Guild Wars 2

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

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.

No they haven’t given a LOGICAL explanation.

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

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.

If “it’s more mature this way” and “high concept” are suitable and logical for you, I’m truly sorry.

Arnath.2319:

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

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.

No they haven’t given a LOGICAL explanation.

No one has shown their explanation isn’t logical at all. Simply dismissing their explanation does not make it illogical. Besides, who determines it’s logical? It’s part of a made up story that they make up. It can be whatever they want. Obviously they think it fits their story.

Obtena.7952:

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.

I will qoute you

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.

So IF such ridiculous concept I mentioned were determined by Arenanet, then then they could implement it, right?

Anet is not consequent. Once this is a concept of big game hunter, another day it’s witchhunter. Actually in mechanic and skills there is nothing that justifies the name. As many people stated before me, Dragonhunter is a good title, not specialization name. All people can hunt the dragons and their minions and I don’t see anything extraordinary in DH skills and mechanic that is superior against the dragons and their minions comparing to other professions spec. This is specialization. Chronamancer is specialized in time manipulation – fits. Reaper has ability to trun into Grim Reaper and cut their foes with big scythe and chill them in fear – fits. What about dragonhunter? Name says that it specializes in hunting the dragons. The problem is there is NOTHING in the skills and mechanic that is superior to dragons and their minions, there is nothing special that justifies the name. Please don’t throw the idea of story or any funny cult guardian meet and join, because as we can see other classes don’t have to have any backstory and their name is self-explanatory and fit the gameplay and mechanic. That’s why the name “Dragonhunter” fails. It’s like creating a class with Cleric archetype with healing and holy light dmg and name it Ranger, because it can attack from the distance and they will be devoted into it! Dragonhunter doesn’t fit. The specialization in fact is like Divine/Holy Archer/Hunter, not a dragonhunter. No dragon-themed things in this specialization, just one trap with dragon’s maw animation. Name should sounds natural and fit to the gameplay and shouldn’t cause “WTF” moment as it caused when it was revealed. Other specializations somehow don’t have such issues and people don’t post tones of post with complains, beacause names Chronomancer and Reaper fit the gameplay, skills and mechanic of these specs. That’s it.

AikunFelcis.7258:

Obtena.7952:

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.

I will qoute you

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.

So IF such ridiculous concept I mentioned were determined by Arenanet, then then they could implement it, right?

Once this is a concept of big game hunter, another day it’s witchhunter.

Exactly, but your sensational example doesn’t say anything about DH theme.

I don’t see why it can’t be both. Hell, Necros got THREE themes going in their Elite. Just because you believe there is some inconsistency there doesn’t make it true. Are you actually telling us that it’s a bad concept because It’s a hunter of ‘big game’ that happens to be dragons? Is that such a stretch of the imagination to you? My 5 year old gets the concept, but grown adults playing a fantasy MMO can’t get it. That’s obtuse. You’re fooling no one playing the fool here.

Lore wise, the Guardians draw their power from their dedication to something, and they often see themselves as the protectors of the people of Tyria. They also happens to be over-zealous in some

The Elder Dragons are the most important threat to the people of Tyria, as it has been demonstrated by Mordremoth recent awakening and the destructions which have followed. With that in mind, it is no surprise that some Guardians would take a more pro-active stance toward the dangers of the Dragons, instead of the more defensive behaviour of most Guardians. That’s why some would delve into draconic knowledge and would devote themselves to destroying them and their minion.

And it’s that devotion which explains why the other classes aren’t “dragonhunter” or more exactly draconic-themed. the other class doesn’t feel the need to act as such, instead preferring to develop new form of magic (Chronomancer and probably the Tempest), more direct power (the Reaper, who strike me as a Necromancer going out of his way to unleash his fury on his enemies, but I can be wrong) or are seeking to better survive and exploit the possibilities of the Jungle with the Druid.

So far, the only profession whose specialization I’ve actually difficulties to understand is the one for my main, the Engineer with hammer. After all, the Engineer is somewhat mobile (at least with its elixirs and guns) and with some long-range to mid-range attacks (the grenades and the flame-throwers) and I’ve a hard time understanding why an Engineer would use a two-handed hammer to crush his foes (while the mobile drones seems to be an amelioration of the turrets, probably using a bit of the golem-technology to grand them limited ability to follow the Engineer and protect him).

Valmir.4590:

That’s why some would delve into draconic knowledge and would devote themselves to destroying them and their minion.

So…where is the draconic knowledge and the dedication ? Will the DragonHunter have a specific story line showing its dedication ? Or more powerful abilities against dragons and their minions ?

For now, the only thing i see is a bow and some traps. And for the elite, maybe elementalists must be called “Dragon Hunter” too, you know, one of their skill is “Dragon’s Tooth”.

Valmir.4590:

So far, the only profession whose specialization I’ve actually difficulties to understand is the one for my main, the Engineer with hammer. After all, the Engineer is somewhat mobile (at least with its elixirs and guns) and with some long-range to mid-range attacks (the grenades and the flame-throwers) and I’ve a hard time understanding why an Engineer would use a two-handed hammer to crush his foes (while the mobile drones seems to be an amelioration of the turrets, probably using a bit of the golem-technology to grand them limited ability to follow the Engineer and protect him).

The engineer uses technology and builds stuff and a hammer can be used to build technological stuff. But it’s not a high concept, so it may be difficult to be understood.

Obtena.7952:

No one has shown their explanation isn’t logical at all. Simply dismissing their explanation does not make it illogical. Besides, who determines it’s logical? It’s part of a made up story that they make up. It can be whatever they want. Obviously they think it fits their story.

The dragonhunter concept is not compatible with the established GW2 setting, specifically in regard to the nature of dragons, whether of the elder or lieutenant/champ variety. Anet can ‘explain’ it until they are all blue in the face (playable largos, plz) but it won’t make any difference. Until and unless Anet alters the setting to accommodate the idea that an individual can hunt down and deal with dragons with some reasonable chance of success, a dragonhunter in GW2 will continue to make about as much sense as a cthulhupuncher in a Call of Cthulhu game.

Caerbanog.3410:

Valmir.4590:

That’s why some would delve into draconic knowledge and would devote themselves to destroying them and their minion.

So…where is the draconic knowledge and the dedication ? Will the DragonHunter have a specific story line showing its dedication ? Or more powerful abilities against dragons and their minions ?

That’s part of the lore Anet makes for the game. Do you need proof that any other class is properly aligned to their concept by having an indepth understanding of the lore as well? No, you don’t. You’re simply insisting on it in the case of DH because you don’t like the name.

Tachenon.5270:

Obtena.7952:

No one has shown their explanation isn’t logical at all. Simply dismissing their explanation does not make it illogical. Besides, who determines it’s logical? It’s part of a made up story that they make up. It can be whatever they want. Obviously they think it fits their story.

The dragonhunter concept is not compatible with the established GW2 setting,

Artistic license. Anet does have it and any reasonable person would expect they use it as well to develop the game as they see fit. I still question people on this argument. I don’t see DH being so far from the lore that it’s unreasonable it’s in the game. I think Valmir explained it really well. In fact, better than Anet did.

This is quite simple.

Mesmer > Chronomancer
Uses time manipulation abilities.. duh.

Necromancer > Reaper
Can take a form of a “grimm reaper” like being. Big Scythe and stuff.. you know, Death incarnate.

Guardian > Dragonhunter

Here is the problem.
Do we do more damage to Dragons and dragon minions? Nope.
Do we have any special abilities that help us track Dragons and dragon minions? Nope.
Rangers have bows and traps, are they Dragonhunters? Nope.
So why are we Dragonhunters?

I know I can use my powers of imagination but what’s the point? This Elite specialization name just doesn’t fit into a Guardian. In fact it wouldn’t fit to any other class with how everything is designed. There are no skills that do higher damage to certain enemies and there are no abilities that would help in hunting or tracking.

Let me give an example. In Lineage 2 there were mobs that had weaknesses to certain nature elements.
World Boss example:
Antharas was more vurnerable to Wind magic, Valakas to Water magic. So what were the tactics? Take lots of wind mages Spellhowlers/Storm Screamers for the Earth Dragon and water magic Spellsingers/Mystic Muses for the Fire Dragon.

Now if specializing into a Dragonhunter would gives us some nice bonuses against Dragon infestation? Why not! The thing is, GW2 doesn’t support such mechanics. We have Sigils/Runes which everyone can use.

I’m not gonna “open my mind” to something that simply fails in every possible way.

Dragonhunters would be a great organization name. Former elite members of the Pact or another faction emerges to stop the Dragon threat. Maybe a vigilanty like group. Using any means they belive nessesery to stop those beasts. Bad boys. That would be not only cool but anyone who want’s could join.

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

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.

If you’d stop whiteknighting for a moment, you’d realize that ANet can be wrong and they can make bad decisions. I know that may be hard to believe, but yes, it’s true. They can still make any decision they’d like, but the decisions they make are not necessarily flawless.

Rule 1 of internet game forums. Do not engage in arguments with whiteknights.

Dragons are not inherently evil, they are a force of nature, would you call a thunder storm “evil”?

Not all dragons are evil, Glint was our friend and her egg might be good too, plus the Pale Tree and those Sylvari born from it are good.

Everyone in this game is hunting dragons, if we are to specialise into dragon hunting then we MUST receive some significant advantage over every other profession in game.

Since we have that advantage we should then logically teach every single other profession to become Dragon Hunters to maximise our potential at defeating the Elder Dragons.

And when ArenaNet release new future elite specs we will be forced to ignore them since logically it would make sense to stay Dragon Hunter maximising our strengths in defeating the dragons until there all gone.

The Dragon Hunter theme is completely illogical in every single way!

The best part is them arguing that only a few people want this change and dislike it, yet only the two of you have been against it for some reason. So at least the people who speak up and want the change outnumber those who like this name/theme and continue to defend it. You can say that we don’t speak for the “silent majority” but neither do you. If they cared about the issue they would voice their opinion. The silence is indicative of either unknowing or uncaring.
@Valmir, please show me how this draconic thematic is apparent in-game with the core guardian class. NOT Dragonhunter. Guardian. A skill or a trait? Maybe Guardians do more damage to dragons and their minions? No? Then you have no point. I can say and use the same argument for every single profession: Warriors enjoy the challenge of killing a dragon thus they acquire knowledge about them; Rangers seek to protect the nature that is getting destroyed by the dragons, thus they acquire knowledge about them to protect it.
But can you say that it would make thematic sense for the Ranger to gain Time magic? No it would not, unless you are just disregarding everything outright.

Yes it’s ANets game, and they could add talking pink waffle-shooting bears in game and it would be their choice, it does not mean it fits within the set story and lore or the thematic constrains.

I know a bunch of ppl that doesn’t like the name but they don’t post here because..

They never post on forums.

Throwing random numbers is pointless.

Obtena.7952:

AikunFelcis.7258:

Obtena.7952:

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.

I will qoute you

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.

So IF such ridiculous concept I mentioned were determined by Arenanet, then then they could implement it, right?

Once this is a concept of big game hunter, another day it’s witchhunter.

Exactly, but your sensational example doesn’t say anything about DH theme.

I don’t see why it can’t be both. Hell, Necros got THREE themes going in their Elite. Just because you believe there is some inconsistency there doesn’t make it true. Are you actually telling us that it’s a bad concept because It’s a hunter of ‘big game’ that happens to be dragons? Is that such a stretch of the imagination to you? My 5 year old gets the concept, but grown adults playing a fantasy MMO can’t get it. That’s obtuse. You’re fooling no one playing the fool here.

Funny you tend to reply only to the part of the post, not the whole one. I will quote myself.

Anet is not consequent. Once this is a concept of big game hunter, another day it’s witchhunter. Actually in mechanic and skills there is nothing that justifies the name. As many people stated before me, Dragonhunter is a good title, not specialization name. All people can hunt the dragons and their minions and I don’t see anything extraordinary in DH skills and mechanic that is superior against the dragons and their minions comparing to other professions spec. This is specialization. Chronamancer is specialized in time manipulation – fits. Reaper has ability to trun into Grim Reaper and cut their foes with big scythe and chill them in fear – fits. What about dragonhunter? Name says that it specializes in hunting the dragons. The problem is there is NOTHING in the skills and mechanic that is superior to dragons and their minions, there is nothing special that justifies the name. Please don’t throw the idea of story or any funny cult guardian meet and join, because as we can see other classes don’t have to have any backstory and their name is self-explanatory and fit the gameplay and mechanic. That’s why the name “Dragonhunter” fails. It’s like creating a class with Cleric archetype with healing and holy light dmg and name it Ranger, because it can attack from the distance and they will be devoted into it! Dragonhunter doesn’t fit. The specialization in fact is like Divine/Holy Archer/Hunter, not a dragonhunter. No dragon-themed things in this specialization, just one trap with dragon’s maw animation. Name should sounds natural and fit to the gameplay and shouldn’t cause “WTF” moment as it caused when it was revealed. Other specializations somehow don’t have such issues and people don’t post tones of post with complains, beacause names Chronomancer and Reaper fit the gameplay, skills and mechanic of these specs. That’s it.

Keep trying to ignore the facts. The fact is that the name is not reflected anyhow by the spec and it’s gameplay.

And BTW

My 5 year old gets the concept, but grown adults playing a fantasy MMO can’t get it. That’s obtuse. You’re fooling no one playing the fool here.

Keep trying to insult me, go ahead. I will gladly use report button.

Just my opinion, but the name is hugely grandiose for a Guardian. Guardians guard not hunt. Yes, there may be precedent in other fantasy literature (hello Hobbit), but it just seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Fashion Mage.3712:

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

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.

If you’d stop whiteknighting for a moment, you’d realize that ANet can be wrong and they can make bad decisions. I know that may be hard to believe, but yes, it’s true. They can still make any decision they’d like, but the decisions they make are not necessarily flawless.

I don’t get how they can be wrong about something they conceptualize.

Valmir.4590:

Lore wise, the Guardians draw their power from their dedication to something, and they often see themselves as the protectors of the people of Tyria. They also happens to be over-zealous in some

The Elder Dragons are the most important threat to the people of Tyria, as it has been demonstrated by Mordremoth recent awakening and the destructions which have followed. With that in mind, it is no surprise that some Guardians would take a more pro-active stance toward the dangers of the Dragons, instead of the more defensive behaviour of most Guardians. That’s why some would delve into draconic knowledge and would devote themselves to destroying them and their minion.

And it’s that devotion which explains why the other classes aren’t “dragonhunter” or more exactly draconic-themed. the other class doesn’t feel the need to act as such, instead preferring to develop new form of magic (Chronomancer and probably the Tempest), more direct power (the Reaper, who strike me as a Necromancer going out of his way to unleash his fury on his enemies, but I can be wrong) or are seeking to better survive and exploit the possibilities of the Jungle with the Druid.

So far, the only profession whose specialization I’ve actually difficulties to understand is the one for my main, the Engineer with hammer. After all, the Engineer is somewhat mobile (at least with its elixirs and guns) and with some long-range to mid-range attacks (the grenades and the flame-throwers) and I’ve a hard time understanding why an Engineer would use a two-handed hammer to crush his foes (while the mobile drones seems to be an amelioration of the turrets, probably using a bit of the golem-technology to grand them limited ability to follow the Engineer and protect him).

Lorewise all members of the pact are trying to hunt down the Elder Dragons and their minions. In HoT player character (regardless of profession) is going to enter the Maguuma Jungle in order to rescue Pact members, Destiny’s Edge and hunt down Mordremoth and it’s minions. Not only players specialized in being dragonhunters will hunt Mordremoth and it’s minions, so I see no reason that the guardian spec should be chosen one to call that way. Why Warrior can’t become a dragonhunter? Warrior can train with dedication, determinantion to hunt dragons as well. Same for other professions. Currently guardian’s spec gameplay/mechanic has nothing to do with aiming the dragons, so do other revealed specs. Then why can’t they become dragonhunters? Warriors can delve into knowledge about the dragons as well. All professions can.

TL;DR Gameplay shows that the spec itself has nothing to do with hunting the dragons and being good at it as it’s core mechanic/skills. The name can be only explained by the backstory and this is unacceptable, because we won’t be able to play specialization, but we will have to ROLEPLAY a specialization, because mechanic-wise name has nothing to do with guardian’s specialization.

Obtena.7952:

No one has shown their explanation isn’t logical at all. Simply dismissing their explanation does not make it illogical.

Neither does simply dismissing the explanations that dissenters have provided you regarding the name. Others and I have analyzed the inappropriateness of the dragonhunter name at some length and detail. You simply choose to ignore it.

Besides, who determines it’s logical? It’s part of a made up story that they make up. It can be whatever they want. Obviously they think it fits their story.

That’s a terrible excuse that simply serves to justify terrible writing. Narratival logic has never been the sole purview of the author or creator, as it relies upon treating both their work and their audience with a shred of dignity regarding their sense of logic. It appears that you are the one attempting to dictate what is logical, but your hermeneutic for what constitutes a logical argument consists of “ANet can do no wrong with their own story since it’s their story, ergo the ‘dragonhunter’ name fits,” which is utter garbage.

Obtena please quote any of your posts that explain your reasons for liking the name. Half of the posts in this thread are yours so its a bit of an issue to find the specific one out of all of your posts. I am honestly interested. I can see that you are passionate about keeping the name. I respect that. But I just want to see your reasoning for liking the name.

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

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.

No they haven’t given a LOGICAL explanation.

No one has shown their explanation isn’t logical at all. Simply dismissing their explanation does not make it illogical. Besides, who determines it’s logical? It’s part of a made up story that they make up. It can be whatever they want. Obviously they think it fits their story.

It’s illogical because they can’t even keep a consistent theme with itself, let alone with the rest of the base class. Is it a “high concept” witch hunter-type religious fanatic, or is it a “big game hunter” that engages targets from afar and baits them into traps? Is it a backline support, or is it an offensive skirmisher meant to chase the enemy down?

The fallacies are there. Choosing to ignore them under the umbrella of “because Anet says so” doesn’t make them go away.

Obtena.7952:

Fashion Mage.3712:

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

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.

If you’d stop whiteknighting for a moment, you’d realize that ANet can be wrong and they can make bad decisions. I know that may be hard to believe, but yes, it’s true. They can still make any decision they’d like, but the decisions they make are not necessarily flawless.

I don’t get how they can be wrong about something they conceptualize.

Using the false witch trial side of the story to justify something unless they wanted to say guardians are going to have a bigger role in the story or logan was or is going to be corrupted

Black Box.9312:

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

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.

No they haven’t given a LOGICAL explanation.

No one has shown their explanation isn’t logical at all. Simply dismissing their explanation does not make it illogical. Besides, who determines it’s logical? It’s part of a made up story that they make up. It can be whatever they want. Obviously they think it fits their story.

It’s illogical because they can’t even keep a consistent theme with itself, let alone with the rest of the base class. Is it a “high concept” witch hunter-type religious fanatic, or is it a “big game hunter” that engages targets from afar and baits them into traps? Is it a backline support, or is it an offensive skirmisher meant to chase the enemy down?

The fallacies are there. Choosing to ignore them under the umbrella of “because Anet says so” doesn’t make them go away.

We’ve already addressed this. Necros have the same thing. In fact, Anet acknowledge it was their approach to the Necor elite spec. There is no reason to think the Guardian concept can’t cross over multiple themes … except in the minds of people grasping for justification that somehow it’s bad to do so.

Except the Reaper themes fit the core class of the Necromancer. The DH themes do not fit the core class of Guardian.

Obtena.7952:

Black Box.9312:

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

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.

No they haven’t given a LOGICAL explanation.

No one has shown their explanation isn’t logical at all. Simply dismissing their explanation does not make it illogical. Besides, who determines it’s logical? It’s part of a made up story that they make up. It can be whatever they want. Obviously they think it fits their story.

It’s illogical because they can’t even keep a consistent theme with itself, let alone with the rest of the base class. Is it a “high concept” witch hunter-type religious fanatic, or is it a “big game hunter” that engages targets from afar and baits them into traps? Is it a backline support, or is it an offensive skirmisher meant to chase the enemy down?

The fallacies are there. Choosing to ignore them under the umbrella of “because Anet says so” doesn’t make them go away.

We’ve already addressed this. Necros have the same thing. In fact, Anet acknowledge it was their approach to the Necor elite spec. There is no reason to think the Guardian concept can’t cross over multiple themes … except in the minds of people grasping for justification that somehow it’s bad to do so.

How is the Reaper inconsistent with itself? It’s a heavy hitting melee spec with a pseudo-horror theme that pulls you in and chills you to prevent you from getting away. There are no conflicting elements involved, unlike the ones I stated above regarding the Dragonhunter.

It also doesn’t fail the name association test I mentioned (either in here or the other thread), unlike the Dragonhunter.

Dragonhunter just sounds lame. It doesn’t even necessarily sound like something that only a Guardian can do.

Tempest sounds like an Elementalist thing – as does Reaper for Necromancer. Chronomancer a little less for Mesmer but they do have Time Warp so it’s not that much of a stretch, they are known for altering reality and mucking around with illusions and kitten.

Hunting dragons is cool and all, but my Ele and my Thief all hunted dragons, don’t know what makes this one so special.

Dragonhunter just has no “oomph” to it.

Is there a worse name in gaming year award ? if so i am nominating this one for sure

Arrk.4102:

Except the Reaper themes fit the core class of the Necromancer. The DH themes do not fit the core class of Guardian.

That’s just a matter of opinion. There have been some very GOOD explanations of how a Guardian can spec into a DH.

Obtena.7952:

Arrk.4102:

Except the Reaper themes fit the core class of the Necromancer. The DH themes do not fit the core class of Guardian.

That’s just a matter of opinion. There have been some very GOOD explanations of how a Guardian can spec into a DH.

That’s just a matter of opinion. There have been some very GOOD explanations of how a Guardian can’t spec into a DH.

See how that work, I can do it too.
Once again, the Necro core class has themes of death and cold, so does Reaper.
The Guardian core class does NOT have themes of dragons or hunting.

Black Box.9312:

It also doesn’t fail the name association test I mentioned (either in here or the other thread), unlike the Dragonhunter.

The only reason it doesn’t fail your irrelevant name test is that it’s so vague that it could literally mean anything people thinks it should mean.

Arrk.4102:

Obtena.7952:

Arrk.4102:

Except the Reaper themes fit the core class of the Necromancer. The DH themes do not fit the core class of Guardian.

That’s just a matter of opinion. There have been some very GOOD explanations of how a Guardian can spec into a DH.

That’s just a matter of opinion. There have been some very GOOD explanations of how a Guardian can’t spec into a DH.

See how that work, I can do it too.
Once again, the Necro core class has themes of death and cold, so does Reaper.
The Guardian core class does NOT have themes of dragons or hunting.

It doesn’t need to have those themes. It’s simply given them by Anet, who make the theme up as they see fit.

Obtena.7952:

Arrk.4102:

Obtena.7952:

Arrk.4102:

Except the Reaper themes fit the core class of the Necromancer. The DH themes do not fit the core class of Guardian.

That’s just a matter of opinion. There have been some very GOOD explanations of how a Guardian can spec into a DH.

That’s just a matter of opinion. There have been some very GOOD explanations of how a Guardian can’t spec into a DH.

See how that work, I can do it too.
Once again, the Necro core class has themes of death and cold, so does Reaper.
The Guardian core class does NOT have themes of dragons or hunting.

It doesn’t need to have those themes. It’s simply given them by Anet, who make the theme up as they see fit.

YES. And the given themes for Reaper and Chronomancer fit the core class.
The given themes for the DH do NOT fit the core class.

Anet explained why it fits the core class. If get your opinion differs from Anet’s but that does not make it a fact that DH is a bad name. Good and Bad does not factor into this; I sincerely don’t believe that Anet choose the name because it was their goal to choose the worst one. This is what you’re argument amounts to. If you’re argument does not take Anet’s explanation into account, it’s worthless nonsense.

Is thematic inconsistency (which is a matter of taste) the BEST argument we can come up with to why the name should change?

No one said that their goal was to choose the worst name. We said that the theme does not fit what the core class has. They said it fit the whole class because of their “point of view” but what if I’m playing a racist norn. Can I get a Humanhunter class then?
Other specs fit the core theme of the class, not some arbitrary point of view. Do you not understand how hunting has noting to do with honor or burning? How dragons have nothing to do with defending and using signets?

Besides thematic inconsistency we could add the fact that it doesn’t follow the pattern set in naming the specializations OR the core classes, it breaks lore by associating a player character with the enemy faction AND the “mature” justification is laughable.

Obtena.7952:

Black Box.9312:

It also doesn’t fail the name association test I mentioned (either in here or the other thread), unlike the Dragonhunter.

The only reason it doesn’t fail your irrelevant name test is that it’s so vague that it could literally mean anything people thinks it should mean.

The name test is hardly irrelevant, because a name is literally there to serve as a short description of what it is referencing. The Reaper works because none of the classes really carry any sort of farming theme, so naturally the next closest association is that of the Grim Reaper, which is a perfect match for the necro.

It’s irrelevant to Anet … I’m sure they didn’t test the name with your approach, otherwise they would have come to the same conclusion.

The specialist uses light to beat back the darkness, so SHADOWBANE.

Obtena.7952:

Anet explained why it fits the core class. If get your opinion differs from Anet’s but that does not make it a fact that DH is a bad name. Good and Bad does not factor into this; I sincerely don’t believe that Anet choose the name because it was their goal to choose the worst one. This is what you’re argument amounts to. If you’re argument does not take Anet’s explanation into account, it’s worthless nonsense.

Is thematic inconsistency (which is a matter of taste) the BEST argument we can come up with to why the name should change?

You are being disingenuous in this conversation by claiming that people here are arguing that ArenaNet went with the worst name possible. Cut it out. It’s rude and unfruitful for the discussion.

ArenaNet did not explain why the name fit; they provided a rationale for why they went with the name that they did. That’s not the same. But just because you provide a rationale does not mean that the rationale is reasonable. A rationale is not a priori made reasonable by the source, but by the rationale’s own merits, or lack thereof. That is what we are discussing.

Obtena.7952:

Arnath.2319:

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.

“It’s a high concept” is not a logical explanation.

Why are you guys still arguing with Obtena, None of you are going to change his mind. He wont change your minds. Just. Stop. Please. It does nothing at all to be honest. If you want the name to be changed, or anything to be done, you have to weed it down to 2 or 3 names that would suit it better, not engage in pointless discussions with people you cant change the minds of…

Fine. Again :
Sentinel
Arbiter
Paragon

These 3 seem to be the ones most people cite, in different order, but still.

Paragon is even worse, because it isn’t clear on what it is , except for some veterans from GW, and thus basically means nothing to a lot of players. I mean, is it a Paragon how hatred, of valour, of wisdom, etc.

Arbiter doesn’t translate well in other language, and it’s name, just like the Paragon, doesn’t say what it would do. And when I hear it, I think of a referee, because Arbiter is very close to the French world for referee.

Sentinel is actually a pretty good name, because it can relate to both Heavy Armour protector and a warrior using a bow. However, the small problem it has is that it is too defensive compared to the drive (lore-wise, that is) which exist actually behind the Dragonhunter. But I would like the Sentinel, I’m sure.

As for other names… It is actually kind of difficult, because there isn’t many who can say what the specialization would do (traps and long bow).

I am a proponent of the name ‘Inquisitor.’ The name has a number of things going for it.

The name ‘Inquisitor’ has religious connotations, which more readily lends its connection to the faith-based guardian profession. “Inquisitor” feels congruent with the other guardian specialization names: e.g., Zeal, Radiance, Valor, Honor, and Virtue. In other words, people will likelier see the ‘inquisitor’ as a more natural extension of the guardian than the ‘dragonhunter’ due to this preexisting fantasy trope with its religious motif.

One of the legitimate criticisms people have levied against a number of the alternative names proposed for the ‘dragonhunter’ is that these names are simply synonyms with ‘guardian.’ That criticism should be taken into consideration. The name ‘inquisitor’ takes that criticism seriously. The two are not synonymous. Inquisitors are often depicted as being proactive agents in the world who hunt down foes of the faith or other “public dangers.” Furthermore, there is a clearer thematic overlap between ‘inquisitors’ and the ‘witch hunters’ than there exists between ‘witch hunters’ and ‘dragon hunters.’ So the name ‘inquisitor’ provides a clear religious connection with the base profession while also connoting a more aggressive, harrier of justice, truth, and goodness that stems from their faithful convictions. An ‘inquisitor’ probably has more need for traps given names like ‘test of faith,’ ‘purification,’ and ’light’s judgment’ than something being labeled as a ‘dragonhunter.’

The name is also wide enough to apply to a variety of scenarios in Heart of Thorns and beyond. A sylvari inquisitor may attempt rooting out disloyal sylvari, while a more extreme non-sylvari inquisitor may seek to vanquish all sylvari as minions of the dragons. But we are not just dealing with dragons in Heart of Thorns. ArenaNet seeded an enormous wealth of clues in the human personal story and the living story in the Maguuma Wastes regarding the White Mantle and the mursaat. A human inquisitor’s quest may take them to take action against these old foes of humanity and Kryta.

What of the other races or even the Pact Orders? An asura inquisitor may be a part of the asura’s arcane eye and dealing with the Inquest. A charr inquisitor may seek to root out the Flame Legion and stop defectors from the Black Citadel. A norn inquisitor may be dealing with offenses against the Great Spirits or stoping religious offenses committed by the Sons of Svanir. An inquisitor may seek to unravel the truth for the Priory. An inquisitor may seek to weed out any potential internal corruption of the Order of Whispers. An inquisitor may be sent to deal with a particular foe of the Vigil that requires their special services.

The Flame Legion, Genesis, not the Burning Legion (in your 4th paragraph).

Otherwise, I like Inquisitor (even if it was used by the White Mantle 250 years ago, but their could be way for the lore to explain this use, possibly with some Sylvari being actually terrified of some of their kind being traitors and going out of their way to uproot them).

Valmir.4590:

The Flame Legion, Genesis, not the Burning Legion (in your 4th paragraph).

Oi! Embarrassing. Thanks for spotting that.

Otherwise, I like Inquisitor (even if it was used by the White Mantle 250 years ago, but their could be way for the lore to explain this use, possibly with some Sylvari being actually terrified of some of their kind being traitors and going out of their way to uproot them).

I kinda enjoy that irony, and I imagine that Kryta likely employed inquisitors among the Shining Blade following the regime change from the White Mantle to Salma Dynasty to eradicate vestiges of the Mantle.

Yes, that’s a possibility, and I honestly hope that the LS will be used for more political intrigue instead of fight against the Dragons, because I think it is more fitting for the scope of the LS, because Inquisitors or the very fact that the Sylvari are actually mistrusted. I think it would allow for a deeper lore without taking too much for more traditional updates.

Ok… Since some people are still having troubles understanding some arguments or simply how we feel about Dragonhunter I make my own personal recap…

Part 1 :

The link between a Guardian and a big game hunter doesn’t make sense, let’s be honnest. It would be like saying a Thief could be a guard in a city while still keeping the archetype of a thief. We’re not going to discuss that, that’s not the point.
The only thing that makes sense is the witch-hunter concept, which at first glance is not that bad ! But it has way too many flaws.

The only real explanation we got was Jon Peters’ intervention. It is the only time they mentioned the witch-hunter. But it wasn’t convincing in the end. Aside from the fact the pretended “high concept” of the Dragonhunter actually corresponds to a “low concept” (go see definitions), here’s why it’s not working :

• The introduction of the Dragonhunter (blog article and Ready Up) never mentioned anything like a witch-hunter.
  A witch-hunter archetype (or anything resembling) has nothing to do with a big game hunter or any kind of traditionnal hunter with bows and traps. Only common point is the word hunter itself but conceptually they are totally different things.
  Considering Jon Peters talked about the witch-hunter a while after discussions about the spec’s name started, plus the fact that it had never been mentioned before, and because it has no clear link with the previous concept of the big game hunter, I suspect it to be only an excuse. They tried to find some other concept at the last minute trying to make things feel a bit more consistent. It wouldn’t be the first time A.Net tries to find excuses when they realize they made a mistake instead of admitting there is something wrong somehow.
• If it is actually the case, then we should see that nothing has been made around the idea of a witch-hunter archetype or anything related. And that’s precisely how things are.
  When you look at the skills and traits names you realize they only named things with the big game hunter in mind (and also light magic aspect, the only thing that feels Guardian-ish).
  The Dragonhunter is a bottom-up design, which means they decided what would be the mechanics before having a concept and a name. I can see how they can draw a parallel between a Guardian with bow and traps and a classical hunter (even though there is no good reason to link them together as I said earlier), but there is clearly no reason to have interpreted it as a witch-hunter at this point. They just thought hunter because of bows and traps, then added dragons because reasons which made them think about a big game hunter because you know… dragons are big (not all minions btw !)… And made the connection between big game hunter and witch-hunter afterwards.

So now you can see that the only conceptual explanation that could be valid is not even properly integrated into the Dragonhunter ! They went 100% for the big game hunter idea (just as the reveal video showed) and then tried to justify this nonsense with a better fitting concept that is not really a part of the character they developped and doesn’t even fits with the first concept.

Part 2 :

Now considering the witch-hunter idea still could be good, why wouldn’t they keep it and let the spec be a Dragonhunter ?

• First, there are not only dragons to fight. We could totally use this spec without fighting dragons and their minions. Anyway it will happen to all Dragonhunters one day or another, as dragons will be eradicated. Will they stop to use their bows and traps then ? Of course not, that would make no sense…
  Hunting dragons and their minions is not the only thing Dragonhunters do, so why giving them such a precise name when their goals can be so much larger ? It is too specific.
  So if we try to find a similar concept just search for something that represents a person who wants to impose his ideals of justice, and destroy evil forces (NOT ONLY DRAGONS) : we have Inquisitors, or Zealots (other ideas ?) They’re tied to the concept of the Guardian and respect the role of a witch-hunter.
  But where is the support aspect ? A.Net told it’s supposed to be an important part of the spec ! But that’s not reflected in Dragonhunter, in big game hunter, or even in witch-hunter and all the similar archetypes I mentioned.
  So if you take something like Inquisitor and give it a more supportive aspect, something that can directly help people (not only by eradicating or “hunting” ennemies, anyone can do that, even Necromancers !) you could have a Purifier, or Purificator.
  I don’t really see how bows and traps are particularly fitting here, but at least they’re not completely misplaced, it still works.
  If you really want something that has a stronger link with the bow and traps, closer to a real hunter and less to witch-hunter, then Sentinels or Watchers would fit greatly to what the character does while staying in the Guardian theme.

• Secondly, the argument that says that everyone is a dragon hunter is not a bad one. Dragonhunter and dragon hunter aren’t different enough ! Of course I can see in which way they are, but isn’t that a bit confusing ? And we know how A.Net hates to confuse people…
  I think we’ve talked enough about the Pact, everybody wanting to fight dragons, Guardians who have no reasons to be better at this than others and who can’t realistically form one unique faction to fight dragons when there are a lot bigger and more powerful organizations that already exist for that etc…
  But even more important : I’m not only saying that anybody can be dragon hunter, I say that anybody can be a Dragonhunter ! So the concept is both too specific, and too general.
  Let’s see what Jon has to say… :
  “Guardians consider themselves protectors of the innocent. Followers of their faith be it in honor, valor, etc. The origin of the dragonhunter is a more subtle nuanced version of this. Guardians fight for justice and the dragonhunter faction believes justice is the eradication of dragons and their minions.”
  Now my turn ! : “Warriors consider themselves the best fighters against any types of ennemies. They’re masters of warfare, weapons, martial disciplines etc. The origin of the dragonhunter is a more subtle nuanced version of this. Warriors are the mightiest soldiers and the dragonhunter faction belives they’re the most capable of fitghting dragons and their minions using all their martial knowledge and abilities.”
  “Rangers can be condisered as the best hunters of Tyria. Fighting, knowing and using nature in every of its aspects. The origin of dragonhunter is a more subtle nuanced version of this. Rangers are the best when it comes to fight for, with or against nature and the dragonhunter faction believes they are the best candidates to track down and annihilate dragons and their minions to protect the world.”
  I could do it with Thieves, Revenants, or Engineers. Scholars will be harder… But just try to write some short description of Chronomancers, Reapers, and Druids including anything else than their core professions. It will be quite hard.
  It’s probably not the best argument since we could do the same thing for some professions and maybe some future specs (not the ones we know for now though), but if the other aspects are fine, I think I could close my eyes on one little slip like this.
  The problem with Dragonhunter is that they have too many things going wrong, everywhere.

But in the end, as you can see it is not only that the name is quite bad. It is also that we can easily find better ones !