Guild Wars 2

Yo guys, just wanted to share our new Record.

Honor of the Waves P3
07/04/2015, game build 50,430
Restricted time: 3m, 59s

Participants:

Mesmer – Lynn Van Gherwen: http://youtu.be/wpbHCGe4f5g

Thief – Tielaya: http://youtu.be/urWKGOUvZSw

Warrior – Kathi Rose: https://youtu.be/gdxfyE6xhSE

Ele 1 – Bukke Bruse: http://youtu.be/18qUPuDSalg

Ele 2 – Hina Inbasu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shiXHR-nGKM&feature=youtu.be

Enjoy

very nice, the mesmer was extremely good, do you happen to know what build he was running?

thank you
i was running
Domination 2-3-2
Dueling 1-3-1
Illusions 1-2-2

haha didn’t expect you to be the mesmer, been playing mostly guardian forever, I always wanted to get into mesmer for path where mesmer is more efficient even for casual runs and video like yours really motivates me to get better!

Also thanks for the build.

Is immobilizing fimbul to prevent him walking to his trigger location allowed? He looked pretty much bugged afk to me, otherwise nice run!

Luigi.8076:

Is immobilizing fimbul to prevent him walking to his trigger location allowed? He looked pretty much bugged afk to me, otherwise nice run!

Thanks !
Well, you do the same with the tar in Arah P1 or the Ooze in Thaumanova so ist should be allowed

Aradox.6140:

Luigi.8076:

Is immobilizing fimbul to prevent him walking to his trigger location allowed? He looked pretty much bugged afk to me, otherwise nice run!

Thanks !
Well, you do the same with the tar in Arah P1 or the Ooze in Thaumanova so ist should be allowed

Asking in the week 27 discussion if that falls under Rule 11.) Attacking enemies which don’t try to fight back is banned.

Under the old rules of safespotting or glitching them on geometry so they couldn’t hit you is different than how the rule is worded now.

Guess we’ll what the consensus says.

Well, it’s not like we bug him on geometry or safespotting him… We also sacrifice much DPS to make this tactic work.

I think tactics like these are just fine in records since it is all about tactics. Also, I would agree that it is not allowed if we had bugged him in some Wall or obstacle.

Furthermore, I still don’t see any difference to the Tar in Arah p1 since Anet wouldn’t have made all the other Phases where the tar goes underground again, or atleast we don’t know but I guess they thought People are gonna fight onspot.

Lastly, you do kind of the same powerblocking the Ooze in Arah P1 making him seem “bugged”, because you are using these Games mechanics, which is again part of Record tactics.

I don’t really see a problem with it especially with all the other stuff that has been allowed. Was only pointing it out since it seems like it is affected by one of the rules.

These sort of things are exploity. But thats what records should be about. Then again this community cant agree on that. So dont be surprised when people vote to disallow this.

I don’t think it’s exploity at all to immobilize and prevent a boss from getting to a trigger spot. If ANet didn’t want that to be a possibility, they’d make them invul when they start walking to their trigger spot, like the CoF p3 boss is.

Anet dont think of these things. Thats why they are possible. That doesnt mean they arent exploity/unintended.

Its almost like how we blinked and portal past the golem trigger in CoE to prevent the turrets from activating. That was promptly fixed because it was a bit more publicly used and once it was done if you failed to activate the turrets before death the dungeon would be uncompletable. But its the same principle.

Rising Dusk.2408:

I don’t think it’s exploity at all to immobilize and prevent a boss from getting to a trigger spot. If ANet didn’t want that to be a possibility, they’d make them invul when they start walking to their trigger spot, like the CoF p3 boss is.

So Lupi wallsploit is fine, because I mean they just wouldn’t have made it possible right? Not saying it shouldn’t be allowed, my personal opinion is to allow basically everything but strait hacking, but it’s surely exploity.

I don’t have a source but didn’t we actually get a word in from a dev when people asked if they would get banned for oneshotting lupi? the general consensus was that so many people do it and rely on the ‘exploit’, they probably couldn’t do it any other way and if anet patched the exploit less people would be able to get past lupi.

The Lupi one shot is allowed as far as ANet cares. They don’t think it’s awesome that you can do it, but they don’t want to change the way the boss works, nor can they presently invest the time to change it in a meaningful enough way to correct it. It’s only disallowed because we, as a community, decided it was dumb.

ANet knows about the immobilizing of bosses before they reach their spots and has chosen not to do anything about it. They’ve also chosen not to say anything about it so if they decide to clean it up later no one will think twice.

Jerus.4350:

my personal opinion is to allow basically everything but strait hacking

spoj.9672:

These sort of things are exploity. But thats what records should be about.

That’s what we have unrestricted for. People think unrestricted is not worth watching/doing? Too bad, but stop trying to turn restricted into that.

Every game with a speedrunning community has categories for speedruns, let it be any%, glitchless, any% no file corruption or whatever you chose. Which category is the most competitive depends on the community. The GW2 speed running community is obviously prefering the restricted rule set.

If you want to watch unrestricted stuff, change the rules to make it appealing, do stuff yourself, make people want to compete. But don’t mess with restricted, because that was fine as it used to be.

My personal opinion on perma immobilizing Fimbul: the mechanic of bosses needing to be in a specific spot to trigger their mechanics is kittened, if you can disable a boss just with a trait or whatever I don’t see it as unrestricted. Perma immobilizing a boss that has only melee attacks and staying at max melee range would be similar.
Obviously depends on the encounter, but this specifically I don’t view as unrestricted.

Your opinion is exactly why i cant take half the people in this community seriously. You are so two faced its unreal. You say its unrestricted if you can disable a boss. Then you go and say because a boss only has melee attacks it doesnt matter that it doesnt trigger so its fine. What!? Are you serious?

If you want to do it legit, let it trigger then perma immob and range. I know its the same result on a melee only boss. But thats not really the point is it. And this specific encounter isnt really a melee only encounter.

Other games if they have any rules on speedruns at all they are usually very simple and unambiguous. Here we have the most convoluted ruleset ive ever seen. And people constantly bend and interpret the rules differently to suit their own personal agendas.

Since you would have to wait for the boss to walk to its location it is (in my opinion) just not fun to compete with that as a requirement.

It’s just as the arah p4 bosses (specifically lyssa) used to be. If you have to go an extra mile to make them not bug you can’t force people to not do it.

And nowhere I said that just disabling a boss is unrestricted, imo it depends on the encounter and how you do it.

I’m not extremly familiar with the rulesets of other games but I know a few cases where the community decided to ban/allow specific stuff in relation to glitchless stuff, which is always the ruleset that has the most discussion regarding its rules
The obviously best solution would be a fix or an official statement, but we know how that will go.

In my personal opinion if a boss is disabled merely through immobilizing it before it reaches it’s activation area it is simply poor design and players should be allowed to take advantage of it.
It doesn’t look pretty but I believe it could be filed under creative use of game mechanics™.

If you want to do these sort of things you should be playing on unrestricted. Or ask for a new ruleset which is basically unrestricted but bans all the consumables and out of map crap. Because its not me who is turning restricted more and more into unrestricted. Its you guys. And you dont even realise it.

When you are in support of banning lupi one shot but allowing this. I honestly cant take you seriously. They can both be considered creative use of game mechanics. But both are cheesy and unintended.

And dont get me wrong. I want things like this to be part of records. I just really dislike this hypocritical bullkitten and inconsistency going on right now. It makes literally no sense. Choose what you want and stick to it. Dont bend it for every other encounter.

I don’t want to disable bosses, I just don’t want to wait for bosses to do whatever they need to do before i can attack them. But w/e

All I would want is a fix for this boss.

As it is now? Allowing the immobilize seems more fluent in terms of gameplay.

And like I said, that was my personal opinion, that’s what I would vote. I wouldn’t say restricted is a stupid ruleset if people disallowed this. Opposed to Lupi one shot, that imo was banned for a good reason

Sounds like you should be playing a revised unrestricted ruleset like i said. :P

Might as well rename restricted to ‘Play How We Want’ because that’s exactly that it has been for quite a while now. We as a community have been customizing it to fit our whims and wishes and purely based on personal opinions.

I agree that there needs to be more consistency specifically in regards to ‘where we draw the line’ between what’s creative and what’s unintended.

As far as I’m concerned anything that doesn’t involve purposely disabling an already active boss, breaking out of the map to reach areas that are still inaccessible and other tiny bits for the sake of balance such as racial skills and consumables should be considered restricted.

Well, I’m not really a fan of disabling bosses as is, but for these cases (Fimbul and Subject 6) it just seems kittened, having to wait for them.

Also some other stuff that I think restricted needs to be as fun as it currently is.

As I said some time ago, I don’t really want/need a consistent ruleset as long as it’s fun to play and compete in

Veckna.9621:

Might as well rename restricted to ‘Play How We Want’ because that’s exactly that it has been for quite a while now. We as a community have been customizing it to fit our whims and wishes and purely based on personal opinions.

I agree that there needs to be more consistency specifically in regards to ‘where we draw the line’ between what’s creative and what’s unintended.

As far as I’m concerned anything that doesn’t involve purposely disabling an already active boss, breaking out of the map to reach areas that are still inaccessible and other tiny bits for the sake of balance such as racial skills and consumables should be considered restricted.

That’s how it has been since the beginning. Earlier people just labelled it as “what’s Anet intended” or something else similar.

This voting process is drawing the line. Thought I understand the eagerness to try skewing the results.

I have approved this as unrestricted.

well you might should approve it as restricted till the Rules are defined after the meeting

Well, I didn’t.

Just don’t list it at all for now, since we could have done much more in Unrestricted.
Thanks.

Wait, did you just add that rule on gw2dungeons.net/rules after this record was submitted just so it wouldn’t be listed as restricted?

Atrophied.8725:

Wait, did you just add that rule on gw2dungeons.net/rules after this record was submitted just so it wouldn’t be listed as restricted?

Yup

It was added in response to the results posted here. The question was brought up and voted on because of this record, but he didn’t just arbitrarily add the rule himself in response to this record out of spite or something.

Basically he isolated this issue to Fimbul and not Tar without asking anyone or going through the usual process

Nvm, I didn’t see this post ^

The Record was submitted at the Fifth of July and should have been approved within 7 days with the current ruleset and not after 15 days with a new ruleset, so the record of 3:59 should have been approved before the new rulechange.

Quoted from Wethospu :
“Currently the rules are not enforced for all time records. The question is, do people want that? This would keep all time records more competitive since they would follow the current rule set. Obviously we don’t have enough manpower to enforce this for all previous records, so the whole thing would rely on the community pointing out any wrong records.”

I believe this statement basically would make this record be restricted since it was submitted before the rule change.

As long as immobilizing Tar is banned I’m ok with the changes

Habataku.5214:

The Record was submitted at the Fifth of July and should have been approved within 7 days with the current ruleset and not after 15 days with a new ruleset, so the record of 3:59 should have been approved before the new rulechange.

The record raised questions based on its usage of immobilize against Fimbul within a day of its submitting, and so was delayed in its approval while approvers discussed it and it went to vote with the guild leaders. Once the votes were in and the decision made, this was approved as unrestricted first while Weth worked on typing up the post I linked before.

I promise there’s really nothing shady here. It raised questions that we weren’t sure about and so it got pushed until people made a decision.

doddbox.8153:

As long as immobilizing Tar is banned I’m ok with the changes

well next thing you know it, stunning bosses would not be allowed.

doddbox.8153:

Basically he isolated this issue to Fimbul and not Tar without asking anyone or going through the usual process

Tar is a completely different thing to Fimbul though

Element Two.7316:

doddbox.8153:

Basically he isolated this issue to Fimbul and not Tar without asking anyone or going through the usual process

Tar is a completely different thing to Fimbul though

No it isn’t? the boss runs to a specific location after reaching 75% hp, the only difference is Fimbul runs instantly to a location. The “intended mechanic” card doesn’t apply here since the bosses aren’t immune to conditions or invulnerable in the span of time where they run to those locations.

>11.) Attacking enemies which don’t try to fight back is banned.
For the sake of reiteration the only reason why they considered Fimbul legitimate was because immobilizing Tar was excused from this rule and it shouldn’t have been

Element Two.7316:

doddbox.8153:

Basically he isolated this issue to Fimbul and not Tar without asking anyone or going through the usual process

Tar is a completely different thing to Fimbul though

Why? The Tar goes inactive after like 3 seconds in a real record, so 3 seconds are supposed to make that much of a difference?

You know the speedrun community reached a new all time low when immobilizing tar is actually brought up for debate…

I agree that Subject 6 and Tar should be subject to this same rule in records. You’re completely negating the boss by immobilising it in both instances.

Just ‘cause the boss is moving at 75% health instead of 100% health doesn’t change what you’re doing to negate it’s attacks.

IMO the rule should be adjusted to ‘using immobilise to prevent a boss from acting is banned’ or the rule should be struck.

(Caveat: I’m not a speedrunner, just an outsider looking in and seeing discrepancies in the way the rules are being formulated and enforced)

what happens if you toss a sanctuary at fimbul’s path? will that cause him to constantly run into the sanc and getting perma CCed?

“Using an immobilize on bosses before they have activated is banned. "

What does “activated” mean? If its turning “red” the rule is sueless. If it means starting to attack this rule makes multiple record invalid. (like Mossman 1:07, CM Story 3:29) In both records a boss gets immobilized before he starts attacking. I am sure there are more records like that. So either way this rule makes no sense the way it is written.

So chaining wardens on Alphard to completely negate all his attacks is an exploit?

doddbox.8153:

An immobilised Tar performs the exact same actions and attacks as a non-immobilised Tar.

ok so walking while being immobalised doing nothing is the same like doing aoe attacks.

BlackDragon.3752:

ok so walking while being immobalised doing nothing is the same like doing aoe attacks.

What the kitten are you even trying to say here?

Element Two.7316:

BlackDragon.3752:

ok so walking while being immobalised doing nothing is the same like doing aoe attacks.

What the kitten are you even trying to say here?

He means that Shoggroth is effectively disabled through immobilizes during it’s retreat to burrow.