Rescue not me

[Kryos]

Preface: After observing this code in action a few times, I'd like to suggest a change to the rescue command.

Observed Problem:  The person being rescued is assigned a pretty hefty "delay/round time" that keeps them stationary and unable to act after being rescued.  From observation, this is much longer then the person who is actually doing rescue <target>. 

Why is this bad:  From a point of realism, someone being knocked out of a fight would be far more free to act then someone who had just stepped in to save them.  From a game play point, this is really irksome when I've got to stand still for 10 seconds after being rescued, that's life and death five times over, in some cases.

Suggested resolution:  Swap the "delay/round time" for rescuer and rescued.  Getting in the way of a fight should be risky and time consuming, get relieved of a fight should enable you to do something that may save your life.

[Rotten]

Yeah, I don't like the rescue delay very much.  I actually saw one character die because I rescued him, another thing was attacking him, and he couldn't get away.

I can understand the utility of the excessive delay in fights of one versus two, but in larger engagements, it's silly.

[Oleupata]

Disclaimer: not staff opinion

The way I see the rescue code working is that the rescuer literally knocks/drags/pulls/shoves/pushes (choose any that apply) the rescuee out of the fight and puts himself in the same place. This accounts for there being a delay, though I by no means intend to quash discussion on how much delay there should be.

[Twilight]

If I was going to rescue someone, and I had to deal with two sets of flashing weapons, I think I would push the attacker back, away from who I intent to rescue, rather than the other way around.  Unless my wisdom roll sucked!  It just makes much more sense, at least to me.  -Especially- if the person I am rescuing is fighting multiple opponents.  I mean seriously...physically knocking my ally off balance in the middle of a fight?

The two wonky pieces to rescue are the delay for the rescued, and the breaking off of combat for the rescued.  It seems to me...if you rescued someone from a single opponent, they should not get a wait state, and they should still be attacking their opponent.  If they are being attacked by a second (or more) person, a slight delay might make sense (as they reorient on someone else) and they should enter combat with whoever they are engaged with other than the person you just got off them.

Of course, to compensate, if the attacker is sentient, it should be able to use change opponent to switch back to who was rescued.  Of course, to compensate against this, guard should work to have a chance to foil change opponent in certain cirmumstances in combat (given the rarity of people using change opponent and total lack as far as I know in NPCs, I've never tested this to determine if such a check currently exists).

[Yam]

I've lost several PCs to rescue lag. Someone rescues you, they fail. You can't flee due to lag. You die.

Someone rescues you, they succeed. Something else comes in and attacks you. You can't flee due to lag. You die.




Unless you have a very experienced rescuer, it's often a death sentence.

[Gimfalisette]

I've lost several PCs to rescue lag. Someone rescues you, they fail. You can't flee due to lag. You die.

Someone rescues you, they succeed. Something else comes in and attacks you. You can't flee due to lag. You die.

Unless you have a very experienced rescuer, it's often a death sentence.

I don't believe the post-rescue lag applies to the rescuee unless the rescue is actually successful.

I think the rescuee should be able to flee immediately post-rescue with no lag, or much less lag than there is now.

I wish that the rescuee would see some kind of failure message when the rescuer doesn't succeed.

[MarshallDFX]

I wish that the rescuee would see some kind of failure message when the rescuer doesn't succeed.

Mmhmm.

I've never encountered this rescued lag.  I've never needed to be rescued.   

[Riev]

Query: When you "rescue" someone being attacked by multiple entities, do you only succesfully "pull aggro" from one of them, requiring multiple rescue attempts on that one PC?

Because I -do- understand the need for rescue lag, because I can think of no less than three ways in which it would be abused otherwise. However, if someone is being attacked by 2 PCs, and you rescue off one of them while the other still goes to town, what good did you do?

Perhaps rescue should take all people attacking that entity and change opponent <rescuer>

[Cutthroat]

Query: When you "rescue" someone being attacked by multiple entities, do you only succesfully "pull aggro" from one of them, requiring multiple rescue attempts on that one PC?

Because I -do- understand the need for rescue lag, because I can think of no less than three ways in which it would be abused otherwise. However, if someone is being attacked by 2 PCs, and you rescue off one of them while the other still goes to town, what good did you do?

Perhaps rescue should take all people attacking that entity and change opponent <rescuer>

I think it does rescue the victim from everyone currently attacking the victim (and put you in harm's way of everyone that was attacking the victim).

I agree the delay for the rescued should be shorter, and the delay for the rescuer should be longer, but I think it could be based on the rescuer's skill. A poor rescuer pushes the person out of the way, causing him to fall and thus need to get up, or whatever... but a highly-skilled rescuer simply slips in, allowing the rescued to turn and run.

[Gimfalisette]

No, it only rescues the victim from one attacker. They remain under attack by any others. If they have multiple attackers, you have to rescue for each one.

[Cutthroat]

No, it only rescues the victim from one attacker. They remain under attack by any others. If they have multiple attackers, you have to rescue for each one.

*looks at logs*

You're right. In that case, rescuing a person from everyone at once might be an interesting addition, or something for master-rescuers.

[Zoltan]

No, it only rescues the victim from one attacker. They remain under attack by any others. If they have multiple attackers, you have to rescue for each one.

I learned that tidbit pretty spectacularly a few months back. Thanks, multiple rescuers!

I like rescue like it is, mostly, except maybe it needs a slightly shorter delay time for the rescued. One thing that might be neat if it's not already in: A is the ally, B is the enemy and you are you. So, B is attacking A. Instead of rescuing A, it might be cool if you could bash B and, with a success, draw B's "aggro". It's like a slightly riskier rescue with a bigger pay off.

[MarshallDFX]

No, it only rescues the victim from one attacker. They remain under attack by any others. If they have multiple attackers, you have to rescue for each one.

I learned that tidbit pretty spectacularly a few months back. Thanks, multiple rescuers!

I like rescue like it is, mostly, except maybe it needs a slightly shorter delay time for the rescued. One thing that might be neat if it's not already in: A is the ally, B is the enemy and you are you. So, B is attacking A. Instead of rescuing A, it might be cool if you could bash B and, with a success, draw B's "aggro". It's like a slightly riskier rescue with a bigger pay off.

It occurs to me that one might want to bash, but not necessarily be the one targeted.  So, new syntax perhaps?

[Synthesis]

It kind of sucks, but it makes sense, as far as anything makes sense in the bizarro-world of combat lag timers and legacy DIKU code.

Possible fix:  allow the "rescue" command to pull multiple attackers, based on the rescuer's skill vs. the attacker's offense skill.

All it would take is to run a little script:

Rescuer's Roll (RR) = (Rescue Skill + Random Factor)
Attacker's Roll (AR) = (Offense Skill + Random Factor)

If Rescuer passes basic skill check, rescue vs. 1 attacker succeeds.
If RR > AR, extra rescue succeeds.
If RR <= AR, extra rescue fails.
If #extra rescues = 3, additional extra rescues automatically fail.  (Trust me rescuers, you don't want to instantly start tanking more than 3 attackers.)

This way, if you're an experienced guardsman, you can pull multiple opponents away from your charge.  BUT, if those opponents are highly skilled in combat, they'll see what you're up to and flank around you to continue attacking your charge.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Bash = Knock a foe over. Land on your face.
Slam = Knock a foe over and draw its fire. Land on your face and draw its fire.
Rescue = Rescue charge from one foe. Rescue nobody.
Deliver = Rescue charge from all foes. Rescue charge from one foe.

[Synthesis]

Complicated commands are complicated.

[Rotten]

Disclaimer: not staff opinion

The way I see the rescue code working is that the rescuer literally knocks/drags/pulls/shoves/pushes (choose any that apply) the rescuee out of the fight and puts himself in the same place. This accounts for there being a delay, though I by no means intend to quash discussion on how much delay there should be.

It's okay.  You can say it.  It's modeled after bash.  It's that single fact that has always made me feel stupid whenever I try to train new characters in it.  Hell, I'd prefer the rescuer getting that degree of lag.

It seems to me that the current establishment discourages maneuverability if you aren't skilled (reel, hehe).  This is a bad thing, since maneuverability is the thing you need most if you aren't skilled. Formations need to shift and flex if something is tearing through them.

Rescuing from multiple attackers = the anti-tactic. 

[Riev]

But you also shouldn't be giving no lag to the rescuee, because then you'll not only get bounce-tanking which wouldn't make sense in a full combat scenario, but you'd get that person that rescues the uber krathi fireball man who can, next prompt, cast a fireball up your punk ass, with no repercussion. Its a trick situation.

[X-D]

The delay on the person being rescued should be gone.

IF, you go with the idea that you are moving them out of harms way.

That or a rescue should be a rescue from all and it should shove the rescued person to another room, Then you could keep the delay as making sense.

As it sits now, My PCs will often tell others around them, Don't fucking rescue me, I don't want to die.

As it sits now you are NOT shoving them out of harms way, you are getting INTO harms way. If you were shoving them out of harms way you would not have to rescue over and over...Not only that, getting around somebody being rescued is very easy, And if your a warrior, very deadly because you can add extra delay to the person who got rescued almost assuring they die.

[Clearsighted]

I've mostly seen rescue used to playfully piss people off, by subjecting them to the lag delay.

[jstorrie]

2.Arm is going to have adjective modifiers for commands, right?

Throw 'protectively' or 'heroically' or something similar in as something you can append to combat commands in order to give them a greater 'aggro modifier.'

[Xeran Van Houten]

That or a rescue should be a rescue from all and it should shove the rescued person to another room, Then you could keep the delay as making sense.

That'll be fun until you rescue someone by throwing them off the shield wall... Just as dangerous a situation as we have now in some places.

[musashi]

That or a rescue should be a rescue from all and it should shove the rescued person to another room, Then you could keep the delay as making sense.

That'll be fun until you rescue someone by throwing them off the shield wall... Just as dangerous a situation as we have now in some places.

And in general I'm against skills that throw people into other rooms through a "shove" or "bash", mainly because not all rooms are equal in size, and getting bashed or shoved from the bottom of a sand dune all the way up to the top of it, described as being high up enough to survey the entire desert ... hurts my immersion.

[Shardok]

If I was going to rescue someone, and I had to deal with two sets of flashing weapons, I think I would push the attacker back, away from who I intent to rescue, rather than the other way around.  Unless my wisdom roll sucked!  It just makes much more sense, at least to me.  -Especially- if the person I am rescuing is fighting multiple opponents.  I mean seriously...physically knocking my ally off balance in the middle of a fight?

This reminds me of the question in Morrowind when you randomly generate your class. "If you saw a hot pipe coming down on your mother would you? A: Push her out of the way. B: Push the pipe out of the way. C: Stand between the two."

Really, you can think of it the same way with between a monster and a rescuee. Would you attempt to move the rescuee (who would be willing to be moved)? Would you attempt to move the attacker (unwilling to move)? Or would you get between the two in some way?

I think it's most likely you'd take the last action if you wanted to allow the rescuee to actually flee. Doing the moving of the attacker would be heroic yes, but stupid. It's just like trying to push a hot pipe out of the way. It's hot and unwilling to budge. Now yes, there is some logic in pushing the rescuee away, because it (should) get them away from the enemy faster than if they moved on their own. But I think standing between the two would be more a expected form of rescue attempt and that should only delay the rescuer a bit to get into place and the rescuee for a short period to figure out what just happened (Yes, you would be quite surprised/stunned if someone just stepped between you and a person with a large sword)

But, it should also give delay to the attacker. Why? Because he's just as confused by this. How would you react to suddenly having another person jump between you and someone you're fighting? Some people do react quickly and don't even miss a second in attacking this new target, others don't. Maybe there could be an attempt to save against this from one stat or another. (like a will check to prevent being surprised in other games) That check would of course be expected for both the rescuee and the attacker.

[Majikal]

The delay on the person being rescued should be gone.

IF, you go with the idea that you are moving them out of harms way.

As it sits now, My PCs will often tell others around them, Don't fucking rescue me, I don't want to die.

As it sits now you are NOT shoving them out of harms way, you are getting INTO harms way. If you were shoving them out of harms way you would not have to rescue over and over...Not only that, getting around somebody being rescued is very easy, And if your a warrior, very deadly because you can add extra delay to the person who got rescued almost assuring they die.

Some years ago I killed a pc who was soloing a herd of Erdlu, he was disarmed and the erdlu herd landed a series of scareh blows. I had the bash skill but it wasn't nearly as foolproof as my ability to rescue so my character rescued and the lag that followed killed my intended victim.

Rescue shouldn't do more harm than good. A removal of the lag would be glorious.

[Twilight]

AI needs to be added in to make the attacker(s) response to rescue be more random.  Which should then dovetail to what skills and at what level the rescuer has for the counters to said actions.  The last example is an abuse that would have been more risky if there was a chance that you pulled off multiple attackers with a rescue, drew random kicks/bashes with a rescue, etc.

[ibusoe]

The whole command is weird.

When you're attempting to save someone, you don't push your victim out of the way.  Rather, you charge at the attacker.  If anything, the attacker should be saddled with the delay, not the rescuer or the rescuee'.

[FantasyWriter]

assist > rescue

[Potaje]

One could look at the rescuee rescuer conundrum as one is he focus of the engagement and the other is backing the lead up with peppering attacks on the focused target. So say the lead drops back and the other presses hard with the attacks then you would effectively have a rescue with out delay. Of coarse one would have to image that there are say two allies against an opponent, would that opponent continue to waylay one backing off when another is pressing an attack. If you where to look at it from the point of view of a sentient, yes it would turn to address the more serious threat to its life. However I, from RL experience have witnessed a dog attack another animal, a pet of mine, and I advance on it with a bat, beating the living hell out of the dog, but still unable to get my pet away, nor drawing the dogs attention to me with any quickness. I lost my pets life, as did the dog its.. but needless to say.. perhaps there was a RL delay.

[MeTekillot]

You know you can rescue someone while you're fighting something else? I think that might solve the "I get rescued then killed five seconds later thing" if your rescuer just rescues you again.

[X-D]

The lag on the rescuer is longer then 5 seconds.

[MarshallDFX]

Am I correct is saying that it seems nobody would be vehemently opposed to a reduction in the "rescued" delay?  I'd voice some support in this direction.

[Riev]

I'd be for, if possible, a reduction on delay on the rescuee -IF- there are multiple attackers. If there is only one attacker you can assume that they were shoved out of the way, with multiple attackers you just "draw aggro" from one without really physically knocking your ward down.

The lag for the rescuee -is- horrendous, but I can see how having no lag at all would be very dangerous as well.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'd be for, if possible, a reduction on delay on the rescuee -IF- there are multiple attackers. If there is only one attacker you can assume that they were shoved out of the way, with multiple attackers you just "draw aggro" from one without really physically knocking your ward down.

The lag for the rescuee -is- horrendous, but I can see how having no lag at all would be very dangerous as well.

I'll go with this (key part bolded). I'd suggest reducing it by a percentage per attacker, to a minimum of 0.

[Praetorian]

Just had an amusing late-night thought - by no means suggest doing this

Got me curious, if it would be a 'safer rescue' due to the lag inflicted on your ally to rescue the gith (lag them) then disengage and let your endangered friend run for it while the gith and the rescuer languish together under the lag? *laugh*

Yeah, I need sleep *sigh*

[LauraMars]

Rescue lags you even when you accidentally typo it, or try to rescue someone who isn't fighting.

I don't really think it should do that.

[ibusoe]

Am I correct is saying that it seems nobody would be vehemently opposed to a reduction in the "rescued" delay?  I'd voice some support in this direction.