Ranatoa.4869:

I like how everyone quotes the definition of hunter but always leaves off the second half…

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

2. a person who searches for or seeks something

So please tell me how that is any different than “seeker”

Alternatively you can tell me how that confines the spec to only bows and traps.

Stop posting half the argument and leaving out the points that render your claims pointless.

Well, if you want to take the definition entirely you have to take the first part too, and this is precisely the part we don’t want This also the part you wouldn’t find in a Seeker.
Also Seeker is quite a larger concept that you can apply to various situations and characters with different ways of understanding it.

Ojyh.9842:

Ranatoa.4869:

I like how everyone quotes the definition of hunter but always leaves off the second half…

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

2. a person who searches for or seeks something

So please tell me how that is any different than “seeker”

Alternatively you can tell me how that confines the spec to only bows and traps.

Stop posting half the argument and leaving out the points that render your claims pointless.

Well, if you want to take the definition entirely you have to take the first part too, and this is precisely the part we don’t want This also the part you wouldn’t find in a Seeker.

It isn’t really an entire definition issue as it is an alternative definition issue. It is not at all uncommon for a word to have multiple definitions yet we keep focusing on one. However it is easy to include the whole definition.
1. This is the means/method
2. This is the concept/motivation
that applies both halves of the hunter definition.