Ok – lets try something different.
- 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.
- Big teams steamrolling little teams
- Griefing in atlas for perceived slights in main game
- Having a place for everyone, while keeping things fair for bigger players (can’t punish bigs for being big)
- 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
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.