I like all the names… and the themes that fit :x
Also the argument that Paragon is not going to happen because it’s a title can suuuck it. Reaper happened.
We already know that there is the Chronomancer (Mesmer), Reaper (Necromancer), Tempest (Elementalist) and the Druid (Ranger) to go with the Dragonhunter (Guardian). So there is actually only 4 more specialisation names left to be revealed (Revenant, Warrior, Engineer & Thief).
I suspect there won’t be any high concept names with the Warrior, Thief and maybe the Engineer since they are rather straightforward professions… the Revenant worries me because that is already a little left field. But so far the naming trend is 4 generic fantasy and 1 “high concept”. The Dragonhunter is looking like a naming abnormality.
I can see why there is no space between “Dragon” and “Hunter” now, because there seems to be a trend of singular words for the others. So they compressed the guardian spec’s name to not look out of place… even though the grammar is a bit odd.
As if i care about the name of the class. Dragonhunters will still be called “guardians”….Reapers will still be called “necros”.
All i care is the utility of each class and how it evolves. That name will have close to no impact on anything you do ingame….and i don’t think you will pickup chicks by telling them “Hey…i am a Reaper in bed”
let’s be serious here… Find actually useful things to complain about..and maybe they will concentrate on fixing/modifying that instead of a name.
Someone suggested a poll in the previous page. We already had more than 3 already. At this point, it’s not easy to make a new one visible enough, plus the previous polls weren’t always objective (some didn’t let you vote for Dragonhunter at all, or had no neutral options), so their results are not reliable.
Anyone ever work out if the Dragonhunter is a big game hunter or a witch hunter type? Anet said both, even though that is not possible.
It’s both, I don’t see how the two are incompatible. Witch hunter in spirit and motivation (purge all evil), and big game hunters in method (some of their skills look like electric fences even).
(edited by RabbitUp.8294)
you seem to be slow to take in the name
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/Dragon-Hunter-name-feedback-merged
As if i care about the name of the class. Dragonhunters will still be called “guardians”….Reapers will still be called “necros”.
To be fair, the elites will have their name AND a unique class icon, so you are wrong on that.
It’s both, I don’t see how the two are incompatible. Witch hunter in spirit and motivation (purge all evil), and big game hunters in method (some of their skills look like electric fences even).
So it’s Jurassic Park meets The Crucible.
I suspect there won’t be any high concept names with the Warrior, Thief and maybe the Engineer since they are rather straightforward professions… the Revenant worries me because that is already a little left field. But so far the naming trend is 4 generic fantasy and 1 “high concept”. The Dragonhunter is looking like a naming abnormality.
Simplicity doesn’t exclude a high concept approach. In fact, in Warrior’s case, it might even demand it, as their kit doesn’t have many loose threads to work with.
Simplicity doesn’t exclude a high concept approach. In fact, in Warrior’s case, it might even demand it, as their kit doesn’t have many loose threads to work with.
I’m talking purely character concept here. A simple concept does exclude a high conceptual approach. They are both polar extremes. There’s nothing high concept about a Reaper being an extension of a Necromancer and there’s nothing simple about a Dragonhunter being a specialisation of a Guardian.
The Reaper gets its’ identity from the Necromancer’s iconic Death Shroud and general death iconography. The Chronomancer gets its’ identity from the Mesmer’s few Time manipulation skills. The Druid will probably get its’ identity from the Ranger’s Nature Magic traits. And the Tempest will probably channel the elements (Weather) through the Elementalist’s four elements (Alchemy). However the Guardian borrows from the Ranger and flips the hierarchy of offence and defence around.
So you have specialization concepts that are a straight natural progression from their original professions to the Dragonhunter which has concept that bends and reinterprets the original profession.
Anyone ever work out if the Dragonhunter is a big game hunter or a witch hunter type? Anet said both, even though that is not possible.
It’s both, I don’t see how the two are incompatible. Witch hunter in spirit and motivation (purge all evil), and big game hunters in method (some of their skills look like electric fences even).
The two themes are contradictory. A witch hunter (in the less offensive fictional sense) has a certain sense of fanaticism when it comes to purging evil from the world for the benefit of all things good. They feel as though it is their sworn duty to eradicate these threats in the world wherever they may be.
A “big game hunter” gives the impression of hunting for pure sport, and has nothing to do with good and evil, light and dark. There’s no intrinsic motivational drive for it, only “hey, I feel like killing a big animal/monster just for fun.”
These two themes clash with each other so hard that it’s a wonder how Anet managed to haphazardly meld them together in the first place. Is it one, or is it the other? The issue that I have (as well as many others here I’m assuming) is that if we go with the first theme, the name feels like it doesn’t fit, and if we go with the latter theme, it feels like far too much of a stretch to be compatible with the current guardian theme, which is based upon the idea of using protective light magic alongside heavy armor and weaponry.
The Arbiter would continue to build on the Judge theme that Guardian has with Judge’s Intervention, Virtue of Justice, all the of Judgment skills, and traits like Justice is Blind, Supreme Justice.
Building on this Arbiter would require very little amount of work for them. The Arbiter would be the “judge” and he decides that something is a threat to Tyria and they hunt it down. So no need to rework the whole theme, just change the name, rename a few hunter themed traits to judgement or justice or w/e and it’s a done deal, it is a natural progression of the character from a light magic defensive guy to a light magic using guy that seeks out the threat, instead of going from guardian to ranger.
The Arbiter would continue to build on the Judge theme that Guardian has with Judge’s Intervention, Virtue of Justice, all the of Judgment skills, and traits like Justice is Blind, Supreme Justice.
Building on this Arbiter would require very little amount of work for them. The Arbiter would be the “judge” and he decides that something is a threat to Tyria and they hunt it down. So no need to rework the whole theme, just change the name, rename a few hunter themed traits to judgement or justice or w/e and it’s a done deal, it is a natural progression of the character from a light magic defensive guy to a light magic using guy that seeks out the threat, instead of going from guardian to ranger.
Arbiters don’t hunt anything down, they pass judgment and that’s it. Even if you don’t like Dragonhunter, arbiter is nowhere near where this specialization comes, but there is a potential for them to introduce it with a different elite specialization with much more fitting skills.
@Mordeus
High concept doesn’t mean complicated or sophisticated. That’s the misunderstanding that spawned most of the rage. High concept is a general, overarching idea, based on which the rest of a story is developed through top-down design.
Since you mentioned Jurassic Park, the high concept there was “dinosaur theme park”, or “cloning dinosaurs”. The production staff decomposed that idea, like what would cloning dinosaurs mean for our society, would we reduce these fearsome predators into zoo animals, then they worked in the little details, the “low concept”, like character interaction.
For chronomancer, the conception was probably based on a power concept (time control), an existing skill (Time Warp), an unreleased class (GW1’s chronomancer), or even all at the same time. Then came the wells, the shield (which resembles a clock), and the name.
According to what Jon Peters said, Dragonhunter was high concept in the sense that they wanted a reason for guardian to fight at range, and had the idea of the dragonhunter faction in lore, so they explored how guardians would involve themselves with that faction. So the concept of the dragonhunting guardian spawned the kit they would use, instead of the other way around.
Warriors might have a simple concept, but because it’s so simply, they don’t give you much to work with. What’s warrior’s trademark, mastery of non-magic weapons? In which case, how would the elite Warrior feel different enough when wielding a dagger, for example? Additionally what part of their kits leave room for further expansion, do they need more support options, more selfish options?
A “big game hunter” gives the impression of hunting for pure sport
All real-life hunters do that, regardless of the size of the game they specialize in. The concept of the witch hunter is already in violation of that definition.
(edited by RabbitUp.8294)
The Arbiter would continue to build on the Judge theme that Guardian has with Judge’s Intervention, Virtue of Justice, all the of Judgment skills, and traits like Justice is Blind, Supreme Justice.
Building on this Arbiter would require very little amount of work for them. The Arbiter would be the “judge” and he decides that something is a threat to Tyria and they hunt it down. So no need to rework the whole theme, just change the name, rename a few hunter themed traits to judgement or justice or w/e and it’s a done deal, it is a natural progression of the character from a light magic defensive guy to a light magic using guy that seeks out the threat, instead of going from guardian to ranger.
Arbiters don’t hunt anything down, they pass judgment and that’s it. Even if you don’t like Dragonhunter, arbiter is nowhere near where this specialization comes, but there is a potential for them to introduce it with a different elite specialization with much more fitting skills.
But it at least builds on what is already in place, while DH just jumps out of nowhere and doesn’t add to Guardian, they just make a completely new thing.
Mesmers have time magic, so Chronomancer is a natural evolution.
Necromancers have the whole death theme, so Reaper is a natural evolution.
Rangers have nature magic, so Druid is a natural evolution.
Elementalists have air magic, so Tempest is a natural evolution.
Guardians have x, so DH is a natural evolution.
Tell me what X is in this case?
@Mordeus
High concept doesn’t mean complicated or sophisticated. That’s the misunderstanding that spawned most of the rage. High concept is a general, overarching idea, based on which the rest of a story is developed through top-down design.Since you mentioned Jurassic Park, the high concept there was “dinosaur theme park”, or “cloning dinosaurs”. The production staff decomposed that idea, like what would cloning dinosaurs mean for our society, would we reduce these fearsome predators into zoo animals, then they worked in the little details, the “low concept”, like character interaction.
For chronomancer, the conception was probably based on a power concept (time control), an existing skill (Time Warp), an unreleased class (GW1’s chronomancer), or even all at the same time. Then came the wells, the shield (which resembles a clock), and the name.
According to what Jon Peters said, Dragonhunter was high concept in the sense that they wanted a reason for guardian to fight at range, and had the idea of the dragonhunter faction in lore, so they explored how guardians would involve themselves with that faction. From the concept of the dragonhunting guardian spawned the kit they would use.
Warriors might have a simple concept, but because it’s so simply, they don’t give you much to work with. What’s warrior’s trademark, mastery of non-magic weapons? In which case, how would the elite Warrior feel different enough when wielding a dagger, for example? Additionally what part of their kits leave room for further expansion, do they need more support options, more selfish options?
A “big game hunter” gives the impression of hunting for pure sport
All real-life hunters do that, regardless of the size of the game they specialize in. The concept of the witch hunter is already in violation of that definition.
Alas, there is no dragon hunter faction and, if they happen to make one, that’s still forcing PVE-story and NPC choices onto the player character.
Additionally, though what you wrote out was well considered and well written, the fact you had to do it at all shows how bad the name and concept are.
There will be one according to what was said. And yes, it could potentially feel forced if implemented badly. But since Engineers were just as restrictive (originating from the Charr Iron Legion), and yet didn’t affect the player in any meaningful way, I’ll wait and see.
A “big game hunter” gives the impression of hunting for pure sport
All real-life hunters do that, regardless of the size of the game they specialize in. The concept of the witch hunter is already in violation of that definition.
That does nothing but reinforce my point. It can’t be both.
The Arbiter would continue to build on the Judge theme that Guardian has with Judge’s Intervention, Virtue of Justice, all the of Judgment skills, and traits like Justice is Blind, Supreme Justice.
Building on this Arbiter would require very little amount of work for them. The Arbiter would be the “judge” and he decides that something is a threat to Tyria and they hunt it down. So no need to rework the whole theme, just change the name, rename a few hunter themed traits to judgement or justice or w/e and it’s a done deal, it is a natural progression of the character from a light magic defensive guy to a light magic using guy that seeks out the threat, instead of going from guardian to ranger.
Arbiters don’t hunt anything down, they pass judgment and that’s it. Even if you don’t like Dragonhunter, arbiter is nowhere near where this specialization comes, but there is a potential for them to introduce it with a different elite specialization with much more fitting skills.
But it at least builds on what is already in place, while DH just jumps out of nowhere and doesn’t add to Guardian, they just make a completely new thing.
Mesmers have time magic, so Chronomancer is a natural evolution.
Necromancers have the whole death theme, so Reaper is a natural evolution.
Rangers have nature magic, so Druid is a natural evolution.
Elementalists have air magic, so Tempest is a natural evolution.
Guardians have x, so DH is a natural evolution.Tell me what X is in this case?
At this moment, I’m not making an argument for DH. Like I said earlier, I personally would have liked to see the entire spec go in a different direction, not just the name. However, for what the spec is, it is not a bad name (even though the name is inherently clunky if not bad). I do want that distinction clear.
“X”, in this case, is some sort of furious zeal. It is not a skill set like Chronomancer time magic or Druid nature magic; rather it is a mindset. They’ve come to want the Dragons dead so much that they’re going to do this big hunt to take them down once and for all. The reason this sticks out more is because no other class currently has a name like this. It’s the first class/spec to incorporate a devotion towards doing something in particular, and it might not be the last. There is an evolution if one chooses to see it, and there isn’t an evolution if one chooses not to. The concept is nebulous and that causes issues when it’s the only one of its kind.
A “big game hunter” gives the impression of hunting for pure sport
All real-life hunters do that, regardless of the size of the game they specialize in. The concept of the witch hunter is already in violation of that definition.
That does nothing but reinforce my point. It can’t be both.
No, it doesn’t reinforce your point at all. If you can accept that witch hunters, who don’t hunt for sport, can still be called hunters, you have no base to oppose the use of the same descriptor by dragon hunters.
They are not called witch hunters, because they don’t hunt witches, but “big game” and that’s where the second title comes from.
The Arbiter would continue to build on the Judge theme that Guardian has with Judge’s Intervention, Virtue of Justice, all the of Judgment skills, and traits like Justice is Blind, Supreme Justice.
Building on this Arbiter would require very little amount of work for them. The Arbiter would be the “judge” and he decides that something is a threat to Tyria and they hunt it down. So no need to rework the whole theme, just change the name, rename a few hunter themed traits to judgement or justice or w/e and it’s a done deal, it is a natural progression of the character from a light magic defensive guy to a light magic using guy that seeks out the threat, instead of going from guardian to ranger.
Arbiters don’t hunt anything down, they pass judgment and that’s it. Even if you don’t like Dragonhunter, arbiter is nowhere near where this specialization comes, but there is a potential for them to introduce it with a different elite specialization with much more fitting skills.
But it at least builds on what is already in place, while DH just jumps out of nowhere and doesn’t add to Guardian, they just make a completely new thing.
Mesmers have time magic, so Chronomancer is a natural evolution.
Necromancers have the whole death theme, so Reaper is a natural evolution.
Rangers have nature magic, so Druid is a natural evolution.
Elementalists have air magic, so Tempest is a natural evolution.
Guardians have x, so DH is a natural evolution.Tell me what X is in this case?
At this moment, I’m not making an argument for DH. Like I said earlier, I personally would have liked to see the entire spec go in a different direction, not just the name. However, for what the spec is, it is not a bad name (even though the name is inherently clunky if not bad). I do want that distinction clear.
“X”, in this case, is some sort of furious zeal. It is not a skill set like Chronomancer time magic or Druid nature magic; rather it is a mindset. They’ve come to want the Dragons dead so much that they’re going to do this big hunt to take them down once and for all. The reason this sticks out more is because no other class currently has a name like this. It’s the first class/spec to incorporate a devotion towards doing something in particular, and it might not be the last. There is an evolution if one chooses to see it, and there isn’t an evolution if one chooses not to. The concept is nebulous and that causes issues when it’s the only one of its kind.
Ahh, I didn’t actually mention that I’m not opposed the concept of the spec (longbow/traps, more offense), as I actually like that. But Guardians have NOTHING to do with hunting OR dragons (all the player characters hunt dragons ect.) so the evolution is really difficult to see, imo.
Alas, there is no dragon hunter faction and, if they happen to make one, that’s still forcing PVE-story and NPC choices onto the player character.
There’s no DH faction that we’ve heard of so far/until now. We haven’t heard of Revenants before, but they’ve technically been around the entire time (which is required to justify them playing through the personal story). That doesn’t mean Revenants didn’t exist until they announced it.
As they release more elite specializations after the first set, they will all be able to be played at level 80. That means that anything a level 80 can do now is also something a level 80 will be able to do 2+ years from now. That means that at least up until the beginning of the level 80 storyline for our characters all of the future elite specializations of now and the future have already existed.
27 pages omg…
I don’t mind Dragon Hunter, but I do like Warden better.
Paladin, anyone?
A “big game hunter” gives the impression of hunting for pure sport
All real-life hunters do that, regardless of the size of the game they specialize in. The concept of the witch hunter is already in violation of that definition.
That does nothing but reinforce my point. It can’t be both.
No, it doesn’t reinforce your point at all. If you can accept that witch hunters, who don’t hunt for sport, can still be called hunters, you have no base to oppose the use of the same descriptor by dragon hunters.
They are not called witch hunters, because they don’t hunt witches, but “big game” and that’s where the second title comes from.
You’re still just mashing two contradictory themes together. Yes, it’s possible to combine two different aspects to create a name like “Dragonhunter”. No, that does not mean that it fits the object being named, let alone that it makes sense at all.
27 pages omg…
I don’t mind Dragon Hunter, but I do like Warden better.
We do toooooo, hence the 27 pages on this thread and the 10+ on the other thread and the THOUSANDS of views and the support from social gaming sites and well-regarded GW2 streamers/
You’re still just mashing two contradictory themes together. Yes, it’s possible to combine two different aspects to create a name like “Dragonhunter”. No, that does not mean that it fits the object being named, let alone that it makes sense at all.
No, you just operate solely based on habit. A description like big game hunter, which tells you nothing more than the size of the game the hunter specializes in, simply can’t have any input on that hunter’s motives.
The archetype of the witch hunter has been recycled a lot, each time adapted to different kinds of evil, like vampire hunter, werewolf hunter, ghost hunter, demon hunter, etc. So, does it have to be dark and spooky to be acceptable?
Dragonhunter is a hunter that hunts dragons and their minions to purge Tyria from their evil. That’s the evil Tyria has and that’s what these people hunt. Yes, it happens to be big game, instead of broomstick riding witches.
(edited by RabbitUp.8294)
You’re still just mashing two contradictory themes together. Yes, it’s possible to combine two different aspects to create a name like “Dragonhunter”. No, that does not mean that it fits the object being named, let alone that it makes sense at all.
No, you just operate solely based on habit. A description like big game hunter, which tells you nothing more than the size of the game the hunter specializes in, simply can’t have any input on that hunter’s motives.
The concept of the witch hunter has been recycled a lot, and even adopted to different kinds of evil, like vampire hunter, werewolf hunter, etc. So, does it have to be dark and spooky to be acceptable?
Dragonhunter is a hunter that hunts big game to purge Tyria from their evil. That’s all.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t agree. It’s way too far-fetched for me.
Dragonhunter is a hunter that hunts big game to purge Tyria from their evil. That’s all.
“Big game: large animals (such as elephants and tigers) that are hunted for sport”
Killing tigers and elephants would do nothing to save Tyria from evil. The Big Game hunter theme is really not making much sense WITH Guardian. For ranger it would be the perfect petless archer spec, but for Guardian it makes no thematic sense.
Dragonhunter is a hunter that hunts big game to purge Tyria from their evil. That’s all.
“Big game: large animals (such as elephants and tigers) that are hunted for sport”
Killing tigers and elephants would do nothing to save Tyria from evil. The Big Game hunter theme is really not making much sense WITH Guardian. For ranger it would be the perfect petless archer spec, but for Guardian it makes no thematic sense.
It’s specific big game, they are not hunting giraffes. If we are going to break out the dictionaries, then Reaper should be working the fields, not fighting dragons.
It’s specific big game, they are not hunting giraffes. If we are going to break out the dictionaries, then Reaper should be working the fields, not fighting dragons.
“Reaper: one that reaps; especially : any of various machines for reaping grain”
disregard especially, we get “Reaper: one that reaps;”
“Reap: to get (something, such as a reward) as a result of something that you have done”
Reaper in this case gets the souls of enemies he kills.
Another thing in this case Reaper is from the Grim Reaper, not from the field workers.
Which is my point. You can’t get technical and follow the dictionary on one class, and give a free pass to another.
It’s the fantasy genre, definitions are fluid.
And reaps their life-force via mad dps.
Dragonhunter is a hunter that hunts big game to purge Tyria from their evil. That’s all.
“Big game: large animals (such as elephants and tigers) that are hunted for sport”
Killing tigers and elephants would do nothing to save Tyria from evil. The Big Game hunter theme is really not making much sense WITH Guardian. For ranger it would be the perfect petless archer spec, but for Guardian it makes no thematic sense.It’s specific big game, they are not hunting giraffes. If we are going to break out the dictionaries, then Reaper should be working the fields, not fighting dragons.
I think you miss very important thing, that specialization should be a composition of the name, mechanic and skills/gameplay. For now the name is out of context. Please see my post here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/Dragon-Hunter-name-feedback-merged/page/27#post5064853
After seeing gameplay on PoI I think that the gameplay and mechanic is cool, but this is not a Dragonhunter. It’s like Holy Archer mixed with Paragon or something like this. Nothing “dragonhuntery” in Dragonhunter unfortunately. Dragon-themed armor and one elite skill animation won’t make spec “Dragonhunter”. This is sad. Whatever story you can build up around it, it doesn’t feel like Dragonhunter. Chronomancer and Reaper fits, but Dragonhunter unfortunately doesn’t.
Which is my point. You can’t get technical and follow the dictionary on one class, and give a free pass to another.
It’s the fantasy genre, definitions are fluid.
But he did follow the dictionary. “receive (something, especially something beneficial) as a consequence of one’s own or another’s actions.”
Necro is reapin’ up the points in PVP and reapin’ up the life force and reapin’ up the loot and reapin’ up the souls stylistically via the skills making it a grimreaper.
But he did follow the dictionary. “receive (something, especially something beneficial) as a consequence of one’s own or another’s actions.”
Necro is reapin’ up the points in PVP and reapin’ up the life force and reapin’ up the loot and reapin’ up the souls stylistically via the skills making it a grimreaper.
Are we going to play this game?
Hunter
1. a person who hunts game or other wild animals for food or in sport.
2. a person who searches for or seeks something:
Here, take definition #2. You search for loot, and seek answers and knowledge and meaning in your life.
We both know Necros are called Reapers because of the Grim Reaper, it’s pointless to argue otherwise. Dictionaries are not infallible, nor are their definitions absolute.
But he did follow the dictionary. “receive (something, especially something beneficial) as a consequence of one’s own or another’s actions.”
Necro is reapin’ up the points in PVP and reapin’ up the life force and reapin’ up the loot and reapin’ up the souls stylistically via the skills making it a grimreaper.
Are we going to play this game?
Hunter
1. a person who hunts game or other wild animals for food or in sport.
2. a person who searches for or seeks something:Here, take definition #2. You search for loot, and seek answers and knowledge and meaning in your life.
We both know Necros are called Reapers because of the Grim Reaper, it’s pointless to argue otherwise. Dictionaries are not infallible, nor are their definitions absolute.
But only in relation to dragons. soooo…. Dragon: another term for flying lizard.
We seek for loot and knowledge as long as it comes from a flying lizard. That is all we seek and we are fanatical in this pursuit.
/s
My problem is that Dragonhunter is limiting. Reaper is not. But if you were to take away the portion of the name that is limiting- dragon- we’re left with hunter. Can you call a guardian with holy skills and virtues and traps a hunter? A ranger having a longbow and traps didn’t make it a hunter.
Dragonhunter bites the big one as far as relevancy.
Why not ‘Vanquisher’? Heck, at this point ‘Sheriff’ sounds better than Dragonhunter.
Dragonhunter bites the big one as far as relevancy.
Why not ‘Vanquisher’? Heck, at this point ‘Sheriff’ sounds better than Dragonhunter.
“Light Magic Trap Guy” sounds better then Dragonhunter. Their “mature theme” argument is really sad when it is used in the same sentence as the words “dragon hunter”.
27 pages and still hunting dragons, 0/10 would not hunt dragons again. Would fear the Reaper though.
Sentinel, Warder (and Keeper would fit here, too): My dictionary gives me the same translation like guardian (-> Wächter). So these are just different words for the same thing -> a person who guards something.
FYI : Sentinel should be taken as Border Guard.
(edited by purecontact.1680)
Sentinel, Warder (and Keeper would fit here, too): My dictionary gives me the same translation like guardian (-> Wächter). So these are just different words for the same thing -> a person who guards something.
FYI : Sentinel should be taken as “Border Guard”.
Which is why it’s one of the better options than anything else people have suggested so far. Border Guards are out on their own, usually need the extra range weapons because of the distance from things they are, and they need to have similar skills to that of a hunter. It would make sense with the traps because of their defensive nature too.
No, you just operate solely based on habit. A description like big game hunter, which tells you nothing more than the size of the game the hunter specializes in, simply can’t have any input on that hunter’s motives.
The descriptor of “big game hunter” tells you exactly the hunter’s motives: Game. Sport. Or Food. The definition of game in this context is:
a (1) : animals under pursuit or taken in hunting; especially : wild animals hunted for sport or food (2) : the flesh of game animals
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game
The archetype of the witch hunter has been recycled a lot, each time adapted to different kinds of evil, like vampire hunter, werewolf hunter, ghost hunter, demon hunter, etc. So, does it have to be dark and spooky to be acceptable?
Dragonhunter is a hunter that hunts dragons and their minions to purge Tyria from their evil.
Well, witches aren’t particularly spooky, but as your last quoted sentence indicates, the prey likely has to be evil if it’s to qualify as purging Tyria of evil. This does not mesh with the concept of “big game hunting” as the motive isn’t to hunt for sport or resources but instead for personal preservation.
The context contradicts. Are you hunting game or evil? Are you hunting evil to USE their resources and turn them against them? No? Then that evil is not game and game is not evil.
You know what would work best for this situation? Coming up with a NEW word that the devs could define themselves, with pinpoint accuracy instead of dealing with all this outside context.
Sentinel, Warder (and Keeper would fit here, too): My dictionary gives me the same translation like guardian (-> Wächter). So these are just different words for the same thing -> a person who guards something.
FYI : Sentinel should be taken as “Border Guard”.
Which is why it’s one of the better options than anything else people have suggested so far. Border Guards are out on their own, usually need the extra range weapons because of the distance from things they are, and they need to have similar skills to that of a hunter. It would make sense with the traps because of their defensive nature too.
and we are pushing into new territory so they are literally on the border between home and Mordy.
Simplicity doesn’t exclude a high concept approach. In fact, in Warrior’s case, it might even demand it, as their kit doesn’t have many loose threads to work with.
I’m talking purely character concept here. A simple concept does exclude a high conceptual approach. They are both polar extremes. There’s nothing high concept about a Reaper being an extension of a Necromancer and there’s nothing simple about a Dragonhunter being a specialisation of a Guardian. There’s signs of inconsistency in the names themselves.
The Reaper gets its’ identity from the Necromancer’s iconic Death Shroud and general death iconography. The Chronomancer gets its’ identity from the Mesmer’s few Time manipulation skills. The Druid will probably get its’ identity from the Ranger’s Nature Magic traits. And the Tempest will probably channel the elements (Weather) through the Elementalist’s four elements (Alchemy). However the Guardian borrows from the Ranger and flips the hierarchy of offence and defence around.
So you have specialization concepts that are a straight natural progression from their original professions to the Dragonhunter which has concept that bends and reinterprets the original profession.
I agree with inconsistency 100%
Warriors could have easily been called Reaper if given the same context as you have explained with Necromancers. The names were suppose to be general in nature. If there’s a name here that doesn’t make sense it’s Chronomancers because that isn’t exactly a general title that other classes could have adopted so easily.
Then Dragonhunter was revealed and Chronomancer got a pass (overlooked). Dragonhunter is a general name but not as character defined, in comparison to others.
They disregarded a name that defined the actual class, for a name that had best synergy in what the specialization offered. Partly due to selective skill-sets that they felt the overall community wanted (for the most part, we actually did).
They purposely wanted these names to be as generic as possible while also conveying the classes specialization’s overall nature. Ironically, Dragonhunter was indeed a high concept choice (from their point of view) but the first part of the name did not match the class. It matched a theme. A very strange and risky move because the lore would have to reflect the said theme… you would think.
The Guardian is the only class where they had to add a theme to make sense for the name and skill-set (so far)
If at least one other class did the same, this wouldn’t be such a big deal.
Anet could literally spend the next 2 years developing the Living World into 9 specific, individual stories. Each story having a backstory for each class. The weird, is that the Dragonhunter’s story could be more in-depth, singling out other classes for the sake of its name. That’s yet to be seen as good or bad… or whether or not this will happen at all.
(edited by Saiyan.1704)
A couple of things:
First, as many argued, the name doesn’t really fit because every class will be hunting and killing dragons not just dragonhunters (DH).
Second, the devs argued that this specialization specializes in hunting dragons. Lets break down that argument. It implies that DH are especially good against dragons (dare I say, better than other classes due to the implication of the name DH?). but are they really? No where in the weapon skills, utilities, elites, or traits do I see +% dmg, condition, or gain special buffs against dragons….meaning DH does the SAME damage, and has the same effects on any creatures in Tyria then why the heck do they call themselves DH when skills wise, they are not especially good against dragons?
You can argue that it’s the player’s skills that matter but doesn’t every class depends on the skills of the players and all players will be fighting dragons (doesn’t matter what class) therefore all players are “dragon hunters”….which comes back to my original point, DH don’t fit well.
Seeker fits better since this spec is bow base…arrows…seeking….fits well.
Another argument I would like to add opposing the DH name:
Remove the Dragons completely from GW lore. Do all the class/spec names make sense?
Literally the only thing that would be out of place then would be 2 skills of the Elementalist and the whole DH spec.
Meaning they would only make sense as a standalone class in the context of Tyria. Without that context they make no sense as either a spec or a class.
They purposely wanted these names to be as generic as possible while also conveying the classes specialization’s overall nature. Ironically, Dragonhunter was indeed a high concept choice (from their point of view) but the first part of the name did not match the class. Instead, it matched a theme. A very strange and risky move on Anets part because the lore would have to reflect the said theme.
The Guardian is the only class where they had to add a theme to make sense for the name and skill-set
If at least one other class did the same, this wouldn’t be such a big deal.
Anet could literally spend the next 2 years developing the Living World into 9 specific, individual stories. Each story having a backstory for each class. The weird, is that the Dragonhunter’s story could be more in-depth, singling out other classes for the sake of its name. That’s yet to be seen as good or bad… or whether or not this will happen at all.
Springboarding off of that, I’d actually enjoy it if the Warrior elite spec is also sort of ‘high-concept’ in that it’s more linked to the story its based off of than what the spec does.
I have my fingers crossed for something based on the Zaishen Order, perhaps introducing them to the GW2 story now but with the disappearance of the 6 gods, they are splintered and the first we meet and learn from are a group focused on mental strength and meditation. Name the spec whatever makes sense but ultimately, the idea would be linking up all the groups’ teachings to reform the original order to help defeat the elder dragons.
Another argument I would like to add opposing the DH name:
Remove the Dragons completely from GW lore. Do all the class/spec names make sense?
Literally the only thing that would be out of place then would be 2 skills of the Elementalist and the whole DH spec.
Meaning they would only make sense as a standalone class in the context of Tyria. Without that context they make no sense as either a spec or a class.
It’s not at all fair to remove dragons from the GW2 lore because they are the lore. It’d be like trying to remove magic from the lore and needing to justify elementalists. The fact is, it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make sense out of context, because out of context nothing matters. In an alternate universe of Tyria where the Dragons either never existed or never took power, you can bet that this class wouldn’t exist. However, that’s not the case here and it really isn’t debatable.
The only thing that is useful about this particular stance is “what becomes of the Dragonhunters when the Dragons are all gone?” I brought this up in a separate comment many pages back about how they might feel like a villain in a movie/show that actually accomplishes defeating the good guy, and now they’re left saying “well, now what?”.
Another argument I would like to add opposing the DH name:
Remove the Dragons completely from GW lore. Do all the class/spec names make sense?
Literally the only thing that would be out of place then would be 2 skills of the Elementalist and the whole DH spec.
Meaning they would only make sense as a standalone class in the context of Tyria. Without that context they make no sense as either a spec or a class.It’s not at all fair to remove dragons from the GW2 lore because they are the lore. It’d be like trying to remove magic from the lore and needing to justify elementalists. The fact is, it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make sense out of context, because out of context nothing matters. In an alternate universe of Tyria where the Dragons either never existed or never took power, you can bet that this class wouldn’t exist. However, that’s not the case here and it really isn’t debatable.
The only thing that is useful about this particular stance is “what becomes of the Dragonhunters when the Dragons are all gone?” I brought this up in a separate comment many pages back about how they might feel like a villain in a movie/show that actually accomplishes defeating the good guy, and now they’re left saying “well, now what?”.
Also, does this mean that the class should have no place in PvP and WvW, there there are no dragons? Since those places exist in the Mists, you could theoretically end up in a world where there is not event a concept of a dragon.
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.