Atlas Future Season Structure DRAFT Proposal: Supremacy Fortnights Discussion Thread

Please ask questions and discuss the draft proposal for Atlas: Supremacy Fortnights here.


Does this mean castleless teams will end up with a castle?

Fortnight fails to address the mob/gang problems. Instead of a free for all, a couple teams will wind up fighting off all the rest.


No… not another currency :unamused:
What’s the point really?


Seriously, we keep saying there’s too many currencies and PG keeps adding them. They listen, but they don’t care and keep doing the same stupid things over and over.

We already have to come up with a ton of gold and timers to do a single upgrade. Now you want nails, too?

You’re putting the nails in the coffin of WD.


The post includes

Shrines are controlled by guards; send guards for your team by:

  • Attacking beasts (the guards will go to the shrine targeted by your officers)
  • Hiring guards with team glory
  • Hiring guards with gold
  • Sending troops from your barracks
  • Sending castle guards from your castle (Marshal)
  • Guards show up on the map and take time to walk to the Shrine
  • If you send guards to a shrine controlled by an enemy, then your guards will fight their guards (killing each other). The last team with guards on a shrine controls it.

If a team has say 499M guards now, and 99M personal troops, they could send an unlimited stream (it would seem, in theory) to fight the other teams guards until they are all gone.
Is there a plan to reset the max number of troops held before this starts?

Minor curiosity: Why to guards ‘walk to the shrine’? Seems like unncessary additional low-value animation


Yes, albeit with no infrastructure until they build it.

The strategy which nets the most VP is going after all 8 shrines. If your team only goes after a couple teams, it is probably putting itself at a significant disadvantage and will be less likely to win enough VP to win the fortnight.

Part of the reward of winning Shrine battles is being able to upgrade infrastructure. A new currency is necessary to decouple castle upgrading from other non-team-competition activities (like farming gold). fwiw, nails is a team-only currency; only officers will be managing it. Individuals don’t accumulate nails, only teams.

No. But teams with lots of troops will be paired with teams that are comparably strong.

The theory is that the walk time gives your opponent time to see what you’re up to and try to counter (e.g., send Primarchs to the Shrine). Similar reason to why Primarchs take time to get from place to place.


Jesus @#$%ing Christ. Turning Atlas into an endless series of 2-week Kingdom Wars events is POSSIBLY the WORST idea I’ve ever heard proposed on the forums, and that’s saying something.

I’m pretty @#$% dedicated to this game, but I think you’ve actually hit on something that would drive me away.

Your goals in the first point are good: Players need motivation to fight, accessibility is a problem, and mega alliances are a concern. But you’ve decided to deal with them by destroying Atlas entirely, rather than employing any one of a thousand reasonable workarounds or mitigation strategies.

I honestly cannot express what a short-sighted, ill-conceived idea this is.


The combat phase is only a short portion of each 2-week period. I expect it will be comparable in intensity and duration to the Kill Troops events (which it replaces). (If it ends up being too much or too little, we can adjust the relative duration of each phase as needed.)


How many players do you expect to participate after a week or two?

I love this game, but seriously …


Removed from the game: ability to disable shields

Uh… really? This means the game will be played out at random times set by when others bubble, not by when a team can defend themselves best. :flushed:


Wait what? I assume you’re talking about the troop building event here since there is no troop killing event other than the atlas season?

If so this new event better have some damn good timer rewards since taking away troop training will make a timer starved economy suffer even more.


Um, you know that comparing the top 8 teams there is still a large disparity. I can see it working for lower leagues / ranks. Its a move in the right direction.


I 100% agree.

The answer is NOT to reinvent Atlas.

  • Atlas season tokens are only awarded if you finish on the same team as when the map started

I suppose with these ‘rounds’ being only 2 weeks this is less of cause for concern.
Would it be possible to stack a teams result by moving players with their tokens to a specific team?

Dear PG why you try to kill best part of this game with unnecsesary ideas … Seriously :pensive:


I am just shaking my head here. Unbelievable. It is bad enough we do kingdom wars which I hate btw and now you want to make it ongoing in Atlas. No thank you. I for one am burnt out with pvp every other week now you want to make it ongoing.

And with the way this sounds I will be on 24/7… Guess it is time to start looking for another game. I already spend way to much time on this one not going to dedicate all my free time


Do we keep the infra already build on current castles we have? Also do we keep the stored infra? Or do we have to start building from scratch with the nails?

Collusion Prevention

  • Each of your opponents will see you as an opponent.
  • They may not see your other opponents: their other opponents are probably different!
  • You will only see and be able to interact with Primarchs from the opposing teams on your map

Reason 1: Ensure each team has a competitive, fair set of opponents; nobody is stuck with opponents which are all stronger.

I actually like the thinking around this. The fact that your competition pool is always a group of teams you are comparable to sounds great, however, how does the mechanics work? You are in a pool with lower teams you beat up, and higher teams who beat up you. You lose points to the higher teams, but do those points come from the lower pool you are also in? Would it be possible for a higher pool to suck a lower one dry? :thinking:

Spot on! Change for the sake of change is not good. I understand the intent, but this is not the way to do it.