(edited by Einlanzer.1627)
"DragonHunter" name feedback [merged]
I just saw the overview of this Reaper specialization for the Necromancer. It looks very interesting and reminds me of the Dervish character I had from Nightfall. Loved that class. Anyway, this specialization looks to be interesting however, I did notice a few things.
1. Why are all these specialization Melee specific? Necromancers by design do not really have a place in the front of combat. (It one of the main reasons they have minions to fight for them)
2. They seem to be slowing down the skills that make this class truly interesting to play like conditionmancer and Minion Master. The reaper doesn’t seem to complement any of these.
Basically the way that I am seeing things so far is that they are going to make everything Melee class and we are going to be going the Tanking build with the Berserker/Zojia Builds. This part kinda stinks, its removing the most interesting parts of the game and making this more hack and slash. My opinion is if we keep going hack and slash were going to loose the people that want to be healers, want to be casters, want to do AOE over time and those that want to be support. I’m not certain how this is going to take off.
(edited by macon.4065)
[…]
Why are you posting this in the dragonhunter name feedback thread?
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/gameThe 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.
You add this context yourself and say it’s contradictory.
Hunters in general hunt game for food, profit or sport. It’s not an exclusive characteristic of big game hunters.
If you insist on assigning “hunter” its proper definition, then the argument that everyone hunts dragons is rendered completely invalid.
It’s pointless to argue if you use different definitions for each instance of the word.
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.
I would argue that this game’s PvP and WvW are there purely for players to fight against players. There is little to no lore involved in the WvW game mode. There is some historical game context in playing PvP (that not many probably worry about) with some lore, and the concept of WvW can’t relate to the lore because it’s a very meta idea. Most of the PvP maps were made just to be maps to fight on, unlike something like the Fractals which are meant to be shards of the past. I could see them implementing something in the Fractals that occasionally prevent elite specs in them, but probably not because it wouldn’t be “play how you want”, even if it didn’t fit historically.
Aside from the meta aspect, The Mists is essentially the Universe. Tyria does exist within the realm of The Mists. If one were to end up in a world apart from Tyria then you would be right. Within the context of Tyria, however, that seems irrelevant as that is where we are.
I would argue that this game’s PvP and WvW are there purely for players to fight against players. There is little to no lore involved in the WvW game mode.
Although WvW is acknowledged by several NPCs within the game, even beyond those just camping outside the portals in LA. So its integrated into the world at the very least. It’s not like say, waypoints which were recently pidgeon-holed into the story whereas prior there was no acknowledgement of them in the world.
Duty is heavier than death.
I would argue that this game’s PvP and WvW are there purely for players to fight against players. There is little to no lore involved in the WvW game mode.
Although WvW is acknowledged by several NPCs within the game, even beyond those just camping outside the portals in LA. So its integrated into the world at the very least. It’s not like say, waypoints which were recently pidgeon-holed into the story whereas prior there was no acknowledgement of them in the world.
Hmm, it’s tough to find a lot of good lore information about the Mist War (AKA WvWvW), but there seems to be something about Balthazar pitting people against each other from alternate dimensions (at least from GW1). They don’t seem to mention a definite reason in GW2, but that some mysterious invaders are assaulting your world’s (read version of the universe’s) foothold in The Mists and you need to stop them.
I agree that this has, so far as we know, nothing to do with Dragons, and I do think that there are changes that should have been made to the Guardian elite spec including the name, but I don’t believe that this is the reason why. They don’t seem to give as much attention to lore with regard to PvP or WvW at all the same as they do for PvE, so if they make some clarifications then it might help.
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/gameThe 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.
You add this context yourself and say it’s contradictory.
Hunters in general hunt game for food, profit or sport. It’s not an exclusive characteristic of big game hunters.
If you insist on assigning “hunter” its proper definition, then the argument that everyone hunts dragons is rendered completely invalid.
It’s pointless to argue if you use different definitions for each instance of the word.
Well, they’re both adequate standalone arguments, and I don’t think anyone here is trying to argue both at the same time, and even if they were the two don’t cancel each other out. So take your pick. Either way it shows that the current name is not a good match.
The fact of the matter is there is not one good argument for keeping the name besides the whole "high concept " thing which was frankly little better than poking the beehive. The majority of people who voice their opinion wants the name changed. Those who do not speak up just don’t care and will not be affected by a change. And the majority should be appeased before the minority. So I really hope ANet will at least consider making a poll for players to voice their opinion about this matter.
The fact of the matter is there is not one good argument for keeping the name besides the whole "high concept " thing which was frankly little better than poking the beehive. The majority of people who voice their opinion wants the name changed. Those who do not speak up just don’t care and will not be affected by a change. And the majority should be appeased before the minority. So I really hope ANet will at least consider making a poll for players to voice their opinion about this matter.
The fact of the matter is that people who like the name or who can see the point won’t come to this thread because they’ll be shouted down by a bunch of gibberers who not only won’t get out of the box but are strapped in and are holding on for dear life.
Fire up the Hyperbowl ma, we’re going to town!
Would you like some hard cheeze with your sad whine?
Would you like some hard cheeze with your sad whine?
We need to stop coming up with alternative names and narrow down to at least three. Otherwise ArenaNet is not going bother listening to this thread. Get organized set up a poll and choose a name. If we want ArenaNet to hear us….we must be united. I know everyone has a cool name they wanna add to the list, but we need to remember why this thread started…to change the Dragonhunter name. There needs to be some compromise if we want to make any real progress. So lets get a poll going and vote the heck out of it to send ArenaNet a clear message of change.
We need to stop coming up with alternative names and narrow down to at least three. Otherwise ArenaNet is not going bother listening to this thread. Get organized set up a poll and choose a name. If we want ArenaNet to hear us….we must be united. I know everyone has a cool name they wanna add to the list, but we need to remember why this thread started…to change the Dragonhunter name. There needs to be some compromise if we want to make any real progress. So lets get a poll going and vote the heck out of it to send ArenaNet a clear message of change.
You’re on a fools errand if you think the community will be able to narrow it down to begin with. There have been at least 30 different “cool” names, most of which are completely terrible. There are some that could work, but when things like “Arbiter” keep coming up (which does not fit this specialization at all) it makes me question if it even could.
The best response from the community is to keep the thread alive. Any other thread will get merged into this one, despite anyone’s wishes.
Arbiter is someone who decides, or say, judges (a link to the core class). The Arbiter decides who or what is the ultimate threat, and goes after it. How does that not fit? Because of the traps? Please, how does Reaper imply shouting or Chronomancer imply wells? And seeing that Druid and Tempest are following the one word name pattern, DH is the anomaly here.
Arbiter is someone who decides, or say, judges (a link to the core class). The Arbiter decides who or what is the ultimate threat, and goes after it. How does that not fit? Because of the traps? Please, how does Reaper imply shouting or Chronomancer imply wells? And seeing that Druid and Tempest are following the one word name pattern, DH is the anomaly here.
Arbiter also suffers from translation problems to a lot of Romance languages (i.e. referee), while also sounding a lot like Arbeiter in Germanic ones. And based on what feel JonPeters said they were going for (i.e. witch hunters), there are likely better names out there than “Arbiter.”
Will Hawkins (Human Guardian)
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Arbiter is someone who decides, or say, judges (a link to the core class). The Arbiter decides who or what is the ultimate threat, and goes after it. How does that not fit? Because of the traps? Please, how does Reaper imply shouting or Chronomancer imply wells? And seeing that Druid and Tempest are following the one word name pattern, DH is the anomaly here.
An arbiter judges. That’s really it. I’m not saying that an Arbiter spec couldn’t work, but this isn’t the one. When I think fantasy-style Arbiter, I think of a person looking down on others, locking them up with orders and bureaucracy, demanding their punishment be carried out to the fullest terms or that their matters be settled how the Arbiter sees fit. I can’t help but feel this way after playing Magic: the Gathering, were my favorite commander was Grand Arbiter Augustin IV
http://www.mtgedh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Grand-Arbiter-Augustin-IV.jpg
If there were a class based around the act of arbitration, I would imagine it being a back-line heavy CC class. Tons of stuns, interrupts, slows, and maybe even quickness for allies. I don’t know what weapon it could gain, because both the hammer and scepter are already in the Guardian’s armory, but I would sooner see one of those repurposed if the spec is taken.
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/gameThe 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.
You add this context yourself and say it’s contradictory.
Hunters in general hunt game for food, profit or sport. It’s not an exclusive characteristic of big game hunters.
If you insist on assigning “hunter” its proper definition, then the argument that everyone hunts dragons is rendered completely invalid.
It’s pointless to argue if you use different definitions for each instance of the word.
You’re attempting to use circular logic to some sort of conclusion. I don’t even know what conclusion you’re arriving at. But the reason I use those definitions is because that is what the devs wanted their Dragonhunter to mean. Maybe they only wanted the huntery feel of a bow wielding woodsman when they mentioned “big game hunter” and only wanted the Justice motivation of their goals as the definition of Dragonhunter, but I’m just parroting what they themselves said they meant. It’s not pointless to argue the different definitions when those are the definitions they’re using.
The points to be focused on for meaning here are:
-Witch Hunt/Witch Hunter
-Hunter in general
-Game from Big Game Hunting
They gave us these points and began to give us what they mean in context of the Dragonhunter. I don’t think they work because of the points I brought up earlier. I even pinpoint the part that messes things up for everyone and how to help fix it.
I like the DH name (and after seeing it in action even like the traits and abilities). I’ll point out that at no point did anet say that consistency was a goal of theirs. In fact they said the opposite, that they were mixing generic fantasy, tyrian fantasy and high concept fantasy pretty freely.
And sorry, gamers tend to be a tad bit reactionary. And as I read examples of who the DH breaks consistency, no one is making a good argument for why we need consistency or why I should care that it’s broken.
As they have described class—you’re either a ranger or a druid. I.e. when you decide to make your ranger a druid, as some level they cease to be a ranger. So it really doesn’t bother me that guardians don’t seem to have a natural connection to dragon hunting as rangers do to druids…because we’re talking about people who have made the choice to stop being guardians.
"DragonHunter" name feedback [merged]
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: Roguedemonhunter.9621
Sentinel
Defender
Warden
All imply protecting people still but can be done from behind the lines with support effects and long range.
None of it needs to imply big game hunting at all which I’m surprised isn’t ticking off more ranger players. That big game hunter-ish like name or of any sort similar to it strays too far away from – The noble protector using holy/light magic to save/protect people.
Oh yes… and Dragon Hunter sort of implies nobody else is bothering with the dragons or that a DH Gaurd will show up at your destroyer plagued village but promptly leave – with their condolences and apologies of course- as there are sadly no Dragons to fight. It is also so specific and so corny a profession name that for comparison’s sake…. it’s Druid counterpart would have to be…
Nature Lover.
And… yes I know my forum name makes this statement carry even more ironic whimsy.
But that’s a forum name for one person… not a profession name meant for many.
(edited by Roguedemonhunter.9621)
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?
Jon’s idea (and his team’s) are wrong about what they want the concept of the Guardian elite spec to be? Wow. Perhaps he wasn’t condescending and straight forward enough considering people are implying they are absolute idiots for how wrong they are about how they want the concept developed.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
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?
Jon’s idea (and his team’s) are wrong about what they want the concept of the Guardian elite spec to be? Wow. Perhaps he wasn’t condescending and straight forward enough considering people are implying they are absolute idiots for how wrong they are about how they want the concept developed.
Not necessarily that they’re wrong per sé, but just that their ideas contradict each other and don’t make sense.
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?
Jon’s idea (and his team’s) are wrong about what they want the concept of the Guardian elite spec to be? Wow. Perhaps he wasn’t condescending and straight forward enough considering people are implying they are absolute idiots for how wrong they are about how they want the concept developed.
Not necessarily that they’re wrong per sé, but just that their ideas contradict each other and don’t make sense.
Basically the package deal of what is being labeled “the dragonhunter” lacks the thematic coherence of either the chronomancer or the reaper.
Will Hawkins (Human Guardian)
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
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?
Jon’s idea (and his team’s) are wrong about what they want the concept of the Guardian elite spec to be? Wow. Perhaps he wasn’t condescending and straight forward enough considering people are implying they are absolute idiots for how wrong they are about how they want the concept developed.
Not necessarily that they’re wrong per sé, but just that their ideas contradict each other and don’t make sense.
I have yet to see anyone make a compelling reason why the name should change, even if what you say is true. Guardians are still going to get traps, a long bow, a new trait line with the traits similar to the concept we’ve seen already, regardless of what the spec is called. The label does not drive the tools we are going to get.
On the other hand, there is probably a sizable volume of work already done incorporating the name. That’s a REALLY compelling reason to NOT change it.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I have yet to see anyone make a compelling reason why the name should change, even if what you say is true. Guardians are still going to get traps, a long bow, a new trait line with the traits similar to the concept we’ve seen already, regardless of what the spec is called.
I would say that bringing the core concept of the dragonhunter closer to the central concept that JonPeters said they were aiming for makes for a compelling reason. What’s more, I would argue that the traits and abilities should also be further renamed to bring these longbow, traps, virtues, and such closer to that central core concept. As it stands, the virtues feel like the remnant of the paragon specialization. The trap names feel like they belong to an “inquisitor” or “purifier” specialization. And the trait names are all over the place, leaning mostly towards generic guardian names with a tiny sprinkle of draconic and hunting names.
On the other hand, there is probably a sizable volume of work already done incorporating the name. That’s a REALLY compelling reason to NOT change it.
Idle speculation.
Will Hawkins (Human Guardian)
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
No matter how many times I hear it and even with understanding the reasoning Anet gives, I still dislike the Dragonhunter name.
The immediate thought on hearing the name still is that everyone is hunting the dragons and the dragons’ minions so why do we get the title? Even with those given motivations (which none of the other specializations have) of being exceptionally against them, a name like Inquisitor or Crusader invokes the same feelings while tying directly to the Guardian’s theme instead of a generic, any-class-can-have-it kind of name. I could see anyone’s specialization be called Dragonhunter with the motivations they gave so I see no compelling reason why it should just be attributed to Guardians.
Yeah, traps do make more sense for a hunter, but then, I don’t exactly see wells being at all related to Chronomancy or why shouts would be on Reapers (especially given that survival-horror monsters on whom they are based almost exclusively don’t ever speak) so that kind of disconnect isn’t so bad on another name.
I didn’t like traps initially but seeing them in action I do love the idea of a Guardian using patience (some even call it a virtue) to lure evil-doers to their demise but the name still doesn’t have that oomph I get from the other specializations. I’m not going to refuse to play or anything since the traits and skills look awesome and it is, at the end of the day, just a name but I really hope Anet reconsiders and does decide to change it.
On the other hand, there is probably a sizable volume of work already done incorporating the name. That’s a REALLY compelling reason to NOT change it.
Idle speculation.
My assumption they have worked on this and incorporated the DH name into the work already done is idle speculation? That’s a pretty obtuse position you have. Do you think they throw together a whole expansion in a weekend over a few beers? You’re certainly not giving them alot of credit when you reduce my claim that they have work done on this to idle speculation. I’m hoping they take the same attitude on players overly sensitive to a name and thematic inconsistencies.
My assumption they have worked on this and incorporated the DH name into the work already done is idle speculation? That’s a pretty obtuse position you have. Do you think they throw together a whole expansion in a weekend over a few beers? You’re certainly not giving them alot of credit when you reduce my claim that they have work done on this to idle speculation. I’m hoping they take the same attitude on players overly sensitive to a name and thematic inconsistencies.
Yes, I disagree with your presumption that this is somehow so deeply ingrained for Heart of Thorns that this is irreversible. Entire games have had their game names changed following trailer promotions, press releases, and more.
Will Hawkins (Human Guardian)
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Fair enough. I don’t feel it’s presumptuous at all considering expansions take months/years to develop. Perhaps you feel that the amount of rework required for a name change is justified but I would rather see the devs focus on stuff that has a real impact to the game like skills, traits and weapons. I’m also not keen on delays because of the added changes and work that would be necessary. I’m certain these changes aren’t trivial for same, said expansion development timeframe.
In fact, I’m going to make another presumptuous statement: I bet it’s released with ALOT of mechanics and descriptions still needing to be fixed/added/worked on because they have done that already. I would feel that if any of that would be compromised because of wasting time rethinking a name, it would be stupid and an insult to me as a paying customer.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
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?
Jon’s idea (and his team’s) are wrong about what they want the concept of the Guardian elite spec to be? Wow. Perhaps he wasn’t condescending and straight forward enough considering people are implying they are absolute idiots for how wrong they are about how they want the concept developed.
His entire post and reasoning made no sense. He used words incorrectly, and failed to qualify why the Dragonhunter was chosen. Especially when we were told they are big game hunters, and then given a video of them hunting ‘big game’. There was a very large disconnect between his post, and the reality they showed us.
Fair enough. I don’t feel it’s presumptuous at all considering expansions take months/years to develop. Perhaps you feel that the amount of rework required for a name change is justified but I would rather see the devs focus on stuff that has a real impact to the game like skills, traits and weapons. I’m also not keen on delays because of the added changes and work that would be necessary. I’m certain these changes aren’t trivial for same, said expansion development timeframe.
In fact, I’m going to make another presumptuous statement: I bet it’s released with ALOT of mechanics and descriptions still needing to be fixed/added/worked on because they have done that already. I would feel that if any of that would be compromised because of wasting time rethinking a name, it would be stupid and an insult to me as a paying customer.
Ridiculous. You would excuse anything this way.
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?
Jon’s idea (and his team’s) are wrong about what they want the concept of the Guardian elite spec to be? Wow. Perhaps he wasn’t condescending and straight forward enough considering people are implying they are absolute idiots for how wrong they are about how they want the concept developed.
His entire post and reasoning made no sense. He used words incorrectly, and failed to qualify why the Dragonhunter was chosen. Especially when we were told they are big game hunters, and then given a video of them hunting ‘big game’. There was a very large disconnect between his post, and the reality they showed us.
Maybe that’s how you feel. It’s still a pretty bad reason to justify changing the name of the elite spec. See below.
Fair enough. I don’t feel it’s presumptuous at all considering expansions take months/years to develop. Perhaps you feel that the amount of rework required for a name change is justified but I would rather see the devs focus on stuff that has a real impact to the game like skills, traits and weapons. I’m also not keen on delays because of the added changes and work that would be necessary. I’m certain these changes aren’t trivial for same, said expansion development timeframe.
In fact, I’m going to make another presumptuous statement: I bet it’s released with ALOT of mechanics and descriptions still needing to be fixed/added/worked on because they have done that already. I would feel that if any of that would be compromised because of wasting time rethinking a name, it would be stupid and an insult to me as a paying customer.
Ridiculous. You would excuse anything this way.
Because it’s reasonable to assume that if there isn’t a good reason to change something that has been worked on, likely complete, they shouldn’t do it. Thematic inconsistencies would be one of those reasons because changing the name doesn’t fix whatever inconsistencies people have got stuck over. If your hang up is about incorrect language or whatever you’re going on about, the fix is to request a more ‘marketing oriented’ description of how the DH theme fits with the game, not a whole new name change.
Let’s be honest though .. you don’t actually care what Anet says, you just want the name to change based on whatever reason you can think of simply cause you don’t like it; I don’t get the impression your the scholarly type that is all that concerned about language and theme accuracy. The ‘Jon post’ and the thematic inconsistencies are just convenient excuses to latch on to because you don’t have better ones.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Because it’s reasonable to assume that if there isn’t a good reason to change something that has been worked on, likely complete, they shouldn’t do it.
Engineer hobosacks. How much work went into the engineer kits again?
Let’s be honest though .. you don’t actually care what Anet says, you just want the name to change based on whatever reason you can think of simply cause you don’t like it; I don’t get the impression your the scholarly type that is all that concerned about language and theme accuracy. The ‘Jon post’ and the thematic inconsistencies are just convenient excuses to latch on to because you don’t have better ones.
That’s about as disingenuous as accusing of only liking the name because it’s the one that ArenaNet picked.
Will Hawkins (Human Guardian)
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
The name does not fit, from any point of view. And yes, I am the scholarly type who is very concerned with language. I have always made a point of educating the ignorant on the correct use of words. For example, onto is one word, while a lot is two.
Also, shoehorning a failure of a name in, is far inferior to actually picking a thematically fitting name. Not to mention more work, which seems to be what you base everything off.
(edited by dietzero.3514)
The fact we have over 30 pages combined discussing the name and a dev response trying to justify it proves Dragonhunter is a bad name.
i think “Paragon” is the best name.
Ok lets narrow it down folks….list only three names in order of preference.
1. Paragon
2. Arbiter
3. Sentinel
I would advise we keep this thread alive not by debating back and forth of merits of whether any name fits, because frankly we’ve been doing that for nearly 30 pages and there’s been no progress. So please list just three names until we have a general census of names to be considered. Feel free to explain your choices, but lets not haggle each other over the reasons. Lets get three names and make some real progress here.
Of all the suggested names so far, only Warden comes close to what the spec is supposed to be, both thematically and mechanically. The only problem is that it’s already used in game for other purposes (and unlike Reaper that is a OoC title, Warden is used IC).
Still, I’d rather have it than any of the other suggestions so far and especially over the laughable “Dragonhunter”. Paragon and Sentinel should be reserved for a different Guardian spec.
Server: Kaineng | Guild: Blackflame Legion [BFL]
Perhaps the only RP-oriented guild on the server
Main Character: Farathnor (sylvari ranger) 1 of 22
Perhaps the only RP-oriented guild on the server
Main Character: Farathnor (sylvari ranger) 1 of 22
Vampire hunter, monster hunter, demon hunter, dragon hunter, etc. All these suggest training and specialization to kill a specific target. How do you become a “Dragon Hunter”? Do you proclaim yourself a dragon hunter, and then suddenly you become a master of killing dragons? That’s like declaring yourself a PvP master, yet you keep on standing in home point at the beginning of the fight when there’s already another team mate capturing it. Do dragon hunters even get bonus damage to dragons game-wise? And if you are going to be trained in the ways of dragon slaying, who would teach you that, the Mursaat? Maybe, since they had experience dealing with the elder dragons in the past. Just don’t make specializations like a Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers transformation.
Attachments:
Anvil Rockers Unite!
I don’t need three picks, I have only one.
If you had to name three recognisable symbols of the GW1 Paragon it would be the spear, shields and wings. Now the new virtue mechanic has the “Spear of Justice”, “Shield of Courage” and “Wings of Resolve”. The spec hits the trifecta of the Paragon.
Now you could argue that Bow is uncharacteristic of the Paragon but there is are no ground combat spears in game and no guarantee that they will ever happen. At the moment we have the spec’s “Spear of Justice” is the only land based spear skill. For some the spear is key to the Paragon, and the Dragonhunter has taken it from the Paragon.
The idea that Paragons use spears exclusively is because they are often tied to the Sunspearsorder but if we were to apply the same logic that professions can’t learn to use new weapons from GW1, then we wouldn’t have the Mesmer with the Greatsword or the Necromancer with the Axe. One could say that ever since Kieran Thackery became the first non-Elona Paragon in GW1, that the profession took on new influences from the time between GW1 and GW2. That Kieran spread the skills of the Paragon throughout Tyria and it became a specialized part of the Guardian profession, that his descendants like Logan embraced. It would make lore sense that Logan and those who came after Kieran carried with them the knowledge of the Paragon. GW1 has already set the stage for Paragons in Tyria, no need for a Elona based expansion or new lore when it already exists.
But even GW1’s game description omits the spear or shield:
“With a commanding voice and charismatic presence, the Paragon rallies the valiant through inspiration, motivation, and leadership.”
And the Manual for Nightfall:
“Paragons are the guardian angels of Elona, humanity’s champions against malefic threats. They rally the valiant with Shouts and Chants, aiding heroes, henchmen, and other adventurers through inspiration and motivation. A Paragon’s best weapons rely on an insightful mind, a courageous spirit, and a charismatic voice. Many Paragons also arm themselves with a spear and shield, striking from a distance as they shout their battle cries. Through insight, they help others resist Hexes and Conditions, echoing their commands across the field of battle (in fact, some “Echo” abilities renew themselves each time a Chant or Shout ends). When all hell breaks loose, a commanding Paragon shines as a beacon of light, driving back the forces of darkness.”
Now let’s compare the following bold aspects of the Paragon to the Dragonhunter.
- “Guardian Angels”: A visual description of the DH is that they look like Angels specifically their use of angelic wings and that many people have suggested the name Seraph, etc… as a replacement name. Not to mention that the phrase Guardian Angel could be given to the Guardian profession as a whole.
- “Humanity’s Champions against malefic threats”: Swap “Humanity” for “Tyria” and “threats” with "dragons and their corruption”.
- “Shouts and Chants, etc…”: If you were to pick a profession in GW2 that is the spiritual successor to the Paragon it would be the Guardian. With it’s focus on shouts, granting protective battle oriented effects (aka Retaliation) and cleansing through fire.
- “Many Paragons”: Note that in GW1 it hedged the whole spear/shield thing by saying many not all. But it did stress that they strike from a distance just like how the DH strikes from the distance. A Paragon in Tyria who naturally strikes from the distance would gravitate to the longbow just like how Kieran as a Paragon gravitated towards the longbow.
One thing people used to justify them not choosing the Paragon was that a PVP title already existed… but then came the Reaper which already exists as a PVP title. The only thing that I can see preventing them from naming it the Paragon is that they want to cut off ties with GW1 or rather Elona. But as I said, it isn’t Elona exclusive anymore like say the Dervish. But it makes no sense to me why they don’t embrace the existing lore where it so clearly fits.
Now compared to the rich history of the Paragon, the Dragonhunter is shallow and a watered down interpretation. That’s why I have personally come to the conclusion that the new Guardian spec is the natural evolution of the Paragon in Tyria and that by specializing as a long distance Guardian you are specializing as a Paragon. They could say that some Paragons have now dedicated themselves to hunting down Dragons as they are the new “Abaddon” sized threat. It’s much easier to say the Dragonhunters are a smaller faction of the Paragon, than the Paragon being a smaller faction of the Dragonhunters. You can still have your Dragonhunters, just have it listed under the umbrella term of the Paragon. It’s like how the Pale Reavers exist within the Sylvari or the Pact but are their own niche, the Dragonhunter can be a niche while the Paragon is the norm.
I could go on, but I’ll stop.
The fact we have over 30 pages combined discussing the name and a dev response trying to justify it proves Dragonhunter is a bad name.
This thread will easily surpass the engineer hobosack thread.
Will Hawkins (Human Guardian)
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Paragon is an outright stupid profession name. Paragon of what?!
Paragon is an outright stupid profession name. Paragon of what?!
Ask ArenaNet. It was a Guild Wars 1 profession after all.
Will Hawkins (Human Guardian)
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Paragon is an outright stupid profession name. Paragon of what?!
A class that deals with Virtues and you say Paragon is stupid? Really?
Dragon Hunters are the GW2 version of Demon Hunters from Diablo 3.
No demons here so we Dragon Hunters.
What’s wrong with that?
Dragon Hunters are the GW2 version of Demon Hunters from Diablo 3.
No demons here so we Dragon Hunters.What’s wrong with that?
Mesmers have time magic, so Chronomancer is a natural evolution.
Necromancers have death magic, 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 is X.
Also, we have demons in GW2, so there.
I don’t need three picks, I have only one.
will ever happen. At the moment we have the spec’s “Spear of Justice” is the only land based spear skill. For some the spear is key to the Paragon, and the Dragonhunter has taken it from the Paragon.The idea that Paragons use spears exclusively is because they are often tied to the Sunspearsorder but if we were to apply the same logic that professions can’t learn to use new weapons from GW1, then we wouldn’t have the Mesmer with the Greatsword or the Necromancer with the Axe. One could say that ever since Kieran Thackery became the first non-Elona Paragon in GW1, that the profession took on new influences from the time between GW1 and GW2. That Kieran spread the skills of the Paragon throughout Tyria and it became a specialized part of the Guardian profession, that his descendants like Logan embraced. It would make lore sense that Logan and those who came after Kieran carried with them the knowledge of the Paragon. GW1 has already set the stage for Paragons in Tyria, no need for a Elona based expansion or new lore when it already exists.
But even GW1’s game description omits the spear or shield:
“With a commanding voice and charismatic presence, the Paragon rallies the valiant through inspiration, motivation, and leadership.”
And the Manual for Nightfall:
“Paragons are the guardian angels of Elona, humanity’s champions against malefic threats. They rally the valiant with Shouts and Chants, aiding heroes, henchmen, and other adventurers through inspiration and motivation. A Paragon’s best weapons rely on an insightful mind, a courageous spirit, and a charismatic voice. Many Paragons also arm themselves with a spear and shield, striking from a distance as they shout their battle cries. Through insight, they help others resist Hexes and Conditions, echoing their commands across the field of battle (in fact, some “Echo” abilities renew themselves each time a Chant or Shout ends). When all hell breaks loose, a commanding Paragon shines as a beacon of light, driving back the forces of darkness.”
Now let’s compare the following bold aspects of the Paragon to the Dragonhunter.
- “Guardian Angels”: A visual description of the DH is that they look like Angels specifically their use of angelic wings and that many people have suggested the name Seraph, etc… as a replacement name. Not to mention that the phrase Guardian Angel could be given to the Guardian profession as a whole.
- “Humanity’s Champions against malefic threats”: Swap “Humanity” for “Tyria” and “threats” with "dragons and their corruption”.
- “Shouts and Chants, etc…”: If you were to pick a profession in GW2 that is the spiritual successor to the Paragon it would be the Guardian. With it’s focus on shouts, granting protective battle oriented effects (aka Retaliation) and cleansing through fire.
- “Many Paragons”: Note that in GW1 it hedged the whole spear/shield thing by saying many not all. But it did stress that they strike from a distance just like how the DH strikes from the distance. A Paragon in Tyria who naturally strikes from the distance would gravitate to the longbow just like how Kieran as a Paragon gravitated towards the longbow.
One thing people used to justify them not choosing the Paragon was that a PVP title already existed… but then came the Reaper which already exists as a PVP title. The only thing that I can see preventing them from naming it the Paragon is that they want to cut off ties with GW1 or rather Elona. But as I said, it isn’t Elona exclusive anymore like say the Dervish. But it makes no sense to me why they don’t embrace the existing lore where it so clearly fits.
Now compared to the rich history of the Paragon, the Dragonhunter is shallow and a watered down interpretation. That’s why I have personally come to the conclusion that the new Guardian spec is the natural evolution of the Paragon in Tyria and that by specializing as a long distance Guardian you are specializing as a Paragon. They could say that some Paragons have now dedicated themselves to hunting down Dragons as they are the new “Abaddon” sized threat. It’s much easier to say the Dragonhunters are a smaller faction of the Paragon, than the Paragon being a smaller faction of the Dragonhunters. You can still have your Dragonhunters, just have it listed under the umbrella term of the Paragon. It’s like how the Pale Reavers exist within the Sylvari or the Pact but are their own niche, the Dragonhunter can be a niche while the Paragon is the norm.
I could go on, but I’ll stop.
Paragon likely coming when they add Spears to the main game. No point added paragon when the weapon is long bow.
And Dragon Hunters fit, since they are similar to Demon Hunters in theme from Diablo 3…. Except we hunt Dragons in this universe.
Now you could argue that Bow is uncharacteristic of the Paragon but there is are no ground combat spears in game and no guarantee that they will ever happen.
My paragon in Guild Wars ran around using whatever weapons he dang well pleased, including, on occasion, various bows, of which there used to be many more varieties besides long and short, but evidently that’s now lost technology. Further, I would argue that arrows are essentially spears anyway, just small and with a high tech delivery system that compensates for their lack of weight. So heck yeah. Bring on them paragons!
The table is a fable.
And Dragon Hunters fit, since they are similar to Demon Hunters in theme from Diablo 3…. Except we hunt Dragons in this universe.
Not really. Their class similarities end beyond the superficiality of having “hunter” in their name. Thematically, the two classes differ greatly and evoke incredibly different aesthetics, playstyle mechanics, and motifs.
Will Hawkins (Human Guardian)
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Paragon likely coming when they add Spears to the main game. No point added paragon when the weapon is long bow.
And Dragon Hunters fit, since they are similar to Demon Hunters in theme from Diablo 3…. Except we hunt Dragons in this universe.
Demon Hunters were normal humans whose families were killed by demons, and now use their hatred and training to hunt them down. Guardians are already fully trained and powered humans, who are now suddenly big game dragon hunters? Yeah, no.
And Dragon Hunters fit, since they are similar to Demon Hunters in theme from Diablo 3…. Except we hunt Dragons in this universe.
But so do every other class, or do they not exist and everyone is actually a Guardian?
And Dragon Hunters fit, since they are similar to Demon Hunters in theme from Diablo 3…. Except we hunt Dragons in this universe.
Dragonhunter doesn’t fit, because we (should) know from experience/observation that dragonhunting is a group effort, and we’re not talking parties of five, we’re talking armadas of skyships and megalasers and stuff like that for the big ones, and mass quantities of people who know just where to stand for the smaller ones.
Dragonhunter: Ah hah! Vile wurm! I have hunted you down at last! And now with my trusty bow and clever traps, I—
Dragon (turns around to see what’s making that whining noise, steps on dragonhunter and squishes him, doesn’t even notice): Dang, they got big mosquitoes ’round here.
The table is a fable.