Guild Wars 2

Hi everyone,

As many of you already know the gwscr.com website is no longer updated, and the records have moved to DnT forums which again has moved to another website since then.
The new website for record leaderboards is gw2dungeons.net
The records part is still a work in progress, but can be found here
Wethopsu is the head admin of this website.

Due to the record leaderboards being moved to another website, we want to update every rule and possibly include a new solo & fractal leaderboard.
As for resetting every record, that’ll depend on how big the changes in rules will be, for example a different timer start/end point.

So on that note, Wethopsu has requested Menno and me to host another meeting since we hosted the previous two as well.
Every active speedrun guild of the past year (who hasn’t disbanded yet) will be invited and allowed to bring 3 representatives.
Currently invited guilds are:

Intricacy [iV] (hosts)
Death and Taxes [DnT]
Snow Crows [SC]
Legion Of Doom [LoD]
First Grade [ONE]
Immortal Kingdom [KING]
Retalliate [rT]
Quantify [qT]
Almost Sophisticated [geek]
Kreios [KRS]
Oh My Gosh Virtual Squirrels [Vs]
Dark Renegatus [REN]

If your guild is not invited and wish to get an invite, contact Menno or me in game.
Recent activity in Speed Clears required.
Menno.6092
Debbysaurus.4016

We will have an agenda to keep the meeting organised and prevent running off topic like the previous times.
The current agenda is as followed:
(the order of points to be discussed might change)

• Going over the current rules first to see if they still apply
• Third party software
• Solo / Fractal leaderboards
• (Un)restricted rule set timer changes
• Reconsidering Consumables in restricted
• Reconsidering AoE manipulation, e.g Meteor Shower & Ice bow 4
• Considering 1 admin per guild for the new website

We ask everyone who would like to add more topics to reply on this thread with your idea’s and/or points of discussion so I can update the agenda to keep everyone up to date of what the meeting will be about.
If you prefer to stay anonymous, you can always pm it to Menno or me instead.

We also ask for each guild to discuss each topic with their own members before the meeting begins so we can keep the meeting short and on topic.
Since one of the points is mainly aimed at soloing, we ask each guild leader to talk with their solo players to make sure they get a say in how the rules regarding soloing will be.
If we can not get to a decision about solo play there might be a solo specific meeting hosted by solo players themselves, this is not certain yet.

Due to incoming balance changed and people’s schedules we have to postpone the meeting by 1 week.
The new date will be Sat 31st January at 7pm GMT / 2pm EST

The meeting will be recorded, not streamed.
Multiple guilds have been asked and agreed to having this recorded for future reference / involvement of other people.
Reason to not stream is to exclude outsider’s influence, this is not open for discussion.

Can i just point out that the recent discussion on unrestricted timer was more of a complaint for the past and consequently that the current restricted ruleset is too strict. I dont think anyone really wants the community to be split into two rulesets again. One will always fail/suffer. And there wont be a compromise.

In the new site restricted runs will automatically compete in unrestricted ruleset. If that makes any difference.

3 is far too many representatives per guild. the last meeting had far fewer topics and still took almost 3 hours. This could take even longer if there is debate and people offer irrelevant opinions.

Please limit it to one member per guild and mandate that we stick only top the specific topics on the talking points.

The only thing I remember is that we discussed the minipet issue like 1hour before simply start a vote on this. For this reason I totally agree with hybrid. Three is too much, a maximum of two is sufficient imo.

Id say a maximum of 2 if you really think its an issue. Its a discussion for the community. No matter how well structured a guild is it might be difficult to represent the entire guild with just one person. Plus the hosts are both from iV so for fairness sake you should allow 2 per guild.

I left gwscr adminning when I quit and hadn’t bothered to return since playing again as I assumed it was being maintained by the “new” mods. I’d have returned and continued if I knew.

Apologies gl with the new site (:

spoj.9672:

Id say a maximum of 2 if you really think its an issue. Its a discussion for the community. No matter how well structured a guild is it might be difficult to represent the entire guild with just one person. Plus the hosts are both from iV so for fairness sake you should allow 2 per guild.

We’re doing 3 people per guild, there’s people who want to make “big” changes, therefor we think its best to have 3 people per guild not just 1 or 2.
We’ve always had 3 people per guild on the previous meetings, why would we change that especially since some people want to make big changes.

Yeah thats fine by me. Was just addressing my concerns with Nike asking for 1 per guild. :P

If the meeting begins to take an excessive amount of time then it could always be broken into two halves so the first meeting could cover the first 2 of the 4 topics and the other meeting could cover the rest.

I think 3 representatives is a hell of a lot better than just 1 from each guild because the more people then the more accurate the popular opinions will reflect what the community wants.

spoj.9672:

Id say a maximum of 2 if you really think its an issue. Its a discussion for the community. No matter how well structured a guild is it might be difficult to represent the entire guild with just one person. Plus the hosts are both from iV so for fairness sake you should allow 2 per guild.

2 is fine. Be sure to pack a lunch.

Purple Miku.7032:

If the meeting begins to take an excessive amount of time then it could always be broken into two halves so the first meeting could cover the first two of the four topics and the second meeting could cover the second two.

I think 3 representatives is a hell of a lot better than just 1 from each guild because the more people then the more accurate the popular opinions will reflect what the community wants.

We’ll keep it on track with the agenda, when people start to ramble off topic we’ll bring it back to topic and move on to the next.
We can always ramble after the meeting is done.

Debbysaurus.4016:

spoj.9672:

Id say a maximum of 2 if you really think its an issue. Its a discussion for the community. No matter how well structured a guild is it might be difficult to represent the entire guild with just one person. Plus the hosts are both from iV so for fairness sake you should allow 2 per guild.

We’re doing 3 people per guild, there’s people who want to make “big” changes, therefor we think its best to have 3 people per guild not just 1 or 2.
We’ve always had 3 people per guild on the previous meetings, why would we change that especially since some people want to make big changes.

Big changes = big debate.

3 people = Big debate x 3 = lots of time spent with the same irrelevant things being repeated.

Once a person offers their dumb ideas do we need their lackeys to repeat the points twice more? Its way more efficient, if there are different opinions within a guild, for the guilds to debate that internally and have a consensus opinion prior to showing up.

If you are concerned about me and Z repeating our “dumb ideas” we probably wont be attending (sandy dictatorship). I think most guild leaders have the common sense to only bring people who can keep things calm. :P

Wethospu.6437:

In the new site restricted runs will automatically compete in unrestricted ruleset. If that makes any difference.

I actually think that shouldn’t happen, else all records we’ll see will be restricted again.

Dub.1273:

Wethospu.6437:

In the new site restricted runs will automatically compete in unrestricted ruleset. If that makes any difference.

I actually think that shouldn’t happen, else all records we’ll see will be restricted again.

You must necessarily let restricted ruleset runs compete in unrestricted as well, as they’ll be following all of the rules of unrestricted. The only around this would be to make unrestricted require you to do things that cannot be done in restricted, or create some kind of tremendously silly arbitrary rule that says you can’t post the same record for both even if it conforms to the rules of both (in which case, people could just post their second best run… and we’ve got the same problem).

You won’t see unrestricted die because of this. Unrestricted times will always have the potential of being faster. Saying unrestricted will die because of this is like saying people posting “kittenty” record attempts for restricted after a reset will kill the restricted format. It just doesn’t follow.

I assume this meeting is going to happen in a teamspeak(or mumble,skype..etc) room, will there be a way for outsiders to listen in while not actively taking part, like a stream or something?

Thyend.3692:

I assume this meeting is going to happen in a teamspeak(or mumble,skype..etc) room, will there be a way for outsiders to listen in while not actively taking part, like a stream or something?

Sounds like a good idea to me, but its not just up to me to decide that.. we might, but cant promise it yet.

small update, date and more topics of discussion.

If there is time, I think record ownership could also be discussed. Basically do records belong to the guild or the players (what happens when a player switches guild). I’m pretty sure solo players would like to records move with them but 5-man records are probably a different thing.

However, I don’t see this as a big priority (so many topics already) as this can always be decided later when the issue actually happens.

Wethospu.6437:

If there is time, I think record ownership could also be discussed. Basically do records belong to the guild or the players (what happens when a player switches guild). I’m pretty sure solo players would like to records move with them but 5-man records are probably a different thing.

However, I don’t see this as a big priority (so many topics already) as this can always be decided later when the issue actually happens.

it already happened quite a few times actually xD
most recent one about LuPI to qT

I dont know if this really needs to be discussed in the meeting. But for the backend stuff with the site. It would be nice if all submissions contain character names and the players username or preferred nickname for all participants. Will help a lot when adding records to the site in the future.

Yes, I will add entry format to the rule page once I have time to create it.

Bumping this up.

Ill also be keen to listen in on the fractal side of things

Updates rules up on http://gw2dungeons.net/Rules

If you spot any mistakes please let me know.

Changes:

- Added solo rule set. Same as restricted but non-gem consumables are allowed and some encounter specific rules.

- Resurrected unrestricted rule set. Same timer rules as on restricted but everything except 3rd party tools are allowed.

- AoE manipulating is disallowed on restricted runs.

- 3rd party tools like DPS meters and health info are disallowed on all runs.

- Minipets are allowed on all runs.

- Added section for encounter specific rules to clarify some of the rules. This will get expanded whenever a question arises.

what is this? CM Path 2: Using the barrel “safe spot” is disallowed.
and is the brie dome considered progress blocking?
SE p3 clown car, is hiding in the middle level where most of the aoes can’t hit you considered safe spotting?

I’m guessing it means not putting a barrel where npcs can’t reach it when you have to drop them to blow the door. Though safespot makes it sound as if it was referring to something else

EcoRI.9273:

what is this? CM Path 2: Using the barrel “safe spot” is disallowed.
and is the brie dome considered progress blocking?
SE p3 clown car, is hiding in the middle level where most of the aoes can’t hit you considered safe spotting?

No idea about those. Someone with more insight about what rules actually mean have to clarify.

But I reworded that CM Path 2 part.

Zui.9245:

Dub.1273:

Wethospu.6437:

In the new site restricted runs will automatically compete in unrestricted ruleset. If that makes any difference.

I actually think that shouldn’t happen, else all records we’ll see will be restricted again.

You must necessarily let restricted ruleset runs compete in unrestricted as well, as they’ll be following all of the rules of unrestricted. The only around this would be to make unrestricted require you to do things that cannot be done in restricted, or create some kind of tremendously silly arbitrary rule that says you can’t post the same record for both even if it conforms to the rules of both (in which case, people could just post their second best run… and we’ve got the same problem).

You won’t see unrestricted die because of this. Unrestricted times will always have the potential of being faster. Saying unrestricted will die because of this is like saying people posting “kittenty” record attempts for restricted after a reset will kill the restricted format. It just doesn’t follow.

Noone would bother forming runs to gain one record on the table instead of taking two at the same time, though.

We just need to show off some really entertaining unrestricted runs to give it a kick start.