Should players have to use their own soul gems to be resurrected by another player?

Delphinia

If a player wants to be resurrected, should he/she have the soul gem necessary in the inventory? If that player does not have any gems, there would be no option to resurrect that player, and there would be an indicator that the player is not able to be revived (possibly instead of the white + over their body, a red or black + or x)

Forestd16b14_ESO

Players resurrected one another ?

TheSpin

I was thinking about this today myself.

How about the following alternative:

Player A dies.
Before deciding whether or not to initiate resurrection, player B is informed whether or not Player A has an appropriate level soul gem.

If Player B resurrects Player A, Player A is given the option to accept the res using their own shard and res immediately. If player A does not want to use their own gem they can send a request to player B to use player B's shard. Player B must then either accept to use their shard or the res is terminated.


Also,
If Player B does not have a soul gem, they can still initiate resurrection if player A has a gem for himself.
If Player A does not have a soul gem, player b can still res using their own shard.

What you think? best of both worlds?

zyk

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

I like the idea that there is a small personal cost to rezzing another player as it presents a greater opportunity to give to another. Especially when it is a stranger or someone who I may not get along with.

Merlight

Both options have a drawback, especially in non-vet campaign where real noobs often don't have grand soul gems. Changing the current mechanic so that the dead's soul gem is consumed, then at least all gems at-or-above their level would need to work on them.

@TheSpin Good start, but you don't want to make resurrection more complicated for player B (and possibly more frustrating if A refuses to get up using their own gem, after B has taken the risk to raise them, is standing in fire and now has to click another UI instead of getting out of there).

The dead player A doesn't need to watch their back, so make them choose 1) revive at wayshrine/keep 2) wait for res using own gem 3) wait for res using raising player's gem. Only after making that choice will the "+" cross appear over their body, and player B will see in the interaction prompt before attempting the res whether it will consume their gem, or the dead guy's gem.

krathos

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

TheSpin wrote: »

I was thinking about this today myself.

How about the following alternative:

Player A dies.
Before deciding whether or not to initiate resurrection, player B is informed whether or not Player A has an appropriate level soul gem.

If Player B resurrects Player A, Player A is given the option to accept the res using their own shard and res immediately. If player A does not want to use their own gem they can send a request to player B to use player B's shard. Player B must then either accept to use their shard or the res is terminated.


Also,
If Player B does not have a soul gem, they can still initiate resurrection if player A has a gem for himself.
If Player A does not have a soul gem, player b can still res using their own shard.

What you think? best of both worlds?

I think they would just introduce a bug where rez would suddenly stop working.

CJohnson81

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

Ehhh, you're overthinking this one, guys.

Rosveen

Why?

RAGUNAnoOne

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

whatever soul gems are as common as lockpicks. for lower levels in a scaled zone that requires grand gems their only choice is to buy them and if they are new they need to save as much as they can so it would be unfair to them.

ArcanusMagus

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

I like the OP's idea in principle, but if I'm being shot at on top of a besieged keep in Cyrodiil, I don't have time to fill out that kind of accept/refuse paperwork - I need the dead up and fighting and ulti-dumping on that gigantic swarm of bees charging up the steps and how many of these guys could there be they just keep coming and coming and now they're on both stairs and the back flag and...

Yusuf

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

i got 600 grand soulgems onmy bank and more than 200 on each character.
And even though i'm rezzing people left and right in cyrodiil and give soulgems away to newbies for free those numbers arent dopping.

So please, let's keep resurrecting people nice and simple ok?

Duiwel

OP you get 50AP in Cyrodiil for resurrecting people that is reward enough...

If you don't want to res people in PvE that is your choice though, keep in mind though that you WILL have stacks of Soul gems ( mostly grand soul gems ) by the time you are VR...

So why are you so stingy?

NovaMarx

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

Duiwel wrote: »

OP you get 50AP in Cyrodiil for resurrecting people that is reward enough...

If you don't want to res people in PvE that is your choice though, keep in mind though that you WILL have stacks of Soul gems ( mostly grand soul gems ) by the time you are VR...

So why are you so stingy?

Agreed. I am one of those vets who has ALOT of soulgems, and I will gladly use them to resurrect my fellows in battle - be it in dungeons or on the battlefield

ku5h

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

You are to cheap to use your soulgem to res an ally? Really.....!

Delphinia

I'm amazed how anyone thinks based off of a poll question I wouldn't, or don't use soul gems very frequently to Rez other players. So much so, that I have blow through a stack of 100 or more in just a few hours. I'm estimating, because I don't know exact numbers, but I know when I run out because I try to rez someone and find out that I cannot since I don't have any left. Then, that's the time I realize how many must have been consumed.

I had Kagnerac crafted, prior to TG release, just for the purpose of the additional 5 pc bonus of the Rez.

I continue to use my AP just to purchase more gems from the vendors, since I hardly leave Cyrodiil anymore. Or, I buy them from guild stores, or friends. If that's what "stingy" means to you, then....

In addition, this isn't about receiving any "rewards" for a rez, as someone above asked. I honestly don't care if there is any at all. Actually, I didn't know, because I don't sit there and watch my AP numbers. I only use AP anymore to buy siege, repairs, soul gems, and at times, gear now from the vendor. That is not part of the poll question.

This is a simple question about something that may change game play and put more emphasis on where the responsibility should be placed. Many times I Rez someone who has gone afk which is fine, but my gem is being held up and not being able to be used on someone else who is there and could actually use it. There are other times when the player may Rez just to grab someone else's siege and turn it backwards; therefore not being interested in helping the faction at all...the list of reasons I asked this question are of my experience. The poll was to simply see where other players are in theirs.

Before you become judge and jury, take the time to understand the question and the reasons behind it.
It's a "poll", to gather other players' thoughts on the question and how, if at all, a change there might make a change for the better or worse in overall game play.

I know that it is common place to throw out insults readily in online forums, although I don't understand it. You don't personally know who you are attacking.

Thanks for commenting at any rate.

danno8

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

This change would do nothing.

If there are people who are currently not carrying hundreds of full soul gems, they would simply start carrying them. Not like they are rare or something.

Mcwoods55

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

That is like asking should it come from the healer because he/she didn't do her job in the party... Some people simply are not equipped to do certain things and will die. Some places are glitchy etc... If you are out and about and don't want to res someone then run by them... simple as that.... but if you are in a group your success is dependent on having 4 live group members.

Minalan

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

Soul gems are free AP basically, even as a lowbie I had a few dozen from dungeon delves. You can res and heal your way up to assault 7 and proxy det, so it's not like you get nothing for the effort.

emily3989

TheSpin wrote: »

I was thinking about this today myself.

How about the following alternative:

Player A dies.
Before deciding whether or not to initiate resurrection, player B is informed whether or not Player A has an appropriate level soul gem.

If Player B resurrects Player A, Player A is given the option to accept the res using their own shard and res immediately. If player A does not want to use their own gem they can send a request to player B to use player B's shard. Player B must then either accept to use their shard or the res is terminated.


Also,
If Player B does not have a soul gem, they can still initiate resurrection if player A has a gem for himself.
If Player A does not have a soul gem, player b can still res using their own shard.

What you think? best of both worlds?

TheSpin wrote: »

I was thinking about this today myself.

How about the following alternative:

Player A dies.
Before deciding whether or not to initiate resurrection, player B is informed whether or not Player A has an appropriate level soul gem.

If Player B resurrects Player A, Player A is given the option to accept the res using their own shard and res immediately. If player A does not want to use their own gem they can send a request to player B to use player B's shard. Player B must then either accept to use their shard or the res is terminated.


Also,
If Player B does not have a soul gem, they can still initiate resurrection if player A has a gem for himself.
If Player A does not have a soul gem, player b can still res using their own shard.

What you think? best of both worlds?

Typically on a boss fight you have maybe half a second to spare when trying to rez a group member, this seems like a whole lot of back and forth decision making that would make rezzing pointless in the first place.

KenaPKK

Yes, it should be the players' responsibility to carry and use their own gems if they want to be resurrected by another player.

"I don't like getting gems."

But hey, in all seriousness, this isn't a terrible idea. Wouldn't change much, but it'd put your own life in your hands.

lolo_01b16_ESO

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

I don't like the idea. New players tend to die more often so buying enough grand soul gems would be quite expensive for them. As a max level player you'll most likely always have enough soul gems anyway, so you should be able to use them to resurect new players.

failkiwib16_ESO

No, it should not be necessary for players to carry any gems to be resurrected by another player.

If it was forced then lower non-veterans and lower level veterans don't always carry enough gems, so if I had to ressurrect them at their own cost - many would probably decline.

If it was forced but the white cross on your dead corpse would be a different color and shape, to indicate wether you wish to ressurrect at your own cost or not, it would solve the issue above.

If the cost was a choice that came up at the time of ressurrection: more players would accept a ressurrection at my cost, and more players would probably ressurrect me at my cost. Problem would be the time spend on this choice would result in either theirs or my death in battle situations where ressurrection matters the most ....so I would ressurrect far less people during battles, and I wouldn't be ressurrected by other players as much as I do now.

• Duellers would probably benefit a lot from the option though, as they tend to fight in controlled enviroments and enemies actually hold back to get their beloved enemy up again for another fight.

Tbh. I don't think it is worth the trouble, the system works fine as it is today.

I would also assume that the main soul gem drain in this game is not pvp, but the new shiny trial veteran Maw of Lorkhaj. Trial players die there for hours, trying to up their dps to shave off 1% of the boss more than their last wipe

Delphinia

failkiwib16_ESO wrote: »

If it was forced then lower non-veterans and lower level veterans don't always carry enough gems, so if I had to ressurrect them at their own cost - many would probably decline.

If it was forced but the white cross on your dead corpse would be a different color and shape, to indicate wether you wish to ressurrect at your own cost or not, it would solve the issue above.

If the cost was a choice that came up at the time of ressurrection: more players would accept a ressurrection at my cost, and more players would probably ressurrect me at my cost. Problem would be the time spend on this choice would result in either theirs or my death in battle situations where ressurrection matters the most ....so I would ressurrect far less people during battles, and I wouldn't be ressurrected by other players as much as I do now.

• Duellers would probably benefit a lot from the option though, as they tend to fight in controlled enviroments and enemies actually hold back to get their beloved enemy up again for another fight.

Tbh. I don't think it is worth the trouble, the system works fine as it is today.

I would also assume that the main soul gem drain in this game is not pvp, but the new shiny trial veteran Maw of Lorkhaj. Trial players die there for hours, trying to up their dps to shave off 1% of the boss more than their last wipe

Thank you for your thoughtful response. True, this change would most likely not be a benefit to pve content. This is purely a pvp topic, so there should be a different poll for pve; but, personally I don't see a need to change pve rez. I don't know that I see a need to change pvp rez, but it is something I've thought about due to using a gem on a player who is afk or a player who isn't interested in helping the faction out ie. taking siege and turning it backwards, or taking that faction's scroll to the enemy.
You raise some very good points, and I appreciate it.