Rise from the Ashes

[DR.]

Problem is you're only one(?) person in a whole mod who have 16 heroes and think everyone has same problems as you. 99% of players don't have even one hero class and full housecrafted gear set. If we would have developer in the thread I would ask for statistics how many of 107000 registered players have at least 1 hero character.

The game is not focused on munchkins like you and should not. The game should be accessible and attractive for major casual audience and it should be development team focus. If average new player will know how rich you are he will uninstall the game right after.

Ye getting 16 heros was a achievement no one else has done before.

"What I want out of quests

To be rewarded for either playing a lot on 1 id or be rewarded for making more than 1 hero. Let the player choose.

To have goals that always feel unreachable but some that feel achieveable."


At what point did I say anything about 16 heros? This applies to people that play more than 1 hero as most people do out of the people that have heros.

Quests ATM after legacy of a hero reward playing 1 hero for ever till this quest is done. If you do what I like and play more than 1 hero or all 16 in my case you're not getting max benefit. The argument could be said that you may get Max benefit with 2 or 3 but still use 1 as a main. That's not the point here.

All I want is to be equally rewarded for playing on the servers as some one that played only 1 hero. I've paid 12m for the 16 yet I'm at a disadvantage quest wise. The argument could be made my quests could be better than the person that only has 1 hero but I'm fine with equivalent.

If you have 2 or 5 or 10 or the 16 heros after legacy of a hero you have no clear goal. Do you go after quests that take longer than legacy but don't give as good of a reward or do you do what I did. Make the 16 heros. Surprise I don't use every hero my 1st post on this thread shows that. I made a lot of my heros as I have nothing to do. Before you say well you're the only one... No I'm the only one with the 16 but people with 2,3,4,... make a hero eventually because they're bored. Sure it's not for all people but I'm not the only one. Most people it seems stop at about 3-4 if they have put in the time and have the value.


Eh it's late I'll get to it later after work tomorrow.

How long do you think I can keep this going for?

[Malong]

If you do what I like and play more than 1 hero or all 16 in my case you're not getting max benefit. The argument could be said that you may get Max benefit with 2 or 3 but still use 1 as a main. That's not the point here.

All I want is to be equally rewarded for playing on the servers as some one that played only 1 hero. I've paid 12m for the 16 yet I'm at a disadvantage quest wise. The argument could be made my quests could be better than the person that only has 1 hero but I'm fine with equivalent.

Remember this:

[I]n my view it's a big double standard for someone to pick the class claiming they want [a class] for fun and enjoyment instead of maximum efficiency (which these people often claim they don't care about), and then turn around and ask for buffs to that class so it can be more competitive (again when they claimed they didn't care about [optimization] in the first place). At this point of the game, people know what they are signing up for when they train those classes.

Well, your reward is having the 16 hero classes and wanting to 'complete the game,' so to speak. You wanted this despite knowing that some of these heroes are not optimal. You should thus also be fine with the fact that you wouldn't get maximum reward if you split your time across more characters. So here goes...

[I]n my view, it's a big double standard for someone to [make each class] for fun and enjoyment instead of maximum [quest completion efficiency] (which these people often claim they don't care about), and then turn around and ask for [supplemental quests for these classes so their compensation] can be more competitive (again when they claimed they didn't care about [optimization] in the first place). At this point of the game, people know what they are signing up for when they train [each of] those classes.

[DR.]

I don't need to demonstrate why people would not modify their behavior, you brought up that behavior, not me. But anyway, if what you say is true, and people do care about completing the quest, they would already play the most efficient method. Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently? This hasn't been established. And then you are trying to project yourself to the rest of the game, but we're not like most players.

I brought up that behaviour because of this best said here

People play runs to Loot, Do quests (for the reward), get mats/gold and some other factors that don't need to be said here. That's the core of Ni i would like to think. 

The game getting harder is not a problem for some teams. 2/3 of the quest is on normal and hard mind you and even then rag is very easy as the newest event will prove.

The game taking longer is something most people try to avoid, however... Given map choices and other things i would guess this would have less of an impact than some maps.


It can also be said I did not say all people would do this it would only take a few people every game.

Demonstrate why i shouldnt use this playstyle on normal or hard at least.

---

---

"All the time?" I've only seen this asked once in public the past month and that was for Hodur. The only public players I've seen hitting Loki in melee were newer players that didn't know the mechanics. That's not "most people." As for people hitting bosses while others are dead: again, you have to demonstrate that they do this because they care about getting the boss kill, instead of any other reason.

I've give it "All the time" was a bit of a stretch.  

Guess you don't play much normal were the reward for new players is very rewarding for someone that has almost no value. A small wave of new people or people that make heroes is all it takes. I help grind beginner for some new people every so often. If they know of the quest they ask for every boss kill.

The Inf trying to take down loke was a bit of a joke as at this point its become every rag run i see lately. I have not seen it fail as much as It uses to when it was only the 1 weird inf trying to poke him with a jorm but when half the team is trying to take him down... eh may as well join in from the back.

---

---

If the few interested players trying to play optimally would be a problem, why has it not manifested into a problem for these 16 months of this quest's existence? Why can't a significant part of the population already play more efficiently by waiting until a bot is damaged before attempting to get the last hit? Why would changing credit from kills to damage dealt suddenly cause players who don't already care about efficiency to do otherwise? In other words, prove it!

So with you saying this. "why has it not manifested into a problem for these 16 months of this quest's existence?" shows you are fine with it being kills for the quest?

Its been shown time and time again this is a team game.

The Incentive to work by yourself with a change like this is so big people would do it.

With it being killing you work together(teams) as rivals trying to get the most kills.

With it being damage you work (alone) as rivals trying to get the most kills.

With it being killing and assists you work together(teams) as rivals trying to get 1st kills but players are still rewarded with the assist if they did most of the damage to the bot. (for why 60% ill get to that later)

---

---

As said before and it seems you don't deny it [if] people pick that way of playing the game would 1. Be Harder by some % 2. Take longer by some %. 3. Thinking atm i guess It would be almost like damage stealing from other players by not helping the team only himself. I did say almost.

What?

1)[if] 1 person out of 16 picks [that way of playing] the game what do you think would happen for that run.

2)[if] 3 players pick [that way of playing] the game what do you think would happen for that run.

3)[if] all 16 players pick [that way of playing] the game what do you think would happen for that run.


What i mean by [that way of playing]

Aiming to hit max bots going from [needed the most --> not needed as much]. Siege Master --> Nord Chosen Champion --> Einherjar Pikeman --> etc.
Aiming to hit bots that would most likely have full hp to receive max benefit for the quest.

Now after that explain would number (1) be helping the team any more or less than someone that's killing the bots.

For (1) his aim is not get kills it to do damage. What's more important for helping the team killing the wave as fast as you can or trying to do what player (1) is doing.

After that how do you think group (2) and (3) will go.

---

---

That's not the most efficient way. You want to complete each bot in a difficulty in as close a time interval as possible to avoid bottlenecks, or runs where you only need one bot from a wave that has multiple bots.

That would be the most efficient way to do a run. Not this quest that's my point here... They contradict each other.

"in as close a time interval as possible" With it being damage it would be more effective to be hitting max bots for max damage for that wave. Its slower than killing but if only 1 person does it it will have not much effect its when the full team does it.

If I'm player (1) from ^^^
I would be not helping the team as much as someone that's going for kills BUT i would get more damage done to get the quest done faster.  

A quest that endorses playing by yourself in this manner im 100% not for.

---

---

I think we finally got to the heart of your objection; you think it would make you take longer to complete the quest. But tell me, which is fair: someone does the initial 55% of the work and gets no credit, while someone else does the remaining 45% of the work and gets all the credit. Why not make it equitable based on the work each player has done?

500 x Siege Master (86 / 500) and I'm 85%. 

My focus on this quest is minimal so no the quest taking longer has nothing to do with it.

That person that hits for 55% has no incentive to be the same person as the 45% when he could always be the 55%. Why kill would I kill the bot for less damage?

To get max damage for the quest your aim is not kill the bot. Killing the bot is the difference from a game wiping or not it's everything.

I agree the 55% guy should get some value out of the kill that's why I'm fine with assists but the killing blow is everything in this game and others. 

Without people wanting to kill the game will be? 

---

---

In that department part of manglers downside is its speed when using its 2nd mode... Normally if someone has a legacy next to me were are about even in kills. I do more damage and his faster who do you think would win in this quest if it was damage related. (if i could not use throwing) I say the legacy would be "kill stealing" from me more and I'm fine with it. I use that class the most because i like it the most. I'm fine with its downsides as i value at least atm its positives more than any class. Buff sentry so it can be my new number 1. 

What is the relevance of this scenario? Are you planning on playing alongside someone else for the entirety of this quest? But anyway, it would still depend on a huge factor such as slashing spot, the movement of the bots and which part of the shield wall they go, where the ranged is aiming, etc.

Doing this quest is not even a goal of mine if it was i would be playing only mara.

What about this in a perfect world where we have this.

A) A faster bow with 100 speed and lower p
B) A slower bow with 80 speed and higher p

(A) I would believe for hitting faster has a higher chance of being the killing blow. Better at killing bots
(B) I would believe for having more damage would still do more damage to the bot over some amount of time but is less likely to be the final hit. Better at getting the assists.

A good example would be Odin vs Alia or Dead shot if they were set up right 

Alia would be (A) Better at killing bots 
and 
Dead Shot would be (B) Better at getting the assists.


It's not the best example as Dead Shot is so slow and has so much P it just about 1 shots most stuff.

Maybe think if Dead Shot was a bit quicker and had less damage my example would be better. Hell use my upgraded eagle as that example. With my Eagle atm if i try hard i can get close to the 200 kills but ill never get to the 375 or so on my Warden using Tempest. With a change like this I would guess my once Tempest that in theory was about the best thing for this quest has turn into ok but not as good. With nerf daggers and all things fast.

My Eagle, on the other hand, could be the best as normally i get outdone by the faster things but now it's not about the kill. 

Given assists, I think weapons like my eagle, typhoon, etc... that are big damage but arguably slow for Ni will have a better chance in competing with the faster stuff.  

---

---

Setting it that way for bosses would be fine with me. That's part of playing public servers: you can't feel entitled to being tomed in for a boss. I've been dead for many bosses that I would have been tomed in for if it was an event. Oh well, it's public, don't take it personally.

It really sounds like you want more of a reason to not tome for bosses. The amount of time i see You and lots of others firing away at Odin when people say tome is said. I've done it In a Vm event once you can guess how that went. 

Why should you reward players for ignoring the call of comrades asking for a tome? Yes, it happens to everyone if they play lots the best bet is to not dead on w15 or when Odin is last. 

I'm not sure a solution can be made maybe some in game warring saying the boss is low and you still have x number of tomes. I'm not asking to see the Hp of bosses maybe just a warning when he hits 10-20%.

---

---

The point of making quest credit based on damage dealt is to make it "unquestionably equitable," as dealing N% of damage to a bot gives you N% credit, so however much you contribute comes back to you as credit...

Your suggestion just takes the same idea to base it off damage, but draws an arbitrary line at which you receive credit and in an arbitrary amount. If you only want one person getting an assist credit, why not just make it > 50% (i.e. the minimum for this "issue" of two people getting assist credit to be solved). And you want to set it such that 60% of a job gets someone 50% of credit? [Q voice] What (is the correlation between 60% damage dealt and 50% credit)?! Why?!

unquestionably equitable ehhhh... but is it unquestionably equitable work for the team. The killing blow matters most when doing a run. 

You could hit all bots in the wave for 99% yet you did not help the team as much as the person that cleaned up after you. Yes you may have worked harder but you were selfish and did not want to clean up the work you started.


At 50% i feel it's not as valuable as the last 50% as this is where it counts. If you hit a bot and you know it takes almost perfectly 2 arrows to kill him well we are back to "working alone". 

At 66% you need to get 2 arrows into someone that needs 3.  This is where i think i could justify rewarding assist as much as kills in quests. 

Sure you could have it at 50% but i think 66% just fits better knowing how the damage weapons are and how much extra work it would be.  

---

You missed the point. You already brought those quest ideas up in its own thread and it got no dev response. Irrespective of these posts and this discussion, that's your answer.

This was a "well over 10-year old" solved problem back on March 5, 2017. It would be a "well over 12-year old" solved problem today.

Has that been added?

Getting no response is just that its not a no or a yes.

All requests take time. If you think of a really good one that takes work there a chance it may not make it. 

Also as said here

Besides that, the slow grind of NI certainly isn't appealing to everybody. There's been some ideas that have been tossed around (I favor some form of Nord kill points), but no definitive decisions. There are some more things we can do - one of my favourite choices would be a quest rework. Being able to do things like having daily / weekly or house quests that all players in the house could participate in, or maybe even 2-4 person participation quests, would at the very least reward players more for playing. Even further, though, daily quests could establish a rewarding routine beyond just logging in to clock your hours every day. Having loot be obtainable outside of RNG and through effort would absolutely make the game seem more appealing, in my eyes. This same idea is applied in NKP (Nord Kill Points) as well, in which you get NKP for killing / being alive for boss kills and a certain amount of NKP can net you legendaries. Again, would allow players to obtain loot outside of RNG - it wouldn't really matter how long it would take because it is a GUARANTEED loot instead of something you have to pray for on every boss death. 

This is all my personal opinion, of course.

At least 1 more ative devs are looking into quests. Suggesting idea's to them does no harm. I don't expect all of my requests to be done that would be stupid.   

---

---

Remember this:

[I]n my view it's a big double standard for someone to pick the class claiming they want [a class] for fun and enjoyment instead of maximum efficiency (which these people often claim they don't care about), and then turn around and ask for buffs to that class so it can be more competitive (again when they claimed they didn't care about [optimization] in the first place). At this point of the game, people know what they are signing up for when they train those classes.

Well, your reward is having the 16 hero classes and wanting to 'complete the game,' so to speak. You wanted this despite knowing that some of these heroes are not optimal. You should thus also be fine with the fact that you wouldn't get maximum reward if you split your time across more characters. So here goes...

[I]n my view, it's a big double standard for someone to [make each class] for fun and enjoyment instead of maximum [quest completion efficiency] (which these people often claim they don't care about), and then turn around and ask for [supplemental quests for these classes so their compensation] can be more competitive (again when they claimed they didn't care about [optimization] in the first place). At this point of the game, people know what they are signing up for when they train [each of] those classes.

What does an "optimization" hero type have to do with quests?

Rise from the Ashes is new ish still in the world of quests before this it was [optimization] to play more than 1 hero.


I made the normal 12 heroes before Legacy of a hero was made to be only a 1 time quest.  Yes, it was more optimal than just 1 hero.

Look at one of the 1st posts you did on this thread.

Can't wait till the game rewards playing/making more than 1 class

The old Legacy of a Hero rewarded players with multiple characters on a repeated basis, and was the reason behind "Fuck Nka! He's rich enough already!"

The quest was repeatable every 7 days or 28? Prime Slayer quest was the other one with a nice reward. 

All you needed was maybe 2-5 classes adding people like nka made the same class over and over again. 

You say clearly "rewarded players with multiple characters on a repeated basis" This was true so some degree but like i said you only needed 2-5 classes for max benefit.



I'll make a shit pic to explain my thinking atm.

Turned out gay fuck. The gays took rgb from us.



Not to any scale at all.

Me with the 16 would probably be a lot lower down if i play them that much.

The person with 3 would probably be higher. 

It's all guess work all that pic is for it to show the idea and visualise it.  

[If] you plan to only play 1 hero or a few you the quests you have available to you will. 

always feel unreachable but some that feel achievable

[If] you plan to play 4, 5, 10, or all heroes the quests you have available to you will. 

always feel unreachable but some that feel achievable

In saying this if, for example, we had an Ashes were its 50 of each bot and you get 500k i would have something to aim for. 
This does not take away from the people that play 1 or some hero it if anything i hope you're the kills from the normal Ashes translate to this quest so you get the reward auto if you have the kills needed.

Note as said before i have atm on my 85% mara im 500 x Siege Master (86 / 500) so I would not even get the next reward 100 bots/ 1m. Next lowest is 500 x Nord Master Hunter (187 / 500) so you can tell i play my role as mara and don't try hard to get them.

This should show you my play style atm on mara

Defender of Midgard (82%)

[*]Kill the following:
[*]1100 x Bifrost Guardian (661 / 1100)
[*]900 x Einherjar Sniper (396 / 900)
[*]900 x Einherjar (787 / 900)
[*]700 x Trickster (700 / 700)
[*]500 x Thors Chosen (500 / 500)
[*]300 x Odins Chosen (300 / 300)



Doing quests should almost feel natural. No big steps but no quests that seem like they clearly favour a ranged or melee class more. Locking/Making some quests for classes and heroes may give me the most number of quests but like that gay pic shows i want levels to this. If you play fewer heroes than me you should be on higher level quests if we had the same play time and cared about quests as much as me.

[Forward]

Whole game quest system should not be broken for sake of only one player anyway. There is a lot of space to improve this dying mod in other aspects to make it more attractive for average player. That's where development team resources should go.

Who really cares about these minor quests anyway? I accept them automatically and don't even track them, it's just sometimes "oh, defender of midgard is done, nice". Pretty sure majority doing the same.

Class-specific quests are bad because there are multi-purpose classes. But whole game is about killing nords so every class should be able to do it, if you handicap yourself to use class who can't do something - it's your own mistake, play effective class to achieve such heavy-grinding quest goals of Ashes. There is a reason why many classes still not have single player who did ashes. But good news you can be first one. And not even first melee (I doubt someone will ever do it), but I think there is not even single crossbowman (am I right? I only know Noname is on pretty high % but still doing it), for example, who did it.

Whole discussion "make ashes easier because Woody has 16 heroes" becomes boring already.

[Malong]

A lot of these points can be summed up with: Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently? This hasn't been established.

I don't need to demonstrate why people would not modify their behavior, you brought up that behavior, not me. But anyway, if what you say is true, and people do care about completing the quest, they would already play the most efficient method. Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently? This hasn't been established. And then you are trying to project yourself to the rest of the game, but we're not like most players.

Demonstrate why i shouldnt use this playstyle on normal or hard at least.

Read... It's not "why one shouldn't," it's that people don't currently do this. Rephrasing the bolded part: if they don't currently use the most efficient behavior, why would they once you change the parameters of the quest? There is no precedent for what you say will suddenly happen.

I've give it "All the time" was a bit of a stretch.  

Guess you don't play much normal were the reward for new players is very rewarding for someone that has almost no value. A small wave of new people or people that make heroes is all it takes. I help grind beginner for some new people every so often. If they know of the quest they ask for every boss kill.

The Inf trying to take down loke was a bit of a joke as at this point its become every rag run i see lately. I have not seen it fail as much as It uses to when it was only the 1 weird inf trying to poke him with a jorm but when half the team is trying to take him down... eh may as well join in from the back.

I need a meme where the top line says "Completed Rise from the Ashes" and the bottom text says "Doesn't Play Much Normal Mode"

We're also on a Ragnarok server right now (at the moment I'm typing this) where no one tried to kill Loki through melee...

If the few interested players trying to play optimally would be a problem, why has it not manifested into a problem for these 16 months of this quest's existence? Why can't a significant part of the population already play more efficiently by waiting until a bot is damaged before attempting to get the last hit? Why would changing credit from kills to damage dealt suddenly cause players who don't already care about efficiency to do otherwise? In other words, prove it!

So with you saying this. "why has it not manifested into a problem for these 16 months of this quest's existence?" shows you are fine with it being kills for the quest?

Its been shown time and time again this is a team game.

The Incentive to work by yourself with a change like this is so big people would do it. 

With it being killing you work together(teams) as rivals trying to get the most kills.

With it being damage you work (alone) as rivals trying to get the most kills.

With it being killing and assists you work together(teams) as rivals trying to get 1st kills but players are still rewarded with the assist if they did most of the damage to the bot. (for why 60% ill get to that later)

[Q voice] What? Wead! (or at least don't draw conclusions from unrelated statements)

Remember the post where I typed "I never typed it wasn't fine, that's why I strived to complete it." You are just typing the repeatedly that has been addressed by something else, pretending the text doesn't exist, or you're not reading.

Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently? This hasn't been established.

1)[if] 1 person out of 16 picks [that way of playing] the game what do you think would happen for that run.

2)[if] 3 players pick [that way of playing] the game what do you think would happen for that run.

3)[if] all 16 players pick [that way of playing] the game what do you think would happen for that run.

1. This already sometimes happens; there is a negligible effect because those players kill other bots too. And it's not like they only aim for bots they need, other bots will get incidentally killed.
   
2. This happened when the quest first came out and more players actively worked on it.
   
3. This hasn't happened, so there's no evidence. Even when more players tried to complete the quest, there would always be some that would play classes like RG that had no chance of completing it, which is enough proof that this will never happen. People care about winning first and foremost that your scenario wouldn't happen.
   

That's not the most efficient way. You want to complete each bot in a difficulty in as close a time interval as possible to avoid bottlenecks, or runs where you only need one bot from a wave that has multiple bots.

That would be the most efficient way to do a run. Not this quest that's my point here... They contradict each other.

"in as close a time interval as possible" With it being damage it would be more effective to be hitting max bots for max damage for that wave. Its slower than killing but if only 1 person does it it will have not much effect its when the full team does it.

If I'm player (1) from ^^^ 
I would be not helping the team as much as someone that's going for kills BUT i would get more damage done to get the quest done faster.  

A quest that endorses playing by yourself in this manner im 100% not for.

The first part is wrong. Being in a position where you have to play a difficulty just to get kills for one bot of a run means your time spent on the other waves is not going towards your quest progress. It is more efficient to get progress on the different bots of a wave evenly such that you don't have to play a difficulty mode just to have one bot of one wave complete.

As for the rest: Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently? This hasn't been established.

I think we finally got to the heart of your objection; you think it would make you take longer to complete the quest. But tell me, which is fair: someone does the initial 55% of the work and gets no credit, while someone else does the remaining 45% of the work and gets all the credit. Why not make it equitable based on the work each player has done?

500 x Siege Master (86 / 500) and I'm 85%. 

My focus on this quest is minimal so no the quest taking longer has nothing to do with it. 

If "the quest taking longer has nothing to do with it," then why did you type:

Atm im over 80% on my mara if it was damage based from the start at what point would i ever catch up.

That person that hits for 55% has no incentive to be the same person as the 45% when he could always be the 55%. Why kill would I kill the bot for less damage?

To get max damage for the quest your aim is not kill the bot. Killing the bot is the difference from a game wiping or not it's everything.

I agree the 55% guy should get some value out of the kill that's why I'm fine with assists but the killing blow is everything in this game and others. 

Without people wanting to kill the game will be? 

And yet in your suggestion, the 55% gets no assist because it's less than 60% necessary to count as an assist, and it's not the last hit, so it doesn't award the kill either.

As for the fact that you don't want to kill the bot: Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently? This hasn't been established. Other reasons: players don't know bots' remaining health, there are many times when a damaged bot will get hit anyway, and there are many times when damaged bots hinder you from moving on and have to be killed before aiming for another bot.

Without people wanting to kill the game will be? 

What?

What about this in a perfect world where we have this.

A) A faster bow with 100 speed and lower p
B) A slower bow with 80 speed and higher p

(A) I would believe for hitting faster has a higher chance of being the killing blow. Better at killing bots
(B) I would believe for having more damage would still do more damage to the bot over some amount of time but is less likely to be the final hit. Better at getting the assists.

[something about crossbows]

Why would you not just use items that actually exist in the game? As I've completed the quest using both Typhoon and Tempest, I can tell you it's negligible. Players were hitting bots regardless, not actively aiming to get the last hit. Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently? This hasn't been established.

Setting it that way for bosses would be fine with me. That's part of playing public servers: you can't feel entitled to being tomed in for a boss. I've been dead for many bosses that I would have been tomed in for if it was an event. Oh well, it's public, don't take it personally.

It really sounds like you want more of a reason to not tome for bosses. The amount of time i see You and lots of others firing away at Odin when people say tome is said. I've done it In a Vm event once you can guess how that went. 

Why should you reward players for ignoring the call of comrades asking for a tome? Yes, it happens to everyone if they play lots the best bet is to not dead on w15 or when Odin is last. 

I'm not sure a solution can be made maybe some in game warring saying the boss is low and you still have x number of tomes. I'm not asking to see the Hp of bosses maybe just a warning when he hits 10-20%.

This is another spin of "you would act differently if the quest parameters were changed." Anyway, you generally need to simultaneously tome while keeping the boss staggered. It's better to have some people keep attacking, while others tome safely, rather than everyone dropping what they're doing to tome while the boss goes and potentially kills more people.

As for "ignoring the call of comrades," Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently? This hasn't been established.

unquestionably equitable ehhhh... but is it unquestionably equitable work for the team. The killing blow matters most when doing a run. 

You could hit all bots in the wave for 99% yet you did not help the team as much as the person that cleaned up after you. Yes you may have worked harder but you were selfish and did not want to clean up the work you started.

The same principle was addressed previously here (adjust ignore requests to get the last hit on bots):

Let's say someone says "We need help at the cades" [other stuff]

For this to be true, you have to demonstrate that the people who care about the quest prioritize the quest over winning the run, and further would ignore requests to help at the barricades. This hasn't been established.

You missed the point. You already brought those quest ideas up in its own thread and it got no dev response. Irrespective of these posts and this discussion, that's your answer.

This was a "well over 10-year old" solved problem back on March 5, 2017. It would be a "well over 12-year old" solved problem today.

Has that been added?

No, because there's no quest that can be exploited by keeping bots that are capable of healing alive. Why would this be implemented beforehand instead of in conjunction with? But again, you bring up a hypothetical issue that has been solved a long time ago.

All requests take time. If you think of a really good one that takes work there a chance it may not make it. 

Also as said here

Besides that, the slow grind of NI certainly isn't appealing to everybody. There's been some ideas that have been tossed around (I favor some form of Nord kill points), but no definitive decisions. There are some more things we can do - one of my favourite choices would be a quest rework. Being able to do things like having daily / weekly or house quests that all players in the house could participate in, or maybe even 2-4 person participation quests, would at the very least reward players more for playing. Even further, though, daily quests could establish a rewarding routine beyond just logging in to clock your hours every day. Having loot be obtainable outside of RNG and through effort would absolutely make the game seem more appealing, in my eyes. This same idea is applied in NKP (Nord Kill Points) as well, in which you get NKP for killing / being alive for boss kills and a certain amount of NKP can net you legendaries. Again, would allow players to obtain loot outside of RNG - it wouldn't really matter how long it would take because it is a GUARANTEED loot instead of something you have to pray for on every boss death. 

This is all my personal opinion, of course.

At least 1 more ative devs are looking into quests. Suggesting idea's to them does no harm. I don't expect all of my requests to be done that would be stupid.

Some posts with suggestions (like the one in this thread) took 2 minutes to get a positive dev reply. Some feature request threads remain open for months and then get blanket closed with "thanks for your suggestion." Which do you think yours will fall under? Use pattern recognition.

What does an "optimization" hero type have to do with quests?

Rise from the Ashes is new ish still in the world of quests before this it was [optimization] to play more than 1 hero.


I made the normal 12 heroes before Legacy of a hero was made to be only a 1 time quest.  Yes, it was more optimal than just 1 hero.

Look at one of the 1st posts you did on this thread.

What does an "optimization" hero type have to do with quests?

Rise from the Ashes is new ish still in the world of quests before this it was [optimization] to play more than 1 hero.


I made the normal 12 heroes before Legacy of a hero was made to be only a 1 time quest.  Yes, it was more optimal than just 1 hero.

Look at one of the 1st posts you did on this thread.

Can't wait till the game rewards playing/making more than 1 class

The old Legacy of a Hero rewarded players with multiple characters on a repeated basis, and was the reason behind "Fuck Nka! He's rich enough already!"

The quest was repeatable every 7 days or 28? Prime Slayer quest was the other one with a nice reward. 

All you needed was maybe 2-5 classes adding people like nka made the same class over and over again. 

You say clearly "rewarded players with multiple characters on a repeated basis" This was true so some degree but like i said you only needed 2-5 classes for max benefit.

Right, this would only be a factor if you completed the quest on all your heroes on or before each renewal period with no downtime. But as you note, you "only needed 2-5 classes for max benefit." This means you knowingly created 11-14 extra heroes beyond the point that contributes to completing more quests in the same time interval "quest optimization." In other words, you knew there would be no extra quest reward from doing this, but now you want a reward for making all the heroes. Fuck that, the reward is that you have all the heroes.

I'll make a shit pic to explain my thinking atm.

Turned out gay fuck. The gays took rgb from us.

Spoiler

Not to any scale at all.

Me with the 16 would probably be a lot lower down if i play them that much.

The person with 3 would probably be higher. 

It's all guess work all that pic is for it to show the idea and visualise it.  

What? Ignoring the fact that this is supposed to be a graph based off no data, the Y-axis doesn't even measure anything, and the X-axis seems redundant to the different sections of the graph.

In saying this if, for example, we had an Ashes were its 50 of each bot and you get 500k i would have something to aim for. 
This does not take away from the people that play 1 or some hero it if anything i hope you're the kills from the normal Ashes translate to this quest so you get the reward auto if you have the kills needed.

No, it's not linear. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that you get 500 of some bots long before you get 500 of others, meaning you get many kills that are redundant (so to speak) in quest goals. Getting 50 of each bot is not 1/10 the time commitment of getting 500 of eaach bot, and should not be worth 10% of the reward.

Note as said before i have atm on my 85% mara im 500 x Siege Master (86 / 500) so I would not even get the next reward 100 bots/ 1m. Next lowest is 500 x Nord Master Hunter (187 / 500) so you can tell i play my role as mara and don't try hard to get them.

This should show you my play style atm on mara

Defender of Midgard (82%)

[*]Kill the following:
[*]1100 x Bifrost Guardian (661 / 1100)
[*]900 x Einherjar Sniper (396 / 900)
[*]900 x Einherjar (787 / 900)
[*]700 x Trickster (700 / 700)
[*]500 x Thors Chosen (500 / 500)
[*]300 x Odins Chosen (300 / 300)

Doing quests should almost feel natural. No big steps but no quests that seem like they clearly favour a ranged or melee class more. Locking/Making some quests for classes and heroes may give me the most number of quests but like that gay pic shows i want levels to this. If you play fewer heroes than me you should be on higher level quests if we had the same play time and cared about quests as much as me.

[*]

So you don't play the most efficient way to complete quests now, but you suddenly would if it was changed to damage? What is to stop you from playing to get the quests done now and "making runs take longer" or whatever your fear was? Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently? This hasn't been established.

Doing quests should almost feel natural. No big steps but no quests that seem like they clearly favour a ranged or melee class more. Locking/Making some quests for classes and heroes may give me the most number of quests but like that gay pic shows i want levels to this. If you play fewer heroes than me you should be on higher level quests if we had the same play time and cared about quests as much as me.

[*]

What? And are you saying that your picture like pictures of the same gender?

[DR.]

There is a lot of space to improve this dying mod in other aspects to make it more attractive for average player. That's where development team resources should go.

Low level and high level quests reward all players and give goals to Ni.

Suggest other changes that would be easier to do than making more quests that affect everyone for the better. 


Making simple kill quests are easy. Changing the way the quests are done if that be damage or adding assist is a lot harder.

The quests I've said with new concepts are once im 90% sure will not get in any time soon but are worth saying.

To make Rise from the Ashes with this number of bots 50, 100, 250, [atm], 750, 1000.  Would not even take a day of work going from how easy quests have been made in the past.

---

Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently? This hasn't been established.

Want to see if you would find out for yourself but guess not.

I've never said more I've said incentivize people. Used Ctrl + F if you need to.

Incentivize people that go after quests already to play differently knowing the outcome of the game will have little no effect. 

In saying this they may not do it all the time but what's stopping them from turning from helping the team on normal to let's try to get max damage here. 

Nothing is stopping him here so yes people will do it.

---

I need a meme where the top line says "Completed Rise from the Ashes" and the bottom text says "Doesn't Play Much Normal Mode"

We're also on a Ragnarok server right now (at the moment I'm typing this) where no one tried to kill Loki through melee...

I'm playing bingo is it working? 

Yes. [what? haha]

---

[Q voice] What? Wead! (or at least don't draw conclusions from unrelated statements)

Remember the post where I typed "I never typed it wasn't fine, that's why I strived to complete it." You are just typing the repeatedly that has been addressed by something else, pretending the text doesn't exist, or you're not reading.

1)[if] 1 person out of 16 picks [that way of playing] the game what do you think would happen for that run.

2)[if] 3 players pick [that way of playing] the game what do you think would happen for that run.

3)[if] all 16 players pick [that way of playing] the game what do you think would happen for that run.

1. This already sometimes happens; there is a negligible effect because those players kill other bots too. And it's not like they only aim for bots they need, other bots will get incidentally killed.
   
2. This happened when the quest first came out and more players actively worked on it.
   
3. This hasn't happened, so there's no evidence. Even when more players tried to complete the quest, there would always be some that would play classes like RG that had no chance of completing it, which is enough proof that this will never happen. People care about winning first and foremost that your scenario wouldn't happen.
   

or something else.


"kill other bots too"  
You have done Ashes so I will detect this to you. 
When you needed a bot more than any others at (x) wave and you see 5 of them and 7 other bots who do you aim for? 

(A) Did you aim to kill them as fast as you could and "kill stealing" other peoples maybe?
or
(B) Did you try to hit everyone knowing at the time you needed the kill, not the damage?

(A) would be a faster way to do the quest atm. 
(B) would be a faster way to do the quest if it was for damage.

Out of (A) and (B) who helped the team more? 

(A) Should players be reward by helping the team just run kill bots the fastest 
or 
(B) Should it reward people doing that?

"other bots will get incidentally killed." 

Sure if you're using something with no accuracy or bad luck or You are shit.

For someone that's done the quest yourself or the people that are atm over a good amount of this quest already will have good aim. Its not a hard game at all i play on avg with 200-300 ping yet most of the time i hit my target with a bow/xbow/daggers. We are playing against bots here...

Sure i may miss 1 out 5 shots or even less in some cases but that effect is negligible. Considering crosshair placement and other factors like most of the time bots of the same kind are close by each other I see this point as null in void.

---

The first part is wrong. Being in a position where you have to play a difficulty just to get kills for one bot of a run means your time spent on the other waves is not going towards your quest progress. It is more efficient to get progress on the different bots of a wave evenly such that you don't have to play a difficulty mode just to have one bot of one wave complete.

"You want to complete each bot in a difficulty in as close a time interval as possible"
I agree that would be the fastest but how the hell would this happen?

[Q voice] What? 

So even tho some bots are less common on waves and knowing some bots have more waves to their name...

On wave 13 rag we have  
New This wave
Einherjar Pikeman
Nord Chosen Champion
Siege Master

Taking into consideration its grated idk maybe 1 out 10 rag runs [maybe to high even] will not even make it wave 13.

It's highly likely one of the 3 here was the last you needed for rag. Hence even if that wasn't what you needed you did have in mind want you needed the most at that point in time. 

This would be the fastest way to do the quest. Prioritize the bot that's rarest and hardest to get to over ones that are plentiful on this wave and early. 

Why hit kill an Einherjar Ranger or Einherjar Sniper or Chosen Valkyrie or Einherjar when i can try to hit every Siege Master for max damage. It and the other 2 are the hardest bot to get for the quest considering wave 14 only has 2 options and the bots are plentiful. It's not like most people can kite or even start a run that makes it to wave 13 anyway.

You would have an odder that you would follow... That's the most efficient way to do this quest atm and with it being damage.

The difference is if its damage you are incentivised to go for the kill [help the team].

Assist make it the aim is to kill the bots as fast as you can still but you are still rewarded if you helped.

---

If "the quest taking longer has nothing to do with it," then why did you type:

Atm im over 80% on my mara if it was damage based from the start at what point would i ever catch up.

I used my self as an example as im someone that has not cared much but i still do a bit.

May take a year or more but I'm in no rush as the 5m reward is not even worth me only playing mara for that long without breaks. Getting the 5m tomorrow even or in an years time has almost no effect on my value or "happiness". I could not care less if the reward was less or more. 

For the amount of gold, I have spent this year and last the lowest I hit was 3m.  


Ashes is a mountain and unlike the people that have done it im taking breaks playing other heroes. I will do it one day but the view at the top is not worth rushing things.


Note even if it was 10m i would still be saying the same thing. I plan to do it but it's not a goal of mine atm.

---

And yet in your suggestion, the 55% gets no assist because it's less than 60% necessary to count as an assist, and it's not the last hit, so it doesn't award the kill either.

As for the fact that you don't want to kill the bot: Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently?

Yes

---

This hasn't been established. 

The people that have already priorities getting some bots over others to do the quest quicker i feel will do this. Maybe not all the time but that group of people would do it.

For how much people idk we are metaphorical speaking here so i can't give numbers. like you can't give numbers to [add example here]

---

Other reasons: players don't know bots' remaining health, there are many times when a damaged bot will get hit anyway, and there are many times when damaged bots hinder you from moving on and have to be killed before aiming for another bot.

Read plz

how can one be sure about the health of a bot?

Seeing the ammo in the bot (throwing weapons/bolts/arrows)

I never have blood on but can that do it?

just remember the location of the bot and hit a different one.

Thats 2/3 ways to do it.


If your not sure that just extends the time of you looking for a clean bot.

It's not hard at all to aim at a bot at the back that's not been hit yet. Keeping track of all the ranged is harder but it can be done. How do you think people like me get 350 kills "kill stealing"

If i can do it with ping someone with more skill than me and has normal ping could destroy this quest for others.

---

Why would you not just use items that actually exist in the game? As I've completed the quest using both Typhoon and Tempest, I can tell you it's negligible. Players were hitting bots regardless, not actively aiming to get the last hit. [=

Hmm, read [something about crossbows] I used Dead Shot my upgraded eagle as an example.  

I made the example with bows as the only parameter would be speed and damage.

Why not typhoon and tempest well like you said negligible other than flight speed. The difference in stats is so small i would be better of trying compare daggers with twigs but dagger as eh so diffent and a nerf...

I needed to make 2 things more different that what we have.

(A) I would believe for hitting faster has a higher chance of being the killing blow. Better at killing bots
(B) I would believe for having more damage would still do more damage to the bot over some amount of time but is less likely to be the final hit. Better at getting the assists.

All Snipers stuff is more of an (A) thats my problem here it's so close in stats to tempest both would be the group.

Dead shot and Alia are too different to compare. If Alia is (A) Dead Shot is (C.)

(C.) Useless on most bots as having the speed reduction for getting lots of damage is more than enough to kill most things even in rag. Its only good on a small number of bots but when its time it the bots get rekt.

---

Anyway, you generally need to simultaneously tome while keeping the boss staggered. It's better to have some people keep attacking, while others tome safely, rather than everyone dropping what they're doing to tome while the boss goes and potentially kills more people.

In what cases tho?

If the boss is in range... Odin and King sometimes are. Nop.

If the boss is behind a good amount of cades. Nop.

When he's cornered. Yes but that does not mean you go full out and even then... Coming from someone that shields a bit more than you atm heals is more important than dps in this case. By a good amount.   

If the boss is running at you can kite. If your xbow or inf that's a bit different but in that case why are you so close to him?


Also, you can kite by using race lines to get away from king and prince on any hero on lots map. A. I can't take corners like we can.

Also Also Leg should either be in ranged or helping shield and the other 3 heroes should all be helping shielding.

also also also what's stopping there being a warning when the boss is low.

also also also also why reward people for being a dick.

---

hypothetical issue that has been solved a long time ago.

Just an example that you gave me of ideas that don't get added as the game is not ready or its not needed atm. I could of suggested having an open inventory system. That's an idea we all want yet how long as it been? R.i.p

On that point.

I've suggested moving heroes/ids to items almost so you 1 more slot above "Weapon 1" for Heroes/ids. Updating gear updates stats as well.

Doing this would also mean you could change class without needing to quit and come back.


That has not been added as that's a mess to code.

---

Some posts with suggestions (like the one in this thread) took 2 minutes to get a positive dev reply. Some feature request threads remain open for months and then get blanket closed with "thanks for your suggestion." Which do you think yours will fall under?

There have been way too many times where i will suggest something and either it gets done at a later point or they fix the problem a different way. I personally don't see even half of the idea's i put up going through. Some times i will be willing to put light on one subject so some things may happen for me or others. [benefit] It does not work all the time as it shouldn't but it can surprise me when "hay look an update came out... what a good idea" "Or hay i have something to do with all this gold"

Remember how much times i asked for a gold sink. My idea was not picked but i put light on the problem. 

https://forum.nordinvasion.com/showthrea...ht=Eastern

It may have been here or a different post/thread where i said make Ek sniper only and buff it. As at the time, Ek vs Ab was about the same stats but the only difference was Ab has the 1h mode and Ek was for sniper as well.

The change happened half a year later when at that point i moved on long ago.

That's what comes to mind when making requests for Ni to me. They may say No... or nothing hell they may say its a bad idea but they may end up doing it in time or finding another "fix". Maybe some other reasons as well.

Right now I'm questioning that sniper has wulfsbane now so should EB could be moved to only Inf. Eb could be a faster Dur with less cut like how vgs is to ags or the house crafted ones. This fixes the problem with the 2 sniper heroes being able to slash or even drop a "good" 2h and give people a real run weapon for Inf.

This is an idea i would want to see yet I don't think it will happen if i posted it. I may as well to see what other people think and to see if anyone has any better ideas on what to do with it. Also if anyone has any argument way Warden/Ranger need a 2h when all we do is use it for blocking.

---

Right, this would only be a factor if you completed the quest on all your heroes on or before each renewal period with no downtime. But as you note, you "only needed 2-5 classes for max benefit." This means you knowingly created 11-14 extra heroes beyond the point that contributes to completing more quests in the same time interval "quest optimization." In other words, you knew there would be no extra quest reward from doing this, but now you want a reward for making all the heroes. Fuck that, the reward is that you have all the heroes.

At this point, I'm having too much fun [in seeing you trying to talk to me]

As said before i made all the heroes as no quest was given to me. Unlocking all things in lots of game is an achievement. Yes, 2-5 would all you need to hit max benefit but me having 12 at the time was still better than 1. from there factors.

small reasons 

I was less bored playing the same hero over and over and over again till i quit.

The smaller quests i could always do all 12 in one day. Did that for a bit.

An achievement no one has done.

big reasons

I had the ability to use all items in game so meaning. I could look for the trades with the potential to make the biggest profit and i could still use it in the meantime. Playing/trading/questing to get max profit. Normally the lesser picked classes have items with more blurry values as its less light they are getting traded as much. This can be seen with idk.. um, the hoplite red gear atm. I've got that shield 2 times for less than 5m as people can't sell it at some points in time.
Then you wait for someone that really wants it and you can double maybe even triple your value on 1 object. No scamming here just knowing how the market works. Buy something that is rare that almost noone has or would sell and keep it till someone really wants it. You cant do this with stuff for Warden for example as people always will want it. It's in high demand so it will always have a high value.       

Classes have had big buff and big nerfs in the years I've had them all. look at this for example.

https://i.gyazo.com/c69b1ce3eaf7f4ce7d1e...11a3cc.png

Duelist (Leg) had 0 throwing skill just about and the good things we see to leg atm... 

Gothic was better than pol and imp. 
Illus was 60c when dwp still had armour negation
Exc was not a thing
Leg had no throwing weapons 
...

That's just the "Duelist" example i could bring up other heroes if need be

Classes change over time... expect more changes to classes like the once Duelist were it had no big reason to pick it. 

---

What? Ignoring the fact that this is supposed to be a graph based off no data, the Y-axis doesn't even measure anything, and the X-axis seems redundant to the different sections of the graph.

"supposed to be a graph"

Not even

It's all guesswork all that pic is for it to show the idea and visualise it.  

---

In saying this if, for example, we had an Ashes were its 50 of each bot and you get 500k i would have something to aim for. 
This does not take away from the people that play 1 or some hero it if anything i hope you're the kills from the normal Ashes translate to this quest so you get the reward auto if you have the kills needed.

No, it's not linear. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that you get 500 of some bots long before you get 500 of others, meaning you get many kills that are redundant (so to speak) in quest goals. Getting 50 of each bot is not 1/10 the time commitment of getting 500 of eaach bot, and should not be worth 10% of the reward.

I agree with that but like i said before I'm willing to give the people that have done it more gold. It was an example of the reward as said before i don't care what it just gives me and others that are done Legacy of a Hero something to aim for next. The gap between quests is so big...

Legacy of a hero can be done in easily less than a week if you try [best was 3 days]. I'll call it 2 weeks just because I'll put it at it weakest for a player like myself.

Now compare that to other quests after that. I'll let you make this graph as you seem nice and eager.


Compare all quests once you hit lvl 52 with the rewards vs how long they would ruffly take. Also, highlight quests that can only be done more than once.
Also maybe level each quest for how hard it would be for example. Do it how you want but i think the harder the quest the better the reward. No idea where cav quests would go. Guess we only have 2 of them ahaha...

Normal
Rank 1 - Dead at the Top
Rank 2 - Collecting Heads I
Rank 3 - In It for the Long Haul
Hard
Rank 4 - Can't Hit a Moving Target
Rank 5 - Collecting Heads II
Rank 6 - Defender of Calradia
Rag
Rank 7 - Break the Shields that Block Us
Rank 8 - Collecting Heads III
Rank 9 - Defender of Midgard
All
Rank 10 - Rise from the Ashes <-- Legacy of a Hero and Prime Slayer would maybe be here idk up to you.


I want you to do this to show how many outliers we have atm in quests and the rewards they give.  

Examples
Gotcha, Bloody Bastards!
In It for the Long Haul (1,2,3)
Congratulations, Minion Killer...
...
etc

Legacy of a Hero is 500k... I would see killing 50 of each bot to being about the equal value given it would take longer but it would be easier.

Balance the quests out more with whatever you make Rise from the Ashes new reward.
or
Nerf the Outlining quests

I think players would rather getting more value out the quests they do.

Yes, i don't think it should be linear but it's already not linear... Rise from the Ashes was made as a joke but its got to the point were the joke happened and people have done it. Rise from the Ashes is 10x the reward of Legacy of a Hero but Legacy of a hero can be done in 3 days or less at best.

In the time you were doing this you made a lot more gold by turning Xp into gold... 5m for a quest like this is arguably shit. I can make 5m+ easy in 1 trade that takes place over less than a day. If your good at trading or dont have the value to do big trades you can get 5m by hard grinding for about 5 or so weeks.

Overall I think Legacy of a hero being 500k is fine its the others that need changing but i would be fine if it got a nerf and other quests that take longer got a buff. Either way, it's not linear at all atm.

---

So you don't play the most efficient way to complete quests now, but you suddenly would if it was changed to damage? What is to stop you from playing to get the quests done now and "making runs take longer" or whatever your fear was?

I'm speaking hypothetically for someone that does atm. I did care about legacy of a hero as it was doable in a small time frame.

I guess if you wanted it on this quest you wanted it on all.

---

What? And are you saying that your picture like pictures of the same gender?

Turned out gay fuck.
set up

The gays took rgb from us.
punch line

Pic
delivery
[inside joke]

---

Use pattern recognition.

Best thing i've is ever seen on this thread. You did not make my day you made my week :')
[inside joke]
https://i.gyazo.com/d2b2436d78904418c587...0c6205.png

[Forward]

You should write novels.

[DR.]

You should write novels.

I prefer making colouring in books.

Not even joking because of vector art is sick

And I want to guess that would sell a lot better. Got to take advantage of those kids.

[Kriegstofu]

Got to take advantage of those kids.

[Image: 0512d1174ede1162737baf1c12f5453da67c7.jpg?v=3]



Once you finished this Quest, you basically mastered/ended the Nordinvasion

[Malong]

I'm playing bingo is it working? 

Yes. [what? haha]
...
At this point, I'm having too much fun [in seeing you trying to talk to me]
...
Pic
delivery
[inside joke]
...
Best thing i've is ever seen on this thread. You did not make my day you made my week :')
[inside joke]

Spoiler

I'm just going to get this out of the way:

[Y]ou aren't some master debater.  You are the only one that thinks that, and I'm just telling you because I think someone has to.

Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently? This hasn't been established.

Want to see if you would find out for yourself but guess not.

I've never said more I've said incentivize people. Used Ctrl + F if you need to.

Incentivize people that go after quests already to play differently knowing the outcome of the game will have little no effect. 

In saying this they may not do it all the time but what's stopping them from turning from helping the team on normal to let's try to get max damage here. 

Nothing is stopping him here so yes people will do it.

I never claimed that is what you typed. You missed the point: if a significant part of the population does not modify their behavior to complete this quest more quickly, why would they if the quest is changed to damage?

So "what's stopping them from turning from helping the team on normal to let's try to get max [kills] here?"

"kill other bots too"  
You have done Ashes so I will detect this to you. 
When you needed a bot more than any others at (x) wave and you see 5 of them and 7 other bots who do you aim for? 

(A) Did you aim to kill them as fast as you could and "kill stealing" other peoples maybe?
or
(B) Did you try to hit everyone knowing at the time you needed the kill, not the damage?

(A) would be a faster way to do the quest atm. 
(B) would be a faster way to do the quest if it was for damage.

Out of (A) and (B) who helped the team more?

Thanks for detecting this to me (whatever that means). You pose a bad scenario, as when there are 12 bots left, you're just cleaning up the wave. But when there are more bots than that, I always prioritized not dying and not wiping over any kills. There's no point to putting personal quest progress above those. So I never picked (A) nor (B), so the follow-up question is irrelevant.

"other bots will get incidentally killed." 

Sure if you're using something with no accuracy or bad luck or You are shit.

For someone that's done the quest yourself or the people that are atm over a good amount of this quest already will have good aim. Its not a hard game at all i play on avg with 200-300 ping yet most of the time i hit my target with a bow/xbow/daggers. We are playing against bots here...

Sure i may miss 1 out 5 shots or even less in some cases but that effect is negligible. Considering crosshair placement and other factors like most of the time bots of the same kind are close by each other I see this point as null in void.

And many bots get incidentally killed by teammates...

The first part is wrong. Being in a position where you have to play a difficulty just to get kills for one bot of a run means your time spent on the other waves is not going towards your quest progress. It is more efficient to get progress on the different bots of a wave evenly such that you don't have to play a difficulty mode just to have one bot of one wave complete.

"You want to complete each bot in a difficulty in as close a time interval as possible" 
I agree that would be the fastest but how the hell would this happen?

So even tho some bots are less common on waves and knowing some bots have more waves to their name...

By attacking the ones you need the most in a wave no quest goal falls behind the others as much as it does... What is the point of being done with Siege Masters if you still need 100+ Einherjar Pikemen after that?

So even tho some bots are less common on waves and knowing some bots have more waves to their name...

On wave 13 rag we have  
New This wave
Einherjar Pikeman
Nord Chosen Champion
Siege Master

It's highly likely one of the 3 here was the last you needed for rag. Hence even if that wasn't what you needed you did have in mind want you needed the most at that point in time.

...

This would be the fastest way to do the quest. Prioritize the bot that's rarest and hardest to get to over ones that are plentiful on this wave and early. 

Why hit kill an Einherjar Ranger or Einherjar Sniper or Chosen Valkyrie or Einherjar when i can try to hit every Siege Master for max damage. It and the other 2 are the hardest bot to get for the quest considering wave 14 only has 2 options and the bots are plentiful. It's not like most people can kite or even start a run that makes it to wave 13 anyway.

My last bot on Ragnarok was Follower of Hati or Skoll, Forward's was Nord Chosen Champion, Falankos's was Fire Jotne. 1/3 did not turn out to be "highly likely." And for Falankos, that last Ragnarok bot wave 14 which "only has 2 options and the bots are plentiful" and not 13.

The difference is if its damage you are incentivised to go for the kill [help the team].

Assist make it the aim is to kill the bots as fast as you can still but you are still rewarded if you helped. 

And why not just reward people based on their direct contribution? Why do you want 60% contribution to get someone 50% credit?

Atm im over 80% on my mara if it was damage based from the start at what point would i ever catch up.

I used my self as an example as im someone that has not cared much but i still do a bit.

May take a year or more but I'm in no rush as the 5m reward is not even worth me only playing mara for that long without breaks. Getting the 5m tomorrow even or in an years time has almost no effect on my value or "happiness". I could not care less if the reward was less or more. 

For the amount of gold, I have spent this year and last the lowest I hit was 3m.  

Ashes is a mountain and unlike the people that have done it im taking breaks playing other heroes. I will do it one day but the view at the top is not worth rushing things. 

Note even if it was 10m i would still be saying the same thing. I plan to do it but it's not a goal of mine atm.

You don't care about finishing it, but you care about "the point at which [you would] catch up?" Stop lying!

And yet in your suggestion, the 55% gets no assist because it's less than 60% necessary to count as an assist, and it's not the last hit, so it doesn't award the kill either.

As for the fact that you don't want to kill the bot: Do you think changing the parameters by which quest credit is given would suddenly incentivize more people to play differently? 

Yes

---

This hasn't been established. 

The people that have already priorities getting some bots over others to do the quest quicker i feel will do this. Maybe not all the time but that group of people would do it.

For how much people idk we are metaphorical speaking here so i can't give numbers. like you can't give numbers to [add example here] 

Spoiler

This discussion has literally been about your lack of proof and you go on with "[I] feel will do this." If people are already taking the most efficient route, then nothing changes. If people aren't, then the scenario you fear won't happen. There is no precedent for people changing their behavior because if they cared about the quest, they would take the most efficient path already.

Other reasons: players don't know bots' remaining health, there are many times when a damaged bot will get hit anyway, and there are many times when damaged bots hinder you from moving on and have to be killed before aiming for another bot.

Read plz

how can one be sure about the health of a bot?

Seeing the ammo in the bot (throwing weapons/bolts/arrows)

I never have blood on but can that do it?

just remember the location of the bot and hit a different one.

Thats 2/3 ways to do it.


If your not sure that just extends the time of you looking for a clean bot.

It's not hard at all to aim at a bot at the back that's not been hit yet. Keeping track of all the ranged is harder but it can be done. How do you think people like me get 350 kills "kill stealing"

If i can do it with ping someone with more skill than me and has normal ping could destroy this quest for others. 

So you bring up healing, but ignore its factor in a bot's remaining health. And then you ignore "there are many times when a damaged bot will get hit anyway, and there are many times when damaged bots hinder you from moving on and have to be killed before aiming for another bot." Good job!

Why would you not just use items that actually exist in the game? As I've completed the quest using both Typhoon and Tempest, I can tell you it's negligible. Players were hitting bots regardless, not actively aiming to get the last hit. [=

Hmm, read [something about crossbows] I used Dead Shot my upgraded eagle as an example.  

I made the example with bows as the only parameter would be speed and damage.

Why not typhoon and tempest well like you said negligible other than flight speed. The difference in stats is so small i would be better of trying compare daggers with twigs but dagger as eh so diffent and a nerf...

That was a reply to the part about bows. The choice between which bows to use are never between "100 speed" and "80 speed," it would be between something like Tempest and Typhoon. And yes, you put the idea forward, you have to prove it.

I needed to make 2 things more different that what we have.

(A) I would believe for hitting faster has a higher chance of being the killing blow. Better at killing bots
(B) I would believe for having more damage would still do more damage to the bot over some amount of time but is less likely to be the final hit. Better at getting the assists.

All Snipers stuff is more of an (A) thats my problem here it's so close in stats to tempest both would be the group. 

Dead shot and Alia are too different to compare. If Alia is (A) Dead Shot is (C.) 

(C.) Useless on most bots as having the speed reduction for getting lots of damage is more than enough to kill most things even in rag. Its only good on a small number of bots but when its time it the bots get rekt.

"What you believe" is not actual proof. Do the real math with item stats in the game to show the break points between speed and damage and when each is beneficial for each mode/bot.

Anyway, you generally need to simultaneously tome while keeping the boss staggered. It's better to have some people keep attacking, while others tome safely, rather than everyone dropping what they're doing to tome while the boss goes and potentially kills more people.

In what cases tho?

If the boss is in range... Odin and King sometimes are. Nop.

If the boss is behind a good amount of cades. Nop.

When he's cornered. Yes but that does not mean you go full out and even then... Coming from someone that shields a bit more than you atm heals is more important than dps in this case. By a good amount.   

If the boss is running at you can kite. If your xbow or inf that's a bit different but in that case why are you so close to him? 


Also, you can kite by using race lines to get away from king and prince on any hero on lots map. A. I can't take corners like we can. 

Also Also Leg should either be in ranged or helping shield and the other 3 heroes should all be helping shielding. 

also also also what's stopping there being a warning when the boss is low. 

also also also also why reward people for being a dick.

How would you know what's best and/or realistic? When you play, only "1 out of 10 rag runs even make it [to] wave 13." Zing!

And what the hell are you even talking about? It's easiest to stagger when bosses are stationary and throwing, rather than chasing after people. About the health announcement, given that development hid the boss health values to the point that health bar scripts don't work, I would imagine that's not going to happen. if there was a global announcement about the boss being low health, the same people that don't care about dead teammates still would not stop or might even be encouraged to keep attacking the boss for kill quests. That would also lead to scenarios where people get rewarded "for being [dicks]."

hypothetical issue that has been solved a long time ago.

Just an example that you gave me of ideas that don't get added as the game is not ready or its not needed atm. I could of suggested having an open inventory system. That's an idea we all want yet how long as it been? R.i.p

On that point.

I've suggested moving heroes/ids to items almost so you 1 more slot above "Weapon 1" for Heroes/ids. Updating gear updates stats as well.

Doing this would also mean you could change class without needing to quit and come back.

That has not been added as that's a mess to code.

Or they don't want to reward healing in that way. And if you're implying changing credit to be based on damage would be difficult, here:

Code:

damageCredit = (damageDealt < remainingHits) ? damageDealt : remainingHits

I personally don't see even half of the idea's i put up going through.

Is this another one of those "I feel" situations? I looked quickly at the feature request sub-forum for your threads and it's far less than half. I [don't really] wonder why.

As said before i made all the heroes as no quest was given to me. Unlocking all things in lots of game is an achievement. Yes, 2-5 would all you need to hit max benefit but me having 12 at the time was still better than 1. from there factors. 

[incentives to make all heroes]

So you agree that there's no need to compensate you for something you're already felt compelled to do due to all those reasons. Also strange that in your suggestion for a quest to create all the heroes, that you would forgo any personal reward. This would go a long way in showing that you care about the principle more than try to get an extra reward. Would you be willing to do that?

"supposed to be a graph" 

Not even

It's all guesswork all that pic is for it to show the idea and visualise it.  

It only made sense in your mind...

Legacy of a hero can be done in easily less than a week if you try [best was 3 days]. I'll call it 2 weeks just because I'll put it at it weakest for a player like myself. 

Now compare that to other quests after that. I'll let you make this graph as you seem nice and eager.

Compare all quests once you hit lvl 52 with the rewards vs how long they would ruffly take. Also, highlight quests that can only be done more than once. 
Also maybe level each quest for how hard it would be for example. Do it how you want but i think the harder the quest the better the reward. No idea where cav quests would go. Guess we only have 2 of them ahaha...
...
I want you to do this to show how many outliers we have atm in quests and the rewards they give.

Neither you nor I can plot this, we don't have access to this data. For analysis on this, you would need publicly-available data that tracks when a quest gets accepted and how long it takes to complete. Maybe devs have access to this; I recall someone telling Nka the number of times he completed Legacy of a Hero back when it was repeatable. But even then there's no guarantee that the data available tracks time stamps of accepting the quest and finishing it.

I think players would rather getting more value out the quests they do.

Yes, i don't think it should be linear but it's already not linear... Rise from the Ashes was made as a joke but its got to the point were the joke happened and people have done it. Rise from the Ashes is 10x the reward of Legacy of a Hero but Legacy of a hero can be done in 3 days or less at best. 

In the time you were doing this you made a lot more gold by turning Xp into gold... 5m for a quest like this is arguably shit. I can make 5m+ easy in 1 trade that takes place over less than a day. If your good at trading or dont have the value to do big trades you can get 5m by hard grinding for about 5 or so weeks.

Overall I think Legacy of a hero being 500k is fine its the others that need changing but i would be fine if it got a nerf and other quests that take longer got a buff. Either way, it's not linear at all atm. 

Cool:

But that decision is mutually exclusive of tuning a different feature.

So you don't play the most efficient way to complete quests now, but you suddenly would if it was changed to damage? What is to stop you from playing to get the quests done now and "making runs take longer" or whatever your fear was?

I'm speaking hypothetically for someone that does atm. I did care about legacy of a hero as it was doable in a small time frame.

I guess if you wanted it on this quest you wanted it on all. 

[Q voice] What?