First rough draft of World War (closed; smaller, focused threads coming soon)


#41

Just implement something else to push more people away from the game…

Maybe focus on actually rolling it out to full completion

(And yes I like atlas as it is so far)


#42

I really like Atlas too so far, which is why this post is just such a stab in the heart. Atlas to me is the long game. This, this World War, this is not the long game.


#43

@Ricky I think if you read through the monster post Possible new primarch type? you’ll see that the community can and does have a major impact on proposals. Not all proposals will come to light. But some will; and those that do will definitely take into account any convincing, actionable feedback. This particular feature has already been through the ringer with several community members and is quite different from its earliest iterations already! It still has a ways to go, but that’s why we’re talking about it now :).


#44

So the whole team busts their asses in a war event etc whatever and the leader gets to reward one of the team mates?

What in the entire hell kind of sense does that make?
I’m not trying to be rude or disrespectful but if you want to destroy teams and create animosity you have made a perfect plan!

Or did I miss something?

I like flying Primes… maybe we can build towers on forts to shoot down Primes over our airspace :thinking: :smiling_imp::smiling_imp::smiling_imp:

Place flak towers on top of gold mines :joy::joy::joy:


#45

On the flip side, it’s a very epic prize. And teams stick around for a long time, and I bet many leaders will spread the love out over time. Not all the prizes go to one person – the supermajority is distributed amongst the team (80%) while the leader gets to pick one person to get a big bonus that one time.


Feedback for First rough draft of World War
#46

Meaningful prizes, yes. Great. Prizes that would lead to horrible drama by picking select members over others and prizes that lead to an EXTREME advantage over others? No. Just no please.

While a team could leave theirs on, if most of all of the other teams in the league turn it off, what’s the point?


#47

Glad you like Atlas so far! I think World War has some laudable goals, and while there are some parts which need work I think we should focus on those parts and how to improve. Not unlike we did in other proposal posts which saw dramatic revisions … that’s the whole point of these posts after all :slight_smile:.


#48

This certainly sounds like you’re trying to replicate the main game in Atlas - which means the main game is gone . You heard it here first peeps!


#49

Based on the language in the initial post, and the language and tone of this response to @TheRedDelilah it seems that this “feature” is far enough along in its development that it’s a matter of “when” and to a lesser extent “how” it gets released (vs “if” it gets released). Is this feedback exercise just to gather minor tweaks so we feel “heard”? Or maybe just a pulse-check so you guys can craft your imminent release communications to already account for community reactions?

If you honestly believe that making a leader choose their “most deserving” player/players is a good idea - or using “land owned” as part of team ranking (vs using it as a handicap advantage to allow newer teams to compete effectively in this Atlas War nonsense) will contribute to rebalancing/reinvigorating Atlas… I’m not sure what we’re all doing here.

Appreciate you attempting to engage with the community, but clearly the divide is too wide between how players see and experience the game and how PG see it.


#50

I can see how currently is a bit frustrating and really limits. But this solution seems to be like the nuclear option to addressing it. As a team that is newer to Atlas and newly gaining territory, we have worked hard on building partnerships to help protect us while we build up. With anywhere to anywhere, we would instantly be murdered and there is nothing stopping that.

Perhaps instead there could be distance limits, timer limits, something. I’m not sure exactly what and I’m not the most creative, but again seems like a nuclear option.


#52

I’m sorry I still feel like that would create a lot of animosity with groups who are supposed to be teams.

You win a lose as a team. If we start picking and choosing who the person is who gets extra bonuses… :unamused:
Bring on the drama.


#53

Development hasn’t started; it merely words on a page for now! The best time to make dramatic changes. Minor ones are fine too, of course.

It’s easy enough to do group prizes only if the sentiment is broadly against giant prizes that are earned by one member at a time.

I don’t follow your concern with using “land owned” as a part of the world war ‘matchmaking’ criteria. Do you think it would be better to use only Team Rating, perhaps?


#54

I could accept anywhere --> anywhere for one primarch type - with a small troop limit. Similar to how you cannot just deposit a few hundred thousand troops today into a war zone via plane. You can ship them in, but you cant just drop them from the sky (well except if you’re the US and you own the skies but I transgress).


#56

After reading through a second time, and the aid of Red’s sectioned off bits of the proposal, I can say with certainty that if this is implemented into the game I will quit.
I will quit the creator’s faction, I will quit playing, I will lament the death of an amazing game as I build a shrine using my shirts, hoodie and other merchandise and proceed to set it all on fire.


#57

It seems that part of the point of this feature is to engage teams with little or no land and give them an opportunity to make their mark in Atlas. Give them something to fight for, and a chance to make (and keep) their gains.

If that’s the case, then teams with inordinate quantities of land should have to take a much bigger risk, in order to participate against the newer (less established) teams. A handicap of sorts (like Match Play in golf) to discourage bullying and properly level the playing field.

Also, troop caps might be a good idea… everyone has a maximum number of troops they can dedicate/kill/bring into battle. That would also help prevent the “why bother at all since I can’t buy as many troops as the other guy”.

I still think the entire mechanic of this feature is WD suicide. Trying to be somewhat constructive though, as I’m not convinced this isn’t already a done deal.


#58

@ShadowsOfBirds Can you tell me more about why? If you can help me understand, that you can help me either get it canned or get it changed for the better. Regardless, I’d like to better understand your thoughts @ShadowsOfBirds.


#59

Exactly! I believe so too, and this is part of the proposal. Strong teams CANNOT fight a world war against teams that are more than a little weaker than they are. World War is about fight between equals – the goal is to shift Atlas so that more fights are between equals instead of brutally mismatched as they sometimes are now.


#60

@PGDave No! This is awful! I have been in leadership long enough to know that this is just plain bad! Picking players and ultimately hindering other people’s games, because they aren’t given the same opportunities as others is not a way to create team unity. You will have resentment towards both leadership and the players chosen. Also only giving a few the opportunity to unlock a new tier of dragon will completely kill and hurt lower players as many will want their main fliers and higher levels to have new tiers. Please don’t put leadership in a position to have to make these decisions. Don’t put us in a position to destroy our teams.


#61

This seems like the biggest beef so far. I’m leaning towards cutting this aspect. @WitchoftheWild

What should we change next :slight_smile: ?


Feedback for First rough draft of World War
#62

GOOD! DO IT! DO THAT!!
please and thank you @PGDave