A Few Helpful Additions?


#1

Here are a few things that I think could possibly help:

  1. Decrease the amount of troops used in a battle, right you can lose 15-50k? troops per battle. This means that you basically can get 1-3 hits in before your primarch is dead. This makes things very, very short. Essentially, you are asking people to buy or save up troops for weeks/months and it is all gone in the span of 3-9 min. WarDragons is a global game and one of the best parts is being able to co-ordinate with people from all over the globe but when “battles” between teams last 20 min, if you are not on in that exact moment you pretty much miss out. If the amount of troops lose were to be scaled back by maybe 10x-25x, this would mean much more sustained hits AND one person would not be able to take whole islands by themselves. It would mean a much bigger time/effort commitment which I also think will help with some of the complaints from teams being attacked. If there is say 100k boats on an island that can be done in 8 hits. Now, it would mean that you need 100 or so hits in order to get it done.

  2. Safe Zones: Right now they are being used as less of a “safe” zone and often as a place to stage attacks from, which there is strategic merit in this, I feel like that is not really their intended purpose. Perhaps instead of having safe zones intermingled as part of the map it would be better to have them truly all on the outskirts? Another possible change if this is not feasible, instead of the NML being essentially worthless PVP zones, have the NML become safe zones, that way people can stop and “rest” there if they are making a long journey. Plus, if they are the only safe zone, the overall areas affected would be significantly decreased.

  3. Not sure how much work this would take but make a TRUE and intended pvp zone? Make the current map MUCH harder for teams to take islands from each other, instead of every 5 min based on a whim? If you truly want an island be prepared to really fight for it? And have a zone (possibly through a portal?) where it really is for pvp with a true prize system for those willing to enter that zone? This way people can fight but aren’t losing their islands constantly. If your goal is a more in-depth world. Think of the current world, there are conflicts constantly here and there but there are not countries constantly conquering and reconquering each other…if they do truly decide to, they have to really plan and make a concerted effort.

  4. SIMPLIFY, one of the truly great part that drew people to this game was the simplicity of it. New features are great but people need it to be simple as well. This certainly is not easy and simple is often the hardest thing to accomplish, adding too much, too fast can make things really difficult. Navigating and doing simple tasks in Atlas right now is a bit of a Nightmare.

  5. Would it be possible/good idea, if you are going to make gold storable, just make gold like food and wood? Have it grow passively on the islands and then people raid each other? Rather than it being stuck halfway in between?

In general, I think Atlas is just being done backwards. It should be a push to the top for the best stuff, right now it is a race to the bottom, the goal is to find someone smaller than you to crush…that will probably always end up with more negative than positive.

@PGDave have no clue how easy any or none of these would be to implement and would be great to see what others think.


#2
  1. I’m curious what others think.
  2. We’re implementing a “retaliation timer” which will prevent Primarchs which attack from entering any safe zone for some period of time.
  3. Do you think castles change hands too often? I’ll have to revisit that data, but it seemed reasonable healthy last I checked. Of course we have new teams now, and it will probably be a little time before things settle down a bit. Some conquering activity is good, of course … it’s a war game!
  4. Usability is still a top concern. Do you have specific ideas about what would make navigating better? What about the other simple tasks you’re referring to?
  5. Are you talking about being able to raid the gold mine without traveling to it? Or are you talking about passive gold mines on your base? Or maybe I’m completely missing your point, sorry!

#3

I REALLY like #3. Right now it’s very difficult to find other people to fight. I think if you look at the participation numbers right now you will see that. Given the fact that fighting is required to progress- level primarchs, riders, and get points in events. It would be great to have PVP areas- even if they were only available to use during certain events??
From what I’m seeing, it’s not so much that castles are changing hands too much right now- it’s that the majority of people aren’t attacking because they don’t want to take over castles and cause problems with alliances, etc…


#4

My thoughts FWIW:

  1. I’m not so sure about this. There are teams (and even a few people!) with millions of troops. Scaling battles back even 10x means killing 1500 per hit at best. That’s 666 battles to kill off 1M ships, 100 battles to kill a max taunter. Sounds like a return to the bad old days of the beginning of beta when the kill cap was super low, then overtuned to fight to the death, now the current scenario. Obviously everyone’s experiences are different, we just had a 24 hour attack against us and a 72 hour one several months ago, so being able to participate has not been a huge issue for us. If anything I’d like to see the sailors bumped a little more while keeping the 3 hour refresh for grinders to increase ship supply (helping out with short battles) while hard capping purchasable new troops at a reasonable amount over the max grindrate (and realistically, what percentage of players even hit 75% of max grindrate)?

  2. Not sure this solves the issue, most prims that come out of neutral get stuck on a blocker and fight to the death anyway.

  3. Will defer to you on the robustness of land ownership.

  4. Letting an officer mark a target and making a “move to target” order would be very helpful here as I mentioned before.

  5. Think he’s suggesting having passive gold mines much like farms with a use it or lose it aspect, instead of a “just in time” system where you farm what gold you need when you need it and don’t have to worry about raidable gold accruing over time like food and wood.


#5
  1. I think Spooky is right; Echo made the same argument and won me over to that perspective just this morning. The retaliation timer has been nixed for now … blockades to prevent enemies emerging from the safe zone from escaping too quickly.

#6

As far as neutral zones go, and I am not sure how complicated this is to pull off, but wouldn’t it be better to limit the amount of troops a player can have in the neutral zone?

If the intended use of the neutral zone is to allow players/teams to rebuild, why should anyone be allowed to store hundreds of thousands of troops in a neutral zone? Once a player has over 15k troops (just a random number, can be any number) they should be forced to find a home on a pvp island.

Again, this may be too difficult to accomplish, but prevents teams from hiding away in the neutral zone after they’ve crushed another team.


#7

@PGDave I think a lot of this also comes down to what things are intended for and what they evolve into. If you want the safe zones to be for rebuilding you can’t let teams stay there 24/7.


#8

Id like to point out that I strongly disagree with taking away a retalliation timer.

We have diamond teams sitting in a safe zone just outside a base with hundreds of thousands of troops, raiding in when you are offline, and killing a tonne of troops. As soon as you retalliate they pull back into the safe zone without us having any chance of hitting back at them.

There is a scenario being used freely where they dont get stuck in the blockade and still reap these benefits (as per pm).

There should be a tangible consequence to attacking someone. It cannot be a situation where you can freely attack yet not be attacked back.

I see no logical reason why an attacking player can’t get a pvp flag that keeps him pvp active for 15 mins.


#9

Gox,

We will fix the bug that allows you to attack before getting to the base so that players can’t exploit it.

Besides that… I believe a team should be rewarded if they kill all enemy primarchs on a base by being able to flee immediately. If you had only 1 primarch and no garrisoned troops guarding it… seems like you should have done more. If they don’t kill all your primarchs and don’t conquer your base, they can’t flee because they are stuck in the blockade.

I believe you are trying to find a solution for the very upper echelon of players that are picking on your team. I believe having the retaliation flag would discourage the large portion of the player base from attacking (definitely would for me). For instance in the kill event, I personally load up my primarch full, and go scouting around the highways looking for targets. I usually attack a few targets in different regions before I lose all my ships.

What would take me 30 minutes now, would turn into 1.5 hours or more due to getting stuck all the time after each attack for some time. With this flag I can say quite confidently I would be less likely to attack in Atlas, and as a result likely would be less active. Anything that discourages attacking, or that creates considerable friction in a player’s desire to attack is likely detrimental.

Maybe this discourages dreadnought from this strategy, but then would also discourage a huge amount of the regular population which doesn’t seem like a desirable trade off. Do you have good examples either in the real world, or in other games that people are penalized like such for attacking? Referencing your comment, I don’t understand why there should be a “tangible consequence to attacking someone” other than losing troops?

I’m sure you’re aware that your team is fully capable of employing the same strategy on the enemy who is griefing you. If you feel you can’t because the are online more often and can defend better… then it sounds like they are better coordinated and using strategy more effectively?

Thoughts?


#10

Hmm.

I have to think on this a bit more. Thanks for the reply.

Problem is we are the very upper echelon of players, and not really picking on my team, but picking on teams is what I see.

I’m not really expressing myself well, so let me rephrase.

Team A loads up 20 primarchs, 5 taunters, 5 rushers, 10 siegers and goes and parks outside in a safe zone.

They wait till your team (Team B) is partially offline, and attack an island (well stocked island, 5 taunters, say 10 other primes (mixed 3 rushers, 3 destoyers, couple of siegers or whatever).

The rushers disable taunters, the siegers immediately hit your team. This results say 100k worth of losses to your base. (Highly possible - siegers easily take out 10k troops a hit - easily).

Team B immediately responds, they send out an SOS, and within 5 mins they have 20 players online. Yet since the bubble has popped up on the island, Team A is freed. They notice that team B has come online, and just withdraws back into the safe zone. Now Team B is screwed - they are down a 100k troops, their island is bubbled so no longer a barricade, and team A is still camping outside their door, without team B able to chase them off.

1 hour later the same recurs. etc etc etc

This is not a hypothetical situation it is happening. And its not a “clever use of mechanics” its simply exploiting a broken mechanic, that allows you to absolutely destroy a team, without them having much of way to protect themselves.

I simply do not see it as viable to allow a team to “cherry pick” a hundred thousand troops, and walk away without the other team able to retaliate.

And although I respect that you as a single player goes around and does that, if you do it as a team the scenario as above happens. When a single player does that, and the player is a small time player, it results in very little losses. However, in the scenario where a lvl 500 player does this, with a lvl 15 sieger and taunter, a very different scenario arises.

Also the retaliation timer as suggested will not make you “get stuck” ? it would simply flag you for pvp, which means that the team you attacked can chase you into safezone areas. You could continue running of course, until the timer expires. This would create a cat and mouse type of game, sort of like a pirate hitting a town and the garrison chases him. He might get away, might not. Risk.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by 30 mins becomes 1h30mins? And how you would get “stuck” ?

PVP flags are frequently used in MMORPG games that have both neutral and pvp zones.

The issue is not that we can employ the same strategy or not. I’ll not happily go around griefing and destroying teams that cannot respond even if well organised - its a douche move and I prefer to do things fairly. An excellent team, with hundreds of thousands of troops and well setup bases can lose massive amounts of troops like this without them really having the opportunity to do much about it - thats my problem with the system.

The issue boils down to this - should you be at risk for losing months worth of build up, without the opportunity to retalliate? Some teams live in safe zones. Some don’t.

The tangible benefit of having owned land should be worth it, instead of someone just camping out in the safe zone, farming tonnes of G points off your team, and moving on without you having the ability to return the favour.


#11

There are a number of games that have infamy/criminal/dishonor/karma points, though these are more often seen in MMORPGs or dueling games. Some will simply decay over time, while others will require completing tasks or going through a trial. Players may also be marked in a more obvious way (red skull/other icon) and may lose stats/items to facilitate revenge. (Edit: And no, I’m not asking for something that severe either, but examples were asked for.)

Atlas is pretty much 24/7 war, except with more the potential for more skewed outcomes (open world) and fewer repercussions (hiding in safe zones). When teams already break up for smaller losses, such as war problems or league changes, Atlas has the potential to cause more upheaval. If a team has built up a large regiment of troops and built up their fortifications just to lose it all and need to restart planning the move elsewhere to use stored structures, I don’t think it’s out of the question that some teams would decide to simply give up on Atlas or disband from how much conflict it can cause. When players lose that “critical mass” of community, they leave too.

Anyway, maybe Gox’s idea seems like a much softer version but may need to have some sort of conditional trigger, though that could get complex quickly? e.g. troops, number of primarchs, number of individual bases, etc. involved over x period of time

/latenightramble


#12

Nicely put - need you to write my speeches :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I like poking things little by little, nudges in directions if you will, not sweeping changes.

A 15-minute pvp flag isn’t major. Its a slight change to add a little bit of risk to the equation. It hardly means the attacking team has a massive risk of getting wiped out on retalliation, but at least if the team they were picking on is alert, they can reclaim/chase off the aggressors - or not.

Choices


#13

What I was opposed to was the retaliation flag idea which prevented you from returning to the neutral region for X minutes.

I think the idea of being “flagged” is possibly ok. Meaning you can immediately return to the neutral area after attacking, but then you can also be attacked while you are in neutral.

What I wouldn’t want is your average player to attack someone, then have to wait 15 minutes before they can carry on to the next task they wanted to do (return to neutral regions). The implementation of a flag that allows you to be attacked in any area, including neutrals could be tricky, though. Will have to think about the implications.


#14

Agreed fully.

Never meant it should prevent you from leaving, just that you should be able to be chased.


#15

Saying that I disagree with a team that is fully stocked with troops and levelled primarchs being able to hide in the neutral zones while doing sniper attacks on another team. If they want to attack the team should be forced out of the neutral zone.

That allows them to attack without anyone being able to attack them.

The neutral zones should be for teams to retreat and restock before venturing out again. They shouldn’t allow a team to wipe out another with no risk to themselves.


#16

Think I was misread a little (I could have been clearer). When I said the retaliation flag wouldn’t solve the problem, I meant the problem Gox and others have been discussing of teams using neutral zone as a coordinated attack area and then retreating back to neutral. They should have more at risk than just what’s on the primarch. Their garrisoned ships in neutral should also be at risk, same way mine are in the PvP area. These teams are abusing the purpose of the neutral zone and should have it be treated as a PvP zone.


#17

Yep Spooky, thats the issue. Agreed 100 percent


#18

@PGDave Would adding waypoints help? or be able to mark targets? I think sometimes the names and colors make it either really hard to read or easy to get lost.


#19

The latest build (already submitted for review) has some improvements with coloring and visualization. We’re planning on letting teams create and share routes too in the future … those cheese crumbs @xYellowMonkeYx has been asking for too! I’m not sure on the exact timeline for that offhand, but making coordination easier is definitely on our radar.


Atlas – Hold on to your hat Dorothy
#20

jeez, where to start… first off, i am a 220’ish level player at the moment, so that may frame some of my feedback

  1. i agree, there needs to be a limit on troop loss. i know i spent last troop build event building up 28k troops over the event, only to have them destroyed by 2 lvl 450 players in 5 mins after event ended. gee, that was a ton of fun and made me want to play atlas more. on top of that, i had 12 hrs wait to summon the primarch.

  2. no real opinion except its the only safe place when these high level players are killing everything with little resistance.

  3. IMO, there should be 2 options when ‘invading’ others territory. attack, which has limits on what can be lost, and conquest, which should pop up a mini war (think pits 4 hr timer, fight it out for the territory) I do like a flag being set on a player to enable hitting in any zone to prevent hit and hide techniques.

  4. yes yes yes. simplify. the core game is straightforward, easy to understand and progress. atlas is a cluster. i played another game with similar mechanics, and they introduced complex features that drove everyone away.

  5. yes, gold should be growable, hitting mines and poacher non-stop to try and get gold is tedius, and tedium drives people away.

some other items,

in the zoomed out view, a path for primarch moving across map should hilite the entire region you are passing through.

scrolls and shards - these should be more accessible. current event, if you arent lucky in bazaar, you have no chance at getting any in event. if you dont do well in event, you have no interest in playing. it is unreasonable to think everyone needs to buy scrolls and shards.

i dont know if i’ll get in trouble for this, but atlas is a huge hot button w players right now. i have heard more people call it a cancer, abomination, blight, game killer than people praise how great it is (unless you are a very high level player and spender) i know people leaving our team to goto a team without atlas cause game wont launch, introducing lag, frustration, and a few from diamond teams that left to drop to teams without it.

agreed on your last comment, atlas is very geared to a bully environment (as stated in point 1) when i brought this up in a different thread, i believe the employees on this forum implied best solution was to run and go hide elsewhere. (not very helpful IMO)


Glitches and what to do with them