Guild Wars 2

Doesn’t a witch hunter exclusively hunt witches?

That was most definitely not a dragon in the trailer video.

I’ve been in the “what?” camp since I first watched the trailer, before I checked in here and Reddit. It doesn’t feel like a “vocal majority” issue.

The high concept rationale doesn’t make sense, for me, either. Are you sure it wasn’t more of a “wow, that’s a great elite skill, it looks like a dragon eating the monster. Let’s call it Dragon’s Maw.” “Sounds great! Now, how do we fit it into the character concept? I have an idea!”

There are plenty of worthy alternatives on these many pages. Perhaps there is a place for reassessment?

I’m proud to say “Guardian,”… not so much.. the .. other.. name…

Wonderland.

LONG POST IS LONG

TyPin.9860:

What I will absolutely refuse is to accept personal taste as an argument in a conceptual discussion. The one is a matter of taste (which you can only state, not argue), the other is a matter of conceptual contradictions.

This is my only issue with the Dragonhunter (which I will now refer to as DH). The concept does not match. At least not in the way the other professions do. The mechanics are sound, the abilities they gave them much needed, but the concept itself needs revising. Personal taste? Probably, but I also think it goes against the structure ANET established in terms of making professions.

The DH preview was within the realm of what I expected. With the wings and the bow, the concept art exemplified the virtuous knight motif that was the guardian very well. When they finally revealed the specialization I was surprised this is what they wanted the Guardian to branch off into. Hunting? It didn’t fit the narrative of a class with a focus on protective and defensive magic. Where in the Guardian was this concept branching off from?

Surely, the adrenaline of killing and battle (Warrior), the expertise of hunting (Ranger), or the innovation to take down a challenging foe (Engineer), would make these professions more suited to a dragon specialization.

Barring the (subjective) suitability of other professions even ANET’s vision of the DH didn’t seem to match up with what they wanted. “(…) a ferocious big-game hunter” and “back-line support”? Big-game hunting or just hunting in general conjures the image of a solo, lurking, ambush predator. Hardly evocative of a back-line fighter with supportive team-play elements where the focus is “less on engaging enemies at close range but […] lots of potential in assisting allies around the battlefield.”

When they explained their image of the DH I’ll admit it was an easy concept to recognize. A righteous defender of the people who attacks malevolent entities—offense being the best defense. The problem was the concept wasn’t followed up on, in the class itself. Few of the mechanics of the class were dragon or hunter-based. Why name the specialization after these concepts if they were barely represented?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TyPin.9860:

TyPin.9860:

1) Why does the engineer not build things?

Inventions. Kits. Turrets. Gadgets. Toolbelts.

Why does the Thief not actually steal things?

Because they are a noob who has not pressed their F1 key.

TyPin.9860:

I knew those answers would come. What engineer does is summon stuff, any profession in GW2 can do similar things. They do not really engineer or even build things. Also thieves don’t steal anything. The skill might be called “steal”, but what do they actually steal. Like ‘Consume plasma’? What is it they stole from a Mesmer, when they use that skill?

Are you saying Engineers shouldn’t be called Engineers because they don’t have long enough cast times for building things in battle, or that Thieves shouldn’t be called Thieves because what they steal is intangible? To bring that up moves the discussion away from themes and concepts into the limitations of game mechanics. Following that line of thought, that would mean that Ranger and Thieves don’t build traps, they summon them. Warriors, Engineers (and by extension Ranger and Thieves) must use magical firearms because their weapons have unlimited ammunition and have no reload times.

The professions are named after what their profession mechanics do and what they are the best at. The names also help to cement particular playstyles that are different from one another. Engineers aren’t the only ones that build stuff, but they do it the best. Guardians aren’t the only ones that protect, but they do it the best. Elementalists aren’t the only ones that control elements, but they do it the best.

DHs aren’t the only ones that hunt dragons but they do it the best…wait, do they? There are very few indicators in the DH specialization that implies they hunt or are the best at hunting dragons. Out of the eleven new skills the DH was given, only two, specifically mention dragons or hunting; of the twelve new traits, only three mention hunting (no dragons); and none of the virtues reflect either hunting or dragons. Compare this to the Chronomancer (5/8 skills, 7/12 traits, 1/5 shatters) where its traits, skills, and profession mechanics reflect more of its theme (time) than the DH’s does .

I have no objection to a class dedicated to eradicating dragons. The problem is that ANET stuck itself at a half-way point. There’s not enough dragon imagery/themes/concepts/motifs to call the Guardian elite specialization ( a supportive back-line class) a DH. To implement that now, would be to neglect a future specialization that would truly and more effectively resemble a DH.

TyPin.9860:

@all:
And how is it, you all know better, how a profession and specialization is “supposed” to be. When the actual game designers, who define the content of the game, say otherwise.

You’re right. I don’t know. ANET knows, and I’m using what they established as my base. They’re being inconsistent with what already they’ve shown and said. ANET has already demonstrated that when giving a profession a weapon, they made the weapon fit the profession not the other way around.

Ojyh covers this point pretty well in another thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/Dragon-Hunter-name-feedback-merged/page/21#post5054627

Longbow, traps, survival skills; those don’t make a Ranger, their pet does. Daggers, stealth, venoms ; those don’t make a Thief, their stealing does. Hammers, shouts, stances; those don’t make a Warrior, their adrenaline does. Longbows and traps should not make a DH, their virtues and traits should.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can already see the objections to this though. “[…]each [specialization] is going to have its own unique profession icon and to help call it out as different from the existing profession. We really are treating them as something different.”
Yes, ANET wants to make elite specializations feel different but at the same time they said they want to build off of what the professions already have “[…]we’re adding a bunch of druid skills and druid traits[…] ranger now has very heavy magic and nature magic things and these are the skills we’re going to build. It keeps the skills we’re adding from feeling random.”
The way the Guardian is now—and by extension the DH— none of its mechanics are evocative of dragons or hunting; this theme feels “random”. The longbow is used in the guardian’s own signature way (light arrows and magic); it shouldn’t make the profession any more of a hunter than it does the Warrior. Traps fall within the same category. While mechanically the DH’s utilities function like traps, thematically they are quite different, they behave more like light-imbued seals on the ground—as you would expect of a Guardian.

As a point of comparison the necromancer has a skill set similar to traps, they’re called marks (also magically imbued-seals on the ground). Marks function mechanically the same as traps: they are ground-targeted, trigger an effect when an enemy stands on them and only one of the same type can be active simultaneously. The difference: they are cast using a staff weapon or the Lich Form skill.

Mechanically the same, thematically different. ANET has already established how they make skills to fit a profession and not a profession to fit skills, why are they moving away from that now?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, this is all a moot point if I’m only discussing themes. It’s just a name, why should I care if it won’t influence my playstyle? The problem with that is ANET has already set precedent for the theme and concept of a class changing its playstyle. With the recent Specialization livestream for all professions, a lot of traits were revamped:

• The engineer got an entirely new rework, with a lot of traits still TBD.
• The ranger’s spirits mobility were removed. “Spirits are not gonna move anymore. It just doesn’t feel right. We want the spirits to be more static, area-control.”
• Mesmer clone death and on-kill traits were removed too. “We’re kind of trying to take away their on-kill traits since that’s not really a mesmer-y thing.”
• Even the guardian’s trait Glacial Heart was also taken away: “The reason why Glacial Heart was kind of removed was because Guardian doesn’t really do chill, at all, ever. It’s not a thing that it does.”

This is my biggest concern with the DH’s ill-fit theme. If the name stays as it is, will ANET change (now or in the future) its skills and traits to better reflect a hunting theme?
ANET has already expressed difficulty before in creating more professions each with their distinct flavor: “We feel the classes we now have clearly represent the eight different archetypes […] but also eight very different ways to play […]making sure the archetypes feel good, unique and that they give the players what they want, but also feel individual from a game play point of view.”
The creation of the Revenant appears to be a unique endeavor that doesn’t seem like will be done again. “We looked at our whole set of eight professions and tried to figure out what archetype was missing.” If ANET was having trouble making a unique archetype before, it’s very unlikely that they will have space for more, now that they rounded out their weight classes.

The way the DH is now works mechanically well, even if thematically it needs review. If ANET were to carry over “hunting” from a just a theme into actually part of its mechanics it would invalidate the unique and different play styles that ANET worked to distinguish.

What options are available from here on out, then? As most of us here are hoping, ANET could change the name to fit something more evocative of the Guardian. Draw on something with enough substance in the class; one of the trait lines
(nature) like they did with the Ranger or a specific theme (time) like they did with the Mesmer, and establish a name from there. This would be the more work-intensive option, and depending on how far ANET would be willing to change the class, the changes could run the gamut of merely renaming the traits and skills to actually making new animations for skills and new gear for the elite specialization track.

ANET can also decide to ignore us—a decision that is theirs to make—while choosing to listen to our feedback in future content. They could’ve reached a point of no return (heh) with the DH in this expansion. Much of their scripts, dialogue, and voice-acting could’ve already been established using the DH and it would be too late or too much effort to change it back now.

Another option would be to include more dragon motifs in this elite specialization. Rename the traits, skills, and virtues to better reflect the dragon imagery. There would be work but in my (uninformed) opinion a lot less than there would be poring over multiple codes—from voice-overs to dialogues. It may not satisfy those who felt the dragon theme was randomly included but it would help to bridge the elite specialization and its name with something stronger than the only the gear choice available from the elite specialization track.

I’m not expecting this post will change ANET’s mind. It isn’t my place to demand a name change, nor do I feel I should suggest a name to change to. It’s been stated before, if the community wants a name change and ANET feels inclined to do one, it should be put to a vote. The reason I write this is to point out the direction ANET is going and how
(I believe) they’re contradicting their previous objectives. If ANET isn’t willing to change the name, then they should at least look over the players feedback and consider it in future content implementation.

Couldn’t have said it better myself WhiteSphere, right now we can only hope for the best..

JonPeters.5630:

A couple notes on Dragonhunter. We went with this name because we felt it was evocative of the medieval witch hunters. 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.

Thanks,

Jon

Ahahahahaha!

10/10

Cross-posting this…

Harbinger.
Warden.
Warder.
Seeker.
Sentinel.
Arbiter.
Sentry.
Justicar.
Protector.
Templar.
Gallant.
Arclight.
Keeper.
Liberator.
Watcher.
Omen.
Diviner.
Crusader.
Templar.
Inquisitor.
Farlight.

I’m calling it as I see it- The reason we got the name Dragonhunter insead of any of the above was because it’s a poor attempt to give the class a skin-theme where no theme was needed. It’s difficult to come up with skins for a “Warder” or an “Arbiter” or a “Harbinger” so they said “kitten it, dragon theme it.” They then executed this with lackluster bow/glove skins and one (JUST ONE) dragon “themed” skill, Dragon’s Maw, which could’ve just as easily been named “Glint’s Something or Other” or “Devouring Justice” or blahblahblah.

guardian don’t hunt things

remember this.

Oh, i became to realise that i have the best name of all: DragonHater.
Because he hates dragons. Because we hate that class. Because those new skills will give up hate all around.

I know a lot of rangers that can’t wait to play with their new specialisation: DragonHater.

Anet should seriously think about changing the theme for the DragonHater. First because the theme does not fit. Second because the new traps are not working with the traits in the existing class. We don’t have any trait to improve traps and we are depending to much in the new trait line to improve them.
Yes some ppl may think about runes of the trapper, you must read ranger forums and all the problems that runes bring.

As someone said, theme must be changed and not just take out a dragon theme class that is only there to sell skins in the gem store, and the traps must be reworked as symbols or consecrations so could benefit from the existing traits and the mechanics wont need to change.
Personally i don’t care if braham got all the dragon hate because of the girl mine didn’t. My guard still believe in unicorns and maidens in distress.

@WhiteSphere:
Oh my, by Lyssa, that was a long post^^

I am very grateful for it though, for it was one of the few constructive posts in this thread and it was thought through well. Your post is too long to address single topics of it, for this post would become even longer. So I will write it from my point of view.

The Dragonhunter theme by itself:
I do see this concept totally okay. Guardians, as a profession of protectors, chose to go a path of facing the biggest thread of the time: The Dragons. Yes ANet drew parallels from witch hunters, but, according to their explanation, only from the surface. The purpose of witch hunters was to eradicate the thread of witches, while the purpose of guardian is to eradicate the dragons.

On the GW2 blog post about the DH reveal, they wrote he was a “a ferocious big-game hunter that specializes in ranged combat and back-line support.“ Many seem to have a problem with that. But what does actually big-game hunting mean? It means, you hunt the big-game: Big, strong and hard to kill/ to hunt animals. That very much applies to the dragons and to a significant part to their minions. Yes, a witch hunter wasn’t a big-game hunter, because witches don’t count as big-game. But for a Dragonhunter this is very much a necessity. As for back-line support: This works in line with the guardian theme and the big-game hunting. For there are/were apparently group hunting techniques. This is but where a real life comparison falls short. Because in real life no one shoots rays of supporting magic and such…

The Dragonhunter theme in game context:
If we take the concept of aligning profession mechanics with the profession theme, then I agree that the DH profession mechanics are everything but uniquely fitting to a DH. But on the other hand, let’s look at other professions. The Thief mechanic for instance is called “steal”. Thematically fitting, everyone would agree. But if they called it “arcane mimicry”, it could do the very same as it does now, but wouldn’t fit the thief theme any more. The same goes for many of the other professions. Engineer “tool belt” skills could be called “tricks”, and it would work well for a trickster class. Even the necromancer could be a shape shifter. That logic is harder to apply to Mesmer “shatter” skills or Elementalist‘s “Attunements”. But for some profession the profession mechanics are not really defined by what they actually do, but how they were named. How they were conceptually included into the profession. No one complains about their shortcomings, which are the same for Dragonhunter. Is this random profession mechanic approach a valid complaint? Yes, I think very much so, but it is a complaint that applies not only to the DH. Does this break, how ANet used to create professions? No it actually doesn’t. It is very much in line with some of the other core professions.

The Dragonhunter is a Ranger:
Now we go into the realm of instinct, feeling and impression. If someone would see the Dragonhunter theme, would they think it was a Guardian specialization? Most likely not. It looks and feels like a Ranger. But again, this might be even intended by ANet. As far as I understand, elite specializations are in some way a mix of two existing professions. In GW1 you could mix two professions and it seems in GW2 this concept is in part the basis of the mechanics of the elite specialization design. Chronomancer could easily be seen as a mix of Mesmer and Necromancer (arguably in terms of AoE even the better Necromancer). So it might be the very intend of ANet to make Guardian feel like a Ranger. Maybe they felt that what the community wanted in terms of mechanics, it would fit the best in a mechanical ranger crossover design. But this is only an assumption and could only be answered by the dev team themselves.

Why then the big discussion though:
I can very much sympathize with the complaints against the DH. Not from an argumentative point of view. But from a viewpoint of how it actually feels. The biggest complaint being the huge perceived gap between the preview and the actual profession. I recognize and I can see that there are many people annoyed with the way it goes. But there are also the more quite, the easily overlooked and therefore easily not considered posts, even in this thread, that other people seem to like the Dragonhunter theme. It is hard to judge actual numbers from a forum. Where it is completely uncontrolled, how many people and what kind of people take part. But I explained this previously and don’t wanna go into it again.

In the end DH is a design that seems to polarize. And this is the reason for the discussion. Not that the majority dislikes the theme, but that it provokes such extreme positions. Would another name from the get go have prevented such a discussion? Maybe it would. Personally, and only personally, I can see the name “Sentinel” (with a slightly adapted over all theme) as a name, that could have worked, for what ANet desired and would have pleased most likely more of the community. But now we are in the realm of likings and what each and everyone prefers.

Over all I see no conceptual reason, why the Dragonhunter theme could be flawed (at least not more than some of the other professions we have). The only thing I see is, that a part of the community had expected something different as to what ANet chose to do. But there is no entitlement. ANet has to decide, if they wanna go for a less polarizing theme or if they wanna go through with it. And honestly, after reading some of the very arrogant posts here, I personally wouldn’t bend to them. Especially if I personally as a game designer had my own vision. Game design, in my opinion, is more than marketing. It is an art form. And art should definitely not be a subject to democratic opinion and marketing imho. But that might be just my view…

Everything’s already been said, so I’ll just add my name to the count: the logic and reasoning behind it is respectable; but it doesn’t change the fact that the end result sounds stupid and really doesn’t fit the guardian at all in the majority’s eyes. Even to the point where it sounds silly.

JonPeters.5630:

A couple notes on Dragonhunter. We went with this name because we felt it was evocative of the medieval witch hunters. 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.

This is not the first time that ANet adds 1 to 2 and gets 12 while the rest of the world gets 3.

I would’ve bought it if they outright said “Hey, we want to attract younger audience, and this spec was the only one we could do it with!”, but this reasoning just doesn’t cut it.

ANet came up with a very specific, disconnected term (dragon hunter) which a 10-year old would’ve suggested since more abstract fantasy concepts (sentinel, warden, seeker, arbiter, seraphim) are far from his understanding and beyond his vocabulary. And then ANet states that we, players who have written hundreds of elaborated posts on the subject already, fail to grasp this deep concept. I wonder if this is just PR talk to cover up for the younger audience targeting, or they believe that a glorified ranger is something that naturally comes from a concept of a “holy knight” guardian we’ve always had in our minds for 2+ years.

Anyway, Genesis has already summed it up perfectly earlier.

Genesis.8572:

Thank you for your reply. We appreciate anyone from ArenaNet providing feedback on the fan responses. I get what you were going for. I really do. That became apparent in the Friday twitch stream on the guardian elite specialization. The problem is that the concept comes across as incredibly garbled mess. Intent does not equate to reception. You are sending mixed messages through the name and the flavor text in a manner that feels both disassociated from the core concepts of the guardian and what you claim the elite specialization is about.

You and Karl indicate that ArenaNet seek to evoke a “medieval witch hunter.” But ANet talks about the specialization being “big game hunters,” which is a distinct concept from a “medieval witch hunter.” I can see “witch hunters” being connected conceptually to guardians, as purifiers and inquisitors of the faith, but not “big game hunters.” “Witch hunters” were not known for taking down “big game,” but the secretive, deceptive, and dangerously subtle ‘game’ that lurked within the hearts of their fellow humans: apostates, pagans, and heretics. The danger for “witch hunters” was neither “big game” nor the world outside of their community, but within their community.

<and so on>

Lishtenbird.2814:

JonPeters.5630:

A couple notes on Dragonhunter. We went with this name because we felt it was evocative of the medieval witch hunters. 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.

This is not the first time that ANet adds 1 to 2 and gets 12 while the rest of the world gets 3.

I would’ve bought it if they outright said “Hey, we want to attract younger audience, and this spec was the only one we could do it with!”, but this reasoning just doesn’t cut it.

ANet came up with a very specific, disconnected term (dragon hunter) which a 10-year old would’ve suggested since more abstract fantasy concepts (sentinel, warden, seeker, arbiter, seraphim) are far from his understanding and beyond his vocabulary. And then ANet states that we, players who have written hundreds of elaborated posts on the subject already, fail to grasp this deep concept. I wonder if this is just PR talk to cover up for the younger audience targeting, or they believe that a glorified ranger is something that naturally comes from a concept of a “holy knight” guardian we’ve always had in our minds for 2+ years.

I lol’d, because I had almost the exact same thought process reading his explanation.

Einlanzer.1627:

Lishtenbird.2814:

JonPeters.5630:

A couple notes on Dragonhunter. We went with this name because we felt it was evocative of the medieval witch hunters. 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.

This is not the first time that ANet adds 1 to 2 and gets 12 while the rest of the world gets 3.

I would’ve bought it if they outright said “Hey, we want to attract younger audience, and this spec was the only one we could do it with!”, but this reasoning just doesn’t cut it.

ANet came up with a very specific, disconnected term (dragon hunter) which a 10-year old would’ve suggested since more abstract fantasy concepts (sentinel, warden, seeker, arbiter, seraphim) are far from his understanding and beyond his vocabulary. And then ANet states that we, players who have written hundreds of elaborated posts on the subject already, fail to grasp this deep concept. I wonder if this is just PR talk to cover up for the younger audience targeting, or they believe that a glorified ranger is something that naturally comes from a concept of a “holy knight” guardian we’ve always had in our minds for 2+ years.

I lol’d, because I had almost the exact same thought process reading his explanation.

He flat out implied that anybody who “doesn’t get it” was too dumb to get it.

Jon is one of the most open to the community ppl at anet. I really doubt that he would mean anything untoward by his reply. I think he really meant to explain his / anet logic behind the concept. I think that the concept and the name are lazy, unimaginative, and confusing. But I know that Jon and the team are being honest in what they are saying(minus any pr people editing their posts) and are listening to us.

Will they hopefully change the name? We shall see. But attacking the few ppl at anet who are open with us is not the way to get this name changed.

zalirelbonecrusher.2357:

JonPeters.5630:

A couple notes on Dragonhunter. We went with this name because we felt it was evocative of the medieval witch hunters. 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.

Thanks,

Jon

I rarely have reason to post, but your statement shows a huge lack of perspective to what a Witch Hunter is in any lore. If this is truly what you guys thought, I am speechless. Then to call it a high concept? What does that Mean? That we are stupid if we don’t get it?

The concept itself is logical. A GW equivalent to a Witch Hunter. The entire execution is the problem.

There are 3 classes that if you said “Witch Hunter like” would immediately come to mind, Thief, Engineer and Ranger. The absolute last class I would apply this to is Guardian.

I am pretty widely read and can’t think of any concept of a Witch Hunter that is in Heavy Armor and wielding a bow.

This is a witch hunter:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Images/Product/DefaultBL/xlarge/Witch-Hunter-omnibus.jpg

If you had taken your concept, put it on any of the medium classes with a pistol/rifle/melee based build, a unique mix of spellcasting/fire/ranged play……

This has been explained more concicely in previous posts above but I’ll do my best.

Your perception of “Witch Hunter” is leather covered wares with daggers and crossbows. However, in the context John trys to convey is that the Guardian is a type of righteous person who feels Justice has to be done on a more personal level. He’s taken it upon himself to fulfill these daring acts, much like that of a witch hunter’s persona.

In that sense, Guardians are indeed the right class for the job, more so than any one else.

Dinks.2478:

He flat out implied that anybody who “doesn’t get it” was too dumb to get it.

Maybe you are.

And I hope they don’t change the name. Mostly because I’m at peace with their decision making, but also because some people get so incredibly butt flustered over it.

Blue Falcon.

Ghotistyx.6942:

Dinks.2478:

He flat out implied that anybody who “doesn’t get it” was too dumb to get it.

Maybe you are.

And I hope they don’t change the name. Mostly because I’m at peace with their decision making, but also because some people get so incredibly butt flustered over it.

Yeah, no.

Saiyan.1704

This has been explained more concicely in previous posts above but I’ll do my best.

Your perception of “Witch Hunter” is leather covered wares with daggers and crossbows. However, in the context John trys to convey is that the Guardian is a type of righteous person who feels Justice has to be done on a more personal level. He’s taken it upon himself to fulfill these daring acts, much like that of a witch hunter’s persona.

In that sense, Guardians are indeed the right class for the job, more so than any one else.

That is not a Witch Hunter. They are Morally Ambivalent, ends justifies the means type personas.

Your description is more fitting of a Templar, a Crusader, a Paladin, or any of dozens of other hero archtypes. All of which are better themes upon which to build a new Guardian build.

Skills aside, If this reveal had happened on April 1st, everyone would have loled and said GG Anet.

If they had added a Spear (maybe a rifle or pistol) as a ranged weapon, called the skills symbols rather than traps and called it something more appropriate (or even Paragon), you would have had no complaints.

Black Box.9312:

Obtena.7952:

Apparently so, because it’s not that hard to get. Dragon Hunter. I’m going to guess and say … has something to do with hunting dragons. Where youi are wrong is that it’s not a highly complex theme. It’s brain dead easy, like most other things in this game. People just trying to overthink it because they don’t like the name.

But how does their aim of a “backline support” spec match up with their idea of a “big game hunter that actively seeks the dragons to destroy them”? It’s completely contradictory.

Who cares? Just like the name, it doesn’t matter. You’re overthinking completely academic points. The relevant question is: do I get skills that are worth having? I don’t care what what it’s called or what contradiction in the concept exists.

The lowdown is pretty simple. Anet wants the new specialization concept to be traps, long range, etc… to give us options in PVP/WvW where we had some gaps with mobility/long range, etc… The traits and skills do that so that’s a win if you ask me. The name, or whatever cartoony theme that’s attached to those things does not matter. Call it whatever you want, the skills/traits change zero with exception for balancing. No argument you’re going to make is going to convince Mr. Peters (the guy telling us its a pretty done deal) that it NEEDS to change.

Obtena.7952:

Who cares? Just like the name, it doesn’t matter. The relevant question is: do I get skills that are worth having? I don’t care what what it’s called or what contradiction in the concept exists.

Then let the people who care either way have their conversation in peace.

Yeah, they are. What’s the problem here? If the best argument for change is “I don’t like it because for reasons <roleplay>” then you’re going to be sorely disappointed. I guess people haven’t though this through either; there is likely quite a volume of work completed incorporating this name. So despite whatever it is good or bad, giving the significance of it in gameplay, I don’t think it’s going anywhere.

zalirelbonecrusher.2357:

Saiyan.1704

This has been explained more concicely in previous posts above but I’ll do my best.

Your perception of “Witch Hunter” is leather covered wares with daggers and crossbows. However, in the context John trys to convey is that the Guardian is a type of righteous person who feels Justice has to be done on a more personal level. He’s taken it upon himself to fulfill these daring acts, much like that of a witch hunter’s persona.

In that sense, Guardians are indeed the right class for the job, more so than any one else.

That is not a Witch Hunter. They are Morally Ambivalent, ends justifies the means type personas.

Actually that fits the guardian fairly well too. Specifically any Guardian who picked the Fanatic’s Mantle at the beginning of the game..
" Long ago, I determined my path, and nothing will sway me from it. I’m stalwart in my beliefs and immovable in my loyalties. The weight of my pauldrons reminds me of the burden I carry"

That sounds pretty unwavering, ends justify the means, and “witch-huntery” to me.
Now admittedly a Visionary doesn’t match up with this as well.

Obtena.7952:

Black Box.9312:

Obtena.7952:

Apparently so, because it’s not that hard to get. Dragon Hunter. I’m going to guess and say … has something to do with hunting dragons. Where youi are wrong is that it’s not a highly complex theme. It’s brain dead easy, like most other things in this game. People just trying to overthink it because they don’t like the name.

But how does their aim of a “backline support” spec match up with their idea of a “big game hunter that actively seeks the dragons to destroy them”? It’s completely contradictory.

Who cares? Just like the name, it doesn’t matter. You’re overthinking completely academic points. The relevant question is: do I get skills that are worth having? I don’t care what what it’s called or what contradiction in the concept exists.

The lowdown is pretty simple. Anet wants the new specialization concept to be traps, long range, etc… to give us options in PVP/WvW where we had some gaps with mobility/long range, etc… The traits and skills do that so that’s a win if you ask me. The name, or whatever cartoony theme that’s attached to those things does not matter. Call it whatever you want, the skills/traits change zero with exception for balancing. No argument you’re going to make is going to convince Mr. Peters (the guy telling us its a pretty done deal) that it NEEDS to change.

I care, because the name is just one of a host of things that makes the spec completely self-contradictory.

Maybe my arguments won’t sway Jon or the rest of Anet, but I’m kitten well going to tell them what I think anyway, because I think they’re completely off base with this entire spec, including the name.

Public Fan Bloggers who Voiced Dislike or Unenthusiasm about the “Dragonhunter” Name:

Aurora Peachy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b2e6c0TV1M
- Guild Gab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7HAFDlMG1A

Bog Otter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ksm_sKWicE

MMOINKS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqwvGbdcmQE

Wooden Potatoes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7HAFDlMG1A

Guild Wars Players News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGVzoXOYLkE

Ten Ton Hammer (Lewis Burnell): http://www.tentonhammer.com/editorial/guild-wars-2-thoughts-dragonhunter

Guild Mag (draxynnic): http://www.guildmag.com/dragonhunter-rose-name/

That_Shaman: https://twitter.com/that_shaman/status/596360746105176064
- https://twitter.com/that_shaman/status/596755704289034240

Is Arenanet supposed to cater to the whims of media folk?

Obtena.7952:

Yeah, they are. What’s the problem here? If the best argument for change is “I don’t like it because for reasons <roleplay>” then you’re going to be sorely disappointed. I guess people haven’t though this through either; there is likely quite a volume of work completed incorporating this name. So despite whatever it is good or bad, giving the significance of it in gameplay, I don’t think it’s going anywhere.

I’m just going to requote what I addressed in an earlier post:

WhiteSphere.1597:

It’s just a name, why should I care if it won’t influence my playstyle? The problem with that is ANET has already set precedent for the theme and concept of a class changing its playstyle. With the recent Specialization livestream for all professions, a lot of traits were revamped:

• The engineer got an entirely new rework, with a lot of traits still TBD.
• The ranger’s spirits mobility were removed. “Spirits are not gonna move anymore. It just doesn’t feel right. We want the spirits to be more static, area-control.”
• Mesmer clone death and on-kill traits were removed too. “We’re kind of trying to take away their on-kill traits since that’s not really a mesmer-y thing.”
• Even the guardian’s trait Glacial Heart was also taken away: “The reason why Glacial Heart was kind of removed was because Guardian doesn’t really do chill, at all, ever. It’s not a thing that it does.”

This is my biggest concern with the DH’s ill-fit theme. If the name stays as it is, will ANET change (now or in the future) its skills and traits to better reflect a hunting theme?
ANET has already expressed difficulty before in creating more professions each with their distinct flavor: “We feel the classes we now have clearly represent the eight different archetypes […] but also eight very different ways to play […]making sure the archetypes feel good, unique and that they give the players what they want, but also feel individual from a game play point of view.”
The creation of the Revenant appears to be a unique endeavor that doesn’t seem like will be done again. “We looked at our whole set of eight professions and tried to figure out what archetype was missing.” If ANET was having trouble making a unique archetype before, it’s very unlikely that they will have space for more, now that they rounded out their weight classes.

The way the DH is now works mechanically well, even if thematically it needs review. If ANET were to carry over “hunting” from a just a theme into actually part of its mechanics it would invalidate the unique and different play styles that ANET worked to distinguish.

I can acknowledge it might be too late to change the name, but it doesn’t hurt to give feedback to a concept that may affect their decision making later.

WhiteSphere.1597:

They could’ve reached a point of no return (heh) with the DH in this expansion. Much of their scripts, dialogue, and voice-acting could’ve already been established using the DH and it would be too late or too much effort to change it back now.

I’m not expecting this post will change ANET’s mind. It isn’t my place to demand a name change, nor do I feel I should suggest a name to change to. It’s been stated before, if the community wants a name change and ANET feels inclined to do one, it should be put to a vote. The reason I write this is to point out the direction ANET is going and how (I believe) they’re contradicting their previous objectives. If ANET isn’t willing to change the name, then they should at least look over the players feedback and consider it in future content implementation.

Ghotistyx.6942:

Is Arenanet supposed to cater to the whims of media folk?

I’ll leave that loaded question for you to answer. I am merely posting impressions of the name around the web of prominent GW2 bloggers.

If you’d be so kind, would you also spend some effort to show which bloggers do like the name, since you’ve said you’re going for impressions and they can be both positive and negative.

Ghotistyx.6942:

If you’d be so kind, would you also spend some effort to show which bloggers do like the name, since you’ve said you’re going for impressions and they can be both positive and negative.

Sure. I’m willing to do that. I have already posted most of the ones I am familiar with, but I will look. If you find any, let me know, and I’ll add them to my compilation list. Seriously. Fair is fair.

WhiteSphere.1597:

They could’ve reached a point of no return (heh) with the DH in this expansion. Much of their scripts, dialogue, and voice-acting could’ve already been established using the DH and it would be too late or too much effort to change it back now.

I’m not expecting this post will change ANET’s mind. It isn’t my place to demand a name change, nor do I feel I should suggest a name to change to. It’s been stated before, if the community wants a name change and ANET feels inclined to do one, it should be put to a vote. The reason I write this is to point out the direction ANET is going and how (I believe) they’re contradicting their previous objectives. If ANET isn’t willing to change the name, then they should at least look over the players feedback and consider it in future content implementation.

If they would just talk a bit before they do stuff like this we wouldn’t have this problem now. Just talk a bit with the community beforehand so these kitten ups can be prevented.

Again, I don’t think there is a point of no return in regards to the name. It’s such a generic label that EVEN if there is voice recordings, they can leave it as is. A person calling my guardian a dragonhunter in a PVE cutsceen is fine… the same way them referring to a Mesmer or an engineer as a dragonhunter would be fine, too. We are, after all, hunting dragons as part of Pact operations.

So yeah, let them call us dragonhunters in voiceovers since it’s fine as a PVE title. Just don’t make us BE a class called dragonhunters.

Ghotistyx.6942:

Is Arenanet supposed to cater to the whims of media folk?

Community feedback and “media folk” tend to be bellwethers on the direction a game is headed. When many voices are saying “yo, we’re long time supporters of this game but hey, this thing you’re doing sucks”, companies need to take note. Sure, it might be too late to undo what has been done but these people, and the community at large, having such a bad reaction to a name will make Anet think twice in the future.

People enjoy feeling like a game or company they’re invested in is invested in them, too. Listening and making room for player suggestions goes a long way towards the “player first” experience.

Alice.5360:

Ghotistyx.6942:

Is Arenanet supposed to cater to the whims of media folk?

Community feedback and “media folk” tend to be bellwethers on the direction a game is headed. When many voices are saying “yo, we’re long time supporters of this game but hey, this thing you’re doing sucks”, companies need to take note. Sure, it might be too late to undo what has been done but these people, and the community at large, having such a bad reaction to a name will make Anet think twice in the future.

People enjoy feeling like a game or company they’re invested in is invested in them, too. Listening and making room for player suggestions goes a long way towards the “player first” experience.

A number of the people I listed were also “media folk” who had been invited by ArenaNet to their American and European branches to play an exclusive HoT preview and create exclusive videos to generate fan buzz.

I’ll be more fascinated to see how many of them contributing to this discord are ever invited back. Some certainly, but not all I bet.

Nike.2631:

I’ll be more fascinated to see how many of them contributing to this discord are ever invited back. Some certainly, but not all I bet.

Don’t be ridiculous- if they only invite the most glowing of reviewers to their sessions then no one will take the reviews seriously. These media-folk only gave their opinion. That’s what they’re supposed to do. If they didn’t give their opinion, they’d not be trust worthy and thus be of no use to Anet as a means of free promotion.

I wish I lived in a world where “Don’t bite the hand that feed’s you” wasn’t good advice.

It’d be more ridiculous if they didn’t take note. One black check mark might not mean anything by itself, but don’t think for a moment the checkmark doesn’t exist.

Like I said, I’m interested to see how it plays out. Industry watching can be fun.

Nike.2631:

I wish I lived in a world where “Don’t bite the hand that feed’s you” wasn’t good advice.

It’d be more ridiculous if they didn’t take note. One black check mark might not mean anything by itself, but don’t think for a moment the checkmark doesn’t exist.

Like I said, I’m interested to see how it plays out. Industry watching can be fun.

One of the people invited was AngryJoe, who had been a major vocal support of Guild Wars 2 at launch, but had stopped playing it following criticisms that he had voiced against the game. That didn’t stop ArenaNet from inviting him back.

Anet needs to stop calling or referring to the Dragonhunters as “witch hunters”. GW2 has a large Pagan community and whether their ancestors or even if they themselves are witches, the witch hunters past and present still victimize anyone they view as a “witch”. This needs to stop in real life AND game life.

GW2 has made strides in equal treatment of the LGBT community, please don’t make unintended victims out of those who follow the Pagan Path in our community, in the form of Sylvari mostly, by using this reference.

Just please stop referring to the unfortunately named Dragonhunter as “witch hunters”.

I know you are all excited about the changes you have made but quite frankly you have ruined the Guardian for me with these terrible skills, traits and name.

The fact that you are encouraging people to hunt those who may or may not be minions of Mordremoth (and face it, the fact that the Pale Tree is/was intended as a dragon champion before being found, planted and raised by Ronan and Ventari makes every Sylvari a minion in the eyes of a zealot witch hunter) is a major disappointment.

Personally I was hoping for a Guardian more along the lines of healing and party support, not some crazed zealot in the Tea Party/GOP venue.

I have nineteen level 80’s but I fear that my Guardians have all just been retired to mule status.

Merrydew.4079:

Anet needs to stop calling or referring to the Dragonhunters as “witch hunters”. GW2 has a large Pagan community and whether their ancestors or even if they themselves are witches, the witch hunters past and present still victimize anyone they view as a “witch”. This needs to stop in real life AND game life.

The fairytale of Hansel and Gretel must seem really offensive to you as well then.

Merrydew.4079:

Anet needs to stop calling or referring to the Dragonhunters as “witch hunters”. GW2 has a large Pagan community and whether their ancestors or even if they themselves are witches, the witch hunters past and present still victimize anyone they view as a “witch”. This needs to stop in real life AND game life.

GW2 has made strides in equal treatment of the LGBT community, please don’t make unintended victims out of those who follow the Pagan Path in our community, in the form of Sylvari mostly, by using this reference.

Just please stop referring to the unfortunately named Dragonhunter as “witch hunters”.

I know you are all excited about the changes you have made but quite frankly you have ruined the Guardian for me with these terrible skills, traits and name.

The fact that you are encouraging people to hunt those who may or may not be minions of Mordremoth (and face it, the fact that the Pale Tree is/was intended as a dragon champion before being found, planted and raised by Ronan and Ventari makes every Sylvari a minion in the eyes of a zealot witch hunter) is a major disappointment.

Personally I was hoping for a Guardian more along the lines of healing and party support, not some crazed zealot in the Tea Party/GOP venue.

I have nineteen level 80’s but I fear that my Guardians have all just been retired to mule status.

Is the pagan population really large? What kind of numbers can you provide for us?

Why would you need to mention Anet has been “making strides” when they’ve never shown an issue to begin with? You make strides when you need to improve something. If you don’t need to improve you just do it.

Why would you complain about being encouraged to hunt things that may/may not be Mordremoth minions when hunting dragons and the minions is the whole point, mechanically and lore-wise? Just say “don’t encourage people to hunt non-Mordy minions”

Also, I’m glad you felt the need to take a stab at the US Right, as if everyone who plays is american and as if the left doesn’t have their own hordes of fanatics.

I’m so glad you feel the need to relegate your guardians, all of them, to mule status because an optional option is available to not ever choose if you felt so inclined.

I don’t know what kind of projector you got for Christmas but I’d certainly appreciate it if you unscrewed the bulb and didn’t turn it on again.

Merrydew.4079:

Anet needs to stop calling or referring to the Dragonhunters as “witch hunters”. GW2 has a large Pagan community and whether their ancestors or even if they themselves are witches, the witch hunters past and present still victimize anyone they view as a “witch”. This needs to stop in real life AND game life.

GW2 has made strides in equal treatment of the LGBT community, please don’t make unintended victims out of those who follow the Pagan Path in our community, in the form of Sylvari mostly, by using this reference.

Just please stop referring to the unfortunately named Dragonhunter as “witch hunters”.

I know you are all excited about the changes you have made but quite frankly you have ruined the Guardian for me with these terrible skills, traits and name.

The fact that you are encouraging people to hunt those who may or may not be minions of Mordremoth (and face it, the fact that the Pale Tree is/was intended as a dragon champion before being found, planted and raised by Ronan and Ventari makes every Sylvari a minion in the eyes of a zealot witch hunter) is a major disappointment.

Personally I was hoping for a Guardian more along the lines of healing and party support, not some crazed zealot in the Tea Party/GOP venue.

I have nineteen level 80’s but I fear that my Guardians have all just been retired to mule status.

Personally I was surprised by their use of the term in the dragon hunter description for similar reasons. To be fair though, ‘witch’ is a generic term that has been used in history and fantasy for both benevolent and malicious magic users. They’ve made it clear they are talking about fighting a threat to all living things on Tyria; I would take it in the spirit it’s intended and not bother being terribly offended.

Merrydew.4079:

Anet needs to stop calling or referring to the Dragonhunters as “witch hunters”. GW2 has a large Pagan community and whether their ancestors or even if they themselves are witches, the witch hunters past and present still victimize anyone they view as a “witch”. This needs to stop in real life AND game life.

GW2 has made strides in equal treatment of the LGBT community, please don’t make unintended victims out of those who follow the Pagan Path in our community, in the form of Sylvari mostly, by using this reference.

Just please stop referring to the unfortunately named Dragonhunter as “witch hunters”.

I know you are all excited about the changes you have made but quite frankly you have ruined the Guardian for me with these terrible skills, traits and name.

The fact that you are encouraging people to hunt those who may or may not be minions of Mordremoth (and face it, the fact that the Pale Tree is/was intended as a dragon champion before being found, planted and raised by Ronan and Ventari makes every Sylvari a minion in the eyes of a zealot witch hunter) is a major disappointment.

Personally I was hoping for a Guardian more along the lines of healing and party support, not some crazed zealot in the Tea Party/GOP venue.

I have nineteen level 80’s but I fear that my Guardians have all just been retired to mule status.

lol, I retract all arguments about Dragonhunter, Lololol. As long as we get more quality jokes like this I am all good with it.

JonPeters.5630:

A couple notes on Dragonhunter. We went with this name because we felt it was evocative of the medieval witch hunters. 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.

Thanks,

Jon

Jon, I love you. I really do. You are one of my favorite people associated with this game. That’s a lot coming from me because I do not like people. Nevertheless, I like you.

I digress…

Jon… I think the name sucks. A lot of people don’t like it either. Is there any way that you could possibly change the name?

For the sake of the community. Do it for us. Do it for the people.

Yours sincerely,

Jasher “The Slasher”

Jasher.6580:

JonPeters.5630:

A couple notes on Dragonhunter. We went with this name because we felt it was evocative of the medieval witch hunters. 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.

Thanks,

Jon

Jon, I love you. I really do. You are one of my favorite people associated with this game. That’s a lot coming from me because I do not like people. Nevertheless, I like you.

I digress…

Jon… I think the name sucks. A lot of people don’t like it either. Is there any way that you could possibly change the name?

For the sake of the community. Do it for us. Do it for the people.

Yours sincerely,

Jasher “The Slasher”

You just don’t understand it. lol.

Einlanzer.1627:

Jasher.6580:

JonPeters.5630:

A couple notes on Dragonhunter. We went with this name because we felt it was evocative of the medieval witch hunters. 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.

Thanks,

Jon

Jon, I love you. I really do. You are one of my favorite people associated with this game. That’s a lot coming from me because I do not like people. Nevertheless, I like you.

I digress…

Jon… I think the name sucks. A lot of people don’t like it either. Is there any way that you could possibly change the name?

For the sake of the community. Do it for us. Do it for the people.

Yours sincerely,

Jasher “The Slasher”

You just don’t understand it. lol.

(Takes 10 seconds to draw a kittenty stick figure with terrible proportioning and calls it a masterpiece.)

“Dude, that art sucks.”

“NO, YOU JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND IT!” (cries in corner)

If they really wanted to drive home the “we seek justice against the dragons in particular” theme, I feel calling it “Dragonbane” or “Dragonslayer” would have been better choices. Still generic… But at least it wouldn’t invoke the hunter image, or the lame idea of a “big-game hunter” which they referred to and I dislike because I feel like calling someone a “big-game hunter” invokes the image of someone hunting for sport. The idea should be that they bring justice to dragons because it’s what the world needs, not because they’d make a nice trophy on my wall (which is the idea the current name creates).
So if they want to stick to the “bring justice to the dragons” at least change it to Dragonbane or something… (And get rid of references to big-game hunting that don’t really match the overall concept…)

Pitman.9210:

WhiteSphere.1597:

They could’ve reached a point of no return (heh) with the DH in this expansion. Much of their scripts, dialogue, and voice-acting could’ve already been established using the DH and it would be too late or too much effort to change it back now.

I’m not expecting this post will change ANET’s mind. It isn’t my place to demand a name change, nor do I feel I should suggest a name to change to. It’s been stated before, if the community wants a name change and ANET feels inclined to do one, it should be put to a vote. The reason I write this is to point out the direction ANET is going and how (I believe) they’re contradicting their previous objectives. If ANET isn’t willing to change the name, then they should at least look over the players feedback and consider it in future content implementation.

If they would just talk a bit before they do stuff like this we wouldn’t have this problem now. Just talk a bit with the community beforehand so these kitten ups can be prevented.

If you think that way, you don’t understand your role as a customer.