Guild Wars 2

Obtena.7952:

Arrk.4102:

Obtena.7952:

I see opinions, I don’t see proof. Please do continue to ignore established, traditional lore that makes a plausible link that Guardians could be interpreted as a nemesis to dragons.

This is not a traditional world. This is ANet made world. Weren’t you the one who argued that this game is made by ANet and that real-life and rules from other stories don’t apply here?

Sorry, are you going to try to tell me that it’s unreasonable to think Guardians aren’t related to dragons in any way when lore exists to suggest otherwise, then in the other hand, tell me that Anet makes the world as they see fit, which would infer that they can make any relevant theme they want? That’s a great way to ride both sides of the fence. Do you want to have senseless arguments, just PM me.

What lore? Real life fairy tales are not lore.
No, I’m using your argument against you.

Obtena.7952:

Ephemiel.5694:

Obtena.7952:

Ephemiel.5694:

Obtena.7952:

I see opinions, I don’t see proof. Please do continue to ignore established, traditional lore that makes a plausible link that Guardians could be interpreted as a nemesis to dragons.

Yep, the traditional lore that gives Knights/Paladins/etc traps and bows to fight Dragons.

Please, do continue to be blind.

You’re right, traditional lore doesn’t dictate they have traps and bows to fight dragons. That’s not relevant to the point I’m making here. If there is any class with a link to dragons in this game based on lore, it’s Guardians.

So? Does that make them the only ones to become “Dragonhunters”?

No, it makes it reasonable that Guardians have a DH spec and name.

I’m sorry it feels like you didn’t even try to answer his question. Does hunting dragons not make it reasonable for a Thief to get DH spec then?

I think he means as in if you type “lfg SFR people for wvw raid tonight” in map chat in SW people from all servers will see that. He wants that only people from his server on that map would see it.

Obtena.7952:

Ephemiel.5694:

Obtena.7952:

I see opinions, I don’t see proof. Please do continue to ignore established, traditional lore that makes a plausible link that Guardians could be interpreted as a nemesis to dragons.

Yep, the traditional lore that gives Knights/Paladins/etc traps and bows to fight Dragons.

Please, do continue to be blind.

You’re right, traditional lore doesn’t dictate they have traps and bows to fight dragons. That’s not relevant to the point I’m making here. I’ve provided evidence, based on lore, that it’s completely reasonable that Anet made that Guardian/dragon connection.

Tradition outside of the Guild Wars story isn’t lore, unless you argue that it is, if so I want to ride dragons because the lore of Eragon states that magical knights get to do that.

Obtena.7952:

I see opinions, I don’t see proof. Please do continue to ignore established, traditional lore that makes a plausible link that Guardians could be interpreted as a nemesis to dragons.

This is not a traditional world. This is ANet made world. Weren’t you the one who argued that this game is made by ANet and that real-life and rules from other stories don’t apply here?

Leo G.4501:

Arrk.4102:

Leo G.4501:

Arrk.4102:

Leo G.4501:

Arrk.4102:

Please tell me what connection does the Guardian have to Dragons, for Draconnier to make sense?

The point is, the devs could have a piece of lore or a story being the name to which is the reason they want to keep the name related to dragons. If that possibility has yet to cross your mind thus being thoughtful of that when giving feedback, I can only assume you’re not being mature enough to compromise.

Draconnier and Dragonbane are not the only suggestions I’ve made, they’re only the ones that relate to dragons if that is an important detail that you’ve just decided to ignore. None the less, I don’t like Dragonhunter for the reasons brought up. Not because I disapprove what story the devs want to tell but how pertinent that story is to individual characters’ stories.

Immature? Nice.
Who said they want to tie the specs to the story? Dragonbane is on par with Dragonhunter imo, and much better than Draconnier.
If the devs had such a lore reason behind the name they would have used it, instead of the “high concept” explanation we got.

Yeah, I would say immature. You think they can release actual storyline to explain it? Or do you just take the explanation that Jon gave (the “high concept”) thing as an insult?

So then I’d further ask you, why you’d think anyone on these forums are important enough for Jon to need to insult. Stop being vain. Jon isn’t insulting anyone, he obviously can’t say much about the expansion.

The statement that it is “high concept” is laughable, never said it was insulting. No one is being insulted or insulting here except you calling me Immature AND vain. I simply said that the high concept excuse doesn’t mean much.

So then you want him to tell about the story of the expansion? Whether you’re insulted or amused, someone’s likely getting insulted. If you can’t accept that they can’t release info like that, I honestly don’t know what else to say…except you’re not going to get the devs to talk by trying to insult them by laughing at them.

Didn’t say the devs were laughable, I said the statement was. Also, again, what does the story got to do with anything. The theme of DH is so uncoordinated that the I really doubt there even was a reason behind it. They just threw some themes they liked and called it a day. If not, someone missed a memo.

Obtena.7952:

Obviously you’re not well versed in traditional lore. Knights are the nemesis of dragons.

You told me to look up the term “the nemesis of a dragon” that’s what I did.
Also, yes, knights, not hunters.

Leo G.4501:

Arrk.4102:

Leo G.4501:

Arrk.4102:

Please tell me what connection does the Guardian have to Dragons, for Draconnier to make sense?

The point is, the devs could have a piece of lore or a story being the name to which is the reason they want to keep the name related to dragons. If that possibility has yet to cross your mind thus being thoughtful of that when giving feedback, I can only assume you’re not being mature enough to compromise.

Draconnier and Dragonbane are not the only suggestions I’ve made, they’re only the ones that relate to dragons if that is an important detail that you’ve just decided to ignore. None the less, I don’t like Dragonhunter for the reasons brought up. Not because I disapprove what story the devs want to tell but how pertinent that story is to individual characters’ stories.

Immature? Nice.
Who said they want to tie the specs to the story? Dragonbane is on par with Dragonhunter imo, and much better than Draconnier.
If the devs had such a lore reason behind the name they would have used it, instead of the “high concept” explanation we got.

Yeah, I would say immature. You think they can release actual storyline to explain it? Or do you just take the explanation that Jon gave (the “high concept”) thing as an insult?

So then I’d further ask you, why you’d think anyone on these forums are important enough for Jon to need to insult. Stop being vain. Jon isn’t insulting anyone, he obviously can’t say much about the expansion.

The statement that it is “high concept” is laughable, never said it was insulting. No one is being insulted or insulting here except you calling me Immature AND vain. I simply said that the high concept excuse doesn’t mean much.

Obtena.7952:

Ephemiel.5694:

They could call them anything, idc, as long as it fits what the Guardian stands for. Dragonhunter doesn’t fit AT ALL.

You know what’s funny. Do a Google search for the nemesis of a dragon. See what comes up … very interesting. The come back and say Guardian have nothing to do with Dragons. I love it when people think they know more than they really do.

Bunch of posts about the nemesis armor for the iOS game called Knights and Dragons? Really informative, I now fully support Dragonhunter.

RabbitUp.8294:

Leo G.4501:

No where is it implied the Reaper’s motives align with any of the movie blockbuster killers. Only the style of their attacks. But most importantly, none of that is reflected in game.

Where is it implied that Dragonhunter’s motives align with big game hunter’s motives?

Either show me the exact quote, or give this argument a rest.

Welcome, friends. I’m Karl McLain, and today we’ll be talking about the guardian’s new elite specialisation: the dragonhunter—a ferocious big-game hunter that specialises in ranged combat and back-line support.

Kury.8210:

Arrk.4102:

Please tell me what connection does the Guardian have to Dragons, for Draconnier to make sense?

Dragons are large, bulky, annoying creatures with bad breath.

So are guardians!

My Guardian has minty breath thanks to Healing Breeze.

Leo G.4501:

Arrk.4102:

Please tell me what connection does the Guardian have to Dragons, for Draconnier to make sense?

The point is, the devs could have a piece of lore or a story being the name to which is the reason they want to keep the name related to dragons. If that possibility has yet to cross your mind thus being thoughtful of that when giving feedback, I can only assume you’re not being mature enough to compromise.

Draconnier and Dragonbane are not the only suggestions I’ve made, they’re only the ones that relate to dragons if that is an important detail that you’ve just decided to ignore. None the less, I don’t like Dragonhunter for the reasons brought up. Not because I disapprove what story the devs want to tell but how pertinent that story is to individual characters’ stories.

Immature? Nice.
Who said they want to tie the specs to the story? Dragonbane is on par with Dragonhunter imo, and much better than Draconnier.
If the devs had such a lore reason behind the name they would have used it, instead of the “high concept” explanation we got.

Please tell me what connection does the Guardian have to Dragons, for Draconnier to make sense?

Ojyh.9842:

Ephemiel.5694:

Please don’t defend the abomination that is Dragonhunter by saying it makes sense for them to be Hunters because they use all of their defensive zeal and focus on the offensive.

Yeah, I agree.
I can see why he’s saying that though. But it’s not working, because it would mean that we can consider a Necromancer as some kind of defensive archetype because he’s able to kill and control ennemies… And so does a double axe/hammer Warrior. Not it’s not what we can call a supportive archetype.
The Dragonhunter actually has that supportive aspect mechanically, but it’s clearly not reflected by its name and its theme.

Oh yeah, no, I have been vehemently against Dragonhunter from day 1, and my post history reflects that, I’m just saying that Draconnier is even worse and I have been trying to justify the unjustifiable in any way possible.

Ephemiel.5694:

Arrk.4102:

Guys please do not make me defend the abomination that is the Dragonhunter, but I will if you keep bringing up the even worse Draconnier. I think problem is relating the class with Dragons than with Hunting.
Guardian -> Hunter makes sense, kinda, in the way that instead of using all that defensive zeal and focus to make it offensive.
Guardian -> Dragon makes no sense, because there is nothing related to dragons, at all.

Please don’t defend the abomination that is Dragonhunter by saying it makes sense for them to be Hunters because they use all of their defensive zeal and focus on the offensive.

At least Draconnier is so stupid, and so close to Engineer, that it’d make people laugh.

Draconnier is so stupid it makes Dragonhunter make sense.

Guys please do not make me defend the abomination that is the Dragonhunter, but I will if you keep bringing up the even worse Draconnier. I think problem is relating the class with Dragons than with Hunting.
Guardian → Hunter makes sense, kinda, in the way that instead of using all that defensive zeal and focus to make it offensive.
Guardian → Dragon makes no sense, because there is nothing related to dragons, at all.

Ghotistyx.6942:

It would only be fair to think of alternate names for the other professions if we’re doing this thought exercise.

Honestly Chronomancer is probably going to be the most fitting name of the nine. Fateweaver (changing fate by changing time) was the best I could do without making it needlessly uninspired.

Banshee isn’t particularly gender specific despite the mythology, and male characters currently can use skills like Banshee’s Wail, or Valkyrie armor. You could make a reaper without shouts, but it’s hard to make a banshee without something sound based.

We don’t know enough about Tempest and Druid for me to really start thinking, but I’ll be sure to think of alternate name for each specialization.

Tempest seems to have something to do with Storms so Stormconjurer? Stormweaver? IDK. Druid is obviously expanding on the Nature magic theme of the Ranger, so.. yeah IDK we really need to see the skills first.

Fateweaver has nothing to do with what the Chrono does and I actually see no problem with Chronomancer because it defines the abilities of it outright.
Banshee, sadly, is really gender specific and stands next to Siren in that regard.

Warden is a great name.

Ghotistyx.6942:

I mean, it’s not like there’s a large variety coming from the “I can’t possibly fathom how this could work” side either.

Atleast there were arguments for those as opposed to the “anet makes it, so it is in theme, lalalalala”

Nike.2631:

Arrk.4102:

Ghotistyx.6942:

I voice my opinion to keep the name as Dragonhunter.

Your one opinion against the many who seek the change.

It’s hilarious you think this is a vote. Numbers are not going to change it.

Persuasion might.

It’s hilarious you think that I think that. I assumed you were the one who kept talking about the vocal minority nonsense because honestly all of you with the “anet can do no wrong” attitude sound the same. No offense.

Don’t the kits work the same way?
And I could have sworn that stow weapon would work, though to be fair I barely ever use tomes.

You should be able to use the “stow weapon” button to cancel the both tomes.

Boro.7359:

• DragonPuncher: It’s not even high concept anymore, it’s shrooms tier. (loving it)

Still waiting for that Dragonbrawler.

Developers, I.E the people with the “power” to change it are not the ones closing and merging the threads. So that doesn’t mean much. But I think having a stance is much better than leaving these discussions open and getting flooded with so many posts, I know for a fact that they had a few hundred twitter tweets about it as well.
And I mean really, posting on forums takes no effort at all. It is literally a few mouse clicks and a few types of the keyboard. I’m quite sure if they had an official yes or no stance, it would be pre-typed for them by the PR, or if it was just a dev expressing his own personal opinion, well that wouldn’t take much effort either. I think it takes more effort to keep policing these threads than it would take to give us a straight answer about it.

Would it not be easier for them to come out and say “We are not considering changing the DH name, kthnxbye” rather than keep these discussions going?

Irizol.1947:

Anything new from Anet?

Nah only a closed thread with 600 or so posts about it over at Guardian forums.

Ghotistyx.6942:

I voice my opinion to keep the name as Dragonhunter.

Your one opinion against the many who seek the change.

Seeker
Inquisitor
Sentinel

Considering the fact that barely anyone use tomes AND the fact that they will get their own spec with proper support for them, this is a good option. People wanting to use something that is not RF will get an ok signet, it will also passively add healing if you still cling to that and it will also add a really useful looking shout. And people who want to use tomes will get a nice and tome-friendly spec. Win-win.

Valmir.4590:

While I would love some housing (and honestly, it would be a cash cow with the Gem Store, I’m certain) the problem is that it would be purely aesthetic, since the Garrisons in WoW have been the source of problems for some players (they simply log to do the “chores” to reap some rewards) , so it could be problematic.

Quite a few already do login to collect the daily award and do the dailies. Most of them are just waiting for new content to come out.

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

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

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

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

Inquisitor does not even have to be faith or religion related:
“a person making an inquiry, especially one seen to be excessively harsh or searching.”
It is just connected to that in our minds due to real world context.

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

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

The fact is, it is a “tide-changer” only in PvE where Damage is still preferred over anything else or in two cases in pvp:
1. The opponent is brain-dead in which case you would not need the “tide-changer” anyways.
2. Your team is absolutely crushing, again, in which case you would not need the “tide-changer”.
Any smart team would instantly lock you down if you got the tome out.
Now, the Elite Signet, if it went through, would still offer quite a bit of healing, so I really see no need of keeping the Tomes and being limited to one semi-decent Elite skill.

Ephemiel.5694:

You can’t use the name “Inquisitor” since that would imply every Inquisitor is that class. They’d need to use a name that isn’t in the game or that other characters already have.

I disagree, there are many “Hunters” and “Warriors” in the game, and yet it doesn’t overlap with Warrior or Ranger core classes.
Inquisitor is a much much better name than Dragonhunter so I’d rather have that small overlap than be stuck with that awful name.

Obtena.7952:

Arrk.4102:

Obtena.7952:

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

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

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

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

Black Box.9312:

Arrk.4102:

Black Box.9312:

I’d say either Inquisitor or Seeker gets my vote. As nice as Warden sounds on paper, it also is already being used in GW2 context as the Sylvari military faction.

We also have Inquisitor as a White Mantle title, and The Reaper as a player title, so they are not looking at the context.

Those two are not directly tied to GW2 in-game (yet, at least).

How so? You fight Inquisitor Torbon and Veteran Inquisitor Mirella in game.
Reaper is the title a PvP players can get for obtaining 873,500 rank points in sPvP.

The damage is still the best support, after the boons and conditions. And niche builds like healing Guardians or Elementalists really have no place in this current meta. No trinity.. If they bring a separate spec for tomes that’s fine, but please do not ruin our chance to finally have decent elite skills.

Tachenon.5270:

I saw the word ‘visionary’ in a post that had nothing to do with guardians and my first thought was, “Hey, not bad! Much better than ‘dragonhunter’.” I even recommended that the poster post that title over here, but if he or she did I’ve not seen it. So, anyway…

Visionary.

High concept: Whether striking from afar or drawing the forces of evil into deadly snares, these intrepid guardians share a VISION of a world free from the fear and tyranny of dragonkind.

Whee. More:

Revelator
Luminary
Purifier
Big kitten Hero
Appetizer

There is even a precedent for that! When creating a Guardian, one of the choices you make can grant you the Visionary’s Helm. " (“a visionary’s helm”) — Tyria is bigger than we know and filled with mystery. This helm is open, allowing me to see with clarity. With it, I will seek out the world’s greater truths that others fear to explore." It fits perfectly, oh my god.

Black Box.9312:

I’d say either Inquisitor or Seeker gets my vote. As nice as Warden sounds on paper, it also is already being used in GW2 context as the Sylvari military faction.

We also have Inquisitor as a White Mantle title, and The Reaper as a player title, so they are not looking at the context.

I’m sorry but the Chronomancer looks really a lot like the current Mesmer, just with the new added toys.
The Reaper looks like a Necromancer that goes in Melee range, and just that.
The DH looks nothing like the Guardian, it only borrows the visuals of the core class. If you think “Guardian” you don’t think “bows and traps and long range”.

Nike.2631:

Saiyan.1704:

The main arguments of Dragonhunter

• The name doesn’t pertain to any of the Guardian characteristics like the other specialization’s names.

I’m 99% certain the Devs consider that a good thing. If you can offer one trait line and the resulting mixes feel like something completely different from the… not parent profession but the profession that shares some lines with your NEW profession, then the whole point of the exercise is working: You’ve created something NEW by leveraging a library of existing traits.

So by this logic The Reaper and The Chronomancer specs are complete failures?

I’d prefer Dragonhunter over Dragonbane to be honest. And I despise Dragonhunter with a passion.

Obtena.7952:

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

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

Mo Mo.1947:

Arrk.4102:

Just saw a lv1 Human Warrior in LA with pink mutton chops and a really flashy gold/red armor named Dragonbrawler The Annihilator. He kept saying that he is the future.

Hax? You shouldn’t be able to make a character with a name that long. O.o Do Europeans get a higher character limit? It’s 19 for the NA client.

As far as I remember the “The Annihilator” was the title he used.

Obtena.7952:

I’m not hung up with inconsistencies; that’s just storytelling. I’m hung up by … lazy and unoriginal. If we get fed another “Paragon/Sentinel/Archon” like name, it will demonstrate that Anet has given up on bringing us original and unique content.

Because Dragonhunter is so original and unique…

I’m thinking the OP has the problem with the hunter of dragons theme not the longbow.

Kal Spiro.9745:

Palador.2170:

I would like to point out, for fairness’s sake, that the scale of the update to LA was a surprise. This is the kind of thing they’d normally talk about beforehand, and THEN patch in, not patch in and then tell us about.

With that being said, we all knew more work on LA was coming. It may be a surprise that they did it like this, but it’s not really a BIG surprise.

Regina Buenaobra.6193:

Ephemiel.5694:

I actually asked them in their Facebook if this ended up being the “surprise” they had for this week and all i got was a snarky comment from Rubi Bayer saying that they’ll only show specs when they’re ready.

That was actually me. I sign my posts with RB. Rubi signs her posts with RB2.

What you asked was whether the Lion’s Arch info was the reason there was no specs reveal. To pit these two pieces of information against each other misunderstands the game development process and the fact that we have different teams working on different features. The folks working on Lion’s Arch are not the same people we have working on profession specializations. As I said on Facebook: we release information when we’re ready to do so. If we haven’t revealed something, it’s because we’re not ready yet.

You avoided the question we all want answered, but perhaps nobody’s asked it directly enough. So, straight out, I’m going to ask it.

Is this the big GW2 news for the week, yes or no?

She answered this directly. Since they have not answered the question, they’re not ready to answer the question, and therefore they will not answer the question.

That’s an indirect answer. Sorry.