Guild Wars 2

Bellyboomer.3048:

Belinda is the first necromancer we see using a greatsword.

Trahearne.

In particular, I would love to see this list of other alternative names that were seriously considered for this e-spec. Much like the list of Lion’s Arch place names, perhaps ArenaNet could provide us with their list of possible names.

I would love to have a dialogue with the Devs, but it takes at least two people to have a dialogue, and the Devs remain silent.

Nike.2631:

“I’m a Reader, and I get to tell you the Author you’re WRONG about your world setting and you have to listen because I bought your book and you want me to by your next book too!”

People write fantasy and sci-fi settings instead of contemporary fiction specifically to NOT have to put up with (much of) that sort of nonsense.

Just because you write your own setting does not mean that you write it well nor does it somehow liberate you from criticism. Speculative fiction is not immune to the death of the author.

Ephemiel.5694:

You didn’t read anything at all, did you. Anet never wanted to “have the Guardian’s sense of justice being perverted into blind vengeance” AT ALL, i have no idea where did you even get that.

They simply used their idea of a “big game hunter” and tried to make it fit the Guardian. That’s the problem of this whole thing.

Try to be respectful. Such comments do not exactly engender civil discussion, and it’s uncalled for. We do want this threat to continue.

RabbitUp.8294:

I’ve been reading the last 2 pages, the same exact arguments were made 20 pages ago. This is pretty smart on Anet’s side, letting the storm rage in its little teacup; by the time we get more juicy news, everyone will have eventually moved on.

It’s not as if you have been helpful in any regard for civil discussion either.

It does not help that both sides of the debate are just spurring the circular direction of the thread instead of attempting to move the discussion forward towards more productive venues.

Actually given the Living Story, I would say that the mesmer has a much stronger claim regarding links between the dragons and the professions. Mesmers use chaos magic, which Scarlett links with the elder dragons at least as far back as the Thaumanova Reactor.

Saying that the ‘dragonhunter’ is a guardian elite specialization isn’t an argument, nor does it constitute a discussion.

zenleto.6179:

Well, they are now.

That was not up for debate. We are all aware of ArenaNet’s forced connection.

It could even be the genesis something bigger!

Yes, the next guardian e-spec can be “bigger game hunter.”

Obtena.7952:

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.

Yes. The history of the guardian profession is not tied to the dragons in any shape. If you read the old blog posts and interviews, ArenaNet indicates that the guardian’s origins lie with the spread of Elonian paragon teachings via the Order of Whispers. They are never connected to the dragons:

Is there a story behind the Guardian on the lore end of things? Do you have any thoughts on how it came to be?

Jeff Grubb: With the turmoil in Elona and the spread of the Order of Whispers into other lands, more Paragon teaching showed elsewhere in Tyria. These teachings melded with other traditions, and over time, the Guardians and their abilities can be found throughout the world and among all the races. They are not tied to a particular race, philosophy, or group of gods but rather to a larger concept of proactive defense, of taking the fight to a foe and protecting those you fight alongside while appealing equally to humanity’s defensive nature and the Charr’s desire to rule the battlefield.

I think the Guardian is much more of a pragmatic and tactical user of a magic as opposed to an Elementalist, who is a pure student of magic. The Elementalist casts discrete spells, and you have the feeling that there is a heritage and body of knowledge behind those spells. Guardians seem to use magical energy in the heat of combat, from the front line. That sense of immediacy sets the Guardian apart from more traditional spell-casters and allows for a heavily armored magical character.

Macha: It’s a pile of Elonian protection magic, mixed with a little monk training, wrapped up in some crazy ritualist hoo-ha from Cantha. A real grab bag of “you can’t hurt me”. They’re called guardians, and simply put, they mean trouble.

If there was an official poll, I would prefer if ArenaNet presented their own list of alternative names to which Jon Peters had alluded in his reply as opposed to the fan-supplied ones.

Anyway… How about discussing possible alternative names?

Nike.2631:

Wait… we’re arguing the new Shield of Virtue f3 isn’t going to be AMAZING in skilled hands? Because me behind a ranged attack devouring wall with a bow shooting outward is gonna be funny. It turns the concept of “ranged duel” into “sick, one-sided joke”.

And any other profession in equally skilled hands will not find the Shield of Virtue F3 threatening.

RabbitUp.8294:

So you are here asking for a change for selfless reasons? You are not picking a name you like, but the one that is best for the community? So noble.

Your condescension aside, there are probably names, concepts, etc. that I prefer more for the guardian longbow e-spec. For me though, ‘inquisitor’ has the greatest amount of conceptual overlap between the e-spec mechanics, the players’ voiced opinions, and ArenaNet’s revealed design intent. I see it as the pragmatic choice between ‘dragonhunter’ and the alternative names.

RabbitUp.8294:

Inquisitor is a worse name than Dragon hunter could ever possibly be.

Who was that guy who made a big production about the worthlessness of opinions masquerading as objective facts? I believe that was some guy named RabbitUp. Yeah, that’s what this is.

Saiyan.1704:

Guardian turn into inquisitors…* it kind of sound like scholarship or researcher rather than Judgements, or Guardness.* It does’t even work for Rangness spec.

Haha… no… Disagree on all fronts.

Ezrael.6859:

No, the name isn’t going to change.

All the more reason for me to be a dissatisfied customer.

dietzero.3514:

Nike.2631:

Dante.1763:

Warhammer And Warhammer 40k. Both prime examples.

Thank you. I might otherwise have forgotten a prime example of Inquisitors being agents of torture and slaughter. Drawing inspiration in that setting from their real world place as the authors of some of the worst atrocities in the history of the human race. A name synonymous with wanton brutality. Probably why there are already Inquisitors in Tyria and they were bad guys.

Sort of like Witch Hunters.

Which is what ArenaNet was gunning for with ‘dragonhunters.’ Yeah, I think we’re fine with naming the e-spec “inquisitor.”

I’m a proponent of the ‘inquisitor’ name.

Nike.2631:

Dante.1763:

Warhammer And Warhammer 40k. Both prime examples.

Thank you. I might otherwise have forgotten a prime example of Inquisitors being agents of torture and slaughter. Drawing inspiration in that setting from their real world place as the authors of some of the worst atrocities in the history of the human race. A name synonymous with wanton brutality. Probably why there are already Inquisitors in Tyria and they were bad guys.

ArenaNet did say they were (somehow) trying to be darker and walking the line with the ‘dragonhunter’ concept.

Nike.2631:

1. In what universe have you EVER heard of “Inquisitors” being associated with bows? Questioner/Interrogator archetypes work up close where they can talk. Whisper even. Not “Hey -twang- you -thwip- confess! -pew pew-”

Yes, Nike, I have heard such an association. I have even mentioned it before. Check out Pathfinder’s Inquisitor class.

Also worth mentioning, but that doesn’t look like a dragonhunter either. Most dragonhunters in myth and folklore defeated dragons armed with sword and shield.

Obtena.7952:

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

You’re being insulting and rude. Cut it out.

Saiyan.1704:

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

There have been a number of discussions on the traps. A few people are a fan. Most seem to be indifferent. And the rest dislike the guardian traps (i.e. doesn’t fit the longbow/guardian, long cooldowns, ineffective, etc.).

quaniesan.8497:

it’s a nerf definitely, the “click-to-heal” becomes a “aim-then-click-to-heal-for-the-same-amount-and-less-allies”. This is a stealth one from Anet. Basically a nerf that is sugar-coated with some wing graphic.

Don’t forget the “turkey hop” graphic.

Black Box.9312:

4. Traps are completely inferior to wells. Traps are not ground targeted and will require an activation time. Beyond THAT, they are only triggered when an enemy runs over them. Wells are ground targeted and activate instantly upon casting. That’s better than traps in every single way.

And traps are set at your feet, but the playstyle of the DH longbow is about keeping your distance from your foes so they never reach the traps anyway.

Obtena.7952:

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

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

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

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

Obtena.7952:

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

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

There’s also Inquisitor Dabb and High Inquisitor Maut of the Inquest, so it’s not a White Mantle exclusive title.

As I said before, I could easily see all the playable races having inquisitors to root out the rogue elements in their society (e.g. White Mantle, Flame Legion, Mordremoth Sylvari, etc.).

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.

Not really. Inquisitor is generic enough. Do you honestly think that the White Mantle is the only faith that would have inquisitors?

Black Box.9312:

The title isn’t directly within the context of the game’s story. I dunno about those two enemies, though. Where do you fight them?

The “Dead Parents” human personal story.

Despite its use by the White Mantle, the name ‘Inquisitor’ still strikes me as a generic enough specialization name.

Saiyan.1704:

Genesis, you suggested Dragonbane in one of the other threads so no doubt you’ll be defending Nike. But I’m with Arnath on this one. Dragonbane is equally bad.

No, I’m defending Nike because he has actively sought feedback and compromise on the ‘dragonhunter’ name situation. It’s not his way or the highway. As such, I agree with Leo G’s post.

Kury.8210:

I’m not so sure about the name “Inquisitor.” To me, it implies light armor and certainly doesn’t include a bow as a main weapon.

I don’t share this perception, perhaps given my familiarity with Pathfinder’s Inquisitor class, which does feature armored, bow-wielding inquisitors: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/baseClasses/inquisitor.html.

Arnath.2319:

Threads need a dislike option, this is a terrible idea that ignores all the problems that the name Dragon Hunter brings, Dragon Bane is equally as bad.

They need to remove both the word “Dragon” and “Hunter” and go with a single generic name.

Did you not read the page after page of feedback before making this thread?

Nike most definitely did read the threads.

I’m still in favor of ‘inquisitor’ as the first choice of a rename, but I appreciate the write-up and effort that Nike went to attempt addressing the ‘dragonhunter name controversy.’

I at least feel that we are making progress with more fruitful discussion.

Knighthonor.4061:

Hey everybody keep in mind we don’t have to use longbow with Dragon Hunter.
I plan to use DH with Melee weapons and using traps for Melee combat. In PvP I plan to use Traps for defending cap points with Melee weapons and defensive builds..

You’re kinda gimping yourself given how you’re losing the bonus damage of “Pure of Sight” by going melee.

phys.7689:

yeah, i know some games work that way, but GW doesnt, no class has any simulated stat benefits. Elementalists dont get a bonus to magic dmg, or elemental damage, there is no elemental wheel whereby fire does more dmg to X.

warrior is not statistically better with martial weapons.

I disagree due to the way that ArenaNet conveyed their respective masteries. ArenaNet gave the elementalist a wider range of magic available to them courtesy of their attunements. Elementalists getting a mainhand sword is not just getting three skills; they are getting at least twelve new magical abilities through attunements alone. Also, ArenaNet explicitly made warriors the weapon masters who had the largest amount of accessible weapons, as well as further adrenaline weapon skills that reflect their mastery of particular weapons.

they couldnt just call the class hunter. So they added the modifier, most likely based, in this case on why they became hunters.

I am admittedly of the opinion that naming it any variety of ‘hunter’ was ill advised. They could have called the e-spec the “inquisitor,” which is commonly depicted as a faithful hunter that seeks to take down public and religious dangers. Sometimes you can accomplish more in a name with less, and I think this one of those times.

Valmir.4590:

The Flame Legion, Genesis, not the Burning Legion (in your 4th paragraph).

Oi! Embarrassing. Thanks for spotting that.

Otherwise, I like Inquisitor (even if it was used by the White Mantle 250 years ago, but their could be way for the lore to explain this use, possibly with some Sylvari being actually terrified of some of their kind being traitors and going out of their way to uproot them).

I kinda enjoy that irony, and I imagine that Kryta likely employed inquisitors among the Shining Blade following the regime change from the White Mantle to Salma Dynasty to eradicate vestiges of the Mantle.

The issue, phys, is that in many other games, particularly in tabletop RPGs, there are mechanical benefits for being an “____-hunter” that gives you a competitive edge when facing your particular foe of choice. A “dragon hunter” in any other RPG would give you bonuses for tracking your foe, recalling lore about them, as well as combat bonuses.

Even a treasure hunter will more often then not have more mechanical edges that benefit their ability to perform that task, whether it’s bypassing traps and locks, traversing ruins, or locating the treasure’s whereabouts.

I am a proponent of the name ‘Inquisitor.’ The name has a number of things going for it.

The name ‘Inquisitor’ has religious connotations, which more readily lends its connection to the faith-based guardian profession. “Inquisitor” feels congruent with the other guardian specialization names: e.g., Zeal, Radiance, Valor, Honor, and Virtue. In other words, people will likelier see the ‘inquisitor’ as a more natural extension of the guardian than the ‘dragonhunter’ due to this preexisting fantasy trope with its religious motif.

One of the legitimate criticisms people have levied against a number of the alternative names proposed for the ‘dragonhunter’ is that these names are simply synonyms with ‘guardian.’ That criticism should be taken into consideration. The name ‘inquisitor’ takes that criticism seriously. The two are not synonymous. Inquisitors are often depicted as being proactive agents in the world who hunt down foes of the faith or other “public dangers.” Furthermore, there is a clearer thematic overlap between ‘inquisitors’ and the ‘witch hunters’ than there exists between ‘witch hunters’ and ‘dragon hunters.’ So the name ‘inquisitor’ provides a clear religious connection with the base profession while also connoting a more aggressive, harrier of justice, truth, and goodness that stems from their faithful convictions. An ‘inquisitor’ probably has more need for traps given names like ‘test of faith,’ ‘purification,’ and ’light’s judgment’ than something being labeled as a ‘dragonhunter.’

The name is also wide enough to apply to a variety of scenarios in Heart of Thorns and beyond. A sylvari inquisitor may attempt rooting out disloyal sylvari, while a more extreme non-sylvari inquisitor may seek to vanquish all sylvari as minions of the dragons. But we are not just dealing with dragons in Heart of Thorns. ArenaNet seeded an enormous wealth of clues in the human personal story and the living story in the Maguuma Wastes regarding the White Mantle and the mursaat. A human inquisitor’s quest may take them to take action against these old foes of humanity and Kryta.

What of the other races or even the Pact Orders? An asura inquisitor may be a part of the asura’s arcane eye and dealing with the Inquest. A charr inquisitor may seek to root out the Flame Legion and stop defectors from the Black Citadel. A norn inquisitor may be dealing with offenses against the Great Spirits or stoping religious offenses committed by the Sons of Svanir. An inquisitor may seek to unravel the truth for the Priory. An inquisitor may seek to weed out any potential internal corruption of the Order of Whispers. An inquisitor may be sent to deal with a particular foe of the Vigil that requires their special services.

Obtena.7952:

Anet explained why it fits the core class. If get your opinion differs from Anet’s but that does not make it a fact that DH is a bad name. Good and Bad does not factor into this; I sincerely don’t believe that Anet choose the name because it was their goal to choose the worst one. This is what you’re argument amounts to. If you’re argument does not take Anet’s explanation into account, it’s worthless nonsense.

Is thematic inconsistency (which is a matter of taste) the BEST argument we can come up with to why the name should change?

You are being disingenuous in this conversation by claiming that people here are arguing that ArenaNet went with the worst name possible. Cut it out. It’s rude and unfruitful for the discussion.

ArenaNet did not explain why the name fit; they provided a rationale for why they went with the name that they did. That’s not the same. But just because you provide a rationale does not mean that the rationale is reasonable. A rationale is not a priori made reasonable by the source, but by the rationale’s own merits, or lack thereof. That is what we are discussing.

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

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

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

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

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

Obtena.7952:

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

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

Obtena.7952:

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

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

Obtena.7952:

No one has shown their explanation isn’t logical at all. Simply dismissing their explanation does not make it illogical.

Neither does simply dismissing the explanations that dissenters have provided you regarding the name. Others and I have analyzed the inappropriateness of the dragonhunter name at some length and detail. You simply choose to ignore it.

Besides, who determines it’s logical? It’s part of a made up story that they make up. It can be whatever they want. Obviously they think it fits their story.

That’s a terrible excuse that simply serves to justify terrible writing. Narratival logic has never been the sole purview of the author or creator, as it relies upon treating both their work and their audience with a shred of dignity regarding their sense of logic. It appears that you are the one attempting to dictate what is logical, but your hermeneutic for what constitutes a logical argument consists of “ANet can do no wrong with their own story since it’s their story, ergo the ‘dragonhunter’ name fits,” which is utter garbage.

Don’t forget the revenant.

KotCR.6024:

I like the idea somebody else suggested. You gain a passive 25% Movement Speed bonus while under the affects of Aegis, then just tagging it onto the end of the Unscathed Contender (the +20% Damage while under Aegis) Trait. Realistically, you are still going to be at a mobility and movement speed disadvantage in-combat, because your Aegis will be up only very intermittently in combat, and for very very brief amouns of time; Likewise, it still wouldn’t be easier to flee because your opponent will probably chase you down and only need a single hit to remove your Movement Speed bonus, quite easy with any weapon with a ranged attack, especially seems most Guardian blinds are PBAoE abilities rather than ranged.

But at least we’d be able to build however we want Rune wise on our Guardians and otherwise Trait wise, without feeling like we were severally kitten in simply getting around when out of combat. And no, it’s not a balance concern, because we can just do this already by popping on one of the above mentioned Runesets until we are about to engage in combat, but it’s alot of faff and inconvenient (not to mention, pricey!), and inconvenience for the sake of inconvenience is very very bad…so c’mon guys, throw us a bone.

The other major benefit of putting the bonus speed on Unscathed Contender is that to highly benefits guardians in non-combat roaming when it comes to cross-map mobility, which is often a weakness in WvW and even PvE open world content.

Also added in a few new links in my post here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/Dragon-Hunter-name-feedback-merged/page/30#post5072663

Tea Time (Bootts, Brazil, Inks, MightyTeapot): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGze1TN5mY

GuildMag Podcast (Valiant, Draxynnic, Starconspirator): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wZBefgvODI

The importance of class/profession names is that they provide players with a loose set of expectations about the class: it’s flavor, mechanics, playstyle, etc. These expectations come from fantasy tropes, particularly RPG fantasy games, such as D&D.

Most of the GW2 professions use names that provide typical expectations: e.g., warrior, thief, ranger, and necromancer. Some require a bit more explanation, but not much more: e.g., elementalist, mesmer, and guardian. Once you figure out, for example, that the elementalist is just a elemental-themed mage, players are good to go. Or that that mesmer essentially builds upon the enchanter, illusionist, semi-bardic, and psionic archetypes. The guardian for most players fills the role of the holy warrior: i.e., cleric or paladin. The expectations for the professions in terms of flavor is clear. The guardian here, in particular, is relevant when talking about the dragonhunter. But first, let’s look at the other two elite specializations.

The chronomancer is a time mage. It builds off from the mesmer’s time-related abilities and their use of chaos magic. We expect time-related themes, and that’s what we find. The expectations are clear and are met by its design. A lot of time-related aesthetics, including wells that tick like clocks!

The reaper has clear links with the necromancer. The name evokes death via the scythe-wielding Grim Reaper, the mythical representation of death. Even in the Guild Wars mythos, the Reapers are a key part of lore connected to Grenth, the God of Ice and Death. The Reapers were mortal champions who fought alongside Grenth as he defeated Dhuum to become the new god of death, while his mortal champions became the reapers. Incidentally, the reaper is given a new death shroud aesthetic that evokes Grenth’s reapers. And much like Grenth, the reaper specialization deals heavily in death and ice.

What of the dragonhunter? As I said earlier, the name is a shorthand meant to provide players with a set of expectations. And for many people in this thread and elsewhere, this is where the elite specialization fails to deliver, particularly in light of ArenaNet’s justification.

Hands up. How many people understood that they were going for “witch hunters” when they saw the “dragonhunter” name before JonPeters or the Ready Up briefly touched upon their intent? If you look back through the pre-JonPeter posts, it’s basically no one.

So why does “witch hunter” or “demon hunter” work where the “dragonhunter” fails? Let’s go back to what I was saying earlier about the guardian as the holy warrior. ArenaNet has said that the guardian is more than the paladin, cleric, monk, or holy warrior, but that’s nevertheless the niche, aesthetic, and flavor that it fills. It’s a paladin/cleric in all but name. Even in JonPeter’s apology of the “dragonhunter” name, he refers to guardians as “followers of their faith.” So when we see the “witch/demon hunter” it works in connection with the holy warrior because these named concepts have religious/faith expectations for their flavor, lore, and aesthetic. Witches and demons were even linked. There may even be an expectation that the witch hunter also hunts demons, because of a religious history that linked witchcraft as human instruments of demons, devils, and Satan. These are pre-existing archetypes that exist distinctly from the “dragonhunter” archetype. You can’t just replace “witch/demon” with “dragon” expect that it will successfully evoke that semiotic sense when a “dragonhunter” is already its own semiotic signifier of a different archetype of differing expectations. People can link guardians with “demon/witch hunters” because of those religious links, but people have a far more difficult time making those same links when you turn the witch/demon hunter into a dragon hunter.

Ghotistyx.6942:

I couldn’t say. I haven’t counted who’s on each side or to what degree. However, only using the vocal population is a poor sample in my opinion.

Of course. But neither side should be pretending to speak for the silent majority. I can only speak for myself and those I know who have voiced opposition to the name.

Ghotistyx.6942:

Ah yes, apathy is the reason things are the way they are.

Have you considered the replacement name could be worse for the silent majority? They would certainly be affected by a name change, regardless of if they vocalize.

Or they could support the name change.

If we only have their silence to go on, then the only people voicing opinions are those supporting the name and dissenters of the name. Regardless of the silent majority, it appears to me that the vocal dissenting party is larger than the vocal supporting party. Would you disagree?

Nike.2631:

Unsurprisingly since I want to play an Archer/Trapper WITHOUT A BRAINDEAD PET leeching 30% of my DPS and a set of f1-f3 actions that don’t lag out for bad AI, I’m pretty excited.

So basically you are excited that you can play the guardian as if it were the ranger you wanted? Do you not see how that is bad for both guardians and rangers?

Thankfully there are only the same three or four people who pop up in these dragonhunter threads to say that the name is not a problem and tell detractors they are vocal minority idiots. Clearly, these people represent the vacuous silent majority who supports the name.