Suggestion - to help balance land ownership and encourage building


#1

The hottest issue in Atlas is land ownership being out of whack… some teams own a lot, lots of teams own none, a few teams own ALL the good land, and the rest of us fight over the level 2 and 3 scraps.

I have a proposal for discussion (different than my other one I have been suggesting for a while) that should fix it, and work beautifully with the coming changes (world wars snd flying primarchs).

(1) remove the levels on the land, let the land level up with the infrastructure that is built on it
(2) do not cap infrastructure anywhere, but of course the cost gets crazy because of the curve, so eventually people want more than 1 or 2 cities
(3) Goldmine levels could be based on the average (or highest) HQ level in the region… OR maybe add a new infrastructure called “gold mine” so you have to level up the gold mine for a region, where it could be set as the average of the goldmine upgrades done in the region (this could work even if more than 1 team owned cities in a region)… the idea being that if you build more mine tunnels you can get more gold :grin:.

reasoning
If teams are encouraged to “build up” instead of being forced to “build out” then they may not try to own 15-30 cities. They will be happy building 5-15 super cities, leaving more land for other teams.
Also, even teams with just 1 or 2 cities will be able to fortify them better… right now they are usually level 2 lands, where infrastructure caps out at level 3, making it very hard to defend.
Teams should like building up a couple of their cities and getting bigger bonuses, plus when primarchs start flying for world wars it will be easier to defend a few than lots of cities.

*Teams who already own “good” land whould not be hurt if this were implimented because they have a huge headstart on infrastructure (levels 9, 12, or more), so they will stay far ahead as they build it even higher!


#2

This is actually one of the goals for the changes to infrastructure buffs. A much larger bonus is now earned from leveling up your infrastructure instead of possessing a large number of castles. Some more details can be found here:

Removing region levels is a larger design question and not something that I’d personally be able to speak to though.


#3

I know this is not a quick suggestion/answer type topic…
Heck, I have been in Atlas/Beta for a year and a half now and it is only this week, with the quantity of teams in (and coming to) Atlas combined with other coming changes that made me think about this as a possible viable, logical avenue.

I am just hoping to make the idea visible and get feedback on it, both from PG and from other experienced Atlas players :+1:t2:. Maybe even if it isn’t the right answer, it will spark the epiphany that results in the answer, but so far I like this one even more than my previous one (and this would be FAR easier to code than my previous solution suggestion). :grimacing:

Doc


#4

The Upkeep change is coming shortly … currently with our test team: Upkeep Changes to broaden land ownership

Also, buffs only benefit from your top 20 lands, so having more than 20 would now be purely for some strategic reason (it’d have to be a good reason since you’d have to pay upkeep!).


#5

Can you clarify if the proposed changes in the OP are also going to be in?


#6

@PGEggToken @PGDave well…here is part of the issue, with the wonderous update EVERYTHING is practically a 5-flame, not sure if this was even considered on how it would impact Atlas


#7

It doesn’t seem like they really considered anything with any of these changes.


#8

The changes I was suggesting are purely suggestions for discussion at this time… but I like the ideas (obviously) and think they could help :+1:t2:

I do not work for PG, so I have no ability to make things happen (beyond giving them ideas, which they sometimes use). :grin:


#9

Sorry, that was a reply to Dave for the thread that he linked to, but it never linked the two :rofl: . It seems to happen if I type something out and hit reply to quickly. :see_no_evil:


#10

I find this idea very intreiging. I wonder what the intention of forcing levels was. Maybe it was all about having the hot spot in the center. (Purely speculation) A sort of king of the hill. I should think that is wasted if the king doesn’t change periodically.

I don’t understand why they chose to make it as it is, but from what I know this is a good suggestion if tempered with some limits.


#11

It would be like KOTH if all the forts were the same value.


#12

I don’t follow. The higher forts being more desirable (theoretically) makes them the Hill.

Having them increase as you get to the center (top) of the hill creates a fixed position to combat

Having all of them being equal would make no hill. All land is then equal. No one place is sought more than others.

Am I missing something?


#13

I think all forts initially in KOTH are worth the same. The longer your team stay there, the more score you will get. And the multiplier in each fort is different (same as land level)


#14

I’m not sure I follow, if land is truly fungible why fight over it? There should be an incentive to move up, to covet a mansion in Bel Air if you have a shack in Norwalk.

I think there needs to be far more stratification between land levels spurring a desire to compete for it; completely flattening them out would lead to even greater stagnation imo.


#15

That was my point. If you remove all the island levels then there is no hill, hence the idea of all island levels being the same is the height of stupidity.


#16

Well I thought you were saying the opposite. I only was suggesting it maybe is structured that way for that purpose but I’m not stuck on KOTH as the only way to go.


#17

You will still need more vs less. And it has to come from somewhere.

But I can see how it might open things up for the stronger taking from weaker teams without the Levels.

I mean if I was competing with a team or alliance and I needed to grow faster I would take the land holding their highest infrastructure if I could.

Plenty of reason to fight, just maybe too much room to remove competition in the process. Although I’m not sure that couldn’t be addressed by having some kind of incentive to take lands with higher infrastructure.

I’m not sold on the idea but I like having essentially the number of each size more dynamic and less fixed.

Although I also like the hill concept where everyone knows where to go for
The slaughter


#18

You don’t steal their infrastructure when you win; their infrastructure goes into storage.


#19

But the infrastructure is kept by the team that loses a castle, unless that is being changed in this proposal and I missed it. So why would I hit high infrastructure? I’d find the weakest team with the worst infrastructure if I needed more land. It would actually incentivize hitting down as an optimal strategy when hitting up should be rewarded and encouraged.


#20

I know but that doesn’t mean you can’t use it to incentivize