Suggestion - to help balance land ownership and encourage building


#21

No you are correct. But we are theorizing change so I was suggesting it could be okay if we used infrastructure level to incentivize instead. I don’t have a specific how but more of a broad concept.

Because you do need something.

I would take offline the higher infrastructure as a war tactic (even in the current economy)

It’s just all theoretical. If you took away levels you would need to somehow factor in something such as infrastructure level I beliebe.


#22

Well, if you needed land then yes, you would likely aim at something (1) easy or (2) contiguous to your current land. However, they are already discussing defense bonuses for weak teams being hit y strong teams… not enough to let the weak teams win, but enough that it isn’t godzilla vs. the geico gecko.

If team could build up the land they have then more fighting might shift towards fun and events, which we are supposed to not be so afraid of that we refuse to participate in them. Mostly I hear people say “I hate XX event in Atlas because everyone goes crazy and attacks everyone”.

In the core game we are not affraid to do wars because we lose nothing. Our base is not weakened after a war. We cannot lose our base if we lose a war.

I absolutely understand that Atlas is different and that the risk is what generates the adrenaline factor for many in the heat of battle. And much has been done to temper the losses and make them less damaging, and I agree with those changes and helped push for them. I think more change is needed (and I know more is coming.)

You ask what “hill” we will fight over?
I ask, why resort to that antiquated idea of warfare?
You build your area until you decide it will be cheaper to capture more land than to build more infrastructure, so you go to war… no “hill” is the target. You just need more land. OR, you realize that you only own land with 3 shard types so you decide to conquer land of the other types. OR someone on a team pissed you off so you swear a vendeta against them. There are many reasons that wars have started in Atlas and would still start under the design I suggested.

The only difference is that the teams currently sitting on the “hill” would not be the ONLY teams capable of building level 12 infrastructures. They would, however, still be the only teams with them in the near future since the gold required these days is FAR more than in the past… much more than a team can farm easily in 3-4 months. The upside for the “hill” teams is that they could begin upgrading their suburb infrastructure, increasing their lead further and further because their gold bonus would be so huge, as would their troop training bonus.


#23

This is one of many excellent ideas of rounding out the Atlas experience. The idea behind the “Matchmaker” in the standard game is to encoutage fair fights and to challenge each player to get better and stronger through these matchups. This idea seems to have been scrapped in Atlas.

If Atlas were more fair to those weaker teams just entering, one of the possibilities is to have continents, cities or areas which are off-limits to the super-big fighters and teams. New-Comers would have the same Fair Play spirit which the MatchMaker encourages and the unspeakable frustration level of learning Atlas for beginners would be significantly reduced.

Definitely hope you’re reading this PG!!!


#24

This is my primary concern.

I completely agree with this and the problem Doc is trying to solve here – it’s also at the heart of the World War proposal we discussed but also set aside for now. It’s very true that Godzilla vs Gecko probably isn’t that fun for anyone involved, and it’s certainly biggest reason I’ve waited to invite more teams to Atlas.

Once Flying Primarchs debut, we’ll have finished the “preparatory steps” we as a community discussed and decided to move forward with together. Then we’ll dive back into other takes on world war and hopefully some very different ideas as well to help build on these preparatory steps (team buff tweaks, upkeep, flying primarchs) to build the “Matchmaker” Cerberus and many of us yearn for … the devil is in the details, but on the plus side I think we have clarity and broad agreement on the goal / current shortcoming!


#25

For me it’s sounds weird)
Teams which owes those higher lvl lands been spending some resources for this
Why should we remove lvls?
And with new upkeep I doubt that they will keep useless lands …


#26

I dig that you can see both sides here Dave.

Honesty I’m not so concerned about going after weaker teams because it seems rather sure to me that for similar effort to fixing KOTH, you could make a new method work. (You just need some metric of similar value with tricky logic)

However, I realize we really haven’t given KOTH enough of a try to even begin to justify changing directions yet. (At least that is my opinion)

I do like Doc’s idea here, and I personally was just speaking to it in a positive open minded light. But again, it’s way too soon to give up on the existing design.

One thing I will say, I’m not sure how many of the Atlas population realize it’s supoosed to be KOTH with levels going down as you move away from the “center”. It did not occur to me until Gox said it in the forums. I think tried to analyze it only to see the rings around the center are not very round and the center is very confusing. (I was surprised to see red zones with higher levels which were not accessible by safe zone for example)

Anyways my point is maybe it should be clearer that a hill exists. It’s very hard to search for land by level…


#27

Just to give this context, this is one of, if not the biggest spender, on the number 2 team. So this illustrates the general mindset and understanding that all the islands are essentially the same. And as their values are too similar there is no reason to fight. There is really no reason for teams to act because there is no tangible value/benefit. The difference between each island is so marginal it is not worth the effort/cost to go higher.


#28

Correct me if I’m wrong.

Essentially level 5 land costs as much to get as the troop losses needed to take it. (Which means battle with dread)

Essentially the very permanent troop loss is not worth the token and shard benefit. And this is at least partly due to the size of the competition being not a PG controlled mechanic.

I’m sure this is a stupid idea, but what if payout was tied to global rank of infrastructure points, and those points continued to have no benefit to take all of the level 2 and the only way to get top prize (which should be increased from where it is) requires level 5s?


#29

Just to clarify, we are hardly the only team with level 5 islands.


#30

Aren’t they mostly only in one epicenter? And you guys have the lions share of them? The only place I’ve seen them was near dread, so maybe I was wrong in my assumptions.


#31

There used to be only one level 5 region but they have since expanded. I think there are 9? maybe now


#32

Seven teams own level 5s atm


#33

I wish I could own as many islands as NMO someday :cry:


#34

What about JAPANeeeeZE? They seem to have gained a lot of land recently.

EDIT: I was reading the levels as the number. My bad. Yeah.


#35

Idk…42 level 2 islands is pretty badass


#36

Clearly OP


#37

It’s not right to see teams with world rankings outside top 50 to be a top 10 team in atlas.
Several top diamond teams should be in the top 10 due to extreme active players and tough bases.
But the problem is they were brought in after a year.
And with the new updates giving extra fort bonus to existing owners, there’s no point in attacking for higher tier lands because you would need to use a few million troops.
If they were pitted together in a regular war, those sapphire or lower league teams would get smashed so bad.
So it’s a bad look for atlas when top ranked teams are not ranked at the top in atlas also.


#38

Some yes and some no…Atlas also relies on intelligence and strategy, something some of the players in the top teams sorely lack. I know people don’t like that but that is part of what makes Atlas different, you have to actually think and play tactically/strategically and trying to buy victory alone doesn’t work.

That said, there are some balance issues, just look at the chart above…Nobody owns nearly as much land as your ally NMO, so if you have an issue, should maybe talk to them.

Basically because I am good at basketball, I should be given a win in the Super Bowl? Sure, both require athleticism but they are not the same game. Sounds like you are basically saying, if you get to the top echelon of one you should be automatically given a spot in the other?


#39

Lol if you wanna win the Super Bowl You’re supposed to be in the NFL. You win an NBA championship for basketball. Point is, bwab and other top 10 D1 teams should be in top 5 in atlas and holding lvl 5 tier castles.
Not a sapphire team u would be able to smash in a war that holds 5 star islands.


#40

Thank you for proving my point…league rankings and Atlas rankings are based on two completely different metrics. Therefore, your logic makes no sense. While some aspects carry over. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Once again, based on nothing tangible or with any thought put into it. Simply, they should be entitled to it by their mere existence and accolades in a completely different part of the game?

Please see the chart above, the most land IS held by two D1 teams. I feel like you are just taking your performance in one and just overlaying it onto the other as a “prize” or something entitled. If I do well in the core game, I should have x given to me based on that.