Guild Wars 2

Description

Simple voting system has been added to http://gw2dungeons.net/Voting. Each week I will create a discussion topic on forums and add relevant polls there, if needed. Guild leaders are given an account which can be used to vote. Polls stay up for one week.

Guild leaders can apply for a vote by sending me your preferred login name and reason why you should have a vote (was in previous rule meetings, have records, etc.) via in-game, forums or email. Optionally you can also give me your email so I can send a reminder about new polls if there hasn’t been any for a while.

Current vote holders:

• Daemoniic [HeX]
• Enko [LOD]
• Deathly [qT]
• Skywalker [TDN]
• Der/p/y Moa [vC]
• Ashlee [geek]
• Jerem [SC]
• Nikephoros [DnT]
• Sanderinoa [rT]
• Veckna [QQ]
• Senior Magic [iG]
• Juliverine [Yoga]

Keep in mind that anyone is free to give their opinion and ideas on this topic!

Results of week 26 voting

60% wanted to keep the current record resetting stance, “reset records which can’t be realistically beaten”.

Issue1: Bugged traits and skills

With the new patch lots of bugs have appeared without any indication when they get fixed. To keep things rolling, we need to deal with these cases on our own.

A) Ban usage of any traits and skill which give any undocumented benefit

• Consistent
• Less voting
• Little bugs can have severe effects (for example a minor trait giving 1 additional power would ban the trait line completely)

B) Let Wethospu ban traits and skills

• Less voting
• Can’t affect the result
• Can be inconsistent

C) Vote for each case

• More voting
• Can affect the result
• Can be inconsistent

D) Allow any bugged traits and skills

• Big bugs can have severe effects
• Allows “broken” runs on all time records

Issue 2: Record resetting procedure

Some people suggested that records should be reseted arbitrarily (“whenever there’s significant enough changes”). So another vote with different options.

A) Keep the current stance. Never reset a record if it can be realistically beaten.

B) Also reset when changes are significant. Let Wethospu decide what’s “significant”.

• Less voting
• Can’t affect the result
• Can be inconsistent

C) Also reset when changes are significant. Vote to decide what’s “significant”.

• More voting
• Can affect the result
• Can be inconsistent

Keep in mind that only half a week to vote. I will extend the time if I see lots of votes missing.

By the way, is:

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.

still relevant?

Guard Wall trait manipulation is a thing of the past with the standardization of “consecrated Grounds” Can mesmer still manipulate it? Regardless seems like the rule should still apply just the examples may not hold true any longer.

Wethospu.6437:

A) Ban usage of any traits and skill which give any undocumented benefit

By undocumented, do you mean not listed in the in game tooltip or in patch notes? There’s quite a few quirks with skills that aren’t documented that are just how those skills work or because Anet forgot to update the tooltip..

Wethospu.6437:

By the way, is:

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.

still relevant?

It still works with other skills that modify abilities. The examples used are no longer valid though.

Any official documentation is fine.

Concerning record resetting, I believe consistency is the way to go. Given a full wipe was done for the might nerf which hardly impacted the game when compared to the increased damage that basically every profession is doing in the current patch plus the mobility nerfs which will be felt the most in paths with long skips such as Arah, it would be wrong not to reset now based on that precedent.

The only thing Im worry about Issue 1 is that the entire Fire Magic trait line is giving an undocumented additional 150 power just by having it selected. It would be fairly ludicrous to ban Elementalists from using the entire Fire Magic traitline, if we went with the strict wording of the rule, which is what you have indicated in the past you wish to do.

Yes, as mentioned at the original post (I’m bit curious, does anyone read it?).

Well hopefully you don’t let strict rules interpretations interfere with common sense.

The entire reason we are having these votes is this “common sense” which made lots of people wonder what rules and decisions actually mean when they are enforced based on “common sense”.

And in case you haven’t still noticed, you guys are making these decisions, not me. There is an option for case by case if people want that.

I think case-by-case makes the most sense. Fire Magic is fine, although they’ll probably do something about that 150 Power at some point. Meanwhile, Symbolic Avenger and Grenadier are not fine.

I still think we should do a reset for the June 23 patch, but I’m not sure what everyone else thinks or if they think there has been enough time since patch to see if it’s “changed enough” (I think it has).

As for rule 10, just keep the rule but get rid of the examples.

Wethospu.6437:

The entire reason we are having these votes is this “common sense” which made lots of people wonder what rules and decisions actually mean when they are enforced based on “common sense”.

And in case you haven’t still noticed, you guys are making these decisions, not me. There is an option for case by case if people want that.

Maybe instead of including an option that would outright ban Fire Magic, you figure out how to word it to allow Fire Magic but not allow things like Symbolic Avenger spam or Grenadier? Otherwise now we have the following options for issue 1…

1. turn the ruleset into a joke and ruin the game
2. let you dictate the rules
3. never-ending votes. votes about votes.
4. turn the ruleset into a joke and ruin the game

3 is the only option that doesn’t result in ruining the ruleset. So that begs the following questions: why are you even including options in the vote that would ruin the game? Why include poison pill options?

Because it’s funny?

NikeEU.7690:

Wethospu.6437:

The entire reason we are having these votes is this “common sense” which made lots of people wonder what rules and decisions actually mean when they are enforced based on “common sense”.

And in case you haven’t still noticed, you guys are making these decisions, not me. There is an option for case by case if people want that.

Maybe instead of including an option that would outright ban Fire Magic, you figure out how to word it to allow Fire Magic but not allow things like Symbolic Avenger spam or Grenadier? Otherwise now we have the following options for issue 1…

1. turn the ruleset into a joke and ruin the game
2. let you dictate the rules
3. never-ending votes. votes about votes.
4. turn the ruleset into a joke and ruin the game

3 is the only option that doesn’t result in ruining the ruleset. So that begs the following questions: why are you even including options in the vote that would ruin the game? Why include poison pill options?

Amount of constructive feedback: Zero.

Amount of crying: Massive.

Anyways I thought you would be happy of the option A because that doesn’t have any degenerative unrestricted stuff.

I’ll try to be as constructive as possible: if you know full well that option #1 would result in the banning of Fire Magic from elementalists and thus reduce the ruleset to a joke, why would you even include it as an option? And please, do not reply with “its up to the voters to figure out the implications of their vote” bs. If you know there will be a harmful result from a vote you should probably not offer that as an option until you can reword it in a way that won’t carry the result. If you’re going to stick with the “people should know what they are voting for” line, I really want to know if your goal is to curate rules for the community or to create word-traps to trick people into breaking the ruleset, because that is what the result would be.

I try to be as neutral as possible. If I start limiting options based on what I like that means I do the decision, not the voters. Some people would call that a biased poll.

I have specifically mentioned that banning all bugged traits and skills can have severe effects. If I wanted to trick people why would I do that?

I think

A) Ban usage of any traits and skill which give any undocumented benefit

could be changed to

A) Ban getting advantage of any traits and skill which give any undocumented benefit

and then specifically mention that you can use them if you weaken your character at least equally. So you could use Fire Magic if you lose ~175 damage attribute points some way. But this opens up interpretation for “what’s enough”.

Aren’t the guys deciding a ruleset supposed to know the implications of the said ruleset, and therefore what they are voting for ?
Imo, if you don’t know what you are voting for, you should refrain voting. But yeah, that’s in a dream world.

Anyway, let’s be smart and ban only what could be seriously a problem, a rule can have exceptions, that’s not like the ruleset will seriously ban Fire traits for Eles for 150 power undocumented even if the first option is the one choosen.

NikeEU.7690:

I really want to know if your goal is to curate rules for the community or to create word-traps to trick people into breaking the ruleset

Clearly Wethospu gets Dulfy money every time people break the ruleset

Fear the illumin-rT

Kordash.2197:

Aren’t the guys deciding a ruleset supposed to know the implications of the said ruleset, and therefore what they are voting for ?
Imo, if you don’t know what you are voting for, you should refrain voting. But yeah, that’s in a dream world.

Anyway, let’s be smart and ban only what could be seriously a problem, a rule can have exceptions, that’s not like the ruleset will seriously ban Fire traits for Eles for 150 power undocumented even if the first option is the one choosen.

Interestingly enough, might nerf only reduced up to 125 power, which was considered significant enough for a record reset.

When Fire Magic gets fixed, do we then reset those records? If we do, what would be the point to allow it? There are lots of ifs and buts when words like “serious” or “significant” are used.

Anyways, these all are just single cases. It’s easy to pick what’s ok and what’s not. But what if Fire Magic gave 300 power? Or 500 power? Or 1000 power? What to do when some people think something is ok while some think it’s not? The only way to deal with these is to make consistent decisions.

Either ban all, allow all or decide all case by case.

Imo, we should go as much as possible in case by case. One rule, followed by exceptions. Ban or allow all is less work, yeah, but it’s not good for the fun (because yeah, even in serious speed clearing, it’s still a game, and if you take the fun out of it, who will compete ? Masochists ? :p )

I’m a fervent supporter of adaptability and that pretty much always mean more work to do

A rule for most cases and then exceptions for special cases sounds nice in paper because it’s like best of both options. Flexibility with less voting.

But in reality it’s not that simple. Bugged traits or skill come up quite rarely but when they do, they should get decided fast.

With a rule and exceptions. decisions would take two weeks because first week would be used to figure out which cases are special (people can suggest which cases to vote) and then next week would be used for voting. Also there would be a risk that someone 3 weeks later wants to vote about something.

With only exceptions, decisions would take one week and be final.

So it is one week decision-making versus two-weeks.

It is not much of a difference I think.

Maybe the most prominent problem now is not speed, apparently it is the amount of voting required. Some people have expressed how “atrocious” it is to have to click on a button once in a fortnight. If we go for rules + exceptions then I do not think we will have to vote more than once or twice per patch. It is probably optimistic, but in my opinion it is worth the try.

Currently all rules are “rule + exceptions”. It makes sense to make general rules because they apply to many cases.

But bugged skills or traits have very few cases. Like now we have two cases, Fire Magic and Grenadier (as far as I know). With case by case there would be 2 polls. With rule + exception there would be at least 1 poll, probably 2 polls (people have already asked me about Grenadier). Generally speaking, I’m pretty sure there would be a poll about most cases.

So rule + exceptions would be slower and unreliable and with about same amount of voting. But if you disagree, I can add the option.

I get your point and I agree

I’m not even sure Grenadier needs to be banned in groups. For boss or dungeon solos its a bit OP, but I don’t think its at all upsetting 5 man group balance. I don’t think either of them needs a vote at all TBH.

Question. If you immobilize a boss and prevent him from getting to somewhere where he then starts attacking, is that consider violating rule 11.) Attacking enemies which don’t try to fight back is banned.

There’s two instances that I can think of that the boss doesn’t start doing anything until it gets to that point and another instance where this happens mid fight.

So is pugmode shoggroth or Subject 6 in thaumanova immob ok?

Personally I feel that Shoggroth it was probably intended, I mean who wouldn’t think “hmm can we slow him down when he tries to run away,” it’d have been a huge oversight if they didn’t think of that one.

In Thaumanova though, you’re doing it before he even initiates the activation, it’s so fast that you’re best off doing a quick knockback then starting the immob chain., There I think they just didn’t think of it, or maybe they did and it was intended, but I can’t help but feel that it’s less part of the event and more hax feeling.

So personally I feel this is one of the situations where it calls for specific exemptions more than an overbearing strict rule, as again I think in one situation it’s intended and the other it certainly feels exploity.

Maybe “immobilizing to prevent the initiation of the encounter is not allowed?”

Jerus.4350:

Maybe “immobilizing to prevent the initiation of the encounter is not allowed?”

I like this one or changing the rule back to the old wording of safespotting the boss since this isn’t safespotting.

Shoggoroth should be fine since its part of his mechanic and its mid fight.

Ooze in Thaumanova and Fimbul were the other two but those start hostile and don’t actually go active until they move to a specific spot. Honestly, I’d rather we allow it since it’s pretty much inline with the rest of how records are going.

For next week’s vote, since its 7 to 3 on voting on what’s significant to need a reset,

Is the Swiftness nerf to movement skills significant enough to need a reset.

Are the trait changes a big enough change/buff/nerf to need a reset.

Enko.6123:

Question. If you immobilize a boss and prevent him from getting to somewhere where he then starts attacking, is that consider violating rule 11.) Attacking enemies which don’t try to fight back is banned.

There’s two instances that I can think of that the boss doesn’t start doing anything until it gets to that point and another instance where this happens mid fight.

It doesn’t violate rule 11. I specifically left “attacking” out so it would cover cases like Shoggroth. Perhaps changing “fight back” to “act” would be better?

Jerus.4350:

So is pugmode shoggroth or Subject 6 in thaumanova immob ok?

Personally I feel that Shoggroth it was probably intended, I mean who wouldn’t think “hmm can we slow him down when he tries to run away,” it’d have been a huge oversight if they didn’t think of that one.
—

I guess that would sum up the entire dungeon content.

Wethospu.6437:

Enko.6123:

Question. If you immobilize a boss and prevent him from getting to somewhere where he then starts attacking, is that consider violating rule 11.) Attacking enemies which don’t try to fight back is banned.

There’s two instances that I can think of that the boss doesn’t start doing anything until it gets to that point and another instance where this happens mid fight.

It doesn’t violate rule 11. I specifically left “attacking” out so it would cover cases like Shoggroth. Perhaps changing “fight back” to “act” would be better?

Jerus.4350:

So is pugmode shoggroth or Subject 6 in thaumanova immob ok?

Personally I feel that Shoggroth it was probably intended, I mean who wouldn’t think “hmm can we slow him down when he tries to run away,” it’d have been a huge oversight if they didn’t think of that one.
—

I guess that would sum up the entire dungeon content.

:D you have a point.