Guild Wars 2

That was kind of point of last week voting. Do people want enforced and consistent rule set or more freedom? While opinions are always great, I have to say you are one week late.

Also the point isn’t to keep the current rule set but to evolve it as people want. If existing rules get too controversial, I will refine or remove them. For example based on current votes, I can just add new rule about allowing delaying path selection. Similarly ‘out of bounds’ will get changed to disallow getting inside walls or geometry.

Yeah, since people wanted case by case the rule set is more like a guide line.

If results conflicts rules too much then we can just alter rules next week.

They need priorities, not time. More we keep poking at them, more likely someone does something about it.

I’m pretty sure it didn’t take 5 months of work to locate that bug. Anyways, this isn’t a bug. This is a content fix. Lupicus overshooting was a bug which they fixed.

I don’t know about their code but I know this isn’t about the code (as I have said like 5 times already).

Both can be fixed easily so not sure why it’s trolling. Is it because of the cliche that every software related issue is a massive bug and takes heroic effort to fix or because of the cliche that every forum poster is an expert on IT field?

And then someone gets fired or that restaurant gets closed down.

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]

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

Results of week 22 voting

• 86% agreed to keep voting system, 14% didn’t care.
• 63% agreed to decide exploits/etc case by case, 37% would have let me decide.

As a result, this week will be about this “case by case” deciding on restricted rule set.

Issue1: Safespotting trash

Currently rules only mention bosses. I would say it’s generally agreed on that this includes both legendary enemies and champions. If someone disagrees please let me know so I add another vote option. The real question is about the trash, especially those immobile enemies in CMP2 which can be attacked through walls.

A) Allow safespotting trash.

• Removes the need to draw a line in pretty trivial cases (it’s trash).
• No need to care about “made up” barrier in pretty trivial cases.

B) Extend safespotting rule to trash.

• May have to decided more stuff case by case.
• Playing as “intended”.

Issue 2: AC story gate skip

Instead of getting a boulder from next room to keep the gate open, players can just leap over the gate or teleport before the gate closes.

A) Allow by-passing the gate.

• Every (or at least most) professions can do it.
• Uses legit mechanics, no “made up” barrier.

B) Don’t allow by-passing the gate.

• Skips one room.
• Encourages splitting (one stands on the pressure plate, rest proceed while he gets a boulder to get through on his own).

Issue 3: CoE exp door skip

First Alpha can be reached by just jumping over the door while waiting for the path selection. This is clearly unintended as Alpha is inactive.

A) Allow jumping over the door.

• It’s only jumping.
• It skips a timegate.

B) Don’t allow jumping over the door.

• Dumps down Alpha even more.

Issue 4: ArahP3 door skip

By delaying the path selection, you can walk to the closed door. After selection it briefly opens allowing you to enter fast.

A) Allow delaying the path selection.

• Legit mechanic.
• It’s just thrash.

B) Don’t allow delaying the path selection.

• Clearly unintended.
• Dumps down the path.

Issue 5: AC exp burrow skip

By delaying the path selection you can prevent the first burrow from appearing.

A) Allow delaying the path selection.

• Burrow is pointless.

B) Don’t allow delaying the path selection.

• Consistency.

Issue 6: Molten Facility lightning riding

A leap can be used (https://youtu.be/FjCGwiVtStE?t=6m29s) to jump over a gap, land on weapontest room fences and magically skip dialogue.

A) Allow the riding.

• Not out of bounds.
• Skips a timegate.

B) Don’t allow the riding.

• Not all professions can do it.
• Unintended area.

Issue 7: Arah p4 final jumping puzzle

With some jumping you can move over top of walls and reach end area faster.

A) Allow jumping.

• Harmless
• Skips an easy skip (jumping may actually be harder!).

B) Don’t allow jumping.

• Dumps down the path.
• Unintended area.

I might have forgot something so let me know if you think something else should be included.

TPMN.1483:

Wethospu.6437:

Except these are content fixes, not code fixes.

How do you fix content without changing code?
How do you ‘test’ content after you change code?

Content is an asset file – e.g. a picture.
Code is how content works: e.g. putting together pieces of pictures moving in different ways (e.g. a weapon with animations for example – similar with a boss and moving joints).

I would fix the content by changing the content. If I have a weapon with a wrong texture, I would modify the texture instead of making a code which would alter it.

Testing is simple when you only change content in one encounter. Teleport to Lupicus, use god mode and verify that Wall can’t be placed on wall anymore.

One basic thing of game developing is to split the engine and the content so that the game designers don’t have to understand programming or even see the code when they create maps and encounters. I would be really surprised if Anet doesn’t have any kind of a map editor.

That said, they don’t even need a programmer to fix this, just a designer.

Except these are content fixes, not code fixes.

TPMN.1483:

By adding a minimum range to wall of reflection – you risk bugging many things (e.g. casting wall via skill bar will drop on the guardian itself : range = 0). I think you understimate the amount of effort required to change this.

Have chatted with many ANET on this (and Lupi mechiancs) – and its not an easy fix as you may imagine.

I would say it was pretty spot on. It might take an hour if an intern does it.

To fix oneshotting, all they have to do is to prevent putting the Wall of Reflection on the wall. To do this, they either have to make walls around Lupicus higher or add there invisible walls. They have done this many times before and adding geometry is an integral part of creating maps. I would say this is a pretty trivial change.

To fix Lupine Blast / Necrid Bolt hitting on melee, all they have to do is to give that skill a minimum range. There are numerous examples of this (for example Spider Queen change) so I’m pretty sure it’s just a single value on some file / database. I would say this is a pretty trivial change too.

What’s the biggest problem then? Priorities.

I’m definitely not happy. It would be much better if we had to fill half of our inventory with different gear.

To fix this, they only have to add invisible walls to prevent the oneshot and add minimum range to the skill. Takes max 30 minutes with testing.

fracture.9754:

NikeEU.7690:

fracture.9754:

I don’t like tryharding in my dungeon runs

Plenty of open world and living story content for you then.

I like doing the hearts, can I do them please Mr. Nike??

Sure, but it’s 1g per heart.

For administration purposes of course.

Technically safe spotting only applies to bosses, so elite enemies are a bit gray area.

While the discussion has been exhaustive and sparkling, any input of next votes?

WvW players have much less health than enemies we consider thrash.

I know my account is cursed.

This should do (assumes fury) https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=maximize+%28916%2Bx%29+*+%281+%2B+%2824.5+%2B+y%2F21%29%2F100+*+%280.5+%2B+z%2F1500%29%29%2C+x%2By%2Bz%3D5000

However, optimizing damage formula doesn’t give you the highest damage. Pretty much every build has buffs or critical hit based effects (which make precision more important) so truly optimal attribute allocation varies from build to build.

Nokaru.7831:

Wethospu.6437:

When I did my first kill you guys were still struggling with Risen Thralls in Cursed Shore.

Imagine that.

I wouldn’t have died to Risen Thrall if I could just just use Reckless Dodge to win…

All the bugs I had to deal with….

When I did my first kill you guys were still struggling with Risen Thralls in Cursed Shore.

Imagine that.

Element Two.7316:

fracture.9754:

To answer your question: your guild members too, Tom. At least I imagine rT as one of the top PVE guilds.

Don’t worry about it, I’ll be the first to kitten-talk rT members, especially the ones who joined after 2013 xoxo

And I can do it on a no reflect class if you really want, Warrior or Engie?

Necromancer is the only no reflect class.

Valve takes a pretty big cut so it’s not really something you want automatically to do.

Now do it without FGS exploit.

This is a pilot for the weekly voting system to improve rules for record runs.

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 [iV]
• Ashlee [geek]
• Jerem [SC]
• Nikephoros [DnT]
• Sanderinoa [rT]

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

Issue 1: How to decide things

The most relevant question is do we want to scrap the weekly voting and go back to rule meetings. Naturally both aren’t an option because if things are decided weekly then there is nothing to decide on the rule meetings.

A) Remove voting system, do rule meetings.

• Voting page will be removed and weekly voting stops.
• Rule meetings will be invoked when enough issues have stockpiled.
• Causes issues to stack up (I would say at least 4 months between two meetings).
• Some issues may be postponed because of the limited time.

B) Keep voting system, don’t do rule meetings.

• Voting page will be improved and rule meetings stop.
• Deciding goes as described above.
• Requires weekly activity from guild leaders.
• Any issues get decided within a week or two (after the backlog has been dealt with).

Issue 2: How to decide encounter specific rules?

As seen on a quite many topics, there are lots of opinions what should be allowed and what not. One point for restricted rule set was to play the dungeons “as intended”. Now some clearly unintended stuff are allowed because rules don’t explicitly ban it or just because. However some unintended stuff can make the path more fun by allowing splitting up or skipping time gates.

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

• Each “unintended” trick will be decided case by case.
• Explicitly state that encounter specific rules may override general rules.
• Gameplay over consistency.
• Needs higher activity from guild leaders.

B) Wethospu decides based on rules.

• No direct voting, can be affected by deciding rules correctly.
• Rules have to be clarified to decide border cases.
• Consistency over gameplay.
• Needs less activity from guild leaders.

I would remove all consumables from the game.

Except if they are illegal vedios.

spoj.9672:

Some of the bigger guilds havent taken part in records for quite some time. Now for some that might be due to the rules. But even so i dont think its fair to give double votes to certain guilds.

In this case, size refers to amount of records. For example all guilds had a default weight of 10 and each record increased it by one.

Anyone could easily conquer Norn lands by giving a pint of beer to anyone opposing.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Why not allow individuals to vote then?
You solve the issue of how to weight a guilds vote.

It also allows you to get a better idea of what the populace wants/thinks, rather than just a select few.

A voting system which allows 10,000 votes is no more difficult to put together than a voting system that allows 10 votes.

Also by excluding people who have not set records also makes new-comers seem unwelcome. Unless that is the idea?

Less experience you have with the system, less likely you can contribute positively. Opening it to masses means most of the voters have no idea what they are doing.

Anyways, assuming we go with this voting thing, I would like to every guild leader contact me in game, forums or email stating their preferred login name, guild they are representing and reason why they should have a vote (for example “My guild was in last rule meeting” or “My guild has XYZ records”).

Also you can optionally give me your email so I can email you whenever a new poll is created.

Additionally now is a good time to mention if you don’t like the idea at all. I’m planning to do the first poll at end of this week.

Most people don’t have a clue about efficient. In lots of pug runs the biggest slowdown comes from bad tactics and execution, not build.

Obviously a better build is better but that’s not what most people should be worrying about.

Baconplease.1657:

if you ran DPS you could of cut those times down by 20% respectively

I didn’t know DPS increased your party’s movement speed.

I agree everything would be much better if we had to grind multiple gear sets.

Who can vote and how much their vote counts can be tricky. Ideally everyone who is seriously interested in record running should have a vote. In practice that’s impossible to pull off because of troll guilds like GGGG.

I would rather not to give any exact requirements since then I would have to hold them (or get called corrupt). But you definitely need to hold several records over a week at some point or have some other significance.

Then another question is should more important guilds have bigger votes. That sounds pretty hard to tune so I would rather not go that way. But it’s not exactly fair that a random guild with 2 records has the same effect as a guild with 20 records.

Why offtopic?

There are quite many Mossmen so it’s understandable.

It’s action time.

To get things rolling, I suggest that we scrap the idea of rule meeting.

• Slow responsibility to issues
• Lots of effort required
• Limited effect (not enough time, lots of people already have their own opinion)

Instead, we should be agile and have “weekly” polls.

• Each record-oriented guild leader is given one vote (login info).
• When an issue arises, it’s put on a stack (aka my mind).
• If there is no poll running, I choose a good amount of issues from the stack and start a new poll.
• Poll is started by creating a discussion topic on forums and adding each issue to gw2dungeons poll page (http://gw2dungeons.net/dev/voting, work in progress)
• Each poll runs for a week. Leaders can vote what they want (or even share the login details with trusted members).
• After one week, results have immediate effect and new issues are chosen from the stack (if any).

How does this sound for you guys (especially guild leaders)? Does 1 week sound too fast? Does constant voting sound too cumbersome? Or do you just prefer rule meetings?

Current vote holders:

• Daemoniic [HeX]
• Enko [LOD]
• Deathly [qT]
• Skywalker [TDN]
• Der/p/y Moa [iV]

That inconsistency is pretty crazy.

Lelouch.8745:

—

How this is actually being debated is truly beyond me.

That’s called having a personal opinion.

That crystal dies pretty much instantly so it’s not very relevant. I’m not 100% sure how it even works.

His protective ice crystal may explain that.

Well, I don’t.

That’s why there are approvers. They will tell you if it qualifies or if they need additional information. Do what they ask, they probably have more knowledge about approving, rules and the underlying system than you.

Ok, tell me without the emotion, what kind of help you need?

Lead by your example and I’m sure others will follow.

Yep, there is no accountability.

Approvers are volunteers and they only have to review records they want to review. If no one wants to review your record then your record won’t get approved. That’s something to keep in your mind when you submit your records and call people corrupt.

If a record doesn’t get approved within few weeks (your submission is just a day old) then I will try to fix the situation by getting more approvers. But if no one wants to review your record then your record will be never approved.

TL;DR: There is no obligation. The whole system is based on good faith and respect which you have already broken on your end.

I think you forgot that PvE is scripted and you can’t be good at it.

Only hatchlings count.

Most of the stuff is pretty irrelevant “whether all flame legion enemies are actually flame legion”, etc. Not really worth of checking unless you can generate full lists like with AC.

Here is a quick (1h) prototype for the voting page: http://gw2dungeons.net/dev/voting

While it may look fancy, even these forums have pretty much the same functionality. So it’s one question whether the whole page is even needed. I think it would only be needed if we go “all-in” with voting. With the page, it would be really easy to manage lots of polls. For example for every little exploit.

Do you guys think we should have a proper rule meeting? Or just scrap the whole idea and start discussion and voting whenever anything pops up.

Anyways, this is a valid record so it should be approved.

But if this becomes a trend, it’s going to be 10g per submission (directly given to the approver).

Unfortunately most of the stuff has already been tested. But it will be good to be able to verify everything, especially if we get stuff like Graveling slaying some day.

This “issue” of casual runs being records is caused by two things: small playerbase and aggressive record resetting.

Playerbase can’t be really changed but we can alter the record resetting procedure. For example adding lots of extra time to “non-valid” records instead of invalidating them.

I guess I have to further elaborate why current situation is problematic.

At the moment, what is allowed or not allowed is chosen randomly. Sometimes exploits are allowed to make the path “more fun”. Sometimes something very small is disallowed because “it’s an exploit”. Sometimes the community decides what should be allowed. Sometimes I make the decision.

All in all, this leads to an inconsistent rulebase where it’s hard to decide what should be allowed and when people figure out something new they have no idea whether they can use it not.

So the options from my previous post:

1) Focus on what’s intended. Don’t consider how it affects the path.

This leads to more restricted rules and would ban some stuff which is currently allowed. I don’t think this is a good option because sometimes unintended stuff can make the path more interesting.

or

2) Focus on how it affects the path. Don’t consider is it intended.

This leads to less restricted rules. I prefer this option because the paths should be as interesting as possible for a fun competition.

1) Use a vote for every decision. Every major guild (leader) has one vote.

I prefer this option because decisions would be final and guilds could affect their own game. However guilds would have to publish their questionable tactics to know whether they can be used or risk unrestricting their record.

or

2) Allow me to change rules as I want. A vote can be used to override my decisions.

I think this is the worst option because things might go back and forth. Guilds could verify their questionable tactics private with a small risk of their record getting unrestricted.

or

3) Allow me to change rules as I want.

This would be ok too but there probably would be some complaints about bias, etc. Guilds could verify their questionable tactics private.

For voting, I could add a simple system for gw2dungeons. Guild leaders would get login details which they could use to log in a special page. I would add any pending votes there with options, yes, no or don’t care and a time limit. There would also be a topic on forums for a discussion and a reminder.

dlonie.6547:

heartless.6803:

Because of the lack of healer they skip trash

Can you explain your reasoning here? I’m having a hard time getting from A to B on this one.

—

Obviously healers can’t skip because they need to be protected by tanks. If healers get within 1200 range of enemies, enemies immediately use their superior AI to one shot them.