Atlas structure

I know there are a bunch of ideas about how to make Atlas better. And i know someone will kill these ideas off in a heartbeat…but unless people share their thoughts, we will never get anywhere.
So here goes.


Create a new map where all castles are access castles (or max one bubble anyway…) Put the highest leveled castles in the middle of the map, and the lowest in the outskirts. Use some time to create a map that actually looks good! Not like the shuffle map…


Infrastructure will belong to a team, not a castle. To level up the infrastructure, you need to have a certain amount of castles or levels (or a combination). So, all castles belonging to a team will have the same level buildings.
If you loose any castles, the infrastructure level will not be lost completely, but you will only receive the perks you get from the current amount of castles/levels. The perks will be regained as soon as you have regained your castles (or have conquered new ones). Upgrades will stop during the period you are out of the requirements, but will resume as soon as you meet them again.
Loose all castles, and your infrastructure will be useless until you take a new one.
Money in the bank will not be lost if your infrastructure level down, but you will not be able to build the bank account back up again higher than the current level.

The maximum amount of castles will be determined by league. The higher the league, the more castles are allowed. (might reduce some sandbagging teams). Same here as with the bank… No castles will be taken away, but if someone takes if from you, you cannot claim it back if you have dropped league.

I know i had more…but cannot remember it at the moment…and the missus wants to watch out tv-series… so…

The general idea here is to get some distance between the stronger teams (middle) and the weaker teams (outskirts). Unless the Mega alliance are determined to bring their puppets into the middle… With all castles being accessible, the puppets will not be as useful as they are now.

Also, this way the castles themselves arent as important… if you loose a castle, you can replace it with another castle without loosing any infrastructure. There will be a fight towards the middle as Malik wants (somewhat what Malik wants anyways). Benefits from being close to the center will be higher rewards from the higher level of the castles. Might even have better beasts in the middle.

Ok… so Missus just started sharpening the kitchen knives here…

Okay, let’s see here.

What levels? Do still mean the T2-T5 we have now?

Agreed. The shuffle map was very hard on the eyes.

This is already the case.

Interesting idea. Flesh this out. What levels are you talking about? The same 1-12 we have now? What would be the requirement of castles and/or castle levels for infrastructure levels? What would be the benefit of getting more castles/levels?
Currently HQ, Bank, and Tower are decoupled from the tier of the castle and any castle can have max level 12 of these. Only fort and refinery are limited to tier of castle. Would you change this?

Except for the resuming upgrades, this already exists on the current infrastructure. We no longer lose any infrastructure levels if the castle is conquered/surrendered it is put into storage as is. All perks related to said infrastructure are recalculated on conquer/surrender when “lost” and again when infrastructure is applied on a new castle. Any upgrades are lost.
How would you restore an upgrade going on a infrastructure set? Would it lose any time?

I am not sure about this one. Atlas is a different beast than main game leagues. Main game league is determined by wars, nothing more. You could have a Diamond team that is not active in Atlas theoretically and a Platinum team that is more active than said Diamond team. (Not saying it happens but technically it could.) Are you suggesting Atlas should have it’s own league structure?

This already happens. Just mixing up where the castles are will not change things honestly. You would have to make the cost to move from the outskirts to the center and vice versa so cost prohibitive teams would prefer to hit their neighbors rather than keep neighborhood no hit agreements and move to other parts of the map to fight.

Technically you can now, so why is this not the case?

Honestly not so sure about this. If teams aren’t fighting for higher tier castles now, why would just changing the layout of the castles by tier make a difference? Give some more details on what you think the benefits of tier castles to work from here.

It already is that higher tier castles have higher tier beasts spawn and better rewards. The output of the tribute is really dependent on the level of your fort on each of the castles. 20 level 12 forts (all T5) is the best you can get. People already look at their rewards and try to upsize here or there if they can defend them all, but many teams have what they have from buying or trading with allies. Some get conquered, but not many.
So what would you want to see changed in the benefits to make it more enticing to hold the higher tier castles?

The real issue is, you are still left with a defensive game. The more incentive you give to holding castles, the more incentive you give for not letting those castles be conquered. You get more benefits from your castles, and it might increase activity some, but losing a castle will still be a huge blow. Why go conquer a castle when you can just defend what you have and keep what you have?

The only way I see it working with your suggestion is to have a seasonal map reset. Which honestly, would upset a lot of the player base.

And the argument has come full circle! :crazy_face:
Yep it’s the castles :man_facepalming:and your right your still just left with a defensive game :man_shrugging:

Positional attacking that supports the over all goal of positional dominance is the only real solution to this mess :+1:

Its the only change that offers a long term solution to ALL these issues and if you move rank to map based on a teams position it will drive escalation and support the overall goal of dominating the center of the map while making sandbagging by teams impossible!

This removes the goal of acquisition of MULTIPLE defense positions that support lag mega alliances and stagnation and gives all teams a SINGLE :point_left: offensive goal!

Yes this is the reason we can’t balance this map!:fire:

ITS THE CASTLES !!! :rofl::rofl:
They create the equilibrium between play styles they create mega alliances by simply existing on the map!
Adding complexity to attack mechanics and expansion of the map has only lead to even more lag!

The game was stagnant the events we’re getting old because of the sheer repetitiveness of it.

Yep each event began to hold less and less meaning as they are short term features and creating new ones helped but only temporarily and they were hit and miss with design and I assume costly to produce or we’d see more of them!

So pg decided the game needed something that offered long term escalation of combat as events were floundering and war was dead long ago!
So the map was born to provide that long term escalation of combat to replace wars and events but they dropped the ball and designed the map for short term defensive play :man_facepalming:
Shuffling this map literally defeats the entire purpose of adding it!
And by shuffling it you will have reduced it to a short term feature!
Basically it becomes a season long event that will have as little escalation as our current events!
Shuffling this map makes it even more pointless :man_facepalming:

These replies are getting longer and longer.