Guild Wars 2

If Ghotistyx needs proof that ANET sometimes is making changes that no one asks for or even thinks they would be a good idea, that means he has not been paying attention. I can name 3 from the top of my head, and if I looked around I’m sure I could fine plenty more.

Arrk.4102:

If Ghotistyx needs proof that ANET sometimes is making changes that no one asks for or even thinks they would be a good idea, that means he has not been paying attention. I can name 3 from the top of my head, and if I looked around I’m sure I could fine plenty more.

Not a very fair speculatuon. If I’d I look around i’m sure I can find at least 1 person asking for such an inquiry. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.

I was answering this,which I forgot to qoute:
“Have you considered maybe " the rest of the world " is getting 12 when ArenaNet is the one getting 3? And where is the proof they’ve done this numerous times?"

I guess people will learn the hard way that Anet develops the game and most of the time, without the consent of players, which is not exceptional either. We have almost 3 years of GW2 to prove that, as well as decades of just general MMO experience to back that up as a reasonable approach to doing MMO development business. Carry on.

If you are so sure we (the people asking for a change) won’t get anywhere, why even bother?

I don’t know. I didn’t get the impression from Anet that they were seeking help or guidance on this. They provided their explanation; somehow people think that’s an open door to expect that change is coming. I would like to think that if Anet wants to really solicit player feedback on this, they would take their more formal approach with CDI.

Then you got nothing to worry about! You can now stop posting the “ANET is not wrong, so the theme does fit” posts. If you want to start using coherent arguments though, that’s a whole new story.

Arrk.4102:

Then you got nothing to worry about! You can now stop posting the “ANET is not wrong, so the theme does fit” posts. If you want to start using coherent arguments though, that’s a whole new story.

Ditto. There isn’t anything to worry about for anyone actually. That means you can stop posting the Anet IS wrong posts as well.

Obtena.7952:

Arrk.4102:

Then you got nothing to worry about! You can now stop posting the “ANET is not wrong, so the theme does fit” posts. If you want to start using coherent arguments though, that’s a whole new story.

Ditto. There isn’t anything to worry about for anyone actually. That means you can stop posting the Anet IS wrong posts as well.

Oh I never posted an “Anet is wrong” post. I just stated that the hunter theme does not fit what was established with the core class. I’m sorry you have to put words in my mouth to argue your point.

Obtena.7952:

Ditto. There isn’t anything to worry about for anyone actually. That means you can stop posting the Anet IS wrong posts as well.

As long as that thread remains a feedback thread regarding the dragonhunter name, then yes I can and will provide my feedback.

I guess I will do the same then. Glad that’s cleared up.

Obtena.7952:

I guess I will do the same then. Glad that’s cleared up.

But if you intend to have a conversation about the name, then we need you to discuss with people in ‘good faith’ and not just condescending naysaying. I feel that your contributions are less about the merits of the name and more about trying to shut down any and all conversations about the name. That’s not feedback nor is it fruitful, because then you just rile people up, as you are.

I don’t really see much more being provided though. I’m not riling anyone up anymore than the people making ridiculous arguments to change it. DO you actually think that if you have 30 pages of “we hate DH”, it’s more compelling without a contrasting opinion?

We got people who think the name is bad simply because Anet provided their reasoning behind it. Other people trying to pass off their judgement of the name being bad as a universal fact. That’s not good faith and it’s also REALLY weak, almost ignorable dribble.

I actually haven’t heard a single reason for why this name is bad, other than some vague notions of thematic inconsistencies. Maybe people shouldn’t lie and just admit they think it’s not very clever or that it’s not appealing; at least that’s honest.

No, instead they nit pick ridiculous points like “Oh, they mentioned witch hunter and big game hunter is a trait name … that’s confusing, which is it?” That’s just obtuse. It’s not that alien that the DH theme is attached to Guardian, it’s simply that people don’t LIKE the idea it’s attached to the Guardian and saying it’s bad to justify asking to change it.

Is thematic inconsistency the best players can do for a reasoning to change the name? If there is any actual issue with the name, it’s that it’s far to specific for the tastes of MMO players who want to have something left to the imagination. The theme itself works.

Finally, I think if people didn’t have such a fixation on what THEY think a Guardian should be and look at how the tools are coming together, we would be seeing suggestions for names like “Predator”, or “Stalker”, or “Trapper”. Yes, these names suck because I just thought of them on the spot but they are WAY more closely aligned to the idea that Anet has for the elite spec than any other name I have seen yet. People want to force their own ideas of what a Guardian is and they are doing it by protesting the name.

Dissenters of the name have voiced their opinion, and supporters of the name have voiced their contrasting opinions. The issue, IMHO, is in attempting to shut down discussion by essentially arguing that ArenaNet can never be wrong about their game decisions. That is an argument-killer that indicates a lack of willingness to hold a conversation in good faith. Nor is it in ‘good faith’ to imply that dissenters are simply being dishonest in justifying their dislike of the name.

I would also argue that dislike of the name in itself is a potentially justifiable reason to change it. If liking the name justifies keeping the name, then disliking the name justifies altering the name.

It’s not simply a matter of disliking the name, however, for everyone. There’s more to it than that. I don’t think that the theme itself works… at least as it is presented. The theme of a dragon-vanquishing guardian in its own right can work, but the problem is that the package deal of the dragonhunter’s name, lore and flavor, abilities, traits, etc. do not.

When you are done telling people that they are just being illogical and are ready to actually hold a conversation about the dragonhunter name, you are more than welcome to discuss my various posts (here and in the other thread) where I look at how the thematically incoherent the trait and ability names are with the dragonhunter theme. If you had bothered reading that post, then you would know that I also provided suggestions for making those trait names and abilities more congruent with ArenaNet’s dragon-hunter theme, though I would say that tweaking the name would still be in order: e.g. dragonbane, etc.

My next project in this discussion will present several alternative dragonhunter specializations that attempt to retain ArenaNet’s basic theme while also making the theme of the specialization more internally consistent and coherent. Just rebranding without changing the mechanics themselves.

The thing is, none of the previously suggested popular names need any mechanical change. A trait name here ant there and it’s done. I’m actually quite happy with how the Dragon Maw elite looks.

I feel compelled to place this here

This is the reason why these threads even exists. No need to get side tracked with other impertinent reasons.

I want to share this:

" Respect other people opinion is very important; it can help us to understand that nobody is perfect and every body thinks different. Respecting others opinions does not mean being untrue to our own. It just recognizing that everyone thinks different and when they share their views with us they can expect a fair hearing. Is hard when we believe something and we share it, and someone else have a different opinion and they criticize how we think. Trying to understand others point of views is important because it help us to know more about life and people.
Understanding other people will help us to be humbles and to have an open mind "

" People are entitled to their opinions and should be free to do so as long as they articulate their feelings with respect for others. But when people decide to share their opinions in a way that is meant to hurt another person’s feelings, that is when they have crossed the line "

Obtena.7952:

Finally, I think if people didn’t have such a fixation on what THEY think a Guardian should be and look at how the tools are coming together, we would be seeing suggestions for names like “Predator”, or “Stalker”, or “Trapper”. Yes, these names suck because I just thought of them on the spot but they are WAY more closely aligned to the idea that Anet has for the elite spec than any other name I have seen yet. People want to force their own ideas of what a Guardian is and they are doing it by protesting the name.

The thing is, the players are the audience of an MMO. The game has to, to some degree, cater to them or it looses their attention. It is important that the idea of the guardian is true to what the players desire, not just allowing Anet to get what Anet wants.

I’m of the opinion that if Anet throws typical, established ideas of Guardian/Paladin class into an elite spec, it will frankly be very boring. DOn’t really care how wacky it is but I think we can definitely say that boring isn’t a reason people stick with anything. I don’t think at this point people should be expecting Anet to bring ‘’typical" MMO stuff to GW2. We have many things that don’t conform. The game already has a base of players that know this so for Anet to ‘cater’, they should actually continue to challenge these typical MMO fantasy themes.

Where is my Pillowfluffer spec then? It’s not typical and it is unique. You would not complain, surely, because it is in theme to the game, since ANET made it.

I dunno, where is it? Maybe you should make your own MMO and make that a theme for the class, just like Anet did. See how well you do. Personally, I don’t consider Pillowfluffer in theme with GW2 but apparently you got an axe to grind and have no more valid points to make so have fun with putting another hole in this sinking ship.

I vote for the name Inquisitor.

Wow all this protesting really had an impact on anets way of deciding names:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5B7WMBF

Vote to rename LA to Dragons Arch

Yoseue.4251:

Wow all this protesting really had an impact on anets way of deciding names:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5B7WMBF

Vote to rename LA to Dragons Arch

There is no option there to rename Lions Arch XD.

Man… I saw they released a Community Vote about something and jumped on that blog post to eagerly read all about listening to their community and opening the name of Dragonhunter up for vote…. nope…

/crushed

Obtena.7952:

I dunno, where is it? Maybe you should make your own MMO and make that a theme for the class, just like Anet did. See how well you do. Personally, I don’t consider Pillowfluffer in theme with GW2 but apparently you got an axe to grind and have no more valid points to make so have fun with putting another hole in this sinking ship.

How can it not be in theme if ANet made it.
I don’t consider DH in theme for Guardian, but you disregarded that fairly easily.

Not quite sure I would like being called the D-Hunter…

Heh wow. Just lurking here, but I am surprised by how many people feel the same way I did when I first heard about Guardians becoming Dragonhunters.

If Anet didn’t want “boring” old names and concepts, then they wouldn’t have made Guardians, Warriors, Thieves, Rangers, Necros, and Elementalists to begin with. (And even Engineer and Mesmer are not all that unique. They would have thought up completely new “class” names, especially since they call them professions, they really could have made them very unique and non-classical in nature.

Why did they choose these “boring” classic names? Clearly, because their potential customers would better be able to associate with the product and the fantasy world they are building. You can clearly see this with any MMO that has tried to be fantasy, but not “Tolkienesque”/DnD or whatever you want to call it. The problem is that the vast majority of customers actually want and like these preconceived ideas from other past ventures into DnD-style fantasy worlds.

This name’s problem is that it stands in contrast with the “suspension of disbelief” that has been built up over many years, by many fantasy worlds. It’s like colors that don’t match in an outfit. Almost all people can properly identify colors that do not belong together in an outfit, and thus are an eye-sore. This name is an eye-sore to the concept of the Guardian and the shared culture and story that has evolved around these types of characters in many many worlds before GW2.

Arrk.4102:

Obtena.7952:

I dunno, where is it? Maybe you should make your own MMO and make that a theme for the class, just like Anet did. See how well you do. Personally, I don’t consider Pillowfluffer in theme with GW2 but apparently you got an axe to grind and have no more valid points to make so have fun with putting another hole in this sinking ship.

How can it not be in theme if ANet made it.
I don’t consider DH in theme for Guardian, but you disregarded that fairly easily.

You lost me … as far as I know, Anet didn’t make a Pillowfluffer theme. What you consider a theme in GW2 is actually not relevant.

Obtena.7952:

Arrk.4102:

Obtena.7952:

I dunno, where is it? Maybe you should make your own MMO and make that a theme for the class, just like Anet did. See how well you do. Personally, I don’t consider Pillowfluffer in theme with GW2 but apparently you got an axe to grind and have no more valid points to make so have fun with putting another hole in this sinking ship.

How can it not be in theme if ANet made it.
I don’t consider DH in theme for Guardian, but you disregarded that fairly easily.

You lost me … as far as I know, Anet didn’t make a Pillowfluffer theme. What you consider a theme in GW2 is actually not relevant.

So if they made a Pillowfluffer spec you would not complain because what YOU consider a theme would be not relevant, correct?

Depends. I would probably just not play the spec if I thought it wasn’t worth playing. I think a name is a really weak reason to not play something. Besides, there are going be 7 other elite specs I could play as well if the spec didn’t suit me. I’m more concerned about my game experience, not what something is called.

8, because Revenant is getting a Spec as well.
Pillowfluffer, Dragonbrawler, Rainbowrider, Bugslayer, Frogmancer, Ladlewielder, Wheelthrower, Flyhunter and Windowlicker. The new unique specs. Now I know this is hypothetical, but if this happened, what would you do? Go on the forums and tell everyone that they are wrong, because this is made by ANet and they are never wrong? Or would you finally admit that it is out of place?

Like I said, the name matters little to how the spec plays. Are those names out of place? Are you insulting my intelligence to suggest that those names have any reason whatsoever to be in a fantasy MMO and Dragonhunter does not? Pontificate the theoreticals all you want. There is NO person so unreasonable that would claim that a game centered around dragons as the main nemesis couldn’t have a DH theme in it. That’s not really the problem people have with the theme anyways.

No, the main problem people have with the theme is that it does not pertain to the Guardian class. On it’s own, the Dragohunter makes perfect sense in the context of GW2. A group of highly skilled and dedicated individuals of all races banding against the common threat. The Elite of the Pact, if you will. But as an evolution of the Guardian it makes no sense at all.

And that’s a problem with people imposing their expectations on how they want the game, specifically Guardians, to be conceptualized and developed when it’s not their game to do so.

People need to understand how this dev group appears to be one that tries new things. They throw out the rulebook. I’m sure they don’t care that players think the elite spec should be close to the traditional Paladin class. I’m even more certain it’s probably the farthest thing they would want for an elite spec to be on Guardians.

It makes no sense to some people but the explanations I’ve seen from Anet and players are plausible. People don’t get that it’s enough.

And you seem to have a problem understanding that sometimes new things don’t work, and people will speak out against it. This is how the 2.2k posts about it have amassed over the week and a half.

Then my problem with that reasoning of them wanting to move as far way from the core class as possible is this: why have the Guardians (so far) been the only ones to “suffer” from that, while the other 3 classes are sticking much closer to their roots?

That’s a self serving statement to say it doesn’t work. Like I’ve said, there are plausible explanations for DH, even as a Guardian elite spec. If your arguments can’t even get past the “it’s not right that DH is a Guardian spec”, you’re not going to get too far with Anet listening to you. The other thread started by Nike … that’s the CORRECT way to approach this. He recognizes what kind of changes are likely to be made, if any.

2.2k posts? Who cares? That’s not a measure of the degree that something needs to change. I’ve seen more posts on other topics that didn’t even coax a response from Anet. Any forum veteran of MMO’s knows that means absolutely squat.

Maybe your problem with moving from the core class will become insignificant as we get more reveals and people realize this could be an intentional diversion. I’m hoping that almost all the rest of the elites move so far from the original that this one pales in comparison. I was actually a little disappointed that the elite spec stressed an adaption of our signature Virtues so heavily; I feel it didn’t move enough to give more a more unique experience.

It is not a self serving statement because there have been many people speaking out against it, as evidenced by the number of posts you seem to disregard so simply.
And if there are some “plausible” explanations for something that already seems weak. They do not have to be merely “plausible” they have to actually make sense.

You also did not answer the other part of my post, but I will repeat myself.
Why are the other revealed specs sticking so close to their roots if you seem so sure that ANET is trying to move away from the theme of the core class with the Specializations?

Obtena.7952:

People need to understand how this dev group appears to be one that tries new things.

They do, and they have now learned that naming a specialization Dragonhunter is bad.

Lesson learned, let’s rename it into somethin fitting.

Obtena.7952:

I’m sure they don’t care that players think the elite spec should be close to the traditional Paladin class.

But I’m sure they do care that their hard work receives a positive reaction. Apart from guardian’s simply getting the longbow, people have been lukewarm to the mechanics and mostly critical to the name. Not exactly the “crowd pleaser” that Jon Peters had initially claimed for the guardian e-spec.

I’m sure they are more than aware that radical differences from people’s expectations would garner such reactions. Unfortunately, people have focused their complaints primarily on the less important thing that doesn’t affect the mechanics of the class gameplay. Maybe Anet has missed the mark on this elite spec here but out of ALL the things to focus their attention to … the name? No wonder players get so little quorum with the devs. They must think we are idiots.

Obtena.7952:

I’m sure they are more than aware that radical differences from people’s expectations would garner such reactions. Unfortunately, people have focused their complaints primarily on the less important thing that doesn’t affect the mechanics of the class gameplay. Maybe Anet has missed the mark on this elite spec here but out of ALL the things to focus their attention to … the name? No wonder players get so little quorum with the devs. They must think we are idiots.

Names are powerful. Names mean something.

The way it plays out is what guardians lacked, which is powerful and long range attacks. Traps are reworked as well, and overall it looks really interesting, and the style and way it could be played is fun.

The name, however, is still weak. The name that is supposed to mean something and fit with an overall theme as a branch to an already existing profession isn’t there.

So of course people will rally up and raise their concerns about something that just isn’t right to begin with, and it even looks like the overall theme of the Dragonhunter has been mixed up many times during development.

Obtena.7952:

And that’s a problem with people imposing their expectations on how they want the game, specifically Guardians, to be conceptualized and developed when it’s not their game to do so.

People need to understand how this dev group appears to be one that tries new things. They throw out the rulebook. I’m sure they don’t care that players think the elite spec should be close to the traditional Paladin class. I’m even more certain it’s probably the farthest thing they would want for an elite spec to be on Guardians.

It makes no sense to some people but the explanations I’ve seen from Anet and players are plausible. People don’t get that it’s enough.

Guardian players have been shafted so many times because of Anet wanting to keep the “theme” of the class. Now, they’re suddenly flipping that theme on its head because LOL LET’S MAKE THEM RANGERS and people aren’t supposed to have the right to disagree with that?

You might buy JP’s explanation, but the rest of us don’t, and we have every right to vocalize that.

Obtena.7952:

I’m sure they are more than aware that radical differences from people’s expectations would garner such reactions.

I don’t believe that. Given that Jon Peters called the guardian e-spec a “crowd pleaser” before its reveal, I would say it’s more probable that this was an epic fail on the part of ArenaNet anticipating fan expectations and reactions.

Unfortunately, people have focused their complaints primarily on the less important thing that doesn’t affect the mechanics of the class gameplay. Maybe Anet has missed the mark on this elite spec here but out of ALL the things to focus their attention to … the name? No wonder players get so little quorum with the devs. They must think we are idiots.

Probably because there is far less chance of getting rid of the traps.

I don’t think JP was anticipating players to be so closed minded that they focus primarily on the name either. Therefore, when he says it’s a crowd pleaser, then I think he was anticipating people having enough intelligence to see the gameplay value of the reveal over some words. Looks like I should my signature to say “OK Anet, you win, players are general not that smart”.

Obtena.7952:

I don’t think JP was anticipating players to be so closed minded that they focus primarily on the name either. Therefore, when he says it’s a crowd pleaser, then I think he was anticipating people having enough intelligence to see the gameplay value of the reveal over some words. Looks like I should my signature to say “OK Anet, you win, players are general not that smart”.

It’s so fun how you wind personal insults in your arguements. But just stop that, it’s becoming more and more tiring to read.

You think that’s what JP, thought, and you think that’s what he wanted, and you think that wasn’t what he thought.

JP can think what he wants. But this choice of name was definitely not a crowd pleaser, and I’m sure he knows that by now.

Whether they are going to change it or not, I don’t know, but I doubt it. Why? Because ArenaNet are very stubborn, and the elite skill itself got a dragon maw animation already, and I think they are going to keep pointing at that to have the name set in stone.

As Genesis said, the name is probably the only thing that ANet might be willing to change. I really doubt they’d change anything significant regarding the new virtues, the longbow, or traps.

Genesis.8572:

I don’t believe that. Given that Jon Peters called the guardian e-spec a “crowd pleaser” before its reveal, I would say it’s more probable that this was an epic fail on the part of ArenaNet anticipating fan expectations and reactions.

Maybe a fail on the name (arguably), but definitely not the overall specialization. There are no threads wanting traps to change, wishing they were mantras, turrets, or some other “non guardian” items. There’s been a few suggestions about trait relocations or mechanical changes. As a whole, the community are either happy with them or simply indifferent.

I’ve seen quite a few complaints about the specialization itself. Not as much as the name, but still.