Rise from the Ashes

[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.