Atlas reform suggestion

First of all Thank you for reading our post.

We would like to make a simple suggestion to make minor reform to mitigate dead Atlas team.

We propose all teams to have one home castle that cannot be conquered with the following conditions.

Home castle cannot be conquered and it will be situated in the access zone (sz access or NMl access)

In order to attack other castles you must have a minimum of 1 million castle guards and pay upkeep. If you don’t pay upkeep you cannot attack other castles.

The home castle will not grant extra egg tokens or shards.

If you are an inactive Atlas team the home castle is empty and the players on that team will not be able to enter other castles to snipe. Players can get glory in NML. Unless they decide to add 1 million castle guards and pay upkeep.

If you have a castle plus the home castle you are only required to have one million guards in total to access others to attack. You can keep a million castle guard at your regular castle and leave the home castle empty.

This will give all teams a even playing field as now the inactive atlas teams cannot snipe. Also keep all teams accountable in battles. This will also encourage people to conquer and own other castles as all active team is accountable.

Just to be clear this will require PG to grant every team a home castle to be fair.

Hope you would consider this idea

Thanks, SirIRBaboon

NO.

The idea of ​​1m of troops on one castle to hit another is very bad.

No. Having guard castle exposed on red zone without shards and egg token bonus is big no.

What makes you think inactive teams are sniping? They sounds active to me

:man_facepalming:t2:

why?

you don’t have to take care of it if you have other castles so doesn’t really take anything away.


I’ve never seen sniping from inactive teams as an issue, but clearly is a topic that people keep bringing up.

The main problem I see with this idea is the glory percentages, if these castles give decent glory than they will just be easy targets and would make it impossible for those teams to build up. At the same time if they give no glory, than is not really worth to revenge.

Depending on definition of inactive or active team. For simplicity sake we will call teams without castles.

No, silly idea.

Who is this “we” you speak of?

:man_facepalming:t2:

I like the fact that you are thinking creatively about this issue.
There must be some way to reduce piracy and increase the value in belonging to a functioning team.
These ideas are worthy of being explored by PG even if their end result bears little resemblance, there is merit in incentives / minimums to allow activity in atlas.

I understand what you’re going for. But the pirate teams you’re talking about are fully active. They just choose to not have castles and play the game on their own terms. Inactive teams are those that just do nothing and roll over and die.

What I’m seeing is that you want each team to have an access castle with 1m guards on it. No matter what, these castles cannot be conquered. So all they have to do is have 1m guards and pay upkeep and then they can snipe?

My question is how does this make all teams accountable? How does it encourage people to conquer castles? It is not just pirate teams that snipe. cough guilty as charged cough

2 Likes

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