Atlas Update - February 2020 Official Discussion Thread

Plead your case to the controller of a mega alliance. Maybe they will help and tie you down to their rules. :woman_shrugging:t2:

Because Mega alliances control who gets and keeps castles. That team of 50 can be as active as any other team but chooses not to participate in the politics bs. That team of 20 is a dead team that is only used to cycle out players looking for better glory.

What you propose means that any team could be kicked from atlas if a mega alliance gets pissed at them and decides to take all of their castles and make sure they cant hold onto another. It means that if you dont suck up to a mega alliance then your team doesnt get to have atlas.


That’s what’s happening right now though. My team got hit listed by a mega alliance because we won’t conform to their politics. In a way, we pissed them off because we want to attack and try to get a castle instead of bargaining for it. Which, according to all these mega alliance people, the ONLY way to play in atlas is to bargain and suck up to Dread and the other top teams who control mega alliances. @Arelyna and @PGMichael can correct me if I’m wrong, but the only correct way to play atlas seems to be by bowing down to dread or another mega alliance. In which case, if they try to say I’m wrong, they need to re-evaluate what is really going on.


How does it encourage? If your castle guards has been reduced to 0, likely your battle has almost ended with almost all your member dead.

I’ve seen many a battle that go on for hours where the defending primarchs do NOT have 500 troops, but the guard is 0. Defenders numbering in the couple dozen or more. Of course, when one of the defenders dies, you have to resummon, retroop and hightail it back there. If the drop rate is faster than the recovery rate… well… that castle is toast.

1 Like

I have to think about this.
The shrine event concerns me in D1. Just one of them?

1 Like

If PG wants higher turnover then you going in with 70K troops should be able to conquer even if the other attacking team has more troops but no one primarch with more than 30K. It would then be incumbent on the other attacking team to also attack you to prevent you from conquering. This makes the most sense and a much more interesting fight.

If you are attacking a sniper on your castle. Would you still get 100% glory even it they are quite a bit smaller?


Re-Titled… How to kill an entire game in one fell swoop…


I believe any prim in our castle worth 100%, regardless of their stats.

1 Like

Can we get more info or a chart on this? I looked but I wasn’t able to find info on den caps for hatching a dragon in a tier.

and also because of the defender’s bad revival rates. so please boost regen rates like mentioned and Review defender’s revival rates.

Can I ask how does this solution solve the problem of mega-alliances or castle stagnation?

It does sound like a good atlas event (do battles give glory? will the regular revive rate apply to troops here or will it be 100% revive rate given its not on actual castles?) but it does not solve a core issue in atlas (mega alliances) which affects actual castles and all the other problems this post is trying to solve.

For the stagnation and mega alliances issue, along with was mentioned about simplifying castle conquers in the update, this will be a big problem if passages remain the way they are; ie get a powerful team with so many troops to conquer then surrender to another alliance team. Please re-consider how passages and enemy troops on a castle can be limited.

This is great. :+1:

Can we get an approximate timeline for the changes?

Thank you for the efforts :rose:


So disappointing :man_facepalming:. More for the ones that already have and less for those who don’t.
WELLCOME TO THE NEW ATLAS FULLY RULED BY ONE TEAM. Flawless victory. 99.999 vs 0.0001
But thank goodness @PGDave and the EB are working on it ufff I was afraid for a sec.


I strongly feel that your idea of “how Atlas should be used” is horribly askew.


Long post incoming. Consider yourselves warned.

Well, quite a slate of planned changes. Which is a promising start, considering that everyone who’s paying attention is pretty confident that you can’t just tweak one thing in a system as complex as Atlas. But let’s go point-by-point:

  • Remove penalties for conquest

    This is a good thing, especially with the intention of increasing castle turnover. Larger teams might be able to afford the costs easily already, but smaller teams might have struggled.

  • Scale glory bands

    Glory scaling absolutely needed to be addressed - there’s no reason that someone should be able to get any glory for hitting 200 levels down (personally, I was in favor of negative glory for that sort of thing), and it was ridiculous to have higher-level players than you be worth less glory than you.

    That said, I’m hesitant as to how this tier-based scaling plan will work out. It actually seems like a player could be punished for breeding well, whereas before a player was punished for building poorly, and like it works in a bunch of irregular stair-steps rather than a reasonable progression.

    Two players at the same level could have a glory difference of 30% - or even more! - because one is ahead on breeding. And more than that, they could have that difference in glory while having identical bases, because they’re waiting until Fort to level towers. This also has very flawed incentive structures - a level 220 with harbinger tier is worth the same as a 300 with harbinger tier - and a player can literally jump 30% in glory in a matter of minutes.

  • Removing overly disengaged teams

    This seems like a poor half-measure, if the goal was to discourage jumping down to low-league teams for glory. And presumably, an unnecessary one, with the changes to glory.

    And if the goal was to remove teams that aren’t actively engaging with the whole castles mechanic of Atlas, then we get into the whole “removing all teams that don’t hold castles” thing, which has been heavily discussed, and is not without its own problems.

  • Fix conquest mechanics

    On one hand, great. The whole thing where teams could just prevent conquest by repeatedly summoning low-troop primes was a result of poor mechanic design.

    On the other hand, this makes it MUCH easier for the teams that are already at the top of the totem pole to conquer castles from others.

  • Power rank rework

    Covered under glory scaling, but it’s questionable if it should be. This even more strongly incentivizes the strategy of teams loading up with low-level taunters.

  • Glory scaling/revive troop ratio

    Players are definitely bleeding troops. This doesn’t seem like enough to counter it. The current design is particularly punishing for players who don’t have Atlas Elite, who can lose more troops in one attack than they can generally build in a day. And even for the ones with it, a single big battle can burn through months’ worth of troops.

  • Daily quests to seed troops

    Analyzing the kill cap does seem useful, and the daily quests/login troops would be valuable, not to mention the boosted regen rates - though it’s worth noting that gold would also have to be made easier to acquire in quantity.

  • Retreat mechanism

    This would be good. Maybe something to the tune of “lose X% of loaded troops immediately, but primarch can move off the castle.” That way, there’d at least be a reasonable option for most players when a level 600 taunter shows up.

  • Shrines

    While I like the idea of mini events between well-matched teams, this seems like something incorporating the worst parts of Kingdom Wars, just with shrines instead of monuments. Not to mention that I see no way that this comes close to resolving the actual problems with Atlas - e.g. mega alliances, power imbalances, access to castles, sniping/pirating favored over castle battles, defending sucks even when you win, etc.


Well-intentioned? Maybe. Practical? Some of it, maybe. Likely to actually resolve the major problems with Atlas? Not at all.


@Arelyna- ok, here is my two cents:

Changes to the conquer are absolutely the worst idea ever thought of! All that will happen is any big team that wants a little team out of it’s way will come in with primes loaded to the max and just conquer over the primes there without having to fire a single shot…PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT IMPLEMENT THIS!

I am also concerned about the loss of Atlas to teams that did not have players for most of the last season…a lot of us know this is coming and we are trying to find worthwhile teams to take our underutilized Atlas teams…please give us some time to do this! Not all of us use these shell teams as a way to snipe…some of us keep them and give them to deserving up and coming teams that want to have atlas. I do not want to see all the hard work that went into all our stored infrastructures just lost because you guys did not give us enough time to prepare for this. Please give us a season to get these teams transitioned to new owners.

As for the glory changes, those are always a wait and see proposition.

As for the Shrine idea - WHY? We don’t need a replacement for atlas…we need Atlas fixed! Instead of Shrines we need changes that remove the dictatorship that currently exists in Atlas. Why does PG refuse to make changes that will affect the Diamond teams? Every single change we get is one that either does not affect Diamond, or benefits them. Yet we are forced to live with changes that negatively affect everyone but diamond. Come on PG…there is more to this game than just your whales. We just want fair gameplay…that should not be so much to ask.


I believe it’s currently 50% max difference and it should be around 15% max in all honesty.

Why is the net positive change (higher troop building for everyone) the one that needs to be studied while the rest is set to implement already? Experiment with it too whether 20% more or whatever as with the rest of the proposed changes.


Is this Shire event going to last 1 week and disappear like Assault and Dungeons? Or is this going to be a weekly event



Changes to the conquer are absolutely the worst idea ever thought of! All that will happen is any big team that wants a little team out of it’s way will come in with primes loaded to the max and just conquer over the primes there without having to fire a single shot…PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT IMPLEMENT THIS!


Hmm… how do you conquer without having to fire a single shot? There is a few conditions for castle conquer.
Castle guard need to be 0. To be 0, you will need to kill the primarch guarding the castle to even touch the castle guards.

The only way I could think of not having to fire a single shot is if a castle is close to being conquered and already have 0 guards, and some guy with a taunter swoops in with 200k troop and conquer but Well, that is an entirely different scenario. And the taunter will then face the wrath of the attacking team then.

Honestly I feel this changes do fix quite a number of problems in atlas, especially with the revive ratios which in what I see, limits the willingness of bigger teams in mega alliance to help the smaller teams as they tend to have more permanent loss if they are helping out a smaller team with a smaller enemy, in other words, the ones that will be helping out will be those teams around the same tier, and this is a good change, it makes conquering mega alliance castles possible.
The update is more of a disadvantage for my team but I admit I’m pretty impressed that they managed to thought of these way to solve and I do think its a good change.

What Im not so impressed about is the glory band tied to dragon den, as what was mentioned above, it felt like you were punished for being advanced/up to date in breeding. So if I am lvl 400 with empyrean and hit a lvl 400 breeding only harbinger cos he suck so much, I’m getting 40%? That doesnt sounds right to me, we actually hd the same base XP.