Guild Wars 2

I have enough challenge with opening my daily login rewards.

Could you please spend like 5 minutes to think whether your ideas make any sense, before posting?

im playing a veldrunner water wizard now and its very powrful and good

Now if you mark something with a gold star it will turn into a silver star tomorrow (indicating that it has been run once). To keep it compact, I would rather have only one column.

dlonie.6547:

Hey Weth, if they add something like this, would gw2dungeons be able to put an interface on it?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/community/api/Dungeon-path-completion

I have added a manual version to http://gw2dungeons.net/dev/.

Does that look what you want? Any suggestions which images could replace those stars so it were more intuitive?

And now Luigi, you are part of this “flaming” with your hyperboles.

Enko.6123:

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.

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?

Just prepare for every other profession getting heavily nerfed!

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.

Logically there is just some scripting behind this behavior and it wouldn’t make much sense to create vastly different pathing behaviors for different enemies.

Looks like there are quite many different parameters though.

Purple Miku.7032:

—
Ahh forgot about those ones, yeah they are teleporting through the walls not walking through them. I guess this kind of refutes what I said in my previous post about it necessarily being a distance thing, but these patrol mobs seem to behave a lot differently than all the other mobs in Arah that path to you. For these ones they will immediately start pathing to you once you pass the area that Shoggroth dies, but for all the other mobs on this game that path to you they will start once you approach them but still out of their aggro range.

Also the weirder part about these patrol mobs is that they seem to walk right past you when you stealth by them, and will walk in a circle. But you can also lure them to Shoggroth’s spawn by slowly backtracing, making sure not to be too far out of reach to them but also making sure not to be too close in range for any of them to aggro.

IIRC, I have just stood at one spot and they have just walked past me (takes a while). So the whole thing seems really weird.

Btw Miku, do you mind if I link to your video on gw2dungeons?

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?

Thanks for the sticky.

thrag.9740:

—
Do the other pets work as stun breaks? I experienced something weird with ember in arah last night.

No idea.

Anyways, I updated the original post. I didn’t include bugs which required heavy exploiting (goating) or were beneficial to the player (exploits).

Sure, a proper meeting for this sounds like a good idea. Even though it will suffer from the same “influence” and “agenda” issues.

Oh yeah, forgot meetings. Added.

Idea of council is to have like 5 players who decide stuff as they see fit.

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.

perry.9645:

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.

NikeEU.7690:

Wethospu.6437:

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.

Bukkebruse.2810:

Wethospu.6437:

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?

I still think it’s because people didn’t fully understand the vote/question and possibly thought they were voting for disallowing disabling a boss that hadn’t turned hostile yet. If still you want to do the votes, reset the votes, possibly make sure people actually understand what’s being votes for in the first place and make them write an actual reason as to why they think it should/shouldn’t be banned so they don’t just pick some random option without really knowing what it is.

I will make an exception and ensure that majority knows what they are voting before the decision is finalized.

If anyone wants make my job easier, please send mail in-game or forums that you know what you are doing, or add a comment to your vote.

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?

Why would we have to wait an outcry (when things are seriously kittened) before dealing with any issues? Or sweep everything under the carper and hope no one notices?

Why do you refer yourself as “the community”?

Well, they no longer change on weekly basis. And when they do, it will be something minor like this immobilization. That Lupi thing was just a matter of me and others being inexperienced with this system. I wouldn’t put much weight on it.

The problem with rules was that I didn’t really know whether something should be allowed or not. Sure, I could have just decided something but I thought letting the community decide would be better.

Veckna.9621:

An example of a decision through voting that flat out broke the principles of the original restricted ruleset was allowing to get over the fence in Molten Facility fractal which violates the “Bypassing blockades that have not yet been opened.” and/or “Any party member may not go out of bounds.” which are two fundamental rules that have always been a part of the restricted ruleset. The principles I referred to would be showcasing gameplay as close to non-exploitive as possible but that wouldn’t force people to discard strategies enabled by core game mechanics such as crowd control or conditions.

And yes, it is my opinion though one I feel is shared by many and I’m not attempting to shift blame onto you because in truth that lays in the fact that most people with the ability to vote currently never got the chance to know the basics and fundamentals of the original ruleset.

Why wouldn’t a mobility (leap) be a core mechanic? If you can reach something middle of the play area by using legit mechanics, is it really out of bounds? Also technically they never bypassed a blockade since they just stood on it.

Yes, it stretches rules but is pretty harmless and not something I would consider a big issue. Kind of same as this immobilizing thing.

@Purple Miku:

Could you list any rules which you don’t find clear? I can try to word them better.

I understand lots of changes makes stuff confusing. But wouldn’t reverting kind of add even more confusion? Anyways, if you look at the current rule set, it was updated over two weeks ago. That should give some indication that things are going to stabilize.

I’m sure majority are displeased about something, but I doubt many people are displeased about everything. Point is, rules have lots of options so it’s likely that everyone disagrees with something. But if you take a look at the suggestions. They range from left to right. I could pick one but how do I know people would dislike it even more?

Yes, it would be the best if somehow we could measure everyone’s opinion. But as you said, it’s not really practical. I kind of hoped guild leaders would discuss these things with their members but of course I can’t really enforce that.

NikeEU.7690:

How about:

GW2dungeons.net curates the records

The community curates the rules as it has always done

Why is this so hard? Why, specifically, does the website where records are posted and maintained ALSO set the agenda for re-drafting the rules? It doesn’t have to be this way. And before you say “I don’t vote ,the community votes” you must understand that it is completely your personal choice about which issues are voted on in the first place and how the voting options are presented. That is a lot of influence.

Also, if an approver cannot watch records and determine whether its Restricted or not, please feel free to resign your position and allow someone else to take over.

Could you then explain why I disagree with most decisions?

Honestly, if I have so huge influence why the rule set isn’t what I want?

Could you mention a change which “flat out broke the principles of the ruleset”? And also elaborate what are these “principles”?

Most of the added rules have just clarified what the rules actually mean. Most (if not all) real changes are from issues before I had even mentioned voting. They would have been resolved in some way, even without voting.

I don’t know a better example of “I have an opinion” than mentioning both unrestricted and overly restrictive in the same sentence. Yes, some decisions have been bit silly but that’s how it works with opinions. Things which you consider silly and stupid make a perfect sense for someone else, and vice versa.

When something comes up I don’t think there exists any kind of a “middle stage” where you could just let the thing be. It’s either allowed or not allowed. Similarly either the record gets approved or rejected.

I can make the decision instantly which may lose a record. Then my decision can be reverted on a meeting which either restores or loses records.

With current approach, within a week we have a decision which may lose a record.

For comparison: Within a week, a record may be lost in both cases. Within months, the former may lose multiple records.

Jerus.4350:

Wethospu, whether people approve of the results of the voting or not, I think they provided a great service. It highlighted the issues with the whole system. How fickle and hypocritical it was/is. How split the community is on different rulings. I really hope you don’t resign if people want to just go back to the old ruleset, frankly it was more simple, open to interpretation but in that allowed some wiggle room. There is something to note there. You may not keep your record but you wouldn’t lose it for month because the discussion only happened rarely. I’m sure that was nice for people.

Personally as I said before, I wish people would drift to a more open ruleset where they could really showcase what is possible instead of confining themselves to setting records within a system of simply “doing it better” in a lot of cases. But as I said before, that’s my desire as a spectator and not a guy doing the work, so I understand if people don’t want that.

The only issue I see is people thinking that the system is broken because they can’t dictate the rules. And then somehow changing to something else would suddenly make everything better.

If you want a simple rule set with some wiggle room, I suggest the following:

1) Only legit stuff is allowed.

Sure, we can go back to the old but it would interpreted pretty much same as the current rule set.

No discussion doesn’t mean records couldn’t be lost. I could dictate that immobilize trick breaks the intention of rules. No discussion, a record lost.

Purple Miku.7032:

I find this system really inconvenient because I have to worry about the rules changing every week, so I don’t feel like I know what is and what is allowed like I once did. My personal opinion is that the ruleset was fine before the weekly voting, and that it’s just getting worse and worse as the weeks go by because too many people don’t agree with the ruleset changes based off of the majority votes. I don’t think only Wethospu should decide on rules either.

I am in favor of just reverting to the rules decided from that last gwscr meeting.

The only reason we have voted weekly is because rules were so subjective. If you think rules have changed much since then, that should tell something about the subjectivity.

When rules are subjective it’s easy to think you know what they mean. If that had truly been the case, why did I receive questions about “is this allowed?” and “why is that allowed?” on about weekly basis?

Do you think more people would agree with the decisions if we based it on a minority? Even with a clear result like 6-3 it’s quite normal to have lots of people complaining about the result. This is often called as a vocal minority. People tend to open their mouth when something is wrong instead of when something is right, so it’s easy to jump in conclusion that “no one likes the results”.

I think it’s a good time to review this voting process as most of the stuff has now been decided. And reverting the progress is definitely a worth-while option for that. Though I have to say I would resign in that case since I don’t want to go back to that kitten when spending so much effort to get rid of it.

Veckna.9621:

—
Point being, the poll system is a very nice concept but ultimately given how opinions differ between voters and how petty issues have been put under a microscope it has not been very successful.
I’d be more than okay with giving the power of decision to the approvers and attend meetings whenever there are significant issues that need to be discussed and agreed on.

Petty or not, it’s still a matter of whether a record gets approved or not. I realize it’s annoying to get effort wasted but there is no guarantee that letting me or approvers decide would end up with a more favorable result.

I’m curious how do you define success? The rule set is about the same as before, few clarifications there and there so I know what they are supposed to mean. The failure (“endless quarrel”) is pretty much about people not getting exactly what they want. So every week we have people making long posts about the ultimate solution, “do as I say, it makes sense and works the best”.

BlackDragon.3752:

Atleast tournament is with the “right” ruleset, before things got crazy. Everyone knew of those issues for such a long time. For example immo, traumanova ooze this is known for atleast half a year now, why do we discuss it then, since no one cared back then?

Could you guys at least take the rule set prior this whole voting? Instead of cherrypicking decisions you agree with it?

Just reinforces what I have suspected. The issue isn’t about the voting, it’s about getting decisions people don’t like. As far as I know, there is no solution for that.

Yes, one “strength” of previous approach was that people didn’t really express their opinions, so everything felt nice and good. Now when more people show what they like, it should be pretty evident that choosing the best option has never been trivial.

• These rules are subject to change at any time so it is advised you brief yourself with them each time before you post a record. *

So are you guys also going to make your own record leaderboard?

The very point of voting is to figure what things are acceptable. Instead of voting, I can decide it on my own too. But so far people have pretty adamantly avoided any option with “Let Wethospu decide”.

Ironically I didn’t have any polls for the next week (just like the last two weeks until new issues came up) but looks like we need yet another poll on how to refine this decision making.

But no matter how things are decided, there will never be a ruleset which would make everyone happy. Only way to guarantee a good ruleset is to dictate it on your own (which lots of people seem to try), but it won’t necessarily be good for the community.

“Don’t go out of bounds” is clear and easy to apply, as long as there is one person dictating the rules. If that’s what you guys want, I don’t mind.

By the way, is there something wrong with the current rules? At least from my perspective it’s more clear than what we had, and gameplay is about same.

Enko.6123:

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.

I still don’t understand how that would prevent people voting from what they want.

NoTrigger.8396:

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.

Instead of voting, I can dictate the rules too. That would be much simpler for me, and the rules would actually be as I wanted.

Relying on meetings had caused a backlog of issues, which is pretty much the reason we have been voting so much. In my opinion it tells something about the state of rules if no one else but Nike know what they mean.

Also it’s important to keep in mind how messed up the dungeons are. If we had someone to patch in the exploits, we wouldn’t have to discuss/decide so much.

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.

Sthenith.5196:

Few missing stat points from trait lines won’t have a big impact.

Every traitline had 300 statpoints if you went with the old system where you could theroretically build around those stat points.
You could increase your hp for example. For those that had low hp it could mean life or death in certain situations. (less or more time to do a condi cleanse f.i.)

So yes, it does have an impact on those that were build that way, the devs said as much before the patch was released.

And you got lots of stats back.

You survive 1 hit more in some cases. Perhaps reducing those 20 deaths to like 15. But that wasn’t the case.

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?

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.

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.

His build is pretty much same. Few missing stat points from trait lines won’t have a big impact.

The issue isn’t about “dying so much in AC”. It’s about the downscaling, and for that there are plenty of topics.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Has-the-super-downscaling-been-fixed-yet

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Downscaling-is-broken-Please-address-this

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Low-level-more-powerful-than-down-scaled

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Thoughts-on-recent-silent-nerf

No one realizes that OP is talking about AC where the primary “issue” is increased downscaling?

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

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

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.

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.

Stompy.1387:

I fall for it every time..

The emotional roller coaster is going to kill me one of these days.

Now imagine if someone necroed some old patch note discussion topics.

“Enemies walking through walls” was about arah p1/p2 after Shoggroth or Abomination. You just run through enemies without stealth. Then you jump down off the ledge in the room before Lupicus. Suddenly some risen enemies appear to come through walls. I guess they teleport nearby?

Since there is no stealth, shouldn’t the pathing break when you run through them?

If I understood you correctly:

• Gradually gaining distance makes them stop.
• Instantly gaining “not too much” distance makes them stop.
• Instantly gaining too much distance makes them teleport.
• Moving to an unreachable location may make them teleport or stop.

Stompy.1387:

—

Or if you’d rather make the video yourself, go right ahead, I won’t steal the thunder. I just thought I’d offer since you already do a ton of work for the dungeon community and figured it might make things easier for you.

Feel free. It’s always positive if I don’t have to log in.

Stompy.1387:

Thanks for helping me with getting some clips Sly Devil. We got a bit over half of them done.

Also Sly had the idea of calling “path to location” as “triggered patrol.” Sounds better?

I’m not native but at least for me “patrol” sounds more like a constant movement. Not going from location A to location B.

I updated the original post. Some remaining questions:

• Does the first or the second player become the target?
• Why enemies sometimes teleport and sometimes stop moving?
• How long it takes for an enemy to start returning from a parked location?
• What happens if enemy gets aggroed while its returning? Where does it reset?

Also one point of listing “pathing” enemies is to verify that the rules fit all of them.

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

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.

When people talk about Hrouda this always pops on my mind.

Robert Hrouda.1327:

I’ll admit that the master of solo makes a darn good point

—

So I’m trying to formalize how the patching mechanic exactly works. While there is some information already about it, most of it is pretty much useless. At least I have trouble fully understanding how it works.

1) Some enemies get an order to “Move to target” or “Move to location” when a player gets to a certain location.

• The first or the second player becomes the target (exact mechanic unknown).

• Enemies can only get an order once (unless they respawn).

• Orders break when enemy aggroes.

• If you waypoint, move too far or to unreachable location, order may break or enemies may teleport. Based on enemies/distance (exact mechanic unknown).

2) When an order ends, the enemy gets parked to its current location.

• Enemies stay there and will reset there when deaggroed.

• After a while (how long?), enemies return to their initial location.

• What happens if enemies get aggroed during their return?

Bonus:

List of enemies which can be pathed?

• Special tricks?

Yeah, sure.

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

They clearly were enthusiastic at some point. So it would be interesting to know what happened.

You can almost sense pride on their quotes.

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.

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.