Guild Wars 2

Rising Dusk.2408:

—

I would say what Anet considers OK doesn’t weight much at this point.

What ANet thinks does affect peoples’ perceptions, and relevant guild leaders are much more likely to vote to disallow something if it feels or is known to be exploitative.

Sure, if you can get them here to state their opinions.

Wethospu.6437:

Sure, if you can get them here to state their opinions.

They gave me this kitten job so they wouldn’t have to.

spoj.9672:

I dont remember anyone saying anything bad about the KR CoE records. Apart from a few comments from people who obviously couldnt jump.

I remembered better after thinking more. It wasn’t KR. It was Stop Stealing who did the crazy run with all sorts of shenanigans. As far as who couldn’t jump I’m not sure who you are referring to, because we were the first ones to do the jump in a record.

KR posted their unrestricted runs after the Restricted rules came out because they didnt like them, sorry to besmirch KR.

There wasnt really much wrong with agros records either as far as i can remember.

Wasnt it just consumable use, exec axe and stuff like that? Which like i said before is easily fixed with bare minimum rules. People definitely went overboard with the rules. Which is why two different rulesets were created. Still maintain that was a bad idea in the first place.

Rising Dusk.2408:

A vote was held regarding Molten Furnace and it was determined to be allowed.

That vote was held after it was approved.

You had one approver saying it was approved, another approver saying they were going to move it to unrestricted until the vote happened, and it was left as approved in restricted before the vote.

I would say that’s pretty inconsistent.

NikeEU.7690:

I think you’re wrong. The community again and again has come down in favor of the restricted rules and has consistently opposed loosening them. I really wish you would end your crusade for changing Restricted from what it was designed to be and spend your time working on getting the Unrestricted rules to a place where people care about them if you have so much energy.

I think that the interpretation of the rules have loosened up which why I think we’re having this discussion now to clarify them so they are more clear cut instead of everything being in a grey area.

All of the current records could still be valid if we reworded some of the rules by actually defining what we’re considering an event and such. Some of us were holding ourselves to a much stricter interpretation than others.

Enko.6123:

NikeEU.7690:

I think you’re wrong. The community again and again has come down in favor of the restricted rules and has consistently opposed loosening them. I really wish you would end your crusade for changing Restricted from what it was designed to be and spend your time working on getting the Unrestricted rules to a place where people care about them if you have so much energy.

I think that the interpretation of the rules have loosened up which why I think we’re having this discussion now to clarify them so they are more clear cut instead of everything being in a grey area.

All of the current records could still be valid if we reworded some of the rules by actually defining what we’re considering an event and such. Some of us were holding ourselves to a much stricter interpretation than others.

I agree, the interpretation has loosened up over time. But in every community rule meeting and in most of the voting we’ve done so far most of the time the community comes down in favor is tightening the restricted rules when given a voice.

Contract law is really not my strong suit or something I studied beyond the minimum requirements, but I can tell you that the tighter we try to word the rules to prevent shenanigans the more loop holes it opens up. People will see a rule that was designed to allow Arah p3 door but prevent CoE door (or whatever) and then use the wording of that rule to allow them to jump over some other door in some other path. Eventually enforcement comes down to the spirit of the rule vs precise wording. This is why I have always been a bit more in favor of case by case decisions that might not make internal sense when you compare two different rulings for two different paths. Sure its a lot more unwieldy and less elegant, but the benefit is that we don’t have to jump through hoops to make two seemingly contradictory rulings fit the same single rule.

NikeEU.7690:

I agree, the interpretation has loosened up over time. But in every community rule meeting and in most of the voting we’ve done so far most of the time the community comes down in favor is tightening the restricted rules when given a voice.

If anything I would rather have the rules tightened up instead of the loosening via interpretation and with the votes we’re seeing now.

Surely the better solution would be less rules and clarity on glaring issues. Like the proposed ruleset Enko posted.

Enko.6123:

That vote was held after it was approved.

You had one approver saying it was approved, another approver saying they were going to move it to unrestricted until the vote happened, and it was left as approved in restricted before the vote.

I would say that’s pretty inconsistent.

Two approvers disagreed, we decided it wasn’t sufficient to just go between the two of us, discussed it offline with Weth and in another thread with both Weth and other approvers, and it was moved to a vote. Instead of creating more work for ourselves, we opted to wait until the vote completed before performing a final action to the record. Disagreements happen; that does not make us inconsistent. We pour over records to make sure they are fair to the absolute best of our ability, and when disagreements arise we handle them in as fair a manner as humanly possible.

If you would’ve handled it differently, please inform us what you would have done and we will see if that is appropriate for future disagreements.

spoj.9672:

Surely the better solution would be less rules and clarity on glaring issues. Like the proposed ruleset Enko posted.

Concur but if people want tighter rules sets, the rules should be general rules that can be applied to everything and should actually be conformed to.

We have two ends of the spectrum:
Unrestricted (or whatever we choose to call it)
No third party programs like teleport hacks and such.
Breaking out of maps or out of bounds with unintended areas allowed.
Dungeon completion required.
Everything else fair game.

Restricted (or whatever we choose to call it)
No gemstore exclusive items
No third party programs like teleport hacks and such
No breaking out of maps out of geometry or unintended areas.
All required events to advance progress must be completed. (events need to be defined such as cutscene, dialogue, thresholds to close doors, etc)

Regardless, the overall vision of what Restricted is supposed to be needs to be decided.

Unrestricted was originally Free For All do whatever you want to see how fast you can do dungeons.

Restricted was originally run it as close as we think Anet intended which is why restrictions were put on it. I don’t think people see it this way anymore which is representative in how people are voting. Without a clear overall statement of what Restricted is expected to be, we can’t come up with consistent rules to comply with the overarching vision of it which is why we’re having these disagreements on what to decide.

Before voting and deciding on specific rules, we really need to decide on what we’re actually aiming for the Restricted ruleset. Once that’s established, the rules can then be decided to meet that vision.

Rising Dusk.2408:

If you would’ve handled it differently, please inform us what you would have done and we will see if that is appropriate for future disagreements.

Leave is Unrestricted because according to the listed rules at the time, it wasn’t Restricted. Once the rule was voted on and changed to breaking into map geometry, then it could have been changed to Restricted. Just because someone posts [Restricted] into the title doesn’t mean it automatically gets put into that category. Should be put into Unrestricted if gray areas or questionable things were involved and then once decided on, the decision can be made to move to Restricted or not.

spoj.9672:

I have moved it to unrestricted for the time being. If we want to create a path specific rule we can move it back.

Spoj stated he was going to put it as Unrestricted until the vote.

Rising Dusk.2408:

I really don’t think this is the appropriate action. It should be restricted until voted to be banned as a path-specific rule by the speed clearing guilds.

This was your argument. How this was restricted when out of bounds is out of bounds is questionable.

spoj.9672:

Ill leave it as restricted. Hopefully we will get this particular issue voted on in the next week or so.

It went back and forth and this was the final thing.

In fairness that was my fault for overuling Risings decision without discussing it.

But yeah i see issues like these popping up in the future more and more with the rules current state. The voting is trying to fix it. But i dont see it working out too well with how people are inconsistent with their own votes.

spoj.9672:

In fairness that was my fault for overuling Risings decision without discussing it.

But yeah i see issues like these popping up in the future more and more with the rules current state. The voting is trying to fix it. But i dont see it working out too well with how people are inconsistent with their own votes.

I honestly feel like we need to stop voting on rules until we determine what the overall vision of what Restricted and Unrestricted are supposed to represent.

After that’s hammered out, then we can make rules to conform to that vision. As I said earlier, people are viewing Restricted through different tinted glasses and that’s what’s causing all of these disagreements.

Totally. I always thought restricted was to play as close to what the devs intended as possible. But thats clearly not happening for some things and it is happening for some other stuff. Its almost like we should have 3 rulesets. Restricted, semi restricted and unrestricted. But its already bad enough split into two. So i doubt thats a good idea.

Most people fall into the category of restricted or semi restricted. But the line is blurred by inconsistent views on different issues. It doesnt help that restricted in its current form actually tries to be both those categories while also failing at both.

I think it’s pretty pointless to try using objective barriers (like “how Anet intended ii” or “how path is normally done”) when in reality they will always be subjective.

The only thing we should be worrying about is that the rule set is fun to play and encourages participation/competition.

Revised questions for the next week:

Is NPC manipulation allowed to skip cutscenes?

Is NPC manipulation allowed to skip dialogue?

Should event rules only affect mandatory encounters?

Encounters are mandatory if you need to kill or activate something to proceed. So things like AC exp first burrow, Kholer or skippable enemies could be manipulated/safespotted.

The problem is that some people are voting in accordance what we originally had set up Restricted for which is why there’s differences in how we’re discussing this. This is the root cause of the issues we’re all having with this. Until that’s resolved, there’s no reason to keep voting on things.

If we’re just aiming for whatever we think is fun to play and encourages participation vs what Restricted was originally set up to be, then I’d be voting differently. That’s why I’m saying we should probably discuss what the overall thing is supposed to be and set that first.

If we want it to be where the records are fun to watch and all, then I don’t see why we’re banning consumables and some other cool tricks that are available.
I still think the simplest ruleset that would encourage this would be:
No gemstore items
No third party programs like teleport hacks and such
No breaking out of maps out of geometry or unintended areas.
All required events to advance progress must be completed. (events need to be defined such as cutscene, dialogue, thresholds to close doors, etc)

Other than that, if it’s available in game to everybody, then it should be ok. This would allow pretty much everything we have been voting yes on without all this weekly discussion stuff. This provides an even playing field for everybody and we get to actually see all the cool tricks that people can come up with.

I can see why mountain goating should be banned since it just means all we see is random jumping instead of gameplay though chances are you’re bypassing something that impedes progress. Same with one shotting Lupi on the wall as its more interesting to see people actually fight Lupi.

For the questions for next week, if we’re voting according to how Restricted was originally set up and to how the rules are worded, then the first 2 would be no. If we’re voting according to what you said where we should only be worrying if its fun to play, then it would be yes. Again, this is why we need to put out what Restricted means first before we continue to vote or we’re always going to have issues since people are voting according to completely different mindsets.

BTW, I like someone’s earlier comment about calling renaming them as well to indicate the shift if you want us voting these issues according to a “rule set is fun to play and encourages participation/competition.”

Competitive Records
and
Anything Goes Records (or whatever we want to call it)

Nothing stops you from voting as you want. If you think restricted should be “as Anet intended” then you can vote according to that. If you have some other criteria feel free to vote according to that.

If enough people think that restricted should be “as Anet intended” then the voting should reflect that.

I would say the reason for discussion is simply that people disagree with stuff. There would be discussion and disagreement even if we had defined some sort of a guideline for voting.

Well said Wethospu, if it means anything personally I liked the idea of you just being dictator of the competition.

Votes are good, but I agree, vote on fun sounds the best, whatever that means to people, vote for what you want, don’t limit yourself based on ANets intentions unless that’s what you want.

5.) You are only allowed to use food, nourishment and Metabolic Primer. All other consumables and items are banned.

8.) Compression of AoE hitboxes by moving, blinking and/or dodging is banned.

10.) Abusing trait swapping to use any skill prior to its natural cool down is banned. This includes but is not limited to Mesmer Blink and Guardian Wall of Reflection.

I’m going to use these three rules as an example. These rules were originally put into place because something was being done that we thought were unintended gameplay mechanics and shouldn’t be allowed because we were all pretty sure Anet didn’t intend the skill or trait to work that way.

Rule 5 was originally to deal with Harpy Feathers for infinite stealth on any class and the spamming of Embers, Ogre Pet Whistles, and Mortar kits since all of these originally had no cooldown. It was agreed that Anet probably didn’t foresee people just having perma stealth for everyone on a dungeon without using a mechanic like chaining Stealth blasts or Shadow Refuge.

Rule 8 was created to deal with Dodge Ice Bows/Meteor Showers because we didn’t think Anet inteded for these skills to be able to have their areas compressed to stack all their hits in one place like that. It was also banned because people thought it was a cheesy tactic.

Rule 10 was created to deal with things like double Wall of Reflection or double Blinks because we didn’t think Anet intended for these traits to work like that so they were not allowed.

All these examples were created because the people who were on the rules meeting agreed that Anet probably didn’t intend for these things to happen and thus we shouldn’t allow it in Restricted records.

I personally think that the hitbox manipulation, trait tricks, and the usage of some consumables consumables could be kind of cool to see in records if the point of the records is to showcase what’s fun and what’s possible in dungeons. Under that mindset, these rules wouldn’t be needed.

If the point of records was to run them as best as possible to what Anet intended, then that’s why these rules were created.

That’s why I’m saying that we need to make clear what we’re aiming for records. If we want to go with what’s fun and competitive, then lets clear out these three rules (maybe not the consumable one) and make that clear that’s the road we’re going down.
If we’re sticking with the original reasons for the Restricted ruleset, then lets keep them in.
If we decide this root issue first, then a lot of the rules we’re voting on now would make more sense.

Wethospu.6437:

Nothing stops you from voting as you want. If you think restricted should be “as Anet intended” then you can vote according to that. If you have some other criteria feel free to vote according to that.

If enough people think that restricted should be “as Anet intended” then the voting should reflect that.

I would say the reason for discussion is simply that people disagree with stuff. There would be discussion and disagreement even if we had defined some sort of a guideline for voting.

You guys are both missing the entire point of what I’m posting about. I know nothing is stopping me from voting how I want. I’m just saying that we’re wasting a lot of time by voting on these issues when people don’t even know what the Restricted rule set is supposed to be.

If it’s just supposed to be what’s fun and competitive, then allow all of this stuff and there’s no issues. You’re basically saying this since most of the people involved in records weren’t even around when we first started the ruleset and you know that I’m one vote among ten so you don’t have to actually discuss this issue.

You’re going to decrease the amount of work you have to do and votes we have to do if we work out the root issue first.

Jerus.4350:

Well said Wethospu, if it means anything personally I liked the idea of you just being dictator of the competition.

Votes are good, but I agree, vote on fun sounds the best, whatever that means to people, vote for what you want, don’t limit yourself based on ANets intentions unless that’s what you want.

Jerus, if we didn’t want to limit ourselves with what we saw with Anet’s intentions, then we wouldn’t even have the Restricted ruleset in the first place. That’s what I’m trying to get fixed. If we’re voting on what we just think is fun, then fine. Let’s do that. But let’s make sure everybody is on the same page first since we’re deciding the speed clear rules.

I already posted a ruleset that I think would pretty much cover all the issues we’re working out, is simple, would be fun to watch, and would encourage competitiveness and I’ll post it here again if you missed it.

No gemstore items
No third party programs like teleport hacks and such
No breaking out of maps out of geometry or unintended areas.
All required events to advance progress must be completed.

This lets us do all the cool tricks you can pull out of your sleeve to get a better time and avoids the mountain goating that originated the Unrestricted/Restricted split.

I like that ruleset

But, isn’t the point of voting to vote for what you like. It certainly complicates things and brings in grey areas as some might like one thing but not another that may fall under the same rule. Give people choice and it gets complicated people are fickle and illogical at times

The things we’re voting on have been grey areas for the existing rules which is why votes are being held to determine if they should be allowed or not. Have you missed that in all of this conversation? None of these issues were just out of the blue.

We’re not just voting on random things. Everything we’ve been voting on have been discrepancies in the rules. It should have been to vote on if the rule needed to be changed or if a new rule needed to be made or not. Not on just what we like though it has devolved into that which makes this all kind of pointless since we don’t have an overarching reason for the Restricted Ruleset.

I would probably be voting for everything to be allowed too if we’re just voting on what we think is fun. The problem is that’s not what Restricted was originally for. That’s what Unrestricted was originally for. At this point with how a lot of the votes have been going, we might as well adopt the Unrestricted ruleset with a couple of modifications and call it a day.

Well, it should be said I don’t get a vote and I’m usually drunk so /shrug. But, from what I’ve seen there’s quite an inconsistency in voting and rules. And, I’ve just always felt that the restricted set was about making the competition more fun than anything because fo that. Feel free to ignore my drunk self Much love. And give Moon a kiss for me he’s a great guy. (ok that may come off as weird, but really, cool guy I know in your guild )

The fact that Arah P3 gate trick has been allowed the whole time kind of disqualifies that Restricted rule set is about how Anet intended them to be played.

That encounter was specifically added after release to slow down people farming Crusher over and over. I’m pretty sure they didn’t leave that loophole there on purpose.

Jerus.4350:

Well, it should be said I don’t get a vote and I’m usually drunk so /shrug. But, from what I’ve seen there’s quite an inconsistency in voting and rules. And, I’ve just always felt that the restricted set was about making the competition more fun than anything because fo that. Feel free to ignore my drunk self Much love. And give Moon a kiss for me he’s a great guy. (ok that may come off as weird, but really, cool guy I know in your guild )

Moon isn’t in LOD anymore. He hasn’t been for a while. No idea what guild he went to.

As I stated earlier, the ruleset wasn’t just about what we considered fun. There was a reason why it was set up the way it was and we’re moving away from that. I’m fine with doing that as long as everyone is on the same page. The inconsistency in voting is pretty much based on this key issue that people have different ideas on what Restricted is and I think that needs to be clarified. Once that’s clarified, I think the individual issue voting should be resumed (if its even needed anymore which I don’t think it would be).

gwscr.com

Records in the restricted category are governed by a strict rule set which requires players to complete most if not all of the dungeon as it was intended while records in the unrestricted category have relaxed rules, allowing players to get away with most things.

So gwscr.com was where GW2 records were originally posted. This is what it said the Restricted and Unrestricted rulesets were all about. If we can just get a simple base statement on what the two rulesets are supposed to be then it would clear up pretty much any of the inconsistency in voting.

Since the majority of the rules are copied and pasted from gwscr.com, I would consider this basic statement still relevant.

Wethospu.6437:

The fact that Arah P3 gate trick has been allowed the whole time kind of disqualifies that Restricted rule set is about how Anet intended them to be played.

That encounter was specifically added after release to slow down people farming Crusher over and over. I’m pretty sure they didn’t leave that loophole there on purpose.

The Arah P3 gate trick seems like it was just used by everybody and people didn’t even think about it as being unintended or count it as an event so it was never discussed. People were using that way before we even had the rule split on the earliest Arah P3 I could find on gwscr.com. Since we’re having the discussion now though, it is going to depend on how we define an “event”. Allowing this in a ruleset that was for how Anet intended things was probably an oversight that was missed because it was a common knowledge thing very early in the game. If you look through the gwscr.com records, the first record that was posted with a video was an Arah p3 that used it. Since it was well known for so long a time and during a time when Anet was still tinkering with things in dungeons relatively often, people may have just thought that Anet was ok with it because they hadn’t stopped it. We could use that line of logic now as well but that would mean basically allowing everything and anything since Anet hasn’t really fixed anything in dungeons in a while. During the first gwscr.com rules meeting though, I think it was brought up and people had agreed to allow it since that’s pretty much how literally everybody was doing it and Anet seemed ok with it.

If it is a discrepancy, then fine lets fix it now since we’re actually discussing it. If we’re going the route everybody seems to want to go to where we just want to see what people are capable of and throw out the original intentions of the ruleset, then I’m all for it. I’m just asking that we decide that and we make that clear so we’re all on the same page.

Going back through the weekly discussions, it looks like it might only have gotten brought up because someone had asked about the AC burrows and that led into the discussion on the Arah p3 door issue.

Enko.6123:

Jerus.4350:

Well, it should be said I don’t get a vote and I’m usually drunk so /shrug. But, from what I’ve seen there’s quite an inconsistency in voting and rules. And, I’ve just always felt that the restricted set was about making the competition more fun than anything because fo that. Feel free to ignore my drunk self Much love. And give Moon a kiss for me he’s a great guy. (ok that may come off as weird, but really, cool guy I know in your guild )

Moon isn’t in LOD anymore. He hasn’t been for a while. No idea what guild he went to.

.

Doh a pity, great guy like I siad

Enko.6123:

gwscr.com

Records in the restricted category are governed by a strict rule set which requires players to complete most if not all of the dungeon as it was intended while records in the unrestricted category have relaxed rules, allowing players to get away with most things.

So gwscr.com was where GW2 records were originally posted. This is what it said the Restricted and Unrestricted rulesets were all about. If we can just get a simple base statement on what the two rulesets are supposed to be then it would clear up pretty much any of the inconsistency in voting.

Since the majority of the rules are copied and pasted from gwscr.com, I would consider this basic statement still relevant.

If that was carried over it would be on the rule page.

But ok, next week I will add a poll:

How the restricted rule set should be like?

A) As Anet intended

• Abuse of path selection banned
• Any kind of event manipulation banned
• NPC manipulation banned
• Being past blocked pathways banned
• Areas which can’t be reached by walking or jumping banned
• (few more details)
• In rare cases your opinion may get asked

B) PHIW

• Keep the current system of voting

C) Open

• Event / boss manipulation, safespotting, bugging etc. allowed
• Mandatory events must be completed
• Entering inside textures banned
• (few more details)
• In rare cases your opinion may get asked

For some history, here’s the link that Cookie posted that first kicked off discussing how we do records. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/What-makes-a-record-legit/first
On pg 2, the Arah p3 gate trick was questioned by Cookie back then.

The thread gets derailed by pg 3 and from there, I think we went to a teamspeak or whatever voice comms and had a meeting with the guilds that were interested in speed clears.

A lot of the same issues we’re discussing now happened back then as well and we went with the route of minimal exploits to try to follow what we thought Anet intended. That has obviously changed so lets just make it official and make it clear.

Wethospu.6437:

Enko.6123:

gwscr.com

Records in the restricted category are governed by a strict rule set which requires players to complete most if not all of the dungeon as it was intended while records in the unrestricted category have relaxed rules, allowing players to get away with most things.

So gwscr.com was where GW2 records were originally posted. This is what it said the Restricted and Unrestricted rulesets were all about. If we can just get a simple base statement on what the two rulesets are supposed to be then it would clear up pretty much any of the inconsistency in voting.

Since the majority of the rules are copied and pasted from gwscr.com, I would consider this basic statement still relevant.

If that was carried over it would be on the rule page.

But ok, next week I will add a poll:

How the restricted rule set should be like?

A) As Anet intended

• Abuse of path selection banned
• Any kind of event manipulation banned
• NPC manipulation banned
• Being past blocked pathways banned
• Areas which can’t be reached by walking or jumping banned
• In rare cases your opinion may get asked

B) As you want

• Keep the current system of voting

C) Open

• Event / boss manipulation, safespotting, bugging etc. allowed
• Mandatory events must be completed
• Entering inside textures banned
• In rare cases your opinion may get asked

Can we have the following suggestion as an option?
The following is actually a middle ground of your two listed things and actually would encompass how everyone’s been voting. This would clear up pretty much every vote we’ve done so far.

No gemstore items
No third party programs like teleport hacks and such
No breaking out of maps or into geometry.
All progress impeding bosses to advance progress must be completed.
No safespotting enemies.
No consumables beyond food/utility.
Dungeon completion must trigger.

Changing it to progress impeding bosses from events would allow the Arah p3 door skips or the AC story mode gate teleport trick.
If people want it to be any progress impeding event, we would need to discuss what we’re actually defining as an event such as NPC dialogue, thresholds that close doors, belka’s bone wall, etc. Everyone so far has been voting to allow these things.
The only exception is the CoE door skip but you’d still have to kill Alpha to open the next door unless you considered jumping the door breaking into geometry which would ban it then.
If anyone else has any ideas to reword that one line that would allow the Arah p3 door trick, bypassing Belka’s bone wall, etc and still block the CoE door jump, I’m open for ideas or just leave as with it saying bosses and just have a single dungeon specific note that flat out states bypassing the door isn’t allowed.

The two options available are such extremes that everyone is going to vote for continued voting.

Wethospu, what I copied from gwscr is from the page that describes what records are all about. http://gwscr.com/records

I’m just going to reiterate, Enko, that many of our rules—and many of the voters in these polls—are against changes that enable things that “feel exploitative or unintended”. Many things some people think are exploitative other people think are clever and/or neat usage of intended mechanics, however, resulting in the mish-mash as we currently have it. Honestly, I like our current ruleset a lot.

I think we should, honestly, just keep doing path-by-path exceptions. Just explicitly say that the p3 door is okay and the CoE door isn’t. It’d be nice if we had rules that weren’t vague and covered everything, but as they stand they are open to interpretation.

Rising Dusk.2408:

I’m just going to reiterate, Enko, that many of our rules—and many of the voters in these polls—are against changes that enable things that “feel exploitative or unintended”. Many things some people think are exploitative other people think are clever and/or neat usage of intended mechanics, however, resulting in the mish-mash as we currently have it. Honestly, I like our current ruleset a lot.

I think we should, honestly, just keep doing path-by-path exceptions. Just explicitly say that the p3 door is okay and the CoE door isn’t. It’d be nice if we had rules that weren’t vague and covered everything, but as they stand they are open to interpretation.

Umm my suggested ruleset allows everything people have voted on and simplifies the rules pretty much.

If they are against changes that enable things that “feel exploitative or unintended” then they should stop voting for things that “feel exploitative or unintended” or they could post and be involved in this discussion so their viewpoints are represented beyond a single sentence statement that they voted on.

I already suggested that we should first define what the restricted ruleset is about and then make the rules accordingly since as I explained earlier, this ruleset was created originally for what we thought was intended by anet and the usage of exploits was supposed to be in unrestricted. A lot of those clever usage of mechanics that we’re discussing fell into that category of exploits previously. Now if people want to change the meaning of restricted, then I’m fine with that. Let’s just be clear about it, fix the root issue, and go on with it. This is basically what Weth has posted for next week and that’s a good thing. A lot of these votes could be prevented if we just fixed the root issue at hand first.

Enko.6123:

No gemstore items
No third party programs like teleport hacks and such
No breaking out of maps or into geometry.
All progress impeding bosses to advance progress must be completed.
No safespotting enemies.
No consumables beyond food/utility.
Dungeon completion must trigger

“All progress impeding bosses to advance progress must be completed.”

This actually promotes mountain goating as progress impeding bosses can be interupted interpreted differently.

Could be all bosses with cutscenes immediately before or after must be killed.

or

All cutscenes must be triggered(exception cof p2 magg bomb fail)

I do like the other rule wordings though it is basically the restricted ruleset minus a few things.

Line casting not mentioned

No mention of when the timer starts.

Racial skills not mentioned.

leaving dungeon with a character not mentioned.

EcoRI.9273:

“All progress impeding bosses to advance progress must be completed.”

This actually promotes mountain goating as progress impeding bosses can be interupted differently.

Could be all bosses with cutscenes immediately before or after must be killed.

I do like the other rule wordings though it is basically the restricted ruleset minus a few things.

Line casting not mentioned

No mention of when the timer starts.

Racial skills not mentioned.

leaving dungeon with a character not mentioned.

Not sure by what you mean by interrupted differently.

Line casting, yeah didn’t mention this one. Something for people to decide if it should be allowed again or not since the original reason why it was banned was that people either thought it was cheesy or that it was an exploit.

The timers, racial skills, and leaving dungeons were a given but yeah should be on the list of the final rules.

The entire progress impeding thing if you went with events, you would need to define what an event is. Do we just mean things that have an event indicator in the top right of your screen or do we mean triggers in dungeons such as thresholds that activate things or NPC dialogues that start fights, etc. I personally think its interesting when people find things to avoid stuff like that.
The progress impeding rule was originally put into place to prevent people from just mountain goating to the end of dungeons. Either wording with bosses vs events does it but just stating bosses allows us to do the other stuff with NPC manipulation and such.

I’ll say it again, the best solution is dealing with each issue individually on a path by path basis and not try to aim for some universal overarching One Rule To Unite Them All. If you try to create a rule system that allows Arah p3 door but disallows CoE door you’re going to be treading the finest of fine lines in your wording and you WILL have unintended consequences. Much easier to just say “Arah p3 door is an issue open to interpretation with the simple rules we already have, lets vote on that encounter on it’s own” rather than trying to change the rules.

Sure, having a corpus of path based errata isn’t elegant but its a good deal better than trying to write a brand new constitution every time someone finds a new bug/exploit.

Eh I think what I put down is a general enough ruleset that covered everything and we would just need to put something down specifically for the CoE door jump. I’m not asking for an overarching rule to unite everything but a framework that we could base any other exceptions off of. Our existing ruleset could have done that too if people would actually follow them instead of creeping in more and more things that shouldn’t have been allowed.

Without a framework or basic guidelines to go off of and we go on individual path by path basis on what is or isn’t allowed, you’re pretty much now telling people you have to run things like this or they wont’ be considered a record. Leaving it open ended with guidelines gives people the freedom to try new and creative things. If they find something that’s a huge exploit that’s basically gamebreaking, then those are probably the things that need to be discussed on an individual basis.

If we do continue with individual rule voting then I think we still need to decide on what the overarching broad statement of what restricted/unrestricted mean. gwscr.com had a single sentence that did this and was basically how we discussed the rules at the meetings we did have

Records in the restricted category are governed by a strict rule set which requires players to complete most if not all of the dungeon as it was intended while records in the unrestricted category have relaxed rules, allowing players to get away with most things.

Just something simple like that is all I would want so we’re all on the same page of what restricted represents.

You would also need to define events. All of this week’s votes stemmed from the vague definition of what an event is. 4 of last week’s were also due to this as well. Defining this would have resolved most of those.

The Out of bounds rules was already changed satisfactory to cover issues.

Sure, having a corpus of path based errata isn’t elegant but its a good deal better than trying to write a brand new constitution every time someone finds a new bug/exploit

If you notice from last week, I was trying to avoid that by judging each issue in accordance with the existing posted rule set which apparently didn’t fly with a lot of people. If you go through all my posts on this topic, I’ve just been asking for a standard framework that we can work off of instead of being forced to decide on each individual issue as a separate issue. Not having any basic guidelines on some things (like what is an event), is causing us to have to vote on each and every thing when simply defining it would have solved it.

Just reiterating in case my previous post wasn’t clear that I agree with Nike. I’d much rather have the general rules we have and then path-specific rules to address CoE and Arah p3 and the like.

I really appreciate what you’re trying to do Enko, but I’m just not convinced that it buys us anything other than more of the kind of interpretation that leads to the disagreements you mentioned disliking earlier. It’s just going to have unintended consequences and take more work to manage when new issues come up.

A different interpretation of the term impede progress: skipping the crushers via mountain goating will not impede my progress for arah p3.

Rising Dusk.2408:

Just reiterating in case my previous post wasn’t clear that I agree with Nike. I’d much rather have the general rules we have and then path-specific rules to address CoE and Arah p3 and the like.

I really appreciate what you’re trying to do Enko, but I’m just not convinced that it buys us anything other than more of the kind of interpretation that leads to the disagreements you mentioned disliking earlier. It’s just going to have unintended consequences and take more work to manage when new issues come up.

Then fine. These are the three things that I would want.

Define what restricted means. Is it do what we think is fun or the original intention of how things are intended.

Define what an “event” is.

Actually hold to the ruleset that’s decided.

I have consistently asked for one thing and one thing only, that we be consistent with the rules. If you go through all my posts on this, all of this goes to this. A lot of this came about because through the course of voting on issues, some topics were voted one way while others were voted differently despite being the same rule issue.

I would have loved to just stick with the general rules we have but people apparently can’t stick to them or try to squeeze things in based on vague interpretations of them.

We need to simply define what an event is, define what we want restricted to be, and stick with it. If we do that, the current ruleset works fine and pretty much everything we’ve been voting on becomes a non issue that’s resolved by this..

EcoRI.9273:

A different interpretation of the term impede progress: skipping the crushers via mountain goating will not impede my progress for arah p3.

Can you still complete the path without breaking out of the map or going into geometry?

I agree with Enko on defining what restricted actually means. Remember gais, it took the US decades to define who is a person and who is not so take your time Kappa.

Enko.6123:

EcoRI.9273:

A different interpretation of the term impede progress: skipping the crushers via mountain goating will not impede my progress for arah p3.

Can you still complete the path without breaking out of the map or going into geometry?

yes, you can do a “intended” JP that abides the restricted rules.

EcoRI.9273:

I agree with Enko on defining what restricted actually means. Remember gais, it took the US decades to define who is a person and who is not so take your time Kappa.

If you want to introduce snark into this, fine, but go look at when we were first deciding on having a rule split to begin with. There’s a reason why we did that originally and people have lost sight of that and just basically want to do whatever they feel like. I can tell you now that if we acknowledged what we want Restricted to mean to how I’ve seen other people state in these threads (basically doing exploits that are interesting to see to bypass or speed up some of the dungeon scripting), then I’d agree and be fine with it since I think that stuff is interesting to see as well.

The entire nature of why its called Restricted was to put restrictions on what we can do and that original intent of that was what’s still posted on gwscr.com on the differences between the two.

I think what restricted/unrestricted means has always been a colloquial thing and never formally defined. It sounds okay to me if we want to have some description, if only because it will help newbies who read GW2 Dungeons know what the rulesets mean outside of the specific rules themselves.

No i actually do agree with you on that, dont take what i say in a troll manner seriously

Rising Dusk.2408:

I think what restricted/unrestricted means has always been a colloquial thing and never formally defined. It sounds okay to me if we want to have some description, if only because it will help newbies who read GW2 Dungeons know what the rulesets mean outside of the specific rules themselves.

As I’ve stated many times now, the original intentions and what’s posted on gwscr.com suffices as the broad statement of the basis of each ruleset. Just having something simple like that is actually needed.

If you really think it will only be for newbies who read gw2dungeons.net, then you need to question why we’re having the discussion on these rules for the past few weeks then. This all stems from a basic disagreement on what the restricted ruleset means from when we first created it. People who are doing records now want to show off the creative tricks that they’ve found to get through the dungeons. The restricted ruleset was created to minimize exploits which a lot of those creative tricks can be defined as. If we want to change that, then again fine but lets make that clear to people.
If this is something so easy to do, then lets just do it.

Havent been adding to this thread recently simply because Enko is pretty much saying exactly what ive been thinking. I completely agree with him.

And going on a case by case basis for each path is completely unrealistic. Not only does it add a ton of work to add each individual rule. But it also means that everytime some new trick is found we have to change the rules and have another discussion. When alternatively we can just have a broad and clear guideline that allows freedom to innovate. The really big issues can be voted on case by case. But there is no need for it on all the small stuff when you can simply make rules as follows:

No gemstore items.
No third party programs like teleport hacks and such.
No breaking out of maps or into geometry.
All progress impeding bosses must be killed (in order?).
No safespotting enemies.
No consumables beyond food/utility.
Dungeon completion must trigger.

And if people really want more than that:

Can not progress past any intended blockade or door until the required opening condition is met.
Line casting and trait swap?

A list like this is much easier to follow when approving records. Much easier for players when checking to see if they are within the rules. It covers all the current stuff except for things like rifle gun 1 shot in cm p3 (there are very few of these cases and they can be done as path specific). And most importantly it doesnt restrict innovation. Also its pretty clear without leaving too much to interpretation.

The problem enko is we already have general rules that exist as a frame work. Everything that you think of as a loosening or whatever is legal as the result oftentimes of an up or down vote.

Arahp3 door was specifically voted on and allowed.
NPC dying to speed up dialogue was voted on and allowed
CoE door was voted on and disallowed.

We don’t need any more specificity in the general rules, the general rules are very clear and they do a good job of “describing what restricted is supposed to be.” I know what you want is to establish a basis for the “spirit of the law” to use as a guidepost for future grey issues come up, but we are already doing it. When the community meetings happen and/or guild leaders vote the spirit of the law is being invoked whether we have a written mission statement or not.

Whenever a grey issue comes up like the above cited ones or a newer one like molten facility we can just do an up/down vote on those specifically. It’s much simpler to do that.

NikeEU.7690:

Arahp3 door was specifically voted on and allowed.
NPC dying to speed up dialogue was voted on and allowed
CoE door was voted on and disallowed.

But contradicting rules like these simply open up the possibility of endless path specific rules. Do we really want inconsistencies like this which requires people to go and check a long list of rules everytime?

People voted for disallowing CoE because its unintended. And voted for allowing arah p3 because everyone already does it despite it being unintended. Does that not strike you as a problem? Its a clear lack of clarity in what the ruleset is supposed to do. Play as intended or allow minor exploits? You have to pick one or the other. Not both.