Diamond teams and their ability to wipe out newcomers/Sapphire teams with minimal troops

We’ve recently enjoyed losing around 30% of our troops in an attack from a D1 player who just brought along spare change troops for GP.
Surely there should be some mechanism for smaller/newer teams to not have to be wiped out/almost wiped out every week.
It’s pretty shit.
Surely it makes sense to keep attacks like wars - at a similar competitive level?


In another thread, I proposed limiting glory payouts in the same way we limit wood/food stealing between players of very different levels. Thoughts?


PGDAVE, i think that would be a good start, but I am not sure if it would cut down grieving enough, some teams or players do this purely to piss off other teams and just to be a prick.
This is a good start, but we would need something with teeth in it, something that hurts the player AND thier team

1 Like

This is a slippery slope for people at the high level of you make us hit our level and above for any type of glory. I get and support encouraging us to hit our own level instead of significantly lower, but if I get less glory for killing someone 50 levels lower than me, I better lose less troops too


I like this idea. Although, what if this went both ways? (More glory for attacking above your size)

It could be that I’m just wrong, but attacking high risk should be high reward, with low risk being low reward.

I’m not sure lesser troop losses are necessary as the primarch type and level already sort of balance this. (Although there is room for adjustment)

1 Like

Attacking higher rewarding more would need to detect having higher level backup too - not much skill needed for a L2 swapping instantly for a L500 to takeover. :stuck_out_tongue:


True, and that has crossed my mind … but we do not make an adjustment for that when stealing food or wood other. So I imagine we’d be consistent if applying this system to glory gains too.

I completely agree, backup should be factored in.

There is a desperate need to incentivize hitting upward and across. And deincentivizing lesser hits is probably not the way to go, since you are then choosing between the lesser of two negatives.

I think high risk should be high reward. But only if it’s actually high risk.

1 Like

This is exactly how XP works in the core game though right? You get limited XP for destroying a lower level player base, while still getting a cooldown time on the dragon? Same thing with food and wood, you steal less from lower level players.

This concept is pretty common when it comes to PVP type awards across other games. I am thinking how honor was calculated in WoW. You got less honor for killing players of a few levels lower, and then at a certain amount of levels lower you got zero honor for killing them. Sure you could still kill them as much as you wanted, but it didn’t get you anything. WoW also took it a step further by only allowing honor payouts from the same player a couple times in a set window before you gained nothing from them on subsequent kills. I remember it being a pretty sensible and fair system.

To be clear, you can still wipe them out without losing more than the expected troop amounts. Given they are lower level you should be able to win easily and get very favorable kill ratios.


It’s dealing with different resource types, though. Food/Lumber, if there even is any to be stolen, aren’t needed to protect territory or gain glory. Losing food/lumber, even during events, is more of a minor inconvenience than needing to try and rehire troops. It skews too heavily in the whole David vs Goliath-type analogy.

If it were a L100 taking out a significantly higher level, props to them. If it’s just getting carried by a higher level teammate, it should reflect that, even if it isn’t as heavily weighted as if the higher level teammate were the lead. Or, it’d be better to just be left as-is, if it’d take too much work to get glory/troop loss adjusted accordingly.

Otherwise, that just leads to the exact same problem for the lower level teams without higher level carries getting rolled in an even worse way.


Based on team rankings within atlas @PGDave this would work. Actually it would be a good idea as the top teams would be forced to actually hit each other. Hitting lower tank tanks would decrease their fleets greater, award less GP? I get this sounds good in theory but I bet it would be a c u next Tuesday to code.
Would be similar to war system. You get less reward for hitting team ranked 25 vs hitting team ranked 2nd.
Would solve half your balancing issues as going and flogging the bottom teams will reward you nothing.

1 Like

Let’s us my biggest account and @forScience 's account (since they are my teammate)

XP (main game):

  • I have to hit higher level bases
  • My max XP is way higher


  • I have to hit way higher bases and cannot hit down
  • My production is higher and my capacity is higher


  • D2 is a bad example since the cluster is so tight it doesn’t matter who you declare on for this example
  • Usually, declare on harder teams, higher rating payout and token payout

Proposed anti grief fix:

  • I have to hit higher bases
  • Our glory ratios and payouts are the exact same
  • Zero benefits for leveling up and progressing

I’m not against anti grief mechanics in general, I just don’t think a simple fix is what will make it for a balanced game. There needs to be a reason for people to level up.


@PGDave @pgEcho This would only make sense if glory then functions in the same manner as wood/food or xp. Apples/oranges here. Troops are also a completely different resources than either of those so applying the same rules across the board hardly makes sense.

Also…I noticed the OP says this is only D1 teams, of the top 25 teams, 16/25 are not in D1. Just to help @BaconNcheese along thats 46% of the top teams. So you are talking about the minority of teams actually…I mean, facts and what not…you know…


am sacrificial pleb :cry:


But yes, what Red & Panda wrote as well ^. Primarchs try to even it out, but it can’t be evened out, as implemented right now, or by just carrying over current wood/food/xp scaling mechanics.

Bulldog’s would be interesting, though navigating around would be a little frustrating, as there’s no easy matchmaking mechanic for glory in Atlas.


Also it would suck if a lower level attacked you, killed some (or a lot) of your troops, and you get nothing for it?


I don’t understand how food/wood is a comparable situation? Food and wood function entirely differently from troops. Wood is literally useless for about 80% of the time every month, food is not in the same place but it’s hardly mission critical at most times. I can hit literally any player in the game for food/wood, my choices are not bounded by a 3D map or actually moving anywhere. Look at matchmaking and I’m off. Low levels can’t travel to my base and somehow cost me anything comparable to troops.

Troops are the most valuable consumable in the game.

As you said in another thread, if you 5 flame a base (which can include using a big backer), you start out at a 2:1 troop kill ratio in your favor. So if a low level comes to my team’s castle, they can kill my primarch and troops using a big backer, get a glory bonus for doing so and I get barely any or 0 glory and I lost a hugely valuable resource (but repairs! yes, they take away from new troop builds so hardly optimal)? That’s ridiculous. Hitting a level 250’s leveled up and full rusher trapping my team’s taunter will hurt a lot and now I get minimal glory to boot. I just think that food and wood is so divorced from what is happening in Atlas that I fail to see how it’s an appropriate yardstick. What’s next, scale down flames in war if I hit a lower level?

Level difference is a bit of a red herring anyway. I’d be very impressed if 2 level 50s could take a well built level 120 base, whereas 2 level 275s with Noc could absolutely take D87 at level 580+.

It seems to me that this proposal would simply punish high levels for being high level while still not offering positive incentives to battle over valuable stuff, be it regions with benefits worth fighting for or something else (Santa with a sack full of timers setting up shop in the no mans land, idk).


I never played WoW but did/do they allow a high level guildmate to enter the PvP zone with you and kill a higher level opponent on your behalf and not only credit you for the kill but actually reward you more for it as is proposed here?

If that’s the case, I’m not going to play atlas

Yes they did. So long as you did some damage to the target as well you would get honor. (Can’t remember there may have been a minimum damage % cap to ensure you got honor points).

1 Like

@Shimo @Spooky Great points. The glory reduction should only apply when attacking away from home. You’d always get full glory if attacked. You’d always get full glory if fighting in territory your team owns or has free passage in (attacking or defending) … perhaps in NMLs too?

High levels have lots of privileges, but being able to get full rewards for stomping weak enemies in their (enemy) territory may not need to be one of those privileges. High levels have other advantages in Atlas (e.g., larger revive caps).

To what extent do these clarifications help? If not this (or in addition to this), what changes would you want to see so that weaker players can also enjoy Atlas. (I don’t think anyone is suggesting that they be able to take on top teams and own the best land … but they should certainly be able to carve out some territory of their own and fight the close battles that are perhaps the most enjoyable for all sides).

EDIT: While we’re talking about wild ideas, one wild one was to put new teams into their own worlds. Then periodically worlds could be combined, or we could even put everything (troops, infrastructure, etc.) in storage, reset all ownership, rebalance the groups of teams and send the new groups to their own worlds (to keep groups balanced over time, and give teams a chance to relive the glory land rush days from time to time … perhaps once a season). Obviously we’d probably want to scale prizes, etc. based on the difficulty of your group (just like leagues).