Atlas Land Shuffle Preview: Part II Discussion

Welcome to the Atlas Land Shuffle Preview: Part II Discussion!




I’m a bit confused about the stated goals. Nothing said after seems like it will in any way, shape or form really affect those goals.

I understand that perhaps Shuffle is not the answer but it feels like step one seems to completely ignore their existence…


I think I get what you’re getting at here, and yes, it’s not super obvious at this stage. The problem with the old map was that it was too inflexible of a base to start with if we ever wanted to make meaningful changes. Being able to generate new maps based on different criteria, and being able to dictate player access to these maps gives us so many more possibilities to work with.


How is this going to work? Are we going to be able to manually respawn a beast or something?

Would be amazing to be able to click on a beast and hit respawn to possibly get a higher level. Would need to have a set limit on how many times it could be done though.


Oh, then any plans for the future to make Atlas leagues or is that what Sieges is meant to do?

Clustering sounds interesting(?) but won’t mega alliances simply shuffle their teams and surrender castles to each other anyways? Clustering sounds like it is where you start and then teams will immediately “un cluster” if you will?


When do the first lot of changes take effect? Is it just the land shuffle or are you throwing us into the deepend with crusades added ontop of this?

Are there any plans on fixing existing latency/lag issues currently being experienced?

1 Like

…while I appreciate that there’s some communication, it feels like there’s a conscious effort to avoid addressing the issues - including issues that have literally been brought up since all of this was first proposed. So. @PGEggToken

  • You’ve talked previously about “a sense of ownership” and now about “[having] a home you and your team care about enough to defend,” and “[having] valuable territories that are worth fighting over.”

    But by reshuffling the map seasonally, and by forcing the clustering of castles, you are actively preventing teams from accomplishing that, as the castles themselves become movable, malleable resources rather than permanent fixtures to specifically seek out, take, and defend.

    More than that, with your proposed plans for the changing of things like castle levels, even the value of a particular tier of castle is not enough to instill a sense of ownership or make it a home, since another, absolutely identical one can literally be slotted into its place if it is lost.

In what ways do you foresee these changes doing anything to facilitate those goals, when player activity and feedback suggest just the opposite?

  • You keep saying you plan to cluster the castles of each 5TA.

    In what way, shape, or form, is this a beneficial idea? As has been addressed previously, this does nothing to instill a sense of “home” or “ownership,” and is so harmful and costly that most teams actively avoid such situations unless those castles are “safe.”

    As was brought up previously, this scenario offers the potential for horrific attrition, or wholesale destruction, particularly for those teams and 5TAs newest to Atlas, and heavily advantages those who are highest in the rankings, and who have had the most time to capitalize on their advantages.

How do you perceive these changes as remotely positive, given the glaring, disastrous flaws with them?

  • It seems like the biggest issue that you’re ignoring, of all things, is that these changes affect different teams in very different fashions.

    These are changes that are potentially uncomfortable for many Diamond and Sapphire teams, and may indeed lead to some of the activity, and castle turnover that you sought. They also have the side effect of screwing over the vast majority of your playerbase, in the name of goals that they they do not even seem poised to facilitate.

So it comes back to the first point in the preview: Why are you doing this? Forget “active and exciting,” start with a convincing argument that this won’t be "miserable and exorbitantly expensive?"


Land shuffle is at the start of the next Atlas season, with the next phase of updates (Sieges, Crusades, whichever name it ends up being) after that.

Yes. Our fixes last week showed marked improvements for certain in-game actions, but we’re looking at changes that might help relieve some of the delays in high-populated areas during Atlas battles and defenses.


Except blockade, right? You’re changing blockade times … soon?


Please don’t make conjectures like this. The team is taking additional time away from development to help answer questions posed to the extent that we’re able at this stage in development. I understand that expectations may misalign in what information we can reveal and what you’re hoping to hear, but that is why these previews are in multiple parts and not one enormous tell-all that’s way too late for us to react to feedback.

The map itself changes season-to-season. Castles themselves do not move within a season. You do not lose castles between seasons either, so if you own a maxed out infra level 5 castle, you keep it as long as you can defend it.

It’s explicitly stated that castle levels will not be changing with map shuffle. Where are you taking this idea from?

Let me emphasize this very important point:

Change is scary, so it’s not surprising that this is causing this sort of reaction. However, without change, Atlas will be stuck in the stagnant state it is now without feeling rewarding for the effort put in. The War Dragons Team as a whole sees Atlas as a long-term permanent part of the game, and we’re dedicating the resources towards realizing that goal in the coming year. We’re not promising that land shuffle is the silver bullet that will fix everything, but it is the necessary foundation on which we can build a better Atlas. It doesn’t matter how fast your car can go if it doesn’t have wheels to ride on.


So I read a lot of corporate-speak.

This plan gives us all the worst parts of a persistent world. Location means nothing since these shuffles will be seasonal, but I still see nothing to stop Sapphire teams taking the castles of platinum teams.


Yes, those changes will come much sooner. To give some insight into the process here, we’re on the cusp of finalizing some new blockade times, and that will need to make it through QA testing before we deploy. The target is around next week, barring any delays. Hah, ironic because Blockades literally delay… :upside_down_face:


With respect, we try not to, but when concerns have been brought up in every thread since the concept was first introduced, and never addressed, it seems a reasonable conjecture.

Yes…but it’s just “a castle,” rather than “that specific castle, in that specific place, with those specific neighbors, that we fought those specific battles for.” You’re actively reducing that sense of “home” and “ownership,” not to mention important tactical concerns like “positioning,” and replacing them with “this is a valuable resource that you have to protect.” Which was something that we already had.

Not as part of the shuffle, no, but it’s been mentioned previously that as a part of Sieges/Crusades, castles will be capable of being created, destroyed, or increased/decreased in level. So the point stands.

The issue being that we see you taking the wheels off the car, without a solid rationale for why, except “It will be better in the long run, we promise.”

For example, with regards to castle clustering, I, and MANY others, have pointed out the MANY issues with it, and there has yet to be a single answer except “We’re gonna do it, it’s totally for the best in the long run.”


Marked improvements? :eyes:


Would it help to tell you that I’m not wearing a tie, or anything even close to a collared shirt while typing this?

On the contrary, location will be all the more important. Most castles will become more vulnerable. Those bigger teams may have the might, but it remains to be see if they have the coordination to protect all fronts at once. We’ve seen some genius planning and coordination from teams in Atlas in the past, and I’m sure those learned skills will be more than valuable post-shuffle.


So will a team have multiple regions, but all connected somehow in a ball with their 5ta? Are you going away from a max depth of 2 bubbles for the larger (land-wise) teams/alliances?

How many castles per region?

Feel like this got lost…

This brings up the topic of incentives within the course of a season to take and hold castles. I think we can agree that what exists now is some kind of reward, but not the kind that is like “oh, I have to get that”. What would get us there? No idea is too wild right now, and that means you don’t really have to stick to just items and currencies either.

I see! Thanks for pointing that out. We haven’t even begun development on those features yet, so it’s a bit early to commit to saying those will be the case. Thank you for keeping us accountable though. We’ll definitely be taking the liquidity of castles post-land shuffle into our design of those features.

Fresh tires of course! Sorry for the analogies, it’s to keep some sanity while I work through this thread. PGGalileo said this elsewhere, and I’m sorry if I butcher it, but someone asked if the expectation is that you all just have to “trust us”, and well…kinda, yes? We’re not doing all this work in design, engineering, talking to you all because we want you to have a crappy time in the game. We’re doing it so that it’s a game you want to log in to each day because it’s fun. I wish we could fold time so that all the pieces are in place on the same day and “BAM! Atlas Solved.”, but we’re only human, with human efficiency, so we have to do this in stages.