Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

Respawn at Special Holdings

Here's what I would like to see for respawning, after putting some thought into it.

Remove all current shrines of Pharasma. Instead, you respawn at a holding that you have to build and defend. This could be a watchtower, assault camp, or remain a shrine of Pharasma since she's the one bringing us back. It would get guards, be built and removed exactly like all other holdings. You would respawn at the nearest such holding built by your settlement or at the keep of your settlement itself, whichever is closer.

1) You could set as many of these up around your territory as you want, giving you flexible respawn options close to home. The farther you get from home, the riskier it gets – if you die and leave a husk, it could be quite a run to recover your inventory.
2) In PvP, this means that defending forces usually have an advantage, something I find much desirable. The attackers have to set up and guard a camp close to enemy territory, where it is most vulnerable, in order to respawn there and maintain momentum while attacking and dying.
3) These holdings could serve a diplomatic purpose almost like an embassy – by allowing you to set up camps in their territory, you could strengthen relations with other settlements whom you are allies or neutral with. Because of their military significance, having one of these in a neutral settlement's area would help you come to their aid if they call on you, but with the risk that you could use it to attack them.
4) According to the holding mechanics introduced with 10.1, when you take a holding you can invest influence to hold it, or destroy it. This means that an attacking force can take a camp and use it as a staging area to attack the rest of a settlement's territory, and that a defending force can destroy such a camp and cut off the attackers.

I think this introduces just the right amount of risk for attackers, makes battling far from home more dangerous, makes the wilds feel more dangerous, and is an effective and realistic mechanic for war between settlements. In my opinion, this would replace the necessity for threading – to me the idea of risking my gear with threads feels bad (not to mention the whole system being unintuitive), when the purpose of that mechanic is to introduce risk tied to respawn points.
Cleric of Sarenrae
Memory-High Priest of Desna
it also eliminates the "oh look, the guy i just killed spawned 100m away and is already back. joy" thing.

+1 for anything that gets rid of that. i want dead people to stay gone.
Adventure Time with the High Priest of Desna, begins Tuesday 08/18 at 6:00pm EST (10:00 server time) at the Thornkeep Auction house. All new players welcome!

Official titles and Nicknames:
Spherewalker of Indor-Mardil, High Priest of Desna, Dreaden-appointed Forum Troll Extraordinaire, The Southern Speedster, Slinger of Stars, Newbie-Bear, Gutter of Golgothans, King of Kiters, Johnny Ustalavian-Seed, and Peaches.
I'd love to see anything that made it more difficult to attack deep inside enemy territory without first chipping away at the borders.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Duffy Swiftshadow
As a general thing I don't like it, getting half way across the map on a trip to TK and spawning back home after any death is pretty awful.

But specifically for PvP purposes? I like it. If they could tie it to the declared stakes PvP I would be all for it.

Also seems really unrelated to Threading's intent.
I'd love to see anything that made it more difficult to attack deep inside enemy territory without first chipping away at the borders.

There is gotta be some way that GW can trace lines between a settlement and surrounding hexes, perhaps a way to classify holdings as being either in inner 6, or outer 12, such that if you have any active holdings in the out 12 line of hexes around a settlement, those need to be captured or destroyed first before you can attempt to take those in the inner 6. I think that would be a start, at least.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Interesting idea Doc. I hope it makes it to part of the final mechanics for taking settlements, even if it doesn't before.
To reach me, email
The idea sounds great Doc, but it's bad for settlements next to the Crusader road where they can not put in holdings or outposts, thus they are more vunerable to attack compared to those farther from the road.
And it not just one or two settlements, near the road either, it about is 15 settlements.
You can't put holdings there to get resources there either right? Seems to me planting a settlement next to NPC hexes in general has downsides.

Tie it in with legit alliance mechanics, upkeep similar (or somewhat equal) in costs to maintain as a holding, and you might have something that solves a great many issues in game.


Take heed and please look at this from lots of angles before dismissing it. This could mitigate a few strange and frustrating parts about MMO war that exist in most other MMOs.
Virtute et Armis
Duffy Swiftshadow
I dunno if it would help all that much in strategic terms. While it would be great to have an objective to end a particular battle on both sides (besides time). It could still just be repeated everyday until they run out of resources (unlikely).

The ring approach only works if you don't mind wasting resources when you are limited. Our inner ring kinda sucks so we spread a bit more west instead of grabbing all 6.

Gonna say it again (and probably bump my thread once we see how holding warfare goes for a week or so) if losing a battle as an aggressor does not seriously diminish your ability to wage war for some significant period of time then all these ideas are just hoops to jump through and fine tuning on something that already doesn't work very well to create meaningful conflict.
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post