Garrison/ Defensive Troops


#41

Ok. What if…
Keep shields up until

  • castles could be reinforced
  • flying primarch could work as intended
  • moving between team castles without team portals could be figured out
    Defensive bases could be structured
  • glitches could be identified and addressed?

#42
  1. I have 3 active Primarchs, Taunter, Rusher and Sieger.
  2. My team owns castles in multiple regions
  3. I keep my Taunter and Rusher on a Castle located on one of our owned regions.
  4. I keep my Sieger on a Castle located in the SafeZone.
  5. The troops on my Taunter and Rusher show up on MyAssets.
  6. My Sieger with troop count doesn’t show up at all.
  7. My total troop count now equals reserve + taunter + rusher
  8. Can only see my Sieger’s troops if I tap it directly and then details

Is this intentional or a glitch? I hope a glitch, it shouldn’t matter where my Primarchs are for me to get an accurrate list of MyAssets!

My troop total is accurate under the Contributions.

PS: If a Primarch is moved off my “Home” Castle it too disappears from MyAssets.


#43

My excitement for this update has dwindled significantly. The fun has been turned into a math project. Flying primarchs isn’t anything like I thought they’d be. Not having portals just doesn’t make sense. Your basically advocating that the bigger teams systematically and routinely destroy the smaller teams simply so they can move somewhere. I need a degree in math to calculate anything that I need to do in atlas. An alliance can’t grant pasage to more then 2 teams at a time anywhere on the map. The slider for barrack troops is just god awful. What was wrong with having real live bases in the garrisons like before. Now we get a team base that will be the same across the board? A base layout that works for Harbs won’t exactly be the same base layout you want defending say an emerald at a lower level. Makes no sense. Annnd the yellow highlights for alliance members clash with our team colors :grimacing:. Can we get a redo on this update please?


#44

Not necessarily, depends on what level island you are talking about.


#45

On one hand you lower GP based on lvl and I believe team rank…to remove the reward of a big team murdering the lil teams…cool…makes sense…let em live. BUT noooooow ur telling us that the only way to travel between our lands is to “carve” out a path to neutral, from all our lands…so basically murder all the lil guys again…only now your FORCING us to do it except with reduced GP if any at all.


#46

You can carve your path with blood or friends (allies). It is War Dragons, but you do have a lot of choice about how you make your own way in Atlas.


#47

Except we don’t. You removed 60% of the “fighting space” and have limited it to ONLY forts.
No more mine hits, no more poacher hits.

Movement is faster but only in safe zones.
If you own lvl 4-5 land in more than 2-3 places you are boxed and land locked into those small zones.

Limiliting Allies to 5 teams… :thinking: what happened to 8-10?

Closing down free passage from 3 to 2 huge reduction there.

So tell me again how this has opened up and we can make our own way?


#48

The only problem I have seen is the ones bleeding the most are the lowest ranked teams.

Overall, there are just so many restrictions from just being able to play. You don’t want to feel like you are constantly fighting the game to try and play it…


#49

Haha, you truncated/edited out the other option I listed @Panda! I think teams will probably figure out a good place to settle and call home over time, but we’ll see …


#50

Yes and no…

Often obtaining that access either for your allies or a “friendly” team means you have to kill whoever is there. There is no middle ground. And as your team progresses up, the only way to gain access in various zones is to have 2/3s in EVERY zone just for the sake of being able to move.

I really thought we solved this problem months ago. We wanted to avoid holding land JUST for the sake of minor movement…but it feels like we are just going back to that. Fundamentally the map is just not built in a way that makes travel efficient but the options seem a bit harsh.

Additionally, whenever you take that land that is essentially worthless to some of the upper level teams, it means another team cannot exist there and is just “held” in limbo. I guess we will see but it seems like during a time with a shortage of land this is not really the best usage of it.

tl;dr Lots of lower ranked teams are going to get attacked with this or basically be homeless which I thought we wanted to avoid.


#51

This is the exact issue. On one hand PG says they want lower lvl teams to be able to coexist around bigger teams, and one of the ways they pushed this agenda was by lowering the GP a player/team can get from lower lvl players and teams…to discourage the bigs from hitting them. The new movement mechanic Directly contradicts this agenda. Beforehand teams didn’t have to kill smaller teams to get out of their own land cause of portals. So on one hand ur removing a reason to hit lower teams by reducing GP gained,on the other hand ur adding a reason to hit lower teams AND take their land by restricting movement even further. Your only other suggestion is making friends with them? You reduced the amount of teams they can grant free passage to :man_shrugging:t2: It’s easier to just take it then deal with ppls BS

It seems we’re spending more times playing politics then actually playing the game. I didn’t know I was signing up for model UN.

Some humble suggestions:
A. Find a way to allow dominant teams to freely travel through a smaller team without being able to stop and attack. So for instance if a D1 team had 3 Platinum teams in its way, they can effectively leap over them. Won’t work if a team that’s say 70% of ur strength is in the way. Can’t leap over them.
B. Ability to grant an alliance passage, not just teams
C. Keep team portals :man_shrugging:t2:

Idk if any of these new ideas are good ones, but I think maybe at least hold back on removing portals until a better solution is found.


#52

So after the update how do we get credit for castle guards is it based on troops built or on team glory every so often?

Has it been considered that everyone get to assign their own castle guards based on their amount of glory or troops made? If only leadership gets to assign defenders it feels like members building troops and leaders get to use them.


#53

Just wondering @Nebraska1986 how long have you had Atlas?


#54

This.

LOWER or HIGHER ranked teams it doesnt matter. Killing and wasting troops , wasting time etc of lower ranked teams just to make a path is :face_vomiting: .

Or…

Maybe asking politely could solve the problem.

“Hi, can you please move your castles out of our path way?” HAHA.

I THINK

Sorry @PGDave , over time sounds like alot of moving and very less settling. Especially for new and incoming teams to Atlas.


#55

Not long


#56

Trust me, having to go work out what troops go where constantly and the consequence of getting it wrong is not as fun as you probably think.


#57

You still get to make use of any troops you train. It’s just that now instead of having a bunch of yours sitting in a garrison doing nothing until your castle gets attacked you have team troops sitting there

If we go back to having people in full control of all troops you’re gonna have to micromanage everyone to make sure there’s enough troops at Castle 7 and search for extras and oh there’s extra at Castle 26 and Player G has a bunch there but it’s not enough so you have to go ask Player N at Castle 12 and Player W at Castle 3 too. Let’s please not do that anymore :joy:


#58

@PGDave @pgEcho

While sharing from glory points the defensive troops at castles a player of our team made a mistake and swapped 1,6M troops in one castle while it was not intended…

We wrote support about but had no response.
Could it be possible to move troops from a castle out to a other one… as long as they are defensive troops…

Or could one of you correct this issue and change for example 1,5M troops back to glory so we could replace them as orginally intended please ?


#59

Pretty sure you already know the answer to this.


#60

Well, the feature was new, it was inside first hours and we directly wrote the support…

So i hope for a exception or maybe a feature for later ^^