Guild Wars 2

reapex.8546:

Think it is too late for a name change, they wouldn’t change all of the marketing and in game references to Dragonhunter that easily. I would rather for Heart of Thorns to come out and not be delayed due to a name change.

How many times does one’s profession get mentioned in game? Most instances of a profession name is generally the now useless trainers who stand around capital cities with [X Trainer] above their heads.

I posted this on the other Dragon Hunter page in the Guardian sub-forum, but I thought it might be useful for those strictly reading this thread.

Fan Bloggers who Voiced Dislike or Unenthusiasm about the “Dragonhunter” Name:

Aurora Peachy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b2e6c0TV1M
- Guild Gab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7HAFDlMG1A

Bog Otter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ksm_sKWicE
- Argues that this does not qualify as “high concept” but is simply ground-up design with scant thematic justification.

MMOINKS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqwvGbdcmQE

Wooden Potatoes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7HAFDlMG1A
- More focused on the mechanics, but unenthused about the name. In another stream with MattVisual, he argues that the revised virtues suggest the spec was originally meant to be a paragon.

Guild Wars Players News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGVzoXOYLkE

Ten Ton Hammer (Lewis Burnell): http://www.tentonhammer.com/editorial/guild-wars-2-thoughts-dragonhunter

Guild Mag (draxynnic): http://www.guildmag.com/dragonhunter-rose-name/
- And a resident lore guru on the forums.

That_Shaman: https://twitter.com/that_shaman/status/596360746105176064
- https://twitter.com/that_shaman/status/596755704289034240

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

I may update this too. If I find public GW2 bloggers who are enthused about the name I WILL include them. Please let me know about other public bloggers who voice an opinion on the “dragonhunter controversy.” Thank you.

Welcome to the guardian elite specialization disappointment club.

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.

Alice.5360:

To paraphrase Genesis.8572:
Only three of the twelve traits directly references hunting (Hunter’s Determination, Hunter’s Fortification, and Big Game Hunter), and only one kinda alludes to dragons- Big Game Hunter.
“This specialization lacks a clear, unifying sense of thematic focus and cohesion as demonstrated in their trait names, particularly when compared to the chronomancer. Most of the trait names do not evoke dragon-hunting or dragons, but generic guardian names.”

I’m glad to be of service. I find that breakdown analyses of such things provide useful demonstrations. In this case, it turns out that the traits and ability names are endemic of the problem with the specialization name.

Knighthonor.4061:

And Dragon Hunters fit, since they are similar to Demon Hunters in theme from Diablo 3…. Except we hunt Dragons in this universe.

Not really. Their class similarities end beyond the superficiality of having “hunter” in their name. Thematically, the two classes differ greatly and evoke incredibly different aesthetics, playstyle mechanics, and motifs.

lukejoe.1592:

Paragon is an outright stupid profession name. Paragon of what?!

Ask ArenaNet. It was a Guild Wars 1 profession after all.

Alice.5360:

The fact we have over 30 pages combined discussing the name and a dev response trying to justify it proves Dragonhunter is a bad name.

This thread will easily surpass the engineer hobosack thread.

Obtena.7952:

Because it’s reasonable to assume that if there isn’t a good reason to change something that has been worked on, likely complete, they shouldn’t do it.

Engineer hobosacks. How much work went into the engineer kits again?

Let’s be honest though .. you don’t actually care what Anet says, you just want the name to change based on whatever reason you can think of simply cause you don’t like it; I don’t get the impression your the scholarly type that is all that concerned about language and theme accuracy. The ‘Jon post’ and the thematic inconsistencies are just convenient excuses to latch on to because you don’t have better ones.

That’s about as disingenuous as accusing of only liking the name because it’s the one that ArenaNet picked.

Timedabilitiesmancer

Cooldowner

Obtena.7952:

I get it, the name isn’t particularly cool or inspiring and the best people can think of to justify changing it is nitpicking a few teasers.

If you believe you are taking the high road, then please provide us (and ArenaNet) with your constructive feedback regarding the ‘dragonhunter’ name, especially since you dislike it. Whether the name is changed or not, it would likely prove valuable for ArenaNet going forward in the future, whether that’s with the dragonhunter, future specialization names, or fan feedback.

Obtena.7952:

My assumption they have worked on this and incorporated the DH name into the work already done is idle speculation? That’s a pretty obtuse position you have. Do you think they throw together a whole expansion in a weekend over a few beers? You’re certainly not giving them alot of credit when you reduce my claim that they have work done on this to idle speculation. I’m hoping they take the same attitude on players overly sensitive to a name and thematic inconsistencies.

Yes, I disagree with your presumption that this is somehow so deeply ingrained for Heart of Thorns that this is irreversible. Entire games have had their game names changed following trailer promotions, press releases, and more.

Obtena.7952:

I have yet to see anyone make a compelling reason why the name should change, even if what you say is true. Guardians are still going to get traps, a long bow, a new trait line with the traits similar to the concept we’ve seen already, regardless of what the spec is called.

I would say that bringing the core concept of the dragonhunter closer to the central concept that JonPeters said they were aiming for makes for a compelling reason. What’s more, I would argue that the traits and abilities should also be further renamed to bring these longbow, traps, virtues, and such closer to that central core concept. As it stands, the virtues feel like the remnant of the paragon specialization. The trap names feel like they belong to an “inquisitor” or “purifier” specialization. And the trait names are all over the place, leaning mostly towards generic guardian names with a tiny sprinkle of draconic and hunting names.

On the other hand, there is probably a sizable volume of work already done incorporating the name. That’s a REALLY compelling reason to NOT change it.

Idle speculation.

Black Box.9312:

Obtena.7952:

dietzero.3514:

What are you talking about? Jon’s statement was just flat-out wrong. It did not make any sense. He used words incorrectly. He came across as condescending. He contradicted the movie.

Are my short sentences getting to you?

Jon’s idea (and his team’s) are wrong about what they want the concept of the Guardian elite spec to be? Wow. Perhaps he wasn’t condescending and straight forward enough considering people are implying they are absolute idiots for how wrong they are about how they want the concept developed.

Not necessarily that they’re wrong per sé, but just that their ideas contradict each other and don’t make sense.

Basically the package deal of what is being labeled “the dragonhunter” lacks the thematic coherence of either the chronomancer or the reaper.

Obtena.7952:

You would be wrong. I didn’t imply that at all. The joke if there is one, is that you’re reading into things not said here. I said we got ALOT of things we asked for. I didn’t say EVERYTHING and I definitely wasn’t specific about WHAT we got that we asked for.

We didn’t really get much in the way of mobility apart from a ‘meh’ virtue jump.

Silhouette.5631:

The devs said they gave it the name kuz of lore, not as much because of play style, wait until the expansion before yall go saying its just thrown togeather. Anet usually provides great game depth (even if the characters lines in the main plot are a tad simplistic). That being said I’m not going to complain about what Anets giving us when everything we already having is working just fine. (Go talk to a theif/necro/memser/ranger about stuff not workin right)

Even if there is a lore explanation, the specialization could use a simple name change (e.g. “dragonbane”) and have many of its abilities and aesthetics (e.g. angel wings) changed to reflect that whole draconic and foe-slaying motif. As it stands, the trait and ability names feel disjointed and like a hodge-podge of differing elite specialization ideas haphazardly thrown together.

Obtena.7952:

If anything it’s the PLAYERS that hate Guardian because we got alot of the things we have been asking for, yet still find cause to QQ about the dumbest things. Always be careful what you ask for.

This I feel is the reason players aren’t excited about the class. It’s like opening a present … and you already know what your getting.

Hahahahaha! Sorry. Let me catch my breath. For a second there, I thought you implied that guardians asked for traps.

This spec needs more cowbell.

I’m so glad I have a necromancer, and this elite specialization fits really well with him.

Arrk.4102:

Arbiter is someone who decides, or say, judges (a link to the core class). The Arbiter decides who or what is the ultimate threat, and goes after it. How does that not fit? Because of the traps? Please, how does Reaper imply shouting or Chronomancer imply wells? And seeing that Druid and Tempest are following the one word name pattern, DH is the anomaly here.

Arbiter also suffers from translation problems to a lot of Romance languages (i.e. referee), while also sounding a lot like Arbeiter in Germanic ones. And based on what feel JonPeters said they were going for (i.e. witch hunters), there are likely better names out there than “Arbiter.”

TyPin.9860:

I’m having enough of this. Guys, before you throw your impressions and feelings of the phrase “big-game hunting” around, please research the term. It is more than fitting for a dragon hunter… it is a necessity even…

How so? Traps don’t work on “objects” like dragons and their champions.

Perhaps Spirit Weapons should be placed in either the Honor or Virtues line?

MiniEquine.6014:

Well, over on the Guardian forum Anet were talking about removing tomes and re-introducing them in a later elite specialization. The reintroduction could be for some Scholar/Archivist “kit” specialization where you swap between your tomes. I think this would be an excellent way to bring them back, and they wouldn’t really be competing with the Engineer because the tomes would be magic-based.

Neat idea! Maybe the equipped tomes affect how your virtues operate similar to the engineer toolbelt? Call it a “Cleric.”

I suspect that the Destiny’s Edge B Team will be the ones who will be taking up most of the new elite specializations. It will not cover every profession, much as how Destiny’s Edge only covered five of the (then) eight professions: elementalist, ranger, guardian, warrior, and thief.

RabbitUp.8294:

They implied this won’t happen, since the whole point of adding types to everything was to implement rune support for skill types, similar to the existing Rune of the Trapper.

I’m worried then that elite specializations will just be adding further profession homogenization.

Toxsa.2701:

The only reason why traps are useless are not because of the mechanic, but the fact that old traps’ effect are designed useless against zerg to begin with due to target limit and all condition base damage. Otherwise it’s actually better than wells that you cannot see traps while you can clearly see wells and dodge through them.

That and not actually working on dragons who are treated like objects instead of regular mobs.

I would actually like to see new mechanics for the elite specializations rather than having the same mechanics (e.g. shots, traps, wells, etc.) being redistributed to other professions.

MiniEquine.6014:

Genesis.8572:

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.

For what it’s worth, I like your idea much better. I probably would have ventured further away from the necromancer marks, as that would certainly result in cries of “the necro is even more pointless! thx, guardian spec.”

Let’s hope that a future shortbow guardian elite spec gives guardians a better range alternative than ‘dragonhunter.’

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?

RabbitUp.8294:

Funny you would mention that. There were voices stating exactly that, that the scrotum grenades and toilet paper roll bombs looked worse than hobosacks.

Even though devs have specifically said both are placeholders and they are working on the assets.

Actually the complaining did stop once people were reminded that they were placeholders. Try again.

Gilgalas.7860:

So many replies, so much time spend arguing endlessly in vain, restating again and again the same things. Wow, some people around this forum obviously have time to lose.

Let us just state the obvious: should Anet change the name, there would be another plethora of posts: “I don’t like this new name, use this other one instead. Even dragon hunter was actually better”. So why should Anet even bother to change it ?

See the Engineer “hobosack” thread. Repeating and restating the same things over and over again. They got a change. They liked it. There wasn’t much, if any, “I don’t like this new change, use my idea instead. Even hobosacks were better.”

Let’s compare the Chronomancer trait names with the Dragonhunter trait names to show more of what I am talking about the thematic cohesion of the elite specializations.

Chronomancer: We should expect a lot of time-motifs, and that’s what we find.

• Minor Traits: Time Splitter, Flow of Time, Time Marches On
• Adept Traits: Time Catches Up, Delayed Reactions, All’s Well That Ends Well
• Master Traits: Illusionary Reversion, Improved Alacrity, Danger Time
• Grandmaster Traits: Lost Time, Chrontophantasma, Seize the Moment

Conclusion: The chronomancer trait names are clearly tied in with the specializations’ time motif. Some puns and common phrases. It’s evocative about being a time mage.

Dragonhunter: We should expect either dragon or hunting motifs, but it is mostly generic guardian-sounding names.

• Minor Traits: Virtuous Action, Defender’s Dogma, Pure of Sight
  - Is there anything here that would suggest “dragonhunter”?

• Adept Traits: Piercing Light, Zealot’s Aggression, Soaring Devastation
  - I will say that Soaring Devastation is probably one of the best trait names for the DH. I want more trait names like that, if this is going to be a DH. But the other two come across more like typical guardian trait names.

• Master Traits: Hunter’s Determination, Bulwark, Dulled Senses
  - Hunter’s D does pass, but it’s also uninspiring. Maybe renaming it with greater emphasis on the ‘draconic’ aspect? Bulwark is fairly generic guardian as well, and Dulled Senses does not feel appropriately named for what it does.

• Grandmaster Traits: Hunter’s Fortification, Heavy Light, Big Game Hunter
  - Two more ‘hunting’ names, but one’s a repeat of the Hunter’s ____, and the other is the “big game hunter” mantra repeated on the first preview post. Again, I would make these more draconically-linked. For example, renaming “Hunter’s Fortification” to “Draconic Resilience” or “Protective Scales of Justice.” I would also connect “Big Game Hunter” more overtly with “Spear of Justice” (e.g. “Justice’s Wrath”) or dragon-hunting (e.g. “Strike the Weak Spot”).

Conclusion: Only three of the twelve traits directly references hunting (H’s Determination, H’s Fortification, and Big Game H), and two kinda allude to dragons (Soaring Devastation, Big Game H). This specialization lacks a clear, unifying sense of thematic focus and cohesion as demonstrated in their trait names, particularly when compared to the chronomancer. Most of the trait names do not evoke dragon-hunting or dragons, but generic guardian names. I think it needs to move more towards these draconic and hunting aspects to make it a more cohesive and sellable ‘dragonhunter’ package.

purecontact.1680:

@Genesis: you should stop arguing, that’s not because you repeat yourself that Anet will be more receptive to your comment.

I know. This comment was less for ANet and more for Nike. I think that now that we are both sick of the feeling of arguing, yelling, and the invalidations of our emotional reactions, we will be moving to an intentional discussion.

I suppose one of my biggest problems with the name “dragonhunter” is that it is emblematic of the specialization’s lack of a packaged sense of cohesion. I’ll expand what I mean by that.

In my most recent comment, I mentioned how BogOtter speculates that the “Dragonhunter” was not a “high concept” design, at least in the traditional sense of how the term is used, but was designed from the bottom-up around giving the guardians a longbow, more conditions, and control. The basics of the specialization mechanics came before any notion of a “dragonhunter.”

Likewise, WoodenPotates speculates in a recent stream with MattVisual that the “dragonhunter” was actually meant to be a paragon. There are several things that lend credence to his hypothesis:
1) Concept Art: The previewed concept art for the guardian elite specialization lacks any clear dragon motifs. It has angel wings. The helm is not the elite draconic helm, but the starter visionary helm. The bow is not the dragon bow of the preview, but the spritual azurewrath. The gloves are ambiguously draconic, but not enough to suggest a dragon hunter. The paragon-esque wings are far more prominent than the gloves in the art.
2) The Virtues: The elite specialization virtues also evoke the paragon. Two aesthetics largely defined the paragon: the angel wings and spears. Using “Wings of Resolve” causes angelic paragon-like wings to sprout from your back, and using “Spear of Justice” hurls a spear at your foe.

We can speculate why ArenaNet decided against the “paragon,” but it feels as if vestiges of the paragon still cling to the “dragonhunter” specialization. This is particularly true in the case of the angelic wings. If the wings were draconic, it would at least lend more weight to the elite specialization’s draconic motif.

Jon Peters said they were going for something a bit darker and edgier with “dragonhunter” that evoked “witch hunter.” We can even see the “inquisition” and “purifier” aspects of the “dragonhunter” through the names of their abilities: purification (heal), light’s judgment, test of faith, etc. “Witch hunter” earned that darker connotation through religious history and fantasy conventions. “Dragonhunter” almost entirely lacks those connotations, so it is inadequate on that front as well. People can readily make the connection between the quasi-religious guardian and the inquisitional witch hunter, because of those preexisting links. But I don’t think that one can simply replace the ‘witch’ in “witch hunter” with ‘dragon’ and except to evoke anything similar when the “dragonhunter” exists as a preexisting historical and fantasy archetype to which people will bring their own set of highly different expectations. I believe that was a mistake on ArenaNet’s part, as most dragon hunters, stalkers, slayers, etc. are typically linked more with warriors and rangers in a lot of fantasy classes.

As such, I feel that the dragonhunter specialization is thematically trying to be too many things at once. Pieces of “guardians,” “dragonhunters,” “inquisitors,” “purifiers,” “big game hunters,” and “paragons” are scattered all over the place. But it does not feel anywhere as thematically cohesive as the “chronomancer.” The concept, the lore, and the flavor text lack that critical cohesive package. Conceptually, the specialization lacks a clear sense of focus.

I am okay with the idea of the “dragonhunters,” if that is what the lore needs, but I think that better names exist for the same concept. It could be as simple as “dragonbane,” “shadowbane,” “wyrmbane,” or “foebane.” These are not necessarily better names in themselves, but they are examples of how you can tweak the name slightly to evoke similar concepts. I admittedly used a lot of “bane” in the examples, but I find that ‘bane’ communicates that darker edge more than the more neutral and ranger-associated term of ‘hunter.’

Something has got to give, whether that’s the name, the flavor text, or the lore justification. If ArenaNet wants the “dragonhunter” to be a “dragonhunter” then they need to change more flavor text that reinforces the package. They need to change some of the aesthetics and animations so there are more draconic links. Get rid of the angel wings for one. It makes people think of angels and paragons and not dragons.

Nike.2631:

I wish I lived in a world where “Don’t bite the hand that feed’s you” wasn’t good advice.

It’d be more ridiculous if they didn’t take note. One black check mark might not mean anything by itself, but don’t think for a moment the checkmark doesn’t exist.

Like I said, I’m interested to see how it plays out. Industry watching can be fun.

One of the people invited was AngryJoe, who had been a major vocal support of Guild Wars 2 at launch, but had stopped playing it following criticisms that he had voiced against the game. That didn’t stop ArenaNet from inviting him back.

Nike.2631:

You did read that dragonhunters – plural – are an outgrowth of the circumstances of the age and not just lunkhead’s personal mommy issues, yes?

Haven’t we been in the “circumstances of the age” for well over a hundred years at this point? The only thing remotely new are the sylvari, Mordremoth, and the Pact.

Alice.5360:

I hope that Anet takes a long look into what has been put forward. If it is too late for a class name-change at this point, I am sure they will still have found great insight from these threads and the community’s reaction in general.

As I had linked, Bog Otter makes a good point about how the specialization feels like it was designed from the bottom-up. It probably did not start with any “high concept” of the dragonhunter to the longbow and associated mechanics, but instead with the longbow and associated mechanics to the name and its justification. I feel that the Chronomancer was actually the “high concept” elite specialization of the two thus far, since it stems from ArenaNet addressing how time magic would look like in an MMO.

Alice.5360:

Ghotistyx.6942:

Is Arenanet supposed to cater to the whims of media folk?

Community feedback and “media folk” tend to be bellwethers on the direction a game is headed. When many voices are saying “yo, we’re long time supporters of this game but hey, this thing you’re doing sucks”, companies need to take note. Sure, it might be too late to undo what has been done but these people, and the community at large, having such a bad reaction to a name will make Anet think twice in the future.

People enjoy feeling like a game or company they’re invested in is invested in them, too. Listening and making room for player suggestions goes a long way towards the “player first” experience.

A number of the people I listed were also “media folk” who had been invited by ArenaNet to their American and European branches to play an exclusive HoT preview and create exclusive videos to generate fan buzz.

Makes me wonder if there will be new specializations that will unlock the same weapon unused by the core profession. I.e. another guardian elite specialization that unlocks the longbow, but with a different playstyle and mechanics from the guardian and the dragonhunter.

Saiyan.1704:

If the specialization was called Paragon then it would have been even more argumentative since we have a Bow instead of a Spear and Shouts. I’m quite happy we didn’t go that route.

They do have wings and a spear courtesy of their new virtue skills, and guardians already have shouts. ;p

Nike.2631:

Because YOU claimed that my entire outlook barely exists or matters. I do occasionally rouse myself to say “nope, still here” . I’m sure warm welcomes like this contribute greatly to why you aren’t seeing that the other side of the coin is amply occupied. Thanks for making it clear you don’t want a discussion and that the opposing view shouldn’t even come to this lovely place. Sorry to disturb the purity of your outrage.

And you are claiming that my outlook is simply a vocal minority and doesn’t matter. Are you interested in having a conversation or just in shutting down and naysaying those opposed to the “dragonhunter” name?

Ghotistyx.6942:

If you’d be so kind, would you also spend some effort to show which bloggers do like the name, since you’ve said you’re going for impressions and they can be both positive and negative.

Sure. I’m willing to do that. I have already posted most of the ones I am familiar with, but I will look. If you find any, let me know, and I’ll add them to my compilation list. Seriously. Fair is fair.

Ghotistyx.6942:

Is Arenanet supposed to cater to the whims of media folk?

I’ll leave that loaded question for you to answer. I am merely posting impressions of the name around the web of prominent GW2 bloggers.

Public Fan Bloggers who Voiced Dislike or Unenthusiasm about the “Dragonhunter” Name:

Aurora Peachy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b2e6c0TV1M
- Guild Gab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7HAFDlMG1A

Bog Otter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ksm_sKWicE

MMOINKS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqwvGbdcmQE

Wooden Potatoes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7HAFDlMG1A

Guild Wars Players News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGVzoXOYLkE

Ten Ton Hammer (Lewis Burnell): http://www.tentonhammer.com/editorial/guild-wars-2-thoughts-dragonhunter

Guild Mag (draxynnic): http://www.guildmag.com/dragonhunter-rose-name/

That_Shaman: https://twitter.com/that_shaman/status/596360746105176064
- https://twitter.com/that_shaman/status/596755704289034240

Nike.2631:

I encourage you to look up the word ‘placate’. It costs them very little indeed to let this tempest sit in its teacup.

Counting your own echoes in a box isn’t a majority of anything. I can’t be the only person who likes the name, appreciates the thought process behind it and also has no desire to get banned until well after HoT is out for being completely honest about my feelings for the whole so-called discussion.

Why are you even participating in this thread stirring the discontent in this teapcup?

Guild Wars Players News Blog dislikes the elite specialization name: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGVzoXOYLkE

Lewis Burnell of Ten Ton Hammer dislikes the name: http://www.tentonhammer.com/editorial/guild-wars-2-thoughts-dragonhunter

Obtena.7952:

Who cares? Just like the name, it doesn’t matter. The relevant question is: do I get skills that are worth having? I don’t care what what it’s called or what contradiction in the concept exists.

Then let the people who care either way have their conversation in peace.

Sorean.5379:

People being “displeased and bitter” over a name really shows maturity.

So does condescension.

Fan video-blogger Bog Otter weighs in on the controversy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ksm_sKWicE

He disagrees that ‘dragonhunter’ qualifies as ‘high concept’ and that it centers around bottom-up design rather than from the concept of the ‘dragonhuner.’

RabbitUp.8294:

It’s as if people are immature.

It’s as if people are genuinely displeased and bitter about the name.

RabbitUp.8294:

Yes, 1 person alone tipped the scales.

As if it was just one. Look at the public fan voices of GW2. See what they think about the ‘Dragonhunter’ name. Look on this forum. Count up the names advocating against and defending. What is your evidence that this is just a minority faction again?

Nike.2631:

Reality check: They are NOT going to change the name and start over on all the work that went into supporting the name that was chosen. Even if some people shout real loud from inside the boxes this not-ever-a-debate has been shuffled off to.

That must be why the requested that we stop giving them feedback on the name.

Lore enthusiast Draxynnic of Guild Mag also dislikes the name: http://www.guildmag.com/dragonhunter-rose-name/.

As if it was just a vocal minority…