Winter, I think we may be heading for "Woody v Malong:
The Great '
Rise from the Ashes' Debate." For
the record, I blame Falankos for finishing
the quest and starting this whole thing. But as a whole, I wish
the community would improve at talking about merit.
(18-06-2019, 07:24 AM)Woody Wrote: (17-06-2019, 01:15 PM)Malong Wrote: I have no idea what you are trying to express. But anyway, you were clearly trying to poke holes in the idea, and would have gladly taken credit if your idea of not capping the damage based off remaining health was an implementation issue in the idea.
(04-05-2019, 05:19 PM)Woody Wrote: Damage taken (should of said bot here)
Damage received (should of said player here)
The idea is not new at all this is just the last time i have suggested it and it has been suggested before from me and others. This idea has been on peoples minds before this quest was even made. You are not the maker of this idea and I'm not either. It's so basic anyone would come up with it and claim they are the 1st to think about it.
From --> https://forum.nordinvasion.com/showthread.php?tid=71799
I would also give that a read as you say this
- I never claimed it was a new idea. In fact, I've brought this up multiple before in voice chat.
- I never claimed I was the originator of this idea (though I've also never heard/read anyone else bring this up). People should focus on the content of the suggestion/idea anyway.
- "Damage taken (should [have typed] bot here)" should have been "damage dealt" if you want to convey this idea. Were you incapable of realizing you should have used "dealt?"
- Even after the above point, there is still no indication that you meant "damage dealt to each bot in the game (other than the two added since the quest was created) which sums to the product of 500 of their respective maximum health." You see the difference between the two clauses, right? Probably not, but there is a huge difference to the point that you can't tell us that "damage taken, I mean dealt" is anything close to the same.
(18-06-2019, 07:24 AM)Woody Wrote: Ok, let me break down why I hoped you were talking about it being not capped.
In
the end, you are attempting to justify how you drew an incorrect conclusion. Remember this?
(21-01-2018, 05:16 AM)Malong Wrote: (20-01-2018, 11:45 PM)Woody Wrote: But if needed I will make a pretty picture to show how my mind worked at that night
Pic coming soon
It's not needed. And in my opinion, humanity would be better served if people instead spent their time analyzing thought processes and modeling the behavior that leads to correct conclusions.
(18-06-2019, 07:24 AM)Woody Wrote: For the people that don't understand this if it was wave 13 rag and i need "Siege Master".
Rather than killing the bot and moving on my aim would be to hit them all then come back and hit them again till they are dead. The idea of putting a cap on it puts a big reason to move to the next bot to get max damage. Not even killing the bot mind you.
[some irrelevant crap about "runs going for longer"]
This doesn't address
the fact that
there are bots that take at least three hits for certain classes and weapons. That means (ma
thematically and undeniably) that those players are dealing less than 50% with each hit, thus you still want more than one hit on a bot. It also doesn't address
the fact that when you only need quest credit for some of
the bots in
the wave, you are still incentivized to attack those bots ra
ther than any o
ther bot, agnostic of bots' remaining health. Your
theoretical player still wants to hit
the damaged Siege Master over
the full health Einherjar Sniper, for example. Granted,
they might favor hitting a full health Siege Master over a damaged one. At this point,
the game state moves to a point where
the only Siege Masters remaining are damaged; at this point, your
theoretical player tries to attack
the damaged Siege Masters. After that,
the game state moves to a point where all Siege Masters are dead. Do we know for a fact that once this game state is reached, those players
then AFK in
the back and type something to
the effect of "all my bots are killed, you guys handle
the rest?" This has not been established. We also know that
the current payoff for quest credit is 100% in getting
the last hit.
The current analogous optimal play pattern to get
the most advantage is to wait for a bot to be damaged to
the point that
their next hit kills
the bot before attacking it. We don't see this behavior currently. And all of this also ignores
the fact that
the few players that care about
the quest already aim for
the bots that spawn on few waves. Despite this, we have yet to see "runs going for longer."
Even if you have a screenshot of
the above "all my bots are killed" statement being typed, how many players have this attitude? To use Falankos as an example,
there was at least a month where he only needed bots on Ragnarok waves 13 and 14, and yet he played entire games getting kills on every wave up to and after 13 and 14 for no credit. He certainly didn't wait in spectator until wave 13 spawn, nor go AFK in
the back until wave 13. Supposing that at least one player has this attitude where
they only care about quest completion: what measurable effect would this does it have on
the duration of a game?
There is absolutely no evidence that changing kills of each bot to damage dealt to each bot equal to 500 times its maximum health will lead to a game taking longer to complete. This doesn't take into account
the fact that few players care about
the quest in
the first place (five have completed
the quest so far, and far more than five people in
the community play multiple classes not prioritizing
their quest progress) and thus don't modify
their behavior to maximize
the benefits.
Anyway, none of this disproves
the fact that if you understood basic concepts like "
the quest goal should be to deal
the equivalent damage of 500 of each bots' health," and "I can't deal more damage than
the amount of health a bot has remaining," you would never have posted
these below, especially
the bolded parts that show your lack of understanding of
the suggestion. So... Stop. Lying.
(16-06-2019, 05:25 PM)Woody Wrote: Using the command to show damage people would find the most valuable bot on each wave and aim for that 1st always. This is not mentioning certain modes (normal/beginner) and some heros would have a steep advantage. Guess it would be quests for each mode.
(16-06-2019, 06:01 PM)Woody Wrote: Let's say I have some thing with low damage like a bow. If I hit a bot for 52% with the 1st hit then "55%" again.
If I have an xbow and hit a bot for 95% I have the chance I may hit that bot again for almost 200% or whatever. Therefore I can get more damage out of a single wave. I would guess by the time a sniper could get up to some certain amount of damage a the xbow maybe slower off the mark but it could possibly catch up and overtake rapidly.
(18-06-2019, 09:37 AM)Kaasovic Wrote: I dont think kill stealing is a real problem at the moment, how can one be sure about the health of a bot?
I know you're probably not directing this towards me, but to make fully clear: My first post in this discussion (not first of
the thread) just states this would make it "unquestionably equitable." I even typed that "it probably evens out." However I know implementation of mechanics in this mod very rarely takes merit into consideration. Quick text search of this thread shows that of
the previous posts, only Woody's contain "problem" and one of Srellian's contains "issue." Again:
(16-06-2019, 04:57 PM)Malong Wrote: Over a long course of time, it probably evens out such that getting no credit from someone else getting the last hit to that player getting the last hit over someone else; but basing credit off damage would make it unquestionably equitable.