Clear Speed Leaderboards

[Glacier Peak]

The build I posted is for all content. It's not a Pylon-only build.

[arcane]

2 hours ago, Beldath said:

I have been quiet about this for a long time. But I really need to say this, I never expected to see a worse testing system than Trapdoor. WTH are these builds and rules? Not only are most of them basically non-functional outside of a Pylon test, but they are built in completely idiotic ways in that no reasonable person would build, using temps no one will use, in completely unrealistic situations. Come on, Koopak, I know you are smarter than this, but I also know you can tunnel vision far too much. These have become the laughing stock of the community, no one takes it seriously, except maybe the new and casual people who don't know any better and are now just talking about how Sonic/Bio Sentinels are the strongest build in the game.  We have people in here chasing for damage set bonus, and I don't mean like procs, but like flat out +4% damage set bonuses, some of the rotations, energy, and accuracy here are reliant on Geas which is a 10% uptime. Even worse is that these builds only work in casual situations, as it assumes you aren't in HM as not only is this assuming you have no kins in the group, but it is allowing temps. But in casual play you also have access to inspirations which costs peanuts so it isn't being built for casual play either. To add more fuel to this bonfire of awfulness is that it bans your lore, which you know, typically the thing you save to summon specifically to deal with massive threats. But then allow epic summons because reasons, which no one uses, ever.

 

The only situation this is realistic is if you are not on a team because clearly you have no support, have unlimited inf to summon Recluse over and over, fighting for one minute out of ten, forgot lores and inspirations exist, and also have enemies not fight back because these builds have no survivability, no teammates, no lores, and no inspirations. So basically just this. These tests need a serious revamp, or it will continue to be a joke in the community.

Yeah unfortunately the thread became a complete joke to me when a couple people started bringing Signature Summons. Nothing of value is being measured at this point. 

[AmrasNotHere]

1 hour ago, Beldath said:

It's decent, but there is an inherent randomness in the mobs, almost all videos I see have people struggle with the grates including myself, and any pets are borked on it which removes a lot of builds. Especially Masterminds.

 

The map for trapdoor did bug me as well but I can't deny that it did have some value.

 

Have you tried out Stons new mission? It has a large variety of enemy types, resistances, and it's on a super testing friendly map. The only thing known that can cause variance atm is the PFF that some crey enemies use but it's not hard to just make a target macro to focus them first. Yes enemies have potential to run away from you, and there's some variety that can't be controlled, but I actually like it more than I did the trapdoor map. I def like it a lot more than that office simulator people were recommending to me.

 

The only other thing I can hope for that could be better is a dedicated testing mission arc created by HC mission team. Something that players can use to measure their abilities with stable mob spawns. The only kickback I would think something like that would produce is the "catering to min/maxers" comments I see from the usual same people. I believe @Player-1 would be a good person to ask about this kind of thing to get some parameters that would provide valuable data.

[Bionic_Flea]

First, my build is exactly as it has been for over a year or more.  The only things I changed are getting Geas, buying Recluse and offensive amplifier.  Others have done the same so I figured why not.

 

Second, while these rules seem wacky, they're Koopak's wacky rules and he is putting up the prize and keeping tabs on times and builds.  Nothing is stopping anyone else from starting their own test with whatever rules they want.  It's much easier to criticize than organize.  You don't even have to do that, Koopak has said to give him a list of rules and he will add that as a division.

 

Third, I want to do it again with everything!  Lores, Inspirations, Recluse, Geas, etc.  Sure it may not be reflective of actual game play but shaving seconds off your own time is a game onto itself.

 

Edit:  Added Robotic Lore, a few red team inspirations, Support Core T4 active - 27 Seconds

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1 by Bionic_Flea

[Koopak]

Just some points regarding the recent burst of posts decrying the rule set.

 

• Divisions are open to expansion.
• Additional challenges are planned but i only have so much reward money and it takes time to make. Given the game's economy, 2 bil feels pretty light as is.
• You don't need to be participating in a bounty to post, please, post, theres plenty of rulesets to use and you can even use your own.
• The sheet is designed to be easy to filter for the data YOU care about.
• ANYONE can post a bounty. Put up the money and the challenge and i will add it to OP and help signal boost to get participants.
   

[Beldath]

42 minutes ago, Koopak said:

Just some points regarding the recent burst of posts decrying the rule set.

 

• Divisions are open to expansion.
• Additional challenges are planned but i only have so much reward money and it takes time to make. Given the game's economy, 2 bil feels pretty light as is.
• You don't need to be participating in a bounty to post, please, post, theres plenty of rulesets to use and you can even use your own.
• The sheet is designed to be easy to filter for the data YOU care about.
• ANYONE can post a bounty. Put up the money and the challenge and i will add it to OP and help signal boost to get participants.
   

Yes, but you also made this entire thing solely because you hated the methods people were testing in this game, then you go off and make a far worse one. You don't see the hypocrisy of this, at all? I mean sure I can go off and possibly easily throw together an awful abomination that smokes the previous build out of the water, but it's utterly pointless to actually play and pilot. It's just teaching new players and casuals bad habits, and that is also one of the main reasons you made this in the first place is to stop that. But you do what you desire, just know the entire community takes potshots at this and jokes about it constantly, and those that don't are taking it to heart. These points of data are meaningless and pointless, therefore this entire thread is meaningless unless someone just wants a wad of Inf for a character or two, or just makes a build as a joke to prove a point. Meanwhile you are effectively throwing your inf away just for people to laugh at the results. Though there are some fun memes that came out of this, so far I am rather enjoying the Recluse/Bio Sentinel one that has been floating around lately.

[Beldath]

2 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

First, my build is exactly as it has been for over a year or more.  The only things I changed are getting Geas, buying Recluse and offensive amplifier.  Others have done the same so I figured why not.

 

Second, while these rules seem wacky, they're Koopak's wacky rules and he is putting up the prize and keeping tabs on times and builds.  Nothing is stopping anyone else from starting their own test with whatever rules they want.  It's much easier to criticize than organize.  You don't even have to do that, Koopak has said to give him a list of rules and he will add that as a division.

I want to use this as an example for the other responses, I said most not all the builds here are just pylon burst builds. There are exceptions, but they aren't getting good times in comparison.

 

Second, Koopak criticizes people's testing methods on almost a daily basis, and complains about there being a ton of bad data floating around. So he made this as a response, I feel it is fair to criticize this as well.

[Koopak]

3 hours ago, Beldath said:

Second, Koopak criticizes people's testing methods on almost a daily basis, and complains about there being a ton of bad data floating around. So he made this as a response, I feel it is fair to criticize this as well.

While others seem to disagree with this point I actually want to address it because I feel you actually have one.

First and for most, my critique of other sources of data elsewhere is multilayered. To sum up so I'm not writing a manifesto (and likely fail as I am a wind bag), essentially my view is a lot of other data sources fall into any number of several major failings.

1. Failing to include details of methodology, examples being not sharing builds. Its been common for people in the community to make claims but not back them.
2. Failing to isolate variables, Trapdoor is a perfect example of this, the mission would be pretty decent if it was on a map that introduced less inconsistency in the tester themselves, in the form of navigating awkward geometry. However it also is over valued as an example of 'normal play' partly because of the boss fight at the end which isn't really reflective of any boss type normally encountered in any other type of content.
3. Failing to account for all of the options available to the player. This is where what is now called Division 1 came from. We can sit here and go in circles all day about how much temp powers homogenize the results and trend them toward obfuscating meaningful set differences, and how they aren't representative of how any one of us might play. However, the fact that the average player doesn't CHOOSE to play using all the tools available in Division 1, doesn't change the fact that they DO have that option. The logic that temp powers shouldn't be used in these competitions can, and has, been used to argue that epic powers, pool powers, and incarnate powers, shouldn't be considered when comparing sets. I patently disagree with that philosophy. If you want to choose to play sub-optimally, that's your choice, but its not reflective of the nature of the game itself, which is what most interests me.
4. Failing to include others in the process so as to increase the odds of successfully exploring all options. As an example, Ston's work is great, but unless people start bulk mirroring the man's commitment, then we cant be very certain there isn't something he overlooked.
5. Failing to record the data in an easy to digest and explore format. This is my main concern with the Scrapper Thread.

 

My goal with this project is to address all of the above, and I feel the mention of Trapdoor in comparison to a pylon test is missing the mark. In terms of a one to one comparison I would never compare a Pylon time to Trapdoor times, they are different tests of different intended metrics. The Office Mission Sim is the more accurate mirror but I haven't yet moved to push for more times from that. I feel that I accomplish those goals here, but if you have specific critiques regarding them I am happy to hear them.

I feel your arguments are understandable, but mostly come from a frustration that the bounties being posted do not fit what you personally consider acceptable standards. That is fine, we don't have to agree on what good pylon standards look like. In fact, the decision to implement Divisions was specifically to address this issue.

However when it comes to the bounties I can only fund so many so often, and I haven't been able to commit to the kind of income I normally would have due to IRL commitments. I could stop Division 1 bounties, and start doing other Divisions tonight, yes, but I started with the intent of doing a full round of each AT, and don't want to stop that just to address the fact that some people think Division 1 is stinky poo poo.

My advice to anyone with issues with Division 1 is either post your own bounty, or wait patiently for when I finish my personal interest in Division 1.
 

Edited June 2 by Koopak

[Koopak]

Now on a lighter note, congratulations to @Shin Magmus for winning the Brute competition. I will be in touch here on the forums to sort your reward.

 

And without further to do and a bit late.

 

---

 

Bounty Posted!

Prize: 2 billion influence

Task:
Post the best pylon/dummy time under Division 1 rules of any CrabSpider for the month of June. Read the rules and regulations for Division 1 and post your results here: Clear Speed Leaderboards

 

Start Date/Time: 00:00 UTC, June 1st 2024 See in your timezone here!
End Date/Time: 00:00 UTC, July 1st 2024 See in your timezone here!
(In the links look in the non bold text with your location in it, if anyone has a better translation method, let me know.)

 

• Runs on the test server are valid provided they do not make use of any changes currently being tested, or the changes used are promoted to live.

[Koopak]

23 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

Opening bid on Crabs - 39 seconds.  Sorry, no video.  Crabstermind with mace, Geas, Envenomed Daggers, and Statesman Recluse Signature pet.

 

Run Type: RWZ Base Pylon on Excelsior

Division: I (I think)
Archetype: Soldier of Arachnos
Primary Powerset: Crab
Secondary Powerset: Crab
Time in seconds: 39

Burst: Burst
Hybrid: Support Core passive only
Build is usable for General Purpose: Yes, damn good for general use.
Number of Runs Averaged Together: One  (Edit: Ran a second one, added Offensive Amplifier and shaved a second.  38 secs)
Version: Issue 27 Page 7 Excelsior
Video Link: Pics below, no Video
Notes: (Any added details you'd like to add, please include any temp powers violating the above rules here)
Build: Modified very old build.  No Mids for it that I can find.  /Buildsave didn't work

Working on Reverse engineering your build from screenshots so it can be made official and you seemed to have missed the Epic pet. If you want to make the mids build yourself and drop the file here, that would save me some work.

[Beldath]

Perhaps showing why is a better option. Here is a screenshot of my Demon/Cold MM's time.

But notice there is something weird about my build? Where's my pets? Well that's simple! I don't have one! I'm a petless MM, and now I have better times than most people here.

Mastermind Pylon (Demon Summoning - Cold Domination).mbd

[Beldath]

By building like a horrible person who should be in no way near a group, I have managed to overtake a crabbermind who has a legitimate build.

[Bionic_Flea]

10 hours ago, Beldath said:

By building like a horrible person who should be in no way near a group, I have managed to overtake a crabbermind who has a legitimate build.

 

Obviously, we have to nerf Red Wisp Pet!

 

Also, beware the sudden influx of petless masterminds!  I hear they're OP.

Edited June 2 by Bionic_Flea

[Shin Magmus]

I think Flea's gonna win this one guys.

 

Real talk, the gauntlet has been thrown and the actual rules of how to win these contests have been solved and codified.  If you want to beat this Crabbermind challenge, you gotta do completely normal stuff like take Enflame for no reason, and pick pets/extra powers solely for their uptime on Achilles Heel procs.

 

[Koopak]

On 6/2/2024 at 4:15 AM, Beldath said:

Perhaps showing why is a better option. Here is a screenshot of my Demon/Cold MM's time.

But notice there is something weird about my build? Where's my pets? Well that's simple! I don't have one! I'm a petless MM, and now I have better times than most people here.

Mastermind Pylon (Demon Summoning - Cold Domination).mbd

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean prove, this time only beats one time in its Division, and that is a fire farm build that didn't use Geas. Honestly this mostly shows how potent Cold Dom is, I honestly wouldn't have expected such a performance even under Division 1 rules for a petless Master Mind, so thank you for the time, this is exactly the kind of thing id love to see more of.



I would very much like to see a Demons/Cold go all in with pets, and even a Division 2 of the same, just for comparison.

 

---

 

Moving on to the actual criticism being repeatedly brought up. Assuming everyone here is engaging in good faith, I want to ask two simple questions.

1. Why does the Division system not address your concern?

2. What would you do differently?

Edited June 3 by Koopak

[Laucianna]

12 hours ago, Koopak said:

Moving on to the actual criticism being repeatedly brought up. Assuming everyone here is engaging in good faith, I want to ask two simple questions.

1. Why does the Division system not address your concern?

2. What would you do differently?

1: For me personally some of the divisions are not testing anything useful, either from being too precise or too weird. To me you should be tested the sustained damage of your build and the burst damage with things like hybrid active/destiny that is up a good amount of the time. Having both of those data points gives you a good boss DPS rating on your build, then you can take that build into other tests to see how it fares in clear times/survivability etc.

2: De-complicate it. Like mentioned above you only really need two tests when it comes to Pylons imo, I think @Beldath made a great example on why certain things shouldn't be included in divisions, as pretty much all ATs can get around that mark when using recluse, PB included (I got 28 seconds) which doesn't give any useful data other then Recluse = strong st.

I mean these both in good faith and have openly supported this and pylon testing, but it is getting a bit out of hand and I think needs to be reeled back in to provide everyone with good testing results ❤️ I think it was @Ston who did the tables below which gives good data that is not over complicated to read, you could do something similar but just adding the AT at the start so you can filter by which AT you want when it comes to comparing:

Powerset                          Sustained DPS          Burst DPS                  Average DPS

[arcane]

1. Any division that allows Signature Summons is a division full of worthless data.

2. Scrap the division full of worthless data.

[Linea]

Crab Heavy Armor Build, not intended for DPS.

I did an Instanced Raid Pylon, which are not the same as regular pylons, but should be: ~= ((38346.4/(I2*3600*24))+127.8)/0.65 where I2 is "00:00:00" day format in excel.

~12:18 ~= 277.  This was good enough for me.  I consider anything over 250 good, and it was 248 at T3.  Still not completely T4, but close enough to test at the time.

Crab - MOMAS 1b - Leadership - [i28].mbd

 

[Bionic_Flea]

Here is what I hope is a constructive suggestion for a division, and potentially lead to several other divisions.

 

Right next to the Pylons that most people use*, stand Apex and Tin Mage.  If you talk to them to start a TF, they give you a series of options to add challenge and difficulty.  Under Power Limits there is a selection for "No Temporary Powers," which would remove all the Amplifiers, Wisp pets, Signature Summons and, even a fan favorite, Envenomed Daggers.  However, accolade powers are still active.  So you have your passive health and endurance buffs as well as access to Geas and the others.  I would go one further and click on the dot for "Inspirations cannot be used" to make it more like the old RWZ scrapper challenge from the live forums.

 

I think those two settings would give you a fairly accurate reading of the DPS of the AT's power sets and build.  You could take it further if you wanted to eliminate Incarnate powers or whatever.  The problem lies in that you can only click one choice inside the radial box.  So if you choose "No Temps" you cannot also choose "No Incarnates."  However the list below the box are not mutually exclusive, so you could remove inspirations, be debuffed, buff enemies, and remove all enhancement effects all at the same time.  Other than perhaps a comparison of attack sets without regard to build, I can't see why anyone would subject himself or herself to those other ones.

 

The best part is that this is super easy to do and monitor.  You have people start the video at the TF selection box to show the choices, or a screen shot with the same.  The pylon is right there waiting for you to pummel.

 

I will contribute 1 billion inf towards the bounty reward for this division.  If you like these rules and wish to contribute, say so.

 

*Except for weirdos like Linea 😜

Edited June 3 by Bionic_Flea

[Frosticus]

I don't think there is a large enough community to support so many divisions, so it just becomes drowned out.

 

IMO make 2 divisions. 

 

Div 1 - real honest attempt at measuring dps that can be extracted to longer fights where dps actually matters.

- no insp/temps/amps/lore (probably sounds familiar)

*powers like patron pets are used in good faith. Some buff/debuff sets absolutely can utilize them well in difficult situations. A stalker probably can't keep 3 spiderlings alive tho...

*endurance consumption is also assumed in good faith. If you can't last an ageless cycle you are just fooling yourself by failing to factor in that period of 0 dps you'd be doing (fwiw most current div 2 builds fail this check).

 

Div 2 - Hidden or on a separate page. 

The "fun" division where signature summons, daggers, geas, and whatever else people use to game the encounter are used.

 

I personally have zero interest in what lord Recluse can do, or in watching someone spam daggers, but it is your inf to spend as you see fit and your collection of data to shape. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EnjoyTheJourney]

What makes DPS tests interesting is what is learned along the way. 

DPS enhancing strategies that work across all ATs are also of interest and are worth learning about. But, once that lesson has been learned (Is Recluse great? Yup! Is Geas great? Yup!, Are poisoned daggers effective? Yup!, ...) it's not clear how much more gets learned after a fairly small number of runs showing those same lessons to be true. And, those DPS enhancers that have such a powerful effect on all builds tend to obscure the effect on DPS of more sustainable, build-specific choices that would also be interesting to learn about. 

In the end, beyond a fairly small number of "anything goes" DPS tests, DPS tests that remove particularly powerful generic DPS boosters from the equation are much more interesting because we can learn about specific builds we might want to play in-game that way. 

Edited June 3 by EnjoyTheJourney

[Koopak]

I have some more thoughts to share but am just checking from my phone. @Bionic_Flea In particular id like to explore your suggestion some tonight as it may lead to a modification of an existing division, and the ability to apply the rules via the TF contacts is actually a really good point that may allow us to also remove unclearable temp powers like Aura of Mot. Id be very happy to host your bounty once we settle its setup.

A common trend I'm seeing is mostly just a distaste for D1 drowning out other entries. So allow me to ask a follow up question. Would making the default view of the sheet not include Division 1 and Division 0 be an acceptable middle ground for people?

Edited June 3 by Koopak

[Koopak]

So now that I'm back at my PC finally. I want to follow up a bit. I am a little frustrated that there was little to no response when i specifically asked for feedback on the divisions themselves, but Ill take having it now.

I think its important to recognize that we aren't all going to agree on what a singular good rule set is. What usually happens is what little consensus is reached is essentially the lowest common denominator. More people are willing to accept a rule set that bans things not directly tied to their character's express build than are not so the end result is essentially around where the Scrapper thread landed, and I'm not oblivious to the reasons why.

The thing is, I don't agree with that standard being universal. There are lot of good arguments for it, there are also arguments I can, and have made in the past in the opposite. Rather than retreading them or arguing points I haven't before in this thread, I want to try and find a better solution here, a compromise. I value data in essentially every Division that currently exists, and have plans to collect for each of them, and yes that will be a long ass process. I can't simply generate the data by doing runs myself exclusively either. You may have noticed I haven't posted a single entry since before the bounties started in earnest with the exception of having gotten really caught up in optimizing the Sentinel run. Thus my goal has been to outsource the project, and since, on average, getting people to run these tests has always been a chore, an incentive became the only way.

While I view this as a collaborative project, on some level it is me who is doing the data tabulation and management, putting up the prize money, and promoting the project. I think it is only fair that if there are tests I'd like to explore more than some or even most of the community, that I do so. However as I said I see this as a collaborative project, so let me run though some options that have come to mind and my stance on them.

Things I am 100% willing to do right now even if I don't personally like them:

• create divisions
• modify the way data is presented to hide disliked divisions from casual perusal
• mix up the divisions for future bounties rather than focus on populating just one at a time
• Increase or decrease bounty windows
• Change explanation or formatting of the OP to help with parsing the information.
• Mix in other challenge types sooner than planned.
• Change the short list leader board in the OP itself to not include certain divisions.
• Help host literally anyone else's bounties.

Thing I am able to potentially be convinced on:

• removing a division from the list if I can be convinced of a good enough argument for it (note Division 1 is not going to be an easy sell as you all have already seen)
• Add a new challenge type (if i see value and people show interest)
• increase or decrease bounty prize pools (with the understanding it may effect post rates)
• mix in bounties targeting specific sets sooner than planed

Things I am not willing to budge on:

• Removing existing entries unless removing the division as a whole (Even then id like to preserve the runs in a separate sheet.)
• Remove divisions entirely or cut them down to less than 4-5 as I see at minimum that many categories that have significant value.

[Laucianna]

38 minutes ago, Koopak said:

So now that I'm back at my PC finally. I want to follow up a bit. I am a little frustrated that there was little to no response when i specifically asked for feedback on the divisions themselves, but Ill take having it now.

I think its important to recognize that we aren't all going to agree on what a singular good rule set is. What usually happens is what little consensus is reached is essentially the lowest common denominator. More people are willing to accept a rule set that bans things not directly tied to their character's express build than are not so the end result is essentially around where the Scrapper thread landed, and I'm not oblivious to the reasons why.

The thing is, I don't agree with that standard being universal. There are lot of good arguments for it, there are also arguments I can, and have made in the past in the opposite. Rather than retreading them or arguing points I haven't before in this thread, I want to try and find a better solution here, a compromise. I value data in essentially every Division that currently exists, and have plans to collect for each of them, and yes that will be a long ass process. I can't simply generate the data by doing runs myself exclusively either. You may have noticed I haven't posted a single entry since before the bounties started in earnest with the exception of having gotten really caught up in optimizing the Sentinel run. Thus my goal has been to outsource the project, and since, on average, getting people to run these tests has always been a chore, an incentive became the only way.

While I view this as a collaborative project, on some level it is me who is doing the data tabulation and management, putting up the prize money, and promoting the project. I think it is only fair that if there are tests I'd like to explore more than some or even most of the community, that I do so. However as I said I see this as a collaborative project, so let me run though some options that have come to mind and my stance on them.

Things I am 100% willing to do right now even if I don't personally like them:

• create divisions
• modify the way data is presented to hide disliked divisions from casual perusal
• mix up the divisions for future bounties rather than focus on populating just one at a time
• Increase or decrease bounty windows
• Change explanation or formatting of the OP to help with parsing the information.
• Mix in other challenge types sooner than planned.
• Change the short list leader board in the OP itself to not include certain divisions.
• Help host literally anyone else's bounties.

Thing I am able to potentially be convinced on:

• removing a division from the list if I can be convinced of a good enough argument for it (note Division 1 is not going to be an easy sell as you all have already seen)
• Add a new challenge type (if i see value and people show interest)
• increase or decrease bounty prize pools (with the understanding it may effect post rates)
• mix in bounties targeting specific sets sooner than planed

Things I am not willing to budge on:

• Removing existing entries unless removing the division as a whole (Even then id like to preserve the runs in a separate sheet.)
• Remove divisions entirely or cut them down to less than 4-5 as I see at minimum that many categories that have significant value.

At the end of the day hun this is your post and you can set the rules to be whatever you wish them to be ❤️ I will say however I told you the exact same thing when you asked me my opinion on Divisions, as I personally do not see the benefit of most of them (But again, this is your post and your parameters).

However speaking for myself, I won't submit times based on the divisions listed as I have not been convinced what they are actually testing, nor will I refer to times listed as examples of DPS as they are not honest results that can be translated into in game content 90% of the time and therefore, in my opinion at least, actually hurt the game. I know a few of us joke about Sentinels being top DPS now due to @Videra's video, but players in game are actually believing it due to the divisions listed and people quickly seeing:
 

Pylon/Dummy
Best in show
Videra (Sentinel): 00:24 /  1725.593dps

 

 

If you are testing for certain things in each division, it would do well to make what it is being tested clear, you may of said it at one point lost in comments or on Discord, but all people see are Divisions and a bunch of rules. So I will wish you all the best in this but I personally feel it has become something that brings more confusion to the game then clarity in it's current state ❤️

[Koopak]

1 hour ago, Laucianna said:

At the end of the day hun this is your post and you can set the rules to be whatever you wish them to be ❤️ I will say however I told you the exact same thing when you asked me my opinion on Divisions, as I personally do not see the benefit of most of them (But again, this is your post and your parameters).

However speaking for myself, I won't submit times based on the divisions listed as I have not been convinced what they are actually testing, nor will I refer to times listed as examples of DPS as they are not honest results that can be translated into in game content 90% of the time and therefore, in my opinion at least, actually hurt the game. I know a few of us joke about Sentinels being top DPS now due to @Videra's video, but players in game are actually believing it due to the divisions listed and people quickly seeing:
 

Pylon/Dummy
Best in show
Videra (Sentinel): 00:24 /  1725.593dps

 

 

If you are testing for certain things in each division, it would do well to make what it is being tested clear, you may of said it at one point lost in comments or on Discord, but all people see are Divisions and a bunch of rules. So I will wish you all the best in this but I personally feel it has become something that brings more confusion to the game then clarity in it's current state ❤️

Addressing first Videra's time, I feel as if a massive bit of context is missed every time this is brought up. It is treated as if this time is a permanent fixture, in truth how long Videra's ranking as top time lasts is however long it takes for someone to take a superior dpa AT and put some effort into it under the same rules. Further I believe I addressed this concern with my willingness to omit Division 1 results from the short list that this Best in show comes from. If simply hiding Division 1 results from default views does not address the concern of player misinformation, I'd like to understand why.

The source of confusion being raised only exists because prior to Videra's submissions no one had fully explored the limits of the ruleset. When questioned I stated that the signature summons did technically pass the standards I had established, and still stand by, for tools that can reasonably be used as part of a player's daily kit. We can all claim we never do, but claiming you never use an Elixer in WoW doesn't make it not a potentially optimal choice you can do every raid. At the time I simply chose to leave a decision for later as no one had yet used it. When Videra forced the issue with their time submissions, I was of course forced to establish a ruling.

The reason we are even having this discussion comes down to the simple fact I disagree with a majority held opinion that data involving the Signature Summons is meaningless, in fact up to this point many had already critiqued the standards set, as well as those of prior pylon threads, for including various things at all. What is immensely frustrating here is that this group think opinion has no data to back it up, and amounts to 'this is a powerful tool i don't like'. Even the arguments for why its an invalid data point fall flat.

To directly answer you question and point Lauciana, which I want to again thank you for being one of the people who has always maintained an earnest tone and even communication even when we disagree completely, here is the logic behind Division 1. If you feel it would be better to explain the goals of each division in the OP id be happy to add that.

Division 1 and the original rule set before divisions was derived from a gap in the player base knowledge as I see it. Sure anyone can tell you that the various tools, including the Signature Summons, are potent and serve to increase dps on all ATs, what we don't have information on is by how much, or what sets synergies with them best. As a simple example, the fact that Beldath's petless mastermind was able to post a time competitive with Division 2 times due to not only the potency of Recluse, but also the synergy of Cold Domination. While I'm sure most of us are abundantly aware of Cold Domination's power, having a time that clearly shows that is a valuable data point and I'm very glad they provided it, even if it was as part of an argument against the very rules. This datapoint also serves to show, with a single player, the impact Cold Domination has in team environments, as Recluse is the closest thing to a second player one can have without actually using two characters.

I obviously expect most of what is found in Division 1 to map to community expectation, in fact I expect most of what is found in EVERY division to mostly map to expectation. Baring updates that change the status quo, I will be very surprised to see a non bio armor melee take top spot for instance. However without exploring the limits, we simply cannot know, especially as pet behavior falls into the category of having to many inconsistencies to accurately model on paper as would be my usual approach.

Edited June 4 by Koopak