Guild Wars 2

Duckwark.7830:

Ephemiel.5694:

You didn’t read anything at all, did you. Anet never wanted to “have the Guardian’s sense of justice being perverted into blind vengeance” AT ALL, i have no idea where did you even get that.

They simply used their idea of a “big game hunter” and tried to make it fit the Guardian. That’s the problem of this whole thing.

Let me direct you towards:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/guardian/Liked-the-ready-up-name-still-doesn-t-fit/5048195

To summarize, he states “the dragonhunter faction believes justice is the eradication of dragons and their minions.”

I believe it is you who needs to do more reading.

That is not “blind vengeance”, but whatever.

Also, maybe it’s just me, but the Warrior is usually the one who would think brute force and extermination are the right path. So the Dragonhunter faction is simply Guardians who think they’re Warriors now?

Duckwark, I think you are misunderstanding Ephemiel’s point. Ephemiel is taking about the concept of the Guardian profession as a whole, not about a faction that at this point in time we don’t know actually exists in game. JonPeters gave us one quick comment without any context or relation to the Guardian profession.

Not to mention that the link between Big Game Hunter to Dragon eradicator to Guardian is tenuous at best. It’s three separate concepts mashed together.

This is the ethos of the Guardian:

“Guardians are devoted fighters who protect their allies and smite their enemies by drawing from the power of their virtues. True guardians are brilliant tacticians and selfless defenders who know when to sacrifice their own defenses to empower their allies to achieve victory.”

You could draw some connection between “smite their enemies” with smiting dragon corruption. But adding in Big Game Hunter doesn’t fit to ideology of the Guardian. It’s suited to the ideology of the Ranger or Warrior.

Arrk.4102:

Ignoring people is mature though.

It is! Would you rather me waste more of your time with more replies you’re just going to disregard?

Don’t care what they call’em, just as long as they fight well on land and underwater.

I don’t really have an opinion either way on this name. I mean, it’s not great but it’s not bad either. I mostly made this comment however to talk about how too seriously people are taking this and how immature they look while complaining.
I’m actually really suprised that for a for a disconcerting amount of older adults who seemingly takes over a large percentage of this game’s population is acting so immature over something as small as a class name.

The whole concept of “big game hunter” feels too specific. Does that mean you’re not useful against mobs of minions? Are you no longer effective in PvP where you aren’t fighting dragons?

I’d say about 98% of the specialization has nothing to do with “big game hunting”. It is just ’long-ranged smite-centric Guardian". What about this specialization is really dragon themed? Just the elite and the cosmetic armor rewards, pretty much.

It is ridiculous to define the entire specialization name off of a very vague connection. Not even with the unknown story, but based on the actual design. If it is some strong story connection between Guardians and Dragons then that’s probably too universal. Why should an entire subset of professions (disconnected from their actual history and personal stories the player has in mind for their character) who have experienced the exact same world and events as every other profession suddenly have this drastic change in their foundational values?

There are a million better suggestions already posted. Put ’em on a list, shoot a dart at it, and be done with it. Or better yet, make a kitten poll and let us decide what we want in the game that we play.

dietzero.3514:

Why are people arguing with Obtena?

I gave up on the guy. He’s clearly only interested in inciting drama at this point.

Bezagron.7352:

I’m finding this thread just going around in circles

I’ve been reading the last 2 pages, the same exact arguments were made 20 pages ago. This is pretty smart on Anet’s side, letting the storm rage in its little teacup; by the time we get more juicy news, everyone will have eventually moved on.

Arrk.4102:

But none of the knights did any hunting.
The problem most people have with DH is the connection between it and the core Guardian class.
The connection between the archetypical knight and slaying dragons is there. But then there is no connection between knights and game hunting. There is a really tenuous connection between knights and witch hunting, but that’s stretching it. But people are asking for connection between Guardian and Dragons. Not between the archetypical knight and the dragons.

What? Of course they did. Knights were nobles, and hunting was a pretty popular sport among nobility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_hunting

RabbitUp.8294:

Bezagron.7352:

I’m finding this thread just going around in circles

I’ve been reading the last 2 pages, the same exact arguments were made 20 pages ago. This is pretty smart on Anet’s side, letting the storm rage in its little teacup; by the time we get more juicy news, everyone will have eventually moved on.

Yup and instead of actually agreeing that the only way to see anything happen was to ask ANET nicely to do a poll..everyone argues…this is why we cant have nice things… T.T

RabbitUp.8294:

Arrk.4102:

But none of the knights did any hunting.
The problem most people have with DH is the connection between it and the core Guardian class.
The connection between the archetypical knight and slaying dragons is there. But then there is no connection between knights and game hunting. There is a really tenuous connection between knights and witch hunting, but that’s stretching it. But people are asking for connection between Guardian and Dragons. Not between the archetypical knight and the dragons.

What? Of course they did. Knights were nobles, and hunting was a pretty popular sport among nobility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_hunting

Not every noble did the same and, except for a few specific ones, Knights weren’t hunters, nor did they hunt.

Nice try but really, all of our arguments are useless. If Anet was listening at all, they would’ve said something by now.

RabbitUp.8294:

Arrk.4102:

But none of the knights did any hunting.
The problem most people have with DH is the connection between it and the core Guardian class.
The connection between the archetypical knight and slaying dragons is there. But then there is no connection between knights and game hunting. There is a really tenuous connection between knights and witch hunting, but that’s stretching it. But people are asking for connection between Guardian and Dragons. Not between the archetypical knight and the dragons.

What? Of course they did. Knights were nobles, and hunting was a pretty popular sport among nobility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_hunting

But not all nobles were knights and not all nobles hunt.

RabbitUp.8294:

Bezagron.7352:

I’m finding this thread just going around in circles

I’ve been reading the last 2 pages, the same exact arguments were made 20 pages ago. This is pretty smart on Anet’s side, letting the storm rage in its little teacup; by the time we get more juicy news, everyone will have eventually moved on.

You’re part of the reason why the same arguments are being made. Someone states their opinion on the matter, you challenge them knowing what the answer will be and they are forced to repeat themselves, rinse and repeat til ad nauseum. Obtena has been doing the exact same thing. You’re entitled to your opinion as with everyone in the thread but your opinion has taken up several pages on its’ own. You’re guilty as the rest of us for fuelling the storm, especially since you’ve posted 76 times in this thread.

Funnily enough that same argument about people moving on was made early on and it hasn’t come close to coming true. It’s highly possible that this thread will be around beyond the HoT reveals. As it was said before, the Dragonhunter has become a meme and its’ pretty hard to kill a meme.

Ephemiel.5694:

You didn’t read anything at all, did you. Anet never wanted to “have the Guardian’s sense of justice being perverted into blind vengeance” AT ALL, i have no idea where did you even get that.

They simply used their idea of a “big game hunter” and tried to make it fit the Guardian. That’s the problem of this whole thing.

Try to be respectful. Such comments do not exactly engender civil discussion, and it’s uncalled for. We do want this threat to continue.

RabbitUp.8294:

I’ve been reading the last 2 pages, the same exact arguments were made 20 pages ago. This is pretty smart on Anet’s side, letting the storm rage in its little teacup; by the time we get more juicy news, everyone will have eventually moved on.

It’s not as if you have been helpful in any regard for civil discussion either.

Ephemiel.5694:

RabbitUp.8294:

Arrk.4102:

But none of the knights did any hunting.
The problem most people have with DH is the connection between it and the core Guardian class.
The connection between the archetypical knight and slaying dragons is there. But then there is no connection between knights and game hunting. There is a really tenuous connection between knights and witch hunting, but that’s stretching it. But people are asking for connection between Guardian and Dragons. Not between the archetypical knight and the dragons.

What? Of course they did. Knights were nobles, and hunting was a pretty popular sport among nobility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_hunting

Not every noble did the same and, except for a few specific ones, Knights weren’t hunters, nor did they hunt.

No not all, hence it being a specialisation chosen by a subset of guardians.

I can imagine different motivations even among the dragonhunter guardians:
Some choose it due to fanatical leanings.
Some simply wants the associated sporting honor and prestige nobles often value.
Some might even want both.

Overall, I can actually accept connection between the commonly associated knightly martial sports tournament ideal (like jousting competitions) and hunting dragons and their minions.

I would agree however that traps are not as thematically appropriate as wards or marks would be.

Genesis.8572:

Ephemiel.5694:

You didn’t read anything at all, did you. Anet never wanted to “have the Guardian’s sense of justice being perverted into blind vengeance” AT ALL, i have no idea where did you even get that.

They simply used their idea of a “big game hunter” and tried to make it fit the Guardian. That’s the problem of this whole thing.

Try to be respectful. Such comments do not exactly engender civil discussion, and it’s uncalled for. We do want this threat to continue.

RabbitUp.8294:

I’ve been reading the last 2 pages, the same exact arguments were made 20 pages ago. This is pretty smart on Anet’s side, letting the storm rage in its little teacup; by the time we get more juicy news, everyone will have eventually moved on.

It’s not as if you have been helpful in any regard for civil discussion either.

Look back. I’ve said my opinion calmly and have had to repeat myself over and over because people do not understand. Respect disappears after a while.

Instead of actually trying to agree on something, people add more and more arguments to the mix and grabbing every sliver of info they can find to disprove others.

The mere fact this has gone on so long should be proof enough that the name and theme for the Dragonhunter is something a lot of people don’t like, but we’ll never actually agree on something because every new commenter just attacks a previous one or tries to disprove him.

“I’m a Reader, and I get to tell you the Author you’re WRONG about your world setting and you have to listen because I bought your book and you want me to by your next book too!”

People write fantasy and sci-fi settings instead of contemporary fiction specifically to NOT have to put up with (much of) that sort of nonsense.

Nike.2631:

“I’m a Reader, and I get to tell you the Author you’re WRONG about your world setting and you have to listen because I bought your book and you want me to by your next book too!”

People write fantasy and sci-fi settings instead of contemporary fiction specifically to NOT have to put up with (much of) that sort of nonsense.

Just because you write your own setting does not mean that you write it well nor does it somehow liberate you from criticism. Speculative fiction is not immune to the death of the author.

((shrug)) I’ve personally changed the course of this game’s story on at least two occasions, and I’m telling you its not a numbers game of ‘amass the most angry shouts’ — its a game of persuasion. So if you want to make a difference on this matter please, PLEASE elevate your game. First and foremost by recognizing you don’t want to or need to convert other players to your position… You need to get a dialogue going with the Devs. This thread is a cesspool BY DESIGN and its not the place where that’s going to happen.

I would love to have a dialogue with the Devs, but it takes at least two people to have a dialogue, and the Devs remain silent.

Genesis.8572:

I would love to have a dialogue with the Devs, but it takes at least two people to have a dialogue, and the Devs remain silent.

To be fair, the devs seldom show themselves in threads that involve constant bickering like this one does…

Dante.1763:

Genesis.8572:

I would love to have a dialogue with the Devs, but it takes at least two people to have a dialogue, and the Devs remain silent.

To be fair, the devs seldom show themselves in threads that involve constant bickering like this one does…

One of them came running when i said they made a snarky remark on facebook, so at least we know they come to post to save their butts.

In particular, I would love to see this list of other alternative names that were seriously considered for this e-spec. Much like the list of Lion’s Arch place names, perhaps ArenaNet could provide us with their list of possible names.

Genesis.8572:

In particular, I would love to see this list of other alternative names that were seriously considered for this e-spec. Much like the list of Lion’s Arch place names, perhaps ArenaNet could provide us with their list of possible names.

That would be very very nice to see!

Nike.2631:

This thread is a cesspool BY DESIGN and its not the place where that’s going to happen.

To be fair, this thread only exists because a dozen or so threads were merged here. When you have so many threads blended into one, it’s only natural for it to be incredibly disjointed. Believe me, if we could start again and have a clear concise first post that sums up our argument we would. The reality is that it would end up merged back into this thread.

Genesis.8572:

In particular, I would love to see this list of other alternative names that were seriously considered for this e-spec. Much like the list of Lion’s Arch place names, perhaps ArenaNet could provide us with their list of possible names.

That would be very interesting.

Genesis.8572:

In particular, I would love to see this list of other alternative names that were seriously considered for this e-spec. Much like the list of Lion’s Arch place names, perhaps ArenaNet could provide us with their list of possible names.

Dante.1763:

That would be very very nice to see!

I agree: that does sound both interesting and like an opportunity for the Devs.

If people can dial down the passion (and the rhetoric) to “polite interest” please feel free to drop by and express that interest Here.

In the same spirit, if you can keep the focus on “do you think this is a better name than ‘Dragonhunter’?” you might find This thread useful.

Nike.2631:

This thread is a cesspool BY DESIGN and its not the place where that’s going to happen.

Mordeus.1234:

To be fair, this thread only exists because a dozen or so threads were merged here. When you have so many threads blended into one, it’s only natural for it to be incredibly disjointed.

Please… Respect the psychological sophistication of the moderators enough to know that’s not an accident.

Mordeus.1234:

Believe me, if we could start again and have a clear concise first post that sums up our argument we would. The reality is that it would end up merged back into this thread.

Or not. It really is a matter of delicacy when you’re raising an argument in someone else’s home. Big difference between saying “This is terrible” and “This could be better”.

Nike.2631:

“I’m a Reader, and I get to tell you the Author you’re WRONG about your world setting and you have to listen because I bought your book and you want me to by your next book too!”

People write fantasy and sci-fi settings instead of contemporary fiction specifically to NOT have to put up with (much of) that sort of nonsense.

One of the worst posts I have ever seen. Writing your own work does not suddenly make everything you write gold, nor does it somehow make you immune to criticism. Rubbish is still rubbish.

Nike.2631:

Nike.2631:

This thread is a cesspool BY DESIGN and its not the place where that’s going to happen.

Mordeus.1234:

To be fair, this thread only exists because a dozen or so threads were merged here. When you have so many threads blended into one, it’s only natural for it to be incredibly disjointed.

Please… Respect the psychological sophistication of the moderators enough to know that’s not an accident.

Mordeus.1234:

Believe me, if we could start again and have a clear concise first post that sums up our argument we would. The reality is that it would end up merged back into this thread.

Or not. It really is a matter of delicacy when you’re raising an argument in someone else’s home. Big difference between saying “This is terrible” and “This could be better”.

I’m just saying that if someone was to start up another thread about the Dragonhunter name in this subforum, that it would be merged into this one. Sure you can start a thread over in the Guardian subforum but if you were to do it in this subforum it would be merged.

Besides the thread you started dances around the point of contention, it’s little more than a sidestep. It’s just another long justification for a name which you can find many of in this thread. If there was an individual thread for each individual name suggestion, they’d be merged. We honestly don’t need another name suggestion or a thread dedicated to one particular one, we just need our case stated clearly for why Dragonhunter doesn’t work and for the devs to hear our feedback. Pushing a particular name isn’t adding much, our best bet would be to have the Developers look back on the names they had in consideration before the name reveal and give one of them a second look.

just change its name to Nameless it’s much cooler

Puls.5867:

just change its name to Nameless it’s much cooler

Not wrong. Best name put out by the general forum public by far (imo).

Nike.2631:

((shrug)) I’ve personally changed the course of this game’s story on at least two occasions, and I’m telling you its not a numbers game of ‘amass the most angry shouts’ — its a game of persuasion. So if you want to make a difference on this matter please, PLEASE elevate your game. First and foremost by recognizing you don’t want to or need to convert other players to your position… You need to get a dialogue going with the Devs. This thread is a cesspool BY DESIGN and its not the place where that’s going to happen.

Smart man. Listen to this guy.

Mordeus.1234:

But not all nobles were knights and not all nobles hunt.

So some nobles were knights and some knights hunt. There’s even a mention of Sir Tristan in the link. Saying no knight ever hunted is false.

The invention of the ‘fair terms’ of hunting was attributed by Malory and others to the Arthurian knight Sir Tristram, who is seen both as the model of the noble huntsman, and the originator of its ritual:
As he (Sir Tristram) grew in power and strength he laboured in hunting and hawking – never a gentleman that we ever heard of did more. And as the book says he devised good fanfares to blow for beasts of venery, and beasts of the chase and all kinds of vermin, and all the terms we still have in hawking and hunting. And therefore the book of venery, of hawking and hunting, is called Sir Tristram’s. Therefore all gentlemen who bear old (coats of) arms ought to honour Sir Tristram for the goodly terms that gentlemen have and use, and shall until Doomsday, that through them all men of respect may distinguish a gentleman from a yeoman and a yeoman from a villein.

As it was said before, the Dragonhunter has become a meme and its’ pretty hard to kill a meme.

It’s pretty hard to take it seriously, too.

More names:

Explorer
Vanguard
Paradigm
Provoker
Pursuer
Harasser
Investigator
Sentry
Watcher
Bellwether
Forerunner
Exemplar

Genesis.8572:

It’s not as if you have been helpful in any regard for civil discussion either.

If you want to blame me for the situation, do so. It won’t make you right, but it will give me a good laugh.

In fact, I did suggest you narrow down the list of preferred names to a selection at least the people of this thread agree upon, so if a poll is ever made by Anet, that list can be considered. I don’t see any effort made towards that end. In fact, I don’t see any effort made at all, besides endless repetitive arguments from people trying to convince the opposite party.

My stance was clear from the beginning. I understand why the name was picked, I have no problem if it remains unchanged, but I would like Seeker better. And as it is, Dragonhunter is the current official name, and Anet hasn’t shown any interesting in changing that.

Even leaving the big game hunter thing aside, to me it is stupid to consider the DH as a Guardian spec just because it can be one… Because basically any profession could be a DH, so I can’t see how guardians should be the only ones, thus I can’t see why it should be a specialization (not only for Guardians but for any profession).

The explanation given by Jon Peters integrates ideals of justice and things like that to make things hold together. But it’s nothing more than excuses. You can rewrite his argument the same way, just using some warrior, ranger, engi or revenant related words and you still obtain a DH in the end. This is something you can hardly do with Reaper, and that you can’t do at all with Chronomancer and Druid.

It’s not that a Guardian shouldn’t be a DH at all, it’s just that there is no way they can be better suited for that role.
The idea of Guardians forming a faction of Dragonhunters can’t make sense, especially when you consider that we already have the Pact which is the 3 orders allied together against the dragons. How aren’t they a faction of Dragonhunters already ? And they gathered all the races, all the professions, and even things that are not considered as professions… There is no way a little amount of Guardians could have any weight in the fight against dragons compared to this extremely diversified (in terms of nature and abilities of its members) but in the same time highly specialized (in their big fundamental goal) enormous military organization

DH seems to be justified by its goals and ambitions. But you can find similar goals and ambitions in every character, not only Guardians, that’s why DH can’t be a specialization. It is easy to apply it to anyone.
Anyway goals and ambitions are not what describe a spec ! It is described by how you fight, what you’re using against your ennemies, what is your style. And DH doesn’t tell that, it just gives big goals to your character. But what if someday your Guardian has to do something completely different from fighting dragons ? Because obviously there are not only dragons to deal with in Tyria, and probably we will get rid of them one day. Will you stop using bows and traps, because your Guardian can’t be DH anymore since their goals have changed ? That would make no sense…
_________________
EDIT HERE : Compare with Chronomancers : they’re just Mesmers who chose to use one specific type of magic. But they could totally decide to use time magic to eradicate dragons and their minions, turning them into dragon hunters.
Reapers are a bit more abstract as a concept, but it can be applied to them too.
_________________

Also, remember that specializations are swappable. You can change your equipment or adapt your fighting style, but you can’t change your ambitions everytime you wanna use a different weapon ! That’s silly.
Your goals and ambitions are defined by your story (and we know how Arenanet always kept professions away from the story, that’s why we’re called legionnaire, valiant, commander… never Ranger, Warrior etc) and basically, every player character has approximately the same story in this game. We’re all commander of the Pact, commanding to the biggest army ever raised against the dragons and ONLY dragons ! We’re all dragon hunters since a long time already, indenpently of our professions and specialities, because we all have that same goal.

I’m not saying they can’t be Dragonhunters, they can ALREADY be Dragonhunters without specializing, just like anyone else. So they can’t call themselves specialists in dragon hunt, that would be ridiculous.

EDIT : I guess we already said that a lot of times but I feel like people tend to forget it quicker than they should.

The problem we’re having is that they’ve used too many possible names for NPC characters and factions.

Most unfortunately, the most open yet definitively fitting name for this class is “Ranger”…

Really though why can’t it just be a “hunter”?

Nike.2631:

“I’m a Reader, and I get to tell you the Author you’re WRONG about your world setting and you have to listen because I bought your book and you want me to by your next book too!”

People write fantasy and sci-fi settings instead of contemporary fiction specifically to NOT have to put up with (much of) that sort of nonsense.

Criticism has nothing to do with right or wrong, and everything to do with whether something is done well or done poorly. There’s a very distinct difference between the two, and if you can’t identify that fine line, then you have no right to be making an argument.

Trei.5203:

Ephemiel.5694:

RabbitUp.8294:

Arrk.4102:

But none of the knights did any hunting.
The problem most people have with DH is the connection between it and the core Guardian class.
The connection between the archetypical knight and slaying dragons is there. But then there is no connection between knights and game hunting. There is a really tenuous connection between knights and witch hunting, but that’s stretching it. But people are asking for connection between Guardian and Dragons. Not between the archetypical knight and the dragons.

What? Of course they did. Knights were nobles, and hunting was a pretty popular sport among nobility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_hunting

Not every noble did the same and, except for a few specific ones, Knights weren’t hunters, nor did they hunt.

No not all, hence it being a specialisation chosen by a subset of guardians.

I can imagine different motivations even among the dragonhunter guardians:
Some choose it due to fanatical leanings.
Some simply wants the associated sporting honor and prestige nobles often value.
Some might even want both.

Overall, I can actually accept connection between the commonly associated knightly martial sports tournament ideal (like jousting competitions) and hunting dragons and their minions.

I would agree however that traps are not as thematically appropriate as wards or marks would be.

I’d just think it foolhardy to consider the dragons as prey and hunt them down for sport. It’s half a step from underestimating your opponent which is a tactical folly I don’t consider a Guardian type would make…not when lives are at stake.

Leo G.4501:

I’d just think it foolhardy to consider the dragons as prey and hunt them down for sport.

In the Splintered Coast region of Sparkfly Fen, Buddy Buddyson, norn dragonhunter, hunted a dragon this afternoon, with, as many would say, predictable results.

As one eyewitness reports, “There was something in the water, and that dragonhunter guy ran toward it, shooting arrows and yelling ‘Ahhhh!’ like he’d had too much of Chef Aldis’ wurm’s egg chili or something, and then ol’ Teakettle popped up for his mid-afternoon show, and that was that.”

Cause of death remains undetermined at this time. The medical examiner in Sparkfly Fen, Dr. Hoolix of Rata Sum, told this reporter that not enough of Buddy Buddyson’s remains remained for an autopsy. ‘Suicide,’ said Hoolix, ‘is probably what we’ll end up calling it. Just like with all the others. Why these microcephalic reprobates insist on hunting dragons is a mystery that is, well, a mystery even to a genius like me!"

Officials have posted ‘No Dragonhunting’ signs in and around the Splintered Coast area, but so far this has not deterred would-be dragonhunters from attempting to hunt the resident dragon, Tequatl, who declined to be interviewed.

Reporting live from Sparkfly Fen, this is your roving reporter, Rroxxi, for WRSN News.

Obtena.7952:

Can’t answer you unfortunately, I’m not aware of GW lore. As far as I know, there is Dragons and knightly characters there as well so I don’t see any inconsistency if that’s the case.

Part 1:
Seriously, you’re making such a huge fuss here over lots of pages and you actually don’t know what you talking about, because you admitted right now, that you have no clues about GW lore?? Have you even played GW1 before???

GET OUT!!

Stop your ridiculous annoying persistent white knighting over something, about which you have no clues at all, because all your references are coming only from real world mythologies and your personal vision about what a “knight” means to you personally.
Your associating only that “vision” of a knight into Guardians, because their game design fits the most to what you envision into “knights” due to their “virtues”, despite guardians having nothing at all to do with knights mechanics wise.

There exist no knights in the lore of guild wars, heck there exist in lore only horses, but in the whole game GW1 until today we saw never anywhere at all a knight riding on something that looks like a mount, be it a horse, be it some kind of mystical creature like big moas in Chocobo-Style or whatever…
And that hasn’t changed yet despite the huge demand for playable mounts since GW1.

As long Anet doesn’t give Guardians an Elite Specialization, thats called “Knight”, there officially exist no knights at all in the whole game lore and mechanics so far …

Dragonhunters are no nights, were never knights and will never be knights.
Knights never fought, even if you take now on your real world and mythology references – never battled with traps and longbows, like some kind of hunter, and knights especially never ever had that kind of unfittign attitude to act as like they are some kind of over zealous mixture of witchhunters/ big game hutners.

Thats plain just big NONSENSE and whoever things, this mixtures fits well, mustn’t be able anymore to think very clear!! Or is such a kind of a person, who just justifies everythign with “its a fantasy game!”

Peopel here aren’t complaining over the game mechanics of this celite specialization.
Peopel here are solely only complaining over the huge inconsistencies and unfitting relationships that ANet put together, like trying to create some kind of mary suish chimera of mechanics and terms they pulled out of their mind boggling heads together in a kind of last minute meeting with the result being a name, thats so far out of context from the whole gameplay, that one can just only cringe everytime when looking at the name that resulted from this meeting and it makes you even more cringe at the fact, that ANet tryed even really to sell this out of context junk as something, that is out of our imagination to grasp, calling it a “high concept”, when its in fact nothing but:

Guardian + Witchhunter Zealotry + Big Game Hunter Theme + Bow + Traps = Dragonhunter.

You know, Guardian + Witchunter Zeatrory fits very well, alone this concept is good enough to come up with enough fitting name terms for a good guardian elite specialization, that stands in context with its main class from which it is originating.
The inconsistancy and out of context stuff just begins, once Anet putted the big game hunter reference and the dragon reference to that concept, there it starts to become too much.

Anet simply tried to put too many different concepts into 1 elite specialization, which have nothign to do with each other, yeah even clearly contradict each other, because a witchhunter is no big game hunter, and both have nothing to do with dragons, especially not the witchhunter >.>
The Dragonhunter is like a real bad surprise egg, just with too much ingredients.
Anet needs to remove the bad ingredients, which simply are too much and rename whats left accordingly to what fits to that result.

Part 2:

And the best witchhunter themed gameplay related guardian elite specialization name, that uses bows and traps, is overzealous like a witchhunter is in the end either:

• Inquisitor
• Seeker
• Justiciar

ANet just needs now to choose out, what of thoese 3 overzealous profession names “they” like the most, if they self want to decide it, or they just take the name, which the community votes via a poll and which got the most votes.
So simple.

Theres no need to discuss things over nearly 40 pages now, what could be decided so easily by Anet.
I think, if this thread has proven just one thing, then it is that the majority of the community over all communication panels, be it forums, blogs, twitch ect., FB, twitter ect. show, that they heavily dislike the name, cause it doesn’t suit to the naming standard that we all know from ANet.

That ANet has no problems with taking names, that are taken somewhere else already and are also part of GW1 lore (see Grenth and the 7 Reapers) has proven the Reaper.
For the lazy, I will show the lore link: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Reaper.

There is no further point in whiteknighting here any longer over the Dragonhunter.
It won’t convince those, that heavily dislke the DH name, it leads only into obsolete fruitless page long discussions that end into offtopic …

All what we want – those that dislike DH – is, that the elite specialization receives like the Chronomancer and the Reaper a design, that is of the same quality and senseful thought process. That the guardian elite spec is in its whole gameplay design so consistent and depthful of context, just as like the other presented Elite Specializations which provide also names, that suit to the main class which they originate from, without looking like weird unfitting surprise eggs which got forced to take too many different unfitting ingredients into the mix, because the dev whos responsible for that design, unlike that dev that was responsible for the design of the other 2 elite specs forcefuly wants to put upon all of us his mary sue elite spec of a zealous dragon hunting witchhunter-guardian that uses bows and traps and sees this task as a kind of big game hunting >.< /facepalm

I don’t need to play GW to know how the concepts of Guardian and dragons can coalesce into a cohesive, plausible elite spec. Opening a book on legends and myths does that for me already.

Dante.1763:

Yup and instead of actually agreeing that the only way to see anything happen was to ask ANET nicely to do a poll..everyone argues…this is why we cant have nice things… T.T

You’re assuming ANet cares about the views of the players. When a single dev couldn’t even take the time to reply “We’re thinking about it” or “Sorry, we can’t/won’t change it”, I think that says a lot.

Genesis.8572:

I would love to have a dialogue with the Devs, but it takes at least two people to have a dialogue, and the Devs remain silent.

This isn’t Riot. :p

Is Anet even open to a name change? I personally don’t think so, therefore arguing about it is just a waste of time.

It’s best that ANet not respond, at least not until they come out with all the rest of the specs.

Responding to this might spur people on complain about future specs. (Though so far very little protest has been made regarding the other specs) If our displeasure is focused on the dragonhunter, it will make it all the other spec names seem not as bad.

Obtena.7952:

I don’t need to play GW to know how the concepts of Guardian and dragons can coalesce into a cohesive, plausible elite spec. Opening a book on legends and myths does that for me already.

Just that books of legends and myths don’t make fitting gameplay concepts that stand in context with what has been already created by ANet.

It just shows how stubborn you try to hang on your personal vision of what a “knight” is for you. It makes you blind to not realize that Anet simply tries here to mix and match too many concepts into 1 elite specialization, that have nothign to do with each other and there exists also no singly book of legends of myths, which says otherwise.

There exist no legends, myths or any fairytales about knights, that used bows and traps.
A knight uses mainly only swords, shields and when riding polearm weapons like halberds/lances. Thats the classical knight!

The only reference that fits here to knights basing on your arguments is, that knights are the classical “dragonslayers” in alot of legends/myths or are seen as those, who are only able to defeat dragons, because thats it what those legends/myths and fantasy fairytales classically want us to believe how it should be.
There are no legends or so about any thieves, mages or simple hunters which slayed dragons – no, it are always the radiant white knights in their pretty and strong armors wielding swords and large tower shields (which they needed to survive a breath attack of a dragon without getting to be scorched crisp!!)

There are also no legends or myths about witchhunters, that hunted any dragons.
Its just the reference of Anet they used for the concept of turning the Guardian Elite Specialization into a much more offensive gameplay thats not as much about defending, like a Guardian, but more about seeking and destroying evil things, like a Witchhunter.

As like said, theres no point in discussing any further with you, you won’t convince anyone here with your real world legend and myth references and your personal view about what knights are, when you even have no clues about GW lore and even admitted it, that you aren’t aware of it.
It exist no knights at all in the whole lore of the game and all what you see in the Guardian is just only your personal vision/wish of them being GW2’s knights, due to their “virtues”

Orpheal.8263:

Obtena.7952:

I don’t need to play GW to know how the concepts of Guardian and dragons can coalesce into a cohesive, plausible elite spec. Opening a book on legends and myths does that for me already.

Just that books of legends and myths don’t make fitting gameplay concepts that stand in context with what has been already created by ANet.

It just shows how stubborn you try to hang on your personal vision of what a “knight” is for you. It makes you blind to not realize that Anet simply tries here to mix and match too many concepts into 1 elite specialization, that have nothign to do with each other and there exists also no singly book of legends of myths, which says otherwise.

There exist no legends, myths or any fairytales about knights, that used bows and traps.
A knight uses mainly only swords, shields and when riding polearm weapons like halberds/lances. Thats the classical knight!

The only reference that fits here to knights basing on your arguments is, that knights are the classical “dragonslayers” in alot of legends/myths or are seen as those, who are only able to defeat dragons, because thats it what those legends/myths and fantasy fairytales classically want us to believe how it should be.
There are no legends or so about any thieves, mages or simple hunters which slayed dragons – no, it are always the radiant white knights in their pretty and strong armors wielding swords and large tower shields (which they needed to survive a breath attack of a dragon without getting to be scorched crisp!!)

There are also no legends or myths about witchhunters, that hunted any dragons.
Its just the reference of Anet they used for the concept of turning the Guardian Elite Specialization into a much more offensive gameplay thats not as much about defending, like a Guardian, but more about seeking and destroying evil things, like a Witchhunter.

As like said, theres no point in discussing any further with you, you won’t convince anyone here with your real world legend and myth references and your personal view about what knights are, when you even have no clues about GW lore and even admitted it, that you aren’t aware of it.
It exist no knights at all in the whole lore of the game and all what you see in the Guardian is just only your personal vision/wish of them being GW2’s knights, due to their “virtues”

Have you seen how many times he has changed his argument just to continue?

The Euro-centric perception of mythology in this thread is incredibly depressing. There are quite a lot of legends with knight-like figures using bows or traps and mystical energy.

Yes, the name takes a little getting used to in the context of existing lore. I, for one, am going to get used to it and get on with enjoying the game. I invite you join me.

Gulesave.5073:

The Euro-centric perception of mythology in this thread is incredibly depressing. There are quite a lot of legends with knight-like figures using bows or traps and mystical energy.

Yes, the name takes a little getting used to in the context of existing lore. I, for one, am going to get used to it and get on with enjoying the game. I invite you join me.

Honestly, it’s hard to get used to it because it doesn’t sound like it fits any lore related to a “guardian” type. Even the presentation of the class itself in the videos feel out of place. Again, it’s like they mashed two concepts into one last minute. Most of the skills are Guardian-centric in theme and name. Then you have a few skills and the specialization name that are just out of place. The reveal video itself just makes them feel “meh”. Completely not even like a “Witch Hunter” or a “Knight”. This whole theme just feels sloppy. You look at the other two reveals and the Druid clips and you already feel a theme that works well.

I think the ONLY way I’ll accept this name is if there is heavy lore IN the game for this. That is, I want Dragonhunter Chapels, I want a crusade formed of solely of the Dragonhunter Order, I want them to be the next Pact replacement, I want “Dragonhunters” to be torturing Sylvari to get information out of them, I want them to be literally exactly like Witch Hunters or Demon Hunters who will blindly purge all dragon-related minions without a care whether they’re innocent or not… this is their hunt, their crusade. I want the whole tone of the class throughout the whole HoT storyline to feel like Dragon minions should be scared to death hearing the name “Dragonhunter” uttered. That is when I’ll accept the name. That is when I’ll accept that it’s awesome.

Thus far, I have yet to see Arenanet execute on anything this involved with classes since GW1. The classes and GW2 barely have any lore related to it, and so the name itself is the most defining “theme”.

So as long as they execute IN GAME (not some blog post or presentation video), I will accept this name. Until then, this is all sorts of a mess and sloppy execution in almost every way thematically.

Nike.2631:

“I’m a Reader, and I get to tell you the Author you’re WRONG about your world setting and you have to listen because I bought your book and you want me to by your next book too!”

People write fantasy and sci-fi settings instead of contemporary fiction specifically to NOT have to put up with (much of) that sort of nonsense.

Genesis.8572:

Just because you write your own setting does not mean that you write it well nor does it somehow liberate you from criticism. Speculative fiction is not immune to the death of the author.

Having published both fantasy and contemporary settings, its one thing to have a reader tell me “You got the length of a particular assault rifle wrong in chapter 4” and something entirely different to have someone tell me “Fireball spells don’t work that way.”

The first person I thank and maybe make a mental note if it’s going to come up again. If its convenient I might change the existing reference for the next printing/release.

The second I stare at with my mouth open because WHO THE KITTEN ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW MAGIC WORKS IN MY SETTING?!??!

Look, I’ve raked the writers here over the coals as brutally as anyone, but there is a necessary understanding when something is a question of broadly accepted form and when it’s a matter of personal preference vs. the author’s right to set the terms of their own setting. It’s their livelihood, their risk, and their call. Canon does NOT belong to the fans, no matter how much they tell themselves otherwise. An argument based on “that’s inconsistent with other aspects of the setting” is very, VERY different than “well I don’t like it because of influences outside of the setting — influences possibly unique to me.”

“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.”

…Isn’t something they have to justify. Its something they can SET as true in the world of Tyria. Will it be nice to see some support and fleshing out of that manifest through NPC dialogues or in-game locations? Absolutely! But for a pre-ship preview, summing up really is sufficient.