Atlas Mechanics

Use this thread to chat about Atlas and the current mechanics in this section of the game.

10 Likes

Kind of a laundry list for now, because there are too many things that I’ve lost track of at this point, and various topics that Echo and Squrl should all be familiar with cough - not sure which of these would actually be pursued, which is the problem. If there’s a direction that PG would prefer to go with something, then starting with that would make the most sense.

  • Forging - Why can’t we fuse lower level items? Why no diamond option on top of rubies? The speedup bug still exists.
  • Haven for every team - low level infrastructure (lower than T2, and not uncapped inf), pretty much just so that they have something to call their own but are still encouraged to pursue castles when ready
  • Make current castles more worthwhile, as 3/5 structures are the same across all tiers
  • Castles are out of sync with primarchs (primarchs get stats upped, inf stays old), which is the exact same issue that non-Atlas is having now
  • Have new castle types that are more actively meant to be flipped and grant bonuses without needing to spend on it - there are various ways to structure entry into that competition
  • Counter-sniping is dumb, but at the same time, there needs to be something to replace that to make active defense more worthwhile past just defending the flight. The fight already favors the attacker, while the defenders currently need to just dumbly sit there and wait. 2k primarch vs 100x troops or 10k being the same makes no sense (and yes, someone’s going to mention guerrilla warfare or other stuff, but then that should be higher risk too, but the risk is the same).
  • People miss Kingpin (PvE where any primarch would get the max glory, regardless of stats but permaloss of troops), though it probably also shouldn’t happen too often
20 Likes

I’d first like to ask what does PG want out of atlas? What are your goals and expectations for it?

I would probably point to 2 issues at the moment

  1. Large scale Alliances. They make things massively political, decrease competition and overall performance.
  2. Stagnation. I’d think we would want teams to constantly be moving, gaining. Right now, we just sort of sit around
45 Likes

To start with, I have 3 suggestions:

  1. Attacks against Siegers are parried off too easily with players quitting at 20-30% with no heavy losses to their troops. So, an increase to the loss of troops based on the damage percentage against Siegers is required.
  2. Put a cap on the troops allotted to a player or a team in general. This is not something that would impact the current game much as everyone can revive fast. But, in a scenario where one team is having millions of troops as opposed to a new team that gets access to atlas with zero troops, it makes a huge difference. The new team feels intimidated and when the former said veteran team attacks this new team, it feels like bullying. By capping the troops for all the teams, at some stage in game, both the teams in the given example will have the same amount of troops to fight with which makes atlas fair for all.
  3. Limit the castles that a team can attack based on the max castles owned by a team.

For example:
Team A owns 90% level 5 castles (45/50 max castles), they can only attack other level 5 castles.
Team B owns 80% level 4s (40/50 max castles), they can only attack level 4 castles or higher.
Team C owns 60% lvl 3s (30/50), 20% lvl 4s (10/50), 20% lvl 5s (10/50), they can attack level 3s or higher.

This will encourage the bigger teams amassing the level 4s and 5s to attack other bigger teams with the same level castles rather than some small team who owns level 2s and 3s. This will address atlas being stale for some teams as they do not get a chance to fight other teams having the same caliber and infrastructure. This would encourage them to do so and balance things a bit. This will also give a chance to newer and smaller teams to progress without worrying about joining some large alliances to just fight for their existence in atlas or feel bullied/threatened by established teams in atlas.

Please see if this is feasible.

51 Likes
  1. Sure. I think everyone agrees quitting early on a base isn’t great, but we have destroyers(?)

  2. The actual number of troops a person has is pretty irrelevant given you’re limited by both caps in interaction and revives. So whether you have 100k or 100m. The amount you can use or reuse is limited by that regardless. It’s a common misconception that occurs if the mechanics are not properly understood.

  3. A common meta is to drop high level/ majority castles and just sustain off of sniping. Some of the top teams do not try to try own top land as a result of this dynamic. This seems counterintuitive and would only further encourage dropping castles for more opportunities at earning seasonal glory prizes.

Part of the reason why team power is used as a measure is to prevent teams from fighting teams “below their league.” It falls into the “sandbagging” category that we should strive to reduce, not increase.

I reiterate my question to PG. What is the goal for Atlas? How should teams be panning out?

34 Likes
  1. Yes something needs to be done to address attackers who quit early

  2. Why should players/Teams who build high numbers of troops be penalised
    Train Troops event is there to encourage troop building you are suggesting to cap it ?

  3. Is asking for sandbagging
    Teams can just hide by owning lower level castles and never worry about getting hit by there peers which is already happening within Atlas

4 Likes

Just wanted to post here saying that we have seen the propositions made here. Our priority internally is to focus on tower balance, economy, and rune removal. Till theres more movement on those axis, I dont want to spread focus.

19 Likes