Guild Wars 2

Leo G.4501:

Ranatoa.4869:

snip

Snip

I see what you mean, and it’s a good point, but consider it this way. Dragonhunters don’t need to be unique to all of Tyria, just unique to the Guardian faction. You have the traditional Guardians who believe defense is the best offense, and follow the well practiced methods of protecting the weak with their holy powers.

Then you have the Dragonhunters who have decided that’s not enough. They take a more active role in actually seeking out dragons and their minions to premptively protect Tyria. Sure other Warriors, Rangers, etc. may have the same goals, but among Guardians the ideas and methods of the Dragonhunters is unique.

dragon hunters need a spear

@ Leo G..
Just one question:

Are you by any coincedence a French?
If yes, then this speaks out for everything of your motives, why you want to enforce that french word upon all of us, even if it would make much lesser sense than Dragonhunter in any other languages … where it would make alot more sense to name that term for English then for example “Dragoon” or “Dragoner” for German, if they would keep that word for the French … and by any means, it would be aven a more acceptable term this way, than Dragonhunter … despite missing the typical gameplay elements, unless you look into that winged Jump Attack

PS: you know, this kind of inspiration:

Aren’t sylvari minions of Mordremor (a dragon)?, I actually find it funny, creating existential conflicts in the minds of all those sylvari dragonhunters :P

Orpheal.8263:

@ Leo G..
Just one question:

Are you by any coincedence a French?
If yes, then this speaks out for everything of your motives, why you want to enforce that french word upon all of us, even if it would make much lesser sense than Dragonhunter in any other languages … where it would make alot more sense to name that term for English then for example “Dragoon” or “Dragoner” for German, if they would keep that word for the French … and by any means, it would be aven a more acceptable term this way, than Dragonhunter … despite missing the typical gameplay elements, unless you look into that winged Jump Attack

PS: you know, this kind of inspiration:

Not French.

In fact, in another thread, I first asked what the name was in French since so many people kept mentioning it. After that, I agreed.

Ojyh.9842:

Leo G.4501:

I keep hearing the French name sounds cool. What is it in French?

It is Draconnier.

Not everybody will like how it sounds I guess, just a matter of personal taste.
But at least there are two good things about this one :
- It doesn’t have the “Hunter” part. It’s still related to dragons but in a very vague way. Also it is closer to the already existing names that are only made with one word.
- It’s not even a real word ! (Dragonnier is a word, but it refers to dragon tamers or dragon riders) Which means we can consider it as something that is specific to Tyria, a quite unique archetype that you can mold (more or less) into something that makes sense for GW2.

Dragoons are traditionally cavalry….how does that fit better than Dragonhunter?

Ranatoa.4869:

Dragoons are traditionally cavalry….how does that fit better than Dragonhunter?

Archetype.

Gibson.4036:

What does “high concept” even mean?

I’ve been wondering this too. A good sounding buzz word? Marketing BS.

That or they were high when they came up with the concept.

I’m still awaiting an explanation on how ‘Dragonhunter’ is supposed to be subtle.
What are you? A hunter. Hunter of what? Dragons. That’s like the opposite of subtle in my world.

Without more information it’s really too early to say much about this. My first thought was that this just sounds like a ranger with guardian spell effects, and focus leaning more on support than dps.

My concern with this Elite spec is that it will encroach too much into ranger territory when there are more spaces in the Guardian line that fit the class much better. Perhaps take a look at ritualists from GW1 and pull a little more inspiration from there?

I do understand this section is more related to the naming of said elite class, which, I’m not sure it fits. It again seems more of a ranger/warrior type name.

Odyssey.2613:

Gibson.4036:

What does “high concept” even mean?

I’ve been wondering this too. A good sounding buzz word? Marketing BS.

That or they were high when they came up with the concept.

I’m still awaiting an explanation on how ‘Dragonhunter’ is supposed to be subtle.
What are you? A hunter. Hunter of what? Dragons. That’s like the opposite of subtle in my world.

They already explained and people just don’t pay attention I guess.

The point is it’s a slightly creepy/ultra pious kind of role, more akin to inquisitions and witch hunts IRL. There’s probably some lore within HoT… but to me Dragonhunter already makes sense if you think of how zealots generally think.

They would think they’re the only “real” people for the job, and assumedly look down on the other professions as rabble and not as capable at the task as they are, so they keep the title for themselves.

Ranatoa.4869:

Dragoons are traditionally cavalry….how does that fit better than Dragonhunter?

Dragoon is a well known synonym for “Dragon Knight”, but I guess, this even is already too much “high concept” already too /sadface

Think of it like Chronomancer for Time Mage…

Valky.2574:

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

Actually I have to disagree there. Assuming our characters are saved from Mordremoth’s influence by the Pale Tree, sylvari guardians might well be the ones for whom it makes the most sense to dedicate themselves to killing everything associated with Mordremoth. The dragon is a direct threat to the integrity of a sylvari’s mind, a subversion of all s/he holds holy. Each and every Dreamer could receive a new Wyld Hunt to eradicate grandpa before he eats them whole.

I still like Seeker as more broadly applicable and flexible in interpretation, however.

Donari.5237:

Valky.2574:

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

Actually I have to disagree there. Assuming our characters are saved from Mordremoth’s influence by the Pale Tree, sylvari guardians might well be the ones for whom it makes the most sense to dedicate themselves to killing everything associated with Mordremoth. The dragon is a direct threat to the integrity of a sylvari’s mind, a subversion of all s/he holds holy. Each and every Dreamer could receive a new Wyld Hunt to eradicate grandpa before he eats them whole.

I still like Seeker as more broadly applicable and flexible in interpretation, however.

Yeah… Seeker wins in my book.

More I think about it, more I tell myself “let see what will be the name of other profession”.

Maybe the chronomancer will be the only one staying in the “Scholars” archetype.
We may have a weird name like “Dragonknight” for the necromancer.

It won’t make me happy to become a Dragonhunter but at least, I won’t be the only one to get a crappy name .

purecontact.1680:

Maybe the chronomancer will be the only one staying in the “Scholars” archetype.
We may have a weird name like “Dragonknight” for the necromancer.

Greatsword necro.

“Death Whacker”

Just wanted to toss in my input that I think the name choices for both have been great and well fitted. Just wish the vocal minority would not be so harsh with their feedback. But that tends to be the majority of feedback on any gaming forums. Everyone seems to be a game developer now a days.

Zypher.7609:

Just wanted to toss in my input that I think the name choices for both have been great and well fitted. Just wish the vocal minority would not be so harsh with their feedback. But that tends to be the majority of feedback on any gaming forums. Everyone seems to be a game developer now a days.

I’ve noticed an inverse correlation between developer participation and player harshness.

In threads where a developer shows up and joins the dialogue, the snark and rage simmers right down and people get more respectful (there are always stand out bad apples). You’ll see this in economic discussions with Mr. Smith, or the CDIs. Or when Gaile pops in for a little back and forth.

Just an observation.

Var.8305:

One question: What the line “I must be as relentless as justice itself” has to do with a hunter? a dragonhunter*

Hunters are Judges and Defenders of Justice now?

[…]

Bounty hunters can be, in a way.

If you imagine that ‘hunter’ as the same hunter in ‘witch hunter’ or ’ bounty hunter’, and not in the WoW sense of the ‘hunter’ class.

I still don’t like the ‘dragon’ part, though.

I’d rather use some other term for dragon that doesn’t sound as much as “Eldder Dragon”, like wyrm or wyvern, to make it sound like ti hunts dragon minions rather than the dragons.

It’s not like there’s lots of elder dragons to hunt lyring around.

DarkSyze.8627:

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

You got it backwards. Yes, just because one sings doesn’t make him a Singer – A singer “specializes” in singing, or you could say he does it for a living. And that is why even though we all hunt dragons we aren’t dragon hunters, but the Guardians that specialize in/make a living of hunting Dragons ARE, in fact, dragon hunters. Your own example brought you down, be ashamed :p

Shiki.7148:

DarkSyze.8627:

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

You got it backwards. Yes, just because one sings doesn’t make him a Singer – A singer “specializes” in singing, or you could say he does it for a living. And that is why even though we all hunt dragons we aren’t dragon hunters, but the Guardians that specialize in/make a living of hunting Dragons ARE, in fact, dragon hunters. Your own example brought you down, be ashamed :p

I logged in just to +1 this

Everyone needs to remember that there will be additional Elite Specializations somewhere down the road, and you can bet that the naming scheme will be tailored to fit the theme of those Specializations. All the archetypes that everyone keeps pushing for (like Paragon, Light-Bringer, Crusader, Sentinel, etc) don’t even match the theme of our Elite Spec in the first place. I would much rather reserve names like Paragon or Sentinel for future Elite Specs that are more “support-oriented” (Paragon: Spears and Shouts), or “defense-oriented” (Sentinel: Healing and Protection).

Everyone is losing their minds over a name and pushing for a different name that doesn’t even fit the theme of the Specialization. Please stop. Don’t force the devs to waste a good name like “Paragon” on this Elite Spec. We will all get the “Paragon” that we want, it’s just not going to happen right NOW. I want a “Paragon” spec as much as anyone else, but I want it done properly. I want to throw spears, I want lots of shouts, and I want to be supportive. I want a “Paragon” to be the exact opposite of what the “Dragon-Hunter” spec is.

cletiscake.9173:

Everyone is losing their minds over a name and pushing for a different name that doesn’t even fit the theme of the Specialization.

I don’t see many who are as far as losing their minds over it.

And you have to admit, there’s not much else to talk about until they reveal the Death Stabber later this week.

Valky.2574:

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

I will laugh, too, as I will finally have solid proof my pet venus flytrap outsmarts the average gamer.

RabbitUp.8294:

I will laugh, too, as I will finally have solid proof my pet venus flytrap outsmarts the average gamer.

Look. More snarky condescension. Now I’m really receptive to the name ‘dragonhunter.’

Gibson.4036:

I’ve noticed an inverse correlation between developer participation and player harshness.

In threads where a developer shows up and joins the dialogue, the snark and rage simmers right down and people get more respectful (there are always stand out bad apples). You’ll see this in economic discussions with Mr. Smith, or the CDIs. Or when Gaile pops in for a little back and forth.

Just an observation.

The discussion turned a lot more aggressive after Jon posted. Just because people misunderstood a specific term they could have easily googled for.

RabbitUp.8294:

Gibson.4036:

I’ve noticed an inverse correlation between developer participation and player harshness.

In threads where a developer shows up and joins the dialogue, the snark and rage simmers right down and people get more respectful (there are always stand out bad apples). You’ll see this in economic discussions with Mr. Smith, or the CDIs. Or when Gaile pops in for a little back and forth.

Just an observation.

The discussion turned a lot more aggressive after Jon posted. Just because people misunderstood a specific term they could have easily googled for.

This is just how forums should be, if your idea cannot stand to scrutiny it will be shut down by others. You shouldn’t need 4 years of post- secondary to be taught that.

Its common sense when you construct a presentation to keep it clear, and concise. Emphasis should be given to a theme that is unifying to the subject. In the case of the Dragonhunter name however, This is polarizing to the classes, and generic to the masses at the same time, with no clear direction.

If they ever did rename this class I don’t think it should be Paragon as that is unique to GW1.

So therefore i think the specialization could possibly be renamed to “Paladin” As that was the original concept name for the guardian.

A paladin is a knight renowned for heroism and chivalry, this fits the guardian very well.

In other fantasy games, books etc Paladins have wings and sometimes even bows and arrows.

TurtleofPower.5641:

They already explained and people just don’t pay attention I guess.

Right, just like in Game of Thrones there is a faction called the uhhh, NorthernWallHolders. Or is it the uhhh, WhiteWalkerHunters? I can’t uhhh, remember.

facepalm

Harvest.2506:

RabbitUp.8294:

Gibson.4036:

I’ve noticed an inverse correlation between developer participation and player harshness.

In threads where a developer shows up and joins the dialogue, the snark and rage simmers right down and people get more respectful (there are always stand out bad apples). You’ll see this in economic discussions with Mr. Smith, or the CDIs. Or when Gaile pops in for a little back and forth.

Just an observation.

The discussion turned a lot more aggressive after Jon posted. Just because people misunderstood a specific term they could have easily googled for.

This is just how forums should be, if your idea cannot stand to scrutiny it will be shut down by others. You shouldn’t need 4 years of post- secondary to be taught that.

Its common sense when you construct a presentation to keep it clear, and concise. Emphasis should be given to a theme that is unifying to the subject. In the case of the Dragonhunter name however, This is polarizing to the classes, and generic to the masses at the same time, with no clear direction.

80% of the feedback was limited to “wah wah change the name to one that meets my subjective criteria and fits my personal taste”. That’s the part we could all live without.

The reaction to the dev post was actually humorous, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. People accusing Jon of implying they wouldn’t understand the reasoning behind the name choice, when in reality those people don’t understand a specific term used.

RabbitUp.8294:

Gibson.4036:

I’ve noticed an inverse correlation between developer participation and player harshness.

In threads where a developer shows up and joins the dialogue, the snark and rage simmers right down and people get more respectful (there are always stand out bad apples). You’ll see this in economic discussions with Mr. Smith, or the CDIs. Or when Gaile pops in for a little back and forth.

Just an observation.

The discussion turned a lot more aggressive after Jon posted. Just because people misunderstood a specific term they could have easily googled for.

I’m pretty sure I didn’t misunderstand him and even if I did, I took the time to consider his post thoughtfully and more extensively. When I first heard the spec’s name from a thread title before clicking it, I thought it was some person making up a joke but my thoughts quickly shifted when I saw the blog post.

Even still, I think the name is a bit tough to swallow and try to make respectful suggestions but often the civil responses get little acknowledgement while people focus on making flames.

So don’t just blame the people making abrasive posts, you play your part in fanning the flame which then drowns out the more calmer discussion.

RabbitUp.8294:

Harvest.2506:

RabbitUp.8294:

Gibson.4036:

I’ve noticed an inverse correlation between developer participation and player harshness.

In threads where a developer shows up and joins the dialogue, the snark and rage simmers right down and people get more respectful (there are always stand out bad apples). You’ll see this in economic discussions with Mr. Smith, or the CDIs. Or when Gaile pops in for a little back and forth.

Just an observation.

The discussion turned a lot more aggressive after Jon posted. Just because people misunderstood a specific term they could have easily googled for.

This is just how forums should be, if your idea cannot stand to scrutiny it will be shut down by others. You shouldn’t need 4 years of post- secondary to be taught that.

Its common sense when you construct a presentation to keep it clear, and concise. Emphasis should be given to a theme that is unifying to the subject. In the case of the Dragonhunter name however, This is polarizing to the classes, and generic to the masses at the same time, with no clear direction.

80% of the feedback was limited to “wah wah change the name to one that meets my subjective criteria and fits my personal taste”. That’s the part we could all live without.

The reaction to the dev post was actually humorous, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. People accusing Jon of implying they wouldn’t understand the reasoning behind the name choice, when in reality those people don’t understand a specific term used.

Well that’s the danger of swaying too far away from convention, without regard for running towards the center of the spectrum in the political sense. You make your platform unelectable in the general.

Look you can’t Control the masses who just want to freely express their opinion. Changing the course of the topic from a bad presentation from a name, to the unappealing responses of those that don’t like it, only further disconnects the dialogue. Matter of fact it harms both sides and divides people even more.

More could be realistically achieve for highlighting attempts at a compromise.

RabbitUp.8294:

Harvest.2506:

RabbitUp.8294:

Gibson.4036:

I’ve noticed an inverse correlation between developer participation and player harshness.

In threads where a developer shows up and joins the dialogue, the snark and rage simmers right down and people get more respectful (there are always stand out bad apples). You’ll see this in economic discussions with Mr. Smith, or the CDIs. Or when Gaile pops in for a little back and forth.

Just an observation.

The discussion turned a lot more aggressive after Jon posted. Just because people misunderstood a specific term they could have easily googled for.

This is just how forums should be, if your idea cannot stand to scrutiny it will be shut down by others. You shouldn’t need 4 years of post- secondary to be taught that.

Its common sense when you construct a presentation to keep it clear, and concise. Emphasis should be given to a theme that is unifying to the subject. In the case of the Dragonhunter name however, This is polarizing to the classes, and generic to the masses at the same time, with no clear direction.

80% of the feedback was limited to “wah wah change the name to one that meets my subjective criteria and fits my personal taste”. That’s the part we could all live without.

The reaction to the dev post was actually humorous, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. People accusing Jon of implying they wouldn’t understand the reasoning behind the name choice, when in reality those people don’t understand a specific term used.

Who would understand something that is not obvious and that barely make sense ?
I could have spend my whole life searching the link without finding it because there is none that is really satisfying. (maybe exagerating a little bit, but well…)

But implying that we’re not ABLE to understand is insulting. When a teacher is bad at teaching don’t say the student is an idiot. Actually there are more chances that the teacher is one because he’s not able to correctly do what he has to.

Just take away both the name and the background of Dragonhunter. Now what’s left of the Dragonhunter in the spec ?
Nothing.
The name supports the background, that is itself supported by the name which is supported by the background… etc
Then you understand that giving a background (even if it was well done, which is NOT the case) can’t be a satisfying solution to give sense to the name. The character has to be somehow linked to them by itself, without any explanation.

If you throw them (name and background) away at the same time, you have nothing concrete enough that is left to support the idea of a Dragonhunter.
The only thing left is a Guardian with a bow shooting rays of light and some magical traps of light and spirit weapon like things. (remember that traps can be used to defend or protect something that we don’t want to be taken by the ennemies, it fits to the defensive aspect of the Guardian without having a hunting connotation)

Now give a name to that Guardian.
Only judging by what it does (not only the spec aspect but the specialized Guardian as a whole) and what it looks like. You have no preconceived ideas on what it should be other than what the original Guardian was.
Now you see that there is no reason you could come to the idea of a Dragonhunter. That’s why it doesn’t fit. That’s why many people feel like it’s not right. That’s why we say it can’t be a GUARDIAN spec.
It would be pulling this idea out of nowhere, or twisting the concept of the Guardian into something that it is not. Because if the idea of a purifyer that wants to eliminate bad guys etc could work, there is no reason to come up with the idea of a hunter considering what the Guardian already is.
And the dragon part ? It’s just the cheesy detail made up trhough the lame background.

New virtues: Love them
New skills: Love them
New weapon: Meh, can take it or leave it
New name: No, just no. It’s way too generic and feels like it could apply to any class. Something like Seraphim, although there are potential clashes with the Seraph here, but anything angelic sounding would be good, much better than what we have.

The fact that a feedback thread had to be opened on the name and we are at 20+ pages should be enough indication that the name is pretty terrible. There are a lot of better names that can be used. I hope Anet changes it.

Ojyh.9842:

But implying that we’re not ABLE to understand is insulting. When a teacher is bad at teaching don’t say the student is an idiot. Actually there are more chances that the teacher is one because he’s not able to correctly do what he has to.

Where and by who was that implied?

Ojyh.9842:

It would be pulling this idea out of nowhere, or twisting the concept of the Guardian into something that it is not. Because if the idea of a purifyer that wants to eliminate bad guys etc could work, there is no reason to come up with the idea of a hunter considering what the Guardian already is.

“The Pact is the greatest alliance Tyria has ever seen. Its primary advantage is the flexibility offered by a union of orders with vastly differing methodologies as well as magical and technological knowledge and aptitude of each of the races allies with them”
The Pact failed.

The Guardians obviously learned something from other races. The awesome thing about Guild Wars is that the lore is constantly evolving that will no doubt be explained in HoT.

Seeker sounds like it could fit the Lore Anet was creating for the Dragonhunter. A role that fits Guardians more than any other class. The Pact failed so Guardians seek justice, vengeance, reprisal. He does so now in a more aggresive notion.

Inspite people not liking the name, Dragonhunter is within the premise of the Guardian class so Anet isn’t breaking any rules, even if you think that they are.

RabbitUp.8294:

Harvest.2506:

RabbitUp.8294:

Gibson.4036:

I’ve noticed an inverse correlation between developer participation and player harshness.

In threads where a developer shows up and joins the dialogue, the snark and rage simmers right down and people get more respectful (there are always stand out bad apples). You’ll see this in economic discussions with Mr. Smith, or the CDIs. Or when Gaile pops in for a little back and forth.

Just an observation.

The discussion turned a lot more aggressive after Jon posted. Just because people misunderstood a specific term they could have easily googled for.

This is just how forums should be, if your idea cannot stand to scrutiny it will be shut down by others. You shouldn’t need 4 years of post- secondary to be taught that.

Its common sense when you construct a presentation to keep it clear, and concise. Emphasis should be given to a theme that is unifying to the subject. In the case of the Dragonhunter name however, This is polarizing to the classes, and generic to the masses at the same time, with no clear direction.

80% of the feedback was limited to “wah wah change the name to one that meets my subjective criteria and fits my personal taste”. That’s the part we could all live without.

The reaction to the dev post was actually humorous, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. People accusing Jon of implying they wouldn’t understand the reasoning behind the name choice, when in reality those people don’t understand a specific term used.

How is 80% of the feedback whining without reasoning? Have you taken a look at all of the constructive input as to why people disagree with the name choice? Obviously anything that asks for someone’s opinion is going to lead to subjective answers, so that aside, there’s a lot of stuff people have had to say about why they feel the way they do, and it’s certainly not baseless complaining.

Saiyan.1704:

Ojyh.9842:

It would be pulling this idea out of nowhere, or twisting the concept of the Guardian into something that it is not. Because if the idea of a purifyer that wants to eliminate bad guys etc could work, there is no reason to come up with the idea of a hunter considering what the Guardian already is.

“The Pact is the greatest alliance Tyria has ever seen. Its primary advantage is the flexibility offered by a union of orders with vastly differing methodologies as well as magical and technological knowledge and aptitude of each of the races allies with them”
The Pact failed.

Why do people keep saying the Pact failed as if it’s the end? So they suffered a defeat and many casualties. So what? Their leader is likely alive, their base of operations is still in tact, their supply lines haven’t been severed and they are still out providing support to the fronts being harassed by Mordremoth. Just because they suffered a defeat because of an unexpected turn of events shouldn’t be the turning point for some dudes (ahem….Guardians, I mean) to say “Yeah! We need to do something about this!!” If so, where were these guys when hundreds of soldiers were dying on the fronts fighting Zhaitan? Or where were they when we suffered a crushing defeat at Clawr Island?

The only difference between those losses and the most recent is that there are Sylvari that decided to turncoat and sabotage operations (and Glint’s egg being something of importance).

I main a Guardian, and I like the names and the mechanics for Dragonhunter. I also like the potential idea that some guards have become so lawful good and zealous in their quest to “defend the innocent and smite evil” that there could be a moral gray zone.

Saiyan.1704:

Seeker sounds like it could fit the Lore Anet was creating for the Dragonhunter. A role that fits Guardians more than any other class. The Pact failed so Guardians seek justice, vengeance, reprisal. He does so now in a more aggresive notion.

It doesn’t fit with gameplay mecanics.
Or if it is to you, please, take time to explain how.

RabbitUp.8294:

80% of the feedback was limited to “wah wah change the name to one that meets my subjective criteria and fits my personal taste”. That’s the part we could all live without.

What about the 20% left ?
I pushed Sentinel and explain why it should prevail.

Because 80% of feedback just throw a name because it just sounds cool, I shouldn’t take time to try to send a constructive feedback?

Once again, artworks below works with Sentinel : you keep Dragonhunter mecanics (traps, bow) and Guardian’s core.

I tell it with all the respect I have to the dev team: even if I get that they wanted to set the medieval witch hunter connotation with dragonhunter, the fact is that doesn’t work as intended.

I know their is Sentinels’ item in the game but like what they’ve done for the french version of the game with revenant, arenanet can change it to an other name (like watcher or sentry, idk).

Black Box.9312:

How is 80% of the feedback whining without reasoning? Have you taken a look at all of the constructive input as to why people disagree with the name choice? Obviously anything that asks for someone’s opinion is going to lead to subjective answers, so that aside, there’s a lot of stuff people have had to say about why they feel the way they do, and it’s certainly not baseless complaining.

The constructive input is the 20%. Yes, there really were some well-thought-out posts. But, have you not seen countless of posts consisting of nothing more than “Dragonhunter sucks, name it Sentinel/Arbiter/whichever-word-I-think-sounds-cool instead?”.

Here’s a summary of that feedback: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/guardian

RabbitUp.8294:

The constructive input is the 20%. Yes, there really were some well-thought-out posts. But, have you not seen countless of posts consisting of nothing more than “Dragonhunter sucks, name it Sentinel/Arbiter/whichever-word-I-think-sounds-cool instead?”.

Here’s a summary of that feedback: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/guardian

So what constructive discussion have you contributed, eh?

RabbitUp.8294:

Black Box.9312:

How is 80% of the feedback whining without reasoning? Have you taken a look at all of the constructive input as to why people disagree with the name choice? Obviously anything that asks for someone’s opinion is going to lead to subjective answers, so that aside, there’s a lot of stuff people have had to say about why they feel the way they do, and it’s certainly not baseless complaining.

The constructive input is the 20%. Yes, there really were some well-thought-out posts. But, have you not seen countless of posts consisting of nothing more than “Dragonhunter sucks, name it Sentinel/Arbiter/whichever-word-I-think-sounds-cool instead?”.

Here’s a summary of that feedback: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/guardian

You just pulled that statistic straight out of your kitten . How is that at all any more constructive?

Mo Mo.1947:

misterdevious.6482:

The name should be:

1. Evocative/Meaningful
2. Distinct
3. Most Appropriate as a subset of the chosen Profession
4. Appropriate in the game world in general
5. Suggestive of the mechanics/skills of the specialization.
6. Not something that makes a large number of people cringe when seeing it.

Dragonhunter failed the cringe test, the most appropriate test, and the distinct test. Druid passes all 6. Chronomancer passes all 6.

Not sure if you just pulled these guidelines out of your kitten, but I like them and think they definitely make the issues with the “dragonhunter” name clear and dissectable.

You know what the sad thing is… ANet could have made up a name from left over scrabble letters and would have received better feedback on their name selection than using Dragonhunter for the Guardian Specialization. In my opinion, they failed on #s 3, 5, & 6! I guess 3 out of 6 at bad.

Black Box.9312:

You just pulled that statistic straight out of your kitten . How is that at all any more constructive?

No, I actually counted each and every post and did the math. Because I care that much.

I was responding to a certain person about a certain matter. It’s safe to say, my reply was in the context of that discussion.

Genesis.8572:

So what constructive discussion have you contributed, eh?

You can check my post history.

Do you really think that joke thread you (you as in “you people”) keep around is doing your cause any good? You are making yourselves look immature.

RabbitUp.8294:

Genesis.8572:

So what constructive discussion have you contributed, eh?

You can check my post history.

Do you really think that joke thread you (you as in “you people”) keep around is doing your cause any good? You are making yourselves look immature.

Hey I’m a patron of your joke threads too, Warriors are going to be butchers not necromancers.

RabbitUp.8294:

Black Box.9312:

You just pulled that statistic straight out of your kitten . How is that at all any more constructive?

No, I actually counted each and every post and did the math. Because I care that much.

I was responding to a certain person about a certain matter. It’s safe to say, my reply was in the context of that discussion.

Even if you actually did count them all, it’s still based on your subjective opinion, so therefore it’s worthless.

See what I did there?

Black Box.9312:

See what I did there?

Missed the point?

RabbitUp.8294:

Black Box.9312:

See what I did there?

Missed the point?

Huh, I guess you didn’t. Oh well.