Guild Wars 2

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

purecontact.1680:

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

It doesn’t actually have an affect on you, it’s really just a name. Even if you don’t “follow the path of the Dragonhunter” and you wield a longbow, you are not obligated to hunt dragons but the reason why you wield a bow and use traps is because of the Dragonhunters.

It has effect on us because our spec is named Dragonhunter, but the spec is not Dreagonhuntery at all. I posted a few posts about it that gameplay and mechanic doesn’t fit to the name. Would you like to play Warrior but named Wizard? Or Ranger named Mechanic, because it got offhand pistol and cool mechanical gauntlet and that’s it, it’s gameplay and mechanic has nothing to do with name and it doesn’t feel like Mechanic? I wouldn’t play it.

Then don’t play it.

RabbitUp.8294:

AikunFelcis.7258:

Yeah, so they are not officialy in the lore,can’t be found any official reference in Gw1/Gw2 game, only in one post. It’s just said by Jon in order to give a reason to Dragonhunters exist, that’s my feeling.

They write the lore. Elite specs are a new thing, a new development in the world of Tyria.

So it proves my point that such faction doesn’t exist currently, so you can’t be sure that such faction will exists in the future, until it’s implemented. This thread is about name feedback and now we can base on released information, not “what if”. What if no other classes but guardian with it’s new specialization would be able to kill Elder Dragons? Then name Dragonhunter would have sense!

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

purecontact.1680:

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

It doesn’t actually have an affect on you, it’s really just a name. Even if you don’t “follow the path of the Dragonhunter” and you wield a longbow, you are not obligated to hunt dragons but the reason why you wield a bow and use traps is because of the Dragonhunters.

It has effect on us because our spec is named Dragonhunter, but the spec is not Dreagonhuntery at all. I posted a few posts about it that gameplay and mechanic doesn’t fit to the name. Would you like to play Warrior but named Wizard? Or Ranger named Mechanic, because it got offhand pistol and cool mechanical gauntlet and that’s it, it’s gameplay and mechanic has nothing to do with name and it doesn’t feel like Mechanic? I wouldn’t play it.

Then don’t play it.

Really great answer and feedback giving so much to this thread. So impressive.

Orpheal.8263:

No they are NOT, right at the moment where Anet crosses the line and mixes up lore with class/specialization design concepts, its not anymore a neutral optional decision that you make to decide which elite specialization you give to your character.

I’m all for changing the spec’s name to something more lore neutral or appealing but I feel this excuse crosses the line.

Whoever you’re arguing with, it really isn’t necessary to make up excuses for why you feel justified to offer feedback on the name. Heck, I think the pages upon pages of explanation of why the name is jarring should be justified enough to warrant a change. Now it’s just up to the devs to decide to consider it or just roll out with what they have.

If you cannot tell that the opposition is trying to heat you up to make you sound more nonsensical then I’m telling you now: The opposition who are trying to argue contrary to your stance is trying to rile you up so you make nonsensical reasons for what you feel the way you do.

It has already been mention by many the reasons why the different points of the Dragonhunter epitaph aren’t liked by the majority:

• Lack of parallel to witch-hunter and the hunt of dragon minions (two different feels, two different purposes, two different goals; to make a parallel, the ‘dragon-hunter’ would have to be a corrupt group burning innocence along with the guilty)
• This edge might be interesting but nothing really sparks the need for it. There is nothing unique to the Guardian to make them only able to take this stance as it is a moral choice, not a profession choice.
• Bridging to another concept, the hunter, muddles this parallel further, as witch-hunters didn’t hunt, they persecuted, throwing the mature vibe of this out the window for a “big game hunter” aspect instead.
• Dragons aren’t “big game”! If anything, this is a war NOT a game nor is your enemy simply ‘prey’. Not to mention, “big game” would instill the notion you had plans for the hide such as poaching its hides or, for this fantasy setting, using their magical powers or something…nope, just kill them. Not even for sport or bragging rights…Then you’re not ‘gaming’ anything, you’re exterminating.
• Just the above alone is hard to cram into a Guardian dressing that doesn’t completely change the packaging but ‘traps’ are kind of not traps either, just symbols (or marks/runes/glyphs) which further distance it from any type of hunter motif.

All that is repeating what has been said and none of it has really been disputed besides “well I don’t think it’s so bad” which is a perfectly acceptable stance to take.

No further argument needs to be made unless the major disconnects are somehow changed. Honestly, if they just ditch the hunter motif completely and just make the spec a sort of divine bowman who purges dragon corruption (a change in the name would help here) and I’m sure it would fix everything and very few objections would be had.

AikunFelcis.7258:

RabbitUp.8294:

AikunFelcis.7258:

Yeah, so they are not officialy in the lore,can’t be found any official reference in Gw1/Gw2 game, only in one post. It’s just said by Jon in order to give a reason to Dragonhunters exist, that’s my feeling.

They write the lore. Elite specs are a new thing, a new development in the world of Tyria.

So it proves my point that such faction doesn’t exist currently, so you can’t be sure that such faction will exists in the future, until it’s implemented. This thread is about name feedback and now we can base on released information, not “what if”. What if no other classes but guardian with it’s new specialization would be able to kill Elder Dragons? Then name Dragonhunter would have sense!

This doesn’t prove anything if Dragonhunters have technically been around before the elite spec was announced. You’re living in an echo chamber right now. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the “what if” is very important because it can make or break the sense of the it being named the way it is.

You’ve used logic to show why the Revenant is allowed to exist in the personal story, and I’ve shown you how it could be exactly the same for the Dragonhunters. If they choose to not use that lore, fine, then there will be plot holes. However, until they officially make a statement, that’s one of the most sensible reasons for it.

As to my quip about you simply not playing it, would you refuse to play the Revenant because it wasn’t around before and it would break some immersion with the storyline? You seem to indicate that you would not, so I ask you to explain why that does not also apply to the Dragonhunter, and then why you would refuse to play the Dragonhunter.

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

purecontact.1680:

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

It doesn’t actually have an affect on you, it’s really just a name. Even if you don’t “follow the path of the Dragonhunter” and you wield a longbow, you are not obligated to hunt dragons but the reason why you wield a bow and use traps is because of the Dragonhunters.

It has effect on us because our spec is named Dragonhunter, but the spec is not Dreagonhuntery at all. I posted a few posts about it that gameplay and mechanic doesn’t fit to the name. Would you like to play Warrior but named Wizard? Or Ranger named Mechanic, because it got offhand pistol and cool mechanical gauntlet and that’s it, it’s gameplay and mechanic has nothing to do with name and it doesn’t feel like Mechanic? I wouldn’t play it.

Then don’t play it.

Really great answer and feedback giving so much to this thread. So impressive.

See above. Also I have been contributing a good deal to this thread, thank you very much.

AikunFelcis.7258:

So it proves my point that such faction doesn’t exist currently, so you can’t be sure that such faction will exists in the future, until it’s implemented. This thread is about name feedback and now we can base on released information, not “what if”. What if no other classes but guardian with it’s new specialization would be able to kill Elder Dragons? Then name Dragonhunter would have sense!

Jon Peters said this: “Guardians fight for justice and the dragonhunter faction believes justice is the eradication of dragons and their minions.”

So, there’s a mention of a “dragonhunter faction”. How that is implemented and how pivotal its role to the elite spec would be remains to be seen.

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

RabbitUp.8294:

AikunFelcis.7258:

Yeah, so they are not officialy in the lore,can’t be found any official reference in Gw1/Gw2 game, only in one post. It’s just said by Jon in order to give a reason to Dragonhunters exist, that’s my feeling.

They write the lore. Elite specs are a new thing, a new development in the world of Tyria.

So it proves my point that such faction doesn’t exist currently, so you can’t be sure that such faction will exists in the future, until it’s implemented. This thread is about name feedback and now we can base on released information, not “what if”. What if no other classes but guardian with it’s new specialization would be able to kill Elder Dragons? Then name Dragonhunter would have sense!

This doesn’t prove anything if Dragonhunters have technically been around before the elite spec was announced. You’re living in an echo chamber right now. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the “what if” is very important because it can make or break the sense of the it being named the way it is.

You’ve used logic to show why the Revenant is allowed to exist in the personal story, and I’ve shown you how it could be exactly the same for the Dragonhunters. If they choose to not use that lore, fine, then there will be plot holes. However, until they officially make a statement, that’s one of the most sensible reasons for it.

As to my quip about you simply not playing it, would you refuse to play the Revenant because it wasn’t around before and it would break some immersion with the storyline? You seem to indicate that you would not, so I ask you to explain why that does not also apply to the Dragonhunter, and then why you would refuse to play the Dragonhunter.

You totally missed what my problem with the name is. I stated many times that for me name of specialization should be reflected in gameplay and mechanic of the specialization just like it’s with chronomancer. Chronomancer = Time mage. Skills and mechanic related to time manipulation. Dragonhunter – one elite skill with dragon animation and that’s it. Virtues are like for Paragon (spear, angelic wings, not dragon wings & shield), no dragonhunter theme. Longbow has arrows imbued with light + symbol + 5skill like trap. No dragonhunter theme. Traps are like symbols, cool animations, but still no Dragonhunter theme. Seeing the gameplay itself doesn’t give me impression that this IS Dragonhunter. It’s like Divne/Holy Archer. That’s it. Dragonhunter is out of any context. Even if they plan to make Braham Dragonhunter the specialization doesn’t feel at all as Dragonhunter! That’s my problem. Name should reflect what specialization really is and it’s certainly not a Dragonhunter in my opinion. Like I said before, it’s like giving class that is in fact Cleric (where gameplay/mechanic is holy light dmg & healing) name Warlock. Doesn’t fit at all.

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

RabbitUp.8294:

AikunFelcis.7258:

Yeah, so they are not officialy in the lore,can’t be found any official reference in Gw1/Gw2 game, only in one post. It’s just said by Jon in order to give a reason to Dragonhunters exist, that’s my feeling.

They write the lore. Elite specs are a new thing, a new development in the world of Tyria.

So it proves my point that such faction doesn’t exist currently, so you can’t be sure that such faction will exists in the future, until it’s implemented. This thread is about name feedback and now we can base on released information, not “what if”. What if no other classes but guardian with it’s new specialization would be able to kill Elder Dragons? Then name Dragonhunter would have sense!

This doesn’t prove anything if Dragonhunters have technically been around before the elite spec was announced. You’re living in an echo chamber right now. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the “what if” is very important because it can make or break the sense of the it being named the way it is.

You’ve used logic to show why the Revenant is allowed to exist in the personal story, and I’ve shown you how it could be exactly the same for the Dragonhunters. If they choose to not use that lore, fine, then there will be plot holes. However, until they officially make a statement, that’s one of the most sensible reasons for it.

As to my quip about you simply not playing it, would you refuse to play the Revenant because it wasn’t around before and it would break some immersion with the storyline? You seem to indicate that you would not, so I ask you to explain why that does not also apply to the Dragonhunter, and then why you would refuse to play the Dragonhunter.

You totally missed what my problem with the name is. I stated many times that for me name os specialization should be reflected in gameplay and mechanic of the specialization just like it’s with chronomancer. Chronomancer = Time mage. Skills and mechanic related to time manipulation. Dragonhunter – one elite skill with dragon animation and that’s it. Virtues are like for Paragon (spear, angelic wings, not dragon wings & shield), no dragonhunter theme. Longbow has arrows imbued with light + symbol + 5skill like trap. No dragonhunter theme. Traps are like symbols, cool animations, but still no Dragonhunter theme. Seeing the gameplay itself doesn’t give me impression that this IS Dragonhunter. It’s like Divne/Holy Archer. That’s it. Dragonhunter is out of any context. Even if they plan to make Braham Dragonhunter the specialization doesn’t feel at all as Dragonhunter! That’s my problem. Name should reflect what specialization really is and it’s certainly not a Dragonhunter in my opinion. Like I said before, it’s like giving class that is in fact Cleric (where gameplay/mechanic is holy light dmg & healing) name Warlock. Doesn’t fit at all.

I’ll grant you that it’s not a perfect name, but I don’t believe it’s quite as extreme as calling a cleric a warlock. Still, there are better names that have come up perhaps (I’m partial to the Seeker, or some variant thereof), but if they explain this one really well in game, eventually, it could be fine.

I’m not giving this name a free pass. They must explain it better than they have been, especially with the reaction it has received; otherwise it should probably be changed. If they just let it go, then I, too, will be upset and frustrated at the name, because all we have right now are assumptions and an incoherent timeline.

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

purecontact.1680:

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

It doesn’t actually have an affect on you, it’s really just a name. Even if you don’t “follow the path of the Dragonhunter” and you wield a longbow, you are not obligated to hunt dragons but the reason why you wield a bow and use traps is because of the Dragonhunters.

It has effect on us because our spec is named Dragonhunter, but the spec is not Dreagonhuntery at all. I posted a few posts about it that gameplay and mechanic doesn’t fit to the name. Would you like to play Warrior but named Wizard? Or Ranger named Mechanic, because it got offhand pistol and cool mechanical gauntlet and that’s it, it’s gameplay and mechanic has nothing to do with name and it doesn’t feel like Mechanic? I wouldn’t play it.

Then don’t play it.

Really great answer and feedback giving so much to this thread. So impressive.

See above. Also I have been contributing a good deal to this thread, thank you very much.

Yes, saying “Then don’t play it” had so big impact on thread! Can’t find proper way to express my gratitude. All Guardians who are not satisfied with specialization’s name be grateful! Easiest solution: don’t play it! Thank you for wonderful and meaningful feedback! Devs should consider your suggestion and maybe remove this specialization so we won’t play it so we won’t be dissatisfied.

Orpheal.8263:

Everyone who dislikes the motives of that D-Junk will be automatically locked out basically from this Elite Specialization, if they don’t want to get immersion breaked with their characters they play.

First… How so ? Really, I can’t understand why one couldn’t play a Dragonhunter if he dislikes the name…. since nobody ever call you by your class anyway in the game, and that it’s something really minor. And that’s true also for why it came to be in lore. Because you can always explain it by justifying that your guardian developed more or less the same skills as the “official” Dragonhunters (seriously Anet.. Dragon hunter, please, it would already be better. There is no reason for a class/specialization to be made of one word only).

Second… Seeker is just as lame, hardly fitting (the DH isn’t seeking anything, apparently) and extremely hard to translate correctly in many languages. As for the Inquisitor, it is associated with the White Mantle atrocities, even 250 years after they were committed. It seems counter-intuitive for a Guardian to call himself an Inquisitor in Tyria.

And finally, not aimed at you but… why is it okay to have a name for a specialization born out of human traditions (since all the proposed names are basically that, humans “titles”) but not a name born out of norn traditions, or charr traditions (or even asura traditions) ?

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

purecontact.1680:

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

It doesn’t actually have an affect on you, it’s really just a name. Even if you don’t “follow the path of the Dragonhunter” and you wield a longbow, you are not obligated to hunt dragons but the reason why you wield a bow and use traps is because of the Dragonhunters.

It has effect on us because our spec is named Dragonhunter, but the spec is not Dreagonhuntery at all. I posted a few posts about it that gameplay and mechanic doesn’t fit to the name. Would you like to play Warrior but named Wizard? Or Ranger named Mechanic, because it got offhand pistol and cool mechanical gauntlet and that’s it, it’s gameplay and mechanic has nothing to do with name and it doesn’t feel like Mechanic? I wouldn’t play it.

Then don’t play it.

Really great answer and feedback giving so much to this thread. So impressive.

See above. Also I have been contributing a good deal to this thread, thank you very much.

Yes, saying “Then don’t play it” had so big impact on thread! Can’t find proper way to express my gratitude. All Guardians who are not satisfied with specialization’s name be grateful! Easiest solution: don’t play it! Thank you for wonderful and meaningful feedback! Devs should consider your suggestion and maybe remove this specialization so we won’t play it so we won’t be dissatisfied.

Aight I thought you were done with the sarcastic ad hominem, but please refrain. I have been contributing to the thread, and so have you. Let’s not pretend like we aren’t. I also have not been attacking you in any way.

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

purecontact.1680:

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

It doesn’t actually have an affect on you, it’s really just a name. Even if you don’t “follow the path of the Dragonhunter” and you wield a longbow, you are not obligated to hunt dragons but the reason why you wield a bow and use traps is because of the Dragonhunters.

It has effect on us because our spec is named Dragonhunter, but the spec is not Dreagonhuntery at all. I posted a few posts about it that gameplay and mechanic doesn’t fit to the name. Would you like to play Warrior but named Wizard? Or Ranger named Mechanic, because it got offhand pistol and cool mechanical gauntlet and that’s it, it’s gameplay and mechanic has nothing to do with name and it doesn’t feel like Mechanic? I wouldn’t play it.

Then don’t play it.

Really great answer and feedback giving so much to this thread. So impressive.

See above. Also I have been contributing a good deal to this thread, thank you very much.

Yes, saying “Then don’t play it” had so big impact on thread! Can’t find proper way to express my gratitude. All Guardians who are not satisfied with specialization’s name be grateful! Easiest solution: don’t play it! Thank you for wonderful and meaningful feedback! Devs should consider your suggestion and maybe remove this specialization so we won’t play it so we won’t be dissatisfied.

Aight I thought you were done with the sarcastic ad hominem, but please refrain. I have been contributing to the thread, and so have you. Let’s not pretend like we aren’t. I also have not been attacking you in any way.

Sorry for being mean. Comments like “don’t play it” just makes my blood boiling. Tried to argument and give my opinnion about the name and in return I got “don’t play it”. That was like slap in the face. Sorry for my reaction. I hope we still can continue giving constructrive feedback.

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

purecontact.1680:

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

It doesn’t actually have an affect on you, it’s really just a name. Even if you don’t “follow the path of the Dragonhunter” and you wield a longbow, you are not obligated to hunt dragons but the reason why you wield a bow and use traps is because of the Dragonhunters.

It has effect on us because our spec is named Dragonhunter, but the spec is not Dreagonhuntery at all. I posted a few posts about it that gameplay and mechanic doesn’t fit to the name. Would you like to play Warrior but named Wizard? Or Ranger named Mechanic, because it got offhand pistol and cool mechanical gauntlet and that’s it, it’s gameplay and mechanic has nothing to do with name and it doesn’t feel like Mechanic? I wouldn’t play it.

Then don’t play it.

Really great answer and feedback giving so much to this thread. So impressive.

See above. Also I have been contributing a good deal to this thread, thank you very much.

Yes, saying “Then don’t play it” had so big impact on thread! Can’t find proper way to express my gratitude. All Guardians who are not satisfied with specialization’s name be grateful! Easiest solution: don’t play it! Thank you for wonderful and meaningful feedback! Devs should consider your suggestion and maybe remove this specialization so we won’t play it so we won’t be dissatisfied.

Aight I thought you were done with the sarcastic ad hominem, but please refrain. I have been contributing to the thread, and so have you. Let’s not pretend like we aren’t. I also have not been attacking you in any way.

Sorry for being mean. Comments like “don’t play it” just makes my blood boiling. Tried to argument and give my opinnion about the name and in return I got “don’t play it”. That was like slap in the face. Sorry for my reaction. I hope we still can continue giving constructrive feedback.

I’m sorry too. It really wasn’t very constructive of me to say that, and it isn’t a good solution either. This blasted name is tearing everyone apart; maybe that’s a good enough reason to hate it on top of everything else!

RabbitUp.8294:

Jon Peters said this: “Guardians fight for justice and the dragonhunter faction believes justice is the eradication of dragons and their minions.”

How then would the Dragonhunter faction allow for Sylvari Dragonhunters? This one line to justify the name has negated one player race from the lore of this specialization.

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

RabbitUp.8294:

AikunFelcis.7258:

Yeah, so they are not officialy in the lore,can’t be found any official reference in Gw1/Gw2 game, only in one post. It’s just said by Jon in order to give a reason to Dragonhunters exist, that’s my feeling.

They write the lore. Elite specs are a new thing, a new development in the world of Tyria.

So it proves my point that such faction doesn’t exist currently, so you can’t be sure that such faction will exists in the future, until it’s implemented. This thread is about name feedback and now we can base on released information, not “what if”. What if no other classes but guardian with it’s new specialization would be able to kill Elder Dragons? Then name Dragonhunter would have sense!

This doesn’t prove anything if Dragonhunters have technically been around before the elite spec was announced. You’re living in an echo chamber right now. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the “what if” is very important because it can make or break the sense of the it being named the way it is.

You’ve used logic to show why the Revenant is allowed to exist in the personal story, and I’ve shown you how it could be exactly the same for the Dragonhunters. If they choose to not use that lore, fine, then there will be plot holes. However, until they officially make a statement, that’s one of the most sensible reasons for it.

As to my quip about you simply not playing it, would you refuse to play the Revenant because it wasn’t around before and it would break some immersion with the storyline? You seem to indicate that you would not, so I ask you to explain why that does not also apply to the Dragonhunter, and then why you would refuse to play the Dragonhunter.

You totally missed what my problem with the name is. I stated many times that for me name os specialization should be reflected in gameplay and mechanic of the specialization just like it’s with chronomancer. Chronomancer = Time mage. Skills and mechanic related to time manipulation. Dragonhunter – one elite skill with dragon animation and that’s it. Virtues are like for Paragon (spear, angelic wings, not dragon wings & shield), no dragonhunter theme. Longbow has arrows imbued with light + symbol + 5skill like trap. No dragonhunter theme. Traps are like symbols, cool animations, but still no Dragonhunter theme. Seeing the gameplay itself doesn’t give me impression that this IS Dragonhunter. It’s like Divne/Holy Archer. That’s it. Dragonhunter is out of any context. Even if they plan to make Braham Dragonhunter the specialization doesn’t feel at all as Dragonhunter! That’s my problem. Name should reflect what specialization really is and it’s certainly not a Dragonhunter in my opinion. Like I said before, it’s like giving class that is in fact Cleric (where gameplay/mechanic is holy light dmg & healing) name Warlock. Doesn’t fit at all.

I’ll grant you that it’s not a perfect name, but I don’t believe it’s quite as extreme as calling a cleric a warlock. Still, there are better names that have come up perhaps (I’m partial to the Seeker, or some variant thereof), but if they explain this one really well in game, eventually, it could be fine.

I’m not giving this name a free pass. They must explain it better than they have been, especially with the reaction it has received; otherwise it should probably be changed. If they just let it go, then I, too, will be upset and frustrated at the name, because all we have right now are assumptions and an incoherent timeline.

If I were making an analogy to this, it’d be like making a class that has most of the attributes of a dnd cleric but calling them Hobobasher with the background being they steal and extort money from people to fund their church until those people are penniless hobos that they then bash. . . And then throw the Hobobasher a Loan Shark trap tie it all together. It’s Mish mash and presses your motivation for nothing more than justifying a name.

Leo G.4501:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

RabbitUp.8294:

AikunFelcis.7258:

Yeah, so they are not officialy in the lore,can’t be found any official reference in Gw1/Gw2 game, only in one post. It’s just said by Jon in order to give a reason to Dragonhunters exist, that’s my feeling.

They write the lore. Elite specs are a new thing, a new development in the world of Tyria.

So it proves my point that such faction doesn’t exist currently, so you can’t be sure that such faction will exists in the future, until it’s implemented. This thread is about name feedback and now we can base on released information, not “what if”. What if no other classes but guardian with it’s new specialization would be able to kill Elder Dragons? Then name Dragonhunter would have sense!

This doesn’t prove anything if Dragonhunters have technically been around before the elite spec was announced. You’re living in an echo chamber right now. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the “what if” is very important because it can make or break the sense of the it being named the way it is.

You’ve used logic to show why the Revenant is allowed to exist in the personal story, and I’ve shown you how it could be exactly the same for the Dragonhunters. If they choose to not use that lore, fine, then there will be plot holes. However, until they officially make a statement, that’s one of the most sensible reasons for it.

As to my quip about you simply not playing it, would you refuse to play the Revenant because it wasn’t around before and it would break some immersion with the storyline? You seem to indicate that you would not, so I ask you to explain why that does not also apply to the Dragonhunter, and then why you would refuse to play the Dragonhunter.

You totally missed what my problem with the name is. I stated many times that for me name os specialization should be reflected in gameplay and mechanic of the specialization just like it’s with chronomancer. Chronomancer = Time mage. Skills and mechanic related to time manipulation. Dragonhunter – one elite skill with dragon animation and that’s it. Virtues are like for Paragon (spear, angelic wings, not dragon wings & shield), no dragonhunter theme. Longbow has arrows imbued with light + symbol + 5skill like trap. No dragonhunter theme. Traps are like symbols, cool animations, but still no Dragonhunter theme. Seeing the gameplay itself doesn’t give me impression that this IS Dragonhunter. It’s like Divne/Holy Archer. That’s it. Dragonhunter is out of any context. Even if they plan to make Braham Dragonhunter the specialization doesn’t feel at all as Dragonhunter! That’s my problem. Name should reflect what specialization really is and it’s certainly not a Dragonhunter in my opinion. Like I said before, it’s like giving class that is in fact Cleric (where gameplay/mechanic is holy light dmg & healing) name Warlock. Doesn’t fit at all.

I’ll grant you that it’s not a perfect name, but I don’t believe it’s quite as extreme as calling a cleric a warlock. Still, there are better names that have come up perhaps (I’m partial to the Seeker, or some variant thereof), but if they explain this one really well in game, eventually, it could be fine.

I’m not giving this name a free pass. They must explain it better than they have been, especially with the reaction it has received; otherwise it should probably be changed. If they just let it go, then I, too, will be upset and frustrated at the name, because all we have right now are assumptions and an incoherent timeline.

If I were making an analogy to this, it’d be like making a class that has most of the attributes of a dnd cleric but calling them Hobobasher with the background being they steal and extort money from people to fund their church until those people are penniless hobos that they then bash. . . And then throw the Hobobasher a Loan Shark trap tie it all together. It’s Mish mash and presses your motivation for nothing more than justifying a name.

This analogy made my day! Can’t stop laughing.

Lore enthusiast Draxynnic of Guild Mag also dislikes the name: http://www.guildmag.com/dragonhunter-rose-name/.

As if it was just a vocal minority…

“the dragonhunter elite specialization grants guardians access to longbows and traps, enhancing their back-line support capabilities.”

Lol yay we get to wear heavy armor on the backline…

Genesis.8572:

Lore enthusiast Draxynnic of Guild Mag also dislikes the name: http://www.guildmag.com/dragonhunter-rose-name/.

As if it was just a vocal minority…

Yes, 1 person alone tipped the scales.

dragonhunter has nothing to do with the spec. here are the names i suggest:
archangel
seraph
angel
proton archer
paragon
divine sniper
justiciar
crusader
paladin
zealot

If you haven’t watch the streaming already, watch it first before you comment on anything, otherwise you’re talking to a wall.

https://youtu.be/Ypl3N-lQsNg

Basically this new Dragon Hunter does everything ranger “SHOULD HAVE BEEN” for the past 3 years.

LB auto with infinite snare + no damage penalty close range.
LB2 big spike skill that doesn’t penalized by retaliation, with very short CD and wider radius than any piercing arrow.
LB3 a “Ground Target” shot that ranger’s LB always lack, and also destroy projectile.
LB4 large symbol that does good AOE damage, which ranger always lack.
LB5 a “WAY BETTER” Barrage that penalize you less from retaliation, causes cripple, deal huge damage, and trap up to 5 enemies in Ring of Warding for so many seconds. (The trapping trigger much faster than I originally anticipated, probably 3 seconds) This is what barrage ALWAYS SHOULD HAVE BEEN!

Much superior version of traps that’d actually be useful in WvW Zerg fight and PVE as compare to ranger’s worthless traps.

Reveal traps basically kills all invisible thieves in conquest. It lasts 10 seconds, ticks good damage, causes reveal on all area (unlike sick-em which actually needs a target and only hit one foe). The 25 stack of instant vulnerability means while trap is active, Guardian can easily process a quick burst because condition removal would be useless and you’ll always do 25% more damage.

Blade trap deals huge damage (3.5k), hits infinite targets, last for 10 seconds, unable to be seen by enemies (unlike wells), Place 10 of them in WvW choke point like door or EB corridor. Pops 3.5k damage when walk through, x10 = 35k just to get over it. Imagine when a 50 men zerg walk rigth through EB corridor and instantly wiped by a line of traps placed on EB corridor. It also synergize well with the new GM trait that push back foes on 7 secs base. Combine the push and various pull from Guardian, you can easily do great damage with it. In PVE you can kite a large group of mobs through traps and exploit the dumb AI and watch them being spiked by the trap.

Ranger NEVER EVER would be able to do this with their traps or LB or any weapon. Ranger’s trap are worthless against zerg and only trigger once. Barrage is a suicide skill that does wet-noodle damage and kills yourself faster than killing opponents. Very minimal AOE skills as compare to Guardian’s LB. True shot also hits wider than any of the piercing arrows. Much better snaring compare to ranger’s LB.

Time to move on to this "true ranger” class.
Good that I have every classes lv80 to deal with kittens like this.

On the topic of lore, story, characters and professions, we probably need to clarify some points.

The origins of the professions are somewhat mysterious in the lore… Actually we could say that they have none that is clear.

In GW2, as opposed to Gw1, not every creature has a profession. In Gw1 even a simple devourer had a profession. What’s the concept behind that ? only a gamedesign choice.

The NPCs that are supposed to be identical to us (same races, same cultures), often have different skills and weapons/armor combinations. As if they were mixing professions. But it’s not really that, it’s more like professions don’t really exist !
Even though their names exist in Tyria (but you RARELY hear or see them) we can say that they only refer to something resembling closely to the professions, and the word profession itself is (almost) never used. So basically anybody can grab any weapons or learn any magic and do whatever he wants with it.
Sometimes those characters are just different enough to evoke nothing more than something like a “specialization”, but having no name for them they’re recognized as what appears to be their core profession, because this is what strikes people first. They won’t search any twisted concept, a Guardian with a dagger would just be a Guardian with a dagger if it is clear enough that he’s a Guardian. Otherwise you would call it… probably nothing. If it goes too far from that core concept then we don’t know how to consider it : it has no clear profession, so it is probably something else. But it’s just that professions don’t actually exist for them.

Now that means one important thing : the professions we have as players are a purely fictive gamedesign barriers. They can’t be defined clearly in the lore. We can identify them by a general theme, but not by what makes them on a gameplay point of view. It means that if a Guardian has a long bow it doesn’t make him something else than a Guardian. Actually any character that can be considered as a Guardian in the lore have always been able to use bows, just as any person would in reality. But WE as players are restricted for balance and *gameplay *reasons.

So…
Professions are only limited concepts. They make sense as a whole, but they’re not clearly defined by lore and they’re basically there only for the players and the devs to put some limits to what they can do with a character. That technical limit has always been followed by a thematic limit that is not as strict as the gameplay limitations. The specializations have to expand the gameplay possibilities while staying in the thematic limits.
The only thing that matters is how consistent those limits are when you compare professions between them, to make sure a profession is not crossing the concept of another one. This is something that has been very well made when A.Net created their core professions.
Dragonhunter is crossing the line by going beyond the thematic limits, which is as bad as going beyond gameplay limits to me (and many others). The identity of the profession disappears. That’s why having a spec name that stays in the thematic limits makes more sense.

A context in the lore is a good thing for a spec (but lore has never been a good thing to explain the archetypes in that franchise). Anyway it shouldn’t change the identity of the character, especially not when it is tied to a very specific story of one particular NPC only (this is for the Braham argument).
Now one particular character could eventually be a Guardian Dragonhunter… But it’s not his fighting style and his abilities that will define that, it’s his personal ambitions and his personal story. NPCs with their own personal story, their own identity are everywhere in the game. It doesns’t mean their characteristics all fit to the player characters. It would be leading your character by force into a context you never chose as a player, and doesn’t necessarily fit to the style of the core profession defined by the limits.
If a spec does something like putting you in a specific faction or giving you specific ambitions it feels wrong compared to what we usually have. That’s not what professions and spec are about.
A.Net always clearly stated that story and profession shouldn’t interact. You never choose your character for its story, you choose it for its fighting style and its look.
As your profession doesn’t even influence your story, why the story of anoter character should influence your profession ?

In the end, the lore and the story can’t really be an argument to make your character change. It is just a support to give a context to this change, but the change itself has to be made inside the defined limits. Also, the devs always failed to make decent lore about professions to the point that there is pratically none today so it’s not a reliable thing in this franchise/universe. A global theme is more adapted.

Alice.5360:

Harbinger.
Warden.
Warder.
Seeker.
Sentinel.
Arbiter.
Sentry.
Justicar.
Protector.
Templar.
Gallant.
Arclight.
Keeper.
Liberator.
Watcher.
Omen.
Diviner.
Crusader.
Templar.
Inquisitor.
Farlight.

---

I think every single one of these is x100 better than “dragonhunter”…

Good gods that name is so bad. I still can’t believe Anet, of all companies, would be so cheesy.

It’s not like naming the spec was the last thing they did- its fairly obvious from a design standpoint the name was settled on in the first quarter or so of the process and then used to guide decisions that followed – its a heavy armor bow user, conceptually that means NOT a skirmisher (like Rangers). Heavy armor evokes visions of standing your ground against overwhelming numbers or charging into the thick of the worst fighting — not kiting or chasing. All fitting in with a toolbox famous for not having high mobility (Guardian lines).

That and their elite didn’t just draw itself – the decision was made to give it a draconic FX. Same as the decision was made to use a dragon head on the class armor item. It has it’s own profession symbol. Haven’t seen it yet but if there’s not a dragon involved in the iconography I’ll be shocked.

Reality check: They are NOT going to change the name and start over on all the work that went into supporting the name that was chosen. Even if some people shout real loud from inside the boxes this not-ever-a-debate has been shuffled off to.

Ojyh.9842:

~snip~

Interesting dialog. I’d actually condone the notion of just barring the “elite profession naming schema” entirely and simply focus it on the line, i.e. Mesmers don’t “specialize” and become Chronomancers, they are simply Mesmers using Chronomancy/Time Distorting Magic. Still, even so, the new elite Guardian trait line being called “Dragon Hunting” hardly makes sense with no context which is sort of telling that something is wrong with that name.

Nike.2631:

Reality check: They are NOT going to change the name and start over on all the work that went into supporting the name that was chosen. Even if some people shout real loud from inside the boxes this not-ever-a-debate has been shuffled off to.

Well what about the many compromises suggested that would only require they change the name? There’s more than one suggestion that DOESN’T require them to “start over on all the work”.

purecontact.1680:

Lord Rheios.4152:

I’d figured Dragon Hunter came from Braham working more closely with his Ranger mother. She started teaching him how to use a bow and literally hunt thing, specifically the draconic quarry he’s oath-sworn to help you destroy. So Braham learned to hunt dragons for his crusader-like dedication to actively protect people and your character can be similarly focused.

My guardian is the daughter of a fisherman and he died killed by a quaggan.
He started teaching me how to use a fishing rod and literally fish thing, specifically the quaggan quarry my whole guild’s oath-sworn to help me destroy.
So my character’s learned to fish quaggan for her crusader-like dedication to actively protect fishermen and your character can be similarly focused.

Quagganfisher were born.

Troll appart, naming a specialization from very specific storyline isn’t a good thing.
The braham’s story line doesn’t define my character, it define braham’s one.
If he wants to found the dragonhunter order/faction, I’ll help him to do so like I’ve helped Trahearn with the Pact but I’m not ok if it impacts my character’s so heavily.

What annoys me the most for the dragonhunter name is the explaination from Jon Peters:

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

I’m ok if “Guardians fight for justice”, I’m not if that made me join the “dragonhunter faction (who) believes justice is the eradication of dragons and their minions”.

I want to fight for justice but dear Mr. Peters, you went too far when you set in stone why I am fighting.
It should be up to the player to chose which way his character follow.

If I chose to follow the dragonhunter path, that should be my personal choice like when I chose to be a noble looking for my sister’s body.
I had to chose one of the different symbol of my dedication and I didn’t chose the one which fits to the fanatics’ approach of dragonhunter.

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

if you invent and popularize a style of fighting, you basically get to name it, and people who use it after you will have to call it whatever you decided it was

if you invent quagganfisher fighting, everyone who uses it after you, even if they do not fish quaggans will have to call it that
it happens in the real world like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bak_Mei white eyebrow martial art, because the guy who started it was old. Does that mean every practioner of it is old now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fut_Gar budda family, only buddists can use this martial art now?

fencing comes from the word defense, does that mean it can never be used offensively? is every body who fences now a defender?

assassins comes from hashish, a group of people who murdered enemies after getting high on cannabis.

so yeah, many martial arts/proffesions, etc are named whatever they are named, and people who follow it later use the same name regardless of what they use it for.

Somebody decided to name the style of fighting dragonhunter, and now IF you want to use it, you have to use the name they made up for it.

RabbitUp.8294:

Yes, 1 person alone tipped the scales.

As if it was just one. Look at the public fan voices of GW2. See what they think about the ‘Dragonhunter’ name. Look on this forum. Count up the names advocating against and defending. What is your evidence that this is just a minority faction again?

Nike.2631:

Reality check: They are NOT going to change the name and start over on all the work that went into supporting the name that was chosen. Even if some people shout real loud from inside the boxes this not-ever-a-debate has been shuffled off to.

That must be why the requested that we stop giving them feedback on the name.

phys.7689:

purecontact.1680:

Lord Rheios.4152:

I’d figured Dragon Hunter came from Braham working more closely with his Ranger mother. She started teaching him how to use a bow and literally hunt thing, specifically the draconic quarry he’s oath-sworn to help you destroy. So Braham learned to hunt dragons for his crusader-like dedication to actively protect people and your character can be similarly focused.

My guardian is the daughter of a fisherman and he died killed by a quaggan.
He started teaching me how to use a fishing rod and literally fish thing, specifically the quaggan quarry my whole guild’s oath-sworn to help me destroy.
So my character’s learned to fish quaggan for her crusader-like dedication to actively protect fishermen and your character can be similarly focused.

Quagganfisher were born.

Troll appart, naming a specialization from very specific storyline isn’t a good thing.
The braham’s story line doesn’t define my character, it define braham’s one.
If he wants to found the dragonhunter order/faction, I’ll help him to do so like I’ve helped Trahearn with the Pact but I’m not ok if it impacts my character’s so heavily.

What annoys me the most for the dragonhunter name is the explaination from Jon Peters:

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

I’m ok if “Guardians fight for justice”, I’m not if that made me join the “dragonhunter faction (who) believes justice is the eradication of dragons and their minions”.

I want to fight for justice but dear Mr. Peters, you went too far when you set in stone why I am fighting.
It should be up to the player to chose which way his character follow.

If I chose to follow the dragonhunter path, that should be my personal choice like when I chose to be a noble looking for my sister’s body.
I had to chose one of the different symbol of my dedication and I didn’t chose the one which fits to the fanatics’ approach of dragonhunter.

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

if you invent and popularize a style of fighting, you basically get to name it, and people who use it after you will have to call it whatever you decided it was

if you invent quagganfisher fighting, everyone who uses it after you, even if they do not fish quaggans will have to call it that
it happens in the real world like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bak_Mei white eyebrow martial art, because the guy who started it was old. Does that mean every practioner of it is old now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fut_Gar budda family, only buddists can use this martial art now?

fencing comes from the word defense, does that mean it can never be used offensively? is every body who fences now a defender?

assassins comes from hashish, a group of people who murdered enemies after getting high on cannabis.

so yeah, many martial arts/proffesions, etc are named whatever they are named, and people who follow it later use the same name regardless of what they use it for.

Somebody decided to name the style of fighting dragonhunter, and now IF you want to use it, you have to use the name they made up for it.

People that invent a style of fighting in times of yore are different than Game Designers in a competitive market in 2015. You’ve got that sells aspect to consider to avoid confusing it with something else , or risk being branded as false advertisement. What’s worse is they’ve explained their reasoning in a way that is counter intuitive to the direction they’ve laid out for their returning and potentially new costumers.

After watching the DragonHunter in action I have some suggestions:

1.
The new Virtue of Resolve should be a LEAP NOT GROUND TARGETED. Please just make it so that it acts like a leap.

2.
The new Virtue of Justice would be so much cooler if when connected the DragonHunter could pull the enemies closer like Scorpion from Mortal Combat.

3.
The name DragonHunter is horrible. Simply, 5th grade bad. Someone dropped the ball on that one! LMFAO

Other Overall Suggestions:

4.
As for Ground Targeting, make it optional for all characters, not with traits, but in settings. For example, a player should be able to right click on a skill and choose (when applicable) ground targeting or not. If the skill is like a Necromancer’s Well, then the Well drops wherever the Necromancer is standing OR if the skill is a leap or a shadow step, then (without ground targeting) the skill should simply re-position the player forward “x” amount of range.

Players should play the way they want to play. Make Ground Targeting optional in order to appeal to all types of play styles. This is not a L2P issue either. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that having to click twice for one skill is slower than clicking only once. As for the fast cast option, that is still dependent on cursor positioning, which is cumbersome and does not fit the fluid combat style of GW2.

5.
Skills should work while in the air. If I jump or leap, then I should still be able to chain skills while in the air. With the new verticality of the HoT expansion, I would think this must be crucial in order to make the world feel more immersive.

Zephyron.7081:

2.
The new Virtue of Justice would be so much cooler if when connected the DragonHunter could pull the enemies closer like Scorpion from Mortal Combat.

I was actually thinking that the spear of Justice would have been cooler if the spear tethered the targets together instead of to you. Then it’d encourage the foes to spread away from each other to break the chain and if only 1 target is hit, it tethers the target to you.

Zephyron.7081:

After watching the DragonHunter in action I have some suggestions:

1.
The new Virtue of Resolve should be a LEAP NOT GROUND TARGETED. Please just make it so that it acts like a leap.

2.
The new Virtue of Justice would be so much cooler if when connected the DragonHunter could pull the enemies closer like Scorpion from Mortal Combat.

3.
The name DragonHunter is horrible. Simply, 5th grade bad. Someone dropped the ball on that one! LMFAO

Other Overall Suggestions:

4.
As for Ground Targeting, make it optional for all characters, not with traits, but in settings. For example, a player should be able to right click on a skill and choose (when applicable) ground targeting or not. If the skill is like a Necromancer’s Well, then the Well drops wherever the Necromancer is standing OR if the skill is a leap or a shadow step, then (without ground targeting) the skill should simply re-position the player forward “x” amount of range.

Players should play the way they want to play. Make Ground Targeting optional in order to appeal to all types of play styles. This is not a L2P issue either. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that having to click twice for one skill is slower than clicking only once. As for the fast cast option, that is still dependent on cursor positioning, which is cumbersome and does not fit the fluid combat style of GW2.

5.
Skills should work while in the air. If I jump or leap, then I should still be able to chain skills while in the air. With the new verticality of the HoT expansion, I would think this must be crucial in order to make the world feel more immersive.

has to be ground targeted, its primarily a heal.
secondarily a movement skill
only damage when its traited, so thats the only time it would have a target.

Fan video-blogger Bog Otter weighs in on the controversy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ksm_sKWicE

He disagrees that ‘dragonhunter’ qualifies as ‘high concept’ and that it centers around bottom-up design rather than from the concept of the ‘dragonhuner.’

Taking the long view, what will happen to the dragonhunters when there are no more dragons? Will they retire? Will they hunt something else? Or will they become… dragonreminiscers?

“This one time, at Claw of Jormag…”

Speaking of which, instead of traipsing around in the wilderness hunting for dragons and/or other beasties, why don’t they just check the dang timers like everybody else.

after the post 1 of the team posted, i still disagree and think the class should be more tyria like, this world if diferent from everything els, chronomancer suits tyria and revenant suits tyria, even the names of the new races

Leo G.4501:

Well what about the many compromises suggested that would only require they change the name? There’s more than one suggestion that DOESN’T require them to “start over on all the work”.

Ok, I’ll bite. Which of these names goes well with draconic armor and a draconic Elite? We’ll leave out the profession icon just to keep things sporting.

Genesis.8572:

That must be why the requested that we stop giving them feedback on the name.

I encourage you to look up the word ‘placate’. It costs them very little indeed to let this tempest sit in its teacup.

Genesis.8572:

Look at the public fan voices of GW2. See what they think about the ‘Dragonhunter’ name. Look on this forum. Count up the names advocating against and defending. What is your evidence that this is just a minority faction again?

Counting your own echoes in a box isn’t a majority of anything. I can’t be the only person who likes the name, appreciates the thought process behind it and also has no desire to get banned until well after HoT is out for being completely honest about my feelings for the whole so-called discussion.

Nike.2631:

I encourage you to look up the word ‘placate’. It costs them very little indeed to let this tempest sit in its teacup.

Counting your own echoes in a box isn’t a majority of anything. I can’t be the only person who likes the name, appreciates the thought process behind it and also has no desire to get banned until well after HoT is out for being completely honest about my feelings for the whole so-called discussion.

Why are you even participating in this thread stirring the discontent in this teapcup?

Guild Wars Players News Blog dislikes the elite specialization name: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGVzoXOYLkE

Lewis Burnell of Ten Ton Hammer dislikes the name: http://www.tentonhammer.com/editorial/guild-wars-2-thoughts-dragonhunter

Genesis.8572:

Why are you even participating in this thread stirring the discontent in this teapcup?

Because YOU claimed that my entire outlook barely exists or matters. I do occasionally rouse myself to say “nope, still here” . I’m sure warm welcomes like this contribute greatly to why you aren’t seeing that the other side of the coin is amply occupied. Thanks for making it clear you don’t want a discussion and that the opposing view shouldn’t even come to this lovely place. Sorry to disturb the purity of your outrage.

Nike.2631:

Because YOU claimed that my entire outlook barely exists or matters. I do occasionally rouse myself to say “nope, still here” . I’m sure warm welcomes like this contribute greatly to why you aren’t seeing that the other side of the coin is amply occupied. Thanks for making it clear you don’t want a discussion and that the opposing view shouldn’t even come to this lovely place. Sorry to disturb the purity of your outrage.

And you are claiming that my outlook is simply a vocal minority and doesn’t matter. Are you interested in having a conversation or just in shutting down and naysaying those opposed to the “dragonhunter” name?

A lot of people are taking this name too literally, even the big game hunter aspect too.

A Witchhunter doesn’t just hunt witches.

Another example is from the Witcher series. Witchers hunt monsters. If you take that literally then you’d believe they leave humans alone. But this isn’t true as Witchers will sometimes hunt humans too because humans can be monsters as well.

In Hearthstone there is a card called Big Game Hunter, the card’s effect is to instantly destroy high atk (7+) cards. It is most commonly used against a card called Dr. Boom who is a goblin (short and green) with 7 atk.

I hope these examples can help others see that Dragonhunter is supposed to be more conceptual than literal. The Chronomancer is more literal.

Dragonhunters are just intended to be the Witchhunters of Tyria, that’s all.

And not every individual is the same, so just because the idea of a Witchhunter/Dragonhunter is to be one way doesn’t make it necessarily so.

I like the previous posted idea that you are taking on a fighting style, not a literal identity like being a human vs being a charr. This actually makes more sense as we see Rytlock having gone from a Warrior to a Revenant.

Genesis.8572:

And you are claiming that my outlook is simply a vocal minority and doesn’t matter. Are you interested in having a conversation or just in shutting down and naysaying those opposed to the “dragonhunter” name?

“I’m fine with it” doesn’t generally call for a lot of chest beating to still get what you want. And there WAS a time to have this discussion and see some real impact: December 2013. You can see the origins of whole system for elite specs in the Horizontal Progression CDI.

A fair portion of my irritation comes down to respect. The ArenaNet designers don’t do what I’d prefer at every turn, but they’ve sure as hell earned the right to take their chances. If they wanted to call the Necromancer Elite “Gooseberry Muffin” my eyebrows would go up, but I still wouldn’t have foam dripping from my mouth when I asked them “hey, whasuup with that?” And push your cheek into their outstretched hand and call it being slapped in the face if you want, but the further explanation they gave for the Dragonhunter name not only made sense to me, but was largely reiterating what I’d already gleaned from the blog.

Design by committee is pretty much the short road to crap in game design. Its better to have some highs and lows, some hits and misses than to churn out uniform gruel. Maybe this is a low. I don’t think so. But even if it is, why on Melandru’s green Tyria would they invite us to second-guess them at every turn, and massively multiply their workload in the process?

So please. By all means continue (at least within the confines of the designated thread). Rant and rave to your hearts content. I’m just trying to offer a little perspective – that you can probably find a better use for the energy being expended. The ‘fight’ isn’t just over. It’s my belief there was never a fight in the first place.

((shrug)) Or maybe you’ll prove me wrong, and I still won’t be too worried about it. I’ve already won ‘the battle’ I care the most about – how elites actually work.

AikunFelcis.7258:

origin.1496:

I don’t feel like reading through pages of arguments. I read someone’s facebook post about a possible “why” to it being called a Dragonhunter, and figure I’d re-post.

“I believe the Dragon Hunter is going to have a story reference behind it
specifically involving Braham and Eir
Braham will become specialized as a Dragon Hunter after a scenario occurs and he will be taking up Eir’s bow when he does it

the Specifics of the Scenario are not listed because I’d rather people think for themselves plus I don’t want to spoil anything if I happen to be right about what I think is coming

but that being said I think Braham will wield Eirs bow and declare himself a Dragonhunter effectively creating/naming the Guardian specialization…"

Maybe Braham will have a reason to call himself a Dragonhunter, but we won’t.

THIS.

Don’t force an NPC’s motives onto the player character. We hated playing as Treherne’s shadow in the player story and we’re going to hate being Braham’s mum-avenger.

You did read that dragonhunters – plural – are an outgrowth of the circumstances of the age and not just lunkhead’s personal mommy issues, yes?

Nike.2631:

A fair portion of my irritation comes down to respect. The ArenaNet designers don’t do what I’d prefer at every turn, but they’ve sure as hell earned the right to take their chances. If they wanted to call the Necromancer Elite “Gooseberry Muffin” my eyebrows would go up, but I still wouldn’t have foam dripping from my mouth when I asked them “hey, whasuup with that?” And push your cheek into their outstretched hand and call it being slapped in the face if you want, but the further explanation they gave for the Dragonhunter name not only made sense to me, but was largely reiterating what I’d already gleaned from the blog.

If you think people in opposition to the name are being unrealistically mean/rude/disrespectful, then you are being overly sensitive. No one has slung rude names or screamed in all caps or the like. Why do you feel the need to be offended on the belhalf of the Devs? This is their job, they are adults, they don’t need your… “intervention.”

In comparison to this civil discussion of renaming, consider that changes to a class in SWTOR recently led to a developer and their family being doxxed and threatened. THAT is the sort of behavior you should be condemning, not opinionated posts that are remaining within the designated thread.

Nike.2631:

You did read that dragonhunters – plural – are an outgrowth of the circumstances of the age and not just lunkhead’s personal mommy issues, yes?

It’s still PVE motives forced onto every guardian that wants to pick up a bow, be it for PVP or WVW or what-have you.

Nike.2631:

Alice.5360:

If you think people in opposition to the name are being unrealistically mean/rude/disrespectful, then you are being overly sensitive.

That is comedy gold coming from you.

Alice.5360:

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.

Believe me, I’m a master of snide. It doesn’t take all caps or deathreats to spell out CONTEMPT in all caps .

Why do you feel the need to be offended on the belhalf of the Devs?

I said irritated. When I’m offended, I don’t post, I just report it and move on.

No offense but you’re seeing things where there’s nothing- I do actually like Hammerlock better. Is having an opinion “contemptuous” now?

I noticed a lot of what you said. It makes me wonder whether or not that should mean that lb ranger could get a buff on their skills- although I think there’s other weapons they have that need it more. It really seems like this is the replacement to the “typical” power rangers.

No, you’re saying that somehow these two sentences- “Sadly, I like that even better than Dragonhunter. Seriously.”- are contemptuous and lacking of civility.

Out of everyone in this thread, you’re trying way too hard to be offended and pick fights. From here on out, I’m just going to ignore the “input” you have and get back on topic….

I’d like to reiterate again that the community has been both respectful and helpful for the most part. They don’t just say “I hate the name”- they give valid reasons and creative alternatives. They aren’t senselessly criticizing.

I hope that Anet takes a long look into what has been put forward. If it is too late for a class name-change at this point, I am sure they will still have found great insight from these threads and the community’s reaction in general.

Nike.2631:

You did read that dragonhunters – plural – are an outgrowth of the circumstances of the age and not just lunkhead’s personal mommy issues, yes?

Haven’t we been in the “circumstances of the age” for well over a hundred years at this point? The only thing remotely new are the sylvari, Mordremoth, and the Pact.

Alice.5360:

I hope that Anet takes a long look into what has been put forward. If it is too late for a class name-change at this point, I am sure they will still have found great insight from these threads and the community’s reaction in general.

As I had linked, Bog Otter makes a good point about how the specialization feels like it was designed from the bottom-up. It probably did not start with any “high concept” of the dragonhunter to the longbow and associated mechanics, but instead with the longbow and associated mechanics to the name and its justification. I feel that the Chronomancer was actually the “high concept” elite specialization of the two thus far, since it stems from ArenaNet addressing how time magic would look like in an MMO.

I hope that Anet takes a long look into what has been put forward. If it is too late for a class name-change at this point, I am sure they will still have found great insight from these threads and the community’s reaction in general.

Well then good luck to you. I like the current name just fine.

Maybe we’ll both get lucky and they’ll name one of the other elite specs something that grinds my gears and you can critique me as I operate from similar footing .