Guild Wars 2

In your opinion, why shouldn’t we also axe the rule about triggering all objectives and cutscenes?

Wait, how is the Arah p3 start not breaking rule 5? Was it an exception given?

Zui.9245:

In your opinion, why shouldn’t we also axe the rule about triggering all objectives and cutscenes?

Because thats a failure in anets ability to script all objectives as needed for end reward. In gw1 all objectives were completed. But the order didnt matter (the order does matter sometimes in gw2 due to scripting). We are speed clearing. More specifically we are speed clearing the objectives. End timer should be on all objectives complete not necessarily on final boss death.

Also its partly just a compromise. And obviously cutting out 90% of a path is pretty boring and unimpressive.

Why is speed clearing “the objectives” better than speed clearing the dungeon (to completion, by whatever means)? If more objectives is better, why not include “optional” objectives like Korga in Arah p1, or the Cannon event in Arah p4, or the totems in HotW paths?

Furthermore, despite not being scripted objectives, it’s pretty fair to say that getting from boss A to boss B via the map is something that was intend to be an objective as well. If the ‘ANET intended us to have to do these objectives even though we don’t actually need to do them’ argument is good enough for non-skip objectives, why isn’t it good enough for getting from point A to point B in the dungeon?

It just really seems to me like you’re trying to justify a ruleset entirely so that you have slightly more chance to see interesting split plays, in highly linear content that isn’t terribly conducive to such plays. I’m not convinced that’s such a great idea. I also don’t buy the “but in gw1…” argument here. This is Guild Wars 2.

I certainly wouldn’t care if there were an unrestricted ruleset like you suggest, but definitely would care if it came at the expense of the restricted ruleset like you’re suggesting.

Well i guess if your satisfied with preventing more interesting tactics then thats fine. You are not completely wrong. I am just trying to justify it. Because i think it will make things more fun and more interesting. I just personally dont see why everyone wants to play into the hands of such linear design when we can break way from it by doing a few things many people do on casual runs.

And to be honest I wouldnt be surprised if that copycat unrestricted ruleset beat the restricted ruleset in popularity. Especially as most people dont stick to playing as intended and if we ban unintended stuff then we have to ban everything. Unless you want to make a million exceptions?

Superior Sigil of Paralyzation is bugged???

“I am just trying to justify it. Because i think it will make things more fun and more interesting.” – We’ve come down to it, which is that this is really about your personal preference, and not what makes sense in a coherent rule set. It’s valid to have that opinion, but it would help to recognize that the exception your asking for is no less arbitrary (objectively speaking) then what the restricted rules chooses to prohibit. The only difference is, in your opinion, it will make runs more “interesting”. In substance your justification is no different than the people you accuse of being PHIW, its based on what you feel.

Since everyone will have a different point at which they draw a line in the sand about whats cheap and exploity and whats interesting enough to let slide, the rule split is the best compromise. The unrestricted ruleset can be much more liberal, since people always have the option to fall back on the restricted rules if they are personally uncomfortable with a tactic that is allowed. I would be interested to see records that make use of watchwork portal devices, terrain skips, etc., but I don’t want people to feel like they have to resort to those tactics to compete at all. It creates quite a high barrier to entry for speed running.

Maybe if the unrestricted ruleset becomes more workable it will become more popular, and the restricted set will end up being used only by newcomers and in head-to-head style tournaments. In that case the restricted ruleset would still have value, and its existence as a conservative fall back option would justify the acceptance of more “questionable” tactics in the unrestricted set. I think it will give speedrunners who really want to push the game to it’s limit more of what they want, without having to argue against folks who are worried the tactics are tarnishing the good name of record running.

It will be all worked out in the meeting I suppose, but I wanted to throw out my reasoning for keeping the ruleset split, and why I think it’s good for both kinds of speedrunners.

Pretty much. But the current ruleset is by no means coherent. Currently we allow certain things that are definitely unintended. But according to the rules and according to everyone who is saying all exploits shouldnt be allowed they should be banned. Arah p3 gate is just one example, sigil of paralyzation is another(although its working as intended). Its inconsistant so it needs to be discussed.

Kain Francois.4328:

Superior Sigil of Paralyzation is bugged???

No, but most people here seem to believe so.

spoj.9672:

Pretty much. But the current ruleset is by no means coherent. Currently we allow certain things that are definitely unintended. But according to the rules and according to everyone who is saying all exploits shouldnt be allowed they should be banned. Arah p3 gate is just one example, sigil of paralysation is another. Its inconsistant so it needs to be discussed.

Definitely. I suspect that the restricted ruleset, just by its nature, will sometimes have rules that need to be made through community consensus rather then simple logic. I hope in the future those discussions can happen without all the mudslinging and reductive arguments like “This is a hard call, therefor any distinction between what’s is and isn’t an exploit is impossible.” (I’m not targeting this criticism at you, btw, there was plenty of it going around from a lot of people.) For all the bumps in the road, the restricted ruleset has been serviceable, and I think maintaining the split has the best chance of being a successful compromise.

Dub.1273:

Kain Francois.4328:

Superior Sigil of Paralyzation is bugged???

No, but most people here seem to believe so.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Superior_Sigil_of_Paralyzation

It says right there in the description that it gives CC-immune bosses defiance stacks. Plain as day, working as intended.

Jerus.4350:

Wait, how is the Arah p3 start not breaking rule 5? Was it an exception given?

Because obviously it makes far less of a difference than a kittening sigil.

It says right there in the description that it gives CC-immune bosses defiance stacks. Plain as day, working as intended.

Also as far as I know Lupicus just has -100% CC duration, not complete immunity.

No tactic or item should ever be banned from all time records. If you can complete something in 14 minutes using exploits then do it. Because that is the fastest it CAN be completed.
If that exploit or bug is fixed then create a current meta record table and an all time record table.
Reminiscent of GW1 the 2 minute Shards of Orr completion using the res scroll exploit. Or the first 14 minute post Dhuum UW clear bugging 7 heroes into the instance and hiding them in a siege turtle. These were legitimate records in my honest opinion and no amount of bugs/exploits should deny a record.
The SC community of gw1 and gw2 prides itself on finding the FASTEST way to do things.
There can never be a grey area on records. Either you allow everything or you disallow everything.

I just am going to throw it out there that I’m concerned what will happen if unrestricted records become a thing because I will be very angry if my favorite jumping puzzles get invisible walled. ._.

It is my personal opinion that if you’re going to prohibit certain unintended tactics, you better be consistent and prohibit the rest of them. That includes the gate at Arah p3.

Sigil of Paralyzation used at Lupicus isn’t a bug/glitch because he has -100% cc duration, as Tom pointed out above. Even if the sigil gave +1% stun duration it would still work. However, whether or not the sigil was overlooked is something that would need to be clarified by a dev. My assumption is that it was overlooked and is probably just as free-game as it is to use wall of reflection on top of the wall to 1-shot Lupi. The two are exploiting something they didn’t intend, but not exploiting unintended features/bugs/glitches. I still really do hate the 1-shotting though, mostly because it allows people that are complete noobs to just bypass the encounter.

Alright alright, enough rambling.

Element Two.7316:

Jerus.4350:

Wait, how is the Arah p3 start not breaking rule 5? Was it an exception given?

Because obviously it makes far less of a difference than a kittening sigil.

If I recall correctly your guild was one of the ones who lobbied for keeping that door run allowable. I am all for changing it and resetting the record since consistency is of the utmost importance.

Also, I’m not for or against the sigil. Axias whispered me in game and asked me if it was legal. I am not the rules maker or the arbiter or anything of the sort so I said I would contact the guild leaders for their thoughts. Later I figured it would be better to solicit community input rather than do individual contacts. Perhaps you would have preferred if I had just made up the rules on the spot and answered Axias? Nah, most likely I would have been attacked for that.

U know what. I really tempted to use this sigil on the Grawl Shaman in Fractals )

hybrid.5027:

Element Two.7316:

Jerus.4350:

Wait, how is the Arah p3 start not breaking rule 5? Was it an exception given?

Because obviously it makes far less of a difference than a kittening sigil.

If I recall correctly your guild was one of the ones who lobbied for keeping that door run allowable. I am all for changing it and resetting the record since consistency is of the utmost importance.

I believe we were against most of the rules as a whole. We took any exceptions we could get to salvage some of the tactics but it was all guilds that agreed to this exception not just us (we were just in support just as much as anyone else). Now we dont see the point. May aswell just make dungeons as boring as possible so they are consistantly restricted.

Right, I said “one of the ones” which also included us btw. Nobody had a problem with allowing that door if I recall. The only people who have a problem with it now are people who need to have a problem with it to suite their agenda.

dlonie.6547:

Dub.1273:

Kain Francois.4328:

Superior Sigil of Paralyzation is bugged???

No, but most people here seem to believe so.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Superior_Sigil_of_Paralyzation

It says right there in the description that it gives CC-immune bosses defiance stacks. Plain as day, working as intended.

Well, except Lupicus is no CC-immune boss.

lol, this forum is full of masters of rationalization <3

You guys are so lucky that devs never chime in on anything so there’s always silence-induced wiggle room on “intended design.” I’m not against (ab)using this … unintended interaction, but arguing that this is intended behavior is such a stretch

I’ve never tried it, though, so I’m curious about something. Since the glitch is that Lupi’s -100% duration and the sigil’s +30% duration interact to give less than -100% duration, I reckon that this means only the weapon with the sigil can strip defiance once it shows up?

I was under the impression that anyone could CC after the defiance shows up, but in light of the explanation, I suppose not. Looks like it’s time for my thief to get a new pistol….

I guess if you were going to say anything was not working as intended. It would be lupi’s CC reduction. The sigil works fine. Whether anet intended lupi to be immune or just 100% reduced is completely speculative. But i dont really understand why they would set a cc reduction instead of just making him immune. They made other bosses completely immune.

spoj.9672:

I guess if you were going to say anything was not working as intended. It would be lupi’s CC reduction. The sigil works fine. Whether anet intended lupi to be immune or just 100% reduced is completely speculative.

100% agree. It’s an interesting unintended interaction there, where they probably meant to just make him immune.

I’m guessing that whoever designed Lupi probably got laid off with Hrouda (might have even been him). GW2 dungeon design philosophy is like a Tootsie Pop. The world may never know. (pic related)

But i dont really understand why they would set a cc reduction instead of just making him immune. They made other bosses completely immune.

ArenaNet isn’t known for internal consistency. The left hand probably didn’t know what the right hand was doing — glassdoor is full of complaints about inconsistent direction across development teams, I doubt they coordinated on how to best implement CC immunity.

Odds are that someone figured 100% CC duration reduction = no CC proc = immune to CC. Makes enough sense that I might code that up at 4PM on a Friday :P

So despite my earlier snarkery, you guys are absolutely right. This is not a bug, it is not an exploit, it is simply game mechanics functioning properly (though probably not in line with the designer’s intent). It absolutely should be allowed in records.

So for funsies: has anyone tried using Moment of Clarity with Hilt Bash / Concussion Shot (or maaaaaybe Point Blank Shot)? My ranger is lvl 28, else I’d try it myself :P

No idea about that, but back when mesmer runes also increased stun duration, a mesmer could interrupt him with anything. I’m not claiming it was intended for lupicus to have -100% CC duration, but it would actually make sense so, see alphard – same principle.

IIRC, Lupicus used to have -100% crippled duration.

This behavior isn’t unique to that sigil, by the way. If you run the ranger trait that increases stun duration, Moment of Clarity, you’ll find you can interrupt him with greatsword or shortbow. It probably is just because -100% stun duration + 100% duration = +/- 0% stun duration, giving normal stun duration.