Guild Wars 2

Some thing to consider:

1) People voted to have no exceptions. It was reopened to specifically have this result.

2) We barely have enough players for one rule set.

3) Based on current voting behavior, people want neither ultra-restrictive (“what anet intended”) or very open rule set

4) “What Anet intended” is a pretty bad metric because if you want to follow that you should farm SW

At least the way I see it, enforcing a “what anet intended” ruleset would be simply destructive. You get a ruleset which nobody actually likes or follows even in pug runs. And for what? To please developers?

Which leads to the next point about defining the intention of restricted rule set. Why would we define it to something no one really wants? Why would we define it to something we can’t really enforce?

For example we define that restricted rule should be about what people think Anet intended. Do you think that would be better than a rule set about what people actually want? How do we know if someone votes as he likes instead of what he thinks Anet intended? What do we do if we suspect that someone didn’t vote like that?

Could someone explain what’s wrong with the current approach where few things are voted weekly and we finally end up with a rule set which most people agree with?

spoj.9672:

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?

Yes. And don’t exaggerate, most paths don’t have anything like this. It would be like 1 rule here or there.

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?

Not a problem because it’s how the voting went. I’m personally on record saying I’m opposed to the Arahp3 door philosophically, but when this has been voted on multiple times it’s always been allowed by the community so I accept that.

I

ts 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.

“Have to”? No, we don’t have to do anything. We can have whatever rules we want, even if some of them do not follow the same internal logic. We aren’t beholden to anything except the will of the community.

May as well just have step by step intructions on how to do each path.

Don’t exaggerate the problem.

Wethospu.6437:

Some thing to consider:

1) People voted to have no exceptions. It was reopened to specifically have this result.

2) We barely have enough players for one rule set.

3) Based on current voting behavior, people want neither ultra-restrictive (“what anet intended”) or very open rule set

4) “What Anet intended” is a pretty bad metric because if you want to follow that you should farm SW

At least the way I see it, enforcing a “what anet intended” ruleset would be simply destructive. You get a ruleset which nobody actually likes or follows even in pug runs. And for what? To please developers?

Which leads to the next point about defining the intention of restricted rule set. Why would we define it to something no one really wants? Why would we define it to something we can’t really enforce?

For example we define that restricted rule should be about what people think Anet intended. Do you think that would be better than a rule set about what people actually want? How do we know if someone votes as he likes instead of what he thinks Anet intended? What do we do if we suspect that someone didn’t vote like that?

Could someone explain what’s wrong with the current approach where few things are voted weekly and we finally end up with a rule set which most people agree with?

I am not asking to define it “as anet intended” or to something that no one really wants. I am asking for a broad statement people can agree on. A simple change to the gwscr.com one basically would read as follows and provide the mindset of what the rules would cover since that has shifted from the original.

Restricted ruleset (or whatever we call it)is governed by a set of rules which requires players to complete most if not all parts of the dungeon while the Unrestricted ruleset has relaxed rules allowing players to do anything in the dungeon to complete it as fast as possible

As opposed to the original broad statement from gwscr.com here:

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.

These two are almost the same with one major change. The only thing I took out was the “as it was intended” part. For the past issues we’ve had, I would have voted differently on these because the mindset I have is that restricted originally was following what we thought Anet had intended the dungeon.

The current approach can work but it does mean that there are a bunch of path specific, seemingly arbitrary decisions for every dungeon. What we’re doing is voting on do we like this exploit or not. Do we like it when people do this but not that.
If bypassing a door is ok in one path, why is it not on another? Just because some people said they liked it?
If not being able to jump past stuff is ok in one path, why is it not on another? Just because some people said they liked it?
This is why when you don’t have a general framework that is held to consistently, it turns into a bunch of seemingly arbitrary rules.

NikeEU.7690:

spoj.9672:

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?

Yes. And don’t exaggerate, most paths don’t have anything like this. It would be like 1 rule here or there.

That we know of for now. For all we know, people could find new stuff that people haven’t even figured out yet and we would have to then vote on the endless possible path specific rules. If you look at last week, those were all path specific rules with the majority of them that could have been resolved by just defining what we mean by “event”.

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.

I would rather have a general ruleset that would be the baseline how we base future decisions on than just take each issue at hand as a brand new thing every single time where it seems to become an arbitrary decision. I would rather be able to make the decision to depart from a plan than start from scratch every time.
In this post, https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/gw2dungeons-net-Week-23-discussion/first#post5120661, I went through and explained how I voted on issues. I went issue by issue and asked, does this violate any of the rules? If not, then I voted it was allowed. If it did violate the rules, then I voted to not allow it. If it was not explicitly denied by a rule, but it was something that probably needed to be fixed, then we modified the rules such as the safespotting of trash mobs.

Without a general framework to go off of, the vote decision would have been, “Do I like doing this? nah” vs “Do I like doing this? sure.” There’s absolutely no basis of why you would go one way or another which then leads to inconsistency and weird reasons why or why we don’t have a rule.

As for the rule there, yes I did try to word it in a way that would allow and disallow how people have been voting on so we had something to frame any future issues.

If you go back through the previous weeks votes or discussions,

Specifically about blocked pathways. The discussion people had were based off of what the rule stated. Someone mentioned the spirit of the ruleset (which is what I have asked to clearly state since people have different views on it) and someone else asked for the logical reasoning on why some were allowed and why others weren’t allowed. All discussion done based off the framework of the rule.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/gw2dungeons-net-Rule-5-discussion/first

In week 22’s decision, I think the key problem was the wording of Issue 2 that was voted on.

I originally thought that A would be giving the vote to people to determine how each issue should be decided based on the rules. I obviously misunderstood that once we saw how people were voting in week 23 with basically disregarding the rules since it didn’t mention “votes based on rules” like option B did. B was at least someone basing a decision if something should be allowed or not on the rules.

A) Decide case by case with voting.
B) Wethospu decides based on rules.

This is why I’m asking that we provide a general statement about what Restricted is supposed to be since we all obviously have different ideas and we’re not voting on the same thing.

Week 23.
Issue 1: Safespotting trash – Refinement of safespotting rule
Issue 2: AC story gate skip – Stepping on weight panel is the required sequence
Issue 3: CoE exp door skip – Selecting path is the required sequence
Issue 4: ArahP3 door skip – Killing the mobs is the required sequence
Issue 5: AC exp burrow skip – Doesn’t block progress, irrelevant
Issue 6: Molten Facility lightning riding – Unintended area, fixed with geometry change
Issue 7: Arah p4 final jumping puzzle – Unintended area, still banned with geometry change.

These all could have been voted on based on the existing framework or refinement. Bypassing an event that triggers the door to close or open seems like abusing event scripting. This applied to both 3 and 4 but people voted on opposite ways.
6 and 7 with Out of bounds were both the same issue but rule was modified to clarify to breaking into geometry.

All of these had existing rules that we derived our thought processes from and they either led to the refinement of rules (1, 7), the following of rules (3), or the ignoring of rules (5).

This leads to why I ‘m asking for “events” to be defined since I’m viewing events in a broader aspect of how things like an event log in a computer works. Something happened. Something is supposed to happen.
Some people view events as what the game considers an in game event. There needs to be an orange circle or indicator saying that this is an event.

There are different understandings of what an “event” consists of which then makes it so different people who are doing record are playing by different sets of rules and don’t find out until they post a video and it gets denied or they see someone else post a video that gets approved with things that they thought weren’t allowed.

Let me put it another way. People want to ban assault weapons. Some people consider any weapon used by the military as an assault weapon. Some people consider assault weapons only those that are used exclusively by the military and you can’t get elsewhere. The federal government defined what they consider an assault weapon and that’s what the federal law is based off of. Makes it clear cut and everybody is on the same page.

Why not treat the out-of-bounds problem like the game using a teleport?(vaguely, how the game tries to find a viable path between current and future location)

If you stop time when a player uses a teleport/movement skill, could you(in any amount of time) using only jumping(without a macro) and walking(with or without swiftness) get to the same place?

Based on Molten Furnace leap, people wanted to allow things like that so we don’t need define “out-of-bounds”.

@Enko:

The problem isn’t that rules are being applied inconsistently. It’s that the rules don’t match what people actually want. There is literally zero reason to vote about “how restricted rules should be applied” because that’s crystal clear (extremely restrictive rule set).

I still don’t understand why would you need a framework for voting. What’s the point of voting if we first define how everyone should vote? What’s the point of whole framework if it can’t be enforced or if it’s so broad that it doesn’t mean anything?

The current approach is to make general rules. As I have mentioned before, there will be zero exceptions or special case rules. Lupicus oneshot and CMP3 Airgun will be allowed next week unless someone can think of a general rule to ban them.

Wethospu.6437:

Based on Molten Furnace leap, people wanted to allow things like that so we don’t need define “out-of-bounds”.

---

@Enko:

The problem isn’t that rules are being applied inconsistently. It’s that the rules don’t match what people actually want. There is literally zero reason to vote about “how restricted rules should be applied” because that’s crystal clear (extremely restrictive rule set).

I still don’t understand why would you need a framework for voting. What’s the point of voting if we first define how everyone should vote? What’s the point of whole framework if it can’t be enforced or if it’s so broad that it doesn’t mean anything?

The current approach is to make general rules. As I have mentioned before, there will be zero exceptions or special case rules. Lupicus oneshot and CMP3 Airgun will be allowed next week unless someone can think of a general rule to ban them.

So we are doing what I said last week and just throwing out the rules (which is what the framework is) and just voting on individual issues however we see fit. Got it.

What we’re doing is not making general rules. Everything we’ve been voting on have been specific issues that the rules already covered except people decided to not vote according to the rules.

Just do the three things that I requested and it would solve the ambiguity between us.

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.

Not a problem because it’s how the voting went. I’m personally on record saying I’m opposed to the Arahp3 door philosophically, but when this has been voted on multiple times it’s always been allowed by the community so I accept that.

If you are personally opposed to it, then why when its up for a vote to where you can express your personal opinion do you just vote with everybody else?

So far the only issues I see are:

1) You want to change your previous votes.

2) You don’t like how people have voted.

Unfortunately I have to inform you that this is how democracy works. Everything won’t go exactly as you would like.

I honestly wish you could cooperate with the chosen approach instead of trying to figure out issues with no practical solution. While the current approach may have some issues tearing the whole thing apart isn’t helpful.

Regards the things you requested.

No, I still can’t enforce people to vote some way. People can vote what they want so defining a framework is pointless.

What an event is will be refined/decided in next weeks. Please have some patience. With voting and planning these things won’t happen instantly.

Where I haven’t hold to what has been decided? Do you say we should have a vote whether I’m reliable or not? At least I see a comment like that as a serious lack of trust.

You’re not reading or understanding any of my posts fully if you think those are the two issues that I’m presenting.

I’ll go along with the current approach. I’m going to point out here though that the non resolution of what I said about there being no broad definition of what Restricted is supposed to be is going to make a lot more work for us.

I am not asking you to enforce people vote some way. No where have I asked that. I have pointed out that people vote inconsistently or not in accordance with the current rules. I have asked that we clear up what Restricted is so we’re all voting with the same understanding because at the moment we’re not. We have some people voting with the crowd, we have some people voting with whatever they like to do, and we have some people voting according to what Restricted originally was. There’s a difference in this just because we don’t have that broad statement. If you think I’m the one making this difficult, then just come up with a broad statement on what Restricted is. The way things are going, its just going to be Unrestricted with no boss skips.

Do people even realize that the first step in defining what we wanted in Restricted was the first thing we did when we originally set up the rules so we knew the general idea the rest of the rules would follow? That’s the crux of what I’ve been saying. Cookie understood that that was the base issue which is why that was the first thing that we discussed way back when before we decided any of the rules. We don’t have that first step in defining what we want in Restricted written down which is why since we moved from gwscr to DnT forums to gw2dungeons.net things have been loosening up and we’ve been devolving into the increasing use of exploits to get faster times. I like seeing these in records because they are interesting to watch. I am onboard with you guys on all of that but they are outside what Restricted was originally supposed to be and we probably need to change or write down whatever we want Restricted to represent. Everything is stemming from this and why there’s so much pushback in just making a simple statement is astounding.

As I said earlier, making a simple statement like this would make a huge difference and the following seems like its what people want. All I took out was the words “as it was intended” and this resolves the pushback I have against allowing what feels like exploits or unintended things that are being done.

Restricted ruleset (or whatever we call it)is governed by a set of rules which requires players to complete most if not all parts of the dungeon while the Unrestricted ruleset has relaxed rules allowing players to do anything in the dungeon to complete it as fast as possible.

Even with a broad statement we would still have decide about same things. Only thing which would reduce work is cutting corners (decide stuff on my own or try to manipulate the result). I don’t see we are in any hurry and whether this whole process takes 1 or 4 more weeks doesn’t make much difference.

I still fail to see any issues except that you don’t like how people have been voting. Different people have different reasons for their votes. Their reasoning may make no sense but it’s still their opinion. That’s completely normal and expected. There are no right or wrong answers here.

GWSCR allowed Arah P3 door which is pretty clearly against what Anet intended which invalidates their broad statement. I see no reason to try enforce something which wasn’t even hold up in the first place. Also if people wanted ultra-restrictive rule set, that would be seen on their voting behavior.

We would still be voting on the same things. The context of the votes are different though. That’s the only thing that I’m trying to clear up.

I would actually have been voting the same way as everybody else as I stated many times since I think the things people have come up with are interesting to watch. I just want the premise of things to be made clear.

I still get the feeling that if you think I just don’t like how people have been voting is the issue that you haven’t been reading my posts at all . ..

Everyone who votes would interpret the “mission statement” however they want and vote however they want. which is exactly how it is now?

I’m not even going to bother anymore. It’s a waste of my time to formulate and present a discussion when my posts aren’t even being read.

We’ll just continue with the weekly voting.

As harsh as it sounds, if your posts don’t initially make sense they suddenly won’t gain any value when you repeat them over and over. I have read them multiple times trying to understand but I simply don’t see any sense.

If there was a discussion about what’s right and what’s wrong then it would be very important that everyone was on the same level so they would argue about the same thing.

But here we don’t have right or wrong answers, just opinions. Everyone can vote what they want with any reason they want. Because of this it’s not simply possible to have any context.

If you want to change your vote I can open any poll you want.

They do make sense to me. People have different ideas of what restricted is supposed to be. That does influence some votes to a certain degree. I dont see whats so hard about making a broad statement describing what each ruleset is supposed to be. You can literally just copy the old ones and adjust them slightly and be done. Wont change anything now or in immediate votes. But it will be helpful with clarity on the role of a ruleset in future votes.

Yes, people have different ideas. Why is that a problem?

Ok, here is the broad statement. As Nike said:

“Restricted ruleset is what you want it to be.”

Everyone satisfied now?

Well thats better than not having one so yes. :>

You could always rename the rulsets to: “So exploitive it physically pains Arenanet devs to watch” and “Only a little bit exploitive so we’ll call it creativity”.