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.

All posts created by Seraph

Seraph
Okay, how about this idea then?

You respawn at the closest of the following:
- Your war camp holding (the thing I'm proposing)
- The nearest settlement that doesn't have any companies who are feuding or at war with any companies from your settlement, or are allies of such a settlement.

This would mean if you're visiting neutral or allied areas far from home and die, you respawn at the nearest settlement, probably just a few hexes from where you died. This is intuitive for new players and unaffiliated ones, and would cover most PvE deaths (although you could certainly set up war camps near your escalation hexes). In a PvP situation, you set up and defend war camps to save on time spent running back to the fight.

This has the added benefit of making allies more useful. A settlement surrounded by other allied settlements sets up a larger territory where it's more dangerous/inconvenient to die if you're at war with/feuding them.
Seraph
Cleric of Sarenrae
Brighthaven
Seraph
It does significantly alter loot calculations. For example, killing an escalation boss drops an expendable and some number of victory markers per person.

But it probably doesn't hurt anything to have stuff go out slightly faster.
Seraph
Cleric of Sarenrae
Brighthaven
Seraph
Unfortunately I missed that fight, but if people are using AoEs on single targets then they're actually doing less damage than they would otherwise.
Seraph
Cleric of Sarenrae
Brighthaven
Seraph
Separating it into two pools seems unnecessary. If veteran characters are as low value as you claim (not 100% clear on the influence gain formulas myself), fixing that should be enough to solve this issue, if it exists.

I assume you're saying that you don't think there's enough influence out there for feuding, since you want it to regenerate on its own? Because I don't think that's the case at all.
Seraph
Cleric of Sarenrae
Brighthaven
Seraph
Honestly, I think a fair amount of the pushback for the AoE changes came when people realized how heavily the attacks were going to be nerfed in order to support the change. Extremely reduced damage factors and lengthy cooldowns were making it so that the attacks would never be used in group OR solo content, whereas before they were at least useful conditionally.

With the 10.1a changes and complete combat rebalancing, those issues have been addressed, and the AoE attacks feel balanced with the single-target ones to a point where the friendly fire rules seem irrelevant to the power of the attacks, and the AoE attacks will feel useful in both solo and group content, which is a win.

Let's definitely see how people are using these before anyone cries foul. If it actually becomes an issue of blobs running around blowing away whole groups with sustained AoE barrages, maybe there could be a call for additional crowdforging.
Seraph
Cleric of Sarenrae
Brighthaven
Seraph
tribuzio
And what happen to someone that is not part of a settlement? Permadeath? Respawning a TK?

Yeah, probably just respawn at Thornkeep. People probably shouldn't be running all over the map getting in fights before they belong to a settlement anyway.

Duffy
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.

I'm betting you could get permission to build a holding a few hexes from Thornkeep.
Seraph
Cleric of Sarenrae
Brighthaven
Seraph
I don't think granting 1-time bonus experience is necessarily the answer. I could see some kind of character respec option being added to the game that carried a significant cost… either in gp or in XP. Like maybe respeccing the first time refunds all your XP except 10,000, and that penalty accumulates each time you do it.
Seraph
Cleric of Sarenrae
Brighthaven
Seraph
+1

Love this idea. Incentivizing holding still without requiring it is perfect.
Seraph
Cleric of Sarenrae
Brighthaven
Seraph
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.

Implications:
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.
Seraph
Cleric of Sarenrae
Brighthaven
Seraph
I have to say, everything in the official spreadsheets looks great. I went from not being very excited about what I saw planned for 10.1 to being quite eager for the 10.1a changes to go in. This is a win for everyone.
Seraph
Cleric of Sarenrae
Brighthaven