This game mode is not all inclusive - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

This game mode is not all inclusive

2>

Comments

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Warlord.9074 said:

    @Caliburn.1845 said:
    So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

    All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

    Create 9 new servers and reduce NA to 3 tiers and stop locking servers, as an immediate bandaid. let who ever is left just stack where ever they want and stop this constant nonsense of matchmaking every 2 months just because anet didn't want to delete serves because a vocal minority complained about server loyalty, which is just yikes since anet is going to delete all the servers anyways. Why does this matter at this point. Delete all of the servers, Give people free transfers whos world got deleted. When there is ques on every map and there is only 3 tiers left people will spread out more. cuz they will not want to wait in que to play.

    That is really the problem with NA and has been for years. Most of the reason for matchup imbalances has nothing to do with coverage and has everything with there being to many servers to support the players base, and anets refusal to just have less servers. Honestly is so stupid that the most easiest and logical way forward and yet is completely overlooked or ignored.

    Your "immediate bandaid" requires every change that alliances do, except its a one-time and then you have the exact same problems after 2 months, as opposed to alliances solving it for the future. How can that be Anet refusing or overlooking/ignoring it when they are saying its being worked on?

  • @Caliburn.1845 said:
    So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

    All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

    There's nothing Anet can really do that it hasn't already done or is trying to do. Most of WvW's problems are laid at the feet of the playerbase, who have actively unbalanced the game mode literally every chance they get.

  • Swamurabi.7890Swamurabi.7890 Member ✭✭✭

    There's only three things that killed WvW.

    1. Overstacking and the need to fill coverage/population gaps with experienced players. In a way this is cannibalism where only a few survive.
    2. Removing the requirement of PvE players to enter WvW. It's easier for guilds to recruit players while they are playing WvW.
    3. Megaservers. LA and the 5 starting cities should all be instanced to make WvW callouts and recruiting easier.

    You want to revive WvW?

    Force PvE players into WvW where they have to find friendly guilds to help them with their grind for shinies. Some of those players will see the light and stay and will grow WvW.

    Give bonuses in PvE for personal participation in WvW.

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Hyper Cutter.9376 said:

    @Caliburn.1845 said:
    So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

    All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

    There's nothing Anet can really do that it hasn't already done or is trying to do. Most of WvW's problems are laid at the feet of the playerbase, who have actively unbalanced the game mode literally every chance they get.

    It's a well and good to blame players, and true. But human nature isn't changing any time soon.
    By not disincentivizing stacking, Anet promoted it, profited from it. It was inevitable and in my opinion planned for.

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 6, 2018

    @Swamurabi.7890 said:
    There's only three things that killed WvW.

    1. Overstacking and the need to fill coverage/population gaps with experienced players. In a way this is cannibalism where only a few survive.
    2. Removing the requirement of PvE players to enter WvW. It's easier for guilds to recruit players while they are playing WvW.
    3. Megaservers. LA and the 5 starting cities should all be instanced to make WvW callouts and recruiting easier.

    You want to revive WvW?

    Force PvE players into WvW where they have to find friendly guilds to help them with their grind for shinies. Some of those players will see the light and stay and will grow WvW.

    Give bonuses in PvE for personal participation in WvW.

    Ignoring the fact that neither point killed WvW.

  • Swamurabi.7890Swamurabi.7890 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Swamurabi.7890 said:
    There's only three things that killed WvW.

    1. Overstacking and the need to fill coverage/population gaps with experienced players. In a way this is cannibalism where only a few survive.
    2. Removing the requirement of PvE players to enter WvW. It's easier for guilds to recruit players while they are playing WvW.
    3. Megaservers. LA and the 5 starting cities should all be instanced to make WvW callouts and recruiting easier.

    You want to revive WvW?

    Force PvE players into WvW where they have to find friendly guilds to help them with their grind for shinies. Some of those players will see the light and stay and will grow WvW.

    Give bonuses in PvE for personal participation in WvW.

    Ignoring the fact that neither point killed WvW.

    Thanks for your constructive criticism. Move along now.

  • @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:
    wow, 20 per map? That... is pretty much one guild squad. And yes, I am on a server where guilds are able to put up squads like that. Let me guess... you are on NA? Just because NA is broken that one is not true for EU. Also '20' or '30' or even a '50' cap would just kill wvw even faster than Mirages and Daredevils are currently able to.

    Also, what exactly is wrong with blobbing? There are people - like me - who actually enjoy 50v50v50 fights on weekends and 30v30v30 fights on the rest of the day. Roaming? Is just a bandaid waiting for the sweet action to start.

    Oh wait, nothing is wrong with 'blobbing'. You just dont like it.

    If players/guilds are actively trying to avoid large blobs or blobby maps, there is a problem. Perhaps not on EU, but the fact remains, if it's happening, it's a problem. If a guild can field 40 (I see it rarely happens), then split the guild across 2 maps, done, problem solved. Blobbing not required under any stretch. This would go leaps and bounds into evening out the competition as it's not entirely difficult for a well coordinated smaller squad to beat a group of 20 whether they are coordinated or not. It also goes leaps and bounds into addressing the drastic lag during large encounters where people do in fact disconnect.

    I can get behind allowing the current map cap on reset night only, but outside of that, there is no reason to keep the maps with the current map cap any other day of the week. Very rarely will guilds be able to facilitate those types of numbers 7 days a week. A guild raid that occurs 2-3 times per week where they get 20-30 or even 40 isn't reason enough to keep high map caps.

    I could get behind an argument where if at least half of the servers on either NA or EU had guilds that could repeatedly keep guild raid numbers over 20 7 days a week, for at least a good portion of the day, then fine, keep it higher, maybe 30 per map then. Both you and I know that isn't the case; the majority of days (and time of day), this doesn't happen. The maps have stray pugs going about their business.. may or may not be outnumbered, and flipping occasional camp, while possibly flipping a tower or 2 with a handful of people. So why bother having a higher map cap at this point

    I'm not sure how you feel about stacking of servers, or those players who persistently swap just to be on the superior numbers side. This really is the crux of the problem and why alliances are being put forth to begin with. If numbers remained even, no need for alliances, but seeing how some players want to stack themselves in the interest of unfairness, alliances are created to help even out the competition. As we're seeing now, players are still stacking themselves in the interest of unfairness. Keeping the map caps at 20-25 pretty much stops this behavior dead in it's tracks. Even when the new alliance system starts, players trying to stack themselves is pretty much futile. Why stack if you can no longer outnumber your opponent? Why swap servers or alliances if it means you might be stuck in a que more than you play? It's perfect for discouraging that type of player behavior. Because as many have said, alliances won't fix the player behavior in looking for the easiest win, but capping the maps at 20-25 will ensure goal of that player's behavior is thwarted.

    We can try to debate that lowering map caps will destroy WvW; however, in order for that to be true, we constantly have to have active maps on the majority of servers causing ques, and right now we don't, so the argument doesn't stand. Now if I swapped to a server in attempt to have superior numbers or blob, and I was constantly met with ques on every map, that's not an Anet problem with lowering map caps, that's my problem for transferring there. simple solution, transfer somewhere else.

  • Warlord.9074Warlord.9074 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Warlord.9074 said:

    @Caliburn.1845 said:
    So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

    All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

    Create 9 new servers and reduce NA to 3 tiers and stop locking servers, as an immediate bandaid. let who ever is left just stack where ever they want and stop this constant nonsense of matchmaking every 2 months just because anet didn't want to delete serves because a vocal minority complained about server loyalty, which is just yikes since anet is going to delete all the servers anyways. Why does this matter at this point. Delete all of the servers, Give people free transfers whos world got deleted. When there is ques on every map and there is only 3 tiers left people will spread out more. cuz they will not want to wait in que to play.

    That is really the problem with NA and has been for years. Most of the reason for matchup imbalances has nothing to do with coverage and has everything with there being to many servers to support the players base, and anets refusal to just have less servers. Honestly is so stupid that the most easiest and logical way forward and yet is completely overlooked or ignored.

    Your "immediate bandaid" requires every change that alliances do, except its a one-time and then you have the exact same problems after 2 months, as opposed to alliances solving it for the future. How can that be Anet refusing or overlooking/ignoring it when they are saying its being worked on?

    My bandaid requires none of the proposed changes, it's simply what should of just been done. There is no proof at all that alliance system will solve anything. Keep in mind the alliance system idea was proposed by the same people that run the Kaining alliance. Good intentions or not theres a lot to be said about creating rules and structures that help you.

  • @DeadlySynz.3471 said:

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:
    wow, 20 per map? That... is pretty much one guild squad. And yes, I am on a server where guilds are able to put up squads like that. Let me guess... you are on NA? Just because NA is broken that one is not true for EU. Also '20' or '30' or even a '50' cap would just kill wvw even faster than Mirages and Daredevils are currently able to.

    Also, what exactly is wrong with blobbing? There are people - like me - who actually enjoy 50v50v50 fights on weekends and 30v30v30 fights on the rest of the day. Roaming? Is just a bandaid waiting for the sweet action to start.

    Oh wait, nothing is wrong with 'blobbing'. You just dont like it.

    If players/guilds are actively trying to avoid large blobs or blobby maps, there is a problem. Perhaps not on EU, but the fact remains, if it's happening, it's a problem. If a guild can field 40 (I see it rarely happens), then split the guild across 2 maps, done, problem solved.

    people will love that and flock to the mode! Sorry, your half of the guild has to go to desert or alpine, while the rest stays on ebg. Sure, that will cause no drama and everybody will be happy.

    Blobbing not required under any stretch. This would go leaps and bounds into evening out the competition as it's not entirely difficult for a well coordinated smaller squad to beat a group of 20 whether they are coordinated or not. It also goes leaps and bounds into addressing the drastic lag during large encounters where people do in fact disconnect.

    it would kill the mode. Blobbing might not be required, but it is fun. A lot of fun.

    I can get behind allowing the current map cap on reset night only, but outside of that, there is no reason to keep the maps with the current map cap any other day of the week. Very rarely will guilds be able to facilitate those types of numbers 7 days a week. A guild raid that occurs 2-3 times per week where they get 20-30 or even 40 isn't reason enough to keep high map caps.

    again, if NA is so broken, that is NAs problem. Sure, there are not q on all 4 maps on all days, but even linked with a dead server I see lots of q during the week. People don't evade fights, they look for them.

    I could get behind an argument where if at least half of the servers on either NA or EU had guilds that could repeatedly keep guild raid numbers over 20 7 days a week, for at least a good portion of the day, then fine, keep it higher, maybe 30 per map then. Both you and I know that isn't the case; the majority of days (and time of day), this doesn't happen. The maps have stray pugs going about their business.. may or may not be outnumbered, and flipping occasional camp, while possibly flipping a tower or 2 with a handful of people. So why bother having a higher map cap at this point

    because on those days where it happens, it is a lot of fun and on those days where it doesn't, it doesn't matter at all. Today I fought with a handful of pugs against two big guild squads/pug squads from both of the opposite sites. AND IT WAS FUN. Awesome fun. Did we win? Well, we kept our stuff, got plenty of lootbags and xp. So, qualified yes.

    I'm not sure how you feel about stacking of servers, or those players who persistently swap just to be on the superior numbers side.

    I do not care. Honestly. In EU Kodash, once a German language punching bag server got stacked and is now running rampage in T2. So what? At least the fights are challenging. They will go up to T1 and then get their behinds kicked. AND I DO NOT CARE. If they want to stack, their problem. shrug I don't mind losing, if the fight was fun. Better a stacked fighting server, than some siege slaves or a server consisting of backstabbing gankers.

    This really is the crux of the problem and why alliances are being put forth to begin with. If numbers remained even, no need for alliances, but seeing how some players want to stack themselves in the interest of unfairness, alliances are created to help even out the competition. As we're seeing now, players are still stacking themselves in the interest of unfairness. Keeping the map caps at 20-25 pretty much stops this behavior dead in it's tracks.

    Wrong, it won't fix anything. Servers will still being stacked, just with a big boot load of toxic elitism mixed in. Only 20 players per map allowed? So only our 20 best will go in, the rest can wait in DR or LA. Yeah, will fix everything for sure. If fixing means 'kill it off for good'.

    Even when the new alliance system starts, players trying to stack themselves is pretty much futile. Why stack if you can no longer outnumber your opponent? Why swap servers or alliances if it means you might be stuck in a que more than you play? It's perfect for discouraging that type of player behavior. Because as many have said, alliances won't fix the player behavior in looking for the easiest win, but capping the maps at 20-25 will ensure goal of that player's behavior is thwarted.

    Nope, a lower cap will change nothing. There will be still stacking. It will just increase the amount of frustrated losers who did not have a chance to get on the maps.

    We can try to debate that lowering map caps will destroy WvW; however, in order for that to be true, we constantly have to have active maps on the majority of servers causing ques, and right now we don't, so the argument doesn't stand. Now if I swapped to a server in attempt to have superior numbers or blob, and I was constantly met with ques on every map, that's not an Anet problem with lowering map caps, that's my problem for transferring there. simple solution, transfer somewhere else.

    why do we need queues?

    Answer: we don't.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Warlord.9074 said:
    ya the 3 post above Justine don't get the point.

    Unfortunately many in this thread didn’t get your point.

    They viewed it as you were asking for more ‘care bear’ Mechanics to level the field which, was no part of your point..

    As in most things today, things are read very superficially, and certain words elicit a response regardless of the context.

  • Kaiser.9873Kaiser.9873 Member ✭✭✭

    @Straegen.2938 said:

    @Kaiser.9873 said:
    So lemme get this straight....People good at the game SHOULDN'T be able to farm casuals new to the mode?

    I think the issue is less about farming new players and new players not being welcomed and taught the ropes. The current WvW setup actively discourages veterans from guiding new players through the various areas. I straight up leave an area/fight when new players are around.

    This in turn creates a hostile new player environment. Few if any new players will stick around after getting run over, and over, and over when they first step into WvW. Veterans should have an incentive to help new players and the game mode itself should have enticing rewards so new players have a vested interest in trying it out.

    I would agree with this for many servers, but there are at least a few servers that are actively welcoming of newer players. My current server...probably not, but YB was pretty welcoming of newer players at the time I left there.

  • Djamonja.6453Djamonja.6453 Member ✭✭✭

    @gebrechen.5643 said:

    Maguuma, Tarnished Coast, Jade Quarry, HoD, Dragonbrand, Blackgate are dead, the new experiments Crystal Desert, SoS, *SoR are dead again too.

    My expectation for the "soon" coming alliances is that one alliance, most likely the Kaineng one, will dominate over what's now FA and the rest will be unhappy lootbags. Prove me wrong. Right, you won't.

    You're pretty wrong about which servers are dead or not. There was no CD experiment either, just people went back to Mag who were on SoR for a few weeks.

  • shiri.4257shiri.4257 Member ✭✭✭

    @gebrechen.5643 said:
    My expectation for the "soon" coming alliances is that one alliance, most likely the Kaineng one, will dominate over what's now FA and the rest will be unhappy lootbags. Prove me wrong. Right, you won't.

    kitten, did someone mention an alliance? When's the next revolutionary speech coming through here?

    Spectre [VII] - Wood League Champion. Making "fight guilds" stack on higher tiers since 2013.
    Wood League News Network [WLNN]- www.twitch.tv/shirirx

  • Warlord.9074Warlord.9074 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 7, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    Ignoring the fact that neither point killed WvW.

    what actually killed wvw more than any of the toxic things that the players did, was powercreep., by adding extremely hard to balance class mechanics into every expansion. Since WvW balance is tied to PVE balance. Every time that has happened it took over a year to straiten out. There was very little concern of how powercreeping PVE would effect wvw and HoT and PoF drove players away faster than anything. Balance right now is pretty decent at least that has stopped the bleeding from for the most part.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 7, 2018

    @Warlord.9074 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Warlord.9074 said:

    @Caliburn.1845 said:
    So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

    All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

    Create 9 new servers and reduce NA to 3 tiers and stop locking servers, as an immediate bandaid. let who ever is left just stack where ever they want and stop this constant nonsense of matchmaking every 2 months just because anet didn't want to delete serves because a vocal minority complained about server loyalty, which is just yikes since anet is going to delete all the servers anyways. Why does this matter at this point. Delete all of the servers, Give people free transfers whos world got deleted. When there is ques on every map and there is only 3 tiers left people will spread out more. cuz they will not want to wait in que to play.

    That is really the problem with NA and has been for years. Most of the reason for matchup imbalances has nothing to do with coverage and has everything with there being to many servers to support the players base, and anets refusal to just have less servers. Honestly is so stupid that the most easiest and logical way forward and yet is completely overlooked or ignored.

    Your "immediate bandaid" requires every change that alliances do, except its a one-time and then you have the exact same problems after 2 months, as opposed to alliances solving it for the future. How can that be Anet refusing or overlooking/ignoring it when they are saying its being worked on?

    My bandaid requires none of the proposed changes, it's simply what should of just been done. There is no proof at all that alliance system will solve anything. Keep in mind the alliance system idea was proposed by the same people that run the Kaining alliance. Good intentions or not theres a lot to be said about creating rules and structures that help you.

    Your bandaid requires deleting and creating new ones in order to spread people out in the tiers. Thats exactly what alliances do. Except your idea hopes that players can balance themselves. The existing system is literally proof that they dont. You're just creating a new problem that will slowly kill WvW because people will trickle up for free as the low tiers die, not down. Alliances doesnt need "proof" it will solve your issues with WvW, because it wont. It solves the population discrepancy between T1 and T4 by splitting up players in smaller chunks than links and redistributing them across the worlds at intervals, period. There is no "proof" involved in that. Thats what it will do.

    /Revolutionary speech

  • Solori.6025Solori.6025 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Hyper Cutter.9376 said:

    @Caliburn.1845 said:
    So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

    All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

    There's nothing Anet can really do that it hasn't already done or is trying to do. Most of WvW's problems are laid at the feet of the playerbase, who have actively unbalanced the game mode literally every chance they get.

    This brings to memory the tournaments they used to have for WvW, and how everytime it was annouced people would bandwagon to a lower tier server that wasnt full, stack it, and get the first place rewards.
    I think it's understandable to want Anet to fix this broken system.
    But people need to start placing the other half of the well deserved blame on the variable that Anet cant seem to ever fix or appease.

    The playerbase-

    Tingle my stingleberry

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Solori.6025 said:

    @Hyper Cutter.9376 said:

    @Caliburn.1845 said:
    So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

    All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

    There's nothing Anet can really do that it hasn't already done or is trying to do. Most of WvW's problems are laid at the feet of the playerbase, who have actively unbalanced the game mode literally every chance they get.

    This brings to memory the tournaments they used to have for WvW, and how everytime it was annouced people would bandwagon to a lower tier server that wasnt full, stack it, and get the first place rewards.
    I think it's understandable to want Anet to fix this broken system.
    But people need to start placing the other half of the well deserved blame on the variable that Anet cant seem to ever fix or appease.

    The playerbase-

    But the implicit assumption of any competitive system must be that humans will do almost anything they can think of to beat the system and win the game if they care about winning. It doesn't make sense to me to blame the players for always trying to find the most efficient path to victory as that should always be expected behavior.

  • Solori.6025Solori.6025 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Solori.6025 said:

    @Hyper Cutter.9376 said:

    @Caliburn.1845 said:
    So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

    All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

    There's nothing Anet can really do that it hasn't already done or is trying to do. Most of WvW's problems are laid at the feet of the playerbase, who have actively unbalanced the game mode literally every chance they get.

    This brings to memory the tournaments they used to have for WvW, and how everytime it was annouced people would bandwagon to a lower tier server that wasnt full, stack it, and get the first place rewards.
    I think it's understandable to want Anet to fix this broken system.
    But people need to start placing the other half of the well deserved blame on the variable that Anet cant seem to ever fix or appease.

    The playerbase-

    But the implicit assumption of any competitive system must be that humans will do almost anything they can think of to beat the system and win the game if they care about winning. It doesn't make sense to me to blame the players for always trying to find the most efficient path to victory as that should always be expected behavior.

    I hear you on that, I do.
    But then those same players lose the right to complain about the system or lack of participation of the system.
    I think it would also be assumed that no one likes to be a punching bag.
    Like I said though while anet is no angel (and they could do a lot of things better) I don't think it would be fair to place blame solely on them when the playerbase is the one actively looking to break the system.

    Tingle my stingleberry

  • Caliburn.1845Caliburn.1845 Member ✭✭✭

    Aside from a handful of players hacking, which have never to my knowledge actually changed the outcome of any match-up, all WvW players are confined to the rules of the game mode as determined by Anet. Blaming the players for the decline of the game-mode is a ridiculous argument that doesn't hold up at all.

    Players doing anything in their power to win? That is what players of any game do.
    Players no longer care about winning? Anet's fault.
    Players no longer care about server loyalty? Anet's fault.
    Players have the ability to transfer servers? Anet's Fault

    The only thing you can blame the playerbase for is getting bored of a game-mode that has seen no significant changes in six years.

    Caliburn.1845, Monsters Inc(BOO) guildleader.
    DH>DB>BG>MAG>YB>SBI>YB>AR

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 7, 2018

    WvW dead? Well, I can give you the exact moment and location of the cause of death.

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/2015-03-16

    Stability: This boon has been changed from a duration stack type to an intensity stack type. Crowd-control effects will remove one instance of stability apiece each time they are applied. Each ability and trait has been adjusted to apply a certain number of stacks. All instances of stability not listed in these release notes will remain at one stack.

    Well, okay, it didn't die there. Stability was fixed eventually, but too little too late, plus the power creep of the expansions didn't help either. But this moronic change singleghandedly devastated the WvW landscape. Coverage, desert borderlands, and ego driven drama simply do not compare to this one. Well, I guess the whole money grab.... err I mean Guild Hall redesign comes close. If those were disasters, this is an extinction event.

2>
©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.