You’ve probably come over from the Land Shuffle Preview thread. Welcome! Please discuss here
Since you guys are pushing the date back for the change, will there be another short season or a normal sized one?
Or just extend the current one…
The entire set of planned changes are bad. Scuttle then and avoid catastrophe.
Insist of forging they with this half baked set of changes and the blow back will be extreme.
Not yet decided. We’re trying to set a realistic date for when we can both be confident in the rollout as well as causing as little disruption to season cadence as we can. It’ll be tough, but we’re putting in our best effort.
Are different people working on this than the ones who worked on the current Atlas? It’s been the same, unchanging, un-fixed lag errors over and over for literal years. Please tell me it’s more competent people? This shuffle is the only thing keeping me in the game, because if I don’t see a fix in the near future I’ll be quitting.
Also, why are you proceeding with this? It’s a terrible idea. We specifically spread our castles out so we DON’T all have to deal with getting multiple TA castles bubbled/attacked at the same time.
can you please do this in beta first place with a copy of the existing map and let us actually play it to verify it works before and after?
Our team is maybe 1/3 Atlas veterans who know a bit of historic info about Atlas, and the rest are either from previous War Dragons dev teams or new.
We’re very aware of the concern over castle clustering. Everything about what may happen and what will actually happen as a result of this is still pure speculation and conjecture. I think we’ll have much more to discuss with Part II next week.
@PGEggToken Curious to know if this new tech is PG’s (hopeful) solution to work out the bugs/glitches that are inevitable to cause massive server crashes? Many people on the forums have pointed out time and time again the complete lack of faith that this entire proposal won’t kill the game we all love. However, there has been zero (at least from what I have seen) attempt from any PG employee to address that extremely large and valid concern.
Okay, so one question I had that I did not post before since it was only partially related.
Why are you doing the shuffles if you are going to totally change the way Atlas works with Sieges in the future? Why was this decision made to not just go straight to Sieges?
Some of the other original questions I posed that aren’t answered. Hopefully it will be in Part II, and most of these just want to confirm NO changes being planned at the very least.
Will there be any changes to passage?
Will there be any changes to joining/leaving 5ta? (It was suggested a time limit imposed.)
Will there be any changes to mines?
Will there be any changes to beasts? This includes beasts spawning on 5ta lands to hit. (Please add as would be greatly appreciated!)
Any plans to limit how many teams can be at castle? (I know it is planned for sieges, just want to know if it is coming with shuffle or not to limit battles on castles to defending and attacking 5ta.)
Any change in the amount of ownable castles (more or less)?
Not a land grab per say but will the shuffle add land or possibly take some away as part of the randomized shuffle? (Going to assume no but you never know.)
What will the shuffle algorithm consider “higher castles”? Is it by tier, infrastructure, or a combination thereof?
Basically if we have T4, T3, and T2 castles should we expect the T4 to be on the inside, then the T3, then the T2 as direct accesible? Or is the T2 with max infrastructure going to be further in while the T4 with all level 1 infrastructure going to be outside? (Hypothetical here and wouldn’t be surprised if this is still being worked on.)
Roughly how many castles are expected to be access on a per team basis?
It was said 1/3 of the map will be neutral (then later neutral and nml). Or strange thought, is the number of access castles determined by the 5ta and not by the team?
Would it not just be easier to just randomly shuffle the map and not group by 5ta then to try to group by 5tas and have to deal with issues in power disparities?
This tech is primarily to shuffle and redistribute the map. I don’t think we’ve had a “massive server crash” in the way that you’ve described, but if you’re referring to event issues, those are being worked on by the events team.
Sieges will be the immediate next big feature for Atlas. I don’t know off-hand why the order was chosen in the way that it was, but there’s likely a reason for it that I’ll go find out.
Thank you for this list of questions! We’ll definitely include as many as we can in Part II.
So this may be a “Part II” question, but in an attempt to get some clarity on one of the big, potentially game-breaking issues, I’ll go ahead and ask this in as non-confrontational a manner as I can:
Can you clarify why you think grouping castles by 5TA is a good idea?
Because a great number of experienced players have spoken up since you first suggested the concept, and virtually none of them seem to be in favor of it.
The only comments we’ve gotten on it before are vague references to “a sense of ownership,” but they don’t address some of the major issues with it, both from a gameplay and from a mechanics standpoint.
- Requires seasonal map resets, making map position - indeed, the very world map itself - less meaningful and requiring more underlying coding complexity (and more room for things to go wrong)
- Forces teams to stay with the same 5TA all season, or be trapped in a castle grouping with a bunch of potentially-hostile teams, making the formation and maintenance of community bonds more difficult…while simultaneously degrading the interesting community aspects in regions that were shared by many different teams.
- Makes conquering castles much harder for smaller teams unless they are supported by mega alliances, since any newly-conquered castle is surrounded by an entire hostile 5TA
- Encourages powerful 5TAs to bubble, or even wholesale wipe out weaker 5TAs, and facilitates this process
- Makes castle ownership more difficult for smaller teams/5TAs in general, and life as a pirate team more attractive
…basically, it looks a lot like smaller teams and 5TAs - indeed, all but the most powerful - are getting set up to be destroyed in detail by a combination of attrition (all their castles clustered together means they can all be hit in succession, every day), and hitting down (can’t conquer/buy and hold a castle in a good position if every castle you own is right next to all the others).
Which has resulted in a disturbing number of players looking at these proposed changes, even the bare details you’ve shared, and thinking “So, this is the breaking point. Is it even going to be worth trying to fight for the scraps, or should we just give up?”
So with the concept still up in the air you’re nowhere close to feature complete.
PG has totally failed to scope this design change properly. I doubt anyone is surprised.
Can your “best effort” be the reasonable decision to extend this season? After all, the whole reason for a short season was this “shuffle” which is now debunked.
Are performance issues potentially caused by the current map going to be better in the future map? Was there any lessons learned type thing from V1?
You could also make sure it’s not over complicated and do a random map shuffle each season. I feel that would be most beneficial. Some teams are terrible neighbors and some are great to work with. But in some other comments, I agree! Having all your team’s castles all in one spot, is a terrible idea. If there is no one to disable shields, enemies will have a hayday on all of the castles and will have to 1-25 cool downs. That’s insane to comprehend running all those with as little risk as possible.
Legit question: How many players are you prepared to lose if you go through with this land shuffle?
Welcome to the end result of Sven the interns two weeks at PG.
Server crash is the KW rework…