Atlas - Discussion on anti-griefing mechanism ideas

@PGDave @xYellowMonkeYx @XxSPOOKYxX @Doc @Panda and anyone else I forgot that has had input in this (sorry)


Ok – lets try something different.

  1. I’m going to aggressively ask Moderators to remove posts that are off topic, person on team bashing, or moan fests.

We have a real chance here to do something good for the game in general, and I don’t want this devolving into a “spenders are idiots” or “spenders ruin the game” or " this isnt candy crush" etc discussions. If this is all you can add - walk away.

For the rest - lets see if we can brainstorm some useful ideas that are fair on most sides. Not just the perspective we are coming from


Ok so atlas is a persistent world, so teams kind of have to live together and fight each other. like bad neighbors meet fight club. And although its human nature to pick easier fights, for the love of the game, we need a system that discourages griefing of lower levels/teams; while not providing rewards for sandbagging or reverse-griefing.


  1. Big teams steamrolling little teams
  2. Griefing in atlas for perceived slights in main game
  3. Having a place for everyone, while keeping things fair for bigger players (can’t punish bigs for being big)
  4. League differences and league sandbagging.


In an ideal world, you want the persistent world not artificially limited one way or the other, you want all teams to exist in it, and naturally combat each other, without necessarily favoring a side. You want the motivation to remain pushing the boundaries, you want teams to try take out BIGGER teams, not always pick the underdog and pick on them.

Suggestions (all suggestions here are discussion points - not set in stone

  1. Haven

This was brought up by Doc before I believe (might recall wrong), but the essence is this

Give each team in atlas a home abase in an area called “haven”
This is say a level 1 zone, with 2 islands, a mine and a poacher set. It is essentially a safe zone, with ownership. The existing portal mechanic for teams can then be used, where teams can venture out into other zones, but always retreat back here if needed. Cannot thus be completely “wiped” out.

I feel it shouldn’t be a pocket dimension, but rather a smallish continent called haven - and the natural progression should be to travel out, not magically appear somewhere, unless you have land there.

The reason why I don’t feel its the same as a safe zone - it can be owned, teams can feel safe there, and it cannot be used as a location for a griefing platform (more on this later)

2. League shield

The idea here is like this (for defending aka you get attacked at an island you own)

  • The current defense shield mechanic from fort applies
  • Eg. lets say you have a level 2 zone, and a maxxed fort —> you need to lose 75k troops for the shield to activate as is
  • Suggestion si that the league you are in vs the one thats attacking you triggers this sooner or later. Eg if attacked by player in same league = 100% needed to trigger, 1 league down 50%, two leagues down 20%

The suggestion is that this scales depending on league difference. E.g. lets say the attacker is from a d1 team, a lvl 500 player, and your team is in platinum league

What will happen is this, when being attacked the 75k shield, will deploy after 20% is destroyed as a “league shield” — e.g. once 15k troops are killed a league shield deploys, stopping pvp by the team against you for 48hours.

If he was in Sapphire, it would require say 37.5k destroyed, and deploy for maybe 36hours, same league it would be 70k, 24h.

This would result in pvp still happening, but shields protect you sooner if large discrepancy.

3. Team attack/level rating.
Alternative to league shield, is a team score based on the summation of player levels (eg a team with 50 level 200’s has a team score of 10k, and one with 50 level 100’s has a score of 5000).

Or summation of attack power or defense power or whatever.

Once this discrepancy is say over 30%, the lower team starts getting things in their favour. E.g. their revive rates go up, their infrastructure doesn’t lose levels when destroyed, or their forts gain an attack and defense bonus.

Lets say said level 500 d1 player attacks a platinum team again. The teams team rating is say 15000 (50 level 300 players on average), and the platinum teams rating is 7500 (50x 150 players), the team score bonus would increase the effectiveness of the fort by 100%. (2:1) ratio, so basically the defending team will kill twice as many troops vs what they would have done vs equal strength team.

One thing that is great about a system using a team score, is it doesn’t reward sandbagging. I don’t want to see any system where a d1 team drops down leagues for rewards, e.g. mini pvp atlas event rewards.

4. Troop limits
Perhaps a troop ceiling of sorts

E.g. say diamond has max troops of 500k/player; 25mil per team
Sapphire 750k/; 30mil/team
Plat 1mil/ 50mil/team

The main reason here would be to stop whales from creating a scenario where 1 player owns more troops than entire teams combined.

**5. Underdog primarchs/

Maybe create a primarch with underdog passive. If being attacked by player >50 levels above you, on annihilation primarch explodes for minimum damage of x/level


Level 1 primarch (underdog), if >50 levels difference, primarch explodes for additional 1k troops destroyed
Level 15 primarch (underdog), if >50 levels difference, primarch explodes for additional 7.5k troops destroyed

So thats a few ideas for stopping top-down griefing

Now for down-up griefing

1 - From neutral zone
The current mechanism where someone sits in neutral zone, and keeps on picking at you, yet you cannot hit them back is frustrating and unfair. This whittles down teams over a period, without the ability to get rid of the pests.

My feeling is if you are adjacent to the team you are attacking, your pvp flag should become active against that team for say 30 mins. Means running into the safe zone - you can be followed and attacked for 30 mins.

2 - Griefing by launching lots of 1 troop attacks
Any combat using non-significant numbers (aka no skin in the game), should result in default banner losses. When attacking or being attacked, a simple popup should appear saying X was destroyed. No glory no hammers, no boosts, no heal pots nothing. Just poof gone.

3- rewarding high-level risk play
Essentially people hit low/easy teams cause its risk-free and rewarding. I strongly suggest a system where hitting teams ranked higher than you should be rewarded. You want to reward people fighting hard fights, you want to reward and push people to always be better.

The tiered rewards level for atlas events was attempting that I think, but I honestly feel that the glory mechanic should be used here.

If I as a level 300 player, knocks down level 500 players, there should be a glory reward for that. It is much harder than picking on say a level 150 player.

The current system is pointless – If I attacked using my rusher, and I abandon the attack at 0%, it takes no time, I gain maximum glory, and yes only revive 66%. But I do better in event/glory earned. This is counter-productive.

You should be rewarding excellent battles, not reward people for dying.

What it boils down to is this
You need a combination of incentives and punishments that “encourages” players to not grief low-level players, always combat teams of equal or better standing, and reward excellent execution - not sandbagging and trade killing.

Ok that’s a mouthful,

Now we need ideas and input from other players, shoot down the ideas, add ideas, tweak them whatever.


Have to say, this is some well thought out ideas. Not sure I have really anything major to add right now but I like what you have presented.

On the “Haven” topic, I would suggest:

  1. The team that owns the “haven” region can summon whether or not others are sitting at their castle (like safe zones).

  2. No blockade time at “haven” region castles.

  3. Permanent shields at “haven” region castles. However, since there will be no blockades the team that owns the castle CAN attack any enemy sitters.

  4. PVP is active on haven region mines/poachers.

This ultimately is a mix between safe zones and regular regions. Pvp is allowed on mines and poachers. Also pvp is allowed where the team that owns the “haven” area can attack enemies at their castles. This provides pvp ability, the pvp situations where an enemy may want to try to come through to take over poachers or mines (until destroyed) and allows the owning team to kill off any sitters.

Basically, yeah an enemy can still cause you some mine or poacher issues, but they have no benefit to sit on your islands and wait for them. They also, unless are just roaming around, don’t have much reward for just sitting on your Mine or poacher, however, if they are passing through or want to do a team plunder, they do have the choice to pile up on your mine or poacher. However, with a level 1 region and castles they cannot Attack at or own, there would be far less times of them just hanging around forever as it takes their primarch and troops away from their home.

I would almost want to suggest that the safe zones become the new “havens”. This way, any one team cannot just sit and build, sit and build, sit and build with absolutely no risk at all. This however, would give them risk (minimal it may be) to hit the mine or poacher. However, everyone would have their own haven and castles that would be a true home to them and never lost.


I probably have a different perspective from this than some but here goes:

  1. Havens, I completely agree with this, I think every team should be able to have one base to always keep. If you extend beyond that then you should be willing to risk and fight for it but always having a place to go home to will stop a lot of teams from being completely wiped out.

2/3) League shield, interesting as a concept but completely impractical when implemented. Prizes are already skewed and sandbagging is rewarded. All people are going to do is intentionally lose in order to try and maximize their advantage. Additionally, this reeks of “No Child Left Behind”, when you start to punish teams for doing well, it just becomes a race to the bottom.

  1. Troop limits, I get the idea but then…troops are a consumable. If this is seen as unfair, then we need to limit ALL consumables from health potions, inner fire, energy, gems. Because simply picking one thing to limit doesn’t make sense. I also want to look at the leaderboard as a metric, NMO as a team has the most kills. Yet they don’t have the most troops often. Limiting their troops isn’t going to change anything. They would likely still do that exact same amount of damage as before,so a moot point.

  2. Underdog Primarchs, once again. If this was a truly free game sure. But I think when you get too far into punishing people who either spend or excel. They are going to quit because it makes no sense. If you tell me, spend thousands of dollars so that if you fight someone THEY have an advantage…I feel like that is a tough sell.

The issue is see with the map is even the best intentions often aren’t thought out and come with horrible application. Most recently, they HUGELY lowered glory. Okay, so people get glory slower which you THINK should slow the pace of the upper end. Nope, it just means they have to kill more in order to level a primarch.

A lot of this comes down to what PG seems to always do, rather than build an incentive system, they try to change mechanics to FORCE people to do things. I have yet to see that work in a positive or really effective manner. Islands are way too easy to kill for the most part and they really offer little true benefit. As far as team to team combat, you basically have a system where there is ZERO INCENTIVE for higher ranked teams to fight each other. In fact, you have made it where the most efficient path is to attack small teams because you get the same relative result and easier. Sure…you can try and force mechanics but if you start to punish your revenue base too much to have forced equality, then there goes the revenue. I have yet to see an actual reason for teams to compete against each other. There is no real prize or incentive to do so. Until you have that, this is just going to continue. That is basically what Gox said and I agree but I think trying to scale back the upper end never works as intended. Just give people a reason to actually want to fight each other.

1 Like

Very well thought out ideas @Gox1201 . I especially like the better incentives such as encouraging a risky playstyle and earning GP scaled to the level difference like the XP earning in the core game.

But I also think @Panda has some valid points. I am generally afraid of any system that generalizes players too much, league shields might have a bad influence.

There are already weaker teams that managed to coexist with top 5 D1 teams on a very small map.
I believe that when GP payout suck for a highlevel when attacking a lowlevel (like in the core game), there will be more incentive to attack other highlevel players. But the nice thing about Atlas is that you can attack highlevel players from lower leagues.
I think the possibility to finally fight on a global scale without league restrictions should not be lost, this is what makes Atlas live up to its name.

With the right incentives and anti-griefing mechanics that don’t act too restrictive Atlas can definitely be improved.
Also the bigger the map, the easier for small teams to get a foot in. Even the biggest team only has 50 players and can’t conquer the whole world of Atlas.


I support the idea of this in theory, my concerns are that as Panda notes, there really isn’t that much difference between territory levels in practice. Teams should be incentivized to seek out territory in the world at large, if too many benefits are available risk free and are not significantly worse than those in the PvP zones, more teams will basically opt out of Atlas instead of try to improve. One of the drawbacks to being totally in neutral is no team bank, for example. Also agree with Monkey that just building forever risk free is also kind of suboptimal, especially with neutral zone griefing/trolling.

In my opinion, there needs to be appropriate balance between giving every team a haven in Atlas on the one hand, with giving appropriate incentives to compete in PvP zones and to have the hassles of owning territory, on the other. If “totally safe” is too competitive with “taking risks”, why take them?

League Shield

This I’m not in favor of. I can only imagine the sandbagging and chicanery. There are already too many incentives to sandbag in lower leagues, adding yet another isn’t something I can favor.

A few more scenarios–1. 3-4 D1 teams team up with a bunch of gnat teams and push me out of my territory, and give it to a gnat team. They were the aggressors and now hide behind a league shield. 2. 10 teams from different leagues all attack me at once (have a surprising amount of experience with this haha). What league shield should apply in these multi team battles?

Team attack ratings

Not as bad at first glance as a league based distinction, but again seems to envision mostly 1 on 1 scenarios. Maybe my experience is different, but most of my big battles have involved getting swarmed by multiple teams. I would be absolutely livid if teams with less attack power or whatever got an advantage in that situation.

Troop limits

There is definitely an issue when 1 player can hold more troops than most teams combined. One of the biggest balance problems in Atlas is mega whales can have way more of an impact stocking up on the troop consumable than than they can with virtually any other consumable (closest analogue is probably energy packs/IF to dominate PvP majors with mega attacks, but I would argue the troop consumable is far more consequential). Of course major spenders should (and do) have significant advantages, but significant should not mean “absolutely hopeless” for everyone else. In my opinion, something does need to be done to ensure that the advantages conferred by spending in Atlas equate to a significant advantage, not an absolute determinant of outcome in 99% of the cases.

I don’t favor team caps based on leagues for the same reason I don’t favor most league based approaches–sandbagging and chicanery. Plus, let’s just say I’m in Plat with 50 million troops. I win a war and go up to Sapphire. What happens to those 20 million troops?

*Neutral Zone griefing

Absolutely agree. If your team wants to hit out of the neutral zone, there should be some mechanic in place to give a right of retaliation.

One troop prims

Yes, anything which is done to exploit game mechanics like this should be discouraged as much as possible. Of course, you have to consider what is the appropriate number to constitute a “real” unit or else you will soon see 2 troop prims etc.

High risk play

Definitely agree in theory, once again will note that any such system will need to account for multi team attack scenarios.

The currently glory system that makes rewards easier for failure need to be changed ASAP.

Having glory scale up and down by relative player level difference is an interesting idea, but backers skew that somewhat. A level 80 attacking a level 180 is bold indeed, but a level 80 backed by a 350 hitting a 180 is not exactly a challenge…

Thanks for all the thoughtful discussion so far. My 2c:

  1. Retaliation flag – great idea. If you attack someone, your Primarchs and garrisons should be vulnerable to counterattack (at least from the team you aggressed). It has to be ALL your primarchs/garrisons or the hit-and-runners will still just run and park their troops somewhere safe since losing the Primarch itself isn’t a huge deal. This might have to include shielded territory too, though that’s probably less critical and maybe even suboptimal. Thoughts? It’s a little messy because if one person from team A attacks someone on team B, then all of team A’s garrisons become vulnerable (not just for the one aggressor, but their whole team … they’re all in the same garrison together).

  2. Players are much better rewarded for excellent battles. But it takes more battles to rack up those points. Losing gets you more glory in the short-term, but once you’ve revived you’ll find yourself much worse off. It’s a losing strategy. I want to make winning feel better though, and am looking into it. It’s challenging to do this without making griefing weak players the optimal strategy … attackers need to do just as well blowing up people their level as players who are much weaker or it won’t be much fun for anyone but those at the top of the totem pole.

  3. Troop limits don’t make sense to me. If someone can build 1 million troops, then limiting them to 100k just means they’d build 100k 10 times. A bit more work maybe, but it doesn’t really change anything. Building a team-sized army isn’t so viable anymore – if you try, I think you’ll find that sailor costs ramp up rapidly (like energy) which makes building a huge army in one day a much less likely affair.

  4. Infrastructure getting stored when you lose your continent seems to provide most of the benefits of Havens without the complexity or risks that come with Havens. I’m less bullish on Havens as a result now.

Incredible and useful thread. Thanks!

  1. Retaliation Flag proposal #2 – What if only the Primarch which attacks gets an aggression timer (say 10min?) which prevents it from moving into any safe zone (but it is free to move anywhere else) until that timer expires? This is much simpler and more fair I think that the previous retaliation flag proposal (which exposes all of the attackers’ assets and their team’s garrisons to attack).

Would this then make a “hearthstone” possible?

I’m not sure that is ‘fair’ Dave. In practice then all a team has to do is keep sending out the player who doesn’t give a damn and who will keep replacing their troops. They will likely also just wait until a team’s low activity times and then get away with it. I don’t think a team should be able to do hit and runs, hiding in safe zones to protect from retaliation at all.

You can ‘live’ peacefully in the safe zone not bothering anyone and get very little reward. Or come out to play with others which has more risk with greater rewards but the team should be forced out of the ‘safe zone’ to compete with others.

Perhaps with a window of time before they can retreat back to the safe like 48hrs or so with an automatic trigger that they can push if they lose ‘x’ percentage of their troops? Maybe.

1 Like

Awesome input everyone. Love the counter view ideas - really helps. The long and short of it we all have different perspectives and experiences in Atlas, e.g Panda’s view and mine are vastly different since they are on the top of the foodchain, and we are mildly put, not. So the different points are well taken.

Lets see:

  1. Haven

I think xYellowMonkeYx 's ideas are very solid on Haven. It should be a mix between safe zone and regular regions. I have a different view on the use of Safezones for the future, and have some thoughts on that I’ll share at some point, but I’d prefer if they remain safezones and not Haven’s. I’d very much like to discourage a team just sitting in a safezone, building and building and building, then hitting a team for points and retreating scott-free.

Panda is sort of echoing the idea that a “safe home base” should be a baseline, but venturing out should be a risk. I much prefer this than the current sit in safe zone and harass other teams with no consequence. This should tie in with the later discussion on risks when hitting from safe zones - more there.

I’m with Spooky on the idea that the incentives to hit up should be there, instead of the stick to stop you from hitting down. In other words, players need to WANT higher territories.

Would it be too crippling to not have Poachers in safe zones? That way teams should want to expand to some degree to get poachers of certain colors?

  1. League shield

Hmmm this one is tricky. I’m favoring abandoning the idea for now. I think its a workable in theory, but I’m afraid as posted by most of you, that players will find a “creative use of game mechanics” to use this to grief higher teams / to sandbag. I doubt its possible to model it accurately for multi-team wars as Spooky said, so lets just can it for now.

  1. Team attack/level rating
  • I think this is the better solution than League shield. It is detrimental for sandbagging teams, and as such should level things a little bit. I think with a bit of tweaking this might be useful.

I still think we need some sort of mechanism to stop griefing. A lvl 540 player with a level 15 say… destroyer attacking a platinum team will wipe out the entire team without the team having a chance at all. He might not gain anything, but I already see in-game threats of griefing. Oh you dared to attack me for resources, we will come wipe you out in atlas so you lose months (well probably weeks) of progress.

This type of behavior needs a counter that’s not “reporting to pg”. We need a mechanism, which allows a smaller team to have some way of beating said base, based on teamwork.

This brings me back to either a primarch with an ability tied into said team ranking, where a debuff stacks on a primarch thats attacking way below its level. Eg if a level 500 hits a level 100, a debuff gets added, which means each follow up attack he will lose an extra 5% of troops or whatever. The value is an example. Or, more elegant, when large team rating discrepancy exists, a minimum +1000/2000/3000 troop loss gets affected.

Its not ideal, but you cannot have a scenario where one person takes out a team. Skill yes - but impossible odds no. So whether you implement it on a player basis, or team shield by team ranking basis, a mechanism is needed.

Back in beta the weak teams survived by teaming up, and hitting bigger teams. Now the big teams have teamed up. Also they were able to transfer lots and lots of troops to a single “big” player in their team and defend him like crazy - this “protected” the smaller primes. This cannot be done anymore (which is a good thing - they were basically just acting like troop farms - no fun in that). But what it means is that the old methods of small teams surviving are gone - something new is needed.

  1. Troop limits
    This is a pay to win mechanic, and needs to be counter-acted somehow. It is true that its harder to get millions, but seriously. We have players that dropped $15k or more on new tower levels within minutes of them being released. These same players will still spend thousands to “win” at atlas. Its not a big deal in normal game - you simply ignore said player and go on, but in atlas this isn’t possible - because said player’s team will not just ignore you. I cannot see any justification why someone that buys 5 million troops should have an unlimited ability to take out a team, regardless of cost.

Currently that hypothetical player can load up his level 15 destroyer, >500 base, and just attack a team over and over. They will wipe on him without him losing anything at all (yes he loses a few troops, but really what is a 150k troops lost to revive out of 5mil?). Yes he might lose 500k troops, and revive 350k but the other team has been wiped out. Its flawed

  1. Reversed griefing

Retalliation flags

  • These should be set per player not per team, not per island. Just that single player. A 15 minute flag should be more than sufficient to allow a team to chase someone into a neutral zone which is then not neutral. If you want you can create a system where the more retalliation flags a team has lit up, the more the effect becomes

eg 1 player has a retal flag — that players primes are pvp open even in safe zones; if say more than 5 players have retal flags, that team is set to PVP active for say 4hours.

The values can be debated - but once again, the use of safe zones for “risk free attacking” is wrong.

Panda has the truth of it here - there needs to be a motivation for risky behaviour, for taking and HOLDING land. If the gains are worthwhile, people will risk more. There needs to be a serious motivation to hit on your level, or slightly up. And little to no reward to hit far down. Not punishment, just no reward.

High risk play

  • I think there should be incentives for this, and they should come in the form of glory. This truly is what “glory” in battle should be no? Defending against all odds, winning against all odds type of scenario.
    I think this might be the best idea from my various mumblings.

Rewarding risky behaviour by G scaling, will generally make players not hit smalls since they would gain no G points (so they would truly be griefing). The caveat would be if smalls hit you, you should still gain G points if at your islands. Otherwise a reverse griefing situation will be created where a team of smalls are sent in to attack bigger players, they gain massive G points for whatever wins, yet the defender gets nothing for defending.

We need to think a bit about stopping “gaming” the system, like Spooky said, a level 80 backed by a 350 hitting a 180 is not challenging.

My knee-jerk reaction was that the percentage killed by the main attacker should determine the glory awarded, but even that is stupidly easy to game the system. The only way I can see it balanced is to take away the glory gained percentage the more dragons are used, else you will just have a sand fest, followed by ember/frostbiter/whomever

So more thoughts needed. I really think there should be glory incentives for hitting up.

Once again Panda has the crux here - why would say Dread and Bwab fight it out? Or NMO and Japz or whomever? They only stand to weaken themselves, they can much easier go and pick on 1stNF :stuck_out_tongue:, steamroll over us, and gain much and lose little

Dave -

I don’t think infrastructure storage = haven. I think infrastructure storage was HUGE improvement, but I can tell you from exprience, if a team gets destroyed and has to move over and over, the motivation to rebuild will drop away fast. I think a single haven area of low zone quality, would tremendously reduce complaints of teams getting wiped out by bigger teams - yes they won’t necessarily be able to head out into zone 5 territory, but getting wiped totally is hugely demoralizing. Even if they rebuild quickly -1- they need to first get primarchs and then kick another team out (which isn’t easy unless they gang on a smaller team), and -2- said team could just be attacked again, and each time infrastructure loses a level. Repeat this 3-4 days in a row and suddenly they have nothing.

Heathstones - the point is a “take me home” button. Mostly for people that have gotten stuck somewhere they shouldnt have, or got lost and can’t seem to get home, etc. The cooldown timer of 8 hours is to not make it an abusive system, and the reason it should have a windup of say 15mins is to stop it from being a griefing tool. In other words its a quality fo life change.

I agree with protections being put in place. I’m not a bully at heart, never have been. I’m in D1 and we war and compete with other D level teams, I have no issue with that. Raiding rss in the normal game doesn’t destroy the player or team.

Now progressively we are all forced into the same playpen. I hate that the gameplay right now pushes us in the direction of fighting teams that really are not in the same league. Saying that. If a baby team alines themselves with a bigger team or otherwise to take on another big team they shouldn’t be protected from that action just because they are a baby team. They knew what they were doing, or should have. Call it a learning lesson. Baby teams are not always the poor little innocent team being picked on and wearing the halo.

Saying that I don’t like rolling over baby teams any more than I like those who kick puppies.

1 Like

I think this lead back to incentives. That way if you attack a smaller team you are make a clear choice to forgo something in order to get it done. Right now a small team/player is exactly the same as a larger one. I still think you need to at KOTH/prize zones for people to fight over. This will give rewards and give people of more equal strength a reason to fight each other or they miss out on something, something worth missing out on. If you you tell me I need to kill 1m ships to obtain 20 heal pots for example…I am not going to do that.

1 Like
  1. It might be a coding nightmare, but the ideal “game” solution is that all of the attacker’s assets should be at risk for x period of time. Is it possible to code so that autofill attaches to the attacker for this time period no matter where they are? Might be a way to put only the attacker’s assets at risk and not the entire team. Otherwise they will just attack until dead and go right back to neutral with no more risk of loss, always choosing the time and place of attack and never having to worry about larger consequences.

  2. The problem as I see it is that players tend to want things like event points and leveling up their primarchs and right now the most expeditious way to accomplish both is to lose badly. Any system that rewards failure for event points and leveling is antithetical to pretty much any game with RPG like elements I’ve ever played. I do understand the griefing concern–but I think it’s best handled by creating positive rewards for “punching up” rather than rewarding failure to penalize “punching down”. Of course the tricky thing here is we are going to have big disparities in leagues and there are multiteam attack scenarios simply not present in the main game. I mean, The Bros attacked us–not exactly much of a concern, but they were hitting along with about 8 D1 and D2 teams, and they have a few 300 level players too that are no easier to deal with than a 300 from a D1 team…

  3. I am not sold on a troop limit full stop, but I do think there is a concern still with the impact of pay troops. Look at the weekly build charts–there are newly added teams with people who built almost 500k troops in 1 week…that’s way more than a full team can build in a week with perfect cadence building from the entire team (never going to happen anyway). I think the lesson of WD is it’s not viable for 99+% of people, but that remaining fraction are either completely price-inelastic or are using the services of hackers to buy in staggering numbers–in this case to build up massive unbalanced troop consumable numbers. And in my opinion the troop consumable is the most powerful one in the game since so much can change in terms of benefits if you get wiped off the map.

  4. I can still see a benefit to them, but I have real concerns outlined above that there needs to be much sharper distinctions between “risk free” and “risk” play before I could agree it was a good idea. I mean, is there really a huge practical difference between level 2 and level 4 territories at the moment?

How about instead of limiting the total number of troops, limit the weekly number you can build and revive?

In other words, cap weekly new troops on say 30k (thats pretty much double what you can get from max grinding).

That should stop the exponential increase that spenders get?

They can still max it ofc, but at least not to the magnitude of 500k-1mil.

This seems like a promising avenue to explore to give big spenders a decided advantage but not a crazy multiple over what can be accomplished by even the most dedicated grinding. There should still be some room for teamwork and strategy to possibly overcome a big spender.


Peasants/bullhorns already increase in cost exponentially, resetting daily. I think this fairly balances the ability to grind vs purchase troops. Try it out; I think you might find the balance is less off than you suspect. (Very different than hiring sailors as recently as 3.60.)

I’ve also been thinking about adding a daily revive limit. But this might not be very fun for anyone … if you have space to heal troops, then if someone wants to grind out a bunch of battles and use their troops (and heals) that doesn’t seem unreasonable.

@Gox1201 Max grinding can get you ~25k ships/week (assuming your team owns good territory and you spend nothing, not even items you earn from grinding events … using some items earned from events this can be pushed higher still).

Dave - Look at the “top ships build last week” stats in game

Brand new teams
702k, 470k…

That does not get anywhere near what a max grinder gets = 25k/week; nor is it close.

Seems quite a bit off to me. That amount needs to be pulled down, so they can say max build 40k/week by using visa power.

Hmm, that leaderboard is a bit misleading as it includes revived troops as “ships built” as well. We should probably count revived troops fractionally, or not include them in the leaderboard to distinguish new power from old power (old power which is diminished which each successive revive, since you can only revive a fraction, even if you do really well on your attack).

Oh, and I guess we should change the name from Ships --> Troops, lol.

Yes, would be interesting to learn what portion of the 700k/400k from these new players went to new troops vs revives. Not so sure that it’s so much better if most are revives–still means $$$$ being spent on gold, peasants/bullhorns. This is kind of the point–for most people, the costs are prohibitive so new troops + revives stay within a reasonable band; others are not price sensitive in the slightest or are hacking/using hackers. Seems desirable to cap this troop power at some X% over what could be achieved grinding given the power of the troop consumable.