Atlas restructuring

There’s been some pretty heated debate about if atlas works in its current system for the majority of teams. I would like to fully outline a suggestion I have that I believe would work.

First I think it’s best to outline the things this is designed to “solve” and clarify it not trying to do some things people have raised concerns about:

  1. Reintroduce competition for top tier land
  2. Remove the concept of “safe” castles buried many layers deep.
  3. Maintain personal rewards in atlas seasons.
  4. Minimise the desirability of mass alliances
  5. Open up more of the atlas features for the majority of players.
  6. Help fix lag at major battles

Atlas Map structure

To do this I’d suggest that atlas would need to become a series of smaller maps. With the following (ish) structure.

  1. Top 100 teams by power/rating/influence
  2. Next 200 teams by power/rating/influence
  3. Next 300 teams by power/rating/influence
  4. Remaining teams with atlas access.

Each season would start with a land grab. All infrastructure and guards from the previous season would be returned to storage with no cost. At the end of a season the bottom 10% of a league is relegated and replace with the top teams from the league below.

Land distribution

Land distribution would be set up on the following basis:

Map 1 - 2000 castles 15% level 5, 20% level 4, 30% level 3, 35% level 2
Map 2 - 3000 castles 15% level 5, 20% level 4, 30% level 3, 35% level 2
Map 3 - 3600 castles 10% level 5, 15% level 4, 30% level 3, 45% level 2
Map 4 - 4000 castles 5% level 5, 10% level 4, 30% level 3, 55% level 2

When designing the maps no castle should be more than 3 jumps from NML access.

Land bonuses

Land based rewards would scale up from the lowest map. Level 2 land bonuses in all maps would be equal to current level 2 land bonuses. However higher level land would be scaled up so level 5 land in map 1 would be worth considerably more than in map 4.

All maps would have seasonal rewards where finishing 1st in the map below would be equivalent to finishing halfway up the map above.

e.g.

Map 1
1st -1000 days
50th - 100 days

Map 2
1st - 100 days
100th- 20 days

Map 3
1st - 20 days
150th - 10 days

Map 4 - 1st 10 days

Glory

The same glory system would be used in all leagues and all seasonal progress would be the same.

2 Likes

So I’m unclear as to what this is trying to do. Is it an attempt to solve the points you listed or are they the ones it isn’t trying to solve.

Once I know this I will likely have some questions for you but I don’t want to jump the gun on any of them.

Do we really need another threat to those existing?

1 Like

Makes sense, thank you DJ. The numbers might need some adjustment and would just add that the rewards should be scaled up going from map 4 (same rewards as what’s offered now) to map 1 (increase rewards there) rather then maintaining map 1 rewards as what we have now and reducing map 4 rewards.

Also hope that alliances within map 1 are more sensible than what things are now, otherwise the same issues will be repeated.

Well if you ask to put a new system like this, in first the max allowed teams to attack a castle needs a limit. Its easy to see why u suggest it this way.

1 Like

Someone suggested it would be a good idea to outline it in a new thread. If preferred it can be merged into the other one.

Are you suggesting that you need max attackers on a castle as well or that smaller maps should mitigate it? I believe smaller maps with fewer targets would decrease the desirability for mass alliances. Especially as the number 1 ranked team would get minimal glory hitting number 100.

@Sally you can’t really scale up the rewards too drastically or the net effect will be to increase the gap even more between the haves and the have nots.

Teams and Numbers of troops to attack should be limited. If keep it like now, it would be only a matter of time before a lot of teams are destroyed with current system.

Hmm maybe not too drastic of an increase or average the bonuses from tiers now and +/- from there according to map.

I think for the purposes of discouraging large alliances within one map, what @ButWeKnowUsuck is suggesting in terms of limiting number of teams per castle attack makes sense too. (I mentioned it another thread but would also freeze passage during a castle attack). That way its a balanced fight within the maps as well.

I mean with limit also the teams defending. Only 5ta against 5ta, attacker troops limit also.
I think all would agree that atlas politics went too far and slowly kill the game more and more.

Strange as it may sound freezing passage during an attack is of more benefit to an organized attacker than the defender and by a significant amount.

A group of well organized teams can simply lock out any potential help leaving the defenders without hope of assistance while preventing teams from prioritizing or even changing who they are providing assistance to.

How would you enforce the limit?

Castles could be made perfectly secure by having an allied non 5TA park there preventing any attacks if presence is all you need and if not what would be the measure?

Actually i see some of rhe biggest teams in game attack level 2 castles and go conquer, gift them arround to there lower teams in mega alliance. This is something we need talk about, why should top 20 teams even allowed to attack those little teams?

But we’d also limit the number of teams attacking the castle. This way your 5ta and the 5 teams on passage are defending (but passage doesn’t rotate) and the limited number of attacker teams are attacking.

I think it gives a balance between castle stagnation (if we can’t hold a castle with 10 teams defending us then we shouldn’t hold it) and being majorly outnumbered by attacking teams.

All you have to do though is draw out the 5TA/teams they would call for help in other battles before you strike. They can’t help because they are on other passage lists (if you can be on more than one this is still broken but for other reasons) and boom isolated and destroyed because their friends are locked into helping elsewhere while the attackers have exactly the teams they want.

This is the point of having castles only a maximum of 3 hops from NML/neutral. It removes the necessity of passage.

Personally if you wanted to play with the passage list I’d opt for a consistent 1 hour cooldown whenever passage is altered.

I mean thats just strategy Ara. The point isn’t to prevent castle takeover. It’s to balance the fight.

But if the access castles are locked in the fashion I described then it doesn’t matter how deep they are because they cannot be attacked.

Top teams have to be able to attack little teams as long as they’re in the same map. Otherwise you can put the rank 2 team behind rank 500 and the rank 1 team cannot get to them.

I do agree there needs to be less incentive to do this… something I would do by taking them out of direct competition

I get that. What I’m saying is this unbalances the fight in a huge way. We don’t want stalemates but we don’t want it one sided either… unless you do.

No what I was talking about if a fight at a castle can only be between one 5TA on each side of you have another 5TA park on an access castle it’s “under attack” and can’t be attacked then by anyone else. Hold 2 castles in the area and you can still hunt beasts and even return the favor. Suddenly all castles behind them are made perfectly safe.