Guild Wars 2

Jon’s explanation made no sense. I think he needs to actually research the words he is using before he posts…

The name is weak.

Genesis.8572:

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.

My thinking, and I cheerfully acknowledge this is nothing but personal head-canon until we see more in-game is that the Dragonhunters (and honestly I say “Order of Dragonhunters” under my breath half the time I read the word) has been something that’s only been coming together since the formation of the Pact. We see a bunch of different branches of Guardians brought together from the five races and the Three Orders’ separate vision of what it means to be a guardian — because dang if a Whispers Guardian and a Vigil Guardian are the same in my book — and unlike the last 100 years they are actively playing on offense and winning. This new Order gets their techniques from many roots over the last generation or two but their overall structure just in the last year. I see it as no more radical a shift/creation than the abrupt proliferation of Pact weapon technologies and vehicles.

Not all of the cross-pollination was scientific. More mystical disciplines built on common ground to do something new too.

Nike.2631:

Genesis.8572:

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.

My thinking, and I cheerfully acknowledge this is nothing but personal head-canon until we see more in-game is that the Dragonhunters (and honestly I say “Order of Dragonhunters” under my breath half the time I read the word) has been something that’s only been coming together since the formation of the Pact. We see a bunch of different branches of Guardians brought together from the five races and the Three Orders’ separate vision of what it means to be a guardian — because dang if a Whispers Guardian and a Vigil Guardian are the same in my book — and unlike the last 100 years they are actively playing on offense and winning. This new Order gets their techniques from many roots over the last generation or two but their overall structure just in the last year. I see it as no more radical a shift/creation than the abrupt proliferation of Pact weapon technologies and vehicles.

Not all of the cross-pollination was scientific. More mystical disciplines built on common ground to do something new too.

So all of the Pact are dragon hunters, meaning the Guardian specialisation name is very poor? I agree.

dietzero.3514:

Jon’s explanation made no sense. I think he needs to actually research the words he is using before he posts…

Ok, since it seems to be a day for reality checks.

Technical writing/design and narrative writing/design are different skill sets. Lots of people are amazing at one and mediocre at best to the other.

Jon came out and presented the exact kind of post you share with designers — because HE IS ONE. If you have that kind of background, he was ELOQUENT. Sadly, his audience was players, whom you generally win over with narrative writing skills. Not because they’re dumb but because its kitten near a different language. I’m sure behind closed doors he’s been duly chastised for conversing with us like peers instead of customers. And probably in terms not to far off from that. I certainly know John Smith has been slapped on the wrist for it and he’s directly biting in his commentary when he’s in a mood. We’re unlikely to see Jon open up again for a long time and that’s a pity. But by the same token I’m sure his bosses wish they’d caught it before it went out and re-processed those insights through one of the (many) outward-facing writers on staff.

Considering how there seems to be no one who would be satisfied with the name, I’m surprised Anet hasn’t bothered changing the kitten thing.

dietzero.3514:

So all of the Pact are dragon hunters…

NOooo. All of the Pact fight against dragons. The Order of Dragonhunters are exclusively made up of members trained as Guardians who have access to a new set of techniques that came out of the cross-pollination I described. Now those techniques will propagate to other guardians such as those who chiefly battle in the mists (sPvP & WvW) but the source of those techniques is still the Order of Dragonhunters and the common name for all who wield them is… Dragonhunter.

ANet’s precise vision of how it all comes about may not be known until launch, and it may not be explored/elaborated on even then. But I think the unavoidable lore aspect is the Elite Specializations are new. We didn’t fail to notice chronomancers among us for the last 3 years… they either didn’t exist or were actively hiding from the world. The same march of time that has brought us guns and pistols has also brought us new techniques and practices amongst the professions.

Nike.2631:

dietzero.3514:

Jon’s explanation made no sense. I think he needs to actually research the words he is using before he posts…

Ok, since it seems to be a day for reality checks.

Technical writing/design and narrative writing/design are different skill sets. Lots of people are amazing at one and mediocre at best to the other.

Jon came out and presented the exact kind of post you share with designers — because HE IS ONE. If you have that kind of background, he was ELOQUENT. Sadly, his audience was players, whom you generally win over with narrative writing skills. Not because they’re dumb but because its kitten near a different language. I’m sure behind closed doors he’s been duly chastised for conversing with us like peers instead of customers. And probably in terms not to far off from that. I certainly know John Smith has been slapped on the wrist for it and he’s directly biting in his commentary when he’s in a mood. We’re unlikely to see Jon open up again for a long time and that’s a pity. But by the same token I’m sure his bosses wish they’d caught it before it went out and re-processed those insights through one of the (many) outward-facing writers on staff.

What are you talking about? Jon’s statement was just flat-out wrong. It did not make any sense. He used words incorrectly. He came across as condescending. He contradicted the movie.

Are my short sentences getting to you?

A pact is specifically set up to hunt down the Elder Dragons.
Everyone in the pact is a dragon hunter.
Guardians are extra special dragon hunters?

Genesis.8572:

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

And? There have been multiple polls about the name, and whenever Dragonhunter was actually on those polls it got the majority. So stop the circlekjerking already. It is just a kitten name, and ingame you won’t even hear it 99% of the time. It’s not like in other MMO’s where the mapchat is filled with “searching for class X for dungeon y!”, and the NPC’s also basically never react to your profession. Not even those of the same profession with a simple “Oh you are a Necromancer, too” or something. So chill already.

I suppose one of my biggest problems with the name “dragonhunter” is that it is emblematic of the specialization’s lack of a packaged sense of cohesion. I’ll expand what I mean by that.

In my most recent comment, I mentioned how BogOtter speculates that the “Dragonhunter” was not a “high concept” design, at least in the traditional sense of how the term is used, but was designed from the bottom-up around giving the guardians a longbow, more conditions, and control. The basics of the specialization mechanics came before any notion of a “dragonhunter.”

Likewise, WoodenPotates speculates in a recent stream with MattVisual that the “dragonhunter” was actually meant to be a paragon. There are several things that lend credence to his hypothesis:
1) Concept Art: The previewed concept art for the guardian elite specialization lacks any clear dragon motifs. It has angel wings. The helm is not the elite draconic helm, but the starter visionary helm. The bow is not the dragon bow of the preview, but the spritual azurewrath. The gloves are ambiguously draconic, but not enough to suggest a dragon hunter. The paragon-esque wings are far more prominent than the gloves in the art.
2) The Virtues: The elite specialization virtues also evoke the paragon. Two aesthetics largely defined the paragon: the angel wings and spears. Using “Wings of Resolve” causes angelic paragon-like wings to sprout from your back, and using “Spear of Justice” hurls a spear at your foe.

We can speculate why ArenaNet decided against the “paragon,” but it feels as if vestiges of the paragon still cling to the “dragonhunter” specialization. This is particularly true in the case of the angelic wings. If the wings were draconic, it would at least lend more weight to the elite specialization’s draconic motif.

Jon Peters said they were going for something a bit darker and edgier with “dragonhunter” that evoked “witch hunter.” We can even see the “inquisition” and “purifier” aspects of the “dragonhunter” through the names of their abilities: purification (heal), light’s judgment, test of faith, etc. “Witch hunter” earned that darker connotation through religious history and fantasy conventions. “Dragonhunter” almost entirely lacks those connotations, so it is inadequate on that front as well. People can readily make the connection between the quasi-religious guardian and the inquisitional witch hunter, because of those preexisting links. But I don’t think that one can simply replace the ‘witch’ in “witch hunter” with ‘dragon’ and except to evoke anything similar when the “dragonhunter” exists as a preexisting historical and fantasy archetype to which people will bring their own set of highly different expectations. I believe that was a mistake on ArenaNet’s part, as most dragon hunters, stalkers, slayers, etc. are typically linked more with warriors and rangers in a lot of fantasy classes.

As such, I feel that the dragonhunter specialization is thematically trying to be too many things at once. Pieces of “guardians,” “dragonhunters,” “inquisitors,” “purifiers,” “big game hunters,” and “paragons” are scattered all over the place. But it does not feel anywhere as thematically cohesive as the “chronomancer.” The concept, the lore, and the flavor text lack that critical cohesive package. Conceptually, the specialization lacks a clear sense of focus.

I am okay with the idea of the “dragonhunters,” if that is what the lore needs, but I think that better names exist for the same concept. It could be as simple as “dragonbane,” “shadowbane,” “wyrmbane,” or “foebane.” These are not necessarily better names in themselves, but they are examples of how you can tweak the name slightly to evoke similar concepts. I admittedly used a lot of “bane” in the examples, but I find that ‘bane’ communicates that darker edge more than the more neutral and ranger-associated term of ‘hunter.’

Something has got to give, whether that’s the name, the flavor text, or the lore justification. If ArenaNet wants the “dragonhunter” to be a “dragonhunter” then they need to change more flavor text that reinforces the package. They need to change some of the aesthetics and animations so there are more draconic links. Get rid of the angel wings for one. It makes people think of angels and paragons and not dragons.

Shiki.7148:

And? There have been multiple polls about the name, and whenever Dragonhunter was actually on those polls it got the majority.

Can you link them? (and tell us from where they come)

@Genesis: you should stop arguing, that’s not because you repeat yourself that Anet will be more receptive to your comment.

purecontact.1680:

@Genesis: you should stop arguing, that’s not because you repeat yourself that Anet will be more receptive to your comment.

I know. This comment was less for ANet and more for Nike. I think that now that we are both sick of the feeling of arguing, yelling, and the invalidations of our emotional reactions, we will be moving to an intentional discussion.

Nike.2631:

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.

Oh, that`s simple with just these two things:
1. Armor and weapons inspired by dragons? Never seen that before. Just make them inspired by Glint, who was an dragon for example.
Dragons only got the “evil” image over the last few years and their form is not consistent (aside from the draconic types). We meet more dragon minions than dragon like enemies anyway.
Otherwise just give them something new and make the “unique” skins available ingame. It`s just two pieces. The designer will have a fieldday and love the extra work.

2. The elite is already questionable. Why would someone who hunts dragons have an elite that represents them? Wouldn`t it make more sense to have something representing the enemies enemy?
Subsequently I gather that this new class is actually in awe of the dragons and thus uses it`s image to display it`s strenght (or whatever).
I would redesign it to have ghostly warriors wielding spears come out of the ground in analogy to an beartrap, like this allready is…
If nothing, let`s get back to Glint.

btw. we got the brotherhood of dragons allready established. How about using them for an explanation of the “dragonhunter”?
Still would not explain the guardian only club.
This is still one of my maingripes here.
Why is the guardian so special? What does he differetnly from other classes, etc.

If we have specialists in any field, there is a reason. They are special. Either through natural abilites or something they earned. Something that makes them more suited to a certain task.

If we go with the witch hunter analogy it is often:
- People are trained to find them
- People who have a gift
- People who have access to special tools
That work against a specified enemy. For Witches that was usually fire and the good old dumping into the water (and sometimes holy stuff)
If we go with demons it was usually something that was made holy in any way.

Now here is the problem with dragons and their minions: We don`t know their weakness.
These are very varied enemies who do not share a common weakness. So far brute force and a wird blue glowing ball was our best defense and even that had been broken.

So here again is the simple question: What makes guardians and their abilities more suited to be called dragonhunter?
Their unique abilites are their symbols, “divine” light, virtues, etc.
We see a guardian and know what makes them different from other classes.
However in which way are these differences more suited to bring down dragons and their minions?

The problem is. Even if they explain why, for example special training, or experience, it wouldn`t work, as they would not be able to represent it with gamemechanics, simply because it would be unfair.
They can`t make them stronger against these enemies, even though they should be because of their background.

Giving them a unspecified name, which is more in line with their actual skills and mechanics, instead of specific and important lore reason just makes them more accessable in the whole sheme.

Shiki.7148:

And? There have been multiple polls about the name, and whenever Dragonhunter was actually on those polls it got the majority. So stop the circlekjerking already. It is just a kitten name, and ingame you won’t even hear it 99% of the time. It’s not like in other MMO’s where the mapchat is filled with “searching for class X for dungeon y!”, and the NPC’s also basically never react to your profession. Not even those of the same profession with a simple “Oh you are a Necromancer, too” or something. So chill already.

You are aware that even if the dragonhunter got the majority (most I have seen were about 30%) there are still 70% who don`t like it and are split on the other options to choose from.
You can`t ignore that, you know.

I’m repeating myself at this point but what the posters above said is true. Dragonhunters aren’t “themed” properly. Giving us a questionable elite (dragon vs dragon ammirite) and gear skins that are pretty generic/reminiscent of dragon-bash does not make us a “dragon themed class.” In fact, it seems like a last ditch effort to cobble together some semblance of theme that leaves me thinking “why bother?” I’d have been over-the-moon with more shoulders in line with the starter shoulders and an ethereal looking bow.

(Go look at Wings of Dwayna and Chaos Bow… Guardians have been snatching those up. Why? Because THAT’S the sort of gear they want. Not this dragon-mumbo-jumbo that looks more warrior and ranger style.)

Let’s compare the Chronomancer trait names with the Dragonhunter trait names to show more of what I am talking about the thematic cohesion of the elite specializations.

Chronomancer: We should expect a lot of time-motifs, and that’s what we find.

• Minor Traits: Time Splitter, Flow of Time, Time Marches On
• Adept Traits: Time Catches Up, Delayed Reactions, All’s Well That Ends Well
• Master Traits: Illusionary Reversion, Improved Alacrity, Danger Time
• Grandmaster Traits: Lost Time, Chrontophantasma, Seize the Moment

Conclusion: The chronomancer trait names are clearly tied in with the specializations’ time motif. Some puns and common phrases. It’s evocative about being a time mage.

Dragonhunter: We should expect either dragon or hunting motifs, but it is mostly generic guardian-sounding names.

• Minor Traits: Virtuous Action, Defender’s Dogma, Pure of Sight
  - Is there anything here that would suggest “dragonhunter”?

• Adept Traits: Piercing Light, Zealot’s Aggression, Soaring Devastation
  - I will say that Soaring Devastation is probably one of the best trait names for the DH. I want more trait names like that, if this is going to be a DH. But the other two come across more like typical guardian trait names.

• Master Traits: Hunter’s Determination, Bulwark, Dulled Senses
  - Hunter’s D does pass, but it’s also uninspiring. Maybe renaming it with greater emphasis on the ‘draconic’ aspect? Bulwark is fairly generic guardian as well, and Dulled Senses does not feel appropriately named for what it does.

• Grandmaster Traits: Hunter’s Fortification, Heavy Light, Big Game Hunter
  - Two more ‘hunting’ names, but one’s a repeat of the Hunter’s ____, and the other is the “big game hunter” mantra repeated on the first preview post. Again, I would make these more draconically-linked. For example, renaming “Hunter’s Fortification” to “Draconic Resilience” or “Protective Scales of Justice.” I would also connect “Big Game Hunter” more overtly with “Spear of Justice” (e.g. “Justice’s Wrath”) or dragon-hunting (e.g. “Strike the Weak Spot”).

Conclusion: Only three of the twelve traits directly references hunting (H’s Determination, H’s Fortification, and Big Game H), and two kinda allude to dragons (Soaring Devastation, Big Game H). This specialization lacks a clear, unifying sense of thematic focus and cohesion as demonstrated in their trait names, particularly when compared to the chronomancer. Most of the trait names do not evoke dragon-hunting or dragons, but generic guardian names. I think it needs to move more towards these draconic and hunting aspects to make it a more cohesive and sellable ‘dragonhunter’ package.

Genesis.8572:

Conclusion: Only three of the twelve traits directly references hunting (H’s Determination, H’s Fortification, and Big Game H), and two kinda allude to dragons (Soaring Devastation, Big Game H).

Soaring Devastation refers to the wings becoming a damage leap instead of a heal leap… And the wings are Dwayna wings, not dragon wings so you can knock that off the list.

Then, on top of that, the “Big Game Hunter” undermines what Jon said when he was all “ooooh, no, you’re not /that sort of hunter./ You’re witch hunters, obviously!” Nah, man- being a game hunter is in the trait line. You can’t trick us! :<

So many replies, so much time spend arguing endlessly in vain, restating again and again the same things. Wow, some people around this forum obviously have time to lose.

Let us just state the obvious: should Anet change the name, there would be another plethora of posts: “I don’t like this new name, use this other one instead. Even dragon hunter was actually better”. So why should Anet even bother to change it ?

Gilgalas.7860:

So many replies, so much time spend arguing endlessly in vain, restating again and again the same things. Wow, some people around this forum obviously have time to lose.

Let us just state the obvious: should Anet change the name, there would be another plethora of posts: “I don’t like this new name, use this other one instead. Even dragon hunter was actually better”. So why should Anet even bother to change it ?

Because unless they give to the dragon hunter a trait with “+20% against dragons and dragon minions”, dragon hunter are not more dragon hunter than anyone in the pact.

Gilgalas.7860:

So many replies, so much time spend arguing endlessly in vain, restating again and again the same things. Wow, some people around this forum obviously have time to lose.

Let us just state the obvious: should Anet change the name, there would be another plethora of posts: “I don’t like this new name, use this other one instead. Even dragon hunter was actually better”. So why should Anet even bother to change it ?

See the Engineer “hobosack” thread. Repeating and restating the same things over and over again. They got a change. They liked it. There wasn’t much, if any, “I don’t like this new change, use my idea instead. Even hobosacks were better.”

Gilgalas.7860:

So many replies, so much time spend arguing endlessly in vain, restating again and again the same things. Wow, some people around this forum obviously have time to lose.

Let us just state the obvious: should Anet change the name, there would be another plethora of posts: “I don’t like this new name, use this other one instead. Even dragon hunter was actually better”. So why should Anet even bother to change it ?

People aren’t complaining about Chronomancer or Druid or Revnant….

dietzero.3514:

A pact is specifically set up to hunt down the Elder Dragons.
Everyone in the pact is a dragon hunter.
Guardians are extra special dragon hunters?

The Pact are soldiers, they fight a war against the dragons. Do we call our soldiers hunters in real life?

Yours is a paper-thin logic. We have Warriors and Guardians in-game already. Why is my Elementalist not a warrior if we both fight in this war? Why is my Engineer not a guardian if we are both guarding the weak and defending Tyria?

Alice.5360:

People aren’t complaining about Chronomancer or Druid or Revnant….

I disagree with the name and kit of the “Chronomancer”, but I’m not gonna bother making whiny threads about it.

And there were some complaints about Revenant being too vague (which I disagree with, btw).

Genesis.8572:

See the Engineer “hobosack” thread. Repeating and restating the same things over and over again. They got a change. They liked it. There wasn’t much, if any, “I don’t like this new change, use my idea instead. Even hobosacks were better.”

Funny you would mention that. There were voices stating exactly that, that the scrotum grenades and toilet paper roll bombs looked worse than hobosacks.

Even though devs have specifically said both are placeholders and they are working on the assets.

Gilgalas.7860:

So many replies, so much time spend arguing endlessly in vain, restating again and again the same things. Wow, some people around this forum obviously have time to lose.

Let us just state the obvious: should Anet change the name, there would be another plethora of posts: “I don’t like this new name, use this other one instead. Even dragon hunter was actually better”. So why should Anet even bother to change it ?

theres a reason why this thread is still ongoing

because the name is downright bad

only casuals who don’t care about the class and people trying to be different will support such a crap name.

RabbitUp.8294:

I disagree with the name and kit of the “Chronomancer”, but I’m not gonna bother making whiny threads about it.

There is already one! :p

Zackie.8923:

Gilgalas.7860:

So many replies, so much time spend arguing endlessly in vain, restating again and again the same things. Wow, some people around this forum obviously have time to lose.

Let us just state the obvious: should Anet change the name, there would be another plethora of posts: “I don’t like this new name, use this other one instead. Even dragon hunter was actually better”. So why should Anet even bother to change it ?

theres a reason why this thread is still ongoing

because the name is downright bad

only casuals who don’t care about the class and people trying to be different will support such a crap name.

Like that it’s maybe a little excessive (peoples have the right to like the name…the guys that choose it must like it for example :P) but there is a lot of truth here.

RabbitUp.8294:

The Pact are soldiers, they fight a war against the dragons. Do we call our soldiers hunters in real life?

When they go hunting – Yes. Yes we do.

Gilgalas.7860:

So many replies, so much time spend arguing endlessly in vain, restating again and again the same things. Wow, some people around this forum obviously have time to lose.

Let us just state the obvious: should Anet change the name, there would be another plethora of posts: “I don’t like this new name, use this other one instead. Even dragon hunter was actually better”. So why should Anet even bother to change it ?

Do you see people complaining like this about the Tempest? The Chronomancer? The Druid? No? Right, because you are completely wrong.

The Pact are not all soldiers. They ARE all dragon hunters, though. The very purpose of the Pact is to hunt dragons.

I remember when Sony presented the PlayStation. The gaming community though it was a strange and awkward name. Now it’s an institution and everyone knows what a PlayStation is. You will get used to it, in a couple of months no one will bother about the specialization’s name.

Tossing out a few more. Whee.

Farseer
Intercessor
Rectifier
Redeemer
Illuminator
Kindler
Luminaire
Revelator
Morning Star
Shepherd
Guiding Light
Watcher
Cherubim (ya got Seraph already, so there)
Ophanim
Holy Order of the Kirk Drop Kick

Okay, maybe not that last one, unless that can be a skill/trait or something.

The “Dragonhunter” label is cliched, misleading, and even a bit silly in a game where we’re all hunting dragons.

That said, it’s a silly tempest in a teapot, and won’t affect my desire to buy and play the expansion.

Nike.2631:

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.

Again, you can take the French version of the name, Draconnier. Or change it slightly so it’s less ‘fancy’ or maybe harsher like Dragoneer, Dragoner or just simply less outside context with Dragonbane.

The idea being, the extra context is all in the story and disconnected from the name. The thing about linking the spec to Witch hunters or Big Game Hunters or just Hunters in general is that it often comes with a negative context that might not suit the player’s character and might feel even more alien to the core concept of Guardian as a whole since, in every respect, the elite spec isn’t suppose to change your character, just the abilities they use.

So why link possible genocide, false prosecution, indiscriminate poaching and the like to the spec when you can just disconnect from existing context, make a new name that is a blank slate and create the context for it yourself?

They can even still keep Dragon Hunters in the game, just don’t link them to a specific profession. Like, if Dragon Hunters were ancient Jotun who developed methods to dealing with the Elder Dragons and a new group stumbles upon the knowledge and calls themselves Draconniers (or whatever). On the surface, the might be just trying to protect everyone and purify the dragon corruption but later find out many of them go to extreme lengths for what they sense as Justice. It’s then on the player to decide how their character fits into the stew, a complimentary flavor or maybe a controversial ingredient trying to change the entire meal.

It might all seem inconsequential and you could just say “You can do all that with the current name, just cut out all the context and do what you want with it” to which I’d reply, we shouldn’t have to. The story is there for players (and likely more for roleplayers) and you should be trying to engross them into the lore, not force it so we have to ignore more and more of it just to make it work.

Not to mention, Draconnier/Dragoner/Dragonbane sounds better thus being more descriptive of what the spec actually means:

• something about fighting dragons
• being a menace to dragon-kind
• having actual knowledge unknown to most
• you fill in the rest (important!)

There’s also names like Archlight, Farlight, Arcwing, etc that just seek to name the profession after the way it looks/it’s abilities. I find them to be alright but less connected with lore.

Id have called it a “Partisan”

1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
2.
Military. a member of a party of light or irregular troops engaged in harassing an enemy, especially a member of a guerrilla band engaged in fighting or sabotage against an occupying army.

dietzero.3514:

The Pact are not all soldiers. They ARE all dragon hunters, though. The very purpose of the Pact is to hunt dragons.

That is actually completely backwards, you know. All of the pact are soldiers. From Wikipedia:

Occupational designations[edit]

In most armed forces use of the word ‘soldier’ has taken on a more general meaning due to the increasing specialization of military occupations that require different areas of knowledge and skill-sets. As a result, ‘soldiers’ are referred to by names or ranks which reflect an individual’s military occupation specialty arm, service, or branch of military employment, their type of unit, or operational employment or technical use such as: trooper, tanker, commando, dragoon, infantryman, marine, paratrooper, ranger, sniper, engineer, sapper, medic, or a gunner.

A hunter is a specific profession. Someone who hunts is not necessarily a hunter, but someone who makes their living hunting is a hunter.

I would just like to point out once again, Dragonhunters don’t need to be unique in all of Tyria, they only need to be unique when compared to Guardians. Sure other people hunt dragons and their* associated minions, but actively seeking/pursuing an enemy is not the traditional Guardian way.

So while other professions and groups also hunt dragons, the Dragonhunter is a name given by Guardians to other Guardians who deviate from their traditional role.

*edit spelling….

Axialbloom.8109:

RabbitUp.8294:

The Pact are soldiers, they fight a war against the dragons. Do we call our soldiers hunters in real life?

When they go hunting – Yes. Yes we do.

Game hunting? That’s irrelevant.

In war situations, you don’t call a soldier hunter.

dietzero.3514:

The Pact are not all soldiers. They ARE all dragon hunters, though. The very purpose of the Pact is to hunt dragons.

It’s not. Try again.

RabbitUp.8294:

It’s not. Try again.

“The Pact is the union of the three great orders of Tyria: the Durmand Priory, Order of Whispers, and Vigil. The alliance was founded in 1325 AE by the sylvari Firstborn Trahearne and his trusted friend with the stated purpose of defeating each of the Elder Dragons, one by one, starting with the undead dragon Zhaitan. "

Id say they are dragon hunting if their entire purpose was to defeat all the elder dragons. One by One, that seems like hunting to me. Hell check the verb form of the word, hunt.

1.) To chase, or search for, for the purpose of killing.
2.) To chase or search for with force or hostility for the purpose of finding(Usually followed by Down, example given was, “They hunted him down and hanged him”)

Sees like they are hunting dragons to me though.

Dante.1763:

RabbitUp.8294:

It’s not. Try again.

“The Pact is the union of the three great orders of Tyria: the Durmand Priory, Order of Whispers, and Vigil. The alliance was founded in 1325 AE by the sylvari Firstborn Trahearne and his trusted friend with the stated purpose of defeating each of the Elder Dragons, one by one, starting with the undead dragon Zhaitan. "

Id say they are dragon hunting if their entire purpose was to defeat all the elder dragons. One by One, that seems like hunting to me. Hell check the verb form of the word, hunt.

1.) To chase, or search for, for the purpose of killing.
2.) To chase or search for with force or hostility for the purpose of finding(Usually followed by Down, example given was, “They hunted him down and hanged him”)

Sees like they are hunting dragons to me though.

They are hunting, but that does not make the pact soldiers “hunters”. There are subtle distinctions with what a profession is and what a hobby/job is.

If somebody types a lot for work, that doesn’t make them a “typist”, but they are typing. A construction worker that goes fishing on the weekend isn’t a fisherman, but a crabber up north is. The class names are their professions, meaning that what they do is their way of life. The minute the dragons are all dead, all of the pact soldiers stop hunting, but they are still soldiers.

Edit: Along that vein, when all the dragons are dead, the Dragonhunters will probably have a “well…now what?” moment that any villain has whenever they defeat the good guy (a la Megamind (2010)).

Totally missed a chance to make GW1 players happier with paragon…

Besides that, Dragon Hunter seems really out of place. Zeal – Radiance – Valor – Honor – Virtues aaaand Dragon Hunter is the specialization.

As to Dragon Hunter apparently being too high brow for us simpletons, as it is trying to mean Witch Hunter:
-The traits that are actually referring to being a Dragon Hunter (as someone mentioned earlier there are strangely very few) are things like “Big Game Hunter” suggests a more a focus on the literal meaning, one who hunts Dragons (who are big).
-The extra associations of inquisition and faith we get are from historical Witch Hunters. If you call something a Witch Hunter, most people can get it. By changing the phrase to Dragon Hunter, you lose that association and thus the meaning. All you have are hunters of Dragons.

My final issue with the name at this point is how it applies better to other professions. You could easily say new Ranger spec: Dragon Hunter, new Warrior spec: Dragon Hunter, without anyone blinking an eye (still some muttering about it being generic and unimaginative I’m sure but what can you do). These are profs who you can see hunting Dragons for a living, being an offensive force against Dragons. Guardians protect others, are pillars of strength and virtue that you can look up upon, not obsessive hunters who will stoop to anything to kill their prey, as I personally assume a Dragon Hunter would.

MiniEquine.6014:

They are hunting, but that does not make the pact soldiers “hunters”. There are subtle distinctions with what a profession is and what a hobby/job is.

If somebody types a lot for work, that doesn’t make them a “typist”, but they are typing. A construction worker that goes fishing on the weekend isn’t a fisherman, but a crabber up north is. The class names are their professions, meaning that what they do is their way of life. The minute the dragons are all dead, all of the pact soldiers stop hunting, but they are still soldiers.

Edit: Along that vein, when all the dragons are dead, the Dragonhunters will probably have a “well…now what?” moment that any villain has whenever they defeat the good guy (a la Megamind (2010)).

Oh i know that, but he stated that the pacts purpose was not to hunt dragons, when it was formed with the sole purpose of hunting down the dragons one by one, thats all. I agree that being a soldier does not make you a hunter.

Its why i do not like the name Dragonhunter(like the french version better to be honest), it does not fit the theme of the skills that they use with the exception of one skill, and a weapon and armor skin, now if every skill had some sort of dragon effect, dragon in its name, or something similar, i would almost agree with the name Dragonhunter. As it is, it just screams out quite a few of the names listed here, it uses light to do things, so its a more aggressive guardian, i still dont think Dragonhunter suits this specialization. Unlike some though, ill still use it just so i can use a longbow…that better than the Ranger(IMO the person who said that Dragonhunter is doing what the ranger should have been doing from the start is correct).

Your edit, i laughed, i really did! xD

Snow.2048:

My final issue with the name at this point is how it applies better to other professions. You could easily say new Ranger spec: Dragon Hunter, new Warrior spec: Dragon Hunter, without anyone blinking an eye (still some muttering about it being generic and unimaginative I’m sure but what can you do). These are profs who you can see hunting Dragons for a living, being an offensive force against Dragons. Guardians protect others, are pillars of strength and virtue that you can look up upon, not obsessive hunters who will stoop to anything to kill their prey, as I personally assume a Dragon Hunter would.

The “Dragonhunter” sobriquet indicates a worrisome homogenization of the classes. When I think “Guardian”, I think “Protector” and “Defender”, not “Aggressor.” In my mind, this heralds a shift toward making all the classes interchangable and generic, giving each some aspects of the others. Taken to an extreme, what point is there to classes if they all do the same things?

I’m expecting the Ranger “druid” to be a healer/buffer, taking on aspects of the Guardian.

The new Chronomancer gave me great hope that classes would gain enhancements reflecting their base design.

The Dragonhunter erased that optimism.

But we’ll see.

Doing an advanced search of Magic the Gathering cards, looking at all White color, Creature type, Human subtype cards…

… you find words like Cleric, Warden, Priest, Crusader, Arrester, Justiciar, Trapper, Orator, Elite, Hero, Champion, Knight, Templar, Sanctifier, Paladin, Clergy, Order, Confessor, Acolyte, Healer, Spiritualist, Defender, Healer, Purist, Martyr, Vanguard, Devout, Disciple, Archer, Preacher, Peacekeeper, Advocate, Invoker, Judge, Marshal, Monk, Apothecary, Zealot, Entangler, Whipcorder, Lightwalker, Inquisitor, Witch Hunter, Dragonslayer, Dragon Hunter, etc.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=394541

Basically if there is any word that could be used to describe a “good/religious/spiritual” themed role, magic the gathering has probably used it and you can dig through all the names yourself doing an advanced search. Most of those words are pretty vague… and would become more vague with translation. So I fully expect more compound names in the future.

But giving us that blog-post, with that video, and that name makes me think of Turok Dinosaur Hunter pew-pewing dinosaurs with a bow in the jungle, not John Lambton setting out to kill the wyrm in the river with a sword and spiked armor.

Sytherek.7689:

Snow.2048:

My final issue with the name at this point is how it applies better to other professions. You could easily say new Ranger spec: Dragon Hunter, new Warrior spec: Dragon Hunter, without anyone blinking an eye (still some muttering about it being generic and unimaginative I’m sure but what can you do). These are profs who you can see hunting Dragons for a living, being an offensive force against Dragons. Guardians protect others, are pillars of strength and virtue that you can look up upon, not obsessive hunters who will stoop to anything to kill their prey, as I personally assume a Dragon Hunter would.

The “Dragonhunter” sobriquet indicates a worrisome homogenization of the classes. When I think “Guardian”, I think “Protector” and “Defender”, not “Aggressor.” In my mind, this heralds a shift toward making all the classes interchangable and generic, giving each some aspects of the others. Taken to an extreme, what point is there to classes if they all do the same things?

I’m expecting the Ranger “druid” to be a healer/buffer, taking on aspects of the Guardian.

The new Chronomancer gave me great hope that classes would gain enhancements reflecting their base design.

The Dragonhunter erased that optimism.

But we’ll see.

This elite spec is quite far from the base design, but could it be closer to one of the other elite specs? Like:

Guardian — ? — ? — Dragonhunter — ???

Maybe it’s a scale of variations. I’m assuming the Thief will gain elite specs that are very support-y, and the Warriors might even find themselves using magic at some point. I think, even though it doesn’t make sense right now, that it could be pretty cool later on when everything is fleshed out.

Looking through the weapons a Guardian cannot use (they are tied with the warrior for the most useable weapons), here are some possibilities:

Axe – A brutal skirmisher/crusader

Dagger – A stealthy assassin of light

Pistol – Unlikely (but who knows?)

Warhorn – A rallying commander with extra defensive boosts

Rifle – Light Lasers! (also somewhat unlikely. Guns don’t seem to be a Guardian thing, but who knows?)

Short Bow – Maybe tied with the Dagger Assassin?

Not many of the rest of the weapons seem very protective as the Guardian can already use all of the weapons that are. The only way for it to go seems into a more aggressive role, especially if it’s at the tip of the “defense” section of the scale (despite Medi Guardian offensive strength).

MiniEquine.6014:

This elite spec is quite far from the base design, but could it be closer to one of the other elite specs? Like:

Guardian — ? — ? — Dragonhunter — ???

Maybe it’s a scale of variations. I’m assuming the Thief will gain elite specs that are very support-y, and the Warriors might even find themselves using magic at some point. I think, even though it doesn’t make sense right now, that it could be pretty cool later on when everything is fleshed out.

Looking through the weapons a Guardian cannot use (they are tied with the warrior for the most useable weapons), here are some possibilities:

Axe – A brutal skirmisher/crusader

Dagger – A stealthy assassin of light

Pistol – Unlikely (but who knows?)

Warhorn – A rallying commander with extra defensive boosts

Rifle – Light Lasers! (also somewhat unlikely. Guns don’t seem to be a Guardian thing, but who knows?)

Short Bow – Maybe tied with the Dagger Assassin?

Not many of the rest of the weapons seem very protective as the Guardian can already use all of the weapons that are. The only way for it to go seems into a more aggressive role, especially if it’s at the tip of the “defense” section of the scale (despite Medi Guardian offensive strength).

You mean that they have a long term bigger plan ? I don’t think so… But if they do, I can’t see how it can be good if it implies more specs like this one. I prefere to warn them now and tell them to stop while it is still possible.

The first and biggest error A.Net made with the DH was to believe that because of the longbow a Guardian should turn into a Hunter. I would prefere not to encourage them in that way by saying he could be an assassin or something like that.
Your suggestions would make the existence of professions useless. It would mean being able to play every kind of archetype with any character, just changing its appearance.
The very first idea behind the GW2 profession designs was to make every profession clearly identifiable and have their own unique style, but giving the possibility to any character to fulfill any role in a party. That sounded good. In the end it wasn’t in every aspects… But now they’re even going back on the style and identity of the professions.
That’s quite sad.

RabbitUp.8294:

Funny you would mention that. There were voices stating exactly that, that the scrotum grenades and toilet paper roll bombs looked worse than hobosacks.

Even though devs have specifically said both are placeholders and they are working on the assets.

Actually the complaining did stop once people were reminded that they were placeholders. Try again.

I think it’s a great idea so long as the abilities reflect the idea of hunting and trapping which to my meager knowledge of them they do so far. I can see why some of you possibly don’t like the title but from a design perspective it’s holistic and relevant to what is going on in the world at the moment. My sole worry is that traps feel underwhelming to use in general so I’m interested in how Anet will make these fun.

As for the name, maybe Dragon Bane sounds slightly cooler? /shrug

Well as far as the name Dragonhunter. Sounds pretty lame to me. I for one will not be spec’d to dragonhunter skills. I run two guardians with two very different specs for what i run and do. People keep complaining about the name, but i bet they will still play Dragonhunter and be spec’d for it,,lol longbow and traps??? Yeah no thanks

Ojyh.9842:

You mean that they have a long term bigger plan ? I don’t think so… But if they do, I can’t see how it can be good if it implies more specs like this one. I prefere to warn them now and tell them to stop while it is still possible.

The first and biggest error A.Net made with the DH was to believe that because of the longbow a Guardian should turn into a Hunter. I would prefere not to encourage them in that way by saying he could be an assassin or something like that.
Your suggestions would make the existence of professions useless. It would mean being able to play every kind of archetype with any character, just changing its appearance.
The very first idea behind the GW2 profession designs was to make every profession clearly identifiable and have their own unique style, but giving the possibility to any character to fulfill any role in a party. That sounded good. In the end it wasn’t in every aspects… But now they’re even going back on the style and identity of the professions.
That’s quite sad.

They do have a bigger plan. They’ve already said that these are not the only elite specializations we will see, and I’ve heard numbers of up to 5 different elite specializations (I think from people calculating out the total number of hero points available in the world, comparing it to the cost for a spec, and finding that you could have your 5 cores and an additional 5 filled with all the hero points). I was hoping for something different with the Longbow as well, but this spec will be here for people who want to play it. I mean, the DH is not exactly the same as the Ranger; no pet, traps have different effects, and you can still slot regular Guardian utilities instead of the traps. Not every elite spec is going to be one everyone wants to play, but maybe the next Guardian elite spec will make you fanboy over it (and hopefully more people than this one has too!)

Sytherek.7689:

Snow.2048:

My final issue with the name at this point is how it applies better to other professions. You could easily say new Ranger spec: Dragon Hunter, new Warrior spec: Dragon Hunter, without anyone blinking an eye (still some muttering about it being generic and unimaginative I’m sure but what can you do). These are profs who you can see hunting Dragons for a living, being an offensive force against Dragons. Guardians protect others, are pillars of strength and virtue that you can look up upon, not obsessive hunters who will stoop to anything to kill their prey, as I personally assume a Dragon Hunter would.

The “Dragonhunter” sobriquet indicates a worrisome homogenization of the classes. When I think “Guardian”, I think “Protector” and “Defender”, not “Aggressor.” In my mind, this heralds a shift toward making all the classes interchangable and generic, giving each some aspects of the others. Taken to an extreme, what point is there to classes if they all do the same things?

I’m expecting the Ranger “druid” to be a healer/buffer, taking on aspects of the Guardian.

The new Chronomancer gave me great hope that classes would gain enhancements reflecting their base design.

The Dragonhunter erased that optimism.

But we’ll see.

Exactly how I feel. They could have easily given us a longbow without giving it a very ranger-like theme. Specializations are supposed to add new depth to the classes, not make them overlap with each other.