!! Fix Healer Rescue

[Goji1639]

Sure, whatever you say, chief. So, what do you think about the other thing I said, about using Rescue? Or was it more important to waste a post explaining a placeholder post instead of actually having a conversation?

I was already aware that anecdotes where Rescue can work out alright exist. I've also provided some anecdotes in this thread where Rescue has been a nuisance. I'd still like to be able to toggle it off.

-1 post.

[Doozer]

I was already aware that anecdotes where Rescue can work out alright exist. I've also provided some anecdotes in this thread where Rescue has been a nuisance. I'd still like to be able to toggle it off.

-1 post.

And I'd still like it to not be toggled off. So tell me, whose opinion do you think carries more weight?

[Goji1639]

And I'd still like it to not be toggled off. So tell me, whose opinion do you think carries more weight?

Then don't toggle it off. That's the beauty of a toggle.

-1 post.

[Doozer]

Then don't toggle it off. That's the beauty of a toggle.

-1 post.

When SE implements the ability for people to toggle whether they can be Rescued, can I also toggle whether they can be Rescued? If not, that's not really fair then is it?

I want to see that someone toggled Rescue off, toggle it back on for them, and Rescue them. That I would allow.

[Goji1639]

When SE implements the ability for people to toggle whether they can be Rescued, can I also toggle whether they can be Rescued? If not, that's not really fair then is it?

I want to see that someone toggled Rescue off, toggle it back on for them, and Rescue them. That I would allow.

If someone doesn't want to be Rescued by you then why the compulsive need to Rescue them? Some kind of savior complex? If someone doesn't want your help it might be therapeutic for you to let it go, instead of trying to force yourself on that person.

I honestly get that creepy feeling from a lot of people on these forums, even when it comes to things like offering advice. It's like they need the other person to acknowledge and validate them, and become obsessed. I've offered advice in this game that's gone wholly ignored before; it's never bothered me.

But, back on topic, no. In what I'm proposing you wouldn't be able to change the other person's settings in order to force them.

-1 post.

[Doozer]

If someone doesn't want to be Rescued by you then why the compulsive need to Rescue them? Some kind of savior complex?

If someone wants to Rescue you then why the compulsive need to not be Rescued? Some kind of victim complex? Checkmate.

Also, SE, if it's not too much trouble, can I have the option to unsub someone else from the game? Just a little toggle, especially if they're hurting my uptime.

[Goji1639]

If someone wants to Rescue you then why the compulsive need to not be Rescued? Some kind of victim complex? Checkmate.

Also, SE, if it's not too much trouble, can I have the option to unsub someone else from the game? Just a little toggle, especially if they're hurting my uptime.

lol, this actually works better the other way.

I want an ability that lets me unsub and replace players that aren't positioning themselves properly. Why only give me control of their character to force them to play how I want, when they can give me control of their entire account. Don't let people toggle out of this abilities effect, though; that would ruin it for me.

[Doozer]

lol, this actually works better the other way.

I don't think that's true, actually. I guess that makes me right.

[Packetdancer]

I'm going to regret coming back into this thread, I know, but... one more attempt.

Right now, the feature as proposed puts the entire burden of the feature on the healers. It's on the healers to see whether or not the Rescue Disable toggle is on (if they want to avoid wasting time on it), and if they would have saved someone out of the bad and the person rejects the Rescue and then dies anyway, the burden of that consequence is on the healers (now needing to spend 2400 MP and Swiftcast to rez someone, where the Rescue would have prevented that).

And even if you come up with a perfect way to communicate the feature being enabled on a player, it still puts the burden of this feature on the healer. If I can save a player from damage and I do, and it works, I no longer have to spend 2400 MP and a Swiftcast to get them back in the game. If I can save a player from damage and I try and they reject it and then die, I as the healer pay the cost of correcting their mistake; it's the equivalent of someone going "Free sandwiches!" and I want to go into the shop, and someone holds me back until they go "Okay, free sandwiches have run out! Full price again!" and then telling me it's okay to go in. You are deliberately costing me something I hypothetically would not have to pay were I free to act.

And 2400 MP isn't something to sneeze at.

So in short, there is additional burden and cost imposed on healers (spotting the status indicator) on top of ensuring they can't save themselves the MP cost by rescuing someone about to die. In contrast, there's no additional cost for those rejecting Rescue (save that maybe you would've been saved if Rescue had gone through, and now if the healer gets you back up you're being rezzed with Weakness instead). If you want to go the toggle route, I think you'll find more people willing to see a toggle as still leaving Rescue viable if the costs/consequences are more equitable.

So, in the interests of trying to make the conversation productive, let me offer this example of what I mean by more collaborative solutions (and a more equitable cost of the choice to reject Rescue):

Let's have the toggle put on a debuff status called Independent. Yes, healers may still miss the status in the status bar in the thick of things when there's a ton of raid buffs and such on the bars (or you're in the Baldesion Arsenal or Delubrum or whatever, somewhere that people colllect status effects like Pokémon), but hey, there'll be an indicator, and having it as a status will make this part easier to code if nothing else.

If a healer uses Rescue on someone who has the Independent debuff, Rescue does not trigger the draw-in effect. Instead, the healer gets a 30 second buff called Salvation Offered while the other player gets a 10 second debuff called Salvation Denied. If a player takes avoidable damage while they have Salvation Denied, the debuff is consumed and they gain a 10 second debuff called Unsaved.

And if a player dies while under the effect of either Salvation Denied or Unsaved, they get a new buff called Second Chance which lasts for 10 seconds.

If a healer has the Salvation Offered buff, using a raise on someone with Second Chance will cost only 1200 MP and be an instant cast (and both status effects will be consumed). However, the person will always be rezzed afflicted with Brink of Death (the harsher of the two rez-penalty debuffs we have in game, the one you get if you're rezzed while still under the effect of Weakness).

For DPS who know what they're doing and are just cutting it close, the upshot is just that they'll get to deny the Rescue without real consequence; they'll avoid the damage on their own, and after 10 seconds they lose the Salvation Denied debuff without ever getting the Unsaved debuff. At which point, if they die, it's normal death mechanics; the healer still has to use Swiftcast and spend full price to rez them, as usual. No cost to the DPS, but as they didn't die, the healer isn't having to eat the consequences of the decision to deny the Rescue.

If the Rescue would genuinely have saved someone, however, now upon taking that damage the healer tried to save them from, the player has Unsaved (or they're on the floor and have Second Chance); if they die as a likely consequence of that avoidable damage, the healer has an "at least you tried to save them" benefit that makes the rez less onerous. (Thus it's still worth attempting the Rescue.)

The Brink of Death instead of Weakness is to avoid people deliberately using Second Chance to cheese things widely; the penalty to the newly-rezzed DPS with Brink is severe enough on its own to discourage it, but not so severe it hasn't already been measured as a reasonable rez-penalty debuff by the devs, since it's already in-game.

Done this way, it doesn't matter if the healer has nameplates off to avoid visual clutter (if there's a nameplate status icon), or if the Independent debuff is readily visible among a number of raid buffs or not, because the healer doesn't have to take on the extra cost of trying to figure out whether or not the person has Rescue toggled off. Because if the healer was right to try to use Rescue, the consequences of being unable to save the targeted player from the incoming damage are shared; the DPS takes a heftier rez-penalty when rezzed, and the healer doesn't get a complete freebie as they still do have to spend 1200 MP to get the player back upright. (But there's a benefit to getting them back into the fight quickly due to the reduced cost and what is functionally a freebie Swiftcast, so it's best not to just leave the person on the floor indefinitely either.)

I think most healers would object less to this sort of an implementation than just "I have disabled Rescue, I reject your efforts to prevent me being on the floor, you just wasted that casting window, and if I die despite this you'll just have to spend your Swiftcast and nearly a quarter of your entire MP pool to rez me." So it's an implementation that benefits both sides.

[Seraphor]

^ While this seems incredibly complicated for what is a simple role action, it does what you set out to do.
Maybe it should be simplified in some way but I kinda like it.