I think that’s where you guys are being presumptuous; there is alot more work going into changing the name and how it fits with the game than adjusting a string of text in code. I know most people will just brush that off but it’s still part of what Anet has done to develop the game.
Personally, I think the big hang up with the name is that it’s very specific to a task; hunting dragons. The other two names we have seen are not specific to a task, so they leave a little more to the players’ imaginations to appeal to what they want the profession to be. Dragon Hunter doesn’t do that. You’re a Dragon Hunter. There is no mistaking what that means.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Fair enough. I don’t feel it’s presumptuous at all considering expansions take months/years to develop. Perhaps you feel that the amount of rework required for a name change is justified but I would rather see the devs focus on stuff that has a real impact to the game like skills, traits and weapons. I’m also not keen on delays because of the added changes and work that would be necessary. I’m certain these changes aren’t trivial for same, said expansion development timeframe.
In fact, I’m going to make another presumptuous statement: I bet it’s released with ALOT of mechanics and descriptions still needing to be fixed/added/worked on because they have done that already. I would feel that if any of that would be compromised because of wasting time rethinking a name, it would be stupid and an insult to me as a paying customer.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Let’s be clear, I’ve not said I dislike the name. I’m neutral about it. Put it this way, good or bad, the name is the last place I want devs to pontificate and focus their efforts; give me good skills, traits and weapons instead.
My feedback is as follows:
1. I can understand where the name comes from based on the explanation Jon gave us.
2. I see how the tools fit the concept and address some concerns Guardians have had since day 1.
3. I understand that Anet has provided their logic behind the naming; it is not an invitation for collaboration with players into changing the spec name.
4. Whether I like it or not means little through the forum. I’m a customer, I speak with my money.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
More fair to the people who try because the people who don’t try can be warned or even be kicked. Right now there is almost no open world challenging content and the reason is quite obvious. And in the one example I mentioned you could see the problems.
Still a little unsure … so instanced content is more fair to people that try because if it’s not instanced, you get people who don’t try and you can’t kick them? That’s easily dealt with on loot rights. No need for doing a whole instance just to prevent leechers.
I hate to bring up the dinosaur that is Anarchy Online but they had a most awesome way to create an instanced ZONE and allow anyone that created the zone to control the number of players in it as well as WHO those players were. Admittedly it was clunky to do so … but it worked , resulting in an open world feel with challenging team content. If Funcom can do this with a 15 year old game, Anet can do this as well (unless there is some patented idea there I’m not aware of).
I can imagine that with some clever programming, a player, or a group could ‘instance’ a new version of a zone, specify how many people they want in it and then off to the races. That would give players and instanced, open world zone where they could restrict how many players they want in it (if you want zerg, you can have it) and still be challenged.
That’s wishful thinking because I doubt that’s how HoT will work but … I think it’s not out the question to have openworld, team challenging content, fair and done well.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I’m going to reserve judgement until I can actually PLAY with traps. I advise others to do the same.
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.
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.
I think it can be done in Open World. Nightmare tower was really close to getting that challenging team content in an Open world setting. True it wasn’t a SINGLE team but if such a thing was scaled up to a whole zone with some gating, I think it would achieve that challenging aspect for a team without being instanced.
I like to think it would work similar to a golf course.
It’s the best and fairest?
I don’t get your point. I played through dungeon content just as fast as any other and it resulted in the same thing you talk about happening in Openworld; mindless farming.
I don’t see how instanced content results in the best way to implement challenging content because the challenging content depends on the team. Anet could easily implement challenging team content in openworld and it would take less effort and less complex to do so than making an instanced map.
I also don’t see how it’s more fair. How would making challenging team content instanced be more fair? Perhaps I don’t get for who it would be more fair to?
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I’m willing (and I bet Anet is as well) to have a reasonable discussion about name changes if the reasoning isn’t nonsensical. Do you consider thematic inconsistencies based on a short video and a press released a sensible reason to undo and redo work? I don’t. I don’t think people should move on … if they can stop hammering such a weak argument for name change. So far, it’s all I’ve seen.
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.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
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.
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. The label does not drive the tools we are going to get.
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.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
^^ This. Why does everyone conclude we NEED things that other MMO’s have? This game breaks all kinds of MMO stigmas. Dungeons are no different. I do think we need content where people need to team and co-operate with others, but that’s not necessarily instanced content. In fact, I think instanced content is the most ‘expensive’ approach to implement a co-operative team environment.
Dungeons in this game were dead once the trinity was thrown out the window. To Anet’s credit, it would have been hard for them to predict that without these specific roles for players in the team, Dungeons would have ended up simply being 5 people swapping aggro.
On the other hand, Fractals is more successful in engaging people in co-operative team play, probably because of the experience gained from the termed dungeons flop. I suspect they will continue to develop ‘dungeons’ along the Fractals path.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
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.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I enjoy a good read, especially one where people forget that the most successful people in PVP remember they are part of a team.
Being a good class doesn’t mean having all the tools, it means being good at bringing some useful tools.
It’s hard to believe that any developer would decide to purposefully sabotage part of their work, which is what people are suggesting is happening to Necros in many places.
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.
That’s correct, which makes what I said accurate.
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.
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.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
But ppl try to forge some wanna be arguments: ‘The concept either contradicts itself or doesn’t fit the GW2 universe or doesn’t fit the way other professions/ specializations are made.’ (paraphrased). But structurally the concept is sound.
A- I don’t like dragonhunter because X.
B- You’re argument is invalid, find another reason not to like it.
A- What? Ok, then hm… I don’t like it because Y doesn’t fit me.
B- You’re argument is invalid, find another reason not to like it.How can you even got a constructive discussion when you know that someone will always come and say “Nope, you can’t say that”?
I said on another thread (or maybe this one, I don’t remember) that I don’t like Dragonhunter because it draws on me the dragonhunter’s faction mantra : “eradicate dragons!” and that doesn’t fit my way to see the game.
Someone came over this statement and said “You can’t say that! You don’t even know who are the dragonhunter faction!”
I put a statement on the table and this player came and try to transform it into an argument.
So I feel like I had to argue, then he responded, I answered, etc…Instead of coming and setting a statement “I love dragonhunter because I think this eradication mantra fits very well to the new way I’ll play my guardian.”, he cames with a respond to my statement.
I wonder why people even think there is any space for a constructive discussion about the name. Anet did not open some opportunity for the name to change. They explained why they choose the name; at this point there is likely a large body of work that has already incorporated the name.
The best part is that DH will probably go to live and people will QQ more wondering why Anet didn’t change it after all the ‘constructive discussion’ we had about it. Well, because it wasn’t actually open for debate sponsored by Anet in the first place?
I tend to agree with TyPin at this point. If the best people can do to say the name is wrong is because of some minor inconsistencies in the concept, move on.
(edited by 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.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
In you guys opinion, what kind of damage/debuffs/special would they need to put on the shouts to make them meaningful?
An AOE damage buff multiplier.
The whole point of giving necromancer shouts was to give the class group buffs it desperately lacked. So they get damaging shouts instead. Lol.
Was it? I didn’t see Anet say that was the purpose of shouts.
The whole point in the minds of players who were discussing it.
Yes, so it’s only the whole point in the minds of imaginative players that are hoping for class group buffs, which kind of makes it not the whole point but people’s imagination.
If necro’s got a problem, it’s not because of Reaper and it’s not likely that a single spec or a few new skills are going to address it either if it’s that significant.
The whole point of giving necromancer shouts was to give the class group buffs it desperately lacked. So they get damaging shouts instead. Lol.
Was it? I didn’t see Anet say that was the purpose of shouts.
Virtues in a second, because even now, it’s damage potential and support options for PVE are weak.
You are right, these numbers do not say anything about grind, or precursors or mounds. But they do say something about expansions.
This is how it start man. … <expansions, not LS> AMIRITE?!! I hope everyone’s padding is refreshed on their armchairs.
I love the armchair economists speaking with authority on these results. I wonder how many posts until we get to " … and so you see, this is why Anet needs to eliminate grind" or " … and so you see, this is why <precursors> or <mounts>"
To be fair, I think that visual is highly intended to be highly visual in PVP/WvW. Suggesting it get removed is defeating it’s purpose in those venues. They could probably make it disappear for PVE though with little consequence.
Would you mind reminding us? I honestly can’t remember.
It was a Ready up. If I could remember the #, I would make it my sig for every time someone made a “why don’t we get RS buff” thread. I think somewhere in the 12-18 range?
The arguments for why we don’t have a RS buff is the same as it was a few years back when Anet explained it to us. Too bad it hasn’t been enshrined as a sticky because that would end alot of these ongoing debates.
The traps is being useless from ever. Although those DragonHater traps looks amazing and the effects are great, the mechanics itself are crap. In any trap.
First it depends on so many variables that is almost impossible to get the great numbers you are imagining.
Second you are thinking about numbers they are not yet there. Until the class is balanced there is no point to talk about 300K damage lolExactly. It doesn’t matter how appealing the effects of each trap look, because the fact remains that the actual mechanics of traps make them very lackluster in a fast-paced, mobile game like this.
Again, the appeal of using traps isn’t determined by speed of gameplay. Think about how you would use a trap. It’s based on geography more than anything. Admittedly, not all map layouts are good for traps but on the ones that are, they will work quite well and have a significant impact if used by smart players.
Even if it’s just to deny access to entrances or paths, that’s a very powerful ability.
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.
If they would just talk a bit before they do stuff like this we wouldn’t have this problem now. Just talk a bit with the community beforehand so these kitten ups can be prevented.
If you think that way, you don’t understand your role as a customer.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Actually, that’s a disappointment to me. It had not dawned on me that you need DH trait to get LB. Is that a definite thing for all classes to get access to their new weapon skills?
I still think that as far as PVE goes, DH is going to give so much additional damage (or even superior damage depending on weapon in some cases) that it will be meta. The theorycrafters are going to have a few scenarios to map out because I think the result is going to be that different combos are going to be good in different situations.
(edited by 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.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Apparently so, because it’s not that hard to get. Dragon Hunter. I’m going to guess and say … has something to do with hunting dragons. Where youi are wrong is that it’s not a highly complex theme. It’s brain dead easy, like most other things in this game. People just trying to overthink it because they don’t like the name.
But how does their aim of a “backline support” spec match up with their idea of a “big game hunter that actively seeks the dragons to destroy them”? It’s completely contradictory.
Who cares? Just like the name, it doesn’t matter. You’re overthinking completely academic points. 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.
The lowdown is pretty simple. Anet wants the new specialization concept to be traps, long range, etc… to give us options in PVP/WvW where we had some gaps with mobility/long range, etc… The traits and skills do that so that’s a win if you ask me. The name, or whatever cartoony theme that’s attached to those things does not matter. Call it whatever you want, the skills/traits change zero with exception for balancing. No argument you’re going to make is going to convince Mr. Peters (the guy telling us its a pretty done deal) that it NEEDS to change.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
By the way, do people realize that “intending” something isnt actually the same as “doing” something? I mean… I intend to get every existing precursor out of the forge (gotten 6 so far actually) by the end of the year. Am I actually going to attempt to do it? Given rng, probably not. Not actively at least. I just like flushing things to see what comes out.
Afterall….. they said they intend to bring back SAB. But……. I dont see it.
edit: stat increases are quite literally meaningless from exotic to ascended, giving as little as +0 increase in damage, or as minor as +10 damage. An ascended weapon vs exotic weapon is a difference of up to 20% damage. Want proof? Go look it up yourself on any of the skill builders out there.
So if the differences are meaningless, we can make them the same, yes?
No, because it would be unnecessary work. I’m certain devs aren’t sitting around waiting for clueless player suggestions like this one to implement.
Roleplay, so cute. Certainly one of the most fail ways to make a point though.
just look at this:
- Time Marches On – You move 25% faster. The duration of incoming movement-impairing conditions is reduced by 25%. (Cripple. Chilled, Immobilize)
Adept
- Delayed Reactions – Interrupting a foe slows them. (3s of Slow)
Master
- Danger Time – Gain additional critical hit chance against slowed enemies. (30%)
Grandmaster
- Lost Time – Every 3rd critical hit will slow your target. (2s of Slow)
God kitten thats almost perma slow…how to fight that….I was hyped for dragonhunter but all other classes get serious buffs….I am hoping they will buff our medi or shouts to give us resistance or else we will be like necro in pve – almost non existant.
Not sure how to fight it but I do know one thing … slow has nothing to do with your movement speed.
Apparently so, because it’s not that hard to get. Dragon Hunter. I’m going to guess and say … has something to do with hunting dragons. Where youi are wrong is that it’s not a highly complex theme. It’s brain dead easy, like most other things in this game. People just trying to overthink it because they don’t like the name.
Then let me explain further. What is a dragon hunter? Someone who hunts dragons. As has been repeated ad nauseam WE ALL HUNT DRAGONS. But ok, dragon hunter, so it’ll have skills good against dragons? Not particularly, or at least no more than anyone else.
The only explanation is that Anet makes the profession concepts and based on their explanation, they make sense. Are the skills good against dragons? I don’t think it matters … the concepts are based on lore, the skills are based on game play. Therefore, the real question is if the skills have use in the game, not if they fit a name. I hope they don’t fit the name because frankly the name is irrelevant.
7 pages of useless arguments when we are named guardians. GUARDIANS for kittens sake. We have little to no reason to ever guard any of our allies.
Yeah, funny that pedantic arguments about profession naming is a thing all the sudden, considering that 7 of the original 8 names are the most generic, least thoughtful names ever. Even D&D 2nd Ed. has more interesting class names IMO.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I’m most amused that it’s not even a class name; It’s simply the name of a trait line. You’re still a Guardian, you’re just using the DH traits. It’s akin to QQing about the name of Zeal traitline.
Nope. It seems it doesn’t work this way. You will get a different icon and your elite spec name will actually appear somewhere. You will be recognized as someone who’s using that specific specialization.
OK. I must have missed that detail.
Also, I wonder what planet you’re coming from to not immediately understand what Chronomancer stands for.
Apparently the same planet where people come from that don’t immediately understand what the enigmatic description “Dragon Hunter” means ><
Exactly. People that want to do this support have an option that isn’t virtues now. They can choose. It’s way to presumptuous to assume that only the current tools will provide the support people will want in future PVP/WvW, because of things like radius or cast time.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
We should not be settling for such weak elite skills. I’m assuming their cooldowns are going to be like the current elites.
He’s mentioned 180 for the signet and 30 for the shout. If the shout is 4+ seconds of Quickness/Fury that’d be a really nice cooldown.
Agreed, but that’s still not feeling like an elite skill. I have no problems if elite skills are in a category of skills. What I have a problem with is if the elite is equivalent to other skills in those categories.
I think a quickness/fury buff with 4 second duration on a 30 second cooldown is a shout-level skill, not an elite-level skill. Anyone that thinks giving up an elite skill slot to get a lesser shout skill is not thinking about how that downgrades our available skillset.
I can see me just getting the elite specialization just for LB and Spear of Justice I won’t swap my meditations not worth it right now imo.
meditations are our sustain AH doesnt provide enough healing w/o being full support to be picked over Monks focus.
Yeah and that’s the sad part lol the bleed is limited to traps but meh it will still be better than current condi guard, I know it’s still in rework but I wouldn’t roam with those traps either even in WvW and Trapper Runes, symbol healing and other forms of sustain are meh.
in wvw i can see full trap build working with trapper runes and carrion/hybrid dmg
in pvp you wont see guardian being range weapon only with LB (you alreay got ranger for that) thus guardian need to take more sustain abilities with meditation and elite skill and shelter so maybe 1 trap (maybe)
but lets see what other specializations will come up next then we will know (necro with GS omg….)
You are a surprisingly reasonable person when it’s not about discussing condi mes xP
LOL
i play long time condi guard and tested it in tpvp. as for now its nice nich which can hold its on in some cases. with the new upcoming it can be better but every other class get more cleanse ability and more dmg output. thus again making condi guard at the same lvl. giving trap bleed stack for mainly 1 trap not making guardian a condi.
mesmer on the outherhand wow nice torment buff (50%) and confusion proc and IP ….
I’ve asked this before … where are you getting your information that every other class is getting more cleanse ability and damage output? We have seen a WHOLE 2 class elite reveals and very little of the vanilla stuff is getting new things.
I’m most amused that it’s not even a class name; It’s simply the name of a trait line. You’re still a Guardian, you’re just using the DH traits. It’s akin to QQing about the name of Zeal traitline.
I love all the pedantic arguments being made here.
What I take from JPeters post is the following:
“We have thought this through much more than you. I’m explaining our logic as a courtesy. The name isn’t changing”.
I see the fact that the name required an explanation in the first place to be a sign of its failure.
That’s an odd statement because of the two names we have so far, I needed WAY more explanation of what a Chronomancer is vs. a Dragon hunter. It’s not a failure that Anet needed to explain it, it’s the failure that people are being obtuse as a reason to complain they don’t like the name. I mean, one needs to be pretty dense to not understand what is implied by Dragon Hunter. I’m not buying it.
Don’t like the name? Fine, but at least make some reasonable sense why you don’t like it, even if it’s just “I think the name is stupid/juvenille/etc…”. Don’t insult people by saying “Dragon Hunter? OMG, what EVER does that mean?”
Frankly, the whole discussion is stupid. I would rather have the worst name ever and get the best skills and toolset than flaunt a name with crap skills behind it. People are so distracted by shinies.
I would be more ok with it if they actually had tools to “hunt” with, ie perception and anti-stealth.
Oh the irony .. you are aware that we will get a trap that does EXACTLY that right?
(edited by Obtena.7952)
We should not be settling for such weak elite skills. I’m assuming their cooldowns are going to be like the current elites.
I love all the pedantic arguments being made here.
What I take from JPeters post is the following:
“We have thought this through much more than you. I’m explaining our logic as a courtesy. The name isn’t changing”.
as far as i understand almost every class get nice direct dmg buff between 30-60%
does it really needed as you can again thief 1 bs+hs or med guard combo in 2 sec down
etc…or anet will nerf it after 2 months of ppl QQ
2 classes is not ‘almost every’. In fact, only under VERY favourable conditions will Guardians get that damage increase and opponents aren’t known to make things easy in PVP.
People always jumping to the worst conclusions they can think of, then looking foolish later on.
OP, you are wrong because the build is intended for teams. When you play with teams, there are 4 other factors that determine your success; the other four people in your team. You can’t predict those factors to make definite statements about how one person’s build in that team will be OP or not.
(edited by Obtena.7952)