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.