Death of this War Dragons


:joy: I love this thread. Is hilarious. I’m laughing so hard right now hahaha.


Come on people why take so long to post. I don’t want to stop laughing :joy:


Ive seen this one and while yes lets say it makes for better team competition…alliances are the focal point to some degree. Also, tbh why would they? On a tangible level why would you create significantly harder positions for yourself with a very low reward likelihood? I mean, looking at it as an investment, low reward and high risk. Isnt that pretty much what people strive to avoid?

What makes you decide its easy?

Youve decided its not…I could argue that.

Tbh I have no clue what wing that was but I could imagine so.

Part of the problem I see right now is the lack of reward for doing so. In an effort to not create too much of a gap, they made stagnation the highest ROI for the most part. In a lot of ways doing nothing nets you the most. But if they were to tier things off harshly and offer rewards that could only be earned through ranking…people would likely complain about how “unfair” that is too?

While sure that works for you, it still doesnt answer the efficiency aspect of a lot of it I think. Part of it is just the structure of things. The players are supposed to take steps that, are in some ways against their own self interest, so that they can maintain competition? That seems like a hard sell. Not saying some wont do it, but trying to convince people to do it en masse seems very unlikely.

Two diametrically opposed ideals are supposed to coexist. Its very unlikely that it will. There are so many competing ideals that it makes it impossible for it to really work atm. You cant have a laissez faire approach but then try to micromanage the competitive side of things. Trying to keep everyone clustered together while attempting to incentivize competition is also going to be very difficult.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


I almost loathe chiming in here, but personal attacks/biases aside, this thread really is though provoking (and disclaimer that I am obviously not free from bias; no one is, yay humans). But I see so many overlapping issues that have been brought up; I’m just going to pick a thread and pull. Sorry it’s so long lol.

There are teams on the top end that are quite good at the game. There is also a very real issue that this game has a significant bias in favor of inherited advantages. In simplified and non-comprehensive form, you get good by already being good. In the base game, where personal prizes are the same for all and league prizes are total crap, and the things you take from other players regenerate on their own (not including gold which I know can be raided), the results of this inherited advantage are mostly that it’s quite difficult for new/plat teams to try and rise into the prestige leagues (not 100% impossible…just probably not feasible for most).

In Atlas it’s an entirely different beast. PG threw everyone into a world map together, and said “Have fun!” Everyone. Into an environment that is all about who has the biggest bases and the most badass dragons. These are obviously concentrated at the top, but are startlingly numerous even down in plat. It’s an environment that punishes teams who might not be endgame who do play the game well (because influence), and also incentivizes hitting down with the current glory mechanics, as it seems as if most (including me, I won’t lie) prize 90% troop revive over better glory.

There is also no reward for hitting up, and skill is only rewarded if someone doesn’t kill you while you’re taking the time to set up that base (but they probably will). Speed over skill, when people are complaining that more skill should be needed. This is sort of sucky, because unlike the core game, the losses (castles and troops) are tangible things that people have often put time and/or money into. Whereas losing a war can be a bit of a downer for a team, losing a castle can feel like losing many wars in a row (often because you fought bitterly over it for days). And I’ve seen the loss of multiple castles undo a team through sheer demoralization.

So you’ve got a world map where players might aspire to join a top team, but most lower teams cannot ever attain a level to be competitive with the highest teams (because you already need to be a top team to become a top team…or hackers, I guess that works too). And it’s hard to see how much of doing well is predicated on being good at the game, and how much is predicated on just having the most players with the biggest bases and dragons and the most troops (which you do not need to be “good” to have, you just need money and/or a time turner).

Add into this that the teams most able to compete against each other are allied with one another, and a host of other politicking (no-hits, personal connections, etc.), and you end up with a playing field that looks so lopsided that it ceases to be fun, at least for many. I know it’s not fun for a lot players on non-top teams after awhile, but I wonder if it’s particularly fun for even the players on the top teams? I mean yes, it is a war game…but it’s still a game, and should be fun.

On a final note, there is a rather gray area between players and teams. I’ve seen players from many top teams at battles between smaller teams on lower tiered castles. I’ve seen single players from top teams stop castle takeover just by being too big for any of those smaller players to hit, or because people were afraid that hitting them would bring the wrath of that team down on their heads. Some might say that single players doing what they want is not the same as a team-sanctioned action, but if the outcome is the same, I’m not so sure. And if outcome matters, then players from top diamond teams have interfered down just as much as players from lower teams have interfered up. And I’m not complaining about either; because Atlas is about 1) biggest dragons 2) biggest bases 3) most troops, people will call on who they need to take care of one of those aspects if it means keeping or conquering a castle. It’s all pots and kettles. But I am complaining about the fact that there is nothing in the mechanics that allows smaller teams to do anything about this. Or really, any way (except money maybe?) for teams to fight back against those much bigger than them. Because it’s not about being good (although those teams are), it’s just about being big and fast. The field doesn’t need to be totally level, and it shouldn’t be. But it should wobble. The best will still come out on top, after all.


Hmm yes it might be part of the problem but the biggest issue is the lack of balance this game have. Let’s say one alliance controls the entire game or at least looks like.


@Panda Ok I respect your position and need for great rewards in exchange for greater competition. I also don’t find it unfair or unethical for you and your alliance to put yourselves in the best position possible. We are only bound by the mechanics of the game and beyond that anything is fair game.


Such as? Or do you mean just whats carried over from the core game? Because gear(atlas) is still probably the biggest factor in a lot of ways.

I think that is a good summary of things but do you still think Atlas comes down to individual or team? I still think you need a good team/alliance to get there over a singular entity. There are different paths to that though. There is no denying money plays a role…but there still needs some(less though sadly) skill to fly said dragon and ultimately there is still the ability to coordinate and make team decisions that allows the teams to get there. For some in Atlas, being active and participating has allowed people to make up for a lot of what money does, as far as what you can get ROI wise.

I agree with the speed thing…I dont really understand why they made that so prevalent…

Right but how would you balance it…PG has never been great at balance…or working connections.

Well this goes back to the emergence of super/extended alliances and teams going to “help” each other. That was sort of what I asked earlier, teams want to be able to work with quite an extended amount…until it works against them. You cant have it both ways, either you have things geared towards these massive alliances or you dont, trying to do things halfway clearly isnt going to work.


I believe @Moonswirl’s post did a good job encompassing the issues we have all been discussing while trying to be unbiased and without using emotion.

And @Panda, you’ve done a sufficient job stating your point of view from the top.

Now that we have agreed that issues exist in the game, I’d like to know how you think these issues might be remedied. You know that the common player wants to see more balance and agree that PG is unlikely to bring that balance so I’m curious if you want to do anything about it yourself.

I can’t imagine more no-hit agreements with powerful teams like bwab helps with balance. I also don’t think it helps the balance to infiltrate a team like nmo to take their castles away before agreeing to a no-hit with them as well. *Both examples are not unfair as they don’t violate the ToS, but I think we can all agree they are not steps toward balance.


Not sure the context of this? or who this is directed at.

Once again though…you are wanting teams to put their gain aside for what you say is balance but what would make sense for there to be balance would be a greater reward for doing so. That is where the cycle seems pretty broken.


You agreed the that

but noted that

I’m wondering what you would do to effectively create more balance in the game. If a suggestion from you were echoed by the masses I think PG may take notice and make additions to their Player Happiness Initiative.


Isn’t your strategy one you repeatedly spoke out against until you upped and moved to PHR?


I used to get angry about a certain team’s domination of the game too but I worked out a solution. :man_shrugging:t2:


Some interesting information came out, so i wanted tell about some points too, that might not came in focus, but was suggested in a way…

Teams that nowdays cant compete, because of there old big alliance teams got disbanded or banned , surely have a disadvantage,… but that view is from there today…

I remember times , when we started with our Saphire teams in Atlas… that there was a huge alliance of teams with RR and NMO and and and… who was extremely active…
Active in , attacking large areas of other alliances , and took there land of many teams.
There was a alliance where TheEmpire was the highest team a time, i guess BBB , but after they wasnt, it was btw the largest alliance that time probably… over 40 teams i guess, many europeans too… they got wiped out completely… and with completely, i mean it. No land was to spent back to there teams in the ice area…

Why that happened… well that days that strong alliance needed more ice land… because Neptus was a ice typ… how much teams that days was hurt or not , was never interesting right ?
Its only realistic that these teams dont like those who took all of them…

We wasnt part of that , and sorry if i havent all details about, but the few castles we had was in dark region… so what happened ? Oh of course we was visited and nearly all our troops was smashed too… By there minions or friends… as it is … if you can have more, you try for more right …

However we as new team had friends who protected us at the end and was able to fight back… Our japanese friends assisted us , and we was happy to have them … versus such a “huge power” that days… And our friends lost there level 4 castles too versus that , now days not connected alliance…
So i lost 3 times more troops defending them , maybe useless sometimes… but that was a step of honor…

What i want to tell is clearly this… in older times teams who nowdays arent connected or competitive vs nowdays top, was it times before aggresive aswell versus others, and even versus todays top, and even took lands of there direct alliance… Where even they was hardly defending…
So it is for sure not fair to forgett all the “sins” ( if you point other teams behavior as not right ), and play todays victim.

Of course the balance greatly changed and today they arent in position to bring there back against the wall as that days… that is logical… but still there are diffrent alliances who are bond together.
And a interesting point what should be thought of is… Teams who was with them… arent today with them… so there are reasons behind for sure too ! …

as a edit: Not to forgett that Atlas is a bit politic too… and even not allianced teams respect other people… as long as they arent acting strange… or are the open door to attack them for example.


You all keep calling it “my strategy”. It’s not my strategy nor do I like it. I’d rather see teams go at it one on one. And everyone who has ever been on my team or is now on my team knows I much more prefer the smaller group battles.


The state of competition in WD teams is less a meritocratic competition than it is a rentier economy. I.e. most do well by already having done well in the past, and for those that didn’t, there is no way forward save by waiting for disbands or merges.

The main resource people want and the one thing you can’t buy is good players, however you define that. And however you define it, it’s easier to recruit them as a team that’s doing well than as a team that’s doing worse. E.g. this very thread featured one of the more active players in a top 10 team expressing his desire to join the top 1 team.

The spread of rewards that PG doles out is not enough to create an significant gap at the level of players, but a dynamic where you need level 400+ players to climb from platinum into sapphire, and level 300+s can just join diamond teams, makes it unfeasible for nearly any team to Git Gud via recruiting. This continues all the way to the top of D1.

(As for growing your own team to Git Gud and lift yourself up by your boostraps, this only works if your bootstraps are woven from a mixture of cocaine and million dollar bills. Otherwise no; your team won’t progress faster than teams currently getting more rewards and better recruiting options. Also, you will bleed players as they are recruited to help more highly ranked teams Git Gud.)

It’s worth noting that this isn’t a whine about Dread or any other high-performing team for doing well. You’re following the incentive structure that’s been set up for you, and you’re doing it better than anyone else. You have tons of excellent players clamoring to join you; if you periodically decide that bringing some on would improve your position, why wouldn’t you?

Conversely: it’s extremely difficult to make your team Git Gud in the current non-meritocratic state of competition, other than via merges or waiting for higher league teams to disband because they’re bored or tired. So I also don’t fault the players who want to be on better teams for joining teams that are already good, rather than trying to transform their current ones. It’s quite difficult, and the other route is both more immediately rewarding and vastly easier. Again: why wouldn’t you?

But deriding teams for struggling to rise and not making it seems pretty distasteful. They’re trying to run uphill while their boots keep falling off. (And their Ferraris keep turning into tricycles etc.)

Edit: It’s like chess:

“How do you get to be the king?”
“It ain’t like that. See, the king stay the king, a’ight? Everything stay who he is.”


Every time someone says “cartel,” I’m reminded that there’s a diamond 5TA actually named TheCartel, but it’s not the one anyone is referring to. :confused:

What if you called it the mafia? Although that could be weird for that DefiantMafia team.

The mob? But then there’s MobBrutality.

Gangsters? But there’s a guy actually named Gangster on the forums. :thinking:

The yakuza? Ok, but then it sounds like you’re specifically talking about one of the alliances of Japanese teams.

Chao Pho? Sure, but most people are going to see “Chao” and think it’s somehow associated with Digital Chaos.

Maybe one of those local criminal organizations in various countries? But those are internationally known as the Albanian mob or Montenegrin mob or whatever.

Should we just go with DragonJerks as our generic slur of choice, to be applied willy-nilly to whoever we don’t like? I don’t think that one’s taken.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Just a friendly reminder that I was an officer on the other side for a long time :wink:


oh man yet you don’t know who is friendly plat team…you better memorize those 100+ teams fast or else you keep ending here posting funny things like " dread has plat team to protect their L5:rofl:" i see they have been waiting so badly for some to come attack their castles.