Death of this War Dragons


#243

Sort of my point for Atlas too, why would people make their own lives harder just so that other people have an easier time?

That all depends on cost structure too. Currently PGs cost structure that would make no sense, especially given that disparity in starting points.


#244

They say that’s part of the happiness initiative is dropping token costs for previous tiers, they should think about doing the same for tower builds and how much time is needed to complete lower level towers. But I agree, a lot of changes need to be made at the same time for it all to come together.

I think time played should be a factor. Bigger drop % for items and chests, rewarding those who play more.


#245

…they did.


#246

A huge problem I see with the PHI (Player Happiness Initiatives), I dont think PG really understands the problem and tbh a lot of the things I have seen proposed were also not actual fixes, at least from a balance/mechanics standpoint. Most people simply state what they want, often it has no substance.

Its like saying the average citizen should run your country…in general that is a really bad idea. But people dont want to admit they are not really qualified either.

Time overall or you mean for a specific period? To some degree if this goes back into cost structure. Let’s say someone is spending $2k/month. Lets say the someone spends 20 hours per week playing this game. That comes out to almost $23/hour. The relative cost value is actually more than a lot of people actually make. Granted this should not come down to a purely economic calculation but until the cost structure changes simply saying that people should get more for playing more seems pretty unlikely.

I still think the biggest issue is in the amount gained per relative team. The ROI shrinks significantly towards the top. Hence why a lot of teams cant be bothered moving up, not all teams/players have the ability to do so but a lack of reward and value in it should not be the reason that stops it either…


#247

…when? I missed the announcement or didn’t see it :man_shrugging:

It still takes forever to 75, so even if they did, not nearly enough :wink::roll_eyes:


#248

Agree with the first half, and the bottom bit, but let’s talk about how you shouldn’t be required to spend $2k a month to be relevant or progress to the finish line.

Someone who has been playing as long as you have @Panda should not be drastically behind you just for not dropping Rent money on this game every month. :man_shrugging: I think spending that much should still be worth it to you and PG to do so, but not at the cost of overall game progression for the masses. They need to find new and interesting ways to dip into your pocketbook lol


#249

You shouldnt but that is a whole different issue. I was just saying, massively trying to change the value point either isnt really a solid fix either.

They do need to do a better job of segmenting things then, or change the cost/value structure a bit. One of the biggest being the cost of bases versus dragons but they dont exactly seem in a hurry to address that either.


#250

Tawk! :+1:

They really don’t seem to be in a hurry to do anything that’s very relevant, and this is and has always been wishful thinking. But it’s gonna tank their game :man_shrugging:


#251

Just wondering…why don’t the other top teams just form an alliance to keep the top two at bay, vice killing those lower than them?


#252

I for one am extremely impressed with the lowered breeding costs and build times. The base XP change also. The removal of A/B testing that, despite what they say, was never randomly done. After several YEARS of completly ignoring these issues to have some of them actually somewhat addressed was great imo.

It’s sad to see the same bitterness and pessimistic additudes alive and well on the forums without giving some credit where credit is due. There are still many issues with atlas included, but the fact that there has been recent tangable changes after so long creates hope.


#253

It’s a situation where it’s almost too little too late, almost like they don’t care about player happiness as much as they are being forced to address dissatisfaction.

Any change for the better is good, and they get a round of applause, but we don’t all need to pile on thanks when there is still so much to be done.


#254

Hmm. The presence of large teams (or players from large teams) does not mean they are there to evict you. And another thing: while we are often talking about the extremes (diamond vs plat), there is a whole gradient from D1 down to P4 (and below), and even within those leagues (and sub-leagues) there can be a lot of variation from the top to the bottom.

A D2 team or an S1 team are also typically horribly OP compared to a P2 team, and maybe even some S1 vs S3 teams, and so on. What makes a team OP is relative. If you have been fortunate enough not to personally experience this, ask your mates if an OP team, relative to them, has ever shown up on their doorstep, necessitating the interference of Bigs. Eviction may be rare. Interference is pretty commonplace (just as finding smaller players/teams on battles between The Bigs is). In my experience, this is fairly accurate:

Re: people whining about not being at the top 1%…I’m not saying that doesn’t happen. It sure does. Quite a bit. Highly irritating. But. Perhaps because of that, it’s sometimes hard to distinguish between whining about wanting to be given what you can already get if you’re willing to put in more effort, and complaints about a system that doesn’t let you get very far even when you do put in the effort. This issues related to this latter complaint are compounded when you throw everyone together in the giant PvP that is Atlas.


#255

Wait a min, I know of a team that were recently “gifted” lvl 4+ castles from Wardogs, and it wasn’t Dread or one of the teams that haven’t done anything for “themselves” :rofl:, in fact, I don’t know of ANY team that has overthrown a lvl 5 “themselves” although it might be possible to do.

The sheer amount of hypocrisy in this entire thread is quite overwhelming.

At the end of the day, everyone does the same as everyone else. It’s working as designed. Tactics & counter tactics have been and will continue to be employed by warring factions on all sides. But to come here and complain about it without proposed suggestions or solutions is asinine.

I was intrigued by the idea of a temporary team immunity shield. Possibly tied to a earned reward or event or some such thing. Something the leader/officers could activate on a given castle. I mean, this would make already difficult to take lands harder in some cases, but it could add an interesting new dynamic as well.

New mechanic content, while appealing as it may be to me is less important than fixing the current plethora of bug and connection issues that currently plague Atlas & the game.


#256

I feel like there needs to be a third area of this game…
You got the basic game… then atlas… now we need a 3rd place to put all the top teams :grin: (Diamond or D1,D2 and saph, whatever combo works).

Alot of people dont like the idea of dividing by leagues but I mean we do the same on the base game… plat teams cant war with saphire teams… why should atlas be any different :roll_eyes:.

I say put the big dogs in the same cage and let em fight over the bones.
Then the little dudes can fight for dominance in atlas! Problem solved :yum:. Just be different top dogs.

Another suggestion could be to propose a reset mechanic for castle ownership each atlas season.
Be able to say keep 5 castles…every reset or some random number, doesnt matter… then everyone can fight over ownership every season :smiley:. Shuffle all the land around. Make new alliances. Rise again !

Either way I actually dont really care, since I’m in the big alliance umbrella, but food for thought :hugs: anyway :joy:


#257

I hear what you’re saying but I definitely think this would only further promote sandbagging. As you pointed out the “basic” game prevents different tiers from warring one another and sandbagging is prevalent.

If this type of mechanic was applied to Atlas you’d definitely see sandbagging follow suit. I’ve already seen teams drop castles so they can have easier glory. A bit short sighted imho but the fact that it’s happening does point out that there is bigger issue at hand.


#258

Note: None of this is directed specifically at @xtWIStEdxWolfx. They just have the most readily accessible version of the quotes I’m using.

I’ve seen this concept come up a couple of times, and every time I do, one thought pops into my head:

That’s what Atlas was for the longest time…

And then everyone in Sapphire started begging for it, and eventually got it. And then Plat teams started begging for it, and eventually got it. And now, new-to-Plat teams beg for it.

I think a lot of the pining after Atlas was based more in the rewards than in the game play. And there’s no debating the fact that Atlas teams have multiple advantages over non-Atlas teams.

So I guess what I’m saying here is that if D1, D2, and S1 teams were to get a new shared space that was exclusive to them, everyone else would want it. Unless there were no (or extremely limited) rewards associated with it. In which case, why bother?

And if the rewards were worthwhile, then the “haves” would once again have tremendous advantage over the “have nots” (the situation we have when comparing those with Atlas with those without Atlas). The benefit of rider gear is not really debatable, and the timers from events are non-trivial.

And I’ve seen this come up several times as well, in some form or another. I keep wondering how this would result in anything positive.

Say Atlas resets tomorrow. Once it’s back up, everyone logs in and begins clamoring for castles. Who is going to get all the level 5’s? The same people that have them now. Who is going to get the level 4’s? The same people that have them now. The only thing this would accomplish is that you would see more troop burn (maybe). And if you think about it, the only winner in this scenario is PG.

If I were to make a single statement about what is most wrong with this game, the one thing I see as being the source of the cancer (so to speak), it’s that PG has monetized every single thing in the game, and it’s non-trivial amounts across the board. They value their dragons at several hundred dollars each, they value bases at a factor of that, and then there’s Atlas, where some of what you spend is literally temporary (i.e., if you’re buying troops), and spending a ton still doesn’t get you much (i.e., a single “discount pack” won’t upgrade a single piece of gear from 7 to 8).

If there is a pending “Death of this War Dragons”, that’s going to ultimately be the source of that death.


#259

Out of curiosity, why is this considered short sighted?

Say my team has 20 castles, but 6 of them aren’t well developed, and we don’t have the resources to upgrade them. Defending them would cost more than they’re worth. Yes, maybe they add to the daily egg token bonus, but really, that’s about it. So I sell, trade, or gift these castles to another team. We don’t have to worry about them. Our Atlas rank drops accordingly, but we get better glory out of the deal.

Truthfully, I’m not sure how that’s a bad thing. It’s not like a team in that situation is vying for a spot in the top 50 - if they were, they wouldn’t drop castles, no?


#260

Guess you missed the part where said team TRADED a level 4 for the level 4 from wardogs based on location strategy. But hey keep drinking the kool-aid.

Anyway, I brought up in another thread a way to help platinum teams. And before everyone bashes it, it’s obviously a raw idea that could use tweaking. Increase the number of teams in an alliance. @Panda suggested 10 in his original post on the subject so we’ll go with that. My suggestion was put a limit on the number of top tier teams (D1 and D2) at 3. Then have a minimum number of platinum teams. Go with 3 again. The remaining 4 can be plat or sapphire. The theory behind it is to weaken the “super powers” a little while helping the platinum teams get stronger in atlas. I know there are variables like teams changing leagues and such. So lock alliances at the start of the season. No leaving or joining during a season. At the end of the atlas season, the alliance leader can make changes to fill the requirements.

Again, just a raw idea. Open to other ideas

Forgot to mention an important part. When battles take place at a castle, only the actual alliance can be used. So it would be 10ta vs 10ta. No outside “friendlies” can come in to help


#261

Hard to be more competitive when we are handcuffed. We are not even close to same playing field. I have recruited over 1000 players but everyone wants the free ride to platinum or better no working for it. And guess what the first question is …do you have Atlas? Because I don’t want to earn it. So until PG addresses this War Dragons will be broken😢


#262

That’s a nice idea but not sure how you police it. For example could a team not sandbag to sapphire to make sure they wouldn’t count to the top 3 teams?

How do you police it being only 10 vs 10? Making it only possible to attack the defending teams 10TA if you’re on the castle. Won’t that open up the possibility of multiple 10TAs attacking one 10TA? Maybe make it so one enemy 10TA shows up then no others are allowed on that castle but that’s susceptible to abuse using another friendly 10TA to sit on your castles preventing attack.

Not saying it’s necessarily a bad idea just don’t see how you stop those relatively easy abuses.