Guild Wars 2

Telling people what you believe doesn’t make it true or make a compelling argument to change anything either.

Obtena.7952:

Tachenon.5270:

Nike.2631:

Dragonhunter didn’t come out of a hat. Its been compared to and overcome probably every dammed name thrown out here and it did it 6 months ago. Is it set in stone? Not for another 3 months, but for pity’s sake UNDERSTAND if you want to change it you’re not going to insult them into action and you’re not gonna get a petition of 18 random posters and 11 bloggers who all like page 1 generic names to change their minds either.

Dragonhunter is a silly name and the concept from which it was derived is incompatible with the setting of GW2.

That’s a great premise, now show it’s true and you might have something worth discussing and a decent reason to change the name.

It doesn’t matter if we show you yet another reason, people like you and Nike refuse to understand.

There is no number of people with the same opinion where it magically becomes fact. It might be widely unpopular but even response on the forum is not a good measure of that. Nike’s got it right on. There is more to changing the name than people not liking it.

Obtena.7952:

There is no magic number of people that turns opinion into facts. Nike’s got it right on. There is more to changing the name than people not liking it.

Yet again, read the kitten comments here, we have MORE than enough reasons and arguments as to why it should be changed.

You all simply refuse to accept it because you think differently, so to you none of our arguments actually matter.

Maybe if someone had a compelling alternative inline with Anet’s concept instead of throwing out derivative synonyms for Guardian as a name, their might be something worth discussing. In fact, if people were less lazy and contributed with an approach like Nike’s thread where he suggests Dragonbane as a name, there is actually a change that Anet might give you some of their time.

The big fail here is that people don’t get or appreciate Anet’s concept for the E-spec or approach to creating that concept. Not knowing or dismissing those things will get you no where if you want your voice heard.

Obtena.7952:

Maybe if someone had a compelling alternative inline with Anet’s concept instead of throwing out derivative synonyms for Guardian as a name, their might be something worth discussing. In fact, if people were less lazy and contributed to Nike’s thread where he suggests Dragonbane as a name, there is actually a change that Anet might give you some of their time.

So because people don’t comment in Nike’s thread, it means that we’re lazy and, yet again, you’re ignoring all the arguments here just to accept your own and Nike’s arguments. I’m done with this, dealing with such blind stupidity is annoying.

Obtena.7952:

Maybe if someone had a compelling alternative inline with Anet’s concept instead of throwing out derivative synonyms for Guardian as a name, their might be something worth discussing. In fact, if people were less lazy and contributed with an approach like Nike’s thread where he suggests Dragonbane as a name, there is actually a change that Anet might give you some of their time.

Obtena is right though, even though he/she is a little rude. There have been compelling proposals(if i remember right) in this thread, but they where ignored by people just repeating “I dont like Dragonhunter, it doesnt fit”. If you want the name changed think of a new one and propose it like Nike did. Heck i even proposed my own in his thread, The Pyrshunter, Pyrs being an old english word for Monster/Giant/Deamon, and while obscure it follows what ANET was aiming for, and IMO sounds rather unique.

Ephemiel.5694:

Obtena.7952:

Maybe if someone had a compelling alternative inline with Anet’s concept instead of throwing out derivative synonyms for Guardian as a name, their might be something worth discussing. In fact, if people were less lazy and contributed to Nike’s thread where he suggests Dragonbane as a name, there is actually a change that Anet might give you some of their time.

So because people don’t comment in Nike’s thread, it means that we’re lazy and, yet again, you’re ignoring all the arguments here just to accept your own and Nike’s arguments. I’m done with this, dealing with such blind stupidity is annoying.

If you don’t get the difference between what Nike has done and what everyone else is doing, I can’t help you. I can only say get used to the name and concept then.

Obtena.7952:

Ephemiel.5694:

Obtena.7952:

Maybe if someone had a compelling alternative inline with Anet’s concept instead of throwing out derivative synonyms for Guardian as a name, their might be something worth discussing. In fact, if people were less lazy and contributed to Nike’s thread where he suggests Dragonbane as a name, there is actually a change that Anet might give you some of their time.

So because people don’t comment in Nike’s thread, it means that we’re lazy and, yet again, you’re ignoring all the arguments here just to accept your own and Nike’s arguments. I’m done with this, dealing with such blind stupidity is annoying.

If you don’t get the difference between what Nike has done and what everyone else is doing, I can’t help you. I can only say get used to the name and concept then.

It’s thanks to people like you two that “anet treats us like idiots”, just so you know.

Is it? That’s cute. If that’s true, maybe people should prove me wrong and put forth a more mature approach to complaining about the name and make suggestions inline with the concept that Anet has created.

You can say you’re right about the bad name/theme all you want but if you aren’t putting forth alternatives in a way that doesn’t waste Anet’s time, then I think your assessment of my role in how Anet treats it’s players is misplaced. Trust me, I’m flattered you think I’m THAT influential but you’re not giving Anet enough credit for much, evident by the way you express your dissatisfaction with the name/theme.

Most all the names suggested are just as inconsistent with the spec play style and lore as Dragonhunter. Seeing all the horrible suggestions, the name “dragonhunter” is starting to grow on me.

I think they maybe just did a poor job of revealing it and should’ve focused more on the story motivations of a dragonhunter rather than make it all cheesy-crowd-pleasey.

Arrk.4102:

Mordeus.1234:

If a Dragonhunter doesn’t hunt dragons does that make him a dragon hunter?

It makes him a wannabe pretentious guy using a title-sounding class name.

How many dragons would a Dragonhunter hunt if a Dragonhunter could hunt dragons?

Anyone?

Obtena.7952:

Is it? That’s cute. If that’s true, maybe people should prove me wrong and put forth a more mature approach to complaining about the name and make suggestions inline with the concept that Anet has created.

You can say you’re right about the bad name/theme all you want but if you aren’t putting forth alternatives in a way that doesn’t waste Anet’s time, then I think your assessment of my role in how Anet treats it’s players is misplaced. Trust me, I’m flattered you think I’m THAT influential but you’re not giving Anet enough credit for much, evident by the way you express your dissatisfaction with the name/theme.

I have said my argument calmly and explained it, so have a few others in this thread but since you refuse to actually read, who cares.

Ephemiel.5694:

I have said my argument calmly and explained it, so have a few others in this thread but since you refuse to actually read, who cares.

Link? I’ll be happy to read it, just less excited about having to dig for it myself .

Nike.2631:

Ephemiel.5694:

I have said my argument calmly and explained it, so have a few others in this thread but since you refuse to actually read, who cares.

Link? I’ll be happy to read it, just less excited about having to dig for it myself .

Should’ve thought of that before you tried to argue for almost 10 pages huh. Look for it yourself.

Obtena.7952:

There is no number of people with the same opinion where it magically becomes fact. It might be widely unpopular but even response on the forum is not a good measure of that. Nike’s got it right on. There is more to changing the name than people not liking it.

This isn’t a matter of fact. It’s a matter of opinion, and clearly JP’s attempt at a justification was not nearly enough to sway the masses. Despite what you might be thinking, your attempts at trying to beat us over the head with it is not helping your cause.

I’ll lay down what i think again and i’ll explain my own view a bit better, i just want this to end already.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/meet-the-dragonhunter-guardians-elite-specialization/

“the dragonhunter—a ferocious big-game hunter that specializes in ranged combat and back-line support.” This is how the Dragonhunter is described as [already kinda strange that the big-game HUNTER specializes in supporting, but meh].

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/guardian/Liked-the-ready-up-name-still-doesn-t-fit/first#post5048195

“We went with this name because we felt it was evocative of the medieval witch hunters.” Uhh, ok. From big-game hunter to medieval witch hunter. Unless witches are big game, there’s something off here.

“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. I understand this is a lot more high concept than Mesmer but at the end of the day we felt like we wanted to try and push a more mature theme here. I hope this helps explain our thinking. We had other generic names in mind but felt like it was important to have a mix of spec names that are generic fantasy, more Tyrian fantasy, and more high concept. This one falls more in the third category.”

Why would why, out of nowhere, suddenly change from big-game hunter or witch hunter? He even admitted that it is " a lot more high concept than Mesmer". Why? Why make one of them so different, again, out of nowhere?

He mentions that the name fell more in the “high concept” category. HOW? In generic fantasy, nothing would draw a Guardian archetype [think Knight, Paladin and the like] into picking up a bow and use traps [something reserved usually for Rogues/Thieves/Assassins or Hunters/Rangers]. In Tyrian fantasy, nothing would draw a Guardian to pick up a bow and use traps either.

Can you really imagine a Guardian, who is described as “devoted fighters who protect their allies and smite their enemies by drawing from the power of their virtues” to forsake that? Or even imagine them, who are shown usually with a mace or sword and a shield, to forget that and just learn the bow?

Now for the name? They’re called Dragonhunters. Here’s the issue with that name in my opinion: WE ARE ALL DRAGONHUNTERS. That’s what we’ve all been doing since we created our characters, especially if you’re Sylvari since you have a Wyld Hunt to destroy the dragons. Why name them this? What “high concept” drove this name? What makes them specifically dragonhunters when a Human Warrior or a Charr Mesmer or a Sylvari Thief would also be fighting them?

Naming them anything else, Inquisitor, Sentinel, Watcher imo [since he now fights in the back line and offering support, Watcher for me makes a bit more sense], it’d all make more sense. Since someone mentioned Dragonsbane, that kinda sounds like the name of a weapon or a title, not a full spec for a profession like Guardian.

Man that was long.

purecontact.1680:

I don’t like Dragonhunter, here is why :

First point:
I think this name doesn’t fit in the guardian’s archetype

Hunter is in the rogue archetype.
Guardian is in the soldier archetype.

No matter how you twist it, the “hunter” name will stay in the rogue archetype.

You can make a hunter wearing heavy armor, using mace and shield or light magic, it will always be in the rogue archetype:
“Hunter” is connoted and you can’t break this connotation just because of your background: it won’t fit better to a soldier than a rogue archetype.

Second point:
It is very hard to justify this name

Dragon is a specific enemy.
By using this prefix, you close a lot of doors.
I see a centaur attacking my allies but nope, I won’t kill it because it is set in stone: I’m a Dragonhunter/slayer/bane/knight/whatever
I got that Dragon means Evil in Tyria but Witch hunter didn’t hunt bandits or scoundrels and as I have my root in the Guardian’s archetype, I have to keep defending people from this kind of enemies (or hunt them, the main purpose of this spec).

The only way to justify that a Dragoninsertname attack something which isn’t related to Dragon is to say that you have draconic magic in the game and a specialization use this magic.
It can fit with Silvary but it won’t fit with any of the other races.

Third point:
It is a very confusing name

Dragonhunter is both generic and specific.

It’s generic because like a lot people said : we tracked mordremoth during season 2 and that make all of us dragonhunter.

It’s very specific because you gave this class a specific goal : hunting dragons (and all their minions) and like I said before, it closes doors.

Why Sentinel should prevail:

Gameplay
Sentinel adapts to the soldier archetype.
Sentinel wears heavy armour and a longbow.
Sentinel sets traps to defend his camp.
Sentinel tracks intruders.

Background
Sentinels are border guard.
During wartime however the Border guard withdraw from the Border outposts and provide assistance in a limited capacity to the country’s regular army.
Wartime assistance of the Border guard to the Army is essential as they are familiar with the local terrain having patrolled it on a daily basis during peacetime.

It makes sense:
We are in a war against mordremoth, Guardian pursue mordrem intruders from inside frontier to the maguuma jungle.
They have to specialize themselves into Sentinels, becoming familiar with jungle threats.

As a sentinel, you learned how to prepare a battleground efficiently (traps) and how to always keep an advantage on your enemies (longbow).
Moreover, your mastery in this specialization allows you to keep enemies under control until allies comes (immobilize, cripple, stun).

As as sentinel, you’re not a lonely hunter tracking dragons/enemies, you’re a part of a team.

Extra!
-There is no religious connotation.
-It is flat enough to set up the roleplay that the player want.

Have another +1, this is really capturing all the reasons why Dragonhunter as a name should be changed.
And I like the reasoning for Sentinel as well.

Anet, pls? Can we have a word from you, are you going to listen to your fans… coming close to 2000 replies now, and you keep saying all things aren’t final in your preview streams, so surely you can adapt to make the guardian elite spec a popular choice too?

Why is this still such a big issue? I don’t know what happened that made gaming communities (especially mmo communities) feel so freaking entitled. A book doesn’t drop and the main character die and you see everyone crying on forums for them to rewrite books. People don’t die and movies and people say refilm it. Do you know why they don’t?
Because its their creative vision made into their chosen medium. Its not your call. If there are balancing changes, bugs, or exploits you want to bring to their attention that is what the forums are for, they should fix that but the

“We don’t like this you should change it because……well because we said so” Is so dumb and not only negative to this game, but to every game made as well as our culture in general.

You are very much welcome to bring back your input about if you did or didn’t like the name but the expectation that because you or how ever many people didn’t like it that they should change it is absurd.

It wasn’t too long ago that devs going against the grain was praised for their fresh idea and i personally am not a huge fan of dragon hunter but i also don’t want rehashed sentinels, paragons, paladin, crusader, ect ect I would personally prefer the chance to let the name grow on me.

Obtena.7952:

Genesis.8572:

Nike, could you try being at least fifty percent less patronizing? Thanks.

Against the ignorance that most people demonstrate, I think he’s holding back. People underestimate the amount of work and thinking that have gone behind this name, regardless of what we think of it and it’s actually pretty insulting to the devs seeing the way I’ve seen most people marginalize and critique the work. Nike speaks with a solid knowledge of these things.

And you know what? That’s sad that so much work in such poor quality. I recognize that a lot of work went into such a poor concept. But just because a lot of work went into the concept does not mean that the result materialized as quality. I think that that thought they had a real “crowd pleaser” but it turned out that just having a guardian plus a bow and a thinly spread concept was not a crowd pleaser. I think that ArenaNet can do better. I trust that ArenaNet can do better. I know that ArenaNet can do better. ‘Dragonhunter’ is not the best they can produce as a concept. And that’s the ArenaNet that I want and expect. Not some half-effort product, but ArenaNet at its best. An ArenaNet that wants to inspire its constituency into fantastical game play.

Nike.2631:

I think it’s pretty clear they DON’T want the E-specs to be considered close to the base profession. Its not supposed to evoke “more Guardian” its supposed to evoke “something new (that shares some techniques with Guardians)”

By the way, I’m hoping that “e-spec” is my greatest contribution to the nomenclature of elite specialization discussion. It may have been used before me. I don’t know. I just know that I have pushed this particular shorthand, so I’m glad to see you use it.

So, after over two weeks and having read through the thread (admittedly skipping most of the recent posts) I guess I’ll post my favorite suggestions once more, fitting the theme ANet has provided.

• Dragonslayer
• Inquisitor
• Vanquisher

Kentrey.3251:

Why is this still such a big issue? I don’t know what happened that made gaming communities (especially mmo communities) feel so freaking entitled. A book doesn’t drop and the main character die and you see everyone crying on forums for them to rewrite books. People don’t die and movies and people say refilm it.

Poor comparison here.
You can hardly redo a film or a book, but you can easily bring some changes to a video game. Especially when it is still in development. However, it may happen that some films have alternative endings or that sort of things, and books get reedited with some changes.
Anyway we’re not talking about the entire game. Games, mostly MMOs, give us that great possibility to go back on almost anything, even after launch. Since it is just a detail that is probably not even finished, I can’t see how they couldn’t change it.
It’s nothing like redoing the whole game and selling it a second time in a “reworked” version.

Kentrey.3251:

Do you know why they don’t?
Because its their creative vision made into their chosen medium. Its not your call. If there are balancing changes, bugs, or exploits you want to bring to their attention that is what the forums are for, they should fix that but the

“We don’t like this you should change it because……well because we said so” Is so dumb and not only negative to this game, but to every game made as well as our culture in general.

I think we gave enough arguments. It’s not “because we said so”. Anyway, if a large amount of people dislike something, it is probably the n°1 reason to change that thing. Arguments are just there to give more weight, not the reasons to make the change happen. And the fact that you are personally responsive to them or not doesn’t matter.

You shouldn’t tell us what we have the right to discuss or not. Gameplay, content, story etc… all are things we can discuss and we have the right to suggest changes.
Feel free to beliebve that only bugs, exploits and balance have to be touched. But there is no reason we shouldn’t talk about the rest too.

Kentrey.3251:

You are very much welcome to bring back your input about if you did or didn’t like the name but the expectation that because you or how ever many people didn’t like it that they should change it is absurd.

Well, if we think something is bad, we can tell them, right ?
Now if they’re actually asking for feedback, we have the right to judge what they did.
And since everything is still in development, it is certainly not absurd to expect some things to change. Because that’s what feedback is for.

Kentrey.3251:

It wasn’t too long ago that devs going against the grain was praised for their fresh idea and i personally am not a huge fan of dragon hunter but i also don’t want rehashed sentinels, paragons, paladin, crusader, ect ect I would personally prefer the chance to let the name grow on me.

There’s a huge gap between making something quite original, well made and coherent, and something definitely new but inconsistent and absolutely not in the same vein as what they did before.

Genesis.8572:

And you know what? That’s sad that so much work in such poor quality. I recognize that a lot of work went into such a poor concept. But just because a lot of work went into the concept does not mean that the result materialized as quality. I think that that thought they had a real “crowd pleaser” but it turned out that just having a guardian plus a bow and a thinly spread concept was not a crowd pleaser. I think that ArenaNet can do better. I trust that ArenaNet can do better. I know that ArenaNet can do better. ‘Dragonhunter’ is not the best they can produce as a concept. And that’s the ArenaNet that I want and expect. Not some half-effort product, but ArenaNet at its best. An ArenaNet that wants to inspire its constituency into fantastical game play.

My personal opinion is that they probably didn’t work on the name and the theme that goes with the DH more than 10 minutes. I could be wrong though, but I prefer to believe they scamped that instead of thinking they really worked hard for such a clunky result. In other words, I prefer to believe it was just a mistake and they’re still able to make something better instead of considering they’re just bad at this anyway.
I don’t want to insult anyone, but that’s really how I feel about the DH.

Ephemiel.5694:

Obtena.7952:

Genesis.8572:

Nike, could you try being at least fifty percent less patronizing? Thanks.

Against the ignorance that most people demonstrate, I think he’s holding back. People underestimate the amount of work and thinking that have gone behind this name, regardless of what we think of it and it’s actually pretty insulting to the devs seeing the way I’ve seen most people marginalize and critique the work. Nike speaks with a solid knowledge of these things.

….yeah, i can imagine the “work” that went into the name when the fans are poking holes all over what they said and even thinking of superior ideas.

Can people like you and Nike PLEASE stop defending Anet for no reason and at least accept they screwed this up? They didn’t spend work AT ALL with this name and background, just look at this thread and you’d easily realize that.

“Poking holes?” “Superior ideas?” Who says they’re superior? What holes?

Just because you and other people don’t like the name doesn’t mean it’s a bad name or that there are “holes” in it. Reading through many of the pages of complaints here, a lot of the people complaining sound very ignorant.

Ephemiel.5694:

You all simply refuse to accept it because you think differently, so to you none of our arguments actually matter.

That’s pretty hypocritical. I don’t see why the name is bad. Dragons are big and bad things that are plaguing the land. It makes sense that some people would make a crusade out of hunting dragons. That doesn’t mean they’re going to go slay a dragon on their own. Guardians gain their power through faith/devotion (even if it’s not that faith/devotion that supplies the power, it’s apparently how they access it). Their devotion to their cause, saving the world and its people and taking down the dragons (or maybe even just getting revenge for those lost) results in the access Dragon Hunters have to their magic and gives them their name.

I fail to see how “Dragon Hunter” is a bad name, particularly for a heavy-armor profession in a setting where dragons plague the world and threaten to overcome its population.

I really wish they would have tied in each of the elite specs with the story like they did with Necro’s and Marjory. That said, I think “Reaper” is of the bad quality people here seem to want. It’s not specific, nor does it seem to have anything to do with the spec. It’s just a “cool” name that carries on the death and darkness theme of “necromancer.”

Tachenon.5270:

Nike.2631:

Dragonhunter didn’t come out of a hat. Its been compared to and overcome probably every dammed name thrown out here and it did it 6 months ago. Is it set in stone? Not for another 3 months, but for pity’s sake UNDERSTAND if you want to change it you’re not going to insult them into action and you’re not gonna get a petition of 18 random posters and 11 bloggers who all like page 1 generic names to change their minds either.

Dragonhunter is a silly name and the concept from which it was derived is incompatible with the setting of GW2.

Wish they would of just called it Shaitan instead of Zhaitan there not fooling any one

purecontact.1680:

I don’t like Dragonhunter, here is why :

First point:
I think this name doesn’t fit in the guardian’s archetype

Hunter is in the rogue archetype.
Guardian is in the soldier archetype.

No matter how you twist it, the “hunter” name will stay in the rogue archetype.

You can make a hunter wearing heavy armor, using mace and shield or light magic, it will always be in the rogue archetype:
“Hunter” is connoted and you can’t break this connotation just because of your background: it won’t fit better to a soldier than a rogue archetype.

Second point:
It is very hard to justify this name

Dragon is a specific enemy.
By using this prefix, you close a lot of doors.
I see a centaur attacking my allies but nope, I won’t kill it because it is set in stone: I’m a Dragonhunter/slayer/bane/knight/whatever
I got that Dragon means Evil in Tyria but Witch hunter didn’t hunt bandits or scoundrels and as I have my root in the Guardian’s archetype, I have to keep defending people from this kind of enemies (or hunt them, the main purpose of this spec).

The only way to justify that a Dragoninsertname attack something which isn’t related to Dragon is to say that you have draconic magic in the game and a specialization use this magic.
It can fit with Silvary but it won’t fit with any of the other races.

Third point:
It is a very confusing name

Dragonhunter is both generic and specific.

It’s generic because like a lot people said : we tracked mordremoth during season 2 and that make all of us dragonhunter.

It’s very specific because you gave this class a specific goal : hunting dragons (and all their minions) and like I said before, it closes doors.

Why Sentinel should prevail:

Gameplay
Sentinel adapts to the soldier archetype.
Sentinel wears heavy armour and a longbow.
Sentinel sets traps to defend his camp.
Sentinel tracks intruders.

Background
Sentinels are border guard.
During wartime however the Border guard withdraw from the Border outposts and provide assistance in a limited capacity to the country’s regular army.
Wartime assistance of the Border guard to the Army is essential as they are familiar with the local terrain having patrolled it on a daily basis during peacetime.

It makes sense:
We are in a war against mordremoth, Guardian pursue mordrem intruders from inside frontier to the maguuma jungle.
They have to specialize themselves into Sentinels, becoming familiar with jungle threats.

As a sentinel, you learned how to prepare a battleground efficiently (traps) and how to always keep an advantage on your enemies (longbow).
Moreover, your mastery in this specialization allows you to keep enemies under control until allies comes (immobilize, cripple, stun).

As as sentinel, you’re not a lonely hunter tracking dragons/enemies, you’re a part of a team.

Extra!
-There is no religious connotation.
-It is flat enough to set up the roleplay that the player want.

+1, totally agree with this!

purecontact.1680:

I don’t like Dragonhunter, here is why :

First point:
I think this name doesn’t fit in the guardian’s archetype

Hunter is in the rogue archetype.
Guardian is in the soldier archetype.

No matter how you twist it, the “hunter” name will stay in the rogue archetype.

You can make a hunter wearing heavy armor, using mace and shield or light magic, it will always be in the rogue archetype:
“Hunter” is connoted and you can’t break this connotation just because of your background: it won’t fit better to a soldier than a rogue archetype.

Second point:
It is very hard to justify this name

Dragon is a specific enemy.
By using this prefix, you close a lot of doors.
I see a centaur attacking my allies but nope, I won’t kill it because it is set in stone: I’m a Dragonhunter/slayer/bane/knight/whatever
I got that Dragon means Evil in Tyria but Witch hunter didn’t hunt bandits or scoundrels and as I have my root in the Guardian’s archetype, I have to keep defending people from this kind of enemies (or hunt them, the main purpose of this spec).

The only way to justify that a Dragoninsertname attack something which isn’t related to Dragon is to say that you have draconic magic in the game and a specialization use this magic.
It can fit with Silvary but it won’t fit with any of the other races.

Third point:
It is a very confusing name

Dragonhunter is both generic and specific.

It’s generic because like a lot people said : we tracked mordremoth during season 2 and that make all of us dragonhunter.

It’s very specific because you gave this class a specific goal : hunting dragons (and all their minions) and like I said before, it closes doors.

Why Sentinel should prevail:

Gameplay
Sentinel adapts to the soldier archetype.
Sentinel wears heavy armour and a longbow.
Sentinel sets traps to defend his camp.
Sentinel tracks intruders.

Background
Sentinels are border guard.
During wartime however the Border guard withdraw from the Border outposts and provide assistance in a limited capacity to the country’s regular army.
Wartime assistance of the Border guard to the Army is essential as they are familiar with the local terrain having patrolled it on a daily basis during peacetime.

It makes sense:
We are in a war against mordremoth, Guardian pursue mordrem intruders from inside frontier to the maguuma jungle.
They have to specialize themselves into Sentinels, becoming familiar with jungle threats.

As a sentinel, you learned how to prepare a battleground efficiently (traps) and how to always keep an advantage on your enemies (longbow).
Moreover, your mastery in this specialization allows you to keep enemies under control until allies comes (immobilize, cripple, stun).

As as sentinel, you’re not a lonely hunter tracking dragons/enemies, you’re a part of a team.

Extra!
-There is no religious connotation.
-It is flat enough to set up the roleplay that the player want.

I like Sentinel and you listed good reasons why it’s a good name.

However, I also don’t mind Dragon Hunter and I think you listed pretty bad reasons for it being a bad name. Things like the connotation attached to “hunter” and making it seem as though you only fight dragons and nothing else are really reaching. You either are just very limited in your thinking and considerations or you are purposefully scrounging and reaching for reasons to dislike it.

Would have been a much better post without those weak arguments against Dragon Hunter and instead just the stronger arguments in favor of Sentinel.

I feel like that is so many of these posts. There are some good suggestions, but then people make their post or points silly by arguing that it’s a bad name when it’s really a fine name, just not the absolute best that could be given (in the same vein that some of the other elite spec names aren’t really the best they could be).

Oolune.4357:

I feel like that is so many of these posts. There are some good suggestions, but then people make their post or points silly by arguing that it’s a bad name when it’s really a fine name, just not the absolute best that could be given (in the same vein that some of the other elite spec names aren’t really the best they could be).

Pretty much what Obtena said, just without the rudeness! its the(well most of the peoples in this forums opinion) that its a bad name, its not a fact really, just their opinion and i dont think it can hurt to throw out suggestions for a different one, they just need to be presented as the one you quoted, if they want to be taken seriously, why i havent really thrown out any more names, just listing a name isnt good enough.

Oolune.4357:

Just because you and other people don’t like the name doesn’t mean it’s a bad name or that there are “holes” in it. Reading through many of the pages of complaints here, a lot of the people complaining sound very ignorant.

[SNIP]

I fail to see how “Dragon Hunter” is a bad name, particularly for a heavy-armor profession in a setting where dragons plague the world and threaten to overcome its population.

For me personally, I find the name poor because of how it relates to the class. Just because a class is heavy, doesn’t mean that it seeks battle. Guardians, feel to me like defenders and care taking warriors, not hunters or glory seekers.

Dragon Hunter just feels like something Warriors and (from what I have seen) Revenants would attach to themselves. Guardians seem more like guardians of the weak not hunters of the mighty.

Much of the guardians abilities are aimed at protection, defense and aid.

I think if you have read through the many complaints, you would see that there are some well thought out ones as well. There are some good ones in defense of the name too.

Overall, IMO, “Dragon Hunter” just doesn’t fit the feel of the class itself. Heavy or not.

And to address another of your posts, whether or not Dragon Hunter is “a fine name” or not as you have purported is also merely an opinion like the ones that have suggested that it is not.

Just a note to all the new people in this thread. There is no such thing as a Dragon Hunter. It’s Dragonhunter.
In my honest opinion, I gave up. Name it whatever the kitten you want. Some people will still defend ANet to the bitter end.

jheryn.8390:

And to address another of your posts, whether or not Dragon Hunter is “a fine name” or not as you have purported is also merely an opinion like the ones that have suggested that it is not.

It’s definitely an opinion that it’s a good name, I don’t think that it’s an opinion that it is a name that works, though. Which is why I endeavored to debunk some of the complaints about how it somehow doesn’t fit Guardian.

Arrk.4102:

Just a note to all the new people in this thread. There is no such thing as a Dragon Hunter. It’s Dragonhunter.
In my honest opinion, I gave up. Name it whatever the kitten you want. Some people will still defend ANet to the bitter end.

Just like some people will always find something to complain and make a fuss over.

Oolune.4357:

jheryn.8390:

And to address another of your posts, whether or not Dragon Hunter is “a fine name” or not as you have purported is also merely an opinion like the ones that have suggested that it is not.

It’s definitely an opinion that it’s a good name, I don’t think that it’s an opinion that it is a name that works, though. Which is why I endeavored to debunk some of the complaints about how it somehow doesn’t fit Guardian.

I guess on this we will have to agree to disagree. I think it certainly is an opinion that the name does, in fact, work for the class. And I am not alone in this thinking by many of the well thought out objections here. In Anet’s and some people’s opinion it obviously works, however.

Everybody is welcome to their opinions. I know you feel that it isn’t an opinion that the name works. I simply disagree about that point. And that’s OK. We are both allowed to think as we wish.

jheryn.8390:

Oolune.4357:

jheryn.8390:

And to address another of your posts, whether or not Dragon Hunter is “a fine name” or not as you have purported is also merely an opinion like the ones that have suggested that it is not.

It’s definitely an opinion that it’s a good name, I don’t think that it’s an opinion that it is a name that works, though. Which is why I endeavored to debunk some of the complaints about how it somehow doesn’t fit Guardian.

I guess on this we will have to agree to disagree. I think it certainly is an opinion that the name does, in fact, work for the class. And I am not alone in this thinking by many of the well thought out objections here. In Anet’s and some people’s opinion it obviously works, however.

Everybody is welcome to their opinions. I know you feel that it isn’t an opinion that the name works. I simply disagree about that point. And that’s OK. We are both allowed to think as we wish.

Do you think it is an opinion that elementalist is a fitting name for the elementalist profession? Or warrior for warrior? I think you may still be confusing me saying the name works with me commenting on the quality of it. All I’m saying is that their are plenty of things in the game and in the profession that make the name work. It’s not an opinion that those things exist or how they relate to the profession. Whether or not that makes it a great name/the best name out there is a matter of opinion.

People have explained why they don’t like the name or the concept and STILL there’s people whose argument is “i disagree with you”, that’s it.

Just how are there people comparing a video game, a bunch of data and code that can be quite easily changed, to a book? Of course you can’t tell an author of a book that something sucks or is wrong and to change it, especially after the book came out already, but guess what? THIS IS AN MMORPG expansion, in BETA. Anet has more than enough time to change this.

Do you think that because you made or wrote something it means that you’re beyond criticism? You’re not.

A few people here have said that the Dragonhunter is a name that fits. NONE of you have mentioned WHY it fits in your own opinions, you simply say it does and that our arguments about why it doesn’t are wrong.

Arrk.4102:

Just a note to all the new people in this thread. There is no such thing as a Dragon Hunter. It’s Dragonhunter.
In my honest opinion, I gave up. Name it whatever the kitten you want. Some people will still defend ANet to the bitter end.

I heard it once and i call it as such, it’s called being a drone. In this case, it’s people who are so blind that they defend a game company through all their mistakes. Games like WoW have a ton of them and apparently GW2 does too.

Oolune.4357:

jheryn.8390:

Oolune.4357:

jheryn.8390:

And to address another of your posts, whether or not Dragon Hunter is “a fine name” or not as you have purported is also merely an opinion like the ones that have suggested that it is not.

It’s definitely an opinion that it’s a good name, I don’t think that it’s an opinion that it is a name that works, though. Which is why I endeavored to debunk some of the complaints about how it somehow doesn’t fit Guardian.

I guess on this we will have to agree to disagree. I think it certainly is an opinion that the name does, in fact, work for the class. And I am not alone in this thinking by many of the well thought out objections here. In Anet’s and some people’s opinion it obviously works, however.

Everybody is welcome to their opinions. I know you feel that it isn’t an opinion that the name works. I simply disagree about that point. And that’s OK. We are both allowed to think as we wish.

Do you think it is an opinion that elementalist is a fitting name for the elementalist profession? Or warrior for warrior? I think you may still be confusing me saying the name works with me commenting on the quality of it. All I’m saying is that their are plenty of things in the game and in the profession that make the name work. It’s not an opinion that those things exist or how they relate to the profession. Whether or not that makes it a great name/the best name out there is a matter of opinion.

No, I’m not confusing the issue. I think ele and warrior are both names that work for each respective class.

I do not believe, and have seen no evidence that convinces me, that Dragonhunter works for a Guardian specialization. And yes, I have read the entire thread.

I understand you think there is evidence that shows the name works for a guardian. I do not. So therefore, until everyone agrees (and I mean everyone) that the name works, it is just opinion that it does. It is subjective thought. Everyone can make their case as to why the name does or does not work. Which is right? Both. Neither.

I have my thoughts on why it does not work. You have yours on why it does. Until we can both agree, at least on middle ground, it is just simply opinion on both our parts.

Ephemiel.5694:

Arrk.4102:

Just a note to all the new people in this thread. There is no such thing as a Dragon Hunter. It’s Dragonhunter.
In my honest opinion, I gave up. Name it whatever the kitten you want. Some people will still defend ANet to the bitter end.

I heard it once and i call it as such, it’s called being a drone. In this case, it’s people who are so blind that they defend the game company through all their mistakes. Games like WoW have a ton of them and apparently GW2 does too.

I’m not one of those people, but to be fair, there are just as many who are never happy with anything the company does. Those people are just as annoying.

jheryn.8390:

Oolune.4357:

jheryn.8390:

Oolune.4357:

jheryn.8390:

And to address another of your posts, whether or not Dragon Hunter is “a fine name” or not as you have purported is also merely an opinion like the ones that have suggested that it is not.

It’s definitely an opinion that it’s a good name, I don’t think that it’s an opinion that it is a name that works, though. Which is why I endeavored to debunk some of the complaints about how it somehow doesn’t fit Guardian.

I guess on this we will have to agree to disagree. I think it certainly is an opinion that the name does, in fact, work for the class. And I am not alone in this thinking by many of the well thought out objections here. In Anet’s and some people’s opinion it obviously works, however.

Everybody is welcome to their opinions. I know you feel that it isn’t an opinion that the name works. I simply disagree about that point. And that’s OK. We are both allowed to think as we wish.

Do you think it is an opinion that elementalist is a fitting name for the elementalist profession? Or warrior for warrior? I think you may still be confusing me saying the name works with me commenting on the quality of it. All I’m saying is that their are plenty of things in the game and in the profession that make the name work. It’s not an opinion that those things exist or how they relate to the profession. Whether or not that makes it a great name/the best name out there is a matter of opinion.

No, I’m not confusing the issue. I think ele and warrior are both names that work for each respective class.

I do not believe, and have seen no evidence that convinces me, that Dragonhunter works for a Guardian specialization. And yes, I have read the entire thread.

I understand you think there is evidence that shows the name works for a guardian. I do not. So therefore, until everyone agrees (and I mean everyone) that the name works, it is just opinion that it does. It is subjective thought. Everyone can make their case as to why the name does or does not work. Which is right? Both. Neither.

I have my thoughts on why it does not work. You have yours on why it does. Until we can both agree, at least on middle ground, it is just simply opinion on both our parts.

Honestly, i’ve seen no real arguments saying it does work. All i see is people like me saying it doesn’t and others saying “it DOES work, shut up” without any arguments to prove that point.

Ephemiel.5694:

jheryn.8390:

Oolune.4357:

jheryn.8390:

Oolune.4357:

jheryn.8390:

And to address another of your posts, whether or not Dragon Hunter is “a fine name” or not as you have purported is also merely an opinion like the ones that have suggested that it is not.

It’s definitely an opinion that it’s a good name, I don’t think that it’s an opinion that it is a name that works, though. Which is why I endeavored to debunk some of the complaints about how it somehow doesn’t fit Guardian.

I guess on this we will have to agree to disagree. I think it certainly is an opinion that the name does, in fact, work for the class. And I am not alone in this thinking by many of the well thought out objections here. In Anet’s and some people’s opinion it obviously works, however.

Everybody is welcome to their opinions. I know you feel that it isn’t an opinion that the name works. I simply disagree about that point. And that’s OK. We are both allowed to think as we wish.

Do you think it is an opinion that elementalist is a fitting name for the elementalist profession? Or warrior for warrior? I think you may still be confusing me saying the name works with me commenting on the quality of it. All I’m saying is that their are plenty of things in the game and in the profession that make the name work. It’s not an opinion that those things exist or how they relate to the profession. Whether or not that makes it a great name/the best name out there is a matter of opinion.

No, I’m not confusing the issue. I think ele and warrior are both names that work for each respective class.

I do not believe, and have seen no evidence that convinces me, that Dragonhunter works for a Guardian specialization. And yes, I have read the entire thread.

I understand you think there is evidence that shows the name works for a guardian. I do not. So therefore, until everyone agrees (and I mean everyone) that the name works, it is just opinion that it does. It is subjective thought. Everyone can make their case as to why the name does or does not work. Which is right? Both. Neither.

I have my thoughts on why it does not work. You have yours on why it does. Until we can both agree, at least on middle ground, it is just simply opinion on both our parts.

Honestly, i’ve seen no real arguments saying it does work. All i see is people like me saying it doesn’t and others saying “it DOES work, shut up” without any arguments to prove that point.

Sorry Ephemiel, but you’ve done almost nothing but tell everyone else that their opinions are wrong and for them to “shut up”, so I wouldn’t ride that high horse. In fact, you are the one who does it the most out of anybody else in this thread. Reading through the past 5 pages or so, nearly every post you made in response to another has ended with some form of “face it, your argument is bad/holds no ground and therefore you should stop”. Regardless of how you personally feel about the name, it doesn’t change the fact that, yes, people have in fact brought forth evidence for why it is good, bad, or somewhere in between. If you choose to ignore it then that is your prerogative. Don’t be so intellectually dishonest as to say that nobody has brought forth arguments that differ from yours.

A difference in preference (i.e. opinion) is not “not having a real argument”.

Since the number one thing our characters are going to be doing in their lifetimes is hunt the elder dragons down and kill them, I think this name is fairly appropriate. I like the way it sounds and I like the focus on the greatest threat to Tyria of our time.

Celtic Lady.3729:

Since the number one thing our characters are going to be doing in their lifetimes is hunt the elder dragons down and kill them, I think this name is fairly appropriate. I like the way it sounds and I like the focus on the greatest threat to Tyria of our time.

It also applies to every player-made Sylvari, regardless of class. More power to Sylvari Guardians, I guess, or else your life is now an odd contradiction.

Ephemiel.5694:

People have explained why they don’t like the name or the concept and STILL there’s people whose argument is “i disagree with you”, that’s it.

Just how are there people comparing a video game, a bunch of data and code that can be quite easily changed, to a book? Of course you can’t tell an author of a book that something sucks or is wrong and to change it, especially after the book came out already, but guess what? THIS IS AN MMORPG expansion, in BETA. Anet has more than enough time to change this.

Do you think that because you made or wrote something it means that you’re beyond criticism? You’re not.

A few people here have said that the Dragonhunter is a name that fits. NONE of you have mentioned WHY it fits in your own opinions, you simply say it does and that our arguments about why it doesn’t are wrong.

You clearly need to go back and read if you think no one has explained why it fits.

jheryn.8390:

Oolune.4357:

jheryn.8390:

Oolune.4357:

jheryn.8390:

And to address another of your posts, whether or not Dragon Hunter is “a fine name” or not as you have purported is also merely an opinion like the ones that have suggested that it is not.

It’s definitely an opinion that it’s a good name, I don’t think that it’s an opinion that it is a name that works, though. Which is why I endeavored to debunk some of the complaints about how it somehow doesn’t fit Guardian.

I guess on this we will have to agree to disagree. I think it certainly is an opinion that the name does, in fact, work for the class. And I am not alone in this thinking by many of the well thought out objections here. In Anet’s and some people’s opinion it obviously works, however.

Everybody is welcome to their opinions. I know you feel that it isn’t an opinion that the name works. I simply disagree about that point. And that’s OK. We are both allowed to think as we wish.

Do you think it is an opinion that elementalist is a fitting name for the elementalist profession? Or warrior for warrior? I think you may still be confusing me saying the name works with me commenting on the quality of it. All I’m saying is that their are plenty of things in the game and in the profession that make the name work. It’s not an opinion that those things exist or how they relate to the profession. Whether or not that makes it a great name/the best name out there is a matter of opinion.

No, I’m not confusing the issue. I think ele and warrior are both names that work for each respective class.

I do not believe, and have seen no evidence that convinces me, that Dragonhunter works for a Guardian specialization. And yes, I have read the entire thread.

I understand you think there is evidence that shows the name works for a guardian. I do not. So therefore, until everyone agrees (and I mean everyone) that the name works, it is just opinion that it does. It is subjective thought. Everyone can make their case as to why the name does or does not work. Which is right? Both. Neither.

I have my thoughts on why it does not work. You have yours on why it does. Until we can both agree, at least on middle ground, it is just simply opinion on both our parts.

That’s not how you define an opinion. An opinion isn’t just something people can’t agree upon, and something everyone agrees upon isn’t simply fact.

Also, I didn’t ask if you thought they fit. I asked if you thought it was an opinion that they fit.

The specs specified for this ‘dragonhunter’ — the longbow and traps — seem more appropriate for a ‘guerrilla’ type soldier than anything else. Rather than ‘hunting’ for enemy forces, which would benefit from some sort of tracking skill --

eh? ya think?

— these guys seem best equipped to harass enemies via hit and run tactics. Some pew pew from cover to draw them out, some traps to mess with ’em when they do. A lot like a ranger, or even a thief, I guess, but whatever. Then again, the heavy armor kinda gets in the way of that, so… huh.

So, anyway, what are some names that might reflect/indicate/inform a guerilla style guardian?

How about commando?

When you confront any product, and specially when that product is a media and/or art creature, you can evaluate it by 3 criteria:
- By “Taste” which is exclusively personal and useless as a reference for other people or for the creators to make any improvement.
- By “Technical Quality” wich requires a set of objetivable parameters you can track and compare and can fail to give you a proper understanding of the creation, no matter how thorough you are in the measurement.
- By “Popularity” wich will only let you know how accepted is the product, but will lack any info on quality or content, because the masses are dumb.

Taking account of this, you will see a name could be either incredibly difficult to evaluate, or incredibly easy. It is difficult if you try to be “rational”, “aesthetic” or “profesional”. By the technical quality or by the taste parameter you could have whole centurys of dissagreement and get to nothing.

By the popularity method, however, you have just to use the controversial “common sense” just a few seconds.

So, is the “Dragonhunter” a bad name? I don’t know. For my taste and my limited knowing of technical quality in this area, I think it is incredibly awful.

By popularity, WE DON’T KNOW. Here in the forums, it is widely despised. But it is possible ANet has made some measuring in other places, like on focus groups or something like that, where the name effectively works.

So, if someone have numbers for popularity, we can take the easy route and say if this is the commercial, cheap yet highly marketable garbage most people love to buy, or is it is just the normal old style useless garbage.

Ephemiel.5694:

jheryn.8390:

Oolune.4357:

jheryn.8390:

Oolune.4357:

jheryn.8390:

And to address another of your posts, whether or not Dragon Hunter is “a fine name” or not as you have purported is also merely an opinion like the ones that have suggested that it is not.

It’s definitely an opinion that it’s a good name, I don’t think that it’s an opinion that it is a name that works, though. Which is why I endeavored to debunk some of the complaints about how it somehow doesn’t fit Guardian.

I guess on this we will have to agree to disagree. I think it certainly is an opinion that the name does, in fact, work for the class. And I am not alone in this thinking by many of the well thought out objections here. In Anet’s and some people’s opinion it obviously works, however.

Everybody is welcome to their opinions. I know you feel that it isn’t an opinion that the name works. I simply disagree about that point. And that’s OK. We are both allowed to think as we wish.

Do you think it is an opinion that elementalist is a fitting name for the elementalist profession? Or warrior for warrior? I think you may still be confusing me saying the name works with me commenting on the quality of it. All I’m saying is that their are plenty of things in the game and in the profession that make the name work. It’s not an opinion that those things exist or how they relate to the profession. Whether or not that makes it a great name/the best name out there is a matter of opinion.

No, I’m not confusing the issue. I think ele and warrior are both names that work for each respective class.

I do not believe, and have seen no evidence that convinces me, that Dragonhunter works for a Guardian specialization. And yes, I have read the entire thread.

I understand you think there is evidence that shows the name works for a guardian. I do not. So therefore, until everyone agrees (and I mean everyone) that the name works, it is just opinion that it does. It is subjective thought. Everyone can make their case as to why the name does or does not work. Which is right? Both. Neither.

I have my thoughts on why it does not work. You have yours on why it does. Until we can both agree, at least on middle ground, it is just simply opinion on both our parts.

Honestly, i’ve seen no real arguments saying it does work. All i see is people like me saying it doesn’t and others saying “it DOES work, shut up” without any arguments to prove that point.

Actually I have seen many good arguments why it does not work here. I’ve seen several that do think it works and give an argument as to why, but I just don’t get their arguments. They do not make sense to me, but to them I am sure they feel the name is justified and their arguments sound.

I don’t agree with the pro Dragonhunter’s either. But again, it comes down to opinion. I can’t, without a whole lot of arrogance, tell them their opinions are wrong. It is an opinion for goodness sake.

Oolune.4357:

That’s not how you define an opinion. An opinion isn’t just something people can’t agree upon, and something everyone agrees upon isn’t simply fact.

Also, I didn’t ask if you thought they fit. I asked if you thought it was an opinion that they fit.

And I answered both of those issues. I do think they fit. That it is a “fact” (not an opinion) that those are the best and only names are opinions. They fit. They are not the only names that could have worked. They are carry overs from the original game. They could have just as easily been called Primal Mages and Fighters. So yes it is an opinion that they fit. Some may think the names are stupid or inappropriate for whatever reason. Just as you think Dragonhunter fits and I do not. It is opinion. I do not think dragonhunter fits. You do. Therefore: Opinion.

And please do not try to manipulate my words to justify an argument. I plead my case you plead yours. Differing thoughts on a subjective matter is most certainly how you define opinion and I said as much.

On the first two definition sites I Googled, the first two definitions are:

1. In general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.

2. A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

So yes, your views, my views, and everyone else’s views here on the name of a specialization are opinions. Nothing more.

Tachenon.5270:

How about commando?

Noooo, commando has to go to the thief specialization! If rifle thief won’t be called commando, I will shed a little tear.

Inquisitor
This is my short proposal about how some easy adjustments to the ‘dragonhunter’ e-spec works for an ‘inquisitor’ e-spec. I have discussed the advantages of the ‘inquisitor’ name over the ‘dragonhunter’ earlier in this thread, so I won’t repeat myself: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/DragonHunter-name-feedback-merged/5078126.

Weapon Skills: Weapon skills need minimal tweaks. Even then, these changes are not necessary for an inquisitor e-spec. I would just recommend renaming “Symbol of Energy” to “Symbol of Searing” and “Hunter’s Ward” to maybe “Seeker’s Ward.”

Heal, Utility, and Elite Skills: It turns out that the utility skills are more appropriate for an inquisitor motif than a dragonhunting one: e.g. Purification, Fragments of Faith, Light’s Judgment, Test of Faith, and Procession of Blades. So what of “Dragon’s Maw”? I don’t think that the animation needs to change, but it could simply be renamed to “Inquisitor’s Verdict.”

Traits: The traits would need to be given greater thematic cohesion for the inquisitor e-spec.
- Minor Traits: Virtuous Action, Defender’s Dogma, and Pure of Sight
- Adept Traits: Repenter’s Blood (Piercing Light), Zealot’s Aggression, Wings of Wrath (Soaring Devastation)
- Master Traits: Unwavering Zeal (Hunter’s Determination), Bastion of Faith (Bulwark), Inquisitor’s Mark (Dulled Senses)
- Grandmaster Traits: Confessor’s Grace (Hunter’s Fortification), Faith’s Repulsion (Heavy Light), Foebane (Big Game Hunter)

E-Spec Weapon and Armor Skins: The inquisitor armor could be a helm that mostly hid the face, being reminiscent of an executioner’s hood. The inquisitor weapon would be a longbow made to look similar to balancing scales (of justice). No such longbow exists in the game with such a motif. What of the preexisting dragonhunter longbow? ArenaNet can sell the dragonhunter longbow skin on the Trading Post. The gloves could be integrated into a dragon-motif heavy armor or outfit.

Genesis.8572:

Inquisitor
This is my short proposal about how some easy adjustments to the ‘dragonhunter’ e-spec works for an ‘inquisitor’ e-spec. I have discussed the advantages of the ‘inquisitor’ name over the ‘dragonhunter’ earlier in this thread, so I won’t repeat myself: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/DragonHunter-name-feedback-merged/5078126.

Weapon Skills: Weapon skills need minimal tweaks, and even then, these changes not necessary for an inquisitor e-spec. I would just recommend renaming “Symbol of Energy” to “Symbol of Searing” and “Hunter’s Ward” to maybe “Seeker’s Ward.”

Heal, Utility, and Elite Skills: It turns out that the utility skills are more appropriate for an inquisitor motif than a dragonhunting one: e.g. Purification, Fragments of Faith, Light’s Judgment, Test of Faith, and Procession of Blades. So what of “Dragon’s Maw”? I don’t think that the animation needs to change, but it could simply be renamed to “Inquisitor’s Verdict.”

Traits: The traits would need to be given greater thematic cohesion for the inquisitor e-spec.
- Minor Traits: Virtuous Action, Defender’s Dogma, and Pure of Sight
- Adept Traits: Repenter’s Blood (Piercing Light), Zealot’s Aggression, Wings of Wrath (Soaring Devastation)
- Master Traits: Unwavering Zeal (Hunter’s Determination), Shield of Faith (Bulwark), Inquisitor’s Mark (Dulled Senses)
- Grandmaster Traits: Confessor’s Grace (Hunter’s Fortification), Faith’s Repulsion (Heavy Light), Foebane (Big Game Hunter)

E-Spec Weapon and Armor Skins: The inquisitor armor could be a helm that mostly hid the face, being reminiscent of an executioner’s hood. The inquisitor weapon would be a longbow made to look similar to balancing scales (of justice). No such longbow exists in the game with such a motif. What of the preexisting dragonhunter longbow? ArenaNet can sell the dragonhunter longbow skin on the Trading Post. The gloves could be integrated into a dragon-motif heavy armor or outfit.

Wow i like that alot! :O