Guild Wars 2

I’m having enough of this. Guys, before you throw your impressions and feelings of the phrase “big-game hunting” around, please research the term. It is more than fitting for a dragon hunter… it is a necessity even…

TyPin.9860:

I’m having enough of this. Guys, before you throw your impressions and feelings of the phrase “big-game hunting” around, please research the term. It is more than fitting for a dragon hunter… it is a necessity even…

How so? Traps don’t work on “objects” like dragons and their champions.

Genesis.8572:

TyPin.9860:

I’m having enough of this. Guys, before you throw your impressions and feelings of the phrase “big-game hunting” around, please research the term. It is more than fitting for a dragon hunter… it is a necessity even…

How so? Traps don’t work on “objects” like dragons and their champions.

Because ppl say, that the term big-game hunting does not fit the theme of the Dragonhunter, when in fact dragons are big-game. What, if not a dragon, is big-game in GW2?

I wasn’t aware, that traps don’t trigger on “dragons and their champions” in HoT. Where do you know this from? If that was the case, then I’d agree that would be awfully stupid.

Though, that wouldn’t change the the necessity of being a big-game hunter, if you hunt dragons.

We don’t know if things like traps not popping on Teq, Shatt, or CoJ will be fixed or otherwise altered come the expansion. Plus, I think its assumed you’d get a small army to fight things that have claws literally larger than the max height and weight Norn. I don’t think mechanically or lore-wise one would be expected to go mano a draco.

However, for the minions of the Dragons, singular hunters with traps and a bow can be very effective hunters.

Necro’s new spec for today, “Reaper”, so.. I wonder where is this specialization excuse to go so out of theme with Guardian.. Mesmers get a shield and ability to manipulate time, Necros get a sword and it’s all about fear, terror like a “classic horror movie”.

And Guardians get a crocodile dundee thematic spec..

Ryuu.5608:

Necro’s new spec for today, “Reaper”, so.. I wonder where is this specialization excuse to go so out of theme with Guardian.. Mesmers get a shield and ability to manipulate time, Necros get a sword and it’s all about fear, terror like a “classic horror movie”.

And Guardians get a crocodile dundee thematic spec..

I am very happy for Necros. They got a great video and what appears to be some awesome skins and a theme that fits their class PERFECTLY! +

Alas, that makes the Guardian spec all the more lack luster. Did they put all their effort into these other specs? I know necros needed love but did that necessitate neglecting the guardian spec and piecemilling together the most generic of the generic?

I have a necromancer so I’m happy with the new specialization but then I wonder how in the heck Anet went so wrong with the Dragon Hunter? God the name is so bland its mind boggling.

TyPin.9860:

I’m having enough of this. Guys, before you throw your impressions and feelings of the phrase “big-game hunting” around, please research the term. It is more than fitting for a dragon hunter… it is a necessity even…

Dragon hunting is fine for a big game hunter.

guardians are not big game hunters.

Even Jon said they were supposed to be more like witchhunters.

No, dragons are not this game’s version of witches. They can’t both be game and witches. And no, dragons aren’t evil. They’re basically elemental forces and part of the cycle of the land.

Alice.5360:

TyPin.9860:

I’m having enough of this. Guys, before you throw your impressions and feelings of the phrase “big-game hunting” around, please research the term. It is more than fitting for a dragon hunter… it is a necessity even…

Dragon hunting is fine for a big game hunter.

guardians are not big game hunters.

Even Jon said they were supposed to be more like witchhunters.

No, dragons are not this game’s version of witches. They can’t both be game and witches. And no, dragons aren’t evil. They’re basically elemental forces and part of the cycle of the land.

I’m confused how the dragons aren’t evil. They’re obviously sentient. And they eat the worlds magikittenil everything’s dead, all the while corrupting everything they contact. They don’t HAVE to do that, Glint’s the great counter example (albeit I guess she WAS a minion too.) But dragons and their minions plan and act both strategically and tactically to conquer and destroy. That seems pretty evil to me, albeit they seem to get smarter as they absorb more magic. Mordy seems pretty reactionary right now while Zhaitan was planning a full scale invasion of Lion’s Arch with amassed forces and a stealth attack.

Regardless the world DOES treat them as evil, or at least a corruption to be hunted down and burned out. Burning out the dangers of the world sounds decently witch-huntery and guardian-like to me. Even the trap makes sense since they’re forced to hunt a stronger foe and attack them by trapping the places they walk or rest. (Plus I imagine if there’s an order of Dragon Hunters for Guardians they’re going to be a bit of a paranoid lot. Seeing as how a crapton of Lion’s Guard silvari turned sides and helped bring down a bunch of those pact airships. I can see them trapping the crap out of everything.)

I’m not saying the name’s NECESSARILY a perfect indicator of what it is, it does seems to rely at least somewhat on undisclosed world actions that we haven’t seen. That being said I CAN see how traps work with the guardian. Although them being light construct traps with the appearance they have seems a bit weird to me.

Necromancer’s specialization name is lame. It should have been Dragon Reaper! Because everything with Dragon in front of it is more mature. Whoever thought of just Reaper put out some really low concept. /sarcasm

Alice.5360:

TyPin.9860:

I’m having enough of this. Guys, before you throw your impressions and feelings of the phrase “big-game hunting” around, please research the term. It is more than fitting for a dragon hunter… it is a necessity even…

Dragon hunting is fine for a big game hunter.

guardians are not big game hunters.

Even Jon said they were supposed to be more like witchhunters.

No, dragons are not this game’s version of witches. They can’t both be game and witches. And no, dragons aren’t evil. They’re basically elemental forces and part of the cycle of the land.

Yknow? I’m sorry but seriously, Jon just contradicted himself many many times on that post.. and I’m not even trying to be unrespectful to him but everyone can see that at this point..

Vanquisher sounds nice, also suits what they were going for with the whole “Crusader of Dragon Witches” vibe. Cause you are literally using a bow and traps for area control yah.

I’m quting this from the other thread:

Genesis.8572:

Let’s compare the Chronomancer trait names with the Dragonhunter trait names to show more of what I am talking about the thematic cohesion of the elite specializations.

Chronomancer: We should expect a lot of time-motifs, and that’s what we find.

• Minor Traits: Time Splitter, Flow of Time, Time Marches On
• Adept Traits: Time Catches Up, Delayed Reactions, All’s Well That Ends Well
• Master Traits: Illusionary Reversion, Improved Alacrity, Danger Time
• Grandmaster Traits: Lost Time, Chrontophantasma, Seize the Moment

Conclusion: The chronomancer trait names are clearly tied in with the specializations’ time motif. Some puns and common phrases. It’s evocative about being a time mage.

Dragonhunter: We should expect either dragon or hunting motifs, but it is mostly generic guardian-sounding names.

• Minor Traits: Virtuous Action, Defender’s Dogma, Pure of Sight
  - Is there anything here that would suggest “dragonhunter”?

• Adept Traits: Piercing Light, Zealot’s Aggression, Soaring Devastation
  - I will say that Soaring Devastation is probably one of the best trait names for the DH. I want more trait names like that, if this is going to be a DH. But the other two come across more like typical guardian trait names.

• Master Traits: Hunter’s Determination, Bulwark, Dulled Senses
  - Hunter’s D does pass, but it’s also uninspiring. Maybe renaming it with greater emphasis on the ‘draconic’ aspect? Bulwark is fairly generic guardian as well, and Dulled Senses does not feel appropriately named for what it does.

• Grandmaster Traits: Hunter’s Fortification, Heavy Light, Big Game Hunter
  - Two more ‘hunting’ names, but one’s a repeat of the Hunter’s ____, and the other is the “big game hunter” mantra repeated on the first preview post. Again, I would make these more draconically-linked. For example, renaming “Hunter’s Fortification” to “Draconic Resilience” or “Protective Scales of Justice.” I would also connect “Big Game Hunter” more overtly with “Spear of Justice” (e.g. “Justice’s Wrath”) or dragon-hunting (e.g. “Strike the Weak Spot”).

Conclusion: Only three of the twelve traits directly references hunting (H’s Determination, H’s Fortification, and Big Game H), and two kinda allude to dragons (Soaring Devastation, Big Game H). This specialization lacks a clear, unifying sense of thematic focus and cohesion as demonstrated in their trait names, particularly when compared to the chronomancer. Most of the trait names do not evoke dragon-hunting or dragons, but generic guardian names. I think it needs to move more towards these draconic and hunting aspects to make it a more cohesive and sellable ‘dragonhunter’ package.

And as I added on…

Soaring Devastation refers to the wings becoming a damage leap instead of a heal leap… And the wings are Dwayna wings, not dragon wings so you can knock that off the list.

Then, on top of that, the “Big Game Hunter” undermines what Jon said when he was all “ooooh, no, you’re not /that sort of hunter./ You’re witch hunters, obviously!” Nah, man- being a game hunter is in the trait line. You can’t trick us! :<

Ryuu.5608:

Alice.5360:

TyPin.9860:

I’m having enough of this. Guys, before you throw your impressions and feelings of the phrase “big-game hunting” around, please research the term. It is more than fitting for a dragon hunter… it is a necessity even…

Dragon hunting is fine for a big game hunter.

guardians are not big game hunters.

Even Jon said they were supposed to be more like witchhunters.

No, dragons are not this game’s version of witches. They can’t both be game and witches. And no, dragons aren’t evil. They’re basically elemental forces and part of the cycle of the land.

Yknow? I’m sorry but seriously, Jon just contradicted himself many many times on that post.. and I’m not even trying to be unrespectful to him but everyone can see that at this point..

No he didn’t. The basic idea of Dragonhunters being inspired by witch hunters is no contradiction. And even being a big-game hunter is no contradiction here.

All Jon said was that they felt the Dragonhunter theme evocative of witch hunters. They didn’t say Dragonhunters are the version of witch hunters in GW2. And even if it was, it would be a logical conclusion to be a big-game hunter. You cannot be anything else, if you hunt dragons. And it is clear from Jon’s post that the similarities are based in the motivation of Dragonhunters and witch hunters.

So in short:
Dragonhunters wanna protect their people by dogmatizing dragons as forces of evil, which needs to be extinguished (evocative of witch hunters, who dogmatized certain people as evil witches). And dragons are big-game. I mean, if they are not big-game in GW2, then I don’t know what is. So a Dragonhunter needs to be a big-game hunter. This is pretty straight forward.

Again: Ppl seem to wanna forge arguments with the a sense of objectivity out of their personal dislike for the theme. It is a bit pathetic at this point. For those “arguments” had been dismantled over and over again.

TyPin.9860:

So in short:
Dragonhunters wanna protect their people by dogmatizing dragons as forces of evil, which needs to be extinguished (evocative of witch hunters, who dogmatized certain people as evil witches).

Ooooh, so they’re forcing NPC motives and outlooks onto my character.

How is that any better?

TyPin.9860:

It is a bit pathetic at this point.

We should not have to argue: we don’t like this name for many different reasons.
We explain why we don’t like it and that’s it.
You may disagree but whatever, it’s a matter of test.

As I have said many many many times:

You can like or not like the theme. And this is something you can state, not argue.

If you don’t like it, well then this is the case. I don’t argue tastes (unlike many on the Dragonhunter hater side).

But ppl try to forge some wanna be arguments: ‘The concept either contradicts itself or doesn’t fit the GW2 universe or doesn’t fit the way other professions/ specializations are made.’ (paraphrased). But structurally the concept is sound.

That doesn’t mean you need to love it now. No1 said that. But don’t forge straw men and fake reasons, trying to make the the concept sound “objectively” flawed, when you simply personally just don’t like it.

EDIT:
And the last 2 posts show that. Instead of actually addressing what I said and refereed to, one completely takes a quote out of its context. This part of constructing straw men.

TyPin.9860:

As I have said many many many times:

You can like or not like the theme. And this is something you can state, not argue.

If you don’t like it, well then this is the case. I don’t argue tastes (unlike many on the Dragonhunter hater side).

But ppl try to forge some wanna be arguments: ‘The concept either contradicts itself or doesn’t fit the GW2 universe or doesn’t fit the way other professions/ specializations are made.’ (paraphrased). But structurally the concept is sound.

That doesn’t mean you need to love it now. No1 said that. But don’t forge straw men and fake reasons, trying to make the the concept sound “objectively” flawed, when you simply personally just don’t like it.

+1

I like every bit of the theme I saw from the video, as well as the Ready-Up. I don’t want my previous posts from this thread (or other) to deter that fact in anyway :P

Why didnt Anet gave necromancers name like Dark Guardians, because with specializations they got our 2 best GS skills, BB and WW. GG ! Give them spirit weapons too! They need it we dont xD

TyPin.9860:

But ppl try to forge some wanna be arguments: ‘The concept either contradicts itself or doesn’t fit the GW2 universe or doesn’t fit the way other professions/ specializations are made.’ (paraphrased). But structurally the concept is sound.

A- I don’t like dragonhunter because X.
B- You’re argument is invalid, find another reason not to like it.
A- What? Ok, then hm… I don’t like it because Y doesn’t fit me.
B- You’re argument is invalid, find another reason not to like it.

How can you even got a constructive discussion when you know that someone will always come and say “Nope, you can’t say that”?

I said on another thread (or maybe this one, I don’t remember) that I don’t like Dragonhunter because it draws on me the dragonhunter’s faction mantra : “eradicate dragons!” and that doesn’t fit my way to see the game.

Someone came over this statement and said “You can’t say that! You don’t even know who are the dragonhunter faction!”
I put a statement on the table and this player came and try to transform it into an argument.
So I feel like I had to argue, then he responded, I answered, etc…

Instead of coming and setting a statement “I love dragonhunter because I think this eradication mantra fits very well to the new way I’ll play my guardian.”, he cames with a respond to my statement.

In this case it’s simply a matter of course that the majority finds the name jarring and inappropriate, both in the context of other classes/specializations and in the context of the Guardian class as a whole, due to the fact that there’s a break in uniformity in how this spec was concepted compared to all other classes/specs announced so far.

There’s really no arguing this point. It’s a fact that it’s different. It’s an opinion if you think this difference is a good, neutral, or bad thing. It’s fairly apparent that the majority don’t like it, probably because most people are just a little psychologically uncomfortable with asymmetry and discord. They desire conceptual cohesion.

Frankly, i’m iffy on the concept and very negative on the name. It sounds like a middle school kid came up with it.

Alice.5360:

TyPin.9860:

So in short:
Dragonhunters wanna protect their people by dogmatizing dragons as forces of evil, which needs to be extinguished (evocative of witch hunters, who dogmatized certain people as evil witches).

Ooooh, so they’re forcing NPC motives and outlooks onto my character.

How is that any better?

You appear to misunderstand the meaning of “forced”.

First off, you “chose” to buy the expansion knowing this information ahead of time.

Then you “chose” to play that elite specialization.

@purecontact:
What I said, doesn’t only apply to ppl, who dislike the theme of Dragonhunter. I personally like the theme, but that doesn’t mean, that anyone has to like it. There were several posts within this thread, where ppl explained their distaste for the theme. And well, it is a matter of taste and I can’t argue that.

I am only criticizing ppl, who try to express their taste as an argument for concept contradiction. The concept isn’t really contradictory. It very much makes sense.

One still can say: ‘it doesn’t fit guardian’. A point of view I can very much understand in some way. There are similar “issues” with the specialization, such as the Dragonhunter theme not really being reflected in the skills themselves. This is a point I could agree with. However, this is a point not unique to the Dragonhunter, but other professions suffer from that flaw too. Thus the critique, while still valid, isn’t very strong or outstanding.

Others claim that the majority of the community was against the theme. But there is no proof of that. It is only an assumption, which they present as facts. Those are the kind of “contributions” to the discussion I dislike. And I only criticize those.

yah i love the theme and the traps are pretty cool too. I even like the longbow and the active virtues thing is refreshing. What i don’t like is the name? X) What do we have to do to get a One word name? Dragonhunter isnt one word. also Dragonhunter doesn’t exactly scream Guardian. Heck even if it was just Hunter i would be perfectly fine with that.

purecontact.1680:

TyPin.9860:

But ppl try to forge some wanna be arguments: ‘The concept either contradicts itself or doesn’t fit the GW2 universe or doesn’t fit the way other professions/ specializations are made.’ (paraphrased). But structurally the concept is sound.

A- I don’t like dragonhunter because X.
B- You’re argument is invalid, find another reason not to like it.
A- What? Ok, then hm… I don’t like it because Y doesn’t fit me.
B- You’re argument is invalid, find another reason not to like it.

How can you even got a constructive discussion when you know that someone will always come and say “Nope, you can’t say that”?

I said on another thread (or maybe this one, I don’t remember) that I don’t like Dragonhunter because it draws on me the dragonhunter’s faction mantra : “eradicate dragons!” and that doesn’t fit my way to see the game.

Someone came over this statement and said “You can’t say that! You don’t even know who are the dragonhunter faction!”
I put a statement on the table and this player came and try to transform it into an argument.
So I feel like I had to argue, then he responded, I answered, etc…

Instead of coming and setting a statement “I love dragonhunter because I think this eradication mantra fits very well to the new way I’ll play my guardian.”, he cames with a respond to my statement.

I wonder why people even think there is any space for a constructive discussion about the name. Anet did not open some opportunity for the name to change. They explained why they choose the name; at this point there is likely a large body of work that has already incorporated the name.

The best part is that DH will probably go to live and people will QQ more wondering why Anet didn’t change it after all the ‘constructive discussion’ we had about it. Well, because it wasn’t actually open for debate sponsored by Anet in the first place?

I tend to agree with TyPin at this point. If the best people can do to say the name is wrong is because of some minor inconsistencies in the concept, move on.

Why do they have to move on? They are perfectly fine disliking the name for whatever reason. Same as your love of the name is perfectly fine. The issue is in ppl telling others how to feel about this. you are not going to change other ppl view of the spec. But do voice your views here so anet can see them and make their own choice.

I am pretty sure anet is fully aware of the issues with the spec at this point. They will either change it or not. But do continue the discussion to keep the thread bumped

I’m willing (and I bet Anet is as well) to have a reasonable discussion about name changes if the reasoning isn’t nonsensical. Do you consider thematic inconsistencies based on a short video and a press released a sensible reason to undo and redo work? I don’t. I don’t think people should move on … if they can stop hammering such a weak argument for name change. So far, it’s all I’ve seen.

I get it, the name isn’t particularly cool or inspiring and the best people can think of to justify changing it is nitpicking a few teasers.

Obtena.7952:

I get it, the name isn’t particularly cool or inspiring and the best people can think of to justify changing it is nitpicking a few teasers.

If you believe you are taking the high road, then please provide us (and ArenaNet) with your constructive feedback regarding the ‘dragonhunter’ name, especially since you dislike it. Whether the name is changed or not, it would likely prove valuable for ArenaNet going forward in the future, whether that’s with the dragonhunter, future specialization names, or fan feedback.

Let’s be clear, I’ve not said I dislike the name. I’m neutral about it. Put it this way, good or bad, the name is the last place I want devs to pontificate and focus their efforts; give me good skills, traits and weapons instead.

My feedback is as follows:

1. I can understand where the name comes from based on the explanation Jon gave us.
2. I see how the tools fit the concept and address some concerns Guardians have had since day 1.
3. I understand that Anet has provided their logic behind the naming; it is not an invitation for collaboration with players into changing the spec name.
4. Whether I like it or not means little through the forum. I’m a customer, I speak with my money.

when the name was released, I was playing in game and haven’t watched it. we were in fractals, I was on my guardian. then one of my friends asked me,

“have you seen dragonhunter?”

and I said, no. I was wondering — is that an anime? a movie? what was that i should’ve seen?

comparing it to when people started talking about the “reaper” on map chat as soon as it came out, and i immediately understood.

i think it’s a very obvious example of a disconnect with the name, “high concept” as they call it (which I googled by the way, and in no way did the name feel high concept as a casual player the first time i heard it).

now i’m convinced that they’re not changing it for whatever reason, but people /have/ given their own suggestions and constructive feedback despite some people here saying their objections are invalid. we may be looking forward to the update / specialization but i feel like people are so quick to dismiss it when some players feel that the name has a disconnect from the game. it was our experience, and just as valid as anyone else’s.

Obtena.7952:

Let’s be clear, I’ve not said I dislike the name. I’m neutral about it. Put it this way, good or bad, the name is the last place I want devs to pontificate and focus their efforts; give me good skills, traits and weapons instead.

My feedback is as follows:

1. I can understand where the name comes from based on the explanation Jon gave us.
2. I see how the tools fit the concept and address some concerns Guardians have had since day 1.
3. I understand that Anet has provided their logic behind the naming; it is not an invitation for collaboration with players into changing the spec name.
4. Whether I like it or not means little through the forum. I’m a customer, I speak with my money.

I think the reason why people are so insistent on the name being changed over any gripes about the spec itself is because the mechanics are more likely to be set in stone than just a simple set of text.

I think that’s where you guys are being presumptuous; there is alot more work going into changing the name and how it fits with the game than adjusting a string of text in code. I know most people will just brush that off but it’s still part of what Anet has done to develop the game.

Personally, I think the big hang up with the name is that it’s very specific to a task; hunting dragons. The other two names we have seen are not specific to a task, so they leave a little more to the players’ imaginations to appeal to what they want the profession to be. Dragon Hunter doesn’t do that. You’re a Dragon Hunter. There is no mistaking what that means.

Regardless, it’s probably less coding than the actual skills and mechanics, so it’s comparatively more feasible. And it’s not like we’re on the verge of release; there hasn’t even been an actual release date announced yet.

Again, it’s not just a matter of coding, regardless of how much or how little coding it would actually be compared to skills, etc… That comparison has no weight on the matter.

Black Box.9312:

I think the reason why people are so insistent on the name being changed over any gripes about the spec itself is because the mechanics are more likely to be set in stone than just a simple set of text.

This.

We know we can’t undo traps and bows and, in fact, a large majority of us are excited about bows and ok with traps.

It’s the name and the massive deviation from the guardian archetype that we loathe. It is a massive step in the wrong direction and if we don’t speak now, Anet will likely take further steps in the wrong direction. We didn’t want lore where dragons were strictly evil. We didn’t want lore where we’re pigeonholed into following the NPCs’ choices and morality. We didn’t want a specialization that is so limited in scope from the very core.

We wanted mature, refined, thematically appropriate specializations that fit into the ambiguous morality of the shifting world.

Obtena.7952:

I’m willing (and I bet Anet is as well) to have a reasonable discussion about name changes if the reasoning isn’t nonsensical. Do you consider thematic inconsistencies based on a short video and a press released a sensible reason to undo and redo work? I don’t. I don’t think people should move on … if they can stop hammering such a weak argument for name change. So far, it’s all I’ve seen.

I get it, the name isn’t particularly cool or inspiring and the best people can think of to justify changing it is nitpicking a few teasers.

It’s not just the release blurb and video. “Big Game Hunter” ‘s in the trait line itself! And dragons aren’t even referenced at all!

To paraphrase Genesis.8572:
Only three of the twelve traits directly references hunting (Hunter’s Determination, Hunter’s Fortification, and Big Game Hunter), and only one kinda alludes to dragons- Big Game Hunter.
“This specialization lacks a clear, unifying sense of thematic focus and cohesion as demonstrated in their trait names, particularly when compared to the chronomancer. Most of the trait names do not evoke dragon-hunting or dragons, but generic guardian names.”

Looks like a second ranger specialization to me – it’s perfecly fine to name a pet-less ranger specialization something-hunter. Not keen on the dragon part though, like the posters above I feel it’s too specific, and surely these white magic hunters target other nasty creatures as well.

If Dragon Hunter came with a +15% damage bonus against all dragon minions, then the name would make sense. There is no mechanical reason for the name, as opposed to Chronomancer, which actively controls time.

What difference does it make what the name is? Is this the type of crap people complain about now? Names of specializations? All the other things that could be discussed, like skills, combos, strategies, builds and theorycrafting; but the most viewed and discussed is about a name you are probably going to abbreviate anyways?

Tyreal.5230:

What difference does it make what the name is? Is this the type of crap people complain about now? Names of specializations? All the other things that could be discussed, like skills, combos, strategies, builds and theorycrafting; but the most viewed and discussed is about a name you are probably going to abbreviate anyways?

Did you know that you can make different threads? If you want to talk about skills, combos, strategies, builds and theorycrafting make a thread or post in an existing one. In this one, people talk about the name and that they think it doesn’t fit.

Pitman.9210:

Tyreal.5230:

What difference does it make what the name is? Is this the type of crap people complain about now? Names of specializations? All the other things that could be discussed, like skills, combos, strategies, builds and theorycrafting; but the most viewed and discussed is about a name you are probably going to abbreviate anyways?

Did you know that you can make different threads? If you want to talk about skills, combos, strategies, builds and theorycrafting make a thread or post in an existing one. In this one, people talk about the name and that they think it doesn’t fit.

That wasn’t his point…

TyPin.9860:

Pitman.9210:

Tyreal.5230:

What difference does it make what the name is? Is this the type of crap people complain about now? Names of specializations? All the other things that could be discussed, like skills, combos, strategies, builds and theorycrafting; but the most viewed and discussed is about a name you are probably going to abbreviate anyways?

Did you know that you can make different threads? If you want to talk about skills, combos, strategies, builds and theorycrafting make a thread or post in an existing one. In this one, people talk about the name and that they think it doesn’t fit.

That wasn’t his point…

I know

Tyreal.5230:

What difference does it make what the name is? Is this the type of crap people complain about now? Names of specializations? All the other things that could be discussed, like skills, combos, strategies, builds and theorycrafting; but the most viewed and discussed is about a name you are probably going to abbreviate anyways?

There are other things that people aren’t too thrilled about (traps, for example), but it’s much more feasible to expect a name change if it’s something people are unsatisfied with as opposed to having them implement an entirely different set of skills or traits.

Black Box.9312:

Tyreal.5230:

What difference does it make what the name is? Is this the type of crap people complain about now? Names of specializations? All the other things that could be discussed, like skills, combos, strategies, builds and theorycrafting; but the most viewed and discussed is about a name you are probably going to abbreviate anyways?

There are other things that people aren’t too thrilled about (traps, for example), but it’s much more feasible to expect a name change if it’s something people are unsatisfied with as opposed to having them implement an entirely different set of skills or traits.

Also not the point of Tyreal’s post.

Alice.5360:

To paraphrase Genesis.8572:
Only three of the twelve traits directly references hunting (Hunter’s Determination, Hunter’s Fortification, and Big Game Hunter), and only one kinda alludes to dragons- Big Game Hunter.
“This specialization lacks a clear, unifying sense of thematic focus and cohesion as demonstrated in their trait names, particularly when compared to the chronomancer. Most of the trait names do not evoke dragon-hunting or dragons, but generic guardian names.”

I’m glad to be of service. I find that breakdown analyses of such things provide useful demonstrations. In this case, it turns out that the traits and ability names are endemic of the problem with the specialization name.

TyPin.9860:

Black Box.9312:

Tyreal.5230:

What difference does it make what the name is? Is this the type of crap people complain about now? Names of specializations? All the other things that could be discussed, like skills, combos, strategies, builds and theorycrafting; but the most viewed and discussed is about a name you are probably going to abbreviate anyways?

There are other things that people aren’t too thrilled about (traps, for example), but it’s much more feasible to expect a name change if it’s something people are unsatisfied with as opposed to having them implement an entirely different set of skills or traits.

Also not the point of Tyreal’s post.

Oh? Then what was it, because clearly you are so enlightened on the subject.

hate the ready up ok with the name sireucly icant understand how people accept that crap in compering to reaper and crenometor

Frankly, everything about dragonhunters doesn’t match up to Chronomancers and Reapers right down to their names. The difference in quality between the specializations is quite apparent to me.

It’s like… there are many different threats out there, not only dragons. A Reaper can go and take care of these threats, and so can a Chronomancer. Ghosts, legions, other kind of corruption…

Then there’s the Dragonhunter… sure he can go and take care of these threats too, but… why would he now that he’s a Dragonhunter?

What do you do for work Farzo? Whatever it is, I hope you’ve found someone else to do anything that your work isn’t, because obviously you can only work on what your title is.