Atlas Stagnation - Et Al .. a DISCUSSION

Sorry, I started my own discussion and I invite people who are willing to discuss the subject to come and join in. If you are not prepared to come in and discuss, perhaps consider staying out ? Although feel free to come in and say you don’t like an idea, and tell us why.

Why don’t we step back a bit and actually park the discussions on changing atlas and have the discussion about what it is that you don’t like about it. All to often I’ve seen people say atlas is horrible, atlas is stagnant etc. I feel (unconfirmed) that PG listens to a small number of the player base, rather than us all and sometimes I can understand why as every single discussion always devolves into a sh* storm, rather than a discussion. Only the loud voices are being heard with the rest of us ignored, belittled, attacked and otherwise bullied out of the forums.

In order to get good changes to the game, I think we all need to remember that we all look at it from a different viewpoint depending on where we sit in the game (Platinum for me). It often feels like we can’t sit down and set out what the issues are that need to be fixed and actually have a civil, mature discussion as to what people think about it. THIS is why people are always against the changes.

You can’t just say “it sux, fix it” … say why it sucks and recommend what you think should be fixed and then allow people to have a discussion on the subject.

Lets start with the basics.

What do you hate about Atlas ? and why.

I hate the LAG. I hate that it takes up to 30 minutes to fly into a castle being attacked, or return to it. I hate that by the time you get there, you’re already dead (or Schrodinger’s primarch as I like to call it). I hate that when you do get in to fight it takes (again) 30 minutes for your primarch to register as freed, and during that time you are still fighting but getting no points and unable to do anything else.

I think that should be fix number 1 for PG. But I’d like to hear what others have to say on the subject. I think that the problem is a bonus for some players in the game and they use it to take castles, so they will be against the fix. But I think that many people, like me, would like to see it fixed.

I often hear that Atlas is “stagnant” but no one ever tells us what that means. So how about you let us know what about Atlas makes you feel that it’s stagnant. I’ve seen castles been attacked and defended today, so people are playing in it. When I ask what the issue is, I’m told I’m “lazy” and “not playing the game properly” but it’s a war game right ? I’m attacking, I’m defending … that’s what it’s about ? So what exactly am I missing here. Who determines what the ‘right way’ actually is ? and why would there be only one ‘right way’ ?

I’ve heard a lot about the castles many bubbles in, but I don’t have any of those. To me they come with positives and negatives, in that it’s hard to get to them, but it’s also harder to defend them if people do get into them. I’ve seen them fall during battle as well. I know they tried to address whatever the problem was with the Atlas shuffle and I know the player base did not like it. But that doesn’t mean the player base was adverse to the change, merely the way it was changed which really advantaged some teams and disadvantaged others.

And that’s the point isn’t it ? All to often people argue to make the game more successful for them, not for the player base. For instance, the recent suggested change shows this happening. A change that negatively impacts a portion of the player base and positively impacts another portion. It ONLY impacts those with access castles and it’s a real bonus for the pirates in the game. So in my opinion, it’s a bad change. Changes that harm the lower level teams and benefit the higher are not good changes. Changes should level the playing field not create a greater divide.

So, having said that and trying to start an actual discussion. Here are my thoughts …

  1. Address the lag (as above)

  2. Address the issue of the many bubbles in … perhaps rather than moving the castles, why not just build highways through the board ? Make castles no more than # (1? 2?) bubbles in and put red zones through them all ? Some teams wont like that for sure, but there will be an increase in activity as teams move away from access castles back to safer castles.

  3. Find a better way to encourage teams to attack within their close APR. Level 5 castles for diamond, 4st for Sapphire etc. Right now there is little incentive for Diamond to avoid taking T2 castles and giving them to their friends. Make it less appealing . they’ll still do it I imagine, but not as often.

  4. I don’t agree that the point of the game is to lose castles … I think it’s to fight to keep them and to conquer them. So I don’t agree that we should be making them easier to lose. Castles fall all the time at the moment at my level, so we don’t need to make it easier.

But these are my thoughts, based on my position in the game … maybe you can take the time to express your thoughts, based on your position in the game ? I would honestly love to understand why you think Atlas is stagnant / so bad.

Also, as an aside, this is not the kindergarten playground … do we really need to be reporting all the posts we don’t agree with ?

6 Likes
  1. Limit amount of "bubbles " needed to go to castle
  2. Limit number of castles a team can hold
  3. Allow t2 &3 have marshal base as defender or the opposite t4-5 should be AI defender (in any case it should be evened out as a chance to defend ) imo the latter is better than the former if we want to increase attacks count
  4. Increased activity in atlas =more lag. Until lag is resolved good luck hoping for more activity

All of those changes should come in conjunction. But really the problem is the 1. exposure and 2. Unfairness.

If all t5 and t4 are held by diamond and defended by 600+ marshal no matter what platinum or even most of sapphire teams won’t be able to attack it.

50% of players will complain their heart away that the "increased activity " is too much for them, they don’t have rss etc etc. But the issue once again lies in the fact that it’s plainly unfair towards smaller teams. Ideally atlas should have never been the free for all between whales and small p4 teams. The lack of rss for one or abundance of rss for others cannot be solved in current setup. So players make do in current circumstances but ideally there need to be good suggestions on how to even out the chances for all or how to split atlas for different power rank…

2 Likes

This is what I’ve been saying this whole time about every change or addition to the game.

There is really nothing I dislike about Atlas. Attacks, for me, unlike other players, run smoothly without any lag.

Stagnant means there is no activity. Everything is dull and lifeless. That is definitely not an accurate description of Atlas, because I see people springing into action quite frequently in Atlas.

They are actively working on that right now—although every time this is said, other players bring up how it has been so long since the player base has gotten an update on that, so I am going to suggest that maybe that is due to all of the other things that have been happening, and they have been too occupied to update us on said “lag” (which I still thankfully do not experience at all).

With ALL due respect, more than half of those flags were deserved. I agree that incessantly flagging posts of which are not even remotely worthy of a flag is fatuous (it sure concerns me), but a few of them were sensible.

There are a multitude of trickle downs that need to happen IMO.

Lag is obviously a priority at all times. Until they have a grip on it, it’s going to be hard to up activity levels.

Reducing the number of castles from 50 to 25 would free up some of the higher tiers and mid tiers.

Looking at the economy for atlas would be a good subject as well, as the purchased packs for atlas are 29 times worse than the packs for main game. Also increased activity means you need an increase in resources to fuel that activity, and I don’t see a mid level player without atlas elite being able to keep up well if they’re in a decently active team.

I don’t hate the guard accessibility proposal, as castle guards are a free resources passively granted to you through team glory, and not something you “pay” for. If you are active, you’ll have enough glory to replenish your guards. I know teams sitting on 20-50m in team glory for guards.

In all honesty, I don’t have the time I used to. Between working 55-65 hours a week and life and YouTube and game, I don’t have the time I used to have to farm atlas, so when I do have time to snipe or look for glory and I see castles in my teams range loaded with 3k troops, it’s quite frustrating. I’ll get 1k glory if I’m lucky to not get countered and 70% quit on or kreefeebled. Chipping away an entire atlas season 1k at a time isn’t my idea of a fun time.

And I don’t believe that guard swapping your way to max atlas season should be the way either. That is an extremely passive way to play and while some people may enjoy that, it isn’t how the game was intended to be played.

Idk. I’m rambling now. Atlas sucks right now and I hope that it changes for the better. Whatever those changes may be.

11 Likes

PG had said they want more castle turnover. THIS is where Atlas is stagnant. Yes A FEW castles have fallen because of mistakes or poor defense, but as a whole very few change hands because of full out conquer attempts.

When one team tries to conquer a castle, you can have anywhere from 10-30 teams show up to defend to keep it from being conquered and another equal amount attacking. Most of these castles battles take weeks to plan and sometimes weeks to carry out. However most times, teams just give up.

How many castles do you know of that were conquered from enemy teams this week? How many castles do you have and how did you get them? How many teams that got atlas back in December actually built up troops and conquered their first castle? How many were gifted castles instead?

There is a lot going on in Atlas. Just attacking doesn’t mean it isn’t stagnant. If PG wants more castle turnover, they need to encourage castle turnover. That means they need to encourage going out and attacking and conquering castles, not sitting on what you have and never attacking.

You can’t say this doesn’t happen, it does a lot. I have seen it with my own eyes. Many many teams in platinum do nothing but sit and defends their gifted castles all day with the few they have on, usually leadership.

There is a reason why the joke is if you ping the team to come defend you get one or two people showing up, but if you ping for a guard swap you will get 15-35. As a leader, I tried everything to get people active in atlas and out killing enemies rather than just glory swapping all the way down to banning swaps outside of pvp and absolutely no Aligane. It still didn’t work and only once I merged twice into sapphire 2 with like minded players did I find any group that actually enjoyed going out and hitting at castles. Yet we only got in on a few conquers then gasp gave the castle away or sold it. In 4 months we only came under heavy attack once and our 30ta repelled them.

Every single castle we had while I was there was either bought, sold, or traded. The last merge I took many castles with us that were all bought or gifted the previous year.

So while a few castles have changed hands, it isn’t the turnover PG wants and many teams don’t have to do much more than repel a few snipers.

People will take the path of least resistance for best rewards. If we want to make the true meta in Atlas one of regular castle turnover, we need to stop thinking in terms of defending what we have and how much of a blow losing is to an offensive stance of taking them more regularly. Go from “I will defend these castles to my dying breath” to “Sure take it, We’ll just grab another tomorrow no big deal”.

So please, stop thinking of stagnation in terms of just activity to get glory. Think of it in terms of all out war across the map.

Priority #1: Fix the lag!!! (Coming soon we hope.)

10 Likes

Can you explain this one to me ?

1 Like

Agreed.

1 Like

#jealous

This is probably why I struggle to understand what they are trying to say, as if that’s what stagnant means then surely that’s up to them to change ? If they want more attacks, then attack more ? I’ve been attacking / defending for the better part of 7 hours on and off today … not sure i’d call that stagnant. I was thinking maybe there was more too it given how often I hear it ??

I’m not sure I agree. I lose most of my posts due to the use of Australianisms … or the inaccurate assumption that i’m angry when this is just the way I am in real life. We’re adults, right ?

1 Like

I thought they had already done that ? Did people complain about that change ? I can’t see too many doing that given most of us don’t have anywhere near that many, and aren’t likely to.

Supported.

I don’t like it, because it puts more impost on teams with access castles which tend to be the lower teams in the game. This means that they’ll be subjected to more pirate attacks and I’m not a fan of pirates as there is no fight back to them. The game is a war game where we attack and defend, but we can’t attack against teams with no castles. So I’m against it in it’s current format.

Isn’t that the way to discourage snipers ? So in reality you are for the change as it suits your gameplay of sniping ? Wouldn’t it be better for you if they found a way to make it easier for you to get to castles as your level where the fatter primes are located rather than making it easier for you to hit babies? (note for self: reduce prime troop count to 1000 :smiley: ) . I think your point might be an argument for the removal of the castles many bubbles in ? The idea of putting red zones through current safe areas ?

See I have no opinion on this either as I don’t think there is “one” way to play. We don’t guard swap as there is sufficient activity to get the point I want, but those teams are still at risk of being attacked and having to defend, and if attacked they can still go out and attack for revenge, right ?

Rambling / discussing … it’s the point of this forum isn’t it ? To articulate our ideas, listen to others, hopefully be listened to ?

1 Like

I don’t hit teams that don’t give me full glory. Most of the teams I hit are access diamond teams that have 3k prims. So the access argument sadly doesn’t fair well for me, as I don’t hit down, I hit even or up on most occasions.

Edit: I do understand that this is and has been an issue for access teams that get bullied by nimwits who can’t wait a 3 min delay. I’ve led a team that had many gates before. I know how bullies can be. It’s just sad all around.

1 Like

I’m glad we agree on the lag. I don’t however, agree with PG’s idea that castle takeovers are the be all and end all of the game. As many people often say, it’s a war game and the point of the game is fighting, not in losing castles.

If you fight hard, you should not lose castles. If you fight harder, you should win them. Gifted castles still need to be protected. I have to admit that some of the nuances of the game are beyond me ( i love warriors ), but your points all seem to me to come down to the fact that the castles hidden many bubbles in are stopping game play in some regions. Most of the game play comes down to occurring at the T2 access castles, mostly held by Plat/Gold teams.

Teams who are happy sitting on their castles as you put it have to fight for them when attacked, so i’m not sure I see the issue with them being like that.

Maybe PG can explain what they mean when they say we need castle turnover ? Because if it comes down to them wanting us to sink thousands of dollars into this game like some players choose to do, many of us simply cannot afford to do that and will need reluctantly to leave.

Am I wrong though in thinking that if you want to be more active in the game, you just need to attack more ? P* off a few special teams and you’ll get waaaaay more active :smiley:

What am I missing ?

I had no idea there were access diamond castles, as I don’t hang out in the same circles. The only time I ever hit diamond is when they breach the red is dead rule on my castles , and even then … I’m often just nipping their heel on the way past :smiley:

But my point was that to me again it seems the issue is that the game might benefit from not having those castles that are many levels in ? Given teams can hold 25 (or 50?) castles, those with very safe castles can leave one prime on them whereas teams who are mostly access or 1 bubble in cannot do that, leaving a wider range of primarchs to target on the way past.

But this is PG’s challenge. To find a solution that works for you, but not at the cost of those access castles. I apply a “red is dead” rule to my castles so those diamond teams that fly past often find a very small fluffy primarch latched onto their heel. :laughing: It often does not end well for me :smiley:

50 is the current max. They have talked about a reduction but it was never put into play.

There are many access diamond castles, which is where I go for most of my glory, but unfortunately it’s all 2-3k primes. Even when we have access to hidden castles, it’s usually the same tactic. 2-3k primes. Which makes for a very boring game if you don’t want to be a bully and hit low. I don’t find guard swaps enjoyable and aligane is so hit and miss. I enjoy the Pvp aspect of atlas where you actually fight w other teams. But it gets discouraging fast when you can’t also progress in the season.

It’s a hard balance because you have more laid back “here for a good time” players, and then on the other hand you have your hyper competitive players that want action all the time.

I just want to be able to get glory without a headache and without swapping :disappointed:

1 Like

When you attack CG on t4 and t5 you are met not with generic AI base like on t2-t3 but with the base of a marshal assigned to that castle.
Now most of t4 t5 are owned by diamond teams and so they assign their best top dp players as marshals.
Me player 400+ can’t even snipe them not to say go and help out with conquer or anything.

On the other note I personally think PG needs to get their brains together and really think through the direction of where they want it to be going. It’s should be up to THEM to say what stagnation is and what is it they intend to do with Atlas.
I appreciate they are asking for feedback but in the end of the day all I see is

PG suggestion → Forum nuclear explosion → PG abort mission

In some cases it’s justified when their changes are creating an unintended consequences, but with the bigger strategic changes they should just suck it up and stick with their decision.
(And here I’m implying that they think these decisions through very carefully and not just experiment as they go)

I think one of your issues is the lag issue. These big fights that break out sound perfect for you. Teams with high numbers of troops land and defenders have to load up to fight them. I go quite well in the seasons just by helping friends. If I lived in the US timezone i’d have maxed out the atlas season prizes, only missing out as I am in a timezone when most players sleep and miss out on the big hits at times.

:slight_smile:

Thats because they don’t listen to us. When they ask for feedback they’ve already made a decision, then they dump an incendiary device into the forum and step back and watch the fireworks.

They should be seeking feedback, and maybe speaking directly to players in the threads who are actually offering up advice. As even in this small thread, with it’s very few posters has identified some issues for them to ponder.

I still think that the issue isn’t across the board, but rather with the higher level players, I think those at my level, in plat, really do have a busy time of it.

2 Likes

I actually already said it.

4 Likes

I find myself cautiously agreeing here. Your gameplay of conquering and then gifting away is not the norm though. And we still see the problem of diamond and sapphire teams targeting new-to-atlas Platinum III and IV teams just learning how to manage a castle. Rather than risking their own castles by targeting similarly-prepared teams and matching skill to skill they take castles from teams ready-for-castles but still working on leveling prims and building troops. Fair enough if it’s the way you folks play but not when they don’t gift them back or away afterwards.

1 Like

I think the gifting happens more than you realize. I’ve had castles conquered next to us, taken by a higher team from a smaller team. Within a week or two one of their alliance friends has it, usually lower than them. OR it becomes all out war for 2 weeks on that castle with teams from platinum to diamond to keep / get back said castle for their alliance.

A higher team keeping a castle might happen if the castle they took was a deeply buried one where maybe they gifted/sold a different one instead.

I’ve seen several times of a team conquering an access castle, put it up for auction next pvp, have it not sell, then give (or private sell for cheap) to a different low level but in the alliance team. The result was still the same. Take from “unknown baby” team, give to “other baby team”.

Unfortunately PG doesn’t have in (or exposed) the API to see history of castle ownership. It would be interesting to see how many of all castles were conquered by red but friendly teams (sold or keep from enemy conquers), how many were true conquers from enemy alliance, how many were surrendered. I can only suspect that out of all castles, the % of turnover is less than 10% when you take into account all these factors.

1 Like

I agree. The #1 issue in atlas is the lag. When odds are you cannot get to a battle or attack during it without a 30 minute delay in hits registering, it’s impossible to conquer castles.
It’s also demoralizing to players trying to play atlas more. They join a large raid or battle and it’s not that they’re killed in a fun battle but rather they’re stuck - maybe in NML, maybe on a bubbled castle, or maybe on the battle castle! Who knows because the game sure doesn’t and won’t let them move.

So until the lag is fixed we’re suck in the current meta of small groups of snipers instead of large wars.

The next biggest obstacle is the depth of castles. When I have to wait 10 minutes or bubble 5 castles (bullying small teams I have no business fighting) I’m left with a small number of accessible castles to target. This allows teams to effectively defend with 20 3k trappers - they know they won’t get hit elsewhere and if anyone tries their early warning system gives 10 minutes notice.

The t2 and t3 castles held and fought for in the “weak teams” part of atlas don’t feel stagnant. Castles are won and lost daily. It’s not hundreds but several are fought for and conquered. Many more are attacked and successfully defended. It’s dynamic and fun (when we don’t have lag preventing us from playing).

I believe the stagnation is on the t4s and t5s held by the strongest most active teams in the game. They have strong marshal bases shielding guards and super active players always online or nearby. This is why 20k troops across 10 trappers is a suitable defense, with their fort boost and guard base if I load 21k troops to hit guards I’ll be immediately killed by super strong siegers and destroyers before I can clear the strong guard base.
This leads to loading 1k troops to kill a 2k primarch for hours which wouldn’t be fun or good glory.

Meanwhile check any p2 teams t2 access and you’ll find 60k+ troops with 6-8k troops per primarch and dynamic attacking and defending and glory earned all around.

6 Likes