Cheaper to speed up prims movement

Ok so the 30 second delay means that teams can hit anyone, basically anywhere at any time very quick, and you could be trying to counter or defend these attacks.

So in my opinion if it’s quicker for delay movements then it should be cheaper in diamonds to speed up my prims to move to castles, like arguably if you were being attacked by several snipers or even the same one at several castles, they can move quickly but your cost of moving quickly is the same as what it was before the 30 second delay so I think the cost should be a lot cheaper

19 Likes

Its not that expensive though?

1550 diamonds to speed up fully, imo that’s pretty expensive when people can do 30 second delays which is down from what? 15-40 mins originally?I can’t remember what t4s were but they were alot.

5 Likes

I want the old portal system back… :disappointed:

1 Like

In a world of 30 second delays, the maximum time any of your primarchs should take to get any of your 5ta castles should be 30 seconds.

Maybe the answer is faster travel time between castles owned by your 5ta with no change in travel time to other teams’ castles and not to change speedup costs.

9 Likes

That would work for me!

The problem we have now is a raid will have 4-5k on each prim snipe a castle and die.

Then they will pick SZ on a castle miles away, spawn there and hit your castle near there.

Then its a 3m flight that you need to speed up to counter. Then they go somewhere else and you just chase your tail all day :smiley:

Fun to do it to other teams but sucks to be on the receiving end.

If someone can spawn on the other side of the map with no penalty then something should be tweaked for defenders to balance it up.

30s travel time to your own castles sounds like a fair option.

I suspect some will find a way to abuse it so perhaps if the nominal flight time is 3m44 then your prim that flew to your castle in 30s has a "fatigue’ CD of 3m14s where you can’t immediately fly to another castle?

You can spend diamonds to reduce fatigue CD exactly the same cost as flying if needed.

Might make it fair but maybe too complicated as well.

3 Likes

Or possibly it will only accelerate the time to move to castle if more than 5 enemy prims are in 30 second blockade time?

1 Like

You have 50 teammates. Not enough to counter?

Should be 0.

False, that is part of the idea of strategy, being able to instantly jump between castles doesn’t make the game better, just makes defense that much more sunk in. The idea is people should be able to conquer castles. It shouldn’t take a whole 5ta to take a castle from a team.

Since attackers will only need 30 secs to move from a castle to another, for those who want to have both life outside the game and a chance at defending, their primarchs to move from their teams castle to another castle of their teams should be 0.

Since you called the idea “false,” I give you my logic behind.

Castle turnovers has been happening all the time even before 30 sec patch.

If pg wanted more castle turnover, then it should’ve been more about changing the core mechanism and more about a new map that encourages castle turnover. The current map with any castles deeper than 1bd pretty much supports the opposite.

Offense? Cool

But at the same time, defense should also he possible and in a manageable way. Like many have said, this is a game, not a job. If it requires hours and hours just to defend, then something needs to be done to make it shorter and easier.

Plus, the TA system you used as to back up your idea of defining encouraging/discouraging castle turnover? It shouldn’t even have been implemented from the beginning.

The ta system, in the first place, gave the idea to people to form larger alliances that stagnated atlas.

Sure, mega alliance still would have been formed anyway even if there were no “5ta,” people looove sarcasm politics.

But it would have been formed much later and less likely to have been become “mega” sized, if atlas was more about a team v. all other teams.

I mostly agree mostly with @MALIK 's calling for changes because the current direction doesn’t seem right. 30sec change itself separately is good, sure, my team’s even taking advantage of the change. But for those who aren’t so lucky will have to suffer from the change and the super deep castles are still going to be much easier and have higher chances to be protected and that won’t change even with 30secs change.

So unless there will be a structural change, 0 seconds for you to move from one of your castles to another castle of yours is needed as a bandaid.

(Added) Besides, even for the teams that use “bots” or alert or whatever to easen up the workload of having to be online for hours only to defend, starting the game and then entering atlas take time for them too and 30 seconds will always going to be not enough for them.

So I say, structural objective/map change. If that can’t be done, keep the 30 second change to encourage offense and castle turnover, but moving your primarchs from/to your own castles should also be 0 seconds.

2 Likes

Castle turnover is what’s creating player loss and by design revenue ………Well yes and no because it’s not really the turnover…… you see it’s the unbalanced attempts…… that is what produces player elimination…… I mean revenue…… same thing!
Lol

They could care less if the castles change hands because like I’ve been yelling they are actually worthless!
Ummm ….yeah what they care about is engagement/defending and use of consumables that produce revenue through unbalanced engagement and politics.

They do not make money by castles swapping hands they make money from players hopelessly defending castles and neither winning or losing matters as long as it costs us resources and creates troop loss it makes very little difference wether your successful at attacking or defense.
Yep because it’s the burden of unbalanced defense that produces revenue at the cost of a ever increasing burden of play!
And eliminating players and teams is what is currently producing revenue here!

Not really…. Lmao elimination has been happening and this will only make defense easier and stagnation cheaper and attacking even more detrimental.

It will just speed up elimination and yes castles change hands when whole teams are eliminated by attrition and unbalanced engagement lol
This is not a war game it’s a sad political theater where castles are more likely to be purchased or swapped ….where attacking is less profitable than military movement exercises where players swap glory in fake attacks……
Yeah it’s become laughable to even say this game holds any tactical play now!

Thats just it they do not…. THE OBJECTIVE IS DEFENSE :man_facepalming::boom:

It doesn’t really matter to them because they have unbalanced engagement so basically they could care less if castles actually change hands they simply need us to keep attempting it pointlessly……

And encouraging offense and castle turnover on this defense map is the problem! lol

You do understand what YOU/US & ME all want “castle turnover “ is made detrimental by this map ….and yes I understand that’s what makes the game fun ……because yes attacking is fun!

Yes this map makes attacking and fun detrimental to player health and the life span of our game dwindles as we encourage conflict on this pathetic defense map!

Can we make attacking not detrimental?
Yes by using a offensive objective to support it ……
Making defense the objective is why attacking is detrimental to player retention nothing will change that.

ABSOLUTELY NO ADJUSTMENT TO THIS WILL HELP SHORT OF A SINGULAR OFFENSIVE OBJECTIVE…. :man_shrugging: It’s not my opinion or even a theory it’s basic game design!

And anything that seems to help defense will actually move us towards stagnation and mega alliances and any changes towards offense move us towards piracy yep another elimination tactic.
Do you see how each time we make a change we eliminate more teams and players and then we move our mechanics back towards defense by asking for cheaper movement the result is a ever increasing burden of play!
And when we have a semblance of balance in this we have produced stagnation which is elimination by attrition… :+1:

Changes to movement and access will only speed up the degradation that a defensive objective produces! :man_shrugging:
Band aids don’t cure a festering wound they hide it ….

2 Likes

Very true, but I just can’t see pg making any grand changes and revamp to atlas any time soon.

Exact reason I semi-joke (under different topics) about wanting another attempt at map shuffle and with correct variables this time.

1 Like

Sadly until we as a community can standup and agree the map needs to go and demand a new functional map we will continue to watch this broken sad defensive map erode our game!

It’s rapidly failing to even support new content……
And unless new content is seen as attractive we will simply not invest in it and that means no revenue PG………

Malik slowly turns and looks at the latest round of content release and the oculus tower is sitting there all awkward blankly staring at me accusingly ……

:man_shrugging:What it’s worthless…….lmao
Its literally the first tower since the ballista that I have not even bothered to build a single one!
And sadly that tower is not a stand alone example……

I don’t even bother leveling them anymore!
Their life span is a joke and the resources needed to keep moving things around at near end game makes it a waste of time and sadly it’s just useless content I’m forced to acquire to keep the resource loop going!

And I’m supposed to want to spend ???
And if so on what exactly ……the short lived content that has almost no value to me or the map with no long term objective!?

So until we can all agree on change and raise our voices as one………
:man_shrugging:

Keep Ramnaught he is sweet for assault. Paired with Fera and her heals he is op. Level him up a little bit for each tier and easy global top 50 scores.

There ya go now you have a dragon that is useful for 48 hours.

Charpent does 1.7bn on a perch. A dragon you can use for at least a season. ( assuming you have already spent 2 to 2.5 seasons to level up wind gear… and if not then he is unfortunately useless.

The rest. Just put em into a meat shredder and feed them to your octopus.

Hey at least you hatch them. I cbf even hatching most of them lol.

What’s sad danger is if we had a offensive meta on a map with a actual objective and rank determined by position these dragons would continue to serve the player base and the life of our content would not be determined by meta progression!

Because it would be determined by position on the map and these dragons would be viable on the map relative to strength and a players competition surrounding them!

And due to balanced engagement the content would remain viable until a player pushes further inward towards the objective where he will find stronger opposition and he will need more powerful dragons!
And the lifespan of our content would be determined by us not the meta! :+1:

What a complete waste of money & good dragons……… it’s just sad that these dragons will never see the air for any real length of time due to sub par mechanics that are built for a short term game!

Exactly short term mechanics make for short term content….:man_facepalming::boom:

Yes the map I have suggested will make every single dragon of any viability…… viable again!
Yes all of them! :rofl::+1::sunglasses:

No I’m not kidding if the dragon had use at any time during the progression of this meta it will return to being viable under the mechanics set I have proposed!

When are the spenders here going to realize they are paying for content that has almost no value in this short term meta?

Who here wants their dragons to be viable and last for than more than 5 min ??? :point_left:
Imagine a game where every dragon is viable and stays viable as the meta moves forward!

Yes that’s exactly what the map and the mechanics I’m proposing will offer us! :man_shrugging:

It’s pathetic when ember is the only real example of long term content we have lmao and only because he serves a utility purpose at lower levels and can be used to chest hunt and allows players the ability to always join an attack.
That’s a example of long term content when embers more useful than previous seasons divines!

1 Like

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