Atlas Glory: Revenge Hits

#1

My suggestion is simple: if a team kills your team’s or your alliance’s teams troops outside of their castles, their alliance’s castles, or NML - they become worth full glory.

Examples:

In these instances Team A is worth 100% glory to Team B. Team B is worth less than 100% glory to Team A.

  1. Team A hits Team B in NML. Glory does not change.
  2. Team A hits Team B at Team B’s castle. Glory does not change.
  3. Team A hits Team B at Ally B’s castle. Glory does not change.
  4. Team B hits Team A in NML. Glory does not change.
  5. Team B hits Team A at Team B’s castle. Glory does not change.
  6. Team B hits Team A at Ally B’s castle. Glory does not change.
  7. Team B hits Team A at Team A’s castle. Glory changes.
  8. Team B hits Team A at Team C’s castle. Glory changes.

I propose this change happen for 24 hours from the most recent attack. I believe this would assist in balancing our atlas in terms of teams fighting and choosing attacking carefully, adding actually repercussions to actions, and blah blah.

EDITS:

I would not be opposed to:

  1. A 12 hour delay in this glory scaling happening.
  2. A set number of troops to determine time.
11 Likes
#2

This may be tangential, but it sucks getting hit by someone at or near my level but when hitting back I see they’re worth 50-75% only glory. If Red’s proposal fixes that disparity, sign me up.

5 Likes
#3

Does this mean simply 100% glory instead of ignored influence?

1 Like
#4

Hmm that’s a good question. I would lean towards ignored influence since you need some reason to keep a lvl 400 from slaughtering a lvl 150 player.

Is player level ignored on lvl 4 or lvl 5 land? :thinking:

#5

That is the goal. It is absolute stupidity when a player hits my team, kills 200k troops, but we hit them back for 7% glory. That is ABSURD.

Honestly, I would like this to act like T4 land. If a player comes and kills a bunch of our troops, I want his team to feel it. These rogue agents doing whatever they like but their leaders doing nothing makes me angry.

It is.


As an edit, I would be fine saying if they kill X troops they are worth 100% glory for Y hours. Making it more conditional.
2 Likes
#6

Honestly, I still have mixed feelings about who C is…

Suppose that team A is attacked by team B.
Team A asked noble Team C outside the alliance (say, from top 10 team) to disrupt the attack.
If Team B attack Team C, according to #8, Team C then can do their revenge leisurely, getting 100% glory from team B.

Am I wrong on this case?

-edit-
@TheRedDelilah, perhaps excluding the case when Team B is under Team A’s influence (trap, taunt) at the time the attack is initiated.

#7

hmmm, so if i were at non allied castle, would it not be in my best interest to trap the lowest rank team i can find than (as there are usually lots of teams to choose from) and is not a part of the 5t alliance our team would be attacking and hope they attack me to break trap and this would open the door up for me to go attack a low atlas team rank?

this seems kinda one sided. i am on a say rank mid 50 atlas team, however we get the same chip hits on our players, but it is usually diamond teams doing this to our team. how does this benefit our team. their team is already 100% glory, but usually team is just to big to go and try and attack them. Repercussions would be worse for us most likely.

but i agree, the chip hits on team members and castles are fricken annoying as hell, especially with atlas lag these days. players come in with low troop count, hit a prime and pop themselves; rare you can trap them in time. and taunter low defence stats are not much of a deterrent

i would rather see some sort of upgrade available in atlas that made it so you must have x number of troops to enter a castle to attack. no more 3k chip hits.

#8

This is correct. This would also help with the mass alliance problem, don’t you think?

Perhaps a delay then? “In 12 hours, glory scaling will be set to 100% for X time”.

That is true. This is why i said it would perhaps even the scale. Don’t you think people would think a bit harder about joining a fight if this were true. You also already get 100% glory on them while they hit you there, due to it being an ally castle.

I think the benefit here is not so much to these one off attacks, but to the top end battles. Top end does fight right now, but the issue is that “ant teams” show up to hit. Without those ant teams as a buffer, top teams will have to defend themselves.

Top 50 is a high ranking atlas team, in my opinion. I don’t think anything would change with those diamond hitters.

I would not be opposed to that. If you want to bring your sieger and hit, you better be ready to get hit back.

#9

You’d need to have quite carefully considered mechanics to make this sensible.

For example how many of your troops can they kill before this triggers? 1k, 10k? 100k? Seems stupid to make them susceptible for 24 hours because of a few hits.

You already get 100% glory defending on your own castles and 100% hitting level 400+s on all land. If a small team is causing your team enough of an issue either rethink the land you hold or go and bash them and accept the loss of glory to make the point.

2 Likes
#10

Without such limiter, on low ranked castle raid, the battle ends immediately the moment a player from top team brings a taunter, whether they can kill it or not.
-edit-
due to fear, rather than inability to clear the prim.

2 Likes
#11

I would not be opposed to making it scale. Perhaps something like:

Troops Killed within 24 Hours Time @ 100% Glory
<1k 0 hrs
1-5k 1 hrs
5-15k 3 hrs
15-50k 6 hrs
50k-100k 12 hrs
>100k 24 hrs
#12

Right, I see what you’re saying. I do also think, like I said, there is an issue when a team can clear 200k troops or more every few hours off my team with these 3k sieger load ups and if I hit them back I get 7% glory.

I am also curious to hear @Panda’s input, as I do not have the issue during raids personally.

#14
  1. We are on NML
  2. We are worth 100% glory to them
  3. They come with 3k troops per hit

It is a race to see who can finish first. Sometimes we do in clearing him, sometimes he does. Please educate me on what I need to learn to quickly and effectively squash these attacks.

#15

It’s not my job to educate you but there are solutions that the top teams use. We don’t need a rule change because one team can’t adapt to the tactics efficiently

#16

And what top team would you be on?

But otherwise, if you are going to say my suggestion is not needed, you should say why. I have said why I feel it is. Give me details, pookie.

2 Likes
#17

In addition - glory level bands need tightening, and team influence needs and overhaul. Team influence needs to consider league/subleague, or something to normalize it on a more rational level. Each attack is an individual attacker (and maybe a backer or two) against an individual base (with a couple defenders). The fact that one team has more castles or higher level infra, etc should not factor in such a way that a 325+ can attack a 215, a 420 vs a 307, etc. and get any reasonable amount of glory. It’s shooting fish in a barrel and getting rewarded for it! And the victim has no chance at avenging their losses - the disparity of force is too great for them to attack that player back, and any teammates they could attack would be worth next to no glory in return.

I understand that team influence is intended to help anti grieving and ‘encourage’ more even battles - but really it allows for more abuse of attacker/defender level disparity.

#19

Teams leagues and sub leagues used to also be included in influence. However it was removed I believe because it seemed to handicap or overly subsidise teams who were more or less atlas active than their league contemporaries

#20

Hmm. Not sure I agree with this solution, at all.

Yes, and I think it should take into account the dragons flown. If a 100 hits a 500 base with a 500 backing, that 500 should get good glory.

I disagree on the infra level (not the level bit). Teams want more castles, they take more risk. There is barely any risk right now as it is.

Which brings us to this suggestion exactly.

#21

Then your comments are pointless and off-topic gibberish in my thread. Facts, not just “git gud” bullshit please.

6 Likes
#22

I do love it when you get fiery :heart_eyes:

4 Likes