Rise from the Ashes

[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?