Atlas Glory Scaling Suggestion


You keep hiding behind team strength while arguing for individual glory on individual attacks. Your argument is tailor made for someone in your position (COMPLETELY, unabashedly self serving), and you simply refuse to see any other perspectives. :man_shrugging:

I’m not applying for Dread and I’m not applying for the NFL. I am cool in my Platinum / Semi Pro team. I’m not making waves or interfering with the big dogs.

There is a cost for everything in this life. Everything. If you want a castle, take it, but it’ll cost you troops. But it’s not reasonable to also get max glory and max revive rates - all at the complete expense of someone weaker. Then to even utter the word ‘glory’ in the same sentence is laughable.

We can agree to disagree.


This is the part you are not understanding. Compared to me, you are not weak. We are equals. We are on equally strong teams.


No, this is what YOU don’t understand.

Level 362 > 255
Vanguards > Level 56 towers

How is that equal? Again, because I get the same daily egg payout as you? If we had a TEAM WAR, and TEAM GLORY, then I would say sure, your TEAM should get glory for beating an ‘equal’ team. But again, you’re making an individual attack on an individual base, but saying it’s equal because we have the same number of castles?.. Come on dude.


Yes, that is what I am arguing. And until it’s allowed to play out the way it needs to play out and everyone moves up or down in teams until they’re comfortable where they are, there will always be complaining.

It’s like USA vs. Japan, WW2. Without the atomic bomb it would have been a much longer, drawn out war, and a lot more people would have died, the suffering would have been worse. But the fact they were nuked quickly forced the war to end and resulted in less casualties.

You are asking for some artificial force to protect your weaker base from a bigger attack… what’s that gotten you? just a million small attacks and you will die by a thousand cuts instead… when in reality you should be asking for a massive atlas world war where everyone can quickly re-assess their capabilities and hold the land they are comfortable holding without any handouts or special treatment just because they are weaker. You have to let nature take it’s course… only then will there be peace and harmony with the occasional skirmish where both sides feel it was a fair fight… and everyone will have fun playing this game… if not you’re disrupting the natural order of the atlas world and everyone will be forever complaining, sorry :slight_smile:


We have completely different views. I completely disagree that team influence should dictate glory either way.

If, God forbid, Dread had a 255 on their team, and that person were to attack me - I would expect them to get full glory. We’re equals: 255 vs 255. That’s fair. Conversely, if Dread had a 200, I shouldn’t get full glory for attacking them. That’s not fair.

Should they as a team be able to take my castle - sure.


So what you’re saying is I should not be nuking your whole team, to use that analogy again. I should only be sending individual cruise missles to your level 300+ teamates. But what if I have to hit your level 255 taunter or someone else’s level 100 taunter to get to them? And we are in equally rated teams? Do I not get to have full glory? How is that fair?

The fact is glory is equal in real life on teams regardless of where you are on the team. Using the football team analogy again you could be Tom Brady, or a backup kicker… you still get a superbowl ring.


Because it’s EASY for you, hence you should not be rewarded to doing something easy. Again, if you want to take the castle for the castle’s sake - take it. But you shouldn’t get to have your cake and eat it too.

They may get a super bowl ring, but they all get different salaries and sign on bonuses. And no, the team doesn’t always get the glory. There are many teams that got carried by one or two players, and those players got the real glory.


I’m not saying YOU would go for easy targets. But the majority do. Fact. The mechanics encourage it. So having to go through me to get to my big buddy A) isn’t realistically a thing, but B) you could probably crush me, and quickly, with minimal time and troops wasted. Why then, should you (not your team) be rewarded with high glory for doing something EASY, spending minimal time, and suffering inconsequential ‘losses’ in terms of troops?


Well you know what? Maybe we can incorporate your idea:

Maybe if you attack solo sniping 1-off attacks you get less glory for hitting a much weaker base (not that much less)… and maybe if you attack as a team you get full glory regardless of who you hit as long as you bubble the castle or something? I’m open to compromise.

But there needs to be a mechanism that makes it harder for weaker players to be on stronger teams, and for stronger players to be on weaker teams. And we need order in the atlas world sooner rather than later and that will come with less intervention by scaling, etc, not by more.


Let’s say there is a taunter with 50,000 troops, and they have a level 100 base, I’m going to spend a min of 20,000 troops killing it even with a seiger. That’s before I can even get close to hitting anything stronger on the castle.

Should I get zero glory? How much do you think is fair? What if it was a level 200 base? 300? 330?


I think we really need to evaluate what makes a team ‘strong’, so we can recalibrate who actually IS equal. We may both be in your ‘E’ bracket, but I think I stumbled on your base in matchmaking a while back, and as much as I hate to say it, our teams are DEFINITELY not equal - you guys would kick our ass (sorry team LOL).

What, to you, signifies a strong team? Let’s start there.


To me, a strong team means we can fight off teams rated lower than us to keep a castle. If not, they are the stronger ones and deserve to bubble us and take it. Especially a level 4 castle. I don’t think our team is anywhere near strong enough to take a level 5 castle or keep it from being conquered.


No it’s actually like Japan vs China in WWII where Japanese troops brutalized and butchered civilians who couldn’t defend themselves simply because they could and then a sympathizer saying China is a bigger country than Japan so China should be able to defend themselves from smaller countries like Japan.

Guess China had it coming, eh?


Trap it or have smaller players on your team kill it.


I’m not a historian but I watched Ip Man LOL (great series of movies btw) and seen how the Japanese were dishonored and brutalized by the Chinese and I’m sure the other side has their take on it too vica versa… I mean no disespect, everyone has been brutalized in war, my ancestors as well… My point was war is an ugly thing… and it’s sometimes quicker to end suffering with a big defeat then a long drawn out war. When someone is artificually holding up the little guy they can be doing them more of a disservice in the long run.


I’ve had my taunter mauled by a sieger with vanguards and it was somewhere around 4:1 kill ratio to my detriment. (1.9k killed vs 7.5k lost), so that’s 12,667 troops lost for you. That is more significant that I realized, I admit.

But again, if obtaining the castle is the goal, THAT should be the reward. I don’t think you should get zero glory, though. I’m thinking something along the lines of 20%, since you get the 80% revive rate for attacking and getting 5 flames.

In regards to scale, I really don’t think there should be a scale. I think a base should be worth glory or it shouldn’t. I’t pretty much just as easy for you to smash a 300 as a 250, a 200, etc. - no need to scale it.


I’m sure it wasn’t completely one-sided but it was heavily skewed toward Japanese violence. Keep in mind China did nothing to provoke Japan. Japan invaded because they could.

Regardless, my point was that you shouldn’t get full glory for wiping someone 200 levels below you just because your teams are of similar influence rating. That’s stupid.


So to paraphrase in a slightly more quantitative way - “A higher number of higher level players.” So somewhat of an average player level per team?

If so - I agree with that. THAT is the true ‘power’ of the team. This does not align with the current influence, which you have been arguing makes our teams equal. Your team is much, much stronger than mine. We made some good decisions, and had some really good luck, so our ‘influence’ is higher than our league and roster would suggest. Not that your team didn’t, just that we’re ranked similarly but you are much stronger when looking at the rosters side by side.


Yes but roster isn’t the only factor.

We have level 330+ players that never build more than 5,000 troops during troop building events. We also have level 200 players that build 100,000+ troops during the same event. If you are being rated on appearance instead of your results, that’s not a good measuring stick. Otherwise every 7 footer would feel like they have the right to be on an NBA team and get NBA money. But they don’t. They have to take action and be skilled as well and put in the work to make it happen. So if you’re team is higher skilled and more active than mine… but with lower level players and our teams have achieved equal results… to me, we are equal if that makes sense.


I can see what you mean about the troop count, but I still think roster is more a factor. If a team only has one or two players that can take down the low producing 330’s base, that 330 has a VERY high value compared to their low troop count.


This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.