Guild Wars 2

Obtena.7952:

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

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

WhiteSphere.1597:

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

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

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

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

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

WhiteSphere.1597:

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

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

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

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

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

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

TyPin.9860:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LONG POST IS LONG

TyPin.9860:

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

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

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

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

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

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

TyPin.9860:

TyPin.9860:

1) Why does the engineer not build things?

Inventions. Kits. Turrets. Gadgets. Toolbelts.

Why does the Thief not actually steal things?

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

TyPin.9860:

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

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

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

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

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