Guild Wars 2

I like the idea of solar beam burning and maybe skill 2 as well, but traited. Would be fun build to run healing power with condi dmg. Really good suggestion!

Hello Irenio. I really like your idea with healing power scaling. As other people mentioned, going for healing power isn’t really good choice so hopefully this can change a litle bit so such builds are viable.

I have an idea how to improve staff skill #2 and make it more useful. The idea is: Change Glyph of Empowerment to do something else and add the effect of 10% dmg boost (or even more) to allies that are affected by floating whisp, add this for staff skill #2 as a baseline or attach this to trait Lingering Light. This would increase party dps, dont put there long cooldown maybe 5 seconds, so druid can upkeep that damage bonus to the party.

People mention that other professions can apply protection, aegis so they can mitigate dmg so healing is not really needed, because they lose DPS. Then maybe it’s worth to add for glyphs in celestial form such effects as glyph of empowerment does, but for example, decrease taken dmg by 15 or 20% that can be applied often but it’s independent of protection boon, make party immune to all CC for 5 second and while this effect lasts CCs doesn’t steal your stability stacks (so independent buff of stability). I know it sounds like doubling effects on different boons, but I think that it’s good that it can provide additional support and it’s not redundant. If you add boons that can be easily applicable by all professions to druid skills then still despite healing there is no reason to pick druid over other profession and healing is not very needed, people will always go for dps. Then consider adding some tools to druid that it can independently increase party dps and provide other support mechanics like glyph of empowerment, an unique buff that can be a nice addition. Maybe also flat buff to increase crit chance like precision. Increase change for crit by 50% for 10 seconds, but long cooldown (60 seconds for example).

I hope the suggestion may be helpful. Thank you for working kitten druid and good luck with making it even better!

EDIT: One additional idea. To make healing power build viable, maybe make the buffs/skills I mentioned that last longer/are stronger with more healing power we have, so suggested staff skill #2 that would give 10% dmg boost would last without healing power for 3 seconds maybe, but with full healing power grear it would last 9 seconds and increase dmg by 15 or 20% for example. These numbers are given for example. So in short give druids idependent useful boons that can scale it’s power and duration with healing power. That could be interesting.

I totally agree. I hope Anet will bring back difficulty for pve content like it was in BWE1/2.

I understand it’s hard to balance, noone wants masteries to be mindless grind, but if we want masteries to be endgame progression system, then it should take some time to unlock masteires, not like a week and then we’re done. I managed to unlock 6 masteries in 2 days, playing only a few hours. I think that it should take me a few days more to give me better feel of acomplishing something but also not to feel grindy. So I hope that some fixes will be done to above issues I listed.

I’d like to see required exp for masteries unlock to be slightly higher, like 20% more exp requirement and the most importantly, more masteries. The more masteries we have, the longer it will take to master them all and this won’t feel like a grind.
I know that Arenanet has limited resources so i don’t expect to see more mastery lines when HoT launches, more than were revealed so far, but I’d like to see more masteries in Pact Tyria. There is so much potential in this.

1.Racial masteries for playable races. Unlocking services in racial cities, maybe unlocking places like royal palace in each city, unlocking collections for new cultural armors and weapons, vendors with tonics/minis/finishers you can get only from them.

2.Orders masteries. Same as racial ones but order themed. New tiers of Order armors/weapons would be nice to have. Getting free teleport to Order base (portal like to HoM). Unlocking Oder-speciic dailies maybe? Would like to see some scavanger hunt for history books hidden around the world to fill priory library collection, etc.

3.Pact mastery, similar to Order masteries, but pact-centric, new tiers of pact weapons, dailies, mostly centric on lvl 80 zones where Pact is around (Orr, Frostgorge Sound, Silverwastes) etc.

EDIT: just got another idea.

4. Crafting mastery: doubling exp for discovering recepies, reducing amount of mats to craft items, chance to get some materials back during crafting, filling collections for unique recepies, for example crafting 25 slot (or even 30 slots) bags? Reducing the dmg your gear takes when you die, because your products are “higher quality”, etc.

So together we would have masteries: 5 racial + 3 orders + 1 pact + 1 crafting = 10 extra mastery lines. Approximaterly each mastery line with 5 masteries = 50 extra masteries to unlock. That would take some time to master I think.

What are your opinnion about the time required to unlock masteries? What other masteries would you like to be added to the game?

Hello. I’d like to share my thoughts about mastery system.

I really like idea of mastery system. I think this is good system for end-game pve progression. My first thought after beta finished: progression seems to be too fast.
I know that many people won’t agree with me, some may say it is opposite and it is too grindy. After all, people have different experience in beta, depending on variety of things.

I managed to unlock 6 masteries during beta: tier 2 in gliding, Itzel Nuhoch lines. 6 masteries out of 39. Unlocking them was really fun, getting new perks with next tier was exciting, but it felt too fast for me.

I understand that higher tiers will require significant amount of exp to be unlocked, but in current state I can predict that people who will focus on unlocking materies will be able to do so in 1 month or even faster. We should take into consideration a few things.

1.Events during beta were bugged. At some point they will be fixed and we will have more events on the maps, it was stated that events during beta were just an iteration of how it will look like when HoT is live. This means we will be able to get more exp with HoT “not bugged” event implementation. So leveling mastery tracks will be even faster.

2.Adventures were bugged during beta. Couldn’t complete them all. They will fix this problem so we will be able to get more mastery points in verdant brink, so more masteries we will be able unlock in the very first map.

3.Mastery points per alt during beta. If someone have 15 lvl 80s and complete first story step for HoT story will get nice chunk of exp and mastery point per alt. This should be changed, now completing a few steps of story with all alts will just give you enoguh masteries to unlock them all without doing much exploration and challenge.

4.With crafting exp HoT exp bar will ding every few minutes. Add to this new booster that increases exp from crafting and you will get masteries in no time.

Part 2 below.

Hello. I’d like to share my ideas for more “Pact Tyria” mastery lines that could be implemented in the future.

1.Order Mastery Lines: Vigil, Priory and Order of Whisperers

This mastery lines would provide new collections to be unlocked that would allow you to travel across Tyria and help your fellow Vigil Soldiers/Priory Scholars/Order of Whisperes Agents in completing variety of tasks. After completing collections you can gain access to entirely new tiers of Order-specific armors/weapons/minis/recepies/titles and other fancy rewards/services (ex. free teleport to Order Keep with item like for Hall of Monuments access).

2. We will get Pact Commander mastery line, but the same could be done as in Orders mastery line for Pact. Pact weapons, armors, services, titles, fancy things.

3.Racial Mastery Lines: One line for all or one line per race.

These mastery lines would be similar to Order lines as well with collections, but race-centric. Help other Norns making their Legend. Help Asuran mad scientists in their experiments. Outrun a centaur with Humans and grab some butter. After completing different collection you get access to next new fresh and juicy tiers of cultural armor/weapons and other fancy rewards and services in the city of specific race (for example, access to areas like Royal Terrace, but different places in different racial cities maybe? just an example).

I think such masteries would be interesting. Filling collections and doing small tasks order and race related would allow to put here and there some lore, interesing stories. This would give also a feeling that your choice of order and race was meaningful, come back to racial cities/order keeps and keep our characters identity.

What do you think about it and what are your ideas for other Pact Tyria mastery lines?

Part 2.

Energy management causes that we can’t spam our utilities like a crazy and sit on the back of the zerg doing nothing and rolling face on the keyboard. What in my opinion should be done to energy management to be more interesting and involving mechanic.

1. Weapon skills shouldn’t cost any energy, but grant you energy,

The longer the cooldown of skill is, the more energy you get back. Autoattack gives you small percentage of energy. Numbers should be balanced (BAU).

So how this would work and what’s would be the impact on the gameplay?

For example, Revenant in Ventari would become truly melee support. You would have to be engaged in combat and deal some damage to get your energy back to provide support, to trigger your urility skills. No combat – you run out of the energy in no time.
Merging these two solution together Ventari Legend can become decent support while still dealing damage.

1. Tablet easy to manage – People would have to move and do their job in specific range, but not small range. I prefere 1200 personally. This would fix mobility issue.

2.Easy to manage group support. – Party members get Ventari aura. You don’t have too look up people in the crowdly zerg to send them tablet and then maybe correct tablet’s position, because person already moved to other position.

3.The adventage of above two points can be balanced with energy managemet – you are forced to be constantly in combat to manage energy resources to use your utilities in order to support your allies. You support AND still do dps at the same time. That would be the essence of melee support-oriented specialization.

4.Enemies can decrease your support ability and allies can boost your support!
How? If enemy casts on you cripple or immobilize (if you go with melee weapon like staff or mace/axe) you can’t reach your enemy and hit them – so you dont get energy. If enemy cast slow on you or chill, you cant use weapon skills at normal speed and you have higher cooldowns – again, your capability of energy regen is decresed. The same with taunt, etc.

However, your allies can boost your support capabilities! If allies grant you quicknes, then you can execute your attacks faster and fill energy bar very fast! I would like to see some traits in Invocation that help energy management, so for example, everytime you crit you get some energy, so fury becomes your friend. Or ventari globes droping at auto-attack 3 skill on staff restore your energy additionaly. Also, every boon and every support from your group that allow you to keep you effectively engaged in combat pays off in ability to trigger your support utilities more often.

To sum this up. I think that presented solution for Ventari Tablet changes would definitely help Ventari Legend to be more effective at support and allowing it to focus on dps at the same time. Suggested energy management system can positively impact the other legends as well. If you are more involved in combat, you use more your weapon skills, then more utility you can provide to you and your allies.

PS: If you managed to get though this wall of text, you have my respect.

i’d like to share my opinnion regarding Ventari Tablet and Energy Management

I think that many people share the same opinion that managing Tablet is very unconvenient and clunky. Ventari has problem to keep the fluency of it’s attack execution because of tablet management issues.

As we all know combat in GW2 is very dynamic because we move and dodge during the combat trying to actively mitigate the damage. That’s why people tend to use only zerker gear, because they can achieve highest possible dps knowing that they are mobile enough to overcome difficulties.

Ventari can move tablet to other places to heal allies, cleanse condition or provide anti-projectiles bubble. However, it is very difficult to provide support effectively in current shape and form of the tablet in such a dynamic environment, centred on constant movement. Managing tablet in huge zerk in WvW can be troublesome. Also in other game modes, people move around, changing position. It is very hard to heal your party members in such case. In competitive PvP I can’t imagine people gathering around the tablet to get some healing. They would be too easy target for AoE. Movement is the key and even though we can move tablet around, it’s till not manageable enough to provide support effectively.

The other problem is energy management. This topic was mentioned in many other topics as well. I’d like to suggest a solution to this problem. Showing at the same time how would new energy management system work with suggested new version of the tablet. My suggestions:

1.Tablet should be stationary, like a turret.

2.Tablet provides permanent “Ventari’s Wisdom” aura to Revenant and party members (allies) staying within certain range from the tablet (900 or 1200 range – please note these numbers are just an example)

3.Everytime utility skill is used it is triggered for all party members with Ventari’s Wisdom Aura. If Revenant uses anti-projectiles bubble. All allies got their personal bubble, not bubble around the tablet. Same with healing and condition clense for other utilities.

By this we don’t have to worry much about tablet position. Also range of the aura should be properly balanced, but this would definitely help to focus on providing steady support instead of focusing on moving tablet all the time and missing people you want to heal, because they constantly dodge or move.

Some people can say that this is an easy mode and maybe too convenient, lazy solution. But here is the catch. We have to remember about energy management.

See Part 2 of this post below:

I guess that mixing current legend utilities and other legend/legend neutral utilities would be hard because of some limitations. As we see legends work as kits for utility skills right now, they are in fixed slots. Easiest solution would be equiping first legend by F1, unequiping legend by second time pushing F1. Second legend for F2. When no legend is equiped then we are in neutral form and we can use neutral “mist” utility skills. Variety of utilities could be provided there, while leaving legend skills fixed as they are. See my posts above.

Dojo.1867:

Yeah I can definitely see some of that happening especially since there will also be an elite spec for revenant, right?

I still find the lack of customization of utility bar less problematic than having only 1 weapon all the time. Even if you just slightly modify that weapon dependent on your active weapon (like add conditions with every attack while on mallyx, heal on ventari) this won’t fix this problem, it would jut create some synergy similiar to ele attunement traits without changing the skills themselves (like ele does when attuning).

This is why I came up with the “thief idea” of completely swapping out certain weapon skills. This is a lot additional work so it would be important to decide if all 5 skills should swap or just 1 or 2 and if so which ones. To REALLY change the way a weapon feels and to change playsytle it certainly would have to be the autoattack because having a different skill #5 which is only 20 sec cd anyway won’t help much. Then again revenant weapon skill cooldowns are that low.

I think that “option 5” I mention above would fix the utility skills issue, so we would be able to use different utilities in “non-legendary” form, while equiping legend would be like equiping kit, where utilities and “special legend” weapon is tied to specific legend. So each legend would have 5 weapon and 5 utility skills when equiped related to this legend.

So if we have 2 legend slots, we would have 20 legend fixed skills + 5 weapon skills (non-legendary stance) + 5 utility skills (non-legendary stance). So let’s say they would add 2 heals, 8 utilities and 2 elite skills not related to legend + you could select racial skill, etc when you are in non-legendary form. So you could run with 30 different skills in theory. Additionaly “Invocation” specialization trait line could be reworked to buff different utilities from “non-legendary” form.

I think that your ideas are pretty good. I would add additional possible solutions which came to my mind.

4. Each Legend affect all weapons providing additonal effects to the weapon skills.

So for example using staff and mallyx at the same time – some staff skills could impose additionally conditions on enemies, transfer conditions or do more dmg when condition is imposed on the enemy. This is just an example, but that’s the idea which would provide more diversity and loosen weapon restriction, so you can utilize both legends with all weapons effectively with synergy to equiped legend.

5. We are no longer forced to have legend equiped all the time. Change Legend to be triggered by F1 and F2 and second click would put us in “non-legendary” form.

In non-legendary form we could have some number of utility skills non legend related, but related to the profession itelf like “disappearing in the mists”, short invisibility and during invis you restore your energy, etc. Just an example to show what do I mean by “non-legendary” utilities, thematically related to the mist but not to specific legend. Plus we could equip racial utility skills as well in this case.

Legendary stances then should have utility skill like now, but also fixed weapon. So when you use Jallys, you wield Legendary Dwarf Hammer. When you use ventari you wield Legendary Centaur Staff, etc. So Basically, when you are in legenary stance you have locked utilities and locked “kit” or “conjured weapons” tied to Revenant at the same time when legendary stance is turned on.

TL;DR So to sum it up, you have some basic “mist-related” utilities, variety of utilities to customize your build with normal weapon as they are implemented, but you can tirgger legend which will set your utilities and weapon skills to be legend-specific.

I’d like to share my concerns about the Revenant. I don’t address the issues with damage, with casting time and energy cost. It was addressed in other topics pretty well. I’d like to address other issue regarding profession mechanic and it’s implementation.

I think that the problem is this profession was designed with elite specializations in mind. As we know, elite specializations will give us opportunity to play professions differently by unlocking new weapons, utilities, new trait line and profession mehcanic. The important difference between Revenant and other professions is that Revenant’s core specializations are implemented like elite specializations. Each legend drastically change the gameplay and specific role. Surprisingly, instead of getting more diversity Revenant is significantly restricted comparing to other professions.

How is this possible? Let’s start with the thing that Legends were created with specific weapons in mind (Ventari – staff, Jalys – hammer, Mallyx – mace & axe). Revenant can’t swap weapon, so basically we have to choose one “main” legend and other “secondary” legend, because of this fact. For example, Staff + Mallyx has little or no synergy. If we want to use Mallyx/Ventari legend combo choosing either mace/axe or staff will limit the other legend which was crafted with other weapon in mind. Thus, even though we can swap between two legends, we are able to utilize only one legend at full potential because of our weapon choice.

Comparing to other professions which can’t swap weapons (ele and engi) Revenant seems to be more restricted than others. Ele can swap between 4 attunements, but also they can use conjured weapons. Engi can utilize kits and additional F1-5 skills tied to chosen utility skills. In case of Engi and Ele, the lack of weapon swap is compensated well. In case of Revenant, it’s not. Also, comparing to other professions, Revenant doesn’t have many option for customization, because of it’s profession mechanic. Ele and Engi can choose their utility skills despite their no-weapon-swapping restriction.

To sum it up, even though Revenant seems to be jack of all trades,but imposed restrictions give feeling that it’s master of none.

How mentioned issues can be adressed?

Option 1. Enable weapon swapping.

Option 2. Amend weapon skill so the legend has impact on weapon skills by providing additional effects.

For example, staff skills in mallyx grant conditions for foes. When you use mace/axe in Ventari stance, you can heal for small amount or grant short lasting boons for allies/clear conditions. This is just an example, but the idea is that your legend amend your utilities and weapon skills effects to fit the role provided by the legend.

First solution is easy to implement. It would solve the issue with not being able to utilize both selected legends at full potential.

Second solution is not easy to implement, but would actually provide more diversity. All weapons could be used in all legendary stances and provide effect fitting the legend. Legend choice would feel even more impactful and weapon choice restriction would be loosen.

This is my opinion and feedback about the Revenant. Thanks Roy for your hard work with designing Rev. I hope this feedback will be useful.

PS: Sorry for bad english. English is not my mother tongue.

quaniesan.8497:

Guardian shield trait is redundant with Strength in Number and probly will not ever get picked. And I don’t get why scepter trait is in the symbol line without a symbol of its own. Sword should also get a symbol of its own.

Totally agree. I thought they would look into stalwart defender after last livestream. Jon said they would look into it and we got nothing. Shield is still bad comparing to focus. Focus got extra protection for both #4 and #5 while traited. Shield is still garbage. The irony is we have shield in our profession and we don’t really use shield at all… This is ridiculous.

Thund.2795:

purecontact.1680:

I don’t like Dragonhunter, here is why :

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

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

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

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

Second point:
It is very hard to justify this name

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

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

Third point:
It is a very confusing name

Dragonhunter is both generic and specific.

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

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

Why Sentinel should prevail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This ^
(Even if you don’t like the name Sentinel, this post explain pretty well the “dragonhunter problem”)

Totally agree! Sentinel is really good choice IMO.

I’d love to see more “cosmetic mounts” like magic carpet available in gemstore. Some time ago we had minigame moa race in LA and this gave me an idea that adding moas as cosmetic mounts (like magic carpet) would be really awesome. Each month new moa with different feathers color and fancy saddle, armored moas, moas with wizard hat, etc. Additionally adding collection for cosmetic mounts would be cool (just like minis). What do you think about this idea?

RabbitUp.8294:

Maybe after this week’s reveal (and after the new drama of whether the reveal was big enough to live up to the hype is over), there might be some merit to giving it a try, even though I honestly expect those that are neutral about this to not bother clicking the poll at all, if it’s not an official one from Anet.

Yeah, official poll from Arenanet could be helpful to solve the issue.

RabbitUp.8294:

AikunFelcis.7258:

cough Reaper shroud turns you into Grim Reaper, the avatar of death with big scythe, you are also able to chill people in fear. Everything fits perfectly with the Reaper. cough

Sure, let’s conveniently ignore the greatsword and the shouts, you know, the actual substance of the elite spec and solely focus on the profession mechanic.

I mean, the utilities could be turrets and the weapon a rifle, but it all fits perfectly, because big kitten scythe.

Greatsword fits, they made attacks feel heavy and devastating + chilling enemies in fear, you can use Scythe or Greatsword to deliver killing blow. Skills like “Gravedigger” or “Reaper’s Grasp” give nice flavor. It’s very fiting. The Reaper is just named after core mechanic you say? Then what about dragonhunter? Using your logic here like with the Reaper, there is nothing in the skills/mechanic in dragonhunter that justify it’s name! I see you chose conveniently to ignore the rest of my previous post. I have to quote myself to remind you. Any answer to this? Do I wrongly assume that consistency is important?

As I posted many times, people want specialization to be consistent and what I mean by this, skills, mechanic, gameplay and the name itself should fit together. Now we have Holy Archer / Divine Hunter shooting light arrows and putting light-imbued traps. Name Dragonhunter totally doesn’t fit. Don’t use lore argument, because HoT is not released and currently in game we don’t have any factions of guardians called “Dragonhunters”. Until expansion is released everything might be changed by the Devs, so in the end such “dragonhuntery” guardians faction in the end may not exist at all if they think that in the end dragonhuntery thing is not as cool as they thought. They may change the name of specialization because of players’ feedback. Colin always says “nothing is off the table”. Arenanet is very open for suggestions and feedback, so everything’s possible.

I hope that devs sooner or later will post whether they will change the name or not. Having answer is better than not having any answer at all, even if the answer might not be satisfying. We’ll see.

RabbitUp.8294:

They hunt dragons and their minions because the lore says so. These arguments get more pointless every day. Reaper gives 0 information about their playstyle, skills and weapon, but you want a shopping list of a name to explain exactly what Guardians are going to hunt in HoT. Dragonhunter provides enough information on that font for anyone to make an educated guess.

cough Reaper shroud turns you into Grim Reaper, the avatar of death with big scythe, you are also able to chill people in fear. Everything fits perfectly with the Reaper. cough

As I posted many times, people want specialization to be consistent and what I mean by this, skills, mechanic, gameplay and the name itself should fit together. Now we have Holy Archer / Divine Hunter shooting light arrows and putting light-imbued traps. Name Dragonhunter totally doesn’t fit. Don’t use lore argument, because HoT is not released and currently in game we don’t have any factions of guardians called “Dragonhunters”. Until expansion is released everything might be changed by the Devs, so in the end such “dragonhuntery” guardians faction in the end may not exist at all if they think that in the end dragonhuntery thing is not as cool as they thought. They may change the name of specialization because of players’ feedback. Colin always says “nothing is off the table”. Arenanet is very open for suggestions and feedback, so everything’s possible.

I hope that devs sooner or later will post whether they will change the name or not. Having answer is better than not having any answer at all, even if the answer might not be satisfying. We’ll see.

Valmir.4590:

I really dislike the name Paragon. For once, because it is a throwback to an outdated class, which have been superseded by the Guardian in lore, so it would basically be a Guardian reverting to an obsolete way of fighting. And already, there is deconstruction to what the Paragon was (apparently, since I haven’t played one or with one) in the exact same way I’ve done to explain why the theme behind the specialization (i.e a Guardian with longbows and traps) already exist within the current trait system; see the case of Kieran Thackerey.

Furthermore, a Paragon send images of either :
- some nun/monk being the living embodiment of her/his monastery Order and mostly a benevolent figure shying from battles.
or
- a devoted warrior fighting with his troops behind him to inspire them to greater act of bravery. The contrary of what this specialization is at its core.

And to that, we should act the fact that, just like the Dragonhunter, the name “Paragon” doesn’t explain what the specialization does. When someone tell you that he is a Paragon, you don’t expect him to use a long bow, traps and fire-magic traps.

That’s why this name is just as bad as Dragonhunter. Sentinel and Inquisitor, on the other hand, both reflect what the class is a lot better.

I agree that Paragon wouldn’t be good option, because this spec is not good representation of Paragon profession from GW1. Maybe in a future if Anet adds land spears/javelins/polearm weapon then adding some mechanic/skills from Paragon like Chants would be ok and then such spec could be named Paragon IMO.

I really like name Sentinel. Inquisitor is ok and Seeker is also fine for me.

Valmir.4590:

Lore wise, the Guardians draw their power from their dedication to something, and they often see themselves as the protectors of the people of Tyria. They also happens to be over-zealous in some

The Elder Dragons are the most important threat to the people of Tyria, as it has been demonstrated by Mordremoth recent awakening and the destructions which have followed. With that in mind, it is no surprise that some Guardians would take a more pro-active stance toward the dangers of the Dragons, instead of the more defensive behaviour of most Guardians. That’s why some would delve into draconic knowledge and would devote themselves to destroying them and their minion.

And it’s that devotion which explains why the other classes aren’t “dragonhunter” or more exactly draconic-themed. the other class doesn’t feel the need to act as such, instead preferring to develop new form of magic (Chronomancer and probably the Tempest), more direct power (the Reaper, who strike me as a Necromancer going out of his way to unleash his fury on his enemies, but I can be wrong) or are seeking to better survive and exploit the possibilities of the Jungle with the Druid.

So far, the only profession whose specialization I’ve actually difficulties to understand is the one for my main, the Engineer with hammer. After all, the Engineer is somewhat mobile (at least with its elixirs and guns) and with some long-range to mid-range attacks (the grenades and the flame-throwers) and I’ve a hard time understanding why an Engineer would use a two-handed hammer to crush his foes (while the mobile drones seems to be an amelioration of the turrets, probably using a bit of the golem-technology to grand them limited ability to follow the Engineer and protect him).

Lorewise all members of the pact are trying to hunt down the Elder Dragons and their minions. In HoT player character (regardless of profession) is going to enter the Maguuma Jungle in order to rescue Pact members, Destiny’s Edge and hunt down Mordremoth and it’s minions. Not only players specialized in being dragonhunters will hunt Mordremoth and it’s minions, so I see no reason that the guardian spec should be chosen one to call that way. Why Warrior can’t become a dragonhunter? Warrior can train with dedication, determinantion to hunt dragons as well. Same for other professions. Currently guardian’s spec gameplay/mechanic has nothing to do with aiming the dragons, so do other revealed specs. Then why can’t they become dragonhunters? Warriors can delve into knowledge about the dragons as well. All professions can.

TL;DR Gameplay shows that the spec itself has nothing to do with hunting the dragons and being good at it as it’s core mechanic/skills. The name can be only explained by the backstory and this is unacceptable, because we won’t be able to play specialization, but we will have to ROLEPLAY a specialization, because mechanic-wise name has nothing to do with guardian’s specialization.

Obtena.7952:

AikunFelcis.7258:

Obtena.7952:

AikunFelcis.7258:

This made me laugh. Are you saying that if Anet introduced class using melee weapons only without using magic at all, using primary 2h-Axe and have attributes of “Berserker” archetype like in other games and they would call it “Magician” or “Wizard” that would fit thematically? This is hilarious.

The only hilarious thing is that’s what you think I’ve said. There is no thematic ‘fit’. The theme is whatever Anet makes it. Of course, you’re being sensational and nonsensical because I don’t believe Anet’s goal is to contrast ideas like your example would suggest they do.

On the other hand, Anet has explained how DH fits thematically with Guardian. You simply choose to ignore it.

I will qoute you

Because Anet decides they may not do it. It’s THAT simple.

You don’t seem to understand that the concepts are determined by Anet.

So IF such ridiculous concept I mentioned were determined by Arenanet, then then they could implement it, right?

Once this is a concept of big game hunter, another day it’s witchhunter.

Exactly, but your sensational example doesn’t say anything about DH theme.

I don’t see why it can’t be both. Hell, Necros got THREE themes going in their Elite. Just because you believe there is some inconsistency there doesn’t make it true. Are you actually telling us that it’s a bad concept because It’s a hunter of ‘big game’ that happens to be dragons? Is that such a stretch of the imagination to you? My 5 year old gets the concept, but grown adults playing a fantasy MMO can’t get it. That’s obtuse. You’re fooling no one playing the fool here.

Funny you tend to reply only to the part of the post, not the whole one. I will quote myself.

Anet is not consequent. Once this is a concept of big game hunter, another day it’s witchhunter. Actually in mechanic and skills there is nothing that justifies the name. As many people stated before me, Dragonhunter is a good title, not specialization name. All people can hunt the dragons and their minions and I don’t see anything extraordinary in DH skills and mechanic that is superior against the dragons and their minions comparing to other professions spec. This is specialization. Chronamancer is specialized in time manipulation – fits. Reaper has ability to trun into Grim Reaper and cut their foes with big scythe and chill them in fear – fits. What about dragonhunter? Name says that it specializes in hunting the dragons. The problem is there is NOTHING in the skills and mechanic that is superior to dragons and their minions, there is nothing special that justifies the name. Please don’t throw the idea of story or any funny cult guardian meet and join, because as we can see other classes don’t have to have any backstory and their name is self-explanatory and fit the gameplay and mechanic. That’s why the name “Dragonhunter” fails. It’s like creating a class with Cleric archetype with healing and holy light dmg and name it Ranger, because it can attack from the distance and they will be devoted into it! Dragonhunter doesn’t fit. The specialization in fact is like Divine/Holy Archer/Hunter, not a dragonhunter. No dragon-themed things in this specialization, just one trap with dragon’s maw animation. Name should sounds natural and fit to the gameplay and shouldn’t cause “WTF” moment as it caused when it was revealed. Other specializations somehow don’t have such issues and people don’t post tones of post with complains, beacause names Chronomancer and Reaper fit the gameplay, skills and mechanic of these specs. That’s it.

Keep trying to ignore the facts. The fact is that the name is not reflected anyhow by the spec and it’s gameplay.

And BTW

My 5 year old gets the concept, but grown adults playing a fantasy MMO can’t get it. That’s obtuse. You’re fooling no one playing the fool here.

Keep trying to insult me, go ahead. I will gladly use report button.

Obtena.7952:

AikunFelcis.7258:

This made me laugh. Are you saying that if Anet introduced class using melee weapons only without using magic at all, using primary 2h-Axe and have attributes of “Berserker” archetype like in other games and they would call it “Magician” or “Wizard” that would fit thematically? This is hilarious.

The only hilarious thing is that’s what you think I’ve said. There is no thematic ‘fit’. The theme is whatever Anet makes it. Of course, you’re being sensational and nonsensical because I don’t believe Anet’s goal is to contrast ideas like your example would suggest they do.

On the other hand, Anet has explained how DH fits thematically with Guardian. You simply choose to ignore it.

I will qoute you

Because Anet decides they may not do it. It’s THAT simple.

You don’t seem to understand that the concepts are determined by Anet.

So IF such ridiculous concept I mentioned were determined by Arenanet, then then they could implement it, right?

Anet is not consequent. Once this is a concept of big game hunter, another day it’s witchhunter. Actually in mechanic and skills there is nothing that justifies the name. As many people stated before me, Dragonhunter is a good title, not specialization name. All people can hunt the dragons and their minions and I don’t see anything extraordinary in DH skills and mechanic that is superior against the dragons and their minions comparing to other professions spec. This is specialization. Chronamancer is specialized in time manipulation – fits. Reaper has ability to trun into Grim Reaper and cut their foes with big scythe and chill them in fear – fits. What about dragonhunter? Name says that it specializes in hunting the dragons. The problem is there is NOTHING in the skills and mechanic that is superior to dragons and their minions, there is nothing special that justifies the name. Please don’t throw the idea of story or any funny cult guardian meet and join, because as we can see other classes don’t have to have any backstory and their name is self-explanatory and fit the gameplay and mechanic. That’s why the name “Dragonhunter” fails. It’s like creating a class with Cleric archetype with healing and holy light dmg and name it Ranger, because it can attack from the distance and they will be devoted into it! Dragonhunter doesn’t fit. The specialization in fact is like Divine/Holy Archer/Hunter, not a dragonhunter. No dragon-themed things in this specialization, just one trap with dragon’s maw animation. Name should sounds natural and fit to the gameplay and shouldn’t cause “WTF” moment as it caused when it was revealed. Other specializations somehow don’t have such issues and people don’t post tones of post with complains, beacause names Chronomancer and Reaper fit the gameplay, skills and mechanic of these specs. That’s it.

Obtena.7952:

Arrk.4102:

These concepts can be changed. We are talking about the ones that make sense thematically for the class.
ANET could make a Unicorntamer class and it would work because it’s their game, but it would not fit a class thematically.

What fits the class thematically is determined by Anet exactly as you describe. This is why the argument of how “dragonhunter” doesn’t fit is nonsense.

This made me laugh. Are you saying that if Anet introduced class using melee weapons only without using magic at all, using primary 2h-Axe and have attributes of “Berserker” archetype like in other games and they would call it “Magician” or “Wizard” that would fit thematically? This is hilarious.

Anet has opportuinty to change their minds after the feedback. We’ve seen many times that Anet appreciates and respects the feedback of players. The specialization idea itself was born in CDI threads in discussion between devs and players about further character progression. Until there is clear statement from devs that they are not going to change the name, there is still possibility that the change can happen. “Nothing is off the table”.

phys.7689:

AikunFelcis.7258:

phys.7689:

AikunFelcis.7258:

phys.7689:

Basically, if your feedback is Guardian should never become a hunter type, there is no point to that, its settled. If you can think of new playstyles that guardian should have,

feel free to reccomend them for the sake of future specializations

if you think DH is a poor execution of a guardian version of hunter, say why, what would you change, what is it missing to achieve that goal? That theoretically may be usefull.

You don’t have to explain me mechanics and I don’t hate mechanic, that wasn’t my point. As I wrote. The specialization doesn’t feel like “dragonhunter”. Whatever story you will write around it, it won’t erase the fact that it sounds wrong. Will we play a specialization or will we “roleplay” specialization? Do we have to create a very special story for our precious characters to pretend that name has sense? I have no issues with mechanics. The gameplay itsels is ok, but it doesn’t give me impression this is “Dragonhunter”. Holy Archer pretending to have something to do with Paragon. I would be satisfied with different name that actually fits. As I wrote, Chronomancer and Reaper fit. Dragonhunter doesn’t.

What in your opinion would make it more hunter-like, why does it fail at being a hunter

I think you still don’t understand my issue with the name. Hunter role is already taken by Ranger. This spec is like dual class character Guardian/Ranger, so the core difference here is that this specialization is using arrows and traps imbued with light, so this spec actually is “Divine/Holy Archer/Hunter”. Nothing to do with dragons in this spec, nothing implying that these skills are crafted against dragons and their minions. Chronomancers skills are tied to time manipulation and this is what is this specialization is all about. Time manipulator, time mage. What is special in dragonhunter that is more effective against dragons and dragon minions than other professions and specializations? Which skills and mechanic is so special and superior against the dragon minions so the name “DRAGON Hunter” is justified? Because the name itself implies that there is something special, something extraordinary that makes Dragonhunter better at dealing with dragons and their minions than other professions/specs. Is Ranger worse at “hunting the dragons” and their minions then? If warrior got shortbow or torch with additional burning and burning traps, would name “Dragonburner” be appropriate? Why would this spec be better at burning dragon minions than other professions/spec which can burn their enemies to death as well?

this isnt so much a thread about the name(there is another thread for that), but more about the concept.

The dragon part of the name just tells you what they hunt/why, Just like a bounty hunter just tells you they hunt bounties, There is no innate ability a bounty hunter has that makes them better at killing/capturing people with bounties than police officers, fbi agents, or the military, thats simply a description of what they hunt.

Do you have any problems with the concept? that of a guardian type of hunter? Or is it only the name that bothers you?

Regarding the concept, it’s fine for me that guardian will have access to longbow. This gives us 1200 range and traps will be able to keep enemies busy while we will be able to deal dmg from the distance or swap weapon to melee and dmg enemies while they are traped. It’s promising,cool concept for me, but the name itself drives me crazy.

Valmir.4590:

Fashion Mage.3712:

Valmir.4590:

So, as you can see, the basis for the Dragonhunter is already here.

The traits you listed have virtually nothing to do with hunting, traps, or dragons, despite your best attempts at making it seem like they do.

They have everything to do with it, despite the best effort of the folks here. It just require to be open minded and not refusing any sort of proof that the theme of the Dragonhunter is well implemented in the mechanics and in touch with the Guardian, as if recognizing it meant that suddenly the name had to be good if ANet hasn’t failed at the theme, which it doesn’t have to, because it is bad, mainly because it doesn’t present the theme well.

Mechanic and gameplay for me is ok, the thing is that this spec is like a Divine/Holy Archer/Hunter and it has nothing to do with dragons. The name implies that this spec is better than other professions/specs in hunting the dragons and their minion. There is nothing like this in the skills and mechanic that is superior in comparison to other professions and more effective against dragons minions. Is then Ranger worse at hunting dragon minions than Dragonhunter?

phys.7689:

AikunFelcis.7258:

phys.7689:

Basically, if your feedback is Guardian should never become a hunter type, there is no point to that, its settled. If you can think of new playstyles that guardian should have,

feel free to reccomend them for the sake of future specializations

if you think DH is a poor execution of a guardian version of hunter, say why, what would you change, what is it missing to achieve that goal? That theoretically may be usefull.

You don’t have to explain me mechanics and I don’t hate mechanic, that wasn’t my point. As I wrote. The specialization doesn’t feel like “dragonhunter”. Whatever story you will write around it, it won’t erase the fact that it sounds wrong. Will we play a specialization or will we “roleplay” specialization? Do we have to create a very special story for our precious characters to pretend that name has sense? I have no issues with mechanics. The gameplay itsels is ok, but it doesn’t give me impression this is “Dragonhunter”. Holy Archer pretending to have something to do with Paragon. I would be satisfied with different name that actually fits. As I wrote, Chronomancer and Reaper fit. Dragonhunter doesn’t.

What in your opinion would make it more hunter-like, why does it fail at being a hunter

I think you still don’t understand my issue with the name. Hunter role is already taken by Ranger. This spec is like dual class character Guardian/Ranger, so the core difference here is that this specialization is using arrows and traps imbued with light, so this spec actually is “Divine/Holy Archer/Hunter”. Nothing to do with dragons in this spec, nothing implying that these skills are crafted against dragons and their minions. Chronomancers skills are tied to time manipulation and this is what is this specialization is all about. Time manipulator, time mage. What is special in dragonhunter that is more effective against dragons and dragon minions than other professions and specializations? Which skills and mechanic is so special and superior against the dragon minions so the name “DRAGON Hunter” is justified? Because the name itself implies that there is something special, something extraordinary that makes Dragonhunter better at dealing with dragons and their minions than other professions/specs. Is Ranger worse at “hunting the dragons” and their minions then? If warrior got shortbow or torch with additional burning and burning traps, would name “Dragonburner” be appropriate? Why would this spec be better at burning dragon minions than other professions/spec which can burn their enemies to death as well?

Lord Hammer Hand.4815:

i dont main guardian but seing as the mesmer = chronomancer, necro = reaper, ranger = druid all make sense w/o devs even trying to explain the name. guardian = dragon hunter? rofl i feel bad for guardians good set of skills tho.

These are my exact thoughts. I like showed gameplay, but the name… ugh. Terrible.

phys.7689:

Basically, if your feedback is Guardian should never become a hunter type, there is no point to that, its settled. If you can think of new playstyles that guardian should have,

feel free to reccomend them for the sake of future specializations

if you think DH is a poor execution of a guardian version of hunter, say why, what would you change, what is it missing to achieve that goal? That theoretically may be usefull.

You don’t have to explain me mechanics and I don’t hate mechanic, that wasn’t my point. As I wrote. The specialization doesn’t feel like “dragonhunter”. Whatever story you will write around it, it won’t erase the fact that it sounds wrong. Will we play a specialization or will we “roleplay” specialization? Do we have to create a very special story for our precious characters to pretend that name has sense? I have no issues with mechanics. The gameplay itsels is ok, but it doesn’t give me impression this is “Dragonhunter”. Holy Archer pretending to have something to do with Paragon. I would be satisfied with different name that actually fits. As I wrote, Chronomancer and Reaper fit. Dragonhunter doesn’t.

phys.7689:

McNinja.5417:

Mar.4839:

Remember, Dragonhunters are basically Witchhunters, everything makes a lot more sense if people stop being so literal with the name which is where most of the issue is coming from.

Why on earth would be NOT be literal with the name? Dragon Hunting has all of nothing to do with the themes, ideas, or profession of Guardians. It’s a bland name that doesn’t have anything to do with… anything! It’s a name better suited for someone from Destiny’s Edge or a member of the Pact since they’ve… you know, hunted actual dragons? It’s not unique because every. single. player. has hunted dragons.

If Dragonhunters are so similar to Witchhunters, why not just call them witchhunters?

because witches dont exist in tyria, most people use magic and there is nothing sinister about it.
The evil in the world of tyria is dragon related, it has been for the last 250 years.

The guardians who use protection/smiting/warding based light magic to seek, trap, and harry dragon based evil/corruption are called dragon hunters, much like demonhunters or witchhunters.

Your story/description would be good if the specialization were actually designed or “crafted” to be Dragonhunter. For now it’s not. Mechanic (new virtues) are just pure Paragon. Traps are big symbols with cool animations. Longbow skills are 3 pewpew arrow skills , 1 symbol and 1 trap-like symbol restricting movement of the enemies. Everything light-imbued. Seeing the gameplay I arrived at conclusion: this is Holy Archer archetype with Paragon-like virtues. I don’t see Dragonhunter here at all. One elite skill with dragon’s maw animation and that’s it.

The problem is that Chronomancer and the Reaper are self-explanatory. I saw gameplay of Chronomancer and I was fine with it, Chronomancer = time mage. Gameplay and mechanics fit the name – time manipulation by alacrity, slow & quickness and continuum split/shift. Reaper – fits. Spec looking like Grim Reaper with Scythe, melee combat focused, death theme and enemies are literally chilled in fear. Everything fits perfectly and sounds natural.

In this case skills are like for Holy Archer archetype + Paragon-like virtues = Dragonhunter? No way. This is overinterpretation. This isn’t self-exoplanatory at all! It seems that most people including respected youtubers by ArenaNet had “WTF?” reaction for this name. This specialization doesn’t feel like “dragonhunter” for me and other people. Why people don’t complain and don’t write hundred of posts about names Chronomancer and the Reaper? Why that names didn’t bring controversy? Becasue that names fit to the theme of that specializations. In case of Dragonhunter, the name doesn’t fit.

Ghotistyx.6942:

Fashion Mage.3712:

^
The mere fact that this name (and specialization) needs so much justification shows how bad it is.

Just because some vocal people make a stink about something, doesn’t mean its actually a problem. Just because your group is loudest doesn’t make it correct.

I love this type of arguments. Let me use it against you: Just because you think this is not a problem it doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Farzo.8410:

Caerbanog.3410:

1: Reaper
2: Chronomancer
3:
4
5:
6:
7:
8:
9: Dragon hunter

I have the same feeling.

Genesis.8572:

Orpheal.8263:

1) Seeker
2) Seeker
3) Seeker

I definetely go for the 3 most fitting names that suit to a holy zealot, thats all super righterous about justice, acting like what ANet envisions with “Witchhunters” in that gameplay design. Like a kind of Judge, which goes in all in like also with the guardian’s judge skill (Judge’s Intervention)

Or the captain of a Hogwarts quidditch team.

Seeker is a member of Quidditch team, not always a captian. Oliver Wood and Angelina Johnson weren’t Seekers, right?

Back to the topic, I think that Genesis’s idea is very good. Seeker is fine for me.

Orpheal.8263:

Craywulf.5793:

Ok lets narrow it down folks….list only three names in order of preference.

1. Paragon
2. Arbiter
3. Sentinel

I would advise we keep this thread alive not by debating back and forth of merits of whether any name fits, because frankly we’ve been doing that for nearly 30 pages and there’s been no progress. So please list just three names until we have a general census of names to be considered. Feel free to explain your choices, but lets not haggle each other over the reasons. Lets get three names and make some real progress here.

1) Seeker
2) Seeker
3) Seeker

I definetely go for the 3 most fitting names that suit to a holy zealot, thats all super righterous about justice, acting like what ANet envisions with “Witchhunters” in that gameplay design. Like a kind of Judge, which goes in all in like also with the guardian’s judge skill (Judge’s Intervention)
And for that I can narrow all names just down to 1 thing > Seeker
They are for me the personal impersonifications of relentless justice, which seek down with their holy arrows anyone and everything evil (not just only dragons)as also bring the truth, right and order back to Tyria by erading out all evil threats that they think deserve to be punished and purged by them, where they use even traps to have an easier time to catch all those evil sinners and criminals all around Tyria. Something, only a Seeker comes into question for to do that as an offensive specialization of a Guardian

The whole thing with the active virtues, the wings of light, the light arrows ect. and the light traps basicalyl all screams out Seeker and if ANet would rename the Longbow Auto attack Skill to “Seeking Arrows”, which was once a GW1 Ranger Skill, the perfect reference and nostalgia would be added.

Give the class then some better visuals here and there that are of the same quality as like that of the Reaper (could coutn here and there for the Chronomancer too) and everything would be perfect and fine.

In regard of the overall design quality, the Reaper Presentation were like the difference between light and shadow, just with the point, that the Reaper currently absolutely outshines everythign that has been presented before, from gameplay to overall design quality, to fun aspects and so on…

So far I would go to say, that everything we know so far, stands deep behind the Reaper’s Shadow right now …
The cHronomancer was already awesome realyl, but the Reaper absloutely overtopped right now all of my personal expectations by far!

I really like this idea. It makes a lot of sense.

Talonblaze.3175:

Becka Williams.4978:

Gee guys. Reapers kill things. Don’t we all kill things? Aren’t we all reapers? I’m confused!

It’s high concept. You wouldn’t understand.

Actually it suppoused to be Dragonroarer, but they forgot to edit the placeholder name put in the article. So sad.

TheRandomGuy.7246:

Alice.5360:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Sorin.4310:

Yes I can’t wait to hunt down bubbles with my longbow and ground targeted traps as a dragon hunter….

You think we ever get to fight other dragons than Mordremoth and Zhaitan?
That is a bit optimistic.

We will be going after Mordy for two years at least at this rate.

Or we will get “press 2 to win” in the end of new personal story

Nope, We’ll do the same what we did with Tower of Nightmares. Inject funny elixir to Mordremoth’s heart (aka Heart of Thorns) and it will explode. Instead of cannonballs we will soon syringe with this yummy liqueur till Mordy dies. After that you will change your minds that Zhaitan’s final encounter is far better, so it can be considered as fixed.

RabbitUp.8294:

Arrk.4102:

RabbitUp.8294:

Dragonhunter is a hunter that hunts big game to purge Tyria from their evil. That’s all.

“Big game: large animals (such as elephants and tigers) that are hunted for sport”
Killing tigers and elephants would do nothing to save Tyria from evil. The Big Game hunter theme is really not making much sense WITH Guardian. For ranger it would be the perfect petless archer spec, but for Guardian it makes no thematic sense.

It’s specific big game, they are not hunting giraffes. If we are going to break out the dictionaries, then Reaper should be working the fields, not fighting dragons.

I think you miss very important thing, that specialization should be a composition of the name, mechanic and skills/gameplay. For now the name is out of context. Please see my post here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/Dragon-Hunter-name-feedback-merged/page/27#post5064853

After seeing gameplay on PoI I think that the gameplay and mechanic is cool, but this is not a Dragonhunter. It’s like Holy Archer mixed with Paragon or something like this. Nothing “dragonhuntery” in Dragonhunter unfortunately. Dragon-themed armor and one elite skill animation won’t make spec “Dragonhunter”. This is sad. Whatever story you can build up around it, it doesn’t feel like Dragonhunter. Chronomancer and Reaper fits, but Dragonhunter unfortunately doesn’t.

Blaeys.3102:

Only negative I can see with this is that my Mesmer and my Necro are my two favorite toons. How the hell am I supposed to decide which to play in HOT first now?

My main is guardian, but I have necro as well so I have no choice. Comparing Reaper and Dragonhunter… Time to reroll and start reaping souls!

Mesmer and Necromancer got really cool & fitting specialization’s name (Chronomancer and Reaper) reflected in skill/gameplay/theme as it seems. “Dragonhunter” totally fails at this, unfortunately.

Leo G.4501:

While I think the whole decision they made to link the name to lore might make things quite restrictive, I think you guys aren’t being open enough with concepts of story that’d then reflect the spec’s name. Even roleplayers should be flexible to work with the lore of other players around them.

My problem with this is that IF the name is related to the story, then this shouldn’t be only reason to name a specialization. Spec should also have mechanic and skills that reflect/fit the name. Currently Virtues are Paragon-like. Skills are like for Holy Archer archetype. One elite skill has dragon’s maw animation and that’s it. Story reasons for me is not enough to name spec. Specialization is a composition of name, mechanic and skills, just like they did with chronomancer. Name Chronomancer indicates “Time Mage”. New Mechanic is manipulating time to get to checkpoint in time (continuum split) and skills are related to time manipulation. Guardian’s new mechanic and skills don’t give me the feeling that my character is Dragonhunter. This is Holy Archer mixed with Paragon. That’s it.

Orpheal.8263:

snip

I totally agree. Name should be changed and related to the guardian profession, because this is guardian’s specialization. For guardian using longbow names like, for example, Sentinel/Warden/Seeker make sense and are related to core profession. Community gave many examples of different names that would fit the specialization and I hope that ArenaNet will change the name and choose fitting one for this spec.

MiniEquine.6014:

Genesis.8572:

MiniEquine.6014:

I was hoping for something different with the Longbow as well, but this spec will be here for people who want to play it. I mean, the DH is not exactly the same as the Ranger; no pet, traps have different effects, and you can still slot regular Guardian utilities instead of the traps. Not every elite spec is going to be one everyone wants to play, but maybe the next Guardian elite spec will make you fanboy over it (and hopefully more people than this one has too!)

What were you hoping from the guardian longbow spec?

My idea for it would have been a ranged, angelic semi-support class. The Longbow would essentially have an auto-attack (the one they have is fine) and up to four “Mark” skills (mimicking the Necromancer’s marks but with Guardian symbols, though probably not triggered by enemies, maybe triggered by allies? o.O), which would pulse condi clears, regen, aegis, protection, stability, quickness, and healing to allies with maybe an opposite effect to enemies. The utility skills and heal would be a new set of channeled shouts, almost exactly like the anthems in GW1. These would do sort of what the Longbow does, but with varying intensity and at point-blank range instead of 1200 units away. The Elite would temporarily transform you into a “Paragon of Light” or “Spirit of the Paragon”, changing your weapon to a spear and giving you wings (with float? they added it to Chronomancers) for a short time and granting you abilities similar to that of the Paragons. Spears would be thrown, in the same way.

I am not entirely sure if the name of the class could be Paragon though, as they didn’t really use bows, but the Elite skill would be the embodiment of the idea behind it.

I like this idea. Now I can clearly see that there is still possibility for them to create Paragon-like specialization. If they dont want to make spear a land weapon, they can create basically a utility/elite kit (just like Engineers have) “Paragon’s Spear” and you wield light-imbued spear and get 5 skills for it! The simplest solution is the harder one to figure out. Love it.

EDIT: If they don’t want implement kits for guardian, they can add this spear as elite spirit weapon (elite one, which you can actually wield). That would fit perfectly.

Leo G.4501:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

RabbitUp.8294:

AikunFelcis.7258:

Yeah, so they are not officialy in the lore,can’t be found any official reference in Gw1/Gw2 game, only in one post. It’s just said by Jon in order to give a reason to Dragonhunters exist, that’s my feeling.

They write the lore. Elite specs are a new thing, a new development in the world of Tyria.

So it proves my point that such faction doesn’t exist currently, so you can’t be sure that such faction will exists in the future, until it’s implemented. This thread is about name feedback and now we can base on released information, not “what if”. What if no other classes but guardian with it’s new specialization would be able to kill Elder Dragons? Then name Dragonhunter would have sense!

This doesn’t prove anything if Dragonhunters have technically been around before the elite spec was announced. You’re living in an echo chamber right now. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the “what if” is very important because it can make or break the sense of the it being named the way it is.

You’ve used logic to show why the Revenant is allowed to exist in the personal story, and I’ve shown you how it could be exactly the same for the Dragonhunters. If they choose to not use that lore, fine, then there will be plot holes. However, until they officially make a statement, that’s one of the most sensible reasons for it.

As to my quip about you simply not playing it, would you refuse to play the Revenant because it wasn’t around before and it would break some immersion with the storyline? You seem to indicate that you would not, so I ask you to explain why that does not also apply to the Dragonhunter, and then why you would refuse to play the Dragonhunter.

You totally missed what my problem with the name is. I stated many times that for me name os specialization should be reflected in gameplay and mechanic of the specialization just like it’s with chronomancer. Chronomancer = Time mage. Skills and mechanic related to time manipulation. Dragonhunter – one elite skill with dragon animation and that’s it. Virtues are like for Paragon (spear, angelic wings, not dragon wings & shield), no dragonhunter theme. Longbow has arrows imbued with light + symbol + 5skill like trap. No dragonhunter theme. Traps are like symbols, cool animations, but still no Dragonhunter theme. Seeing the gameplay itself doesn’t give me impression that this IS Dragonhunter. It’s like Divne/Holy Archer. That’s it. Dragonhunter is out of any context. Even if they plan to make Braham Dragonhunter the specialization doesn’t feel at all as Dragonhunter! That’s my problem. Name should reflect what specialization really is and it’s certainly not a Dragonhunter in my opinion. Like I said before, it’s like giving class that is in fact Cleric (where gameplay/mechanic is holy light dmg & healing) name Warlock. Doesn’t fit at all.

I’ll grant you that it’s not a perfect name, but I don’t believe it’s quite as extreme as calling a cleric a warlock. Still, there are better names that have come up perhaps (I’m partial to the Seeker, or some variant thereof), but if they explain this one really well in game, eventually, it could be fine.

I’m not giving this name a free pass. They must explain it better than they have been, especially with the reaction it has received; otherwise it should probably be changed. If they just let it go, then I, too, will be upset and frustrated at the name, because all we have right now are assumptions and an incoherent timeline.

If I were making an analogy to this, it’d be like making a class that has most of the attributes of a dnd cleric but calling them Hobobasher with the background being they steal and extort money from people to fund their church until those people are penniless hobos that they then bash. . . And then throw the Hobobasher a Loan Shark trap tie it all together. It’s Mish mash and presses your motivation for nothing more than justifying a name.

This analogy made my day! Can’t stop laughing.

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

purecontact.1680:

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

It doesn’t actually have an affect on you, it’s really just a name. Even if you don’t “follow the path of the Dragonhunter” and you wield a longbow, you are not obligated to hunt dragons but the reason why you wield a bow and use traps is because of the Dragonhunters.

It has effect on us because our spec is named Dragonhunter, but the spec is not Dreagonhuntery at all. I posted a few posts about it that gameplay and mechanic doesn’t fit to the name. Would you like to play Warrior but named Wizard? Or Ranger named Mechanic, because it got offhand pistol and cool mechanical gauntlet and that’s it, it’s gameplay and mechanic has nothing to do with name and it doesn’t feel like Mechanic? I wouldn’t play it.

Then don’t play it.

Really great answer and feedback giving so much to this thread. So impressive.

See above. Also I have been contributing a good deal to this thread, thank you very much.

Yes, saying “Then don’t play it” had so big impact on thread! Can’t find proper way to express my gratitude. All Guardians who are not satisfied with specialization’s name be grateful! Easiest solution: don’t play it! Thank you for wonderful and meaningful feedback! Devs should consider your suggestion and maybe remove this specialization so we won’t play it so we won’t be dissatisfied.

Aight I thought you were done with the sarcastic ad hominem, but please refrain. I have been contributing to the thread, and so have you. Let’s not pretend like we aren’t. I also have not been attacking you in any way.

Sorry for being mean. Comments like “don’t play it” just makes my blood boiling. Tried to argument and give my opinnion about the name and in return I got “don’t play it”. That was like slap in the face. Sorry for my reaction. I hope we still can continue giving constructrive feedback.

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

purecontact.1680:

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

It doesn’t actually have an affect on you, it’s really just a name. Even if you don’t “follow the path of the Dragonhunter” and you wield a longbow, you are not obligated to hunt dragons but the reason why you wield a bow and use traps is because of the Dragonhunters.

It has effect on us because our spec is named Dragonhunter, but the spec is not Dreagonhuntery at all. I posted a few posts about it that gameplay and mechanic doesn’t fit to the name. Would you like to play Warrior but named Wizard? Or Ranger named Mechanic, because it got offhand pistol and cool mechanical gauntlet and that’s it, it’s gameplay and mechanic has nothing to do with name and it doesn’t feel like Mechanic? I wouldn’t play it.

Then don’t play it.

Really great answer and feedback giving so much to this thread. So impressive.

See above. Also I have been contributing a good deal to this thread, thank you very much.

Yes, saying “Then don’t play it” had so big impact on thread! Can’t find proper way to express my gratitude. All Guardians who are not satisfied with specialization’s name be grateful! Easiest solution: don’t play it! Thank you for wonderful and meaningful feedback! Devs should consider your suggestion and maybe remove this specialization so we won’t play it so we won’t be dissatisfied.

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

RabbitUp.8294:

AikunFelcis.7258:

Yeah, so they are not officialy in the lore,can’t be found any official reference in Gw1/Gw2 game, only in one post. It’s just said by Jon in order to give a reason to Dragonhunters exist, that’s my feeling.

They write the lore. Elite specs are a new thing, a new development in the world of Tyria.

So it proves my point that such faction doesn’t exist currently, so you can’t be sure that such faction will exists in the future, until it’s implemented. This thread is about name feedback and now we can base on released information, not “what if”. What if no other classes but guardian with it’s new specialization would be able to kill Elder Dragons? Then name Dragonhunter would have sense!

This doesn’t prove anything if Dragonhunters have technically been around before the elite spec was announced. You’re living in an echo chamber right now. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the “what if” is very important because it can make or break the sense of the it being named the way it is.

You’ve used logic to show why the Revenant is allowed to exist in the personal story, and I’ve shown you how it could be exactly the same for the Dragonhunters. If they choose to not use that lore, fine, then there will be plot holes. However, until they officially make a statement, that’s one of the most sensible reasons for it.

As to my quip about you simply not playing it, would you refuse to play the Revenant because it wasn’t around before and it would break some immersion with the storyline? You seem to indicate that you would not, so I ask you to explain why that does not also apply to the Dragonhunter, and then why you would refuse to play the Dragonhunter.

You totally missed what my problem with the name is. I stated many times that for me name of specialization should be reflected in gameplay and mechanic of the specialization just like it’s with chronomancer. Chronomancer = Time mage. Skills and mechanic related to time manipulation. Dragonhunter – one elite skill with dragon animation and that’s it. Virtues are like for Paragon (spear, angelic wings, not dragon wings & shield), no dragonhunter theme. Longbow has arrows imbued with light + symbol + 5skill like trap. No dragonhunter theme. Traps are like symbols, cool animations, but still no Dragonhunter theme. Seeing the gameplay itself doesn’t give me impression that this IS Dragonhunter. It’s like Divne/Holy Archer. That’s it. Dragonhunter is out of any context. Even if they plan to make Braham Dragonhunter the specialization doesn’t feel at all as Dragonhunter! That’s my problem. Name should reflect what specialization really is and it’s certainly not a Dragonhunter in my opinion. Like I said before, it’s like giving class that is in fact Cleric (where gameplay/mechanic is holy light dmg & healing) name Warlock. Doesn’t fit at all.

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

MiniEquine.6014:

purecontact.1680:

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

It doesn’t actually have an affect on you, it’s really just a name. Even if you don’t “follow the path of the Dragonhunter” and you wield a longbow, you are not obligated to hunt dragons but the reason why you wield a bow and use traps is because of the Dragonhunters.

It has effect on us because our spec is named Dragonhunter, but the spec is not Dreagonhuntery at all. I posted a few posts about it that gameplay and mechanic doesn’t fit to the name. Would you like to play Warrior but named Wizard? Or Ranger named Mechanic, because it got offhand pistol and cool mechanical gauntlet and that’s it, it’s gameplay and mechanic has nothing to do with name and it doesn’t feel like Mechanic? I wouldn’t play it.

Then don’t play it.

Really great answer and feedback giving so much to this thread. So impressive.

RabbitUp.8294:

AikunFelcis.7258:

Yeah, so they are not officialy in the lore,can’t be found any official reference in Gw1/Gw2 game, only in one post. It’s just said by Jon in order to give a reason to Dragonhunters exist, that’s my feeling.

They write the lore. Elite specs are a new thing, a new development in the world of Tyria.

So it proves my point that such faction doesn’t exist currently, so you can’t be sure that such faction will exists in the future, until it’s implemented. This thread is about name feedback and now we can base on released information, not “what if”. What if no other classes but guardian with it’s new specialization would be able to kill Elder Dragons? Then name Dragonhunter would have sense!

purecontact.1680:

AikunFelcis.7258:

Still no link to the source of information about Order of Guardians who are Dragonhunters. Please provide the link.

I’ve quoted Jon Peters above.

Yeah, so they are not officialy in the lore,can’t be found any official reference in Gw1/Gw2 game, only in one post. It’s just said by Jon in order to give a reason to Dragonhunters exist, that’s my feeling.

MiniEquine.6014:

purecontact.1680:

This roleplay story I chose during my character’s creation didn’t affect my gameplay.
Choose whether I want to be a part of the dragonhunter’s faction or not shouldn’t affect my gameplay.

It doesn’t actually have an affect on you, it’s really just a name. Even if you don’t “follow the path of the Dragonhunter” and you wield a longbow, you are not obligated to hunt dragons but the reason why you wield a bow and use traps is because of the Dragonhunters.

It has effect on us because our spec is named Dragonhunter, but the spec is not Dreagonhuntery at all. I posted a few posts about it that gameplay and mechanic doesn’t fit to the name. Would you like to play Warrior but named Wizard? Or Ranger named Mechanic, because it got offhand pistol and cool mechanical gauntlet and that’s it, it’s gameplay and mechanic has nothing to do with name and it doesn’t feel like Mechanic? I wouldn’t play it.

MiniEquine.6014:

AikunFelcis.7258:

We have Orders like Vigil and there is no profession/specialziation named after them, so I don’t see any reason why to make an exception in this case. BTW, can you link me to wiki to article about Guardian’s Order of Dragonhunters? I’ve never seen any information about it. maybe because such Order doesn’t exist?

The absence of a Wiki article does not mean something doesn’t exist. However, let’s look at what you said here:

AikunFelcis.7258:

RabbitUp.8294:

Your personal story is not parallel to the living world. You spend the whole 10-80 story preparing to fight Zhaitan, when he is already dead.

Proper timeline:

1.We have our personal story concluded with killing Zhaitan. Rytlock is still warrior.
2.Season 1. We start living world, we meet Braham and gang. Rytlock is still warrior.
3.Season 2. Rytlock goes for Sohothin and disappears int the Mists.
4.Personal story 2, Heart of Thorns: Rytlock comes back as Revenant.

With creation of new character, we go through these steps in order 1 to 4. Living World Season 1 is not implemented to be replayable yet, but still this is proper timeline for events. So when i create Revenant, I will kill Zhaitan and talk to Rytlock when he is still a Warrior. My Revenant will even help him when I play Season 2 to deal with ghosts from Ascalon and he will go missing then (to that point he still is warrior and I am already Revenant). He will appear again when my Revenant will start story of Heart of Thorns. Professions have nothing to do with personal/living story. We don’t have separate story for Guardians, Necros or Eles.

So when I create Dragonhunter, I will kill Zhaitan and talk to Braham when he is still a Guardian. My Dragonhunter will even help him when I play Season 3 to deal with Mordrem from the Jungle and he will go find Eir dead (or whatever) (to that point he still is Guardian and I am already Dragonhunter). He will appear again when my Dragonhunter will start story of Heart of Thorns. Professions have nothing to do with personal/living story. We don’t have separate story for Guardians, Necros or Eles.

This is literally the exact same scenario.

Taking into consideration that this is how story goes, now what you are saying is speculation, then yes. So as I said, Players professions have nothing to do with personal/living story. We don’t have separate story for Guardians, Necros or Eles and their specialization. What’s the problem? I explained that the same thing is for Revenant. Whatever profession we pick, it doesn’t matter to the story, we are “Boss”. So it’s not like Revenant profession will be taugh by Rytlock. That was my point and this is irrelevant to naming of Guardian’s specialization.

Still no link to the source of information about Order of Guardians who are Dragonhunters. Please provide the link.