Condensed thread for the suggestions for 'breaking the mega alliances'

There are a lot of people having full of ideas to break the mega alliances. There’s not an easy way to do it because they’ve been created by the players and PG needs to change the mechanic that huge portion of players inside already.

‘Breaking the mega alliances’ suggestion will be taken into consideration on PG side officially. It’s hard to keep in track all the ideas if you are not a forum addict. I thought it would be helpful and more refined to have a thread that will contain these suggestions.

Anybody having an idea to do this welcome, doesn’t matter if it’s simple or complex. Please keep the thread out of personal discussions and try to think more for the overall game not only for the sake of yours


I will try to post the ones that i find already


I don’t know what the side effects would be but i got an idea too

Restrict the number of teams that can be on a castle

From my point of view atlas is designed to have 5 teams only to be ‘alliances’ with. Biggest issue is where the other teams can also go into a castle and help by attacking or defending a castle. This system forces you to have more and more alliance teams to be more aggressive or to have more troops and primarchs on your side for defence.

My suggestion is to restrict the teams that can be on a castle as their official alliances. It’s now 5 teams but can be adjusted with this change like 7.

The mechanic will be, if a team has 10 or more primarchs on a castle that is out of their 5TA, than the only teams can go into that castle will be the teams from their 5TA. This also effects the defense and only teams that can go to defend will be the castle owner team and their 5TA

It’s obvious that this system can be abused by the players and their mega alliances by putting their 10 primarchs forever on a castle and prevent attack from the other teams. My idea to intercept this is determining a certain amount of time that a primarch can be on a castle out of their 5TA.

This time should be long enough to let the attacking team do their job and short enough to prevent the teams to abuse. 30 minutes? After the 30 minutes all the troops on that primarch goes into barracks and primarch is killed automatically


So… 10 attacking primarchs and 750 defending primarchs? That sounds like a ton of fun.


Don’t know what made you to think that since i believe i clearly explained it will be 5TA vs 5TA not just 10 pri vs 5TA

Btw i think attacking side is always adventagous in the big fights since they are organized already and defense need to plan suddenly

p/s: the numbers can be changed, it’s the overall mechanic in all suggestions what we need to focus


I already posted what I think PG should done to balance Atlas :

  1. Limit the number of castles a team can detain to 25. Put back the extra castles on the “market” and this way teams fight for them.
  2. Based on Atlas ranking, limit the attacking options - a #2 can’t attack nor can be attacked by a #100. Force this way teams of equal power rank to fight each other.
  3. The GP are already based on base level, put in place a more intrusive mechanism to limit the bullying (level 600 attacking a level 400 and lower gets 0 GP and increase the troop loses based on the level difference between the two, for exemple).

@DEMIRCAN if this is meant to be a condensed thread where you post ideas to stop mega alliances, or large alliances, may I recommend you have it closed so you can edit your posts but other people cannot clog it?

1 Like

It’s not like something Bgage did since he was claiming the suggestions from an official suggestion thread, so i guess it stays with maximum of 1 or 2 more suggestions if i do this

1 Like

So what do you do when the rank 100 team is the gat for the number 2 rank team.

1 Like

I’d be interested to hear from someone at PG as to why they scrapped the crusades/sieges idea.

I realize it was supposed to go hand in hand with a map reset and the first attempt at the reset failed but why wasn’t a corrected version attempted?

Maybe understanding the reasons they didn’t try again will help others in coming up with new suggestions.


They just pass by them. The #2 can’t be trapped nor detained by the #100+

Community backlash. I don’t work for pg but I was around. Most of the community didn’t want it. But hey! Here we are.

1 Like

The community back lash I saw was in regards to the unfair placement of some teams being exposed on all castles and some not having any exposure.

The map was supposed to make everyone no more than two castles deep but it failed to do so.


So here is what I read and interpreted.

Primarchs? So a small raid perhaps?

10 attacking primarchs allowed in, 5ta is 5 teams x 50 members x 3 primarchs = 750 primarchs worst case scenario.

You actually said 10 attacking primarchs not 10 attacking teams or 5ta. Hence the 750 primarchs (from the defending 5ta) allowed on the castle, but only 10 attacking primarchs. Please clarify that you actually mean 750 vs 750 battle here.

What happens if the 10 starting attacking primarchs are from say 4 different 5tas?

My post where I detail some provided “solutions” proposed on the forum over time and what will be result by the player base within weeks/months.

I will reiterate again. Breaking up the mega alliances without making attacking more like having to read a book to know all the rules, or boring as hell, will be a very tough task.

Personally, if you want to stop any abuse of red “allies” now sitting on a castle protecting it for X amount of time, these will need to be permalost not put back into the barracks and require Y number of troops for the effect to occur. Make the result of “overstaying your welcome” so painful so people won’t do it. It still won’t stop teams from rotating people out every 30 minutes though to lock down castles especially gates.

Yet more rules you have to put in to stop an exploit. This will get good. I’ll see how long it takes before we have a 10 page book on “How Combat works in Atlas” just trying to “fix” Atlas and stop all the “exploits” we can come with for each new rules we make. :popcorn:


PG had a solution. They proposed Crusades/Sieges and have not publicly stated why they gave up on it.

@PGGalileo could you see if someone will explain why?

Was it because no one can design a new map as they had proposed? Was it because they couldn’t bring crusades to fruition for other reasons?

With no official statement all we can do is wonder why they gave up on it.

Found this post 125 for example

I don’t see anything there from PG themselves stating why they stopped working on that project.

Will have to wait for Galileo to say something next week after the team returns, but this is pretty telling. Galileo joined just over a 1 year ago Apr 27, 2020 to be exact when he announced himself, after Crusades/Sieges was proposed. The fact that he has never heard of it, probably means 1) it wasn’t in his wheelhouse until after EggToken left and 2) it means it was already at least on the back burner.

Either way, it doesn’t bode well. I suspect that when shuffle “failed” so did all the other proposals put forward by PGDave last year. Shuffle was the starting hinge piece. It needed to be done as the ground work to build on top of for the other proposals.

I would like Sieges to be implemented too, but I don’t have high hopes for it to be honest. I just keep saying over and over that I am still waiting for it.


Thank you zami :sunglasses::crazy_face::facepunch::+1:

1 Like