I could be wrong but I don’t think you’ll ever seen an all diamond alliance or anything like that. While it might make sense performance wise. At the end of the day people just won’t get along.
My 3 cents:
In a lot of other games I’ve played that are somewhat like atlas, there is usually a super dominate team that goes around essentially sucking up fealty or destroying anything of any size.
In those games it usually polarized into ethnicity groups banding together to form an alliance of similar power and either the original superpower is destroyed or the new one fails. The more time that passes the more the difference between the top and second highest grows. In every iteration I’ve seen the strongest team gets so strong they become bored and go around picking on tiny players and bullying people just to try and extract some enjoyment. The rest of the community slowly fades away as it’s no fun to be fish repeatedly shot in a barrel, and then a new server opens up and everyone abandons their account and starts over.
One of atlas’s strengths is also one of its weakness. Having the entire player base in one interactive map rather than split on many servers (originally done due to necessary scaling issues) makes diversity and competition might greater. (Or will when everyone is in). But it comes at the cost of no safety net. If atlas gets to a point where the top is bored and the bottom is tired of dying, there is no new server.
Because of that I think the concern is valid. It doesn’t have to be all diamond. Just all strong atlas teams join together rather than compete with each other. I think this all falls back to having well developed incentives. If done correctly, top alliances of teams should almost grow a second faction that is tempted into splitting into a second alliance which then provides competition for the first.
Well not sure but this really isn’t those other games and we clearly didn’t play those ones with you. You’re probably new to this one but I haven’t ever seen the top diamond teams all work together. We can just round this up to a nickel.
This game has all of components that usually lead to this behavior, and I think it’s worth at least discussing a little. If I did play with you, I’m quite sure you would have been on the opposite end of the spectrum, similar to here. Unlike regular game there isn’t a league structure.
Not new enough that it would be relevant to diamond not working together statement. I also don’t see diamond working together, but I don’t think that’s super relevant.
We should stop saying diamond. In the eyes of atlas, so far, Diamond doesn’t really mean anything. (Loose correlations aside). I’m referring to the top atlas teams, combat capability wise.
I don’t think that because it hasn’t happened that it won’t. As I said before, I see all of the same components that seem to lead to it. What I don’t know if there are incentives or motivations at the top that might dissuade it. (Because I’m nowhere near the top in the current atlas population)
So I’m not at all saying we do or don’t do anything, I just wanted to avoid thinking about it after it had already happened.
Would you agree or disagree with the following:
- Atlas currently encourages troop loss only against safe targets (smaller players/teams/alliances)
- Atlas currently discourages using troops (troops being the most valuable thing, you can only exchange them for much lesser value + brief “fun” unless the purpose of atlas is just riders and gear)
- The most powerful atlas team(s) is/are either strong enough to avoid any real challenge to being most powerful, or is/are on corse to being eventually there.
- if an alliance grew large enough to be a real threat to the most powerful alliance, merging (absorbing) with other powerful alliances is likely to happen
- Lesser teams are likely to seek an alliance with the top alliances and there is no limit on how big an alliance could be. (Insufficient incentive to form an alliance to join a smaller one)
- There exists fewer reasons/incentives for an alliance to split than there exists for alliances to combine (only unwieldy management would limit, which would likely be reduced with automation over time)
- Lack of competition results in finding creative ways to have fun/derive value. (Unintended mechanics)
- Creative wats to have fun would likely include vaporizing or toying with other players/teams/alliances even if it came at high cost
- Some teams are likely to derive enjoyment by “asserting dominance”
To me those are all things that drive towards all alliances converging towards very few alliances. (Entropy decreases over time without manual interaction by PG, no balance exists, but all things drive towards an eventual collapse)
I hope I’m wrong, but even if I’m not, the future of atlas is very open to improvement. (why I brought it up)
I just think it’s a bit hard to talk about how the pinnacle of something works without having actually been there. All good points and at the end of the day teams are going to do what they want. Originally it was said how Atlas was made for teams to work together. But then if they do, you don’t want them to? Seems hard to discuss where to head if the target keeps changing.
Great point. I agree.
Well I wasn’t really around in the beginning of atlas, but I do think teams should work together, I just think it needs to be tempered just like all of the other aspect of the game.
To me this is the number one reason why alliances should be be formalized. You can’t put any limits upkeep or incentives on aspects that are outside of the game.
I also think the longer they wait the more burdensome it will be to add in later.
How about no allies everyone has to fight everyone?
It is WAR dragons right?
wonder what Atlas would look like then?
If no one had options to be allies that is…
Two problems with that approach.
First and most importantly is you can’t stop people from unofficially being alliances. It just means it will happen without any influence or visibility.
Secondly, the team dynamic is both a core strategy for war dragons as well as the method that allows for different people to bring different things to the table. Without teams, the very small players would be even more useless than they are right now. Tower defense games are all about strategy and it’s worth keeping that IMO.
I agree with you it was more sarcasm than anything…
But I got to thinking if there were no allies people would be landlocked in a lot of places and would have to fight to expand… sure you can say as teams we won’t attack this team on the left but everyone on the right it’s open season and there would be no safe passage either…
which would cause more fighting.