"DragonHunter" name feedback [merged]
Yes so… what is your point ?
Because it shows that the Dragonhunter isn’t far-fetched compared to the Guardian.
I found more traits linking the Warrior to a Hunter concept then you found Guardian. So my point is, IF another class is better suited for a spec, then maybe the spec isn’t suited for this class.
That’s a very stupid reasoning.
Contrary to the Guardian, the Warrior is a very non-magical class (except for the shouts, which are minor magic anyway). To hunt Dragons require more direct magical abilities, and the same goes for cleansing corruption.
But you, like many other just dislikes the names, which is objectively bad, and thus have chosen to reject the class and be blind to the many facts proving that, yes, it theme fit with the Guardian, it is a natural evolution for some Guardians to take and in doing so, weaken all your points. After all, if we go this way, every class should now be called a Warrior, because it is what we all do. We wage war against the Dragons and many other foes.
I still don’t see how Defending→Hunting is a natural evolution. Defending→Attacking is, but not hunting. Also if the name needs defending and it garners such a response, there is something wrong with it.
And also, lol, Guardians have NOTHING to do with dragons. At all.
But you, like many other just dislikes the names, which is objectively bad, and thus have chosen to reject the class and be blind to the many facts proving that, yes, it theme fit with the Guardian, it is a natural evolution for some Guardians to take and in doing so, weaken all your points. After all, if we go this way, every class should now be called a Warrior, because it is what we all do. We wage war against the Dragons and many other foes.
What about all the ‘facts’ I provided earlier that ‘prove’ the theme is tenuously linked at best?
But yeah, what you point out and what those that are for the name have pointed out aren’t really facts that prove anything just like the points I made aren’t really facts either. The only thing we’re doing here is describing a pattern, you forming one between current guardian and DH and me forming one that shows the opposite.
So what can you take away from all this? Personally, I take away that the name could be better. Do you not agree? Or do you take away from all this that people like me are just whining and should just accept DH? If that’s what you take away from it, then that’s not really an opinion about the name at all, but about the people questioning it.
(edited by Leo G.4501)
So, as you can see, the basis for the Dragonhunter is already here.
The traits you listed have virtually nothing to do with hunting, traps, or dragons, despite your best attempts at making it seem like they do.
(edited by Fashion Mage.3712)
Aiee, I try to resist, I try, but…
“Just when I thought I was out… I found some arrows on a dead dragonhunter.” ~ Cornleorne the Ranger.
“I was once a dragonhunter like you, then I hunted one down.” ~ on a tombstone in Sparkfly Fen.
Question for the dragonhunter proponents: what is a dragonhunter going to do if he/she actually encounters a dragon while out hunting for one? Will he or she…
- Run up to it and scold it for being evil and unjust?
- Set traps under its feet?
- /e Bard the Bowman with his trusty Black Arrow (book Bard, that is, not the unreasonable facsimile from that awful movie).
- Set up an easel and do some quick sketches for later use in expanding his/her award-winning dragon art collection, cleverly titled ‘My Dragon Paintings’?
Do you think he/she’s going to KILL it? How? Well, megaserver, of course, will surely keep him/her from ever fighting a dragon alone… but for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s just the dragonhunter vs the hunted dragon. How’s that gonna go?
Point: what’s the point of being a hunter of a thing you can’t do anything with, about, or to?
More alternate names:
Corpse.
Deadguy.
Splotch.
The concept of dragonhunter, high or not, doesn’t fit the world of Tyria, due to the nature of Tyrian dragons as presented in GW2.
The table is a fable.
So, as you can see, the basis for the Dragonhunter is already here.
The traits you listed have virtually nothing to do with hunting, traps, or dragons, despite your best attempts at making it seem like they do.
They have everything to do with it, despite the best effort of the folks here. It just require to be open minded and not refusing any sort of proof that the theme of the Dragonhunter is well implemented in the mechanics and in touch with the Guardian, as if recognizing it meant that suddenly the name had to be good if ANet hasn’t failed at the theme, which it doesn’t have to, because it is bad, mainly because it doesn’t present the theme well.
So, as you can see, the basis for the Dragonhunter is already here.
The traits you listed have virtually nothing to do with hunting, traps, or dragons, despite your best attempts at making it seem like they do.
They have everything to do with it, despite the best effort of the folks here. It just require to be open minded and not refusing any sort of proof that the theme of the Dragonhunter is well implemented in the mechanics and in touch with the Guardian, as if recognizing it meant that suddenly the name had to be good if ANet hasn’t failed at the theme, which it doesn’t have to, because it is bad, mainly because it doesn’t present the theme well.
Mechanic and gameplay for me is ok, the thing is that this spec is like a Divine/Holy Archer/Hunter and it has nothing to do with dragons. The name implies that this spec is better than other professions/specs in hunting the dragons and their minion. There is nothing like this in the skills and mechanic that is superior in comparison to other professions and more effective against dragons minions. Is then Ranger worse at hunting dragon minions than Dragonhunter?
I still don’t see how Defending->Hunting is a natural evolution. Defending->Attacking is, but not hunting. Also if the name needs defending and it garners such a response, there is something wrong with it.
That association is simply not true. The name is not wrong or right and that’s why everyone’s arguments to change it fail. It’s fair to say people don’t like it.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Just throwing my opinion in here. I LOVE the concept. I see this sort of Helsing-like figure thwarting dragons and their minions. It’s very neat. However the name is a bit corny to me as well. Although not the end of the world, it could have been called any number of names from inquisitor, hunter (although would get confusing for WoW players I guess), or any other of the great names listed by folks. To people who say it’s just a name and it doesn’t matter I have to remind them that it does matter to the people that don’t like it even if it doesn’t matter to others. On that note though it’s these discussions that help us grow our game to something even better.
31 pages of comments and most of the posts disliking the name . Safe to say Anet got the msg
- xpac -good
Higher concept names thought up by a developers 10 yr old son – bad
The importance of class/profession names is that they provide players with a loose set of expectations about the class: it’s flavor, mechanics, playstyle, etc. These expectations come from fantasy tropes, particularly RPG fantasy games, such as D&D.
Most of the GW2 professions use names that provide typical expectations: e.g., warrior, thief, ranger, and necromancer. Some require a bit more explanation, but not much more: e.g., elementalist, mesmer, and guardian. Once you figure out, for example, that the elementalist is just a elemental-themed mage, players are good to go. Or that that mesmer essentially builds upon the enchanter, illusionist, semi-bardic, and psionic archetypes. The guardian for most players fills the role of the holy warrior: i.e., cleric or paladin. The expectations for the professions in terms of flavor is clear. The guardian here, in particular, is relevant when talking about the dragonhunter. But first, let’s look at the other two elite specializations.
The chronomancer is a time mage. It builds off from the mesmer’s time-related abilities and their use of chaos magic. We expect time-related themes, and that’s what we find. The expectations are clear and are met by its design. A lot of time-related aesthetics, including wells that tick like clocks!
The reaper has clear links with the necromancer. The name evokes death via the scythe-wielding Grim Reaper, the mythical representation of death. Even in the Guild Wars mythos, the Reapers are a key part of lore connected to Grenth, the God of Ice and Death. The Reapers were mortal champions who fought alongside Grenth as he defeated Dhuum to become the new god of death, while his mortal champions became the reapers. Incidentally, the reaper is given a new death shroud aesthetic that evokes Grenth’s reapers. And much like Grenth, the reaper specialization deals heavily in death and ice.
What of the dragonhunter? As I said earlier, the name is a shorthand meant to provide players with a set of expectations. And for many people in this thread and elsewhere, this is where the elite specialization fails to deliver, particularly in light of ArenaNet’s justification.
Hands up. How many people understood that they were going for “witch hunters” when they saw the “dragonhunter” name before JonPeters or the Ready Up briefly touched upon their intent? If you look back through the pre-JonPeter posts, it’s basically no one.
So why does “witch hunter” or “demon hunter” work where the “dragonhunter” fails? Let’s go back to what I was saying earlier about the guardian as the holy warrior. ArenaNet has said that the guardian is more than the paladin, cleric, monk, or holy warrior, but that’s nevertheless the niche, aesthetic, and flavor that it fills. It’s a paladin/cleric in all but name. Even in JonPeter’s apology of the “dragonhunter” name, he refers to guardians as “followers of their faith.” So when we see the “witch/demon hunter” it works in connection with the holy warrior because these named concepts have religious/faith expectations for their flavor, lore, and aesthetic. Witches and demons were even linked. There may even be an expectation that the witch hunter also hunts demons, because of a religious history that linked witchcraft as human instruments of demons, devils, and Satan. These are pre-existing archetypes that exist distinctly from the “dragonhunter” archetype. You can’t just replace “witch/demon” with “dragon” expect that it will successfully evoke that semiotic sense when a “dragonhunter” is already its own semiotic signifier of a different archetype of differing expectations. People can link guardians with “demon/witch hunters” because of those religious links, but people have a far more difficult time making those same links when you turn the witch/demon hunter into a dragon hunter.
Will Hawkins (Human Guardian)
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Also added in a few new links in my post here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/Dragon-Hunter-name-feedback-merged/page/30#post5072663
Tea Time (Bootts, Brazil, Inks, MightyTeapot): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGze1TN5mY
GuildMag Podcast (Valiant, Draxynnic, Starconspirator): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wZBefgvODI
Will Hawkins (Human Guardian)
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
Feryl Grimsteel (Charr Engineer)
Tarnished Coast
So, as you can see, the basis for the Dragonhunter is already here.
The traits you listed have virtually nothing to do with hunting, traps, or dragons, despite your best attempts at making it seem like they do.
They have everything to do with it, despite the best effort of the folks here. It just require to be open minded and not refusing any sort of proof that the theme of the Dragonhunter is well implemented in the mechanics and in touch with the Guardian, as if recognizing it meant that suddenly the name had to be good if ANet hasn’t failed at the theme, which it doesn’t have to, because it is bad, mainly because it doesn’t present the theme well.
No. That is a ridiculous stretch.
Thirty one pages in ten days, that’s pretty impressive. People are obviously concerned. My two cents:
I understand that it’s a ‘high concept’ name, but it’s a little ridiculous in its design. There are more definitive and more marketable names with much clearer conveyance; this thread is full of them. When naming something for production or public release, it’s not that good of an idea to try to harken back to ages past with some loose relation. A concise and to-the-point name would have a greater positive reception, imo.
So, as you can see, the basis for the Dragonhunter is already here.
The traits you listed have virtually nothing to do with hunting, traps, or dragons, despite your best attempts at making it seem like they do.
They have everything to do with it, despite the best effort of the folks here. It just require to be open minded and not refusing any sort of proof that the theme of the Dragonhunter is well implemented in the mechanics and in touch with the Guardian, as if recognizing it meant that suddenly the name had to be good if ANet hasn’t failed at the theme, which it doesn’t have to, because it is bad, mainly because it doesn’t present the theme well.
If you have to keep an open mind and actively search for associations and meaning behind a name in order to figure it out, then you have to ask yourself: Is that name really a fitting description of what it’s meant to represent?
Another test is to take the names out of their given context. If you were to hear these names called out without knowing what they represented in-game, which class would be the first to come to mind? Reaper is naturally a fit for the Necro, with the concept of death and darkness meshing perfectly. Chronomancer might be a little bit more of a stretch, but in comparison to the other classes the Mesmer is the most likely to be manipulating time, because they already use magic that distorts space and reality.
I find it near impossible to believe that the first class to come to mind from the name “Dragonhunter” would be the Guardian.
No. That is a ridiculous stretch.
Only for closed-minded person who have chosen to hate everything about the Dragonhunter because it doesn’t have the kittentier name of Paragon.
@Black Box
As I have said, the name is bad, but the evolution of the Guardian toward it is plausible, and that’s why most of the people arguing against the name fail to provide counter-argument against it which would have some values. They dislike the name and then reject totally the specialization, going out of their way to pretend that this evolution of the Guardian doesn’t make sense, using fallacies and circular logic.
In doing so, they are weakening their point, and I while I dislike the English name, I can’t simply let it slip. The one and only thing which has to change is the name, and it can retain a draconic-related theme, because in Tyria, the greatest evil that we know of right now are the Elder Dragons and their minions.
(edited by Valmir.4590)
But how are GUARDIANS specifically related to dragons?
They have chosen to study them more thoroughly than others, and have chosen to reflect it in their name. It is also a reminder than the greatest dangers in Tyria are the Elder Dragons, and tat by hunting them down, the Guardian protect the people.
That’s as simple as that.
Well why can’t aWarrior do that? I understand why a Thief can’t become a Chronomancer, because they have no ties to time magic. But a Warrior or a Ranger have as much ties to dragons as a Guardian. (that is – none)
I could try to write a lot about it, but I won’t bother. You are a part of those people who have chosen to reject everything about the Dragonhunter for very silly reasons, and I don’t see why I should bother to try to talk to a wall.
No, do tell, what prevents other classes of becoming a Dragonhunter? I can understand why a Guardian or an Engineer can’t become a Reaper or a Chronomancer. But what prevents them from becoming a Dragonhunter? Can they not study dragons and focus on them?
No. That is a ridiculous stretch.
Only for closed-minded person who have chosen to hate everything about the Dragonhunter because it doesn’t have the kittentier name of Paragon.
I was hoping it would be called something besides Paragon actually, but I hate it because literally using the spec at all harms a guardian’s ability to support because the new virtues are badly designed, and because the support stance from the leaked longbow got removed (subsequently with all of its support ability). So basically support guardians get it in the kitten , and support is the primary reason I play guardians. So no, I (and I’m assuming other support guardians) don’t just hate it because of the name. I was willing to let the name slide until I realized that ANet was lying out of their kitten about this spec being a “backline support” spec.
I think a lot of guardians dislike this spec for a similar reason, but people in general mostly just dislike the name it has.
(edited by Fashion Mage.3712)
Ok, let’s summarize Vlamir’s intervention :
“You are close minded because reasons. Thus you’re wrong in everything you could say. That’s all Whatever you say I won’t bother taking it into consideration or even respond, because I decided you are all wrong despite 30 pages of arguments that I don’t want to hear about anyway”
You know, that’s not how you’re supposed to argue if you want to make your idea stands out…
No, do tell, what prevents other classes of becoming a Dragonhunter? I can understand why a Guardian or an Engineer can’t become a Reaper or a Chronomancer. But what prevents them from becoming a Dragonhunter? Can they not study dragons and focus on them?
I agree with Arrk. The main problem is not the new class mechanics (even if I don’t like some of them) but the dragon theme.
If I do a parallel with the cleric of d&d . The cleric of Kelemvor doesn’t like bad undead. With the basic class, they can do cleric stuff (like guardian that does guardian stuff) and use these powers to fight undead (like guardian in the pact right now). If they really want to fight undead and be less tied to other sides of their profession, they can become Doomguide. The Doomguide keeps the previous abilities of the cleric but will now levels as a Doomguide and not a Cleric anymore. It’s very similar to the new ability system where an elite class will only have 2 base ability line.
Ok, so the Doomguide is a cleric that want to kill undeads, like the DragonHunter is a Guardian wanting to kill dragons. I’m ok with that, if a profession wants to specialize against dragon it’s its right, dragons are bad.
What the Doomguide earns like new abilities ?
- A more powerful skill to kill undead.
- Protection from undead related stuffs.
- A power to invoc a magical sword that roxXx against undead.
- Some minor basic cleric related stuff.
What the DragonHunter earns ?
- A bow… ok… being at distance is not a bad idea again big and bad dragons.
- Traps… Schwarzy uses traps against predators so….traps may be fine too ?
But… why a bow against dragon and not a rifle ? Or even a big ball of light or anything ? Why traps ? Why are they better against dragon than anything ?
It’s the main problem with the spec. For fighting dragon, guardian masterizes bow and trap stuffs. But masterizing bow and trap doesn’t transform you into a Dragon Hunter but into a “guys that uses bow and traps”.
A little story:
A Reaper, A “guys that use bow and traps” and a Doomguide enter in a bar.
The Doomguide: “Hello guys, i’m a undead hunter”.
The others: “What are you using ?”
The Doomguide: “I have awesome power for killing undead stuff.”
The others: “And they are working with other fow ?”
The Doomguide: “Nop sorry, only undead….with the others, it’s like a classic sword.”
The guys with the bow: “Ahahah noob. I’m a dragon hunter and my power are powerful even with stuff that aren’t dragon !”
The Reaper: “I’m a dragon hunter too ! My big sword can one shot any dragon minion !”
The guys with the bow: “Lyer ! I’m a dragon hunter, not you ! You are a reaper !”.
The reaper: “And ? I can hunt dragon too ! Why are you better at that than me ?”
The guys with the bow: “Because i’m a dragon hunter ! And i have a bow !”.
The Reaper: “I don’t agree, my big sword is better for killing dragon.”
The guys with the bow: “It’s not true !”
The reaper: “So prove it !”
The guys with the bow: “Nothing to prove, I’m a dragon hunter, look at the icon over my head !”.
(edited by Caerbanog.3410)
Ok, let’s summarize Vlamir’s intervention :
“You are close minded because reasons. Thus you’re wrong in everything you could say. That’s all Whatever you say I won’t bother taking it into consideration or even respond, because I decided you are all wrong despite 30 pages of arguments that I don’t want to hear about anyway”You know, that’s not how you’re supposed to argue if you want to make your idea stands out…
You’ve got it all wrong.
That’s people saying that everything is bad in the Dragonhunter with very weak justifications (“ZOMG, we all kill Dragons” as an example) instead okittennowledging* the fact that the theme behind it is fine, that it is a potential and natural expansion for the Guardians and that only the name sucks, which have no articulate argument, refute everything is said to them, to the point that there is no point arguing with them.
And that’s because they show no argumentation, only blind hatred of everything about the Dragonhunter, to the point their hurt their rightful demands of a name change for a name which is indeed bad. The Draconic theme fit the guardians, they are the class infusing their skills with fire, they are the more dedicated to a cause (because it is how they’ve got their power, their dedication to something) and the Elder Dragon and their minions are the most present threat to Tyria as of now.
*ac knowledging got censured ? Wut ?
(edited by Valmir.4590)
How is anything dragon-themed a natural expansion of the Guardian? Tell me, besides this terrible spec, what does a Guardian have to do with the dragons? Just give me one example, just one.
Except the Mesmer has time-related abilities as a core class. So that argument is a failure.
Why can’t a Warriors dedication let him do something as mundane as learn about dragons. He doesn’t need magic to LEARN. That was your argument, that they studied the dragons. And no other class DESERVES the name? How dumb is that? If someone hunts dragons, they are a “dragon hunter” no discussion. Doesn’t matter what magic or weapons they do?
Ok, let’s summarize Vlamir’s intervention :
“You are close minded because reasons. Thus you’re wrong in everything you could say. That’s all Whatever you say I won’t bother taking it into consideration or even respond, because I decided you are all wrong despite 30 pages of arguments that I don’t want to hear about anyway”You know, that’s not how you’re supposed to argue if you want to make your idea stands out…
You’ve got it all wrong.
That’s people saying that everything is bad in the Dragonhunter with very weak justifications (“ZOMG, we all kill Dragons” as an example) instead okittennowledging the fact that the theme behind it is fine, that it is a potential and natural expansion for the Guardians and that only the name sucks, which have no articulate argument, refute everything is said to them, to the point that there is no point arguing with them.
Many just hate the name and then reject the specialization.
A bow and trap based specialization for the guardian is a game mechanic choice, and if we don’t like it, the next guardian spec will not use bow and traps, we just need to wait.
But for the name it’s another story. The Dragonhunter isn’t just a name, like warden or anything. If it was called warden and peoples hate that, we will have nothing to say. Wardens use wards and wards are guardian type of traps, end of the story. The spec is a Warden, fact proved. But with Dragonhunter, nothing goes in favor of the name.
Hunter can be related with traps and bow, but dragon ? And it’s not because one skill is named “Dragon Stuff” that is better at hunting dragon than anything.
If the DragonHunter has only one trait with “+20% dmg against dragon and their minions” it would not have been such drama.
Well why can’t aWarrior do that? I understand why a Thief can’t become a Chronomancer, because they have no ties to time magic. But a Warrior or a Ranger have as much ties to dragons as a Guardian. (that is – none)
Because Anet decides they may not do it. It’s THAT simple.
You don’t seem to understand that the concepts are determined by Anet.
These concepts can be changed. We are talking about the ones that make sense thematically for the class.
ANET could make a Unicorntamer class and it would work because it’s their game, but it would not fit a class thematically.
These concepts can be changed. We are talking about the ones that make sense thematically for the class.
ANET could make a Unicorntamer class and it would work because it’s their game, but it would not fit a class thematically.
What fits the class thematically is determined by Anet exactly as you describe. This is why the argument of how “dragonhunter” doesn’t fit is nonsense.
You can look at a pattern of a class ideas, traits, skills and themes and see pretty clearly what fits thematically and what doesn’t. For example, Guardian has nothing to do with Dragons or Hunting. Mesmer has nothing to do with explosions or unicorns. If you look at the other two specs, you can clearly see them following a pattern set by the core class. I don’t know how blind you must be to imagine such a link between Guardian and DH.
@Black Box
As I have said, the name is bad, but the evolution of the Guardian toward it is plausible, and that’s why most of the people arguing against the name fail to provide counter-argument against it which would have some values. They dislike the name and then reject totally the specialization, going out of their way to pretend that this evolution of the Guardian doesn’t make sense, using fallacies and circular logic.In doing so, they are weakening their point, and I while I dislike the English name, I can’t simply let it slip. The one and only thing which has to change is the name, and it can retain a draconic-related theme, because in Tyria, the greatest evil that we know of right now are the Elder Dragons and their minions.
Your argument is literally “anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and they don’t have any good reason for it”. It’s a very unhealthy way to carry a debate. There have been plenty of good points by people from both sides, so please don’t try to insult people with an opposing view.
Because Anet decides they may not do it. It’s THAT simple.
You don’t seem to understand that the concepts are determined by Anet.
Of course Anet gets the final say on how a concept is made. But that has no effect on our right to call their ideas stupid if we think so.
You know, I just realized
technically in the HoT trailer we have a character acting very vindictive towards the Sylvari, acting as one would imagine a “Dragon Hunter” would act, saying “you can’t trust Sylvari, they belong to the dragon now.” So there, Rytlock the first character we see acting like a dragon hu… * interrupted by whispers *
what’s that?
*whisper * whisper *
He was a warrior?
*more whispers pointing out the obvious *
And now he’s a Revenant?
…
So he never had anything to do with Guardians?
…
Hm… Something’s amiss…
(PS: just thought that was funny)
Seriously, unless they make us actually more effective at killing dragons and their minions, the name Dragonhunter makes no sense.
These concepts can be changed. We are talking about the ones that make sense thematically for the class.
ANET could make a Unicorntamer class and it would work because it’s their game, but it would not fit a class thematically.What fits the class thematically is determined by Anet exactly as you describe. This is why the argument of how “dragonhunter” doesn’t fit is nonsense.
I do believe the proponents have run out of steam. This type of argument accomplishes nothing. Just because anet makes the rules doesn’t mean they are immune to taking criticism and feedback yet you’re trying to tell us that criticism is nonsense?
These concepts can be changed. We are talking about the ones that make sense thematically for the class.
ANET could make a Unicorntamer class and it would work because it’s their game, but it would not fit a class thematically.What fits the class thematically is determined by Anet exactly as you describe. This is why the argument of how “dragonhunter” doesn’t fit is nonsense.
This made me laugh. Are you saying that if Anet introduced class using melee weapons only without using magic at all, using primary 2h-Axe and have attributes of “Berserker” archetype like in other games and they would call it “Magician” or “Wizard” that would fit thematically? This is hilarious.
Anet has opportuinty to change their minds after the feedback. We’ve seen many times that Anet appreciates and respects the feedback of players. The specialization idea itself was born in CDI threads in discussion between devs and players about further character progression. Until there is clear statement from devs that they are not going to change the name, there is still possibility that the change can happen. “Nothing is off the table”.
(edited by AikunFelcis.7258)
This made me laugh. Are you saying that if Anet introduced class using melee weapons only without using magic at all, using primary 2h-Axe and have attributes of “Berserker” archetype like in other games and they would call it “Magician” or “Wizard” that would fit thematically? This is hilarious.
The only hilarious thing is that’s what you think I’ve said. There is no thematic ‘fit’. The theme is whatever Anet makes it. Of course, you’re being sensational and nonsensical because I don’t believe Anet’s goal is to contrast ideas like your example would suggest they do.
On the other hand, Anet has explained how DH fits thematically with Guardian. You simply choose to ignore it.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
This made me laugh. Are you saying that if Anet introduced class using melee weapons only without using magic at all, using primary 2h-Axe and have attributes of “Berserker” archetype like in other games and they would call it “Magician” or “Wizard” that would fit thematically? This is hilarious.
The only hilarious thing is that’s what you think I’ve said. There is no thematic ‘fit’. The theme is whatever Anet makes it. Of course, you’re being sensational and nonsensical because I don’t believe Anet’s goal is to contrast ideas like your example would suggest they do.
On the other hand, Anet has explained how DH fits thematically with Guardian. You simply choose to ignore it.
Sure being “high concept” is a valid argument.
I think ANet show put the name to a vote… this would allow players to let their voices be heard and settle this whole situation. I’m all for Democracy!
Your argument is literally “anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and they don’t have any good reason for it”. It’s a very unhealthy way to carry a debate. There have been plenty of good points by people from both sides, so please don’t try to insult people with an opposing view.
All I’m saying that the core theme of the Dragonhunter already exist in the Guardian traits and that there is lore reasons for why the Guardian is the one getting that name/relation to Dragons, and not the Warrior, the Elementalist or anybody else. And I’m saying that despite the claims of some people here, those elements exist, make senses and provide the basis for the specialization, thus making the Dragonhunter just as solid as the Chronomancer and the Reaper.
I’m also saying that I dislike the name of the Guardian specialization, but that I can perfectly understand the relation between the class and the specialization, and that the draconic theme as to stay. I’m also saying that despite the beliefs of some here, a draconic theme is necessarily supposed to be a class using Dragon-like powers, for various reasons.
Once more, I dislike the name as it is. I simply happen to also dislikes the way some people are expressing their distaste for the name, or how they basically want a full revamp of the specialization. I also happen to really dislike names such as Warden or Paragon because the first doesn’t fit with the specialization giving the idea that it is just another name for a basic Guardian (instead of a specialization) and because the latter means nothing, except for people having played one of them/with one of them (something I haven’t).
I happen to like the theme of the Dragonhunter, the way Arena Net can develop it and the only thing I dislike is the name, and I find the drama about it to being more and more obnoxious, because the strongest points were made long ago now and all what remains is the rehearsal of weakest points. And I’m afraid that it means that Arena Net won’t even consider changing the name.
There is no relation to the Guardian core class and dragons or dragon-themed abilities and despite your claims you have failed to provide one.
There is one “dragon-like” power in the whole skill set of the specialization and it could easily be changed, it was shoe-horned there to have them have some sort of a link to the draconic theme.
Nobody is asking for a full revamp of the spec, they are asking for the theme to be changed. The skills and everything else can stay the same, just some txt changes that should take less than 10 minutes. (Terrible Elite notwithstanding).
If you dislike the name then put in effort and make a good point about it, but Arena Net should consider an issue that garners over 2k posts in a week.
There is no relation to the Guardian core class and dragons or dragon-themed abilities and despite your claims you have failed to provide one.
I’ve done so many times. it is simply that you refuse to accept it, because it would destroy your argumentation (which is very weak and without solid evidence, beyond of your disliking of the name). And changing the theme is a revamp of the Specialization. Because the theme isn’t the name itself, but the reasons behind it.
Not a single person as been able to provide a logical explanation for the terrible Dragon Hunter theme.
It is completely illogical in every single way. Lore-breaking, gameplay breaking, profession design breaking.
Not a single person as been able to provide a logical explanation for the terrible Dragon Hunter theme.
… other than Anet. That’s what matters.
I’ve done so many times. it is simply that you refuse to accept it, because it would destroy your argumentation
I’m sorry, you have attempted to link Guardian with Hunter themes, but you never once attempted to link Guardian and Dragons (besides the Guardians learn about Dragons, because Guardians are the only ones who can study, but you never explained how the class is linked to them. I can study frogs, that does not mean I have any links, thematic or otherwise to frogs).
And changing the theme is a revamp of the Specialization. Because the theme isn’t the name itself, but the reasons behind it.
They could easily change the name and rename a few traits and everyone would be happy. There is no need to revamp the whole spec. Most people are accepting of traps and longbows, they just dislike the “draconic” “hunter” theme. Changing the few textfiles would not detract from the development of the game.