Healers who rescue pull tanks into mobs.

[Goji1639]

First off, let's acknowledge just how problematic this is. Tanks are already abusing invulnerabilities to avoid tank swaps, let's go ahead and give them another one.

I've adjusted my stance to simply wanting Rescue to be a toggle you can opt out of. This leaves the ability in tact for people who want it and takes it out of play for people who don't want to deal with it.

You seem pretty confident in your ability to tank. You've even said it yourself right? That you're capably of keeping yourself alive even if the healer dies. With that in mind, i see no reason why you shouldn't be doing wtw pulls by default regardless of healer skill level since this is the mindset you already have. Clearly, you can, so why aren't you?

You even said in a later post that you dictate the competence of your team through the first pull. What does going slow accomplish? Much like negotiation, you start high and make your way down. Failing will eventually happen and you work around it.

I'm confident in my ability to tank through nearly any situations with a Paladin, and that's mostly because of Clemency. No other tank has that kind of sustainability, so I operate more carefully with my DRK.

Also, this isn't a negotiation, it's a feeling out process. If you don't know what the group can handle you don't start out big, you start out with something manageable that will allow you to assess them.

If you are deliberately slowing down the speed of the run you are arguably just as bad as those "forcing" you to pull more. But i digress.

The tank sets the pace by default; meaning if no one says anything the tank is the one who's going to run ahead and pull based on whatever his personal mindset is. If the rest of the group wants input on what the tank decides to do they have to speak up.

[Rilifane]

I've adjusted my stance to simply wanting Rescue to be a toggle you can opt out of. This leaves the ability in tact for people who want it and takes it out of play for people who don't want to deal with it.
.

So while some players can now chose to not be forcibly dragged around other players are forced to deal with the consequences of someone not getting rescued in time.
How is that better? The one's who don't want their precious skin touched by Rescue are more important than the rest of the party (escpecially the healer)? One way or another some players will have to bite the bullet. The inconvenience of a well-intended but poorly timed Rescue is generally much lower than the consequences of someone dying who could've been rescued.
Abuse of Rescue is reportable so the ToS are already on your side. You see questionable use of Rescue, you speak up and possibly report it. If you don't, that's on you.
But if someone dies or the party even wipes when they could've been rescued, the others can only grit their teeth and hope they do it right this time.

[Goji1639]

So while some players can now chose to not be forcibly dragged around other players are forced to deal with the consequences of someone not getting rescued in time.
How is that better? The one's who don't want their precious skin touched by Rescue are more important than the rest of the party (escpecially the healer)? One way or another some players will have to bite the bullet. The inconvenience of a well-intended but poorly timed Rescue is generally much lower than the consequences of someone dying who could've been rescued.
Abuse of Rescue is reportable so the ToS are already on your side. You see questionable use of Rescue, you speak up and possibly report it. If you don't, that's on you.
But if someone dies or the party even wipes when they could've been rescued, the others can only grit their teeth and hope they do it right this time.

If someone dies they die. If the entire group doesn't want to deal with the possibility of someone dying that could've been Rescued they can vote kick people who refuse to enable rescue. I'm honestly fine with that.

If a group decides they don't want to deal with my "No Rescue" position then they don't have to play with me. That's a lot better than them forcibly taking control of my character.

[Packetdancer]

If someone dies they die. If the entire group doesn't want to deal with the possibility of someone dying that could've been Rescued they can vote kick people who refuse to enable rescue. I'm honestly fine with that.

I mean... it can be more than "if someone dies they die". There are a lot of mechanics out there where if you don't have a certain number of players positioned right, other people die to a mechanic, or the entire party does, in which case the group is dealing with "If someone dies, I die." And I feel like in that case, just sitting and watching it happen is potentially not playing my role as a healer.

I've had a scenario running Alliance Roulette a couple of weeks ago where I got Labyrinth of the Ancients and we were one short on the pad with the second cast of Ancient Flare just short of finishing, because DPS had gotten greedy and were trying to push enough to finish the fight before the cast was done. (As frequently happens.) One of the DPS who got greedy was sprinting to the pad... and while they were the closest of the set, it was clear even they would not make it in time. Without one more on the pad, the barrier doesn't come up and the entire alliance wipes. I pulled them the rest of the way with Rescue, and the barrier went up just before the Ancient Flare cast finished.

Obviously, in that case, they didn't mind; I just pulled them the rest of the way to where they were already clearly trying to get. But imagine now that I just decided "oh, well, it would be rude to Rescue them without asking first" and just stood there watching while the entire party wiped when I could've prevented it; as I said above, I feel someone could make a solid argument that I had not played my role as healer—i.e., "keep the party alive"—properly or well there.

I can definitely see people turning the option on for one duty, forgetting they have it on, and Shirk immunity causing a failure to tank-swap in a trial roulette or a wipe to Rescue immunity during mechanics like Ancient Flare in another duty later. And I wish I couldn't, but I can see people who are impatient or annoyed by a wipe in such a scenario immediately initiating a vote-kick against the person who caused it by preventing a Shirk or Rescue through that setting. Especially if the general community mindset is "if you use this option and we don't like it, we're supposed to kick you".

This isn't necessarily an argument against an option to disable Rescue on themselves—or, for that matter, an option to make yourself similarly immune to Shirk—but more I suppose I'm just not sure "if you don't like people using Rescue/Shirk immunity, just kick them" is fundamentally different than "if you don't like people being jerks with Rescue/Shirk, just kick them", just with the added complication of a setting people could accidentally leave on, piss off folks with, and get kicked for.

(It definitely is an argument on my part against removing Rescue and/or Shirk entirely just because they can be misused for trolling.)

[Mavrias]

So while some players can now chose to not be forcibly dragged around other players are forced to deal with the consequences of someone not getting rescued in time.
How is that better? The one's who don't want their precious skin touched by Rescue are more important than the rest of the party (escpecially the healer)? One way or another some players will have to bite the bullet. The inconvenience of a well-intended but poorly timed Rescue is generally much lower than the consequences of someone dying who could've been rescued.
Abuse of Rescue is reportable so the ToS are already on your side. You see questionable use of Rescue, you speak up and possibly report it. If you don't, that's on you.
But if someone dies or the party even wipes when they could've been rescued, the others can only grit their teeth and hope they do it right this time.

I really don't get this obsession people have with other players asking for a way to toggle off being able to be rescued. Its very simple. I can trust the healers in my static and those who i have communicated a rescue strat with previously to use it only when necessary. PUG healers tend to use it at the first sign of you maybe not deciding to get out of something right when they think you should, whether that something is lethal or not.

Like I'm not even talking about trolling, as i almost never see it used for that purpose. Just like rescuing me out of a mechanic I was prepared to eat with manaward or riddle of earth, or pulling me out of leylines/ position into an Earthly Star explosion when I have full health.

A toggle would allow players to enable or disable rescue depending on the content and their party. If you really are feeling some type of way about if someone dies when they can't be rescued just leave them dead and kick them after.

[RegularEggs]

I really don't get this obsession people have with other players asking for a way to toggle off being able to be rescued. Its very simple. I can trust the healers in my static and those who i have communicated a rescue strat with previously to use it only when necessary. PUG healers tend to use it at the first sign of you maybe not deciding to get out of something right when they think you should, whether that something is lethal or not.

Like I'm not even talking about trolling, as i almost never see it used for that purpose. Just like rescuing me out of a mechanic I was prepared to eat with manaward or riddle of earth, or pulling me out of leylines/ position into an Earthly Star explosion when I have full health.

A toggle would allow players to enable or disable rescue depending on the content and their party. If you really are feeling some type of way about if someone dies when they can't be rescued just leave them dead and kick them after.

The reason why this will not work is because, what is the point of the toggle? If other players can deliberately disable a spell on my hotbar, then what's the point of having the spell altogether. They might as well remove the spell at that point.

I think a general consensus is that spell has it's uses. Either keep it or remove it all together.

[Goji1639]

The reason why this will not work is because, what is the point of the toggle? If other players can deliberately disable a spell on my hotbar, then what's the point of having the spell altogether. They might as well remove the spell at that point.

I think a general consensus is that spell has it's uses. Either keep it or remove it all together.

You would still have the ability for the people who actually WANT you to Rescue them... Does the ability only have meaning if you can force it on people against their will?

[Mavrias]

The reason why this will not work is because, what is the point of the toggle? If other players can deliberately disable a spell on my hotbar, then what's the point of having the spell altogether. They might as well remove the spell at that point.

I think a general consensus is that spell has it's uses. Either keep it or remove it all together.

There could be other people in the party who have it enabled? And again the point of the toggle is that there are niche cases and strategies where rescue is extremely useful, primarily in savage and ultimate with statics.

Outside of those cases, some players would rather not be rescued. It shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand.

[Rilifane]

I really don't get this obsession people have with other players asking for a way to toggle off being able to be rescued. Its very simple. I can trust the healers in my static and those who i have communicated a rescue strat with previously to use it only when necessary. PUG healers tend to use it at the first sign of you maybe not deciding to get out of something right when they think you should, whether that something is lethal or not.

Like I'm not even talking about trolling, as i almost never see it used for that purpose. Just like rescuing me out of a mechanic I was prepared to eat with manaward or riddle of earth, or pulling me out of leylines/ position into an Earthly Star explosion when I have full health.

A toggle would allow players to enable or disable rescue depending on the content and their party. If you really are feeling some type of way about if someone dies when they can't be rescued just leave them dead and kick them after.

I think you misunderstood me.
I'm not completely against a toggle. If that's the only way this unneccessary drama ends, so be it. I'm just curious why some people think that the inconvenience of an unneccessary rescue (barring trolling of course) is so much worse than whatever happens when you can't rescue someone but would have saved them/ the party with it. One party gets to chose, the other has to deal with it as it comes.
Right now people can freely chose to use Rescue while others can't do anything against it unless it is
1) used for trolling, which is immediately reportable
2) they asked them to stop and they continued
With a toggle people can chose not to get rescued while others can't chose to Rescue them even if it would be beneficial for them/ the party as a whole.
All I'm saying is: one way or another, some poeple will just have to deal with things while others get to chose.
I don't think there's a perfect solution for it anyway.