Atlas Land Shuffle Preview: Part II Discussion

You must have missed my entire argument. I was posting this possibility in the very first suggestion threads on their draft proposals, with I don’t know how many others. It doesn’t mean that ALL castles would be accessible, just easier to access. To not have castles be so super buried there was no hope of trying to get to them if you tried and I saw many times first-hand where we tried and failed.

Yes, I am against the grouping of the castles but I am trying to be open-minded about it. I have my reservations, some very big ones, but it might work too. I don’t think it will, but nothing is impossible only improbable.

However, this is very different than having the ability to fly to ANY castle and hit at any time. If there are no safer castles, yes with possible gates, for a team to go back and regroup then again what is the point of having a map? What is the strategy of having a particular castle on the map? You find a castle with a juicy taunter you can take, you end up bubbling that castle. What will stop you from going to find their other castles no matter where they are because they didn’t fight back at that moment? You don’t have to fight other teams or plan any kind of strategy on how to get there or who to hit. You just go. If YOU are doing it, how many others are doing it?

Right now if a team has 1 or 2 accessible castles, you can hit them there just fine. Then if you want to continue hitting them (because maybe they didn’t respond and hey good glory) you have to find a way into their other castles. Maybe that will discourage you enough to find someone else or maybe you see it as just more glory and try to fight your way in.

If all castles were grouped together with 5ta, then there would be a little discouragement to try to hit the team only if the 5ta responds. If all castles were accessible and flown to at any time, there would be no discouragement. You would have to fly, well so would the 5ta. Hopefully you can get there first and get your hit in. Your proposal would have the same affect, or worse, as grouping all the castles. A good sniper can still hit castles/primarchs even when their 5ta is present, taking a bit of loss to try to kill first. A good couter-sniper will take a larger glory/troop loss to get the kill first.

There is a reason why people hate access castles. It is because defensive glory sucks and it is boring af to defend all the time. The teams that actually want to go out and do something in Atlas shed most of their access castles so they aren’t exposed everywhere. That frees them up from being on the defensive stance all the time to the offensive stance at least some of the time. Defender glory needs to be fixed. They went too far in the opposite direction. How to fix I don’t know.

This is one reason why I personally can’t wait for Sieges. The fact that conquering will be gone but you can “destroy” a castle by bubbling it enough time sounds like an interesting strategy, or hitting enough to be able to build your castles to what your team can reliably hold. Plus, if done right, you’d have Atlas leagues of a sort as you can only hit teams in your area. It would be like a group of wars but hopefully then maybe your no team power for glory calculations will work. You wouldn’t have “bigs htting babies” in terms of teams.

I really don’t know why they are doing shuffle first before doing Sieges. Maybe they need the map shuffle part in place before they could implement Sieges on top of it? :woman_shrugging:

There is a whole world of targets out there. If you are only focusing on trying to hit people for “good glory” well you are missing a ton of targets.

That would kill the game honestly. There were many many people that posted in the initial threads that they liked this open world map idea that Atlas is. (Not me btw. I’d rather have Atlas split into actual leagues but that is besides the point as I got overruled.) There is a reason why Atlas Maintenance Tuesday is considered boring by many. The few days Atlas has actually been down, and thus like teams without Atlas, it is so boring it is ridiculous. You don’t realize how much you do in Atlas until it is gone. It is probably one of the reasons many people quit rather than go to a non-Atlas team if they need a break. Not having things like invader and a bank, makes in-game life a lot harder. If it didn’t, many more would choose the pirate life and there would be several nml turned into Aligane like fighting areas.

I’m also not saying the castle ownership perks are great either. It could really use some improvement. Right now owning a castle is more about location than for its perks (other than more bank space).

As for this shuffle, well…I think PG is forgetting that most people don’t like to attack their neighbors. They go away from their castle neighborhoods to attack. Maybe they are trying to change that meta with the grouping of castles. Not sure how well that will work.


This is a really good point. One of the other issues is the difference you see between paying players and non-paying players.

Atlas elite gives 5 times as much gold, 2.5x farmer regen rate, and 3x max farmer capacity. Let’s say an f2p player can get all the gold they need (which is extremely difficult), they’re still limited to less than half of the troops a paying player has. Since there are no other real ways of obtaining troops, this is a huge difference.

Looking at normal elite, the price is 1/5 of the real money cost (taking figures from 30 days of each, 1/3 if you account for a whole year), and it doesn’t give nearly the same benefits. It does give double egg tokens but only from the zepplin balloon, which makes up a small fraction of the egg tokens that can be obtained. The normal game is great because while allowing players to pay to speed up their progression but non-paying players can still be competitive. Atlas however is nearly impossible to stay competitive without paying, and the cost is much higher to keep going.

A change to get more players involved which could increase castle takeover and make atlas more fun would be to level the playing field between E2P and F2P, or at least lowering the cost of Atlas Elite. Currently it costs $120 a year which is a lot for a mobile device game.


:roll_eyes: you think I don’t understand the meaning of 2 bubbles deep?

I fail to see why that would be bad. And maybe you forget that rss and troops aren’t unlimited… Maybe in the beginning atlas would go crazy, but after a while things would settle.

Mhmm, I’m sure you get all or most of your glory from targets that give 52% or so. And also all the people boasting get it this way :joy:

I do realize how much we do in atlas (some do waaaay more than I do) and it is INSANE. It burns people out. I would love it if it was trashed entirely. I suppose it’s bad to reduce the time people have to spend on atlas… They would find there is a world out there! With people! And interesting things to do also! Oh goodness… We need to keep them with their noses on the phone, they can’t discover that secret.

Erm… Pirates do have invaders :roll_eyes:

How would a new aligane start? People go to aligane because they know others will be there, not for any other weird reason. If I started always going to some other NML, and I were alone, that wouldn’t start a new aligane.

Anyway. I don’t want to convince you of anything. And you’re not going to convince me of anything.
I think the adjustments I suggested would make the game fun (no, not more fun, just fun…). But fun is different for different people.
Your points aren’t more valid than mine just because you think they are.

And ultimately, we have no say in anything. PG will just decide whatever they want to do, clearly neglecting all feedback, as usual and as already shown by the replies (or lack thereof) in this thread.

1 Like

Lol, I never said anything of the sort. I think you are reading more into it then what is really there.

I am trying to provoke thought and discussion over it. You are making it into an argument. I am just trying to make you see WHY it may not work.

Yes they have invaders, but not the bonus xp or gold given by castles.

Um, Aligane only started because it was an agreed upon place to go attack? Nothing is stopping people from making new agreed upon places. They just don’t need to now because Aligane still exists. Hate to say it, but it will always exist in some form until PG changes the meta to stop it.

This was my point I was trying to illustrate. What is fun for you is not fun for someone else. I was trying to show what was NOT fun about your suggestion.

And I am done with this.

I carry atlas elite and even with that making enough troops for the amount of fighting I do is a struggle. If I had more troops I would definitely be out fighting more.


We can’t because there isn’t enough conquerable land for everyone, and, as you can see, we have some non-trivial performance issues to fix before we can adequately support every player in the game existing in Atlas.

It doesn’t anymore. Team Power does, and it’s calculated from a team’s aggregate dragon attack power. Levels are strongly tied to your base defenses, but your offenses are more closely represented by your dragons’ strength, so that is where this comes from.



I’m pretty sure team power rank is what she’s talking about. The fact that a 400 only gets good glory from the 400s of similar or higher power teams, while there may be many 400+ players in lower power teams. Yet if you can hit 530s the limitations suddenly disappear, team power is no longer considered.

Personally I’d rather see a weaker team power effect (and possibly using actual power rather than power rank for a more liberal result when many teams have very similar power) and a stronger player level effect. Yes this would hurt large players on small teams in defense but would help them on many attacks. You want people to attack.

There was also talk once of weighting the team power calculation to reflect the largest members more than the weakest. Did that ever happen and is it still under consideration?


Very very quick perusing of a couple posts and a couple more of PGs. While there isn’t a lot of praising going on, there definitely isn’t a ton of hate either like there were in some of the previous “atlas suggestions” posts from PG…I guess I would call that progress.

I imagine it’s frustrating on both sides. PG wanting to improve the game while also working in the companies interest, and the player wanting to not get screwed over while also seeing the game improve.

With respect to this part, I think you drastically misunderstand how players interact with Atlas.

Right now, teams that don’t own castles are teams that don’t want to own castles. Basically any team that wants an access castle can buy one on credit in a matter of hours, and pay it off in a matter of days-to-weeks, depending on how fast they farm gold (or how many timers/diamonds they have stored up).

Sure, “good,” or “safe” castles are more expensive, and harder to get your hands on, but there is plenty of land for every team to own castles right now. Not enough for every team to own the max number of castles, but that’s a good thing, given that the goal is to have teams fight over castles.

…basically, you’re far off the mark. The issue is not a lack of land, but a poor alignment of incentives, such that many teams consciously choose not to own land, because that allows them to attack without being attacked.


Because we choose NOT to sacrifice millions of troops defending a few more egg tokens per day.

Because we reject the notion of being REQUIRED to query a bot before attacking or someone’s alt calls down the wrath of 50 clans cause he lost 2k of troops.

Because we reject a play style that requires 5 pages of written rules about banks, glory swapping, and every other damned action in Atlas


These things are all connected, and Bru and Bloodsworn’s comments point to the answer (although no one at PG appears to be listening, which is the exact complaint the player advisory groups have made, so no surprise there).

So these are wasted words because I can’t imagine that none of them told you this, but you “get there” by making castles worth it. Because fighting over castles is not fun.

:rofl: :joy: :rofl: :joy:

I’m so sorry…but this is hilarious; I almost can’t believe it’s real. Castles didn’t (and don’t) experience much turnover because there is no incentive to fight over them. This has been stated for years. The focus on individual glory exacerbates that. If you want that to change, then make fighting over them worth it, and make them necessary. That + access would have been a much more sensible place to start, and it’s kind of bizarre to me that y’all know this is one of the driving problems behind stagnation and still chose not to start there.

I do note that the question of how to make conquering a castle worth the effort while also incentivizing defending castles is perhaps a tad on the difficult side. I pessimistically don’t think this is actually possible to address in any meaningful way. While not an entirely impossible task for people more in touch with their game, it seems highly unlikely that PG can find a solution to these issues unless they can come up with non-progression rewards that people actually care about getting (or unless they embrace change on the progression and revenue front). And I don’t know about others, but currently the only reward I’d fight for is a dragon (one I actually want to fly). I don’t see that happening either lol.


YEARS. True story.

Thanks for those quotes (hopefully) showing some relevancy @Moonswirl

@PGEggToken still not answered

I don’t know if this is already answered, but if the removal of gold mines/beasts happen… where will we get gold?


I am still intrigued by the phrase, “…but we feel that it’s a fairly safe change.”

I’m curious to see how this strategy plays out.

They are not removing beasts, they are removing the escape timer on the beasts.

You could give every player a personal atlas map like in atlas tutorial so they can farm gold and shards to build troops and participate in atlas events like troop training.


I definitely see this as a positive idea. I can, also, appreciate what @PGEggToken is saying.

Level of importance; this is below dumpster fire (lag and inability to move) but above raccoon mauling (synch error)… IMO

Not everyone wants castles though. And no one who just gains access to atlas can afford to have one.


Eh. That’s true. I hope that gets fixed soon because the experience is borderline awful :sweat_smile:

My bad for using the wrong term… But I feel like you could have understood anyway…
Hen understood perfectly (ofc.)

And let’s all swing back to the lack of desire to own more land due to its lower relative value compared to cost of exposure…