A Sword and a Shield: pls fix neutral zone raiding

Hi @PGDave,

Happy holidays to you and the Atlas team.

Once you guys are done enjoying the holidays, can you please fix the unfair asymmetry around staging neutral zone raids? The neutral zone was always supposed to be a respite for teams that got wiped and needed to rebuild. Instead it’s used by cherry pickers to launch raids without putting garrisoned troops at risk since they’re in neutral. PvP flags need to be turned on for people attacking out of neutral. A sword or a shield, both is asymmetrical.

Also still need to fix the 1 prim nonsense, it still works unfortunately.

4 Likes

Could you remind me what the one prim issue? I’m not 100% sure what you’re referring to.

We’re considering some alternatives, but to some extent I’m not opposed to letting people raid from neutrals – they suffer by not being able to control territory. But, especially for teams which are still ramping up and cannot yet control territory, being able to participate in PvP is important. I used to be more bullish on the pvp flag, but it seems like blockades may be sufficient – you can’t counter-attack their garrison, but you can kill their primarch. Part of the challenge of owning land is fending off invaders, perhaps.

1 Like

A lot of teams building troops like a crazy in neutral zone,being protected from attacks.
So they have about 700-800k troops(for example) and some 400+ lvls (which don’t looks like a weak team)
This ppm regularly killing teams,which are close to neutral zone,and running away,so they couldn’t be attacked back.
It’s a nonsense,because safe zone supposed to protect victims,not let ppl build unlimited troops and hit who they want.
Also,the problem is,that some of them are using this 1 troop exploit,so they can conquer(for example,3 islands in one region) and you’ll need 3*100k troops to be able to took your lands back.
It’s very annoying and unfair.
We all will be very happy if it could be changed in any possible way.
For example,if safe zones will be “PVP available” during war events in Atlas
Or if safe zones will have castles which couldn’t be conquered by anyone,but will be available to hit.
I’m not sure which will work better,but currently,it looks unfair,like permanently shield for some teams who actually don’t need protection

2 Likes

Opening safe zones during war events is an interesting idea.

Perhaps we’ll allow teams to declare “Atlas war” too, and that there’s no limits to fighting your opponent in neutral territory when a war is ongoing. (It’d obviously need to have some cost, but this could let teams get revenge.)

2 Likes

Sounds nice :slight_smile:
I think it won’t hurt ppl who really needs to rebuild in neutral,because we have PVP events every 2 weeks only,if I’m not wrong.
So it should be enough to revive troops and conquer new lands somewhere,if team was wipeout earlier.
At the same time it won’t allow teams to build tons of troops and be untouchable

@PGDave that issue clearly wasn’t fixed. A team we were battling summoned 6-7 primarchs with ours present so clearly this is not working as intended.

Weird, thanks for the heads up. We’ll look into it on our test environment and try to get to the bottom of it.

@Panda Do you mean they summoned on a Neutral castle with you, or on a contested castle?

On a contested castle with 3-4 enemy primarchs present. It was akin to the 1 troop glitch.

2 Likes

This is kind of my point though, established teams are doing this too and teams are building forever in neutral and taking advantage of the asymmetry. It seems to me if you want to enter the arena you should face the same risk as the other entrants.

In any event I like the proposals to either make PvP events fully PvP in all zones or some sort of beta war concept could be interesting. If you pursue a guerilla campaign you might face Operation Linebacker II after all…

As for 1 troop prims I still see people summon prims at forts under siege and think there should be more than a nominal troop requirement on a prim to prevent garrison hits.

Strangely, I’m not currently able to summon a Primarch at my home due to enemies being there. So it seems to work sometimes at least. Trying to figure when it doesn’t work with the help of our QA team.

Beta war / no-holds-bar PvP in all zones event seem like a good direction to explore.

Ok, as a new atlas player i do not see the huge issue, but maybe i am missing something

If you do not own land but camp out in the neutral zone, you really miss out on : extra xp, bank to store gold and dump resources, more gold boosts, as well as more crystals and the ability to boost those crystal payouts.

Sure you can build troops, but what is wrong with that considering a large number of teams that have land in atlas have had more time and able to amass more troops. Plus they have had the added benefit of obtaining more crystals and potentially more xp. This in turn means stronger dragons and better gear. Seems like a good balance.

And as a mid to lower 100 player, opening up the neutral zone to attacks in war events sounds like an absolutely horrible idea. Currently there is no mechanism to stop lvl 300+ from attacking me. SO essentially if you did this it would mean that i had to stay in my home continent from fear of being constantly wiped out the second i hit a safe zone, and what the hell fun is that. I require these safe zones to get around to do sneak hits to gain glory on teams that maybe i can sneak in and hit or even make it to further away red zones.

I’m biased as well. On the one hand I totally understand the frustration of spooky on the other hand we had the same crap with teams hitting from safe zones but we dealt with it the way to have always some lower levels with taunters there and some big guns who killed the enemies off. At one point we just waited until we saw the red line and as soon as they landed we killed them. Was pretty fun.

Also introducing such things like attackable safe zones is an error itself. As long as this isn’t a global issue but affects a team out of 200 this cannot be priority by any means @PGDave. This would produce more damage than gain.

We had some idiots who killed with their lv 500 base whole teams the price we have to pay now is called slimers. Ugh.

Don’t change beta for 200 teams bc a handful idiots exploit the system.

Clear NO from my side.

It seems to me if safe zones were not safe, it would just be abused to further kill players stuck in the safe zone and encourage more downward killing.

The game needs to incentivize upward and across competition.

I’m open to making changes, but if players without land have nowhere to go, i bet tons won’t play. (I for one would stop building troops if there was no way to build up enough to do anything with them)

I’m not convinced that there is a problem with staging, but I do like the idea that one should not be able to move troops en mass without some kind of downside.

What if you could only place troops at your home and not just anywhere, and you couldn’t change your home more than once every 24 hours? It would limit that mechanic significantly. Maybe combine that with some downside for not using territory you own for home… just an idea.

Part of the problem is the neutral zone is being used by teams in a wide variety of circumstances. Depending on your mental model, your view of what’s appropriate and fair will change.

Among other neutral zone attackers, we have a team I’ve never heard of with several high 400 and 500 levels (these random super high levels just seem to proliferate out of nowhere, no idea there were so many people that just decide to drop $50k+ for their mobile app entertainment needs but I digress) always swinging by for raids. They have a large stockpile of troops garrisoned in neutral totally safe while ours are at risk.

We’ve had some of the biggest and most successful teams in beta park 1 million+ troops in neutral as a forward operating base for takeover attempts. Again, totally safe from counter attacks.

And yes, there are teams using neutral as intended who are barely scraping by.

So a “one size fits all” approach is hard to tailor but I do think we need some sort of experimentation because scenarios 1 and 2 are free riding off 3 in the current status quo.

So I’m open to the idea that some combination of turning PvP flags on for attackers/limiting the number of troops that can be protected in neutral by player/team or some other targeted solution is preferable to a limited “open season” or a beta war concept, but we do need a better solution than the current state of affairs.

1 Like

Or what if the safe zone is only safe for your team if you don’t attack anyone. If you hit a team, you lose your safe zone status for 24 hours or whatever.

3 Likes

@TheRedDelilah Keywords: Herding cats. In case you have one newbie in the team who needs g points and attacks at own will the whole team is endangered.

This would work in a perfect world with mature players and minus noobs. That’s not the case as we both know.

:joy::joy: true that man, true that.

Well. There has to be a balance somewhere between giving neutral zone a protective bubble for team to build while also not giving hit and run assholes save Haven whole they attack.

@Spooky one thing is still not clear to me. When the safe zone pirates land they usually get delayed at our islands. So no possibility of hit and run for them.

When shields are up they can’t attack us so what’s the actual situation of your „hit and run“ problem?

They can kill the prims there and start whacking at garrison. They only risk what they bring but we have all troops at risk, not just what we have on prims. Does that clarify it better @Warlord?

And why should a team using neutral as a FOB with 1M+ troops be treated the same as some down on their luck platinum team scraping by with not many troops while rebuilding in neutral.

We need a system that recognizes these different realities.