gw2dungeons.net: Week 28 discussion
Tbh it’s nice to have the records set on http://gw2dungeons.net/ that doesn’t mean tho that the people of the website should have the power of making the rules. The rules were CLEARLY made on the last meeting back when DnT hosted the record stuff NOONE had problems with approving and rule management, so why is this voting stuff made now? Because approvers don’t know if it should be approved or not. The logical answer would be that approvers don’t know what the ruleset is about. If it is really that unclear (which in my opinon is not the case) then go on some issues. But things like rtl in molten facility which are obviusly out of bounds, what was always unrestricted, or Immobalizing which was always restricted are things were voting is totally unnecassary.
You say that voting is unnecessary on cases like Molten Facility which is “clearly out of bounds”, and yet more than 70% of voting guilds opted to allow it in restricted a few weeks back. If it were so obvious that it should be disallowed, why was the cumulative vote to allow it? This is exactly what Weth is talking about when he says people assume what they want is how it is when that is clearly not the case.
if a boss dies in 20s but is immobilized for only 19s is it allowed? because technically its not permanently immobilized
Meh, I should have seen that. Thanks for pointing it out. I will remove “perma” from it.
How can it be pointless if it leads to a rule change? How can community be “more or less OK with it” when they decide to ban it?
Because you pick the agenda. You word the questions. The topic wasn’t even something that should have been voted on. The result of the vote is completely irrelevant. An unnecessary vote got the wrong result based on lazy voting. Congrats on creating a system that leads to that outcome.
Why would we have to wait an outcry (when things are seriously kittened) before dealing with any issues?
Because outcries are how you gauge whether something is worth voting on or whether you are just wasting peoples’ time.
Why do you refer yourself as “the community”?
I talk with many of the guilds in our community. When I say “the community” I am not referring to myself. I am referring to the half dozen or so guilds that think this state of affairs is intolerable. Perhaps instead of figuring out never clever word games to insult me you should take what I say seriously and think about what’s going on here.
If anyone feels like there is an issue with wording then people can point it out and I fix it. I don’t really care what rules say, I’m not competing there. I’m curious what could be my agenda?
Outcry just means that vocal people get their opinion through. Rest just silently leave or suffer. I rather encourage everyone to give their opinion and ensure things are as people would like.
I’m sure people will say if they think things are intolerable. You could also say which guilds you are representing. I give zero value to any emotion based argument.
(edited by Wethospu.6437)
If Immob was perfectly fine and no one saw it as wrong, why is it every time I see the Ooze immob thing referenced in a group it’s termed as an “exploit” or “bug”?
In the groups I run with or Pugs I’ve joined it’s viewed on par with pulling Mossman into the water.
Why is it then allowed to immobilize the tar elemental? It’s pretty much the same. A boss tries to walk to a certain location and you completely disable him with immob.
tbh we always had general rules making rules for each encounter while not using them for all (Immo not allowed except tar) is just stupid we should just go back to the rules after the last meeting.
Why is it then allowed to immobilize the tar elemental? It’s pretty much the same. A boss tries to walk to a certain location and you completely disable him with immob.
Because the TAR-Elemental only has this mechanic after 75% or less HP, before you do not diable his mechanic. This is a very different case comparing it with the ooze or Fimbul.
However, allowing everything because it is a “game mechanic” is really not what I would call a speedrun scene in this game. Sorry, but if you take all the bugs, exploits (call them whatever you want) and do some pretty fast runs, imo the actual high-skill gameplay becomes less and less while using such bugs, exploits (…).
Since I was not part of this voting system from the very beginning, I do not understand why so many people have issues with it right now. Didn’t you all agree to vote on a weekly basis beforehand or what happened there in the past?
In the past rules were set down and they’d vote on points like twice a year or so. All done with a different format.
Tbh it’s nice to have the records set on http://gw2dungeons.net/ that doesn’t mean tho that the people of the website should have the power of making the rules. The rules were CLEARLY made on the last meeting back when DnT hosted the record stuff NOONE had problems with approving and rule management, so why is this voting stuff made now? Because approvers don’t know if it should be approved or not. The logical answer would be that approvers don’t know what the ruleset is about. If it is really that unclear (which in my opinon is not the case) then go on some issues. But things like rtl in molten facility which are obviusly out of bounds, what was always unrestricted, or Immobalizing which was always restricted are things were voting is totally unnecassary.
Because when it was on DnT there were less records being posted and there was none of the grey area crap that has been appearing in the latest records. Also previously restricted was about playing as close to intended as possible.
Currently guilds try and break that as much as possible while still remaining in the competative ruleset. Which is why there is so much grey area/exploity stuff in restricted now. Its also why some stuff is voted to be banned and others to be allowed (despite them being very similar). Generally speaking the new stuff gets voted as allowed unless it requires effort (line casting rofl) and the old stuff remains banned. Which suggests that the players setting records currently have changed their mind on what the ruleset is supposed to be doing.
Completely agree with Rising Dusk. You might not see the votes as beneficial because you dont like keeping up with every little clarification/change. I personally dont like them because i think restrictive custom rules are stupid. And an open simple ruleset would be much easier to deal with but you guys dont want that. Or at least refuse to admit you actually want something closer to unrestricted. These votes have made approving within the bounds of the ruleset far easier for us.
We had multiple instances where we didnt know whether something was breaking a rule or not. Clarification was necessary to establish that the community wanted the less obvious choice to be true (funny that). So maybe you should stop acting as though its pointless. Because its not. Its easy to say that when you dont have to do anything except check the rules when you post records.
(edited by spoj.9672)
So the next week will be a voting process review week. There will be 2 polls.
What to do with the current rule set?
A) Keep it.
B) Revert to the rule set before voting.
C) Change to something else (needs another vote).
What to do with the decision process?
A) Keep voting about major and minor things.
B) Keep voting but require everyone to leave a serious comment on their vote.
C) Let Wethospu decide. Vote when a voteholder specifically request a vote.
D) Let Wethospu decide everything.
E) Make a small council which decides rules.
F) Revert to the meeting system.
(edited by Wethospu.6437)
Could you elaborate on option E for the 2nd poll? Will this basically be a rehash of the meetings we used to do or something else entirely?
Oh yeah, forgot meetings. Added.
Idea of council is to have like 5 players who decide stuff as they see fit.
With the criticisms of the process being made, I think it’d be a better idea to instead have a meeting (like there has been previously to decide the rules) instead of another forum vote.
One of the criticisms made was that some people aren’t fully understanding the ramifications of their votes. They’re not following these threads closely (and honestly, I don’t blame them for that). Having a meeting where the issue is discussed, questions can be easily asked, and anyone present can propose an option or suggest modifications to an option is IMO, a better way to go. Especially since another criticism made against the current system is that the phrasing of the options as well as which options are presented, done by only one person, constitutes undue influence over the system and negatively limits possible outcomes.
Thoughts?
Sure, a proper meeting for this sounds like a good idea. Even though it will suffer from the same “influence” and “agenda” issues.
So if reverting back to the old ruleset is selected are we also reverting back to the general statement that restricted is supposed to follow that restricted is as close to what we think anet intended?
Again, the fundamental difference between what’s going on now and what was going on back when gwscr was still up and running is that the restricted rules back then were based off of that statement while now its do whatever. Until we agree upon a philosophy that the rest of the rules spawn off of, we’re going to continue to have this same problem.
The idea of the restricted ruleset was that for something to be banned, you had to be able to prove why it was ban worthy by associating it to a general logical rule. That way personal opinion was very rarely a factor in whether or not something was banned because no matter how much someone disliked something, if they were unable to make a solid argument that it was an exploitative action akin to other disallowed actions, rather than a gimic, it would not be banned.
(edited by The Mexican Cookie.3690)
Sure, nice framework. But it should be pretty obvious it was discarded really quick.
I would still like to remind that the current ruleset is identical with the previous ruleset in most paths. So the people who consider current ruleset “intolerable” and what else, I would like to hear what you think of the previous ruleset which was pretty much the same?
(edited by Wethospu.6437)
Actually the only reason I can see for it being discarded seems to be the same reason that is resulting in issues currently?
Anyway I was just clarifying how the ruleset worked since it seemed to be a popular point of discussion throughout the thread. I don’t actually have any interest in partaking in the discussion itself
(edited by The Mexican Cookie.3690)
Yeah, it was more aimed at those people who think things were better before because of the “framework” and stuff like that.
But even before this whole voting, arah p3 trick was allowed and lupicus oneshot banned. Both based on opinions, not facts. But somehow those are ok and fit the framework.
Which again gets back to the fact that people just don’t like some of the results and attack the process to revert them.
(edited by Wethospu.6437)
Yeah, it was more aimed at those people who think things were better before because of the “framework” and stuff like that.
But even before this whole voting, arah p3 trick was allowed and lupicus oneshot banned. Both based on opinions, not facts. But somehow those are ok and fit the framework.
Which again gets back to the fact that people just don’t like some of the results and attack the process to revert them.
Those were exceptions to the general framework before but in general the rest of the rules fit into that.
I’m not saying we should go back to what it said before. What I’m saying is that we need to have something beyond “do whatever you want”.
And again, your veiled dismissal of everything you disagree with is getting kind of old. I’ve already stated plenty of times before that people don’t want to follow the old “a it was intended” idea and have been perfectly fine with that. Still think we would need to come up with something that says Restricted is supposed to represent instead of your idea of it is whatever you want it to be.
I have stated alternatives for what would probably be acceptable by most people but whatever, it’s getting to the point that its obvious that you don’t want to have an actual discussion since you just dismiss them out of hand.
(edited by Enko.6123)
I don’t think the lupicus one shot got banned under my rules, but I’ve been wrong once before
Is the ‘restricted’ in point of discussion not the one gwscr hosted?
I don’t think the lupicus one shot got banned under my rules, but I’ve been wrong once before
Is the ‘restricted’ in point of discussion not the one gwscr hosted?
The restricted statement that I was referring to was what is listed on gwscr.com:
Each of the aforementioned tables is divided into two categories- restricted and unrestricted. 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.
While there were exceptions to that statement of “as it was intended” like the Arah P3 door skip, they were the exceptions not the rules. Rules were discussed with that idea in mind like dodge icebows and swapping traits to reset cooldowns since it was felt that those behaviors weren’t intended.
We currently don’t have anything that defines what the intent of each is. It’s pretty much if people like a tactic or not. The current definition of restricted is:
I have chosen “Restricted ruleset is what you want it to be.” because that’s the only one I can realistically enforce.
(edited by Enko.6123)
I don’t think the lupicus one shot got banned under my rules, but I’ve been wrong once before
Is the ‘restricted’ in point of discussion not the one gwscr hosted?
Lupicus one-shot was first brought up in the last meeting you attended Cookie, as you’ve stated it was debated but not banned because a logical argument couldn’t be made that it wasn’t an intended game mechanic. And it also happened to be the “new cool thing” at the time so most people weren’t prepared to discard it and only when it was proved not to be optimal in competitive terms (as in when it stopped being an issue altogether) it was banned. Compression of AoEs followed this same logic – “I can’t pull it off consistently so I’d rather not have to to secure a record.” – plus people felt it was unintended in the first place so I guess the ruling on this one was justified.
This is honestly getting ridiculous... Every time I skim through these voting threads people argue over another 100 pointless things they find ’wrong’ with the rules. I really don’t see the need to have so many votes and rule changes considering record runs are pretty much stale and dead at this point. It also humours me to see that 80% of the people changing the rules either don’t do records, or never have done or don’t even play the game anymore. I really don’t get the big deal over this, people are overthinking and nitpicking small things just to create a discussion,these threads are really becoming pathetic to read when half of the comments are people flaming each other too. I’m agreeing with many others that the rulset should be Reset to that decided at the last meeting, and that every few months meetings to adjust rules if needed will suffice. In the meantime if any questionable cases pop up let the record approvers decide amoung themselves, they were assigned their role for a reason, so let them do it.
(edited by Luigi.8076)
And now Luigi, you are part of this “flaming” with your hyperboles.
Yeah, it was more aimed at those people who think things were better before because of the “framework” and stuff like that.
But even before this whole voting, arah p3 trick was allowed and lupicus oneshot banned. Both based on opinions, not facts. But somehow those are ok and fit the framework.
Which again gets back to the fact that people just don’t like some of the results and attack the process to revert them.
Those were exceptions to the general framework before but in general the rest of the rules fit into that.
I’m not saying we should go back to what it said before. What I’m saying is that we need to have something beyond “do whatever you want”.
And again, your veiled dismissal of everything you disagree with is getting kind of old. I’ve already stated plenty of times before that people don’t want to follow the old “a it was intended” idea and have been perfectly fine with that. Still think we would need to come up with something that says Restricted is supposed to represent instead of your idea of it is whatever you want it to be.
I have stated alternatives for what would probably be acceptable by most people but whatever, it’s getting to the point that its obvious that you don’t want to have an actual discussion since you just dismiss them out of hand.
Previously it was “do whatever you want”, as proven by the exceptions. Currently only purpose of the previous framework is that people can find a higher justification for their opinions, because for some reason admitting that “I have an opinion” is difficult.
Yes, framework makes sense for some situations. The important part is that we must be able to enforce it.
For example a situation where I was given a framework and told to make decisions based on that. People could enforce that I follow the general intention (though nothing could enforce that people would follow that).
With voting, everyone makes decisions based on what they want. It wouldn’t make sense for me to dismiss some decisions because I don’t think they fit the framework. If I did, why would we vote in the first place?
(edited by Wethospu.6437)
Eh I think we just need to have a meeting. It’s getting painfully obvious that you don’t want to accept or consider other opinions via discussion on the forums so it’s probably time that we try to set up a meeting with representation from guilds interested in doing records.
Come to a general consensus on this stuff and get it over with so those of us who are doing records can get back to it instead of what’s happening now which is no one is bothering to even attempt records or post anything since the rules are changing week to week.
(edited by Enko.6123)