Guild Wars 2

Purpose of voting is decide issues people have brought up. I’m not just deciding random issues just to mess everything up. During this year, I have got lots of feedback about different things, pretty much every rule has been questioned.

I know it’s always annoying when things don’t go as one would like but that’s something everyone (including me) has to deal with. If people were happy with how things are, then the voting result should reflect that.

Obviously there has to be some stability because if things go back and forth it’s pretty much same as having no rules at all. But I don’t see issue with voting about things which have been decided long time ago. Also I think it’s better that we do this now instead of over an year / after expansion.

I know some probably see this voting as a pretty slow and inefficient way to decide things. The main reason for that is that I have done this extremely slowly. I have expected people to vote carelessly without putting too much effort on thinking about the consequences. If you vote “consistency over gameplay” then that’s what you are going to get.

spoj.9672:

—

Admittedly this is a rather forced example because its based on a standalone exception and not an exception to a specific rule.

I actually hadn’t thought about that. So a third option which would allow exceptions as long as they aren’t against main rules.

I added a third option to the exception poll.

It wasn’t a rule. It was an exception.

It was actually voted first week. My initial plan was to let them be but I was told to “Actually hold to the ruleset that’s decided.”.

I have opened the poll about exceptions if people feel like changing their mind.

Alternatively you guys can think of general rules to ban wall on wall. I personally won’t suggest anything which may mess up the rules too much.

Description

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

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

Current vote holders:

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

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

Results of week 24 voting

Since any exceptions were voted against (and because of last week’s discussion) I checked current exception list. I reverted two path specific bans because they aren’t based on rules. This will probably be changed next week so I wouldn’t base your runs on this.

So now:

• CMP3: Using the air guns against bosses is allowed.
• Arah: Using reflects on Lupicus’ wall in phase 2 is allowed.

90% agreed to allow abuse of path selection so ArahP3 door trick (and AC exp burrow) remain allowed. A rule has been added to allow this.

67% agreed to allow being past blockades if you get there before they close and 70% agreed that blockades don’t have to be opened. These slightly contradict each other but as mentioned last week, the former will overrule the latter. Rules have been modified to clarify this.

Definition: A pathway is open if it can be passed without jumping or using skills. A pathway is blocked if it’s not open but can be opened.

Technically this means that jumping on the CoE gate is allowed but you can’t jump down before the gate opens. If this feels problematic please let me know.

100% agreed to require path completion on unrestricted ruleset. This requirement has been added to all rulesets for symmetry.

I was also requested to give a broad statement about the restricted rule set to make sure every voter is on the same page. I have chosen “Restricted ruleset is what you want it to be.” because that’s the only one I can realistically enforce. If anyone is found voting “not how he wants”, his/her voting rights will be revoked. You have been warned.

Issue1: NPC manipulation

People have figured out that they can manipulate NPC behavior by waypointing or by killing the NPC. In some cases this can be used to skip NPC dialogue to speed up the run. Currently abusing of event scripting is banned which can be understood both ways.

A) Allow NPC manipulation to break/skip dialogue

• Also makes triggering dialogue not mandatory
• Less restrictive

B) Don’t allow

• Also makes triggering dialogue mandatory (this can be refined later if needed)
• More restrictive

I’m not aware that NPC manipulation would have been used to break cutscenes, yet. So a similar question about cutscenes. Currently rules state that “All cutscenes within a dungeon that are relevant to the path must be triggered.”

A) Allow NPC manipulation to break/skip cutscenes

• Also makes triggering cutscenes not mandatory
• Less restrictive

B) Don’t allow.

• Keeps triggering cutscenes mandatory (this can be refined later if needed)
• More restrictive (keeps the current rule)

Issue2: Banning behavior

Currently there are two kind of bans. Either a specific player action or a specific result is banned. For example entering inside a geometry is banned even if you didn’t gain any advantage. Similarly bugging bosses is banned regardless the way you do it.

But there is one more kind. Banning a specific action with a specific result. For example abuse of path selection. Currently it affects both ArahP3 gate and Arah exp burrow. But if it only affected “mandatory events” it could be made only affect ArahP3 gate.

A) Allow banning a specific action with a specific result

• Allows fine tuning the rules (which may slow down the process)
• Complicates rules

B) Keep actions and results separated on the rules

• Keeps rules simple

Issue3: Exceptions

Reopened from week 22 with a good reason (see replies below). So what to do with encounter specific rules (exceptions)?

A) Decide case by case with voting. Allows exceptions.

• Exceptions may override main rules

B) Wethospu decides based on rules.

• No exceptions. Encounter rules are just for clarifications.
• Allows “wall on wall” on Lupicus
• Allows using air guns against bosses in CMP3

C) Same as A) but exceptions can’t override general rules

• Exceptions may only take care of special cases.
• Rule changes may lead to conflicts with exceptions which have to be resolved

Yes, people have different ideas. Why is that a problem?

Ok, here is the broad statement. As Nike said:

“Restricted ruleset is what you want it to be.”

Everyone satisfied now?

As harsh as it sounds, if your posts don’t initially make sense they suddenly won’t gain any value when you repeat them over and over. I have read them multiple times trying to understand but I simply don’t see any sense.

If there was a discussion about what’s right and what’s wrong then it would be very important that everyone was on the same level so they would argue about the same thing.

But here we don’t have right or wrong answers, just opinions. Everyone can vote what they want with any reason they want. Because of this it’s not simply possible to have any context.

If you want to change your vote I can open any poll you want.

Bloomhunger is a plant so Mordrem slaying will maybe work against it.

Even with a broad statement we would still have decide about same things. Only thing which would reduce work is cutting corners (decide stuff on my own or try to manipulate the result). I don’t see we are in any hurry and whether this whole process takes 1 or 4 more weeks doesn’t make much difference.

I still fail to see any issues except that you don’t like how people have been voting. Different people have different reasons for their votes. Their reasoning may make no sense but it’s still their opinion. That’s completely normal and expected. There are no right or wrong answers here.

GWSCR allowed Arah P3 door which is pretty clearly against what Anet intended which invalidates their broad statement. I see no reason to try enforce something which wasn’t even hold up in the first place. Also if people wanted ultra-restrictive rule set, that would be seen on their voting behavior.

So far the only issues I see are:

1) You want to change your previous votes.

2) You don’t like how people have voted.

Unfortunately I have to inform you that this is how democracy works. Everything won’t go exactly as you would like.

I honestly wish you could cooperate with the chosen approach instead of trying to figure out issues with no practical solution. While the current approach may have some issues tearing the whole thing apart isn’t helpful.

Regards the things you requested.

No, I still can’t enforce people to vote some way. People can vote what they want so defining a framework is pointless.

What an event is will be refined/decided in next weeks. Please have some patience. With voting and planning these things won’t happen instantly.

Where I haven’t hold to what has been decided? Do you say we should have a vote whether I’m reliable or not? At least I see a comment like that as a serious lack of trust.

Based on Molten Furnace leap, people wanted to allow things like that so we don’t need define “out-of-bounds”.

@Enko:

The problem isn’t that rules are being applied inconsistently. It’s that the rules don’t match what people actually want. There is literally zero reason to vote about “how restricted rules should be applied” because that’s crystal clear (extremely restrictive rule set).

I still don’t understand why would you need a framework for voting. What’s the point of voting if we first define how everyone should vote? What’s the point of whole framework if it can’t be enforced or if it’s so broad that it doesn’t mean anything?

The current approach is to make general rules. As I have mentioned before, there will be zero exceptions or special case rules. Lupicus oneshot and CMP3 Airgun will be allowed next week unless someone can think of a general rule to ban them.

Some thing to consider:

1) People voted to have no exceptions. It was reopened to specifically have this result.

2) We barely have enough players for one rule set.

3) Based on current voting behavior, people want neither ultra-restrictive (“what anet intended”) or very open rule set

4) “What Anet intended” is a pretty bad metric because if you want to follow that you should farm SW

At least the way I see it, enforcing a “what anet intended” ruleset would be simply destructive. You get a ruleset which nobody actually likes or follows even in pug runs. And for what? To please developers?

Which leads to the next point about defining the intention of restricted rule set. Why would we define it to something no one really wants? Why would we define it to something we can’t really enforce?

For example we define that restricted rule should be about what people think Anet intended. Do you think that would be better than a rule set about what people actually want? How do we know if someone votes as he likes instead of what he thinks Anet intended? What do we do if we suspect that someone didn’t vote like that?

Could someone explain what’s wrong with the current approach where few things are voted weekly and we finally end up with a rule set which most people agree with?

gin.7158:

Thaddeus.4891:

Pistol/Pistol have a dps of around 8-9k in a fully buffed group compare to around 14-15k for a Dagger/Dagger thief in the same situation. Both of those are single target numbers.

Shortbow is even less dps, but it’s better against group of mobs.

Ty for the info. That’s actually the answer that I’m looking for

What? It’s exactly same answer as my answer!

Enko.6123:

gwscr.com

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.

So gwscr.com was where GW2 records were originally posted. This is what it said the Restricted and Unrestricted rulesets were all about. If we can just get a simple base statement on what the two rulesets are supposed to be then it would clear up pretty much any of the inconsistency in voting.

Since the majority of the rules are copied and pasted from gwscr.com, I would consider this basic statement still relevant.

If that was carried over it would be on the rule page.

But ok, next week I will add a poll:

How the restricted rule set should be like?

A) As Anet intended

• Abuse of path selection banned
• Any kind of event manipulation banned
• NPC manipulation banned
• Being past blocked pathways banned
• Areas which can’t be reached by walking or jumping banned
• (few more details)
• In rare cases your opinion may get asked

B) PHIW

• Keep the current system of voting

C) Open

• Event / boss manipulation, safespotting, bugging etc. allowed
• Mandatory events must be completed
• Entering inside textures banned
• (few more details)
• In rare cases your opinion may get asked

The fact that Arah P3 gate trick has been allowed the whole time kind of disqualifies that Restricted rule set is about how Anet intended them to be played.

That encounter was specifically added after release to slow down people farming Crusher over and over. I’m pretty sure they didn’t leave that loophole there on purpose.

Nothing stops you from voting as you want. If you think restricted should be “as Anet intended” then you can vote according to that. If you have some other criteria feel free to vote according to that.

If enough people think that restricted should be “as Anet intended” then the voting should reflect that.

I would say the reason for discussion is simply that people disagree with stuff. There would be discussion and disagreement even if we had defined some sort of a guideline for voting.

I think it’s pretty pointless to try using objective barriers (like “how Anet intended ii” or “how path is normally done”) when in reality they will always be subjective.

The only thing we should be worrying about is that the rule set is fun to play and encourages participation/competition.

Revised questions for the next week:

Is NPC manipulation allowed to skip cutscenes?

Is NPC manipulation allowed to skip dialogue?

Should event rules only affect mandatory encounters?

Encounters are mandatory if you need to kill or activate something to proceed. So things like AC exp first burrow, Kholer or skippable enemies could be manipulated/safespotted.

Rising Dusk.2408:

—

I would say what Anet considers OK doesn’t weight much at this point.

What ANet thinks does affect peoples’ perceptions, and relevant guild leaders are much more likely to vote to disallow something if it feels or is known to be exploitative.

Sure, if you can get them here to state their opinions.

Get some decent looking pistol skins and just sit there Unloading.

It looks cool. Why would you care about anything else?

Tenrai Senshi.2017:

Wethospu.6437:

Please give an example of one player stacking 25 vuln. without much effort. At least in dungeons groups struggle to keep bosses at 25 stacks (which would equal 50 stacks on players because of Unshakable), even in quite short fights.

Guardians will be able to instantly apply 25 stacks of vulnurability with their one trap, once they get the Dragon Hunter specialization.

Yes, it’s not that hard to burst vulnerability with a specific build. I actually meant to mean “maintain” but forgot to mention it.

Because well, if there is a 5v5 and one teams stacks 125 vulnerability on one player to “one shot”, the other team can cleanse it pretty easily. Or the target dodges, disengages, etc. for a while. And then there are 5 bad builds (since they focused on stacking the “OP” vulnerability) vs. 5 good builds.

Even if they managed to burst the target down they would have lots of skills on cooldown, and sub-optimal builds. Not to mention that 5 players can blow up one target even without vulnerability.

Point is, it’s not that there is some kind of a switch to suddenly start applying 25 vulnerability every second with no downsides only prevented by the condition cap.

ChoChoBo.6503:

Rainbowsand.2438:

Having greater cap on vulnerability will speed up boss zergs? Yeah it would be bad, standing for a few minutes with aa on shouldnt by any means be shortened because it is nice and hard as is.

Uncapping Vuln. affects more than just PvE. In WvW, if a group could stack over 50-300 stacks of Vuln. in an area, easily on the enemy zerg. And then just cleave through for easy kills. The same could be said in PvP, everyone would be stacking as much vuln. as possible to oneshot.

Don’t forget, Vuln. is one of the most common conditions in the game. 41 weapon/utility skills and 21 traits across all 8 professions will apply vuln. It’s pretty easy to have just one player stack 25 vuln. without much effort. Vuln. is really powerful as it is.

That’s why the game has AoE limits. Zerg vs Zerg wouldn’t change much.

The real problem lies on the 50v1 boss design because that amplifies the effect of vulnerability so much.

Please give an example of one player stacking 25 vuln. without much effort. At least in dungeons groups struggle to keep bosses at 25 stacks (which would equal 50 stacks on players because of Unshakable), even in quite short fights.

Rising Dusk.2408:

Because an NPC following players teleporting to those players out of range is intended functionality and is working by design. Because a dead NPC not talking is intended functionality and is working by design. Using these two functionalities in unison is a clever way to speed up functionality. I literally know that this is OK by ANet and do not even have to guess.
—

I would say what Anet considers OK doesn’t weight much at this point.

Next week there will be (at least) these polls:

Is triggering every cutscene required?

Is triggering every dialogue required?

I think it would be nice if people could list current usage of these tricks so everyone could see how much effect they have on the runs.

I do most that stuff at work when the code compiles.

I didn’t even go that far yet with him. I have only tried to point that higher DPS doesn’t necessarily mean faster kill if the boss health changes.

As far as I know, the door remains open if you abuse the path selection. So the blockade rule doesn’t apply.

Enko.6123:

If the rule states mandatory spawns (ie progress blocking. doors don’t open until they’re killed), then that would take care of the AC burow, right?

The Arah P3 is probably the one that’s actually in question here since normally that door is closed until you kill the mobs.

—

Just to verify, you think that “Issue1: Event abusing” should have another option for allowing delaying path selection to break non- mandatory events? Or perhaps all rules should go more towards that direction?

Assistance needed. Mainly because

I will likely simply downvote your reply and not read it…

I would like to return the favor.

But if you think I’m wrong somewhere I don’t mind hearing that either.

I’m pretty sure he knows you play necromancer.

I can’t tell what was originally meant when the rule was created but I would say an event is any enemy spawn, enemy death, NPC dialogue or geometry modification.

I realize that the AC burrow is a very minor thing and doesn’t really affect anything. But if you want a consistent rule set, all cases have to be treated equally. Otherwise you have an exception which means you have to think whether any future case is an exception or not.

By the way, are there any severe exploits which are prevented by the blockade rule?

Sorry for the delay. I have been really busy with stuff and took me a while to figure out how to write down that issue about blockades.

Description

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

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

Current vote holders:

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

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

Results of week 23 voting

I have refactored the rules (merged some stuff, reordered, etc). Please check http://gw2dungeons.net/Rules and verify that the meaning has not changed (except for changed stuff below).

There was some confusion so the vote from 21 week about allowing exceptions with “case by case” vote was reopened. This changed the outcome. 56% wanted to enforce consistency while 46% wanted to allow exceptions. Unfortunately that means some of last weeks votes were pointless. But moving on.

89% agreed to disallow safespotting trash. I have updated rules to reflect this.

71% agreed to allow the leaping on Molten Facility. I have changed “out of bounds” to “inside geometry” to clarify that it’s allowed.

75% agreed to allow Arah p3 first door trick. While I could update the rules to actually allow it, I will make one more vote about this, just in case.

Issue1: Event abusing

Currently rules quite strictly ban any kind of event abusing. But for example delaying path selection on Arah P3 to abuse the first door is allowed. This was voted last week but I want to be sure before I make any changes.

A) Allow delaying path selection to disable or break events and encounters

B) Don’t allow

• Bans ArahP3 gate trick.
• First burrow must be triggered in AC exp.

Issue2: Blockades

Current rule: All pathways that are designed to block progress through the path must be opened. You may not have any party member(s) get past blocked passages until the required sequence/dialogue has been completed.

This splits to two issues which affect each other so this is bit complicated. If things get messed up we can have another poll. Also if no option gets over 50% votes, this will be voted again next week but with two options.

A) Allow being past blockades if you get there before they close.

• Allows AC Story gate skipping with a teleport but not jumping over it.
• Allows being past Belka bonewall if you get there before it closes.
• Moves votes of option C to option A on the next vote.

B) Ban being past any blockades. All blockades must remain open if anyone is past them.

• AC Story would require boulders on pressure plates.
• Locks the next poll to option B.

C) You are free to be past any blockades but they may have to be opened.

• Other rules still prevent getting out of bounds, etc.
• Allows AC Story gate skipping with any means.
• Allows CoE Exp gate skip but rules prevent attacking Alpha while he is inactive.

The other poll:

A) All blockades must be open at some point.

B) All blockades must be open at the end.

• AC Story would require boulders on pressure plates

C) Blockades don’t have to be opened.

• Other rules still prevent getting out of bounds, etc.
• Simplifies the ruleset and removes overlap.
• May allow exploits (can be plugged next week)

Issue3: Unrestricted path completion

Currently in unrestricted you only have to kill the final boss. This means you can literally go straight to the boss and kill it. It has been proposed that to a record be valid, path completion must trigger. If no option gets over 50% votes, this will be voted again next week but with two options.

A) Keep the current rule. Only the final boss has to be killed.

B) Require a path completion to trigger.

C) Require a completion of same events as in the restricted category (but in any order).

Yes, I did. Thanks for that. I just haven’t uploaded the updated file yet.

NovaanVerdiano.6174:

That might be the case, but at the same time reddit is probably the most known site you’re posting on and it’s new, important information you released there. Not sure if you (guys) ever advertised gw2dungeons in a similar way etc.

Yes, but I have always put like 50-100 hours between releases. This scaling thing was just a few hours.

Heh, I would say these reddit topics are the ones with the least effort. Also there are few things which may actually turn the whole thing around. So bit weird to get all the praise and recognition.

I almost lost all hope but finally got a trinity post on my event scaling topics.

These people in reddit…

I have lost count how many of these I have had to deal with during last few days.

Minae Iss.7054:

Wethospu.6437:

Let’s say zerg does damage equal 1% of boss’s health per second. So 100 seconds to kill it.

If someone gets defeated and is revived, zerg can’t kill in 100 seconds because reviving takes some time.

Assuming everyone does same damage and scaling is fair. If someone gets defeated and waypoints, the boss scales down and zerg will still do 1% max health per second. Zerg will still kill the boss in 100 seconds.

This holds true AS LONG AS THE DEAD PLAYER DOES NOT RETURN. The moment he returns, the boss gets upscaled again and you have to follow my calculations. And then it’s not quite so simple and it all depends on how long you have to run from the wp and how fast the zerg is killing the boss.
But because of other factors like annoying map clutter, risk of reviving and not beeing able to pick up icebows… it’s probably better to waypoint. But certainly not because of the damage loss or scaling alone!

When the player returns, boss gets upscaled and the zerg still does 1% max health per second.

Kaz.5430:

These ‘maths proofs’ are pretty useless, simply they assume that all players do the same DPS. It could well be that the dead player would do considerably more DPS that the players who revived them.

Of course people do have different DPS but how do you know how much each DPS each player does? If you have a decent built it’s unlikely that the defeated player would do much more damage than you, especially if he gets defeated again.

But even assuming that all players were identical, these ‘proofs’ also conveniently leaving out the fact that the group has already lost DPS from the dead player, and that counts too.

Player dies, group DPS is now down by 10k DPS
Player waypoints and spends 45 seconds running back.
Group loses 450,000 damage

Player does, group DPS is now down by 10k DPS
5 players instantly start to revive, and spend 5 seconds reviving player at a cost of 6 players (5 ressurectors and dead) x 5 seconds x 10 DPS.
Group loses 300,000 damage

—

That’s not how it works.

With fair scaling, 10 players and a boss with 10M health. With 10k DPS per player, the boss would die in 100 seconds. After 20 seconds at 8M (80%) someone gets defeated.

1) He waypoints
Boss instantly scales down from 10M max health to 9M max health. Current health scales to 7.2M (80%). Player spends 45 seconds coming back. At that point, the boss has 45 * 10 * 9 = 4050K less health which equals 3150k (35%). Boss instantly scales up from 9M max health to 10M max health. Current health scales to 3500k (35%). If the player could reach the boss very fast, it would take 35 seconds to finish it up. Since 20 + 45 + 35 = 100, that would mean no DPS loss. In reality it takes some time to reach the boss after you have upscaled it so you would lose like 50k-100k damage.

2) He gets ressed
In optimal case (5 players instantly start reviving), it would be a 240k damage loss. However if you don’t get revived fast this can easily go to like 500k damage loss..

Let’s say zerg does damage equal 1% of boss’s health per second. So 100 seconds to kill it.

If someone gets defeated and is revived, zerg can’t kill in 100 seconds because reviving takes some time.

Assuming everyone does same damage and scaling is fair. If someone gets defeated and waypoints, the boss scales down and zerg will still do 1% max health per second. Zerg will still kill the boss in 100 seconds.

If reviving is a damage loss and waypointing is a damage gain, how can it be worse?

Minae Iss.7054:

But what happens if the player gets back ? The HP just gets added again ? Flat ? In that case my post still stands.
If the HP gets relatively added, it all depends on how fast the rest of the zerg is killing the boss. In phase 1 of Tequatl, wich is the phase were most will die, this will change little to the outcome.

If it was flat, a zerg could attack a boss for few seconds, leave and the boss would self-destruct. Also you would see the health going up and down a lot.

1d 14h time left for vote and the leader of [SOLO] hasn’t voted yet.

That all was explained last week. If you want consistent rule set, you vote for option B.

“Out of bounds” is questionable. For some it means areas where you get inside geometry. For some it means areas you shouldn’t access normally. Then what “normally” exactly means is another question.

People agreed that

• Each “unintended” trick will be decided case by case.
• Encounter specific rules may override general rules.

so that’s why those tricks are now being reviewed.

There isn’t really such thing as “voting on questionable things”. If something is questionable that means rules have to be refined.

Not really sure what you want to me to put there. It’s already state that the first option allows exceptions (encounter rules overriding general rules).

I opened the vote for few days if anyone wants to change his mind.

Evolved Husk has been tested against all potions and nothing works.

I might have explained myself poorly but you shouldn’t vote to clarify rules. While you can do that, nothing forces others to do the same. With this system people can vote to allow things which are clearly against rules overriding the rule.

The whole point of last week was do people want to decide “case by case” to allow exceptions.

Do you think I should open the last week’s vote with a better clarification?

Long time ago when Molten Alliance was introduced people wondered why Dredge slaying doesn’t work against Molten Dredge. A developer confirmed that enemies can have only one type which also affects the loot they drop. This means that enemies with same type react exactly same to potions.

Normally potions only work against a single type but Scarlet Slaying is an exception. It works against Molten, Krait, Nightmare Court, Aether and Watchwork.

What actually would be interesting to know do old potions have similar effect? For example does Flame Legion slaying also work against devourers and drakes.

I would say there was a little bug with projectile tracking algorithm which made it calculate height difference incorrectly. In most cases projectiles start from the same height or have long distance so a minor overshoot doesn’t matter. But with Lupicus projectiles always have a height difference. Closer you are, more dominant that height difference becomes.

Then they probably made a tall/huge enemy in HoT and noticed something is wrong. But this is all speculation.