Guild Wars 2

Everyone will quit or just move to open world content?

Feedback requires a target. No mention of ground target consecrations as baseline anymore. Looks like they may have semi fixed lupi 1 shot through skill nerfs. Curtain is unreliable for a full 1 shot. Problem solved?

spoj.9672:

Feedback requires a target. No mention of ground target consecrations as baseline anymore. Looks like they may have semi fixed lupi 1 shot through skill nerfs. Curtain is unreliable for a full 1 shot. Problem solved?

Time for engi elixir meta. :3

spoj.9672:

Feedback requires a target. No mention of ground target consecrations as baseline anymore. Looks like they may have semi fixed lupi 1 shot through skill nerfs. Curtain is unreliable for a full 1 shot. Problem solved?

On the previous trait change preview, they basically said if there’s not a trait for it anymore it will be baseline. They might not have mentioned it again since it didn’t really change from last time. The Blasting Staff baseline change isn’t mentioned again either.

Thats true but they did mention others. And i can see them removing it. As far as I know it wasnt really used much other than in PvE so it wouldnt be the worst idea in the world. Its a bandaid solution but it works. The fact that they did it with feedback and the quote suggests that lupi is the reason for that change. It makes me think its quite likely for guard as well.

Enko.6123:

Wethospu.6437:

Yes, I read your arguments but did you read mine? Did you answer any of my concerns about how your idea would practically work? No, you kept posting the same thing over and over and then started complaining how no one reads your posts. Basic reddit level discussion.

Umm I actually replied to your posts when you said anything . .. I even gave examples of suggested wordings on rules, suggested restricted ruleset intent statements, etc. Again, I just get the feeling you didn’t read any of them if you’re making this statement.

Just because you can type it out doesn’t mean it would actually work. If you can’t see how pointless the statement would be when no one had to follow it or could interpret it as they want, there isn’t much I can do. You have even proved yourself that people will vote whatever they want.

Wethospu.6437:

That’s a quite interesting perspective considering you are doing these speedruns. You need this service, not me. You must be extremely confident that DnT can handle this better than I do when you are so openly against the system.

I don’t think anyone minded when gwscr.com was running it or when DnT was posting it on their forums.

I am not openly against the system. I am openly against approved records that aren’t held to the posted ruleset or everything else that I mentioned during the Week 24 discussion thread. Again, are you reading the posts at all or ignoring them?

I’m certain you didn’t. It’s amazing how some of you think that your opinion equals “will of the community”. Not to mention constant attempts to break or manipulate the process.

If you really saw no value in just having a base statement of what Restricted was supposed to be, then why do you do the same thing for gw2dungeons.net under the General Section for the “What’s This” part? All I was asking for a similar thing. If you couldn’t understand that, then I’m not sure what else to say about that.

I didn’t say my opinion equals “the will of the community”. I was stating my own opinion in response to your comment. Please stop placing words in my mouth. If I was trying to state my opinion as the will of the community, I would have used words like “the community didn’t mind”.

But sure keep on attacking me since I was the only one attempting have a discussion on this.

Wethospu.6437:

I’m certain you didn’t. It’s amazing how some of you think that your opinion equals “will of the community”. Not to mention constant attempts to break or manipulate the process.

I also don’t see how attempting to get people to abide to the posted ruleset would be constant attempts to break or manipulate the process or asking that we have some kind of stated viewpoint of what Restricted is supposed to be is attempting to manipulate the process.

The constant loosening of the rules, if anything, is what caused the breakdown in the process.

Wethospu.6437:

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.

I’m going to point this out from the previous discussion. You’re the one that asked. Maybe we should have a vote then.

If you want be pedantic please note that I never stated that specifically you think your opinion equals “will of the community”.

There is a thing called constructive criticism. Constantly nagging about the same minor thing over and over isn’t constructive.

So poll for the next week:

Who should handle the administration of record runs?

A: Wethospu

B: Enko

Anyone else wants to participate?

Weth, you’ve done an amazing job with the website. The features are really superb. The approvers have done a good job approving the records timely.

The criticism I have is that we have been constantly tweaking the ruleset for what seems like months. Constant votes. Constant changes. This is tedious. Voting on issues or having a community meeting is something that should happen rarely, and only out of necessity when there is a major controversy. I appreciate that you have been an excellent arbiter of the rules, but I don’t know that what we need is endless confusion and uncertainty. What I am advocating is a hands-off approach for rules management, where changes to the rules are only made out of necessity or from obvious need. When was the last time someone posted a restricted record run that caused true controversy? Molten Facility? That’s a quick vote to resolve and be done. Before that? I can’t remember one. What I am getting at is, there isn’t enough controversy and dispute to justify the tweaking and adjustment that has happened.

Again, I think you have done a great job with the website and I would vastly prefer you continued to do so rather than anyone else take over that job. But I think, except in case of real controversy, that we don’t need to be revising the rules more than once or twice a year. And even in the case of controversy, a simple vote on whatever that particular issue is would suffice.

Wethospu.6437:

If you want be pedantic please note that I never stated that specifically you think your opinion equals “will of the community”.

There is a thing called constructive criticism. Constantly nagging about the same minor thing over and over isn’t constructive.

I don’t consider not having a general statement of what Restricted is supposed to be as minor since pretty much most of the issues recently have stemmed from the lack of one since we switched off of gwscr. That simple statement is what kept the rules in line of each other for the most part. Once you have that baseline, that’s when people voted on exceptions or special cases.

Agree with Nike. Main issue at the moment is the constant tweaking. For anyone working on records, there’s no point atm since whatever they’re working on might no longer be allowed or something that was previously banned is allowed the following week.

Only problem I had before is that you just seem to dismiss issues that are brought up if you didn’t think they were important. Pretty much everything I had posted in the previous weeks was an attempt to get this simplified down instead of the constant tweaks. Laying the foundation by defining the differences between restricted vs unrestricted, would have resolved some base issues. What’s the difference between resticted vs unresticted? If you can answer that, then that’s pretty much what I’m asking for. Your posted statement that “Restricted ruleset is what you want it to be” pretty much means its a free for all and we might as well get rid of Unrestricted vs Restricted.

I had asked for a definition of what people were considering events. This would have covered most of the issues since blockades, NPC interactions, etc could be considered events or are people only considering events things that show up like dynamic events. Defining this would have resolved most of the issues we were voting on.

These two things would have resolved or at least laid the foundation for everything else but all you did was ridicule it or dismiss it and then come up with ridiculous statements like “restricted ruleset is what you want it to be”.

spoj.9672:

Curtain is unreliable for a full 1 shot. Problem solved?

Hmm, doubt it. I’ve 1 shot lupi 99% of the time when I used curtain. I don’t think it’s any more difficult than dropping WoR, just have to be a bit more precise on the placement (top of the wall, not the side like you could with WoR).

NoTrigger.8396:

i dont understand this drama. as soon as HoT is released nobody will care about dungeons or speedruns anymore.

Implying people cared about them before HoT was released.

A proposition:
Keep the voting pace free flowing with the discussions and regulated by Weth, but set fixed dates when changes actually come in effect. For example: we may debate on issues for 3 months and only at the end of these months the changes actually take effect. This way record setters can compete without the anxiety of having their work nullified unexpectedly.

As for the pace of the voting, I am not involved in the process but I feel like a lot of issues were brought up and significant changes in the context called for rapid action. We can consider the high number of polls that took place as a burst caused by radical changes in the system. Things will calm down once the guiding lines are set. Honestly I don’t think that there will be rules to vote on every single week, so let’s not judge too quickly and let’s not assume that record rule setting will continue to be as demanding as it appears to be now.

I find wisdom in the thoughts of Enko: it would be very useful for record setters as well as voters to know what is the general meaning of Restricted. However, I find it very hard to conceive a statement that is broad enough and clear enough at the same time. Therefore I agree with the view that Restricted should be what you want it to be – in the sense that we all have some idea (more or less defined) of what Restricted should be and what it should not be (Unrestricted). A statement on this matter can only be subjective, because Restricted is only defined in opposition to Unrestricted. Just like “good” is only defined in opposition to “bad”.

This all would have been really great 4 weeks ago. At this point I’m getting pretty tired of reading walls of text when their essence is more or less this:

“I don’t like how people are voting, let’s close this or just do as I say”

That’s perfectly fine. But why do you have to cover it up with all kind of excuses? This whole thing would be less tedious and faster if we could actually focus on the real issues.

Without any this trouble, I would say we would have been done this week. Now I would estimate 2 more weeks after this one.

How about “only bring up items for votes if there is a genuine debate within the community”?

For example, at the meetings it was settled that NPC death and teleport manipulation was allowed. Why are we voting again on this? There is no new impetus for rehashing this topic as far as I can see. It’s a good example of an unnecessary voting topic since we are basically discussing an issue that was settled long ago.

NikeEU.7690:

How about “only bring up items for votes if there is a genuine debate within the community”?

For example, at the meetings it was settled that NPC death and teleport manipulation was allowed. Why are we voting again on this? There is no new impetus for rehashing this topic as far as I can see. It’s a good example of an unnecessary voting topic since we are basically discussing an issue that was settled long ago.

I dont remember this being discussed in the meeting. There is no rule mentioning NPC or cutscene manipulation currently which is why it was brought up. This particular issue is more about clarifying things. People have voted to continue allowing it. So thats fine.

Just be grateful Weth is actually going through the effort of these votes even if its just to clarify and confirm old decisions. Its not a big deal to click a few votes once a week.

spoj.9672:

NikeEU.7690:

How about “only bring up items for votes if there is a genuine debate within the community”?

For example, at the meetings it was settled that NPC death and teleport manipulation was allowed. Why are we voting again on this? There is no new impetus for rehashing this topic as far as I can see. It’s a good example of an unnecessary voting topic since we are basically discussing an issue that was settled long ago.

I dont remember this being discussed in the meeting. There is no rule mentioning NPC or cutscene manipulation currently which is why it was brought up.

There is no rule currently because you dont need a rule to say you’re allowed to do something. There would only be a rule if that thing was banned. And yes, it was discussed and allowed and has been allowed for years. No need to debate it again.

No need to debate coe door, arah p3 door, lupi wall, cm guns or anything else. These are all issues that have been voted and decided on in the past and there was no good reason to unsettle these topics.

Yeah but thats a problem in itself. These things are borderline exploity. When i think of the restricted ruleset i expect things like that to possibly be banned. So when its not clarified in the rules and i dont remember an old decision made by the community im going to bring it up.

spoj.9672:

Yeah but thats a problem in itself. These things are borderline exploity. When i think of the restricted ruleset i expect things like that to possibly be banned. So when its not clarified in the rules and i dont remember an old decision made by the community im going to bring it up.

Not necessary to vote again. These things have been accepted for years and, yes, it was voted in a meeting. Specifically was discussed in regards to SEp3 records when intentionally killing the NPC at the car was found to speed it up considerably. We voted that it was allowed to let the npc die to speed it up. You don’t remember, I get it. But every time you forget something we get to have a new vote? It’s a permissive rule set. Banned things are banned. Allowed things do not need to be enumerated or listed.

If i dont know what i should and shouldnt be approving then its an issue. Doesnt necessarily need a vote in all cases i admit. But the NPC thing became a lot more abundant recently so its good to clarify if people are still ok with it.

Well thats just the problem. I dont agree that we need “clarification” votes to “refresh” issues that have been long settled unless the sentiment has changed. And if your response is “we needed the vote to gauge the sentiment” then my position is “if there is no debate / conflict over the rule then there is no need to worry about the sentiment.”

There is a saying in baseball here that the best umpire is the one you don’t even notice is there.

Effort to revote: <30 seconds.

Effort to debate endlessly about irrelevant things: >30 minutes.

To cut the chase, the voting will continue, for now.

In future I may decide rules by myself. Some of the opinions are really stupid, narrow and short-sighted so I may have to step up to protect you guys from yourselves.

(ok, last part wasn’t 100% serious)

again, we somehow managed to get along more or less fine without weekly voting on minutiae and semantics. No one is asking you to allow people to exploit the rules. If someone posts a new record and they do some new strategy that appears to be shady or questionable to quite a few people we can vote then as needed. What we don’t need to do is vote weekly to decide about allowing Lupicus walling when that issue was addressed and settled. You are trying to reduce uncertainty, but there wasnt any uncertainty until all this voting started happening.

1) Community votes for exception A.
2) Community votes for rule B to reduce the amount of voting required.
3) Weth explains that rule B conflicts with exception A.
4) Weth proposes rule C, which is like rule B but does not conflict with A.

#Uncertainty #Atrocious #rTconspiracy

Just vote for rule C, your ordeal will soon be over

First, this is just a beautiful situation. I’m sad I missed it last night.

But yeah, this is all why I liked the idea of just leaving it in Weth’s hands the best. Let him do his thing. If someone has a problem with a decision he makes, ya’ll come up with an alternative and then let people vote. Makes it nice and easy for everyone but Weth

Since people are actually reading this thread, I’m going to try to explain again why a statement on what Restricted is is needed. I’ll try to keep it short for the people who can’t or refuse to read walls of text.

Previously, all of our rules were held up to the philosophy of “is this intended or not”. If we felt it wasn’t, then generally it was banned. If people still wanted to allow it, then that’s when it was discussed and that’s what we voted on before. All of our rules prior were measured with that wicket first.

It explains why dodge ice bows was not allowed.
It explains why CM P3 air gun usage was not allowed.
It explains why Lupi 1 shot on wall was not allowed (in addition to it not being fun to watch).
Things like the Arah p3 door skip were discussed, measured against that, and then people decided to vote on it but it was at least measured against the “was it intended” philosophy at first.

We don’t have that now. Restricted is now whatever you want it to be. We have nothing to base our rules against beyond “I feel like doing this”. This isn’t a minor or irrelevant thing. It’s the foundation that the ruleset is predicated on.

Ok, thanks for the clarification

I am wondering though: what if we come across a tactic that does not appear to be intended but that we majoritarily want to allow as a community?

But why was FGS allowed? I find it hard to discern between IB targetting manipulation and FGS where you had to change your options settings and lure the boss into a wall.

I think there’s always been far more opinion involved than you’re admitting. Sure it’d be measured against “was it intended” then people would just twist the meanings until it could all work. Kinda defeats the purpose of having a measuring stick so to speak if you’re just going to bend it till you get the answer you wanted anyways.

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

Ok, thanks for the clarification

I am wondering though: what if we come across a tactic that does not appear to be intended but that we majoritarily want to allow as a community?

Like NPC manipulation?

FGS was considered fine because it was working as the skill intended. We had the blink FGS exploit banned. But regular FGS against a wall was considered legit (devs even said it was fine but op when asked during tequatl etc). It was broken but there was no suggestion it was anything other than a design oversight. The same could be said for line casting and lupi 1 shot. Im guessing people have just become goody goodies since then.

Jerus.4350:

But why was FGS allowed? I find it hard to discern between IB targetting manipulation and FGS where you had to change your options settings and lure the boss into a wall.

I think there’s always been far more opinion involved than you’re admitting. Sure it’d be measured against “was it intended” then people would just twist the meanings until it could all work. Kinda defeats the purpose of having a measuring stick so to speak if you’re just going to bend it till you get the answer you wanted anyways.

It’s just a baseline thing to measure things against initially. It’s not something that sets things in stone. It still leaves room for discussion but allows us to at least have a starting point on if something that should be allowed or not. As I said, it just forms a foundation.

There was definitely discussion for all of those. I haven’t denied that there wasn’t.

I’m not even saying that we should still include the “as intended” thing because people have already moved away from that. Basically we need a statement that separates Restricted vs Unrestricted at this point.

spoj.9672:

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

Ok, thanks for the clarification

I am wondering though: what if we come across a tactic that does not appear to be intended but that we majoritarily want to allow as a community?

Like NPC manipulation?

FGS was considered fine because it was working as the skill intended. We had the blink FGS exploit banned. But regular FGS against a wall was considered legit (devs even said it was fine but op when asked during tequatl etc). It was broken but there was no suggestion it was anything other than a design oversight. The same could be said for line casting and lupi 1 shot. Im guessing people have just become goody goodies since then.

So it wasn’t intended, but ok, because “that’s how it worked”

My point was just to say that I think this idea of consistency can’t really happen when we can’t even consistently say what is and isn’t intended. Devs can’t either if they actually thought “it was fine” but then change it and any ability that works similarly (/mourn burning speed/retreat).

So if people want a blanket statement. I’d just put : “This ruleset is to create a more competitive and fun system in which we can play” or something like that. Because, well, all “restricted” really is, a set of rules people came up with so they didn’t have to do those things to compete for the speed run title. Making them not really speed runs but a superior competitive PVE scene.

Jerus.4350:

superior competitive PVE scene.

Sounds classy

Jerus.4350:

a superior competitive PVE scene.

What about, “Exploits that we’re unsure about so we’ll call it creativity and hope no one notices”?

SlyDevil.3952:

Jerus.4350:

a superior competitive PVE scene.

What about, “Exploits that we’re unsure about so we’ll call it creativity and hope no one notices”?

Ohh, I like this one, I choose that.

Jerus.4350:

So if people want a blanket statement. I’d just put : “This ruleset is to create a more competitive and fun system in which we can play” or something like that. Because, well, all “restricted” really is, a set of rules people came up with so they didn’t have to do those things to compete for the speed run title. Making them not really speed runs but a superior competitive PVE scene.

I’m fine with that statement. All this does is clarify that we’re moving away from the previous statement of “as it was intended” so we’re all on the same page. That’s all I’ve been asking for.

Jerus.4350:

spoj.9672:

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

Ok, thanks for the clarification

I am wondering though: what if we come across a tactic that does not appear to be intended but that we majoritarily want to allow as a community?

Like NPC manipulation?

FGS was considered fine because it was working as the skill intended. We had the blink FGS exploit banned. But regular FGS against a wall was considered legit (devs even said it was fine but op when asked during tequatl etc). It was broken but there was no suggestion it was anything other than a design oversight. The same could be said for line casting and lupi 1 shot. Im guessing people have just become goody goodies since then.

So it wasn’t intended, but ok, because “that’s how it worked”

My point was just to say that I think this idea of consistency can’t really happen when we can’t even consistently say what is and isn’t intended. Devs can’t either if they actually thought “it was fine” but then change it and any ability that works similarly (/mourn burning speed/retreat).

So if people want a blanket statement. I’d just put : “This ruleset is to create a more competitive and fun system in which we can play” or something like that. Because, well, all “restricted” really is, a set of rules people came up with so they didn’t have to do those things to compete for the speed run title. Making them not really speed runs but a superior competitive PVE scene.

This is exactly why im against the whole restricted thing. And complex rules which create inconsistencies and the need for exceptions.

That’s the nice thing though, everyone can have an opinion and if enough agree, then you’re not forced to do something you don’t like.

Don’t like speed goating, well if everyone agrees not to have goating part of the competition.

Don’t like Lupisploit, we can vote on that. Don’t like Consumables, we can vote on that. Etc Etc.

I think there are very valid reasons that a lot of the rules are what they are if you look at it from a competitive viewpoint as far as trying to build the community.

Yeah thats a fair point. But some areas have pretty even splits on opinions. And others simply have certain things which people are against in one instance but for in another. #logic

Anyway i feel like Weth is doing a good job. The votes are fine as they are for now. Once things are ironed out and clear we wont have anything to vote on. I see that as a good thing. Better now rather than when the problems appear.

spoj.9672:

Yeah thats a fair point. But some areas have pretty even splits on opinions. And others simply have certain things which people are against in one instance but for in another. #logic

Anyway i feel like Weth is doing a good job. The votes are fine as they are for now. Once things are ironed out and clear we wont have anything to vote on. I see that as a good thing. Better now rather than when the problems appear.

Yup, people are inconsistent, go figure

I think even inconsistent rules are fine in the context that it’s better than allowing just anything. As I don’t think any of us want it to be a situation where you are to load up all your TP booster, have all the consumables, learn where to escape the map to skip around and all that junk of “everything goes.”

But, yeah I trust Weth, though I think he’s taking the approach that involves a lot more work. I’d have just posted the rules, and told anyone that had a problem “ok, you form a poll question, and mediate the discussion on it, and we’ll see how it turns out” forcing them to do the work… but then again, I’m quite lazy.

It’s nice that you are against restricted for whatever reason. But when was the last time you did a record? Why didn’t you do one?

And as I said earlier: from the point of view of someone who actually competes, we don’t need a standard ruleset that you can lay over a record and then you have an automatic decision, allowed or not allowed. We don’t need to cover everything. If an issue arises we can talk about that and ban or allow it for future reference.

I don’t get how people are still talking about Arah p3 gate or CoE door when “we” voted about that exact thing 2 weeks ago. I know it’s not in the poll, but for some reason people still discuss it.

That being said, I want Weth to continue doing this, the site looks awesome, etc. But it feels like you are starting votes for the sake of discussion. And I don’t like how some things are worded, if you ask “general rules or exceptions?” of course most people are going to vote for general rules, because that would be ideal. But is it actually achievable? And again, as I said earlier, I don’t need a consistent ruleset, I want a ruleset that is fun, fair and competitive. And if it needs 10+ path specific rules, so be it.

Yes, that first week was partly my mistake since I have never ran a community poll system. I naturally expected some careless voting, etc. but didn’t realize people would rather vote something which they don’t understand at all instead of asking.

It’s normal that some stuff being voted feels pointless. There are lots of people involved so what someone finds trivial can be a big issue for someone else.

Cheezy.2039:

It’s nice that you are against restricted for whatever reason. But when was the last time you did a record? Why didn’t you do one?

And as I said earlier: from the point of view of someone who actually competes, we don’t need a standard ruleset that you can lay over a record and then you have an automatic decision, allowed or not allowed. We don’t need to cover everything. If an issue arises we can talk about that and ban or allow it for future reference.

I don’t get how people are still talking about Arah p3 gate or CoE door when “we” voted about that exact thing 2 weeks ago. I know it’s not in the poll, but for some reason people still discuss it.

---

That being said, I want Weth to continue doing this, the site looks awesome, etc. But it feels like you are starting votes for the sake of discussion. And I don’t like how some things are worded, if you ask “general rules or exceptions?” of course most people are going to vote for general rules, because that would be ideal. But is it actually achievable? And again, as I said earlier, I don’t need a consistent ruleset, I want a ruleset that is fun, fair and competitive. And if it needs 10+ path specific rules, so be it.

If you’re referring to me, don’t worry, I have no delusions of thinking my opinion matters. I have no voting rights and I don’t want them, I very much respect the people who are involved in the competition. I voice my opinions simply as an outsider, someone who used to participate in this type of gaming in my past games. Whether you find my voice constructive or not, welp, honestly I don’t really care. I mean I’d hope it is, but if you feel otherwise, well, that’s fine.

I actually see what the Restricted ruleset has done as a good thing. I don’t consider them Speed Runs because well, they aren’t. They aren’t as fast as you can go, and I don’t see how you could possibly argue against that. But, they are creating a better playing field for a competitive PVE scene. Something I admire, something I thought was pretty kitten cool that happened in this game. The last Record I set was in DCUO abusing the most OP powersets in every area, the DPS being just ridiculously overpowered, such that I don’t think even our shoddy run could have been matched with anything apart from the same composition (our record was 1minute off of what we knew was achievable had most everyone played better, I actually had an uncharacteristic perfect run, something I gave my superior friends no end of grief about But that’s tangential).

My point is, I respect the Restricted runs, but I think people are lying to themselves about it, thinking it’s void of exploits. No, it’s just void of the conditions the community decides are unacceptable. That’s it, that’s all, nothing more. At the same time though, I think it’s silly to care about what is and isn’t an exploit. We’re smart enough to find ways of doing things that are beyond what is intended. Do you think they intended to have lupi blow up in the second phase to a well coordinated burst + feedback? Hell no, they wouldn’t have spent the time to make such a good fight and third phase if that was their intention. Do you think they intended for us to have the power to kill the Spider Queen before it even actually materialized, again, KITTEN NO. That’d be the dumbest design in the history of gaming (ok, I admit to hyperbole there).

But all that doesn’t’ matter. The community in this game has come up with a way to make a fun competition. And that’s all that matters. I think we need to embrace THAT, not try to put blinders on as if what we’re doing is completely intended and we’re some righteous group that’s just excellent at the game. No, we’re, or more so, you all are, just great players, and you restrict yourselves to make it more fun, something that’s commendable. I bow to you all as a fan, but I hate to see people deluding themselves. That’s all.

Make the competition fun, make it something you want to do, make it something others want to do. Grow it, cultivate it, It’s really something great, that I haven’t seen in 15 years of gaming. And quite frankly, GW2 needs this type of thing to keep the fun alive for the more hardcore. It’s a great thing you all are doing… just don’t lie to yourselves is all.

Not going to touch on every point, but FYI I didn’t mean you specifically but rather everyone who opposes restricted in this thread.

Restricted is not void of exploits. Restricted is not “what ANet intended”. Restricted is our rule set, as a community. Not more, not less. Which is also why not one individual should handle the rules on his own but the people who participate vote on the rules.

Couldn’t agree more. And, as a note, keep bringing me entertaining races, you guys are great.

Jerus.4350:

Band FGS where you had to change your options settings and lure the boss into a wall.

Implying normal people didn’t already have that setting turned off before FGS

The Mexican Cookie.3690:

Jerus.4350:

Band FGS where you had to change your options settings and lure the boss into a wall.

Implying normal people didn’t already have that setting turned off before FGS

True, I hated FGS, but I use the same settings

But, to imply that dodging back after triggering Ice Bow is somehow worse… well I can’t help but feel that’s a bit disingenuous. To me you were in no way exploiting the game’s mechanics any more.

Before this week ends, I would like to remind that the poll about exceptions was reopened. Compared to the amount of discussion, not many people have changed their vote. As a reminder, voting for option B (“Wethospu decides based on rules”) allows stuff like wall-on-wall on Lupicus and air guns on CMP3. Also currently no option has at least 50% of votes.

I know people get tired of constant changes and voting so I try to complete this next week. I think rules about boss/enemy/event/encounter bugging/manipulation still need clarification.

Currently rules state:

11.) Preventing any enemy from attacking you is banned. This includes but is not limited to safespotting, abusing terrain to make all enemy attacks miss, breaking the enemy AI with a line of sighting or attacking immobile enemies through walls.

a . Abusing of event scripts is banned. This includes but is not limited to manipulating event spawns, disabling event mechanics, etc. All cutscenes within a dungeon that are relevant to the path must be triggered.

b . Abusing of path selection is allowed.

The big problem is that there are quite many ways to break stuff and rules should clearly ban those without affecting the legit stuff. For example:

1) Enemy shoots stuff, I move behind a rock, stuff hits rock instead of me, I move back

2) Enemy bounces towards me, I jump to a coral tree, bounces won’t hit me, I drop down

What’s the line between safespotting and active usage of terrain?

If exceptions become allowed this gets bit easier though. I think “Enemies must try to attack you at all times, except when controlled” would ban most cases.

About events, does anyone situations which manipulate event spawns or disable event mechanics? With voting there isn’t really any need to create future-proof rules.