Possible new primarch type?


@PGDave I get team sport but that still means 20 level 100s could come and make pointless 20 300s and the said name team send 1 level 300 player and demolish troops because bases are rebuffed to child’s play it still is taking levels and making them useless


Although not opposed to the primarch per se, there needs to be alot of balancing done to current mechanisms, or this will be exploited to a very large degree

  1. Safe zone camping/prepping outside someones base
  2. Targetting at bases so you can effectively disable the correct primarch
  3. Allowing run-over on revive limits if player being hit is offline
  4. Limiting the amount of debuff that is possible
  5. Limiting the resummon time on this primarch once it dies, including limiting WHERE it can be summoned from, and how many troops it needs to have to slime effectively.

I have no objection to the prime concept - more strategy always good - but you have to be very careful that it doesnt just simply negate high level bases.

If you stretch this too far, you will lose the impetus to base build, and that will effect your bottom line. Already noctuas make a pretty joke of everything under say level 360, yet can easily be obtained and maxxed at 275. The difference between a level 275 and level 360 base is $10 000. And that is a single dragon, in atlas you get 5. If you create a scenario where every level 420 player can have his investments negated by a simple mechanic, you might run into an issue where you dis-empower your spenders.

(Now before the personal bashing starts, I did not say the spenders need an iWin button, they are counterable by strategy and equal level play, but it is non realistic to expect a level 200 player to be beating a level 450 player – if this is the status that pg aims for, they will have no reason to push bases to that level - which will effect the bottom line - and the f2p gamers as well in the end)


Team A plans to hit Team B
Team A collects 10 lvl 1 slimes, with their 10% debuff over 10mins, and brings 5 siegers

They go and camp outside Team B’s base on the safe zone

Team B sees this, and fortifies and prepares for an assault. They put their level 500 player with his big garrison and lvl 15 primes down including a taunter, as well as many rushers for the rest of the team, maybe even another 2-3 taunters.

Team A waits till team B is mostly offline (eg has 2-3 players on), and moves in with slimes and siegers. They slime the level 500 x 10; essentially giving him -90% defense, and immediately hit him with the siegers. He takes 80 000 troop losses, and the bubble goes up.

They move to the next island, repeat.

Now this might be strategy yes, but you have just pushed a lvl 500 player out of 2 months worth of troops, if they hit him at more than one island thats permanent losses.

He is offline and has no way to stop this, nor does his team.

This is NOT the same as getting multiple good fliers to hit a high level base, essentially any idiot with a kinnarus would be able to solo him while rubbing the phone on their chest.



I think the idea is to discourage a solo 500, and encourage many 500s being needed by those teams who can. Essentially deincentivizing being spread thin and addressing the level issues.

I’m not sure about your specifics on noctua without a high level rider. Maybe my skills are not so great yet, but it seems noctua can fairly easily be shutdown on a low 300 with proper base setup and a single defender. If you mean undefended, everyone needs to be at risk sometime. Almost nobody should be invulnerable. Benefits from the territory should more than suffice protecting the base with troop numbers.

I do agree 1000% it needs to be limited. But I also think it is good to encourage needing to work with more people vs solo. If it takes 80 people to reduce level of a 500 enough for a solo noctua or necryx to succeed, they stil must overcome troops, which a proper team should have troops to back it up if power is defined by troops rather than levels.


Problem is in atlas you get 5 dragons not 1.

Debuffing a high lvl base by 90% is a joke. Even 50 percent. They need to cap the debuff at around 30 percent maximum, and that should be maybe 6 slimers.

As to noctua, in wars yes easy to shut down.

Atlas not, since you only need the lead noctua to land 1 vines. Not going to elaborate here on that.

Problem with debuffing a base is where it should take a lot of effort to drop a big base, it will simply take a few ppl facerolling.

Atlas losses are permanent, creating a mechanic that lends itself beautifully to griefing is dangerous.

I understand what they are trying to achieve , my feeling is that its needed for small teams for defense not attack. If this was a defensive ability id be much more interested in it.

I do not agree that players ever need to be “vulnerable”, because what’s next then - a shield you ubuy when you logoff so you have no permanent losses? Gow no thanks.


I seriously doubt 90% could be achieved by only 9 players. That is a much more aggressive metric than makes sense. Something more like 40 players need to remove a maximum of 40%. (Maybe less). - let’s assume we aren’t that reckless. I know you were illustrating a point, but I don’t think PG would allow that.

Is the difference defenders? Maybe I don’t know some trick yet, and I’m not asking for you to go into it. All things aside, I think atlas currently requires the same level of “must defend 24/7” as a war does. (Which for most teams isn’t realistic)

I don’t think I agree. I believe a land protected by a single person should be vulnerable to such an attack, Whereas a base defended by many level 500s should survive this. I also think the intended power in atlas is how many troops you have. If done right, even a debuffed base would need many many hits to kill all of the troops due to primarch limits and cooldowns. And any troops being used debuffing would not be available to attack with. This maintains the more troops is better and more people working together is better. Please help me to see the problem if there is one.

EDIT: what I mean by below is that while I’d like to have a choice to defend like DoA has, the game is already designed differently. I believe we must first balance what exists before much more radical changes can be considered. If we don’t curb the army of one, the majority of the players suffer (at least by my approximation)

So here might be where we are going different ways. While I agree with your statement, this game is already this way, with politics and being the biggest you avoid this, but to everyone else (far more players) you lock them out of the game. The advantages of land provide resources to keep land out of non land owners. This change would free up a ton of land being held because they can. One primarch or one player on a garrisoned fort. People without land cannot garrison and act as a group. And if people with land are building like people without, people without can’t overcome without spending…


The problem is its not about the island falling. Its about griefing a specific player. The base isn’t protected by a single level 500. There might be 2-3 500s, 4 400,s and 30 300s. The griefing mechanism is still there.

Even if there are many high level players, you can use this prime to specifically grief 1 player, and cause him permanent losses. The island mechanics are safe, I doubt this will “unbalance” it if designed properly.

From another viewpoint, currently a lot of the smaller teams rely on their “one big player” to provide a significant buffer against attacks for them, this would also put that player at a very big disadvantage, because he would become an ideal target of bigger players.

Hmm no I don’t agree at all. Currently if you log out of the game in the main game, even if you are raided 500x an hour, you lose nothing. Some food and lumber, and this regenerates rapidly (2-3hours).

In atlas currently, if you have no land, you are the same status. You can be raided repeatedly, and at most lose whatever gold you had, thats it.

Land owners have a much higher risk - if they are raided repeatedly while offline they take actual losses. At this point in time, this can be mitigated by having a very solid frontline – high value fort, with lots of rushers for example. with or without a big player that is defended by the team.

The risk is that the game devolves into a point where if you logoff, and logon the next morning, you might have suffered 2-3 months worth of permanent losses. And I don’t mean land - I mean for the player himself, in troops lost.

Yes the risk is already there, but its much smaller, since it can be effectively mitigated by defenders. IF you debuff a base by 50%, no amount of defenders are going to keep that base alive, or give even remotely fair attack:defense ratios.

This brings me back to my first statement – I’m not against the primarch per se. But they need to address the obvious griefing loopholes before this can be a serious consideration.

Hmmm not really. The current metric is balanced to such a degree that you can physically build the exact same amount of troops that a land owner can, with 1 extra hit on a safezone mine per day if all multipliers arent exausted. If all multis are, you need to farm the additional little bit of gold. But the troop regen between someone that owns say 2-3 level 2 zones, and no zones are factually identical or near identical. Maybe 10 troops / day difference.

I do agree that someone with no land, isnt exactly going to permanently take land off Dread or NMO, but that is how it should be. Fairness =/ equality.

Griefing - meaning

I don’t think this is actually true. Im seeing folks who were on equal footing having 100% gold buff shortly after grabbing it.

Where as I get 30 decreasing multipliers of ~5k once a day and then ~5k.


Nope. No such thing.

We control a fair amount of land, it its as you describe for yourself.

30 decreasing multipliers.

Yes the “amount” available changes, aka there is more gold per hit, but gold is not the limiting factor for building troops, hats are.


Gold is our limit. Hats are not.


I’m sorry, I think this is a cop-out. First gold is our hurt point. And we get farmed for it by other atlas players constantly.

Second it doesn’t matter if you aren’t risking anything in the safe zone, because you also aren’t really playing atlas in the safe zone. It’s like saying you risk nothing being in bronze.

I would love the opportunity to risk my troops, (outside or hit and runs) but that’s limited to land owners. Right now I’m considering wallet warrioring, which I hate, because I don’t want to win by spending alone.

To be clear, my issue is that there is no way for me to transition. Multiple members of my team have sufficient troops, but the entry point into land ownership is a steep jump. I think it only gets steeper day by day. It’s easy to talk about how simple it is looking down.

If I was able to use more players to take down a single large player, i would have a shot at like 10% of the land. Right now all attempts have resulted in being too weakened to keep it and having too many other capable folks desperate to do more than farm in the safe zone (boring) and run suicide runs on people with land for GP…


I think here you are missing the strategy part of atlas. I have looked across the map, and there are various entry points where a small team with a million troops could easily take and hold land.

Secondly you can negotiate for the land as well, with any of the major powers. A lot of them prefer guarded flanks, and will not bother you too much. If you do not want to ally with big teams, then ally with small ones, and take a zone combined as two teams. If you want to solo everything, spend an additional month in safe zone, so you have 2 million troops.

Lastly when it comes to gold, no one should be sitting on it. Training a group of troops is only 400k gold. This is 20 mins of online time where someone needs to defend you, or a simple co-ordinated resource jump like for feeding bigger players. Its a copout to claim this is the stumbling block - organize better.

I wrote a fairly extensive “transition” from no land - land plan in my atlas guide, which will work just fine. its not the only way, but its definitely viable and has been used by teams successfully before it was published.


Lol. Stop farming gold while you have no hats then. Simple as that. Hats are the most limiting factor in Atlas.


Yeah I think people assume they understand what it’s like to live in the safe zone.

I only ever have gold to farm when I’m trying to level a primarch (nearly impossible without a banking mechanism)

The “more gold” than you get from land is probably way more significant than you realize. I’m not sure how it works but if it’s applied on top of the multiplier, a little would go a long way.

I can queue max hats (3998) for 399 soldiers at 399k gold, taking like 5 hours 33 min to produce with 3 queues, and 1440/hr with it taking just short of 3 hours to replenish.

From memory, I can do this
About 3 times a day before gold can only be achieved at a waste of my time rate of 5k. I’ll double check and edit this response to be actual numbers shortly. 1200 troops per day is where i run out of gold. But hats still regen at 1440/hr.

And this is all assuming you dont need to level a primarch or recover troops.


We can do 4 groups of 399. Thats controlling quite a bit of land.

When we had 1, it was 3.

Not really seeing the point here? Its the same situation everyone is in, except maybe ppl with tier 4-5 lands a plenty. People that control 1 land group generally will have about 4% more gold than people without, but we can try confirm the numbers.


Just a moment ago, I was told by two people that hats limit production and not gold. But this is contradictory. As I don’t know what I don’t know, I assumed you got significantly more gold, as you did not think it was limiting you. You can’t possibly be limited by hats unless you have a lot more gold.

Which is it? Do hats limit you or gold? I’m limited by gold for the reasons I just stated. If you are also limited by gold, then there is no point. All of your arguments seem to be in favor of keeping things how they are. I’m telling you there is a serious problem and your responses are basically saying there isn’t. The game is stacked against you for getting out of the safe zone. It does not provide a mechanism, and as populations grow the issue will become exponentially worse.

Also the 4% you mentioned, is that applied on top of multipliers?


Now you are splitting hairs.

Gold is not the limit - farm more. You cannot “farm more” hats.

We didn’t say “mine more” we said “farm more”

We are having the exact same “gold” supply as you, + some % points per land owned. However, its somewhere around 4% per continent of 4 islands, if that much. Thus you aren’t “limited” by not having land. This basically means you need to hit one or two extra players for gold a day, vs what we do.

The game is NOT stacked against you for getting out of the safe zone. It is specifically changed (from previous iterations), to make it easy to get out of the safe zone. You aren’t even trying to see a reasonable way out. There is hardly any difference between owning no land, and owning 1 piece of level 2 land as far as troops and gold goes. It does make a difference for 1 shard type though, but thats hardly stopping you from owning land. It was specifically designed this way, because previously it was actually hard to recover from being safezoned - speaking from experience. And this was changed to allow teams a fairly easy method to recover - you actually don’t fall behind in troop building in the safe zone, as long as you are willing to put in the effort. This was specifically put there to allow easy rebuilding for teams pushed to the safe zone. What you need to understand, is that it takes strategy and effort. Constantly believing you are at this massive disadvantage, which factually doesn’t exist does not make it any more or less true.

You cannot lose troops in the safe zone, people with land can. Build up your troops till you have a decent amount (1 month worth) then attack a level 2 zone. Not that hard.

And yes the 4% is applied to the base, so that is applied on top of multipliers = aka 1 more hit a day.


Anything is possible, but you should concede you really have no idea what the reality is at your current situation. I see no entry points. Land should not be so hard to get or people will quit. (Keeping it is another thing)

I’ve been looking too. Maybe I’m looking in all the wrong places, but each place that seemed easily taken was actually not. Nothing I have read has given me any way to find land. I’ve scouted a number of places and even took land a few times only to find there was a reason it wasn’t being protected.

I don’t see how you can deny that having land intrinsically grants you more advantage than not, making any non-land owner at a uncompetitive disadvantage. The current system will be unfavorable to the majority of the players.

My whole point was this primarch helps fix that issue, but all I’m getting is a whole lot of that isn’t a real problem. I’m telling you it is… it would benefit far more than it would not. If you can sit safely at any level, the game is unbalanced. You should be at risk to lose months of work. That isn’t to say troop recovery and other mechanisms shouldn’t be improved, or that we shouldn’t carefully limit the primarch.


I’m sorry then the answer is learn to play Atlas. There are unfortunately some schoolfees, and through the various posts and guides we have tried to give new players a pass so they don’t have to make all the mistakes we did. Apparently some things aren’t possible to teach that way. And I’m not saying this to be sarcastic - There are literally tonnes of zones in various colors that are targetable.

There are roughly 208 teams in Atlas at the moment, of which around 200 are active.

Last count over 100 of them had land, yet only 50 of them are diamond teams, and of those 50 diamond teams, more than half didn’t have beta.

Perhaps go and read the post I made about how to go about getting out of the safe zone? The only thing I can think of is that you are assuming you are going to take land with 50k or 100k troops. This is simply not going to happen. Have you tried using 500k-1mil in a co-ordinated attack and failed?

Yes having land has advantages, and disadvantages. Troop attrition from constant attacks, upkeep etc. Does it have rewards? Of course it does - why else would anyone try and hold it – holding land leads to actual losses, not holding land does not.

Well here we will have to agree to disagree, but if that’s how you feel that’s how you feel.

I never said this primarch was a bad idea per se - I said there needs to be a lot more balancing done before it can be implemented, else it would be used as a griefing mechanism.

Anyways, I see no point in continuing a discussion you simply do not want to try to see a way out of your predicament.

Good luck in your endeavors


I would love to see a 100% gold buff…I think we have a decent foothold and ours is still in the 60%s…

Also not give perspective @EidolonRM what league is your team in?


Thus far my farming of gold is unproductive. This may have a lot to do with the fact that I can’t see who has gold, so I have to randomly hit people who have atlas. So far my results are not much better than mining it for 5k a pop. Occasionally i get lucky, but not enough to produce meaningful results, and it consumes too much time to be practical.

You are correct that I was talking about getting it from poachers and mines. But they have been the only meaningful sources I’ve found.

I disagree from all evidence so far.

With land, the following I believe are true

  1. increased gold and materials (don’t know by how much, but it is increased)
  2. a bank to protect resources
  3. team is able to garrison (multiple people defend)
  4. buffed defenses
  5. shielding system
  6. ability to play with and see the other side of how 60% of the game works. Denied to everyone without land
  7. bargaining due to passage. (Something worth trading)

I promise you I am trying to see a reasonable way out and I don’t see one. There are probably more advantages than listed.

Early on i ran into the 1 troop thing. It completely stopped me. Everyone was using it.

Now that i have an idea what to do with that, nobody is doing it.

Every single person who was on even ground with me and ended up with land now is heavily entrenched and is no longer viable competition.

I’m not sure what you think I’m missing. The smaller folks are putting up a huge fight. There is heavy competition for land. This is due to how many people are just sitting in the safe zone trying to get out. The population of the safe zone grows but land is finite. Most of it consumed by folks brought in before i was. There should be more land. Big teams shouldn’t be interested in the level 2 crap. But they are.

Right now the only tactic i haven’t tried yet is to kill troops with unfavorable troop losses. Because almost every piece of land i can find is defended by 1 big player who is 24/7 defended by their team. It shouldn’t be this difficult to effectively do the equivalent of leaving the tutorial.