Rescue not me

[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.