I’m not sure if that was possible in the early days or if the interaction just made it look like it, but we should definitely get to have this option.
This is important because clutch moments are the make-or-break of vermintide gameplay, and it’s entirely plausible the first player has to stop ressing for whatever reason (he gets disabled, or has to pull off, or he loses his stamina, or it’s just a bot and they are idiots and just stop ressing for no apparent reason). Or even, just because the second player might have faster ress, and it should get to pick it off, no matter if another player or bot already clicked on the character.
I totally approve! Bots are very fond of starting to revive - then interrupt the revival for no apparent reason, after which another bot starts all over again.
In the process of this circus, bots can generally forget about reviving and run avay - for example, run away to catch a globadier to tickle him.
I always use + 30% Revive Speed property on myself and my bots, but even this does not always prevent them from going crazy.
adding a failsafe to this system would just trivialise this aspect.
its very apparent when a weak team loses a teammate how the ranks start to break without reliable pickup strategys compared to a strong team.
a strong team knows exactly when and why to ro revive someone using strategys such as animation cancelling of the person who attempts a revive or the other members even creating space for that player instantly, this skill to distinguish your job in a rescue is a very important to become a strong vermintide player.
I’m sorry but I disagree with you. Your argument stinks of elitism, but you’re forgetting that most people play quick play in this game, and on qp there simply isn’t the level of communication or know how required to do what you described (with exceptions, ofc, everybody knows a HM should get to pull off a ress, but if you think that’s a granted you’d be surprised).
There simply is no reason why two players couldn’t try to revive a teammate at the same time - they could even pool their efforts which could combine somewhat, like decreasing the time required, even if I’m not asking for it. The effort of going to revive should be rewarded, not the ability to pull off the current - unnatural - implementation.
Morover, most of what you say would still hold true: a player creating space for another would still yield a better reward than two players just block-reviving (which can have their revive interrupted either by damage or by a push). You’d see no difference in your coordinated groups, but it would mean the world to pubs or people who play with some bots.
Again, it’s the artificial difficulty of the task which would be fixed, precisely because it doesn’t make sense.
If we want to make the task harder I’m open to suggestions, but then, I would disable block-reviving entirely (brutally harsh, but it makes sense) rather than keep an artificial, flawed system like this in place.
wrong, neither do i play in a group exclusively nor do i forget that most people play quickplay, from the 3k+ hours i spend in Vermintide 1&2 probably about 2.5k where spend in a 1-2man group in the quickplay que, without using any voice communication.
i’ve met playes ranging from supersalty grieving idiots, some were less useful than bots others unbreakable, and players who were so mistakefree that i felt worse than a bot
i’ve seen players that make the right desicions almost instantanously purely on expirence and instinct. so dont picture QP as this narrow defined space were players would never work towards the same goal…
yes there is its called balance.
totally hypothetical, since we dont have firsthand tests we wont know.
“artificial diffuclty” you do relise that this a video game everything in it “artificily” put together in the way it is, because the devs made it that way? and henceforth isnt in the need of a fix, due to it being intended.
first of all thats your point of view, second of all videogames dont need to make sense
first of all, makes sense in your point of view and secondly your suggestion to not block revive, did exist in vermintide history (first it was a bug as i remember correctly) but it became part of the gameplay loop due to it making sense to the devs to implement
The only part of your reply which makes sense is this one
I’m gonna agree with you here. Sometimes QP is a rather joyous experience. But considering the other part has a discernible lack of communication, the suggestion I made would help there.
thats one way to handle critique, just say its illogical without reasoning why and go on as if you were in the right, pretty comon straegy among people who run out of arguments
Dude, I’m just gonna stop becasue I’m quite confident you’re just trolling.
Just on the offchance you’re not, I apologize and I analize a bit of what you said:
Even without taking into account the condescending way you put this (which is not nice at all), your argument is: everything in a game is artificial, because the devs made it that way. Hence everything is intended and doesn’t need a fix.
Then what are bugs? Organic creatures?
And what would the point of this forum be, if not to report things which aren’t working as intended, or suggesting modifications which go in a different direction from what the game already is?
can you really blame me for reacting sarcastic , you started to atack me, assumed things about me, discredited my arguments without reason and repeated to make unfounded arguments.
anyway ill assume you don’t meant to and apologize to you…
that is not the essence of my argumentation,
you mention on serveral occasions that the current way how reviving an player works is quote:–" unnatural, doesn’t make sense, flawed system or in need of a fix."-- but you never support your claim with any arguments why.
my argument was solely to point out that this limitation (maximum 1 player revive) is part of the design of difficulty. using the word artificial is pretty much meaningless in the context your using it because obviously its meant to be that way by the devs. so yes it is artificially harder to revive someone, but that is true for every single decision made by defs regarding difficulty design.
the devs decided weapon XY to have less blockshields compared to weapon AB henceforce made weapon XY “artifically” more difficult to block with etc.
my argument was never that something created by the devs is automaticly intended nor that indendet design decisions are perfect and should never be adjusted…
First of all, I thank you for your reply. We clearly got off on the wrong foot. Let’s start again.
I’m going to elaborate on what I said earlier
What I mean by that is that the action of reviving represents the effort of propping up a fallen player. There’s no ingame reason why 2 players couldn’t help their companion to rise. In fact such an action should be easier if two people are attempting it (they would - ingame - help each other help that character).
If you are familiar with D&D rules, in the 3rd edition two players could either attempt the same action separately, or attempt it together. This is called a “help other” action. It would have a player rolling against a DC 10, which upon success would provide a +2 bonus to the action of the other charater.
This argument is purely based on common sense around the type of action, and it’s why I describe the impossibility of such an action as artificial, or unrealistc: it doesn’t make sense considering the type of action a revive represents. I hope this point is clearer now: it doesn’t make sense (IMO) ingame. Two players should both be able to help a companion up.
Of course, there could be a gameplay reason (as you said) for why this is so. And I am not suggesting to combine their efforts, precisely because I don’t want to make such an action trivial (block cost reduction and revive speed are there for this reason). But, I don’t think the current implementation is there to make revive somewhat hard (I might be wrong). But even if it is, such implementation has some problems (I think I was clear on that point):
you agreed with me on the bot part, specifically. So you at least agree with me this is problematic with bots.
With players it would make things easier in those scenarios where it’s not easy to comunicate with people, while it wouldn’t make a huge difference when there’s already good communication and know-how.
You said to me that this is highly hypotetical. I think it stands to reason that the right player (the one with less ress time and the highest block-cost-reduction and stamina) would have a better chance to ress if somebody helps clear the enemies around the fallen teammate, rather than this hypotetical 3rd player attempting a second separate ress. If the resses are separate but simultanously possible - this is what I suggest - the “best” reviver is the one who’s going to pull off the revive. The other reviver won’t accomplish anything, he’d just be there as a precaution, in case the first loses his stamina or gets pushed.
So, with my suggestion, it wouldn’t matter “who got there first” as it is currently, but “who’s more suited for the revive”. The best reviver is gonna pull this off. As such, for an experienced team, such a change would not matter much: they know the worse reviver won’t contribute much, and as such it would be better off helping the better resser by staggering/killing enemies near him.
Those are the reasons why I suggest this change and why I see it as more of a Quality of Life change than a radical reworking.
Which is precisely what they did - as you rightfully pointed out - when block-ressing became a part of the gameplay loop: it made the game easier for inexperienced players, without really changing it for the pros who already automatically blocked while reviving (or being revived).
EDIT: since the post turned out to be long, I changed my editing so my suggestion and core reasoning are in bold for ease of reading.
towards the first paragraph you wrote i have to say, yes helping another player perform an action is logical and not combining their revive efforts, would not result in a buff towards the revive mechanic.
oh yes absolutly. the conclusions to a problem such as a downed ally are too shallow for bots,
mostly being “walk towards downed ally, use ult and attempt revive” and thats it, not regarding any enemy presence nor likeliness of sucess.
Mostly true yes.
Tbh i thought this is how you intended your “rework” of this mechanic to function all along.
i get that.
very likely yes, i agree.
while i agree that your points are worth exploring i’m still against a change of the current mechanic.
not because i think its more logical, or fairer or harder or any of thit sorts.
but much rather the player component. i belive that going down is the result of player error in almost all cases. going down is the consequence of making mistakes. leaving you in a state that solely reliant on your teamates upcoming decision making ability. and this aspect in my opinion is perfect as it is, it needs just the right amount of player coordination, and/or skill and instincts to pull of revives.
if you happen to go down in a QP lobby yes someone might be stupid and try to revive you with half a shield of stamina left while being chased by half a patrol of stormvermins or something while someone way more suited like an invisable handmaiden just ultet to you to revive and is right next to you, and can’t cause of him.
but thats the dicision he made in that moment its his mistake he is the one who caused your death indirectly, yes its frustraiting at first, but ultamately its a mistake he in the future will learn to avoid.
and therefore develops into a new skill
a skill you need to express to perform well on highlvl of gameplay.
i hope i could illuminate my standpoint and yes in the end its just preference
Yes, it was, I was just trying to make it as clear as possible.
I’m glad you can see my arguments, it’s perfectly legitimate to have a different opinion in the end.
I believe a lot in player agency, so I don’t like the idea that I can’t resurrect a player just because a player - or Sigmar forbids it - a bot got to the button before me. Especially since there’s no reason ingame why it should be so.
In your example that revive would have been made harder already by his pulling the patrol on the downed teammate and I think that could be punishment and lesson enough, without the need to complicate things further with abstract rules like “only 1 player can resurrect at one time”.
“any of an order (Hemiptera and especially its suborder Heteroptera) of insects (such as an assassin bug or chinch bug) that have sucking mouthparts, forewings thickened at the base, and incomplete metamorphosis and are often economic pests”
“any of various small arthropods (such as a beetle or spider) resembling the true bugs”
I never realised how much I would love this until now. It doesn’t even need to make the revive faster - it’d both fix bots and with players there’s anyway the tradeoff that two people reviving is worse than one reviving while the other staggers and/or kills threats around the downed player.
In low pressure situations it wouldn’t make a difference anyway - and if assassins and packmasters are around, or you risk bringing a boss like rat ogre over that could ground-slam the downed player and the ones reviving them, it anyway wouldn’t be easily abusable since the 2nd reviver is just opening the team up to a wipe.
I’d honestly be fine with only bots getting this ability (ie bots count as 0 towards the resurrector cap of 1) but with players it could maybe add in another tradeoff/layer to revive strategy.
I disagree here. A strong team anyway wouldn’t dedicate two players to a revive unless they’re anyway not in danger, at least not any differently to the way two players revive a third now - there’s a lot more risk involved if both were stuck in the revive animation when one player could be using weapons, their ult, pushes, sniping from across the room, or taking aggro elsewhere in the case of a boss to buy the first breathing room to actually pull the revive off.
Sure, there is room for situations where it would help and be an advantage, at most it’d eliminate situations where good players realise they can’t revive and stop doing so and let their teammate handle it instead, since one could tag on just as the other tags off, but I’m not sure that’d be a bad thing. It’d be worth testing say on modded or by FS internally I think.
You can already see this now when in disorganised teams: someone starts the rezz and another teammate decides to walk over without doing anything but bringing the boss over with them (I nearly got groundslammed by a rat ogre in the lower part of the Expedition of Determination end arena when I was reviving the elf and for some reason our Bardin (who had aggro already before the elf went down) decided to move over to us with the boss once I started reviving (he had plenty of room to back away and kite it where he was).
You can see it too when two players hurry to revive the same person and the second doesn’t do anything to keep the horde at bay or keep their eyes open for specials for several, long seconds.
By artificial difficulty he means presumably means: Real difficulty is, for example, Tzeentch lightning throwing a chaos spawn at you when you’re already dealing with a minotaur and a ton of plague monks on top of a horde, it’s hard, it’s unfair, but you could conceivably win it.
Artificial difficulty would be slowing down all weapons across the board by 200%, it’s not fun
and it does make the game harder, but it’s forced, it wouldn’t feel natural to us, used to the weapon as we are, and considering it’d make it impossible to swing faster than the enemies in the game.
and secondly your suggestion to not block revive, did exist in vermintide history (first it was a bug as i remember correctly) but it became part of the gameplay loop due to it making sense to the devs to implement 
