This Has To Stop Now

[Gullim92]

Multiple people reviving the same downed player.

 

All the time when I play online, every single player in the team rushes to the downed player to revive him

I can understand this when the enemies have been dealt with, as having multiple people speeds up the reviving process (or at least I sincerely HOPE it does)

 

But doing this when enemies are still around is just ASKING to die! If a teammate gets downed and you see me running towards him and start reviving him in the middle of a firefight, then cover me and kill some enemies to give me time, or kill these five chargers clawing away at my kneecaps! Don't get us both downed by letting the enemies hit us!

 

And this isn't just a new player thing, some rank 13 or 17 players are doing this as well, its ridiculous..

So please, next time you see a player reviving a downed teammate, provide cover fire, don't stroll over to them and start reviving as well...

[Rydian]

And at the time of my first post in this thread no body had even said 'I'm never reviving anybody ever again'. The closest post to that was VKhaun's, and that isn't even what they said

Idunno', I mean I see them say...

 

I don't revive people anymore

And it certainly looks like them saying they're not reviving anybody anymore...

[Evan-0-matic]

I usually light a sparkler/ fire work, stick it up the downed Tenno's butt and wait till about 3 seconds are left on the revive timer.

And kill any enemies surrounding us.

Any advice for me, OP?

I never 'tea bag' though... That's just rude.

[SquirmyBurrito]

Idunno', I mean I see them say...

 

And it certainly looks like them saying they're not reviving anybody anymore...

 

Don't take things out of context and you wont make that mistake again. VKhaun didn't just say 'I don't revive people anymore', VKhaun explained that the reason for this was that others were going to rush to revive the downed person anyway so he/she would instead focus on providing cover fire/CC.

 

 

I don't revive people anymore because no one gets this. There was a time when I played tanked up Loki and Ash on Apollodorus to level weapons and help lowbies by rezzing while invisible... didn't work... not only would other higher ranked players still try to 'help' but they would draw Napalm fire and get us all killed. I'm a fast typer and I'll even SAY IN CHAT: "Don't revive me, I have revives. Cover the pod!" and people will still let the pod die to all run over and rez me.

 

 

I just always assume I'm going to be the one who has to cover. If someone goes down on defense or mobile defense I make a beeline for the objective and dump my power on CC if I have any. If someone goes down on survival I look straight at them and start shooting things near them to cover the rez people.

 

The funny thing is I occasionally get a pat on the back for it from people who say everyone ELSE is crazy for helping them rez...

 

No idea why the quote thing decided to mess up.

Edited September 21, 2014 by SquirmyBurrito

[Rydian]

 

Don't take things out of context and you wont make that mistake again. VKhaun didn't just say 'I don't revive people anymore', VKhaun explained that the reason for this was that others were going to rush to revive the downed person anyway so he/she would instead focus on providing cover fire/CC.

 

 

 

I just always assume I'm going to be the one who has to cover. If someone goes down on defense or mobile defense I make a beeline for the objective and dump my power on CC if I have any. If someone goes down on survival I look straight at them and start shooting things near them to cover the rez people.

 

The funny thing is I occasionally get a pat on the back for it from people who say everyone ELSE is crazy for helping them rez...

 

Even with additional context, it still means what it means.

 

Saying "I won't revive people anymore because blah blah blah" not mean mean that "I won't revive people anymore" is false, it's "I won't revive people anymore" with added info.

 

That added info does not negate the original statement, and the original statement is what people disagree with.

[SquirmyBurrito]

Even with additional context, it still means what it means.

 

Saying "I won't revive people anymore because blah blah blah" not mean mean that "I won't revive people anymore" is false, it's "I won't revive people anymore" with added info.

 

That added info does not negate the original statement, and the original statement is what people disagree with.

 

I already addressed those who disagree with the original statement as disagreeing with said statement is the same as disagreeing with what the OP is talking about. 

 

There is a huge difference between 'I don't revive people anymore' and 'I don't revive people anymore because [i choose to provide cover instead]'. Very few people are going to disagree with the choice made in the second statement.

 

Context is important.

[Keiga150]

Multiple people reviving the same downed player.

 

Don't see how that's a problem.

 

All the time when I play online, every single player in the team rushes to the downed player to revive him

I can understand this when the enemies have been dealt with, as having multiple people speeds up the reviving process (or at least I sincerely HOPE it does)

Games vary not everyone is so generous to rush to revive someone, and yes multiple people does speed up revive.

 

 

But doing this when enemies are still around is just ASKING to die! If a teammate gets downed and you see me running towards him and start reviving him in the middle of a firefight, then cover me and kill some enemies to give me time, or kill these five chargers clawing away at my kneecaps! Don't get us both downed by letting the enemies hit us!

Reviving while enemies are still around is just asking to get taken down as well. If i see you run up to someone to revive them and do nothing else to cover your own rear will just make me want to jump in and do what you didn't do, use an ability (snowglobe) and help your revive.

 

 

And this isn't just a new player thing, some rank 13 or 17 players are doing this as well, its ridiculous..

So please, next time you see a player reviving a downed teammate, provide cover fire, don't stroll over to them and start reviving as well...

The faster the downed tenno gets back up the faster the enemies can be taken care of.  I had to revive the entire team because one would walk up to revive someone only to be taken down making the other do the same mistake. I had to use Hysteria to revive everyone. Remember ABILITIES. :3

[(PSN)NugsnGlory]

Most 4 skills tend to be nukes.

Nuking gives you and the revivers breathing room for most low level content.

 

In high level just use your CC and then ress the fellow.

Nothing to difficult just to push your magic I win button.

 

If you CC stuff, you got nearly all the time in the world to finish a ress.

This is the technique that all the people whining about picking up a downed player need to follow. If you are new to the game you get a pass, if you are a veteran and haven't figured this out yet then I don't know what to tell you.

[Rydian]

I already addressed those who disagree with the original statement as disagreeing with said statement is the same as disagreeing with what the OP is talking about. 

 

There is a huge difference between 'I don't revive people anymore' and 'I don't revive people anymore because [i choose to provide cover instead]'. Very few people are going to disagree with the choice made in the second statement.

 

Context is important.

People can understand the reasoning but not agree with the decision somebody else makes because of it.

 

Like, I understand Walter White's reason for making meth.  That doesn't mean I'm going to go make meth.

 

I understand his reasoning, and I disagree with his selected action.

[SquirmyBurrito]

People can understand the reasoning but not agree with the decision somebody else makes because of it.

 

Like, I understand Walter White's reason for making meth.  That doesn't mean I'm going to go make meth.

 

I understand his reasoning, and I disagree with his selected action.

 

Explain why you disagree with the OP. I am trying to put myself in the opposing side's shoes but I can not come up with a reasonable argument for why everyone should rush the downed player like fat kids rushing a buffet. I have seen (on numerous occasions) multiple people rush to revive someone without paying attention to anything else. This caused one or more of the following to occur:

A) They got downed.

B) We lost because the objective was left undefended.

C) I went down because I was the only one trying to prevent 'B)' happening and I was not equipped to handle the entire thing by myself.

 

It is smarter to just have one person revive while the rest of you focus on keeping the enemies at bay unless there are no enemies or those enemies aren't a threat.

 

The faster revive argument only works when you're either tanky enough to withstand the enemies shooting at you or the enemies aren't a threat. In that (the latter's) case the statements made in the OP do not apply to you so disagreeing with them doesn't even make sense.

[Eggzodiya]

I agree with the OP, this really has to stop.

 

When I'm on my Volt, I run with 3 powers minus overload. As soon as someone dies, I tap 2 and head to him as fast as I can (utilizing coptering among other things). When I get there, I take two seconds to barricade us in a triangular electric shield whether there are enemies around us or not. If there are tons of enemies, I spam shock a few times for the stun to proc. Once they're stunned after 1-2 shocks, I proceed with reviving. The stun duration is usually enough time to get the downed player back up. I use a power efficiency build + energy siphon, so three electric shields is nothing for me. This tactic gets the job done pretty well, considering I don't pack overload.

 

Then again, that's just what I do. I've seen other people forsaking the 900/6000 hp cryopod just to revive someone, while I stay behind and try to hold back legions of enemies without any good crowd skills (I have shock, but that counts for naught when facing level 100 ancients or heavy grineer units).

[Rydian]

I can not come up with a reasonable argument for why everyone should rush the downed player like fat kids rushing a buffet

What people are disagreeing with is NOT situational selection.

 

It's unbiased, black-and-white, "I will never revive another player" statements.

[SquirmyBurrito]

What people are disagreeing with is NOT situational selection.

 

It's unbiased, black-and-white, "I will never revive another player" statements.

 

Good thing no one made that black-and-white statement. Their statements were all based on situations where there are one or more people already reviving.

No please provide a reasonable argument.

[Sloan441]

If you've got to get someone up, it goes faster with less exposure to bad things if multiple people do it. Also, if they group is all standing right there and someone goes down, it's just reflexive for most.

 

Of course, there are smarter ways to go about it as well.

 

Revive inside a Nyx bubble. Revive inside Frost's snowglobe. Revive inside Vaubon's bastille. Revive while a Banshee covers you (all) with sound quake. Let the Valkyr revive under hysteria. Make sure a Trinity is covering the attempt (not participating). Revive after a radial blind.

 

Now there are circumstances that mitigate reviving a teammate. They don't belong in the mission and this is the is the fifth time in two minutes. You have no clue where they are. They're a rushtard and you both have no clue where they are and are kind of relieved they're down. Or they managed to get themselves in such a situation that cover is needed, but no one can provide it effectively.

[Rydian]

Good thing no one made that black-and-white statement. Their statements were all based on situations where there are one or more people already reviving.

No please provide a reasonable argument.

 

I don't revive people anymore because no one gets this.

I just always assume I'm going to be the one who has to cover.

There's a post right there stating that they don't revive people anymore, without stating that it's situational, they stated that they always assume somebody else will revive.

 

And I disagree with the idea of never reviving another player.

 

I do not disagree with the idea of situational revival.

[VKhaun]

There's a post right there stating that they don't revive people anymore, without stating that it's situational, they stated that they always assume somebody else will revive.

 

And I disagree with the idea of never reviving another player.

 

I do not disagree with the idea of situational revival.

 

Don't use me as backup for not having an argument.

 

My complete post obviously implies that I'm not the only person there, otherwise who would I be covering?

 

I'm not just letting people die right next to me for no reason.

Edited September 21, 2014 by VKhaun

[SquirmyBurrito]

There's a post right there stating that they don't revive people anymore, without stating that it's situational, they stated that they always assume somebody else will revive.

 

And I disagree with the idea of never reviving another player.

 

I do not disagree with the idea of situational revival.

 

VKhaun's post clearly implies that his/her habit of not reviving and instead providing cover hinges on other players coming to revive the person instead. 

 

Your disagreement was never worth mentioning as no one in this thread claimed to be in support of the thing you are against.

 

Then why are you quoting VKhan? Stop taking things out of context and maybe you'll finally realize just how daft you look right now.

[Thyriell]

Mission Objective (The pod!!) > Reviving. 

Safe revive from a stealthed player > Another player down

3 Players reviving > 1 Player reviving.

 

Simple, effective, overlooked.

[Rydian]

Don't use me as backup for not having an argument.

The person I'm arguing with stated that nobody said such a thing, so I quoted you because your post was the most direct and easily-available statement for an example.  SquirmyBurrito said that nobody stated they would never revive another person, but you stated that so I'm quoting you as an example of what is setting people off.

 

My complete post obviously implies that I'm not the only person there, otherwise who would I be covering?

 

I'm not just letting people die right next to me for no reason.

I disagree with the idea of never reviving another player, even if there's other people there to do it for you.

 

"I may choose not to revive based on the circumstances" - I agree with that statement.

"I will never revive another player" - I disagree with that statement.

 

VKhaun's post clearly implies that his/her habit of not reviving and instead providing cover hinges on other players coming to revive the person instead.

Implied is not stated, the statements made were of a blanket decision stemming from previous experiences, and that's what people and I disagree with.

 

Your disagreement was never worth mentioning as no one in this thread claimed to be in support of the thing you are against.

Wasn't it the number of likes and disagreements with the OP that you were concerned about to begin with?

 

This argument started when I was addressing your concerns over reactions in this thread.

 

Also, watch the tone and insults, this forum has a respect rule.

[VKhaun]

3 Players reviving > 1 Player reviving.

 

This is almost never true.

 

On paper, sure it's faster if we're all standing within revive range of eachother when one of us goes down, but in practice the team is all over a large room at best, if not scattered across several rooms and occupied to various degrees. 999 times out of 1,000 the third person barely arrives in time to even see the E prompt. Of course, 998.5 times out of 1,000 it doesn't really matter anyway but if we're going to have a nitpick thread then DAMMIT I'M GOING TO NITPICK HARDCORE.

[VKhaun]

"I may choose not to revive based on the circumstances" - I agree with that statement.

"I will never revive another player" - I disagree with that statement.

No one has made the statement you say you disagree with.

Every post you've pointed to has obvious circumstances included.

Yet you continue to post as though we're arguing.

 

 

Also, watch the tone and insults, this forum has a respect rule.

When you play word games to invent an argument no one wants to have and goes no where, the tone will become unfriendly. The thread isn't destined for a lock because of anyone's tone, it's destined for a lock because it's not constructive to put words in people's mouths.

Edited September 21, 2014 by VKhaun

[SquirmyBurrito]

The person I'm arguing with stated that nobody said such a thing, so I quoted you because your post was the most direct and easily-available statement for an example.  SquirmyBurrito said that nobody stated they would never revive another person, but you stated that so I'm quoting you as an example of what is setting people off.

 

I disagree with the idea of never reviving another player, even if there's other people there to do it for you.

 

"I may choose not to revive based on the circumstances" - I agree with that statement.

"I will never revive another player" - I disagree with that statement.

 

Implied is not stated, the statements made were of a blanket decision stemming from previous experiences, and that's what people and I disagree with.

 

Wasn't it the number of likes and disagreements with the OP that you were concerned about to begin with?

 

This argument started when I was addressing your concerns over reactions in this thread.

 

Also, watch the tone and insults, this forum has a respect rule.

 

No one made the statement you claim to be against. Implications are implications. Especially when they're as blatant as the ones that exist in VKhaun's post that were then backed up by later posts by VKhaun.

 

No. Did you not bother reading my posts? Oh of course not. You're too busy ignoring context and cutting people's posts down to suit your non-existent argument to read my post in its entirety. 

 

This 'argument' started when you made a post wherein you claimed to disagree with something that was never stated in this thread.

 

I refuse to respect a person who cuts out context in a sad attempt to misrepresent people's posts to further their argument. If you want my respect you must earn it. I do not need to be reminded of the forum's rules, I repeatedly check them and ask for clarification regarding them. There is nothing wrong with my tone and I haven't actually insulted you yet.

 

If you want to have a civil discussion start by actually providing an argument that isn't based on taking people's words out of context.

[(PSN)IIIDevoidIII]

This topic has proven to be too riling to simply let stand.

If you would like to continue discussion, please utilize the PM function.

 

Locking.