Atlas changes to consider

I agree that we need to agree to disagree on the castle guard minimum. People have a right to their opinions and clearly feel strongly about their positions on each side. I also want to apologize to any teams that were targeted because of my original post or players on those teams that did not agree with it. I will remove names once I am able to edit the post.But the bigger picture is how do we fix atlas to be fun for ALL…

Greed, politics, bullying, bots, and you fill in the blank… will always be a part of any game because it’s a part of real life. But the goal of a game is to have fun!

My suggestions:

-Change the rank structure to be less focused on main game stats and more focused on atlas stats… For example: the rank of a team would be more accurate if it focused on atlas activity, monthly team kills, how many castles a team holds, how long they hold them, and level of infrastructure. I’m sure there are other ideas but just starting the conversation.

-Max guards for all castle levels at 500,000 to make conquers easier

-No surrendering castles

-Remove passage across all land

-Only allow teams to join a TA once a week or a set time to join a TA for the entire atlas season

-Max castles for any team to hold at one time is 25

Please keep responses respectful and let’s have a conversation to help change the game and keep it moving forward…

12 Likes

As long as a large number of teams doesn’t have Atlas access, this would not be fair.
For those teams who do have Atlas Access, but prefer the main game part of WD, this would equally not be fair.

1 Like

Some very nice suggestions there, Poit.

Would you be able to share why you feel that implementation of these suggestions will help the player base and the game? (For PG)

Something along the lines of:

  • Current Problem statement
  • How implementing a particular suggestion can fix this problem?
  • Any additional information with regards to a suggestion - Do you foresee any aftereffects, etc.

This will help PG understand the importance of the aforementioned suggestions.

Thanks for starting this discussion!

1 Like

Won’t be a problem as long as we calculate Atlas Power Rank based on OP’s suggestions:-

Calculation of team rank which decides the league a team is placed in can stay unchanged.

1 Like

I’m curious why you think there needs to be a max CG limit? There are 100s of castles with 2k CG on them. You can conquer as many as you would like.

Or does the mega alliance you listed prevent that from happening?

I see the problem with castles to be simple supply and demand economics. There is a surplus of castles so they hold no value. The new lands are a failed experiment. I think it is time for PG to realize that.

As far as your proposal for max castles, if a team hits your max number then what? Just promoting swap dragons? You propose no surrenders. So we would just sit there with nothing to do?

I feel like your proposals are not making atlas a fluid environment.

I propose we fight over castles for meaningful things like Pineapple on pizza and that Crocs are the greatest shoes ever made. Then we could have meaninful battles…

2 Likes

Hi again, Poit.

I think Hakai has asked some good questions to help you flesh out your thoughts. I have a few additional ones.

  • When you comment on the “rank structure,” are you referring to APR? It seems so, since you refer to it being tied to main game stats, and that is the only Atlas metric so tied. Having high-ranking APR is a pure liability in mechanical terms; the only impact is that it means you get less glory from less highly ranked teams, and give more glory to more highly ranked teams. So in this sense, the more active a team is (or the more it swaps), the greater range of teams would be able to hunt them, which does not seem very good. The top would look much the same as it currently does, but it seems like it could create some problems starting a bit further down.

  • Removing passage / surrenders - How would this work? Passage and trades are historically one of the few ways to approach deep castles.

  • 5TA locking - once per week vs. once per season are very different suggestions. The seasonal timescale seems like it has to incorporate other issues, e.g. disbands and falling outs. Being locked to a limited 5TA for the course of a season and unable to replace seems like it could cause a death spiral for some teams.

In general, it would be good to see some analysis for the expected impact of the suggestions, which would consider both the positive and negative effects.

8 Likes

One of the suggestion I made before which PG tried originally to do but poorly implemented was the entire map refresh.

If the map is refreshed and you get with your 5ta a section of land Eg like a capital that can’t be conquered and then you need to fight for new lands. It would promote attacking rather than defending.

3 Likes

Possibly combine some things from both? I don’t claim to have the answers, just throwing out ideas that might help the dissatisfaction in the game, seen from so many teams disbanding…

My suggestions:
Problem: teams will pull in an alt or be a player down to drop their rank and not be 100% glory for teams they hit to retaliate:
-Change the rank structure to be less focused on main game stats and more focused on atlas stats… For example: the rank of a team would be more accurate if it focused on atlas activity, monthly team kills, how many castles a team holds, how long they hold them, and level of infrastructure. I’m sure there are other ideas but just starting the conversation.
Fixes: Relates atlas activity to atlas rank

Problem: Goal of atlas was originally to have castle turn over and PG decreased guard maximum once before to try and reduce this
-Max guards for all castle levels at 500,000 to make conquers easier
Fixes: Stagnation and creates that turnover, increasing activit… Also decreases the ability to swap CGs over pvp

Problem: Teams get in trouble or a conquer and hand off to a bigger team to save the castle
-No surrendering castles
Fixes: Allowing larger alliances to have the top come in and forces more teams to work as a 5Ta

Problem: We have all seen it… 15/20 teams vs 5
-Remove passage across all land
Fixes: Immediate support outside just your TA

Problem: Team gets in trouble and switches to a larger TA to protect them, as well as, teams leaving TA during pvp to trade castles and swap
-Only allow teams to join a TA once a week or a set time to join a TA for the entire atlas season
Fixes: Goes back to focusing on TA Vs TA and not larger alliances coming in

(This one may not fit as well…)
-Max castles for any team to hold at one time is 25

1 Like

Thanks much!

1 Like

Valid points… I agree on supply and demand and new land not working… I also agree with what you said about max castles, that makes sense and appreciate the insight.

I am not claiming to have the answers just losing discussion to hopefully help the game…

However, pineapple on pizza is just wrong on so many levels… lol

All valid points…

I just see a lot of teams that use surrenders and TA changes to get them out of being conquered and fueling mega alliances. My suggestion is to minimize that and get teams to focus more on TA vs TA.

My team has lost and gained castles and I have no issue when it’s a 5TA hitting us and they beat us, I have actually messaged teams and told them congratulation on a well fought battle.

My team is not at the top and not at the bottom. I don’t hate my enemies because at the end of the day it’s a game with real people and while we may not be on the same side, I still respect everyone. I just want to see the game I love continue… I’m probably too nice for a war game… lol

1 Like

Would definitely switch things up!

I propose we remove castles and implement a more positional ladder type map as you move to the centre you fight stronger and stronger teams. A game where having 100 allies is a problem helping the team ranked hundred of levels below you is a hinderance to your own teams growth a world where alliances are fleeting while they aid both parties.

A land where the best hold the best and receive their just rewards. Getting there is easy though. You hold what everyone wants the boosts the ritches the crown.

Watch your back it’s not one who comes but the many they want that which is yours. With great rewards comes a great burden there is nowhere to hide your 700 no hits and 100ta wants your bling.

Or perhaps they are just bitches will bend the knee for your scraps long live the war peasants.But who will aid them when a champion arises? Will you vacate your position to help in their desperate hour or will your colours be shown to all.

Imagine a map where you eat what you kill but only if you eat quick as many want what you have.

3 Likes

Yes this is a great idea

Can we see this for the current set of changes I would find this helpful if I could follow the process.

Edit analysis of course is not casual observation and assumption. There have been many games in this vein so I assume this data has been looked at and there are many examples where growth has occurred?

1 Like

There’s no “Mega Alliance “ within her post. It’s multiple teams from multiple alliances. Weather they work together or not is irrelevant.

1 Like

As much as I’d enjoy this as all these teams couldn’t cry to dominus as much. It wouldn’t be fair tbh as a ta like mine or dom could just come decimate any number of teams. I do believe that passage is needed in some cases to keep the battle somewhat even. It’s just when it’s overused that it becomes an annoyance. I’m not sure there’s a way to dictate when and where passage can be used ‘fairly’.

3 Likes

Make a goal. A worthwhile season reward that people can work towards.

Build it in a way that hurts a large amount of teams working together. People would be less likely to band together if they are only helping another team win.

1 Like

Just a little out of the box thinking here, but maybe the answer isn’t remove passage but turn it into a defensive mechanic which allows to travel directly to a castle but comes with a large blockade penalty. This blockade would need to be different from the regular blockade in that it allows to move off the castle but not onto neighbouring castles

4 Likes

I agree with the rank structure to be more focused on atlas stats.

Regarding guards: A lot of resources are put into maintaining a castle. It’s only fair that they are not taken away that easily.

I don’t understand the problem with surrendering castles. It’s a peaceful transaction between teams.

Removing passage means you need to be 24/7 logged into the game. By the time you log in, it’s not possible to counter snipe in any way (in most cases).

TA has never been a problem but mega alliance is a problem. If you are a team with 5TA fighting against 100 teams, you are going to lose. It needs to be a fair playground for people to be fighting for it and makes the game interesting.

I believe based on the open map mechanics of atlas, it’s not possible to restrict teams to have only 5TA. With the lost lands concept, by not allowing platinum and below teams to go there does the trick. They need to do that on the larger scale ie for the whole map. Then the diamond/sapphire won’t be poking into platinum team business or vice versa.
One other method would be: have atlas teams be put into similar leagues as the main game and fight within the teams or make a 5TA within the league and fight between 5TAs. And gain rankings every week like pvp.

Even if it is not great glory, some teams still hit others. So if they hit below some threshold (like 50%below), let the attacking primarch lose all troops with no revives possible.

Regarding the 10% loss in infrastructure, it doesn’t justify the resources put into the castle vs the rewards gained. Most teams will keep the infrastructure at the minimum level.

3 Likes