Community Input Re: Limited Time - Atlas Mechanics

Okay, let’s start an Atlas discussion thread for the community that is relevant to the Limited Time Atlas Mechanics thread. Let’s keep it concise, constructive and on point. The topic of alliances is important and are welcome but let’s keep it conceptual based and “alliance free” please.

PGawal has indicated that Atlas will take a back burner to the other Limited Time discussions. While we wait this is a place to consolidate community thoughts as PG works on those and keeps the “A letter from the community” thread clean.

Edited by Arelyna. Sorry “threat” instead of “thread” was going to drive me nuts.

3 Likes

First suggestion when we get hit in atlas I’d like the banner show what castle and that it take us in the map to the location of the battle

17 Likes

I’d like to know if PG knows the selling prices of castles? That’s really important to the atlas meta and should help dictate changes.

And yes please on TheSeekerMeki’s suggestion.

As the primary step for PG in addressing the “A letter from the community” is defensive towers and base defendability, this will necessitate changes in how we approach Atlas. If towers and defense are changed to promote a 3 flame standard for end game bases with 3 defenders and presumably that will mean that each “end game” point for each tier will be treated the same, that means those at end game will be getting worse glory/revive rates fighting each other where presumably there will be more 3 flame flights than if they hit down for 5 flame battles . This would in my mind necessitate a change in both glory calculations and troop loss calculations, as well as promote a change in metrics to promote hitting at your own tier or a higher tier.

As these changes will have an immediate impact on Atlas resources and game play I would hope that this significant change would be addressed rather quickly.

One thing that comes to mind would be to add a second calculation to the team glory scaling already in place, something that is based on a players tier, not their level…

• Hit within your tier buff is 0%
• Hit above your tier get a 15% buff on base glory %
• Hit one below your tier get a debuff of 40% on base glory %
• Hit two below your tier get a debuff of 50% on base glory %

One could even add in backer buffs based on their tier to deal with high level backers, perhaps based on the % of the base the backer completes.

Simply improving glory/troop loss for defenders being steam rolled is an option but would not address the overall metric of hitting down being more favorable for the attacker which is a key factor in Atlas apathy imo.

Hitting down as an individual and not just as a team needs to be addressed overall, but depending on the scope of changes PG comes up with may need “more” immediate attention.

3 Likes

What do you mean by tier?

  • If it’s breeding tier, that would just benefit players who are over levelled relative to their dragons. Which makes no sense.
1 Like

tower tier I’d think since it relates to defense…?

Another suggestion would like to know the base dp before I go in to hit it make deciding if to hit a player or just pass

I would like there to be some system to stop Diamond teams rolling over Platinum teams. If we want to limit large alliances, stopping this would be a great start.

3 Likes

KingDreadIV had a valid question to PG… “What is the goal for Atlas? How should teams be panning out?”… and until we hear from PG on what their vision is it’s hard to give thoughts on how to address player issues with that vision in mind. Personally I think viable, profitable, competitive, active and fun would be reasonable goals for PG. The teams equation is something a little more difficult. If PG really wants to stick close to open world I think they will have a hell of a hard time with changes. I don’t think tweaks are going to be enough to reach the presumed goals of competitive, active and fun.

There are two sides to your concerns, “top teams” hitting “lower teams” and conversely “lower teams” getting involved with “top teams”. I’m a firm believer in gating mechanisms. Something that might translate to Atlas would be that teams can only hit up or down 2 castle levels from the highest level castle they own. Currently there are not enough tiers between castles to make something like this work. You could go with one tier up and down, but if something like this was to be considered I would rather see the spread between castles be 2 to 7. If that were the case it would it would look like this… if a teams top owned castle is a level 7 then that team could only own or attack castles that were between level 5 and 7. If a teams top owned castle was a level 2 , that team could only attack castles up to level 4. There are lots of options for changing current castle levels so teams meet those criteria.

I think that using glory as the only way to limit or encourage who is attacking who has too many limitations and will not see an end to the problem, if indeed PG agrees that it is a problem.

Breeding tier -> builders hut -> tower levels

I’d certainly give up the game if I got penalised for having decent towers for my level.

But I do realise near endgame this is more complicated, because of all those outdated towers in storage.

Perhaps clarify on how you would feel penalized…

I could be missing something here but either your towers are within a certain “tier” or their not. Presumably your towers are at that tier because your breeding progression allowed it. Players having to pay attention to the balance between where they are breeding and what they are building is in my mind a good thing. And if PG is now leaning towards a more defensive “attitude” for game play, all metrics should reflect that.

Assuming that PG manages a good balance between towers and dragons, how does flying against towers in a players tier penalize them? Particularly if PG addressed the change in standard to be 3 or 4 flames and not 5.

My suggestions:

  • Fighting at team or 5TA castles is ALWAYS at least 100% glory; defending yourself is always glorious. This way, big teams get good glory if they’re attacked by little ones.

  • Add a league modifier; a Plat team defeating a Diamond one is glorious, while a Diamond one defeating a Plat one is not.

  • Rather than working off Team Power, modify glory based on the relationship between Team Power and the average for the league they’re in; attacking strong teams in your league is incentivized, and attacking weak ones is discouraged. Similarly, sandbagging is discouraged because it raises Team Power higher above the league average.

  • Modifiers need to have a significant effect - we don’t want 5% tweaks, we want severe shifts, so that attacking tough enemies is very profitable and weak ones is far from it.

  • Modifiers should include the possibility of an attack yielding significant negative glory. Fighting a much weaker enemy at a castle that doesn’t belong to yourself or your 5TA shouldn’t just be unprofitable, it should be actively costly. You wouldn’t be able to change existing badges or rewards or anything, but you could make it a lot harder for an individual to finish a seasonal line if they pick on weaker enemies who weren’t attacking their/their 5TA’s castles.

  • There need to be more meaningful benefits to holding powerful territory, or lots of territory. How much more of a thing should teams get if they have a level 5 vs a level 2? Or if they have two, or three, or more, as opposed to one? It should never be beneficial to drop castles, unless you simply can’t hold them.

  • Benefits to holding an entire region, as opposed to just X number of castles of that type; you’re more accessible, and have a harder time hiding, but get more goodies for it

  • Benefits to holding accessible territories - higher-risk, higher-reward.

  • Blockade should include a delay before hostile primarchs can attack, not just before they can move off; this gives more of a benefit to the defenders, and decreases sniping.

4 Likes

This is such a tricky thing when trying to maintain competition and not increasing the gap between tiers. It’s similar to the gold chest scaling that gets a pretty big no from players since it raises inflation. Suddenly giving for example a Diamond team significantly more benefits based on what they own will continue to increase the gap.

Ideally PG would find a way to reward teams who hold more and bigger castles with something that doesn’t affect progression but that they would find extremely valuable. Castles are hard enough to take from teams that are well entrenched, giving them more and making them stronger might not be the best thing.

It’s a delicate balance, I agree, but when I hear that teams are actively choosing to drop down to lower-tier castles, or own fewer castles, that suggests that the costs of holding them can be greater than the benefits.

As you said, though, the current situation of Atlas, with so much entrenched power, also has to be disrupted, and so you’d need to find something that felt valuable without reinforcing the structure.

Breaking up that entrenched power and the static state of Atlas…well, it’s very desirable, but I can’t think of a good way to do that directly without effectively punishing the people who are currently at the top. I’m hoping, though, that these changes would at least help break up the super-alliances, and encourage hitting up rather than down.

I don’t think glory is sufficient, since it doesn’t stop it happening now (although I admit it does discourage it).

I am in favor of more castle tiers that have limitations on which leagues can interact with. Of course, promotions and demotions to different leagues may mess things up somewhat, but if castle tiers were be a bit more plastic, that might lessen the issue.

Increased fun would likely imo address a lot of the presumed goals since having crazy fun would facilitate viable, profitable and active.

I honestly think a good question to ask is what is/could fun mean when it comes to Atlas, if Atlas means castles, primarchs, troops, teams and game resources?.

Assuming that “Not Fun” does not specifically mean “losing”, what are things that absolutely ruin the Atlas experience, not irritate, not bother, but absolutely ruin it?

They could implement plenty of idea’s. As to the difficulty of coding/building the system I have no idea. You could have an event called “Seek and Destroy”; on your attacks you have to kill xyz towers without destroying the others. Or hidden spies … you kill x monuments to trigger a targeted tower you have to kill while avoiding Y. Each of those rewards extra glory or troops … I dunno just spit balling. ANYTHING would be fun compared to an assault even where the base has 10 red mages and 9 blue mages to prevent the use of any spells from lineage dragons.

2 Likes

How about un-nerfing timers in Atlas event prizes, and un-nerfing Atlas Elite?

5 Likes

I need someone to enlightnen me the difference between 5 lv 60 towers and 30 lv 60 towers :pray:

Valid point and it won’t be me :joy: