Atlas Overhaul Changes

There have been a lot of different discussions on how atlas is “broken” and other issues. Here is my take on it:

1: Divide castles from level 2-10, and create mechanics to prevent hitting outside of a team's rank.

X: When Atlas was created, only Diamond and Sapphire teams were part of it (S3 was actually a big deal back then as well). Now Atlas is flooded with teams ranging from D1 down to P4 (and a few disbanded/revived teams). This is important, because gear has become necessary to have a strong dragon/base, however, it’s caused other issues.

Y: While Diamond and bigger Sapphire teams dominate T5’s and T4’s, this leaves T3’s and T2’s for lower sapphire teams and high Platinum teams (what Atlas was originally designed for). For the new teams entering atlas, there aren’t any castles for them.

Z: Step 1: Make castles T2-10. This would (hopefully) make it so that bigger teams don’t care about the smaller castles, and the trickle down can extend further than it currently does.

Step 2: Arrange castles based on level. If T2’s become occupied by rank 700+ teams, they shouldn’t gate bigger castles. Separate them so that teams can chill with other teams around their level.

Step 3: (This is also my idea to break down mega-alliance’s influence slightly). Don’t allow teams with a certain rank (not power level, but rank based on their castles) hit lower level castles and vice versa. As long as castles are separated, there won’t be any need to bubble through 8 low level castles to get to your target. It would also prevent complete annihilation of a target team, but rather just force the team to take a few steps down.


Let’s put max castles counting towards rank at 10, and make the castles worth their level. These wouldn’t be the optimal rackets, but hopefully illustrates what I mean.

A team with 100 points (10 lvl 10’s) can only attack other level 10’s and level 9s. A team with less than 20 points can only attack level 2 castles. If little brother that has 40 points gets in a fight, their big brothers with 80-100 points can watch from the sidelines, but can’t get involved because the mechanics wouldn’t allow them to even go to those castles.

An exception I would make is for teams with 0 points being free to attack whoever they like, mainly so that a strong team that chooses the pirate life aren’t forced to pound on the small teams non-stop.

*Note: When a team owns a castle but new conquers make it impossible to defend their lower level castle, troops on those prims are sent back to the barracks, primes are un-summoned, and the castle is completely abandoned (kind of how KOTH worked). Losing a castle however would NOT force the team to surrender the castles too high for their bracket, and they and their 5TA can continue defending it (they just can’t go to any other castles that are too high for their rank bracket).

**Note 2: If a 5TA has teams in different power levels (and therefore aren’t able to go to each other’s castles, a warning will e given, but NO mechanic exceptions are made. This would force teams to group with teams of similar power, and prevent exploits to help out the “little brother”.

2. Give troops as part of the daily tribute to teams that don't have castles, or only have a few castles.

X: Infrastructure and prizes go up and up as a team acquires more castles. This makes sense, but causes a pretty serious problem.

Y: Once a team has gained power, it’s pretty much impossible to take them down. In addition, teams that are new to atlas can’t compete with the extra troops veteran teams have built up.

Z: As part of the daily tribute, give extra troops to teams with fewer “points”. As points increase, troops go down, but the normal tribute would increase. This would allow for a “back-and-forth” type gameplay, because it would essentially be a bit easier for weaker teams to hit back.

*Note: I know everyone is thinking “this would just help pirates”. I’ll cover that in my next point.

3. How to counter the strategy of making it impossible to get hit by renouncing castles

X: It’s easier to get glory attacking and not having to worry about getting hit back.

Y: This has created what is commonly referred to as “pirates”. Although not technically an exploit, and extremely difficult to deal with, they can be a bit annoying.

Z: Make glory bonuses as part of infrastructure. A team with 0 castles get about 50% of normal glory (remember they’re getting bonus troops, so new teams aren’t getting punished as they try to catch up). The infrastructure needed to reach full glory I think should be relatively low, perhaps the equivalent of 5 level 2 castles, but access castles being worth double. (Each castle gives a 10% bonus). If pirates want to sail the high seas, then great, but there is little glory compared to the kingdoms that have homes.

This would be a pretty drastic change, and require a bit of work, especially with balancing concerns. It doesn’t completely change atlas though, and the largest portion of work would probably be restructuring the map. The t2-10 method could probably be implemented by turning t5’s to t9’s and 10s, t4’s to 7/8s, t3s to 5/6, and t2s to 3/4 and adding in more 2’s.

I think something similar to this would greatly impact mega-alliances, pirating, and the extreme lack of catch-up mechanics for teams that are new to atlas. I also think there are other things that could change, but I’d like to stay focused on these main issues. With that said, I’d love feedback and the mention of things that I’ve undoubtedly overlooked.


My take would be:

Fix the lag in Atlas

  1. I don’t agree with this. But there is some merit to putting a larger divide between the castle levels. Those who hit up should be rewarded for being bold. Those who hit down should be penalised for cowardice. Except in Defence. I think there should be incentive for teams to work up the levels, lower teams holding T2 and coveting T3, working towards T3 and coveting T4 etc. I think that the benefits of owning higher castles is not worth bothering at this point. They need to make a larger divide to make it more appealing.

  2. Disagree (vehemently). There needs to be disincentives for teams who do not own castles, not rewards. Encouraging castleless pirate teams is unhelpful to the flow of the game that is about hitting and revenging. I think that teams should get less rewards for being castleless, giving them incentive to pick up at least one castle. It’s not like they’re hard to get at the moment.

  3. If that says we should be able to hit pirates back - 100% support that.

I’m not sure what a “mega alliance” is, are you able to define that ? But having friends that allow you to fly with your team as well as others is a positive in the game for me. I love the social aspect of it, particularly in defence and I think we should encourage that, rather than attack it. In offense, well applying varying rewards based on levels might stop those diamond teams that i’ve watched recently attack and remove castles from Gold/Plat teams and then spend a whole bunch of time sniping plat teams. This stuff is always going to happen as there is some strategic value to some castles, but the rewards should be so poor that most won’t want to bother.

I don’t think you’ll ever stop friends protecting friends and I don’t think you’ll ever break up the friendships without moving people from the game. Given my teams position in Atlas / the game it’s very clear that people are leaving the game in droves, and teams are combining to create less teams. Making it less appealing to play is just going to move that along.

50% glory for more troops and isolating all piracy to the smallest castles while spreading the bonuses and only allowing teams of relative rank to attack each other
Hmmmm at first glance……

Pirates will mercilessly grind for glory with more troops and you will be forcing them to hit small teams instead of the bigger teams.
You will need to address individual sandbagging or level 500 plus pirates will become a issue for smaller teams who will be their only available targets.
The wolf feeding on the lamb……

And new teams will be left to contend with increased piracy this will not be good for new team progression.

This will also support high level piracy and alliance supported privateering!
This is when a higher level team could attempt to hold/defend a castle long term but chooses not too!
Yep they will conquer t4 and t5 access repeatedly and leave low troop primes and no guards but will not actually bleed troops to keep it.
And then when it’s conquered they will simply take it back with
alliance support!
Castles owned by privateers are now not worth attacking and conquering one will prove difficult and yep a new stronger meat shield is the result of privateering.

Then you have to consider how many teams are in diamond and when diamond can hit only diamond their burden of play will increase when sapphire is no longer an available source of glory.

Nope I still feel zero urge to defend a castle :man_shrugging:

1 Like

Woah, teams can only hit other similarly ranked teams. What will we dooooooo
All I’m gonna say is your idea of a new map also restricts non similarly ranked teams From hitting each other

There should be some competition between sapphire and diamond :man_shrugging:
It’s not all or nothing on a positional map the above average sapphire team would be knocking at diamonds door once they physically push their way to where it transitions then they will need to Displace a diamond team to move up!
Not quite the same because diamond can hit sapphire but only when a sapphire team pushes up to close lol and that means they are ready to try!

Own a couple of access castles and then talk.
:face_with_monocle: it’s a pain in the ass defending them with the mega ganks about.
. They maybe " Easy " To get if you are in an alliance.
As a lone pirate team, you can’t easily get castles.
And let alone keep it without getting exhausted.

I’m unsure of your point here. Teams that are new to atlas can pick up an access castle really easily. The best way to learn atlas is to protect one of those. Why would you assume I haven’t had access castles ?

I agree it’s a mega pain in the back end to have them and protect them.

My experience in atlas is that you’re wrong. Pirate teams pick up and dump castles all the time. Although realistically, pirate teams who pick up castles do put a great big target on themselves, but thats on the, right?

Pirate teams often pick up castles over breeding/fort to allow them to store and distribute resources. Most of them are castle less by choice not inability to find and hold them.

This is not in response to the OP’s original idea… but instead, a message to the responders of it and the responders to the responders and so on.
Almost all “solutions” to “problems” will always have a negative impact on the way the other player wants to play the game.
I may want a full reset, but that totally hurts one segment of players.
I may want a change that penalizes or does away with pirates… That hurts one segment of players.
I may want to do away with Mega Alliances…That may hurt one segment of players.
My point is this and has been said many times, While there may be solutions to any number of problems, “fixing” these problems will impact negatively one segment of the game population while benefitting another. Each 'PLAYER" has their own style of play, their personal likes and dislikes, and doesn’t want to lose what they have or how they play. Each “player” that is on forums has an opinion and style of play and when those styles of play may be threatened by another “player’s” idea to change the game or “fix” “problems” perceived or real to their personal way of playing will start “voicing” their own opinion on same forums by replying to a post or by starting their own thread.
Short of a full reset of Atlas with the implementation of a new map and possibly new mechanics, any or all of the previous threads/comments mentioned in these forums in regards to Atlas play cannot be achieved to the satisfaction of the ENTIRE player base.
While I am not advocating for a full reset, the entire player base loses the current form of Atlas and each individual, team, 5ta, Mega Alliance, would start from the exact same point at the exact same time. Every player, team, 5ta, and mega alliance would have to re learn the new mechanics of a new Atlas. No one will have a head start.
This then brings up the “IF PG DOES “THIS” I AM QUITTING THIS GAME” or the IF PG DOES “THAT” “EVERYONE” WILL QUIT… Let me just stop you there. I have seen others say " BYE FELICIA" or “QUIT ANSWERING FOR THE ENTIRE PLAYER BASE… I will throw both those right back at you if you disagree with what I am saying… See How I did that…
And for those who like to " take little excerpts” from a poster not in full context, meaning, or intent to justify the response that counters the poster’s opinion, Stop!! Let them have their voice. Whether you like it or not!! Make a reply without these little copy and pasted excerpts. Make your own thread or whatever.
Just quit trying to dictate how the game should be played, quit saying one players style of play is wrong as it doesn’t suit your style of play. Stop belittling posters that come here to share their experience ( positive or negative). Offer solutions or advice in a kind and meaningful way.
I truly hope each of you can find happiness in this game. If you cannot find happiness in it’s current state, you are always free to seek out other games or activities that do make you happy.

1 Like

You clearly didn’t read very closely (or bothered to open the hidden details at all). This idea isn’t designed to help pirates, it would be to help teams that are new to atlas, as well as create a back-and-forth mechanic. While it would help pirates, that is the purpose of the next change:

This would have to be done where the amount of extra troops is worth less than the glory penalty (which wouldn’t be hard to calculate). That way it’s more beneficial to have a castle, than it is to choose to not have a castle. Right now it’s NOT more beneficial to have a castle, and will likely remain that way until glory is played with.

Combined these last two points would (theoretically) both help newer atlas teams, as well as make it a real sacrifice to choose to be a pirate.

It will always remain that way because glory is not the objective!
Change it all you like I will not defend their castles!
No matter what the penalty is.
Yep because glory’s not my goal and neither is defending acquisition
I’m here to dominate positionally and I could care less about your castles or your glory so feel free penalize away it won’t change my goal and unless pg provides one I will just continue with my piracy!:rofl:
So as you can see pg can’t force me to play the game their way!
No amount of secondary rules will force me to make defense my objective.

Yep you will have to give me an overall singular objective :+1:
Otherwise I’ll simply use my own applied tactics to achieve my own independent goal :smiling_imp: and it will never be defense ………simple as that :man_shrugging:

I had a similar idea a year and a half ago… I can’t remember if it was picked apart or just didn’t get any support. Maybe I’ll go look.

I’ve posted about gating between tiers, changing castle levels, changing mechanics for leveling castles, capping castles and troops, map changes and castle attack changes.

In most castles I went fairly in depth, which off the bat eliminates a large chunk of players from reading it since general attention span is limited to a couple paragraphs.

I had someone ask me in a pm about gating to which I responded, but never got a response in return. Which was very disappointing since I respected this persons opinion and would have appreciated feedback.

Without any indication from PG about what would be on the table for Atlas changes, time and commitment from staff or technically what’s possible, the community has no idea how to spend their energy coming up with solutions to the book of issues the player base has identified. I don’t recall the last time I’ve seen a list of what PG considers viable issues from those raised by the community.

I’m sure the Early Birds are hard at it, on what I have no idea. And maybe those few minds are good enough, but who knows.

I’ve supported the slow change approach via incremental changes, I’ve supported the large scale map change. I personally am to the point where a large whole sale change would get my support. But I have zero idea what to get behind because PG has offered nothing much beyond a few tweaks for over a year and I have no idea where they stand regarding the future of Atlas.


I am on a team that thinks just like you ( DIsclaimer: I am not on the poster’s team, However, I am on a pirate team that has as one of its objectives to dominate offensively rather than defensively).
It is much more fun to play without having to worry about defending a castle 24/7. We did that for a few years. And yes, most on the team could careless what glory you assign to what, what advantages you gain from owning castles. It is all about being able to play the style of play that each player wishes to play. IF they didn’t like the way the team played, the player could always move to another team that suits their style. There are many ways ( styles) to play this game and each player can find their style somewhere. If a player cannot find a team that plays the style or way they wish, there is a mechanic for that, Make your team!! Or if a player still can’t fid what they are looking for or is not seek out other games or forms of entertainment. Usually, a player can find a team that suits them or start their own team ( Yes i know before you already respond " Hey but starting my own team i lose atlas, I lose 1billion eggs per day ( LOL) ) Its all about choices. Make a choice you don’t like, Change it. Don’t like ti again, Change it again.

Yep the issue is the core mechanic of acquisition of defense!

Pg can not dictate my objective unless they give me a singular objective and that singular objective is the dominant position and that’s exactly why piracy develops on unbalanced defense maps !

Yep because there is no objective outside acquiring castles and defending them 24/7 and that produces a massive burden of play.
And increasing conflict produces a even more massive defensive burden so PGs goal for this map is stagnation and burden of play!

So pirates are utilizing positional dominance to bypass that burden of defense!
That burden is not sustainable long term! Simple as that!
So what do players do ?
Yep they make their own objective!
And it’s no accident pirates use the exact mechanic the map needs to support long term play :+1:

Yep because we want to play long term without Pgs super profitable burden of defense!

To avoid one alliance taking over the highest leveled castles…

First of all… Im born and raised on a pirate team…so no clue about castle benefits or having to defend one…

It seems to me though, that the difference between the different tower levels needs to be rised… that is, the benefits does… For this thing to work, people would WANT to get higher leveled castles.

Howabout… castle levels are decided by the current owners league.

Lets say that a diamond 1 team could possible own 5 level 5 castles, 5 level 4 castles, 6 level 3 castles and 9 level 2 castles (total 25)…anything else would be level 1.

Diamond 2 could be 4 level 5 castles, 5 level 4 casteles, 6 level 3 astles and 10 level 2 castle…

Sapphire, would start on level 4 castles (no 5s at all) And Plat on level 3…

Dont worry about the numbers…i have no clue what numbers would be best… as long as you get the idea here…

Now… if a Diamond team without castles at all conquered a level 1 castle, it would change to level 5…

If a diamond team would “gift” a castle to a lower ranked team…the castle would loose levels…

A conquered castles level would be decided of the new owners league, and what castle that team already possessed… Highest possible level after the limitations the team got.

This would make sure that no teams would be able to hold all the high level castles in the game…and unless all of diamond 1 would join the same alliance, nor could one alliance own them all…

Would make it more difficult to “take over” Atlas… Castles would be more evenly distributed levelwise…

Cannot gift high level castles to low league friends…

Map would sort of change constantly (not the map itself obviously, but castles would change levels)

This MIGHT even help with sandbagging teams (if they do own castles offcourse) If you drop down a league, your castles would loose levels. (Which castle could be determined by the number of defending troops assigned)

Ok here’s a scenario lol
My team is in d2
We are now dominating down here and are at the top of d2 we have everything lol
We have gathered a few super dedicated players who are light spenders and have years of experience and we have a few hardened veteran spenders who have quit spending and are e2p and we have a few big spenders who play and still spend considerably and consistently
And we have one new aggressive spender who pushed up quickly and is looking to be a future whale! :facepunch::+1: pgs favorite play style! Lol

So yep we have a good mix of solid spending play styles to offer financial stability to offer d1 some competitive play!

We have max castle bonuses for d2 and how are we going to get to a point where we can push up when d1 out grows us and out spends us ………so there’s a gap between the haves and have nots yep that only massive spending at the top will balance out because d2 will not have as many castles as d1 :man_shrugging:
They will need to out spend a team in D1 lol
And the lowest d1 team has it all as well or they wouldn’t be up there :rofl:
But they also possess more castles of a higher rank so your gunna need more of these! :credit_card:

One of many scenarios i bet, where there would be issues…

So far…noone have come up with an easy “fix it all” solution…

Thing is… the team you mention here… will be equally screwed with the current setup…
Unless they join the larger, stronger alliance that is. If yer on the wrong “side” you will not even get to keep ANY level 5 castles… And i dont think that the single level 5 castle difference between diamond one and two will make such a HUGE difference that its impossible to be promoted.

With my suggestion, any diamond two team, no matter what alliance they belong to… will have the opportunity to keep level 5 castles… They can simply overtake a level 1 castle to do so…

1 Like

Oh not shooting it down by any means it’s actually a lot better and far more flexible than what we are working with that’s for d@m sure :rofl::+1:

And at the very least if it isn’t abused somewhere ,somehow it will provide some position based conflict and promote some conflict at the top!
But what it will do to the teams at the bottom and middle will be hard to exactly determine until we try it …… which can create player loss if it’s something major….
But truly we will still be left with no singular objective to drive conflict!

So while balancing engagement at the top it doesn’t provide much conflict escalation because the objective is still to defend

1 Like

The issue here is that of enabling growing new teams, like those who’ve just got atlas. The only way they can get a castle (and keep it) is to find a 5ta with teams who are active (and there’s no ingame matchmaking process for 5tas so this is left to mega-alliances who will assist a match). Without other teams sponsoring or assisting the new teams will quickly lose their castle as they are yet to learn the rules of management (there is no castle management course - again outside of mega-alliances who put these things in place) but most importantly… these teams are in PLAT because they do not have 24/7 player coverage.

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