Rise from the Ashes

[Malong]

At what point did I say this player stops after getting the kills they need? If someone needs all bots in rag which is most people still it just expanded my point to more bots. 

Siege Master --> Nord Chosen Champion --> Einherjar Pikeman --> etc (in whatever order is easiest for that class and what you need for the quest the most)

"Not even killing the bot mind you." is in reference to it being about damage and not about killing the bot. 

So we're agreed it wouldn't be enough to modify behavior of players?

Let's say someone says "We need help at the cades" 
ATM if its bots you need is at the cades well your already trying to kill them I hope. With it being about damage/hp it would be more efficient to get the bots no one else is aiming for. With slashers or not even in mind the best bet would be aiming for the bots that are farthest away from the cades as they will be more likely to still have full Hp. 

Atm it's more efficient to work as a team were some "kill stealing" may take place.

vs

Were it would be efficient to work alone and try to hit every bot before anyone else does.

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.

I'm not going to bring up some bots heal each other so do you expect the Dev team to code a cutoff point for how much damage you can get out of a bot?

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.

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:

Kill stealing is a problem just like how to double peeking is a problem may be to a lesser extent but i see them being related. You complain when it happens to you but you don't complain when you do it.

Once again if its a problem it's so small who really gives a fuck. 

Read the quote, you're the only person who mentioned it being a problem. Unless you think have something against making quest credit "unquestionably equitable," in which case: 

[A]s a whole, I wish the community would improve at talking about merit.

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.

Nope. It would lead to a greater gap in the number of people that do the quest and the ones that don't.

And now you're picking one word out, and not even reading the whole sentence.

"Kill stealing" once again.

Kill stealing is a problem just like how to double peeking is a problem may be to a lesser extent but i see them being related. You complain when it happens to you but you don't complain when you do it.

I never complained about it, and yet again, in fact typed it probably evens out (i.e. "when you do it" counteracts "when it happens to you") over a long course of time, such as a minimum of 46500 individual kills. But why not reward people on a basis that is "unquestionably equitable" whenever possible?

Occam's Razor. The quest is fine or very close to it. This "fix" just adds more problems. A change in whats needed in the quest would be more beneficial to players then in what way you accomplish it.

I never typed it wasn't fine, that's why I strived to complete it. But you know what would make it better? A way to record your exact damage-based contribution to a bot's kill, instead of granting all credit going to the last hit.

This "fix" just adds more problems.

Addressed earlier; you haven't established that people will modify their behavior. If people aren't using the current most efficient method to complete this quest, it follows that they would not use the most efficient method to complete the quest in a different form.

Altho why work on trying to change this quest when time can be put in to make others better or to make new ones.

If you can demonstrate the new ones provide value and are worth implementing, then sure. But that decision is mutually exclusive of tuning a different feature.