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]
• Senior Magic [iG]
• Juliverine [Yoga]

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

Results of week 27 voting

55% agreed to decide which bugged skill/traits allowed case by case. 87% agreed to vote about record resetting.

Issue 2: Resetting for patch June 23, 2015

Patch June 23, 2015 nerfed mobility but increased damage output. It also affected scaling on lower level dungeons.

A) Reset all records before June 23, 2015

• Destroys progress.
• Keeps things simple.

B) Reset only AC, TA and SE

• Resets only dungeons which got affected most (downscaling changes).

C) Don’t reset

• Keeps record table populated.
• Some records are very likely impossible to beat (records may get reseted inconsistently).

Issue 3: Using immobilization to disable bosses

In some encounters enemies attempt to move to a specific location. If they are permanently immobilized, they can’t reach the location and will just stand still. This is quite similar to permanently Deep Freezing an enemy, except easier to execute because bosses don’t have any immobilization protection. Still, it requires coordination and often results in a dps loss.

This can be split to two cases. Immobilizing enemies before they turn active (start attacking) or immobilizing enemies during the encounter.

A) Bosses can’t be disabled with immobilization

• Affects both cases.
• Bans immobilize trick with Shoggroth.

B) Bosses can’t be disabled with immobilization before they have started attacking.

• Keeps Shoggroth trick allowed.

C) Allow immobilizing bosses

Issue 4: Attacking bosses which haven’t started attacking.

Assuming option B is selected for issue 3. If not, this won’t have an effect. This only affects enemies which haven’t turned active (they need to move to certain location to start attacking).

A) Only ban immobilizing bosses before they have started attacking..

B) Ban slowing down (conditions, control) bosses before they have started attacking.

C) Ban attacking bosses before they have started attacking.

I might be wrong, but isn’t the fire magic bug already fixed?
Last time I checked I didn’t see the extra 150 power added up

bladex.9502:

I might be wrong, but isn’t the fire magic bug already fixed?
Last time I checked I didn’t see the extra 150 power added up

Just looked at my ele, the equipment menu is staying at a steady 2758 unbuffed power regardless of attunement.

Wethospu.6437:

Elementalist Fire Magic trait line gives 150 extra power which is 3%-5% more damage. For reference, might nerf reduced only up to 125 power

Keep in mind that might nerf hit every party member but bugged Fire Magic only affects eles. I think resetting for that would be a mistake as well as resetting for Might nerf was

Most teams have 3 eles so it gets pretty close since they deal most damage anyway.

SlyDevil.3952:

bladex.9502:

I might be wrong, but isn’t the fire magic bug already fixed?
Last time I checked I didn’t see the extra 150 power added up

Just looked at my ele, the equipment menu is staying at a steady 2758 unbuffed power regardless of attunement.

Take Fire Attunement completely off ( as in equip 3 other attunements) and see what your power loss is. Instead of losing 150 power from the loss of Empowering Flame while in Fire, you’re losing 300 power while in Fire and 150 power in any other attunement.

Enko.6123:

SlyDevil.3952:

bladex.9502:

I might be wrong, but isn’t the fire magic bug already fixed?
Last time I checked I didn’t see the extra 150 power added up

Just looked at my ele, the equipment menu is staying at a steady 2758 unbuffed power regardless of attunement.

Take Fire Attunement completely off ( as in equip 3 other attunements) and see what your power loss is. Instead of losing 150 power from the loss of Empowering Flame while in Fire, you’re losing 300 power while in Fire and 150 power in any other attunement.

Ah, I thought the bug was in the 150 being incorrectly applied, not an extra 150 being applied.

Well, they fixed the bugged Ele Trait now anyways =)

It looks like the B option will win out in Issue 3. Will this cover only specifically immobilizes or all sorts of crowd control and movement-impairing conditions?

I personally don’t like the idea of having to wait for a boss to waltz into it’s activation location but oh well, the results are what they are.

The way I see it, only immobilize is problematic since it’s a full disable and pretty easy to keep up. But if you feel that we should vote about whether inactive bosses should be attacked at all, I can add that.

Wethospu.6437:

The way I see it, only immobilize is problematic since it’s a full disable and pretty easy to keep up. But if you feel that we should vote about whether inactive bosses should be attacked at all, I can add that.

I’m still in awe at how we’re even having a vote about this but in 1 of the cases that the current results will affect the most the boss can be killed before it becomes active without having to resort to immobilizes specifically.
I’d rather nothing else be added to the polls as the risk of it ending in a scenario where, as I’ve mentioned above, we’d have to wait for a boss to waltz into it’s activation location before even attacking it is considerable. Then again it’s probably best to get it out of the way now as there’s a chance it will be brought up later on as people adapt to taking advantage of the design of these specific bosses to effectively obtain the same results as using immobilizes.

Veckna.9621:

Wethospu.6437:

The way I see it, only immobilize is problematic since it’s a full disable and pretty easy to keep up. But if you feel that we should vote about whether inactive bosses should be attacked at all, I can add that.

I’m still in awe at how we’re even having a vote about this but in 1 of the cases that the current results will affect the most the boss can be killed before it becomes active without having to resort to immobilizes specifically.
I’d rather nothing else be added to the polls as the risk of it ending in a scenario where, as I’ve mentioned above, we’d have to wait for a boss to waltz into it’s activation location before even attacking it is considerable. Then again it’s probably best to get it out of the way now as there’s a chance it will be brought up later on as people adapt to taking advantage of the design of these specific bosses to effectively obtain the same results as using immobilizes.

How many bosses does this apply to? And I don’t think anyone is even considering limiting attacking. The point is it’s very cheesy to prevent a boss from ever even attempting to attack because it hasn’t even registered itself as active.

To that extent dropping cripples/chills or knocking it back, well I could see that being a point of discussion. And, it gets a little grey there in that you can do those unintentionally within a damage spike. If you kill it before it activates to me that’s perfectly fine, but I’m not sure if that’s possible with the encounters in question being Subject 6 and Fimbul mainly. If people could blow them up that quickly why would we even be bothering to immob?

If you time your Deep Freeze well you can burst down Subject 6 in that time and if that’s not enough there’s still cripple and chill. Just not if you use sick split strategies

And by the wording of the rule

11.) Attacking enemies which don’t try to fight back is banned.

it’s pretty much all or nothing. Is walking to a trigger spot considered as fighting back or not? Imo if you ban immobilizing this will cause some problems but it would be nice if we could clarify those before this weeks voting is over

(WTB fix by ANet)

If immobilization abuse gets banned there will be an additional rule for it.

This is crazy. It should only be illegal if the immob breaks the AI and the boss goes inactive permanently.

Are we talking about resetting the current records or the all time records too?

All time records never get reset.

NikeEU.7690:

This is crazy. It should only be illegal if the immob breaks the AI and the boss goes inactive permanently.

People evidently have no idea what they even are voting for. You could achieve the exact same results by keeping a boss permanently deep frozen, but that is apparently not a problem.

Bukkebruse.2810:

NikeEU.7690:

This is crazy. It should only be illegal if the immob breaks the AI and the boss goes inactive permanently.

People evidently have no idea what they even are voting for. You could achieve the exact same results by keeping a boss permanently deep frozen, but that is apparently not a problem.

Bit different in that if you give it half a second in between in one you can get punched in the face while you prep your next disabling effect and the other it moves a little bit. Wiggle room with no risk other than if you fail too much it might actually try to hit you.

That said, I’m for allowing it, but I certainly feel it’s pretty exploity.

NikeEU.7690:

All time records never get reset.

k. ty… it just sounds like all time records are included this time

Just to be sure now, will it be okay to chill,freeze,cripple Bosses before they become active or will everyone be complaining so a new record would be denied again? I want to know this for sure before people are wasting time again.

I will add a poll about that when I get home. Just to be sure.

Bukkebruse.2810:

NikeEU.7690:

This is crazy. It should only be illegal if the immob breaks the AI and the boss goes inactive permanently.

People evidently have no idea what they even are voting for. You could achieve the exact same results by keeping a boss permanently deep frozen, but that is apparently not a problem.

It’s much easier to keep a boss permanently immobilized than deep frozen.

Kind of same principle as with banning “wall on wall”. It’s too effective.

So word for word it will be something along the lines of “Using immobilizes to permanently disable a not yet active boss is not allowed.”?

Veckna.9621:

So word for word it will be something along the lines of “Using immobilizes to permanently disable a not yet active boss is not allowed.”?

That wording doesn’t work, though.

Immobilize does not permanently disable bosses that must reach a trigger point to become full active. It only disables them for the duration of the immobilize.

One could argue that immobilize would be allowed under that wording. Or could even more easily argue that it’s okay under the wording to temporarily completely disable a boss that is trying to reach a trigger point using immobilize, so long as the percentage of disablement due to immobilize is not 100%.

And of course, chain freeze would be perfectly fine, just like knockback/launch/pull + cripple and chill. All of which would allow Subject 6 and Fimbul to be killed without Immobilize, while the bosses are still trying to reach their trigger points.

Veckna.9621:

So word for word it will be something along the lines of “Using immobilizes to permanently disable a not yet active boss is not allowed.”?

It would be something like “Using immoblize on enemies which haven’t been active is banned.”

Added new poll for this week, about interacting with bosses which haven’t turned active.

While we’re on the subject, the Elite Flame Legion Assassins in CoF p2 also don’t activate until they reach Magg. Will they also be subject to these rules? :^)

Luckily they aren’t bosses. So we can just:

“Using immobilize on bosses before they have been active is banned.”

Wethospu.6437:

Luckily they aren’t bosses. So we can just:

“Using immobilize on bosses before they have been active is banned.”

But but, what’s to say they’re not the bosses of that specific event? :^)

So this means that it would not be allowed to damage the Dredgeboss at the Clowncar and the Molten Berserker before they spawn? LOL.

Well, yes. If people want to wait until bosses become active then that’s how it’s going to be.

Veckna.9621:

Wethospu.6437:

Luckily they aren’t bosses. So we can just:

“Using immobilize on bosses before they have been active is banned.”

But but, what’s to say they’re not the bosses of that specific event? :^)

Only champion and legendary enemies count as bosses.

Lendruil.9061:

So this means that it would not be allowed to damage the Dredgeboss at the Clowncar and the Molten Berserker before they spawn? LOL.

Don’t forget AC burrows that don’t spawn graveilngs before they’ve fully emerged from the ground.

Lendruil.9061:

So this means that it would not be allowed to damage the Dredgeboss at the Clowncar and the Molten Berserker before they spawn? LOL.

Pretty sure we’re just talking about using immobilizes that basically permanently disable a boss by preventing them from even getting to their active spots.

Eh this stuff is pretty much the reason why the ruleset really should be just banning gemstore items, breaking out of map or into geomoetry, etc. This kind of stuff people like doing and it can be cool to see.

I agree to some extend. Banning legitimate strategies just because “they feel cheesy ;(((”and then creating a dozen of exceptions because “we’ve always done this so it’s ok)” is just stupid. I’m just wondering when we’ll start banning damage altogether because dead bosses can’t use their abilities.

Like I said before, I don’t think people even realise what they are voting for and just choose to ban immobilising bosses because they see the word ‘disable’ being used and think it permanently breaks the boss.

Like I said, it makes no sense to ban Immobs so long as the Immob doesn’t permanently disable the boss even after the Immob ends.

I feel (and have felt) like the amount of tinkering with the rules that has gone on in the last two months is ridiculous and way over the top. Almost none of it was at all imperative. I figure in the last two or three months of this voting the amount of actual issues that required real attention has been maybe two? The rest of this is just “cleaning” up the rules which has resulted in banning things that have never been banned before or unbanning things that have never been allowed before. It is a legitimate and fair point for us as a community to ask Weth to stop creating uncertainty where there has never been any before.

Have Immob chains ever been banned in any previous iterations of the restricted rule set? No. Was there a big community outcry for banning them? No. So where is the impetus to banning them coming from? Near as I can tell it’s coming from Wethospu’s desire to have rules that are 100% internally and externally consistent. Frankly, your OCD about this is killing us.

The ‘wall on wall’ lupicus situation for example, everybody acknowledges it to not be optimal yet it was banned because it felt cheesy and highly advantageous in a low-man situation. Which is a big reason why I believe there should be a tournament specific ruleset that focuses on all these exceptions and caters to the organizers’ preferences rather than adjusting the restricted ruleset, which is meant for speedclearing records, to competitive livestream play where people are seemingly afraid to show they’ve found ways, that use legit game mechanics, to beat encounters more easily.
Strategies that “trivialize” content are available for everyone to use and more often than not they will have no impact on record runs themselves as nothing stops the next group up from using those same strategies. I certainly hope the day we forcefully prohibit people from taking advantage of their insight into how encounters are designed never comes.
If anything exposing these design flaws might put more pressure on ArenaNet to come up with better designs in the future.

I understand the context for the immobilize vote, but I really don’t think it’s worthwhile. I cannot see immobilize requiring a ban in any form under any context. I’m with Cheezy that it’s ridiculous to have to wait for a boss to reach some predetermined spot before you can use a specific condition on him. The only way I would ever be okay with exception banning immobilize is if using it on some boss once resulted in the boss doing nothing else no matter what. Since that doesn’t describe any of the situations we’re voting on, I don’t think we should ban or restrict immobilize at all.

As for the reset, I still favor resetting everything. This has been the single largest balance patch in the game, and I’d want people who watch “current” videos to not be seeing a GW2 trait system so vastly different from what they experience in-game.

Bukkebruse.2810:

I agree to some extend. Banning legitimate strategies just because “they feel cheesy ;(((”and then creating a dozen of exceptions because “we’ve always done this so it’s ok)” is just stupid. I’m just wondering when we’ll start banning damage altogether because dead bosses can’t use their abilities.

Like I said before, I don’t think people even realise what they are voting for and just choose to ban immobilising bosses because they see the word ‘disable’ being used and think it permanently breaks the boss.

Wouldn’t people vote for option A (Enemies can’t be disabled with immobilization.) in that case?

NikeEU.7690:

Like I said, it makes no sense to ban Immobs so long as the Immob doesn’t permanently disable the boss even after the Immob ends.

I feel (and have felt) like the amount of tinkering with the rules that has gone on in the last two months is ridiculous and way over the top. Almost none of it was at all imperative. I figure in the last two or three months of this voting the amount of actual issues that required real attention has been maybe two? The rest of this is just “cleaning” up the rules which has resulted in banning things that have never been banned before or unbanning things that have never been allowed before. It is a legitimate and fair point for us as a community to ask Weth to stop creating uncertainty where there has never been any before.

Have Immob chains ever been banned in any previous iterations of the restricted rule set? No. Was there a big community outcry for banning them? No. So where is the impetus to banning them coming from? Near as I can tell it’s coming from Wethospu’s desire to have rules that are 100% internally and externally consistent. Frankly, your OCD about this is killing us.

Thanks Nike. I was getting bit worried whether we could stay on-topic a whole week.

If I didn’t know the context of why there was a vote to ban immobilises to begin with, then I’d personally think that ‘before they have turned active’ would mean disabling a boss before they’re attackable (Think of it as if you are using CC skills on ‘green’ bosses/monsters, similarly to how you used to be able to knock down friendly NPCs with Slick Shoes, use Banish to move them around etc) which definitely sounds like something that shouldn’t be allowed.

Wethospu.6437:

Thanks Nike. I was getting bit worried whether we could stay on-topic a whole week.

I’m a bit more worried about whether the community can continue to survive with your ambitious mismanagement of the ruleset.

What’s the size of this “community”?

Bukkebruse.2810:

If I didn’t know the context of why there was a vote to ban immobilises to begin with, then I’d personally think that ‘before they have turned active’ would mean disabling a boss before they’re attackable (Think of it as if you are using CC skills on ‘green’ bosses/monsters, similarly to how you used to be able to knock down friendly NPCs with Slick Shoes, use Banish to move them around etc) which definitely sounds like something that shouldn’t be allowed.

I have changed the wording. Does it seem better now?

why are we even voting on so much stuff back in the past no one cared and ppl enjoyed watchign records, also isn’t this open to everyone anyways ?

BlackDragon.3752:

why are we even voting on so much stuff back in the past no one cared and ppl enjoyed watchign records, also isn’t this open to everyone anyways ?

Gotta keep bringing up important discussions and meetings because people like feeling important.

Nyspar.6103:

BlackDragon.3752:

why are we even voting on so much stuff back in the past no one cared and ppl enjoyed watchign records, also isn’t this open to everyone anyways ?

Gotta keep bringing up important discussions and meetings because people like feeling important.

I see ty targ, now i understand the new PvE community.

BlackDragon.3752:

why are we even voting on so much stuff back in the past no one cared and ppl enjoyed watchign records, also isn’t this open to everyone anyways ?

This is exactly the reason i dont understand why we have restricted banning more than just gemstore stuff, consumables and major map break outs. But people want to customise the ruleset to fit perfectly with their ideals. So we have to go through this farce.

Its pretty evident from the general distaste from some people with how things are going that the custom ruleset doesnt really work as well as people imagined. Weth is just doing his best to clarify things to suit the desires of the community. But thats a difficult task when everything is voted on by personal opinions and involves countless exceptions.

Every record brings a new questionable tactic up to the front. To just gloss over them without clarifying is rather foolish in the long term (only because the community wants an inconsistent “whats fun” ruleset). Which is why this is happening so much right now. :P

The core issue is that lots of people don’t understand that their opinion is just an opinion, not some universal fact.

When the vote goes as they like, they wonder what was there to even vote.

When the vote doesn’t go as they like, they think the system is broken.

And of course the few people practicing for a politician career.

Well a lot of this is stemming from the fact that we don’t have an overall framework to describe what Restricted vs Unrestricted is supposed to mean. This is what I was discussing a few weeks ago when you basically told me that I was full of hot air and my arguments were incomprehensible to you.

As it stands now with Restricted being “whatever you want”, there’s no reason to have what seems like random rules. With things going the way they are, we probably do just need to have a voice comms meeting to get this hashed out and resolved before we go any further.

why do you feel like the voting is necessary? a meeting was held to decide stuff. a meeting was held so you dont have to vote every single week.
i think its pretty clear what should be allowed and what shouldnt.

apart from that, when HoT is released people will either quit the game or will be busy with the new challenging group content.
so why do you make it more complicated instead of leaving it the way it was decided in the meeting?

Enko.6123:

With things going the way they are, we probably do just need to have a voice comms meeting to get this hashed out and resolved before we go any further.

there were multiple meetings in the past. someone will always come up with the most kittened excuses to change the rules for no reason.

then you will have a meeting and the majority will vote against your ideas. its a waste of time, just like the weekly voting.

As long as we push to be more explicit in the wording and application of the rules, the worse it gets for competitors and spectators alike.

CrAcKeDmUfFiN.9402:

As long as we push to be more explicit in the wording and application of the rules, the worse it gets for competitors and spectators alike.

Implying that it was ever clear to spectators and competitors. Lol. The only 100% clear rulesets weve ever had is unrestricted and the old stuff before we had the rulesets created.

The more rules and exceptions you add the more complicated it gets. But we cant avoid that because people are pretty dead set on some of them.

The application of the rules are as important as the drafting. “Don’t go out of bounds” should have been a very clear rule, but we’ve seen that even that was subject to debate.