First rough draft of World War (closed; smaller, focused threads coming soon)


Fighting wars against your ally back and forth won’t be very productive. At best, you’ll make sure you win 50% of your wars, but end up not accomplishing anything of strategic value with the troops you lose fighting the war. (If the war is uncontested [i.e., little warfare happens] then little tokens are paid out … and so not a very useful war.) I do have some concern that allies might trade wars to avoid getting declared on (since you need to have enough tokens in your treasury for your team to be able to ante up and get into a war), though this is at best a short-term strategy since (a) you’re not getting any tokens and (b) your treasury will eventually cap out, causing you to lose out on tokens.

The treasury cannot be distributed. It can only be used to offer ante.

Feedback for First rough draft of World War

I’m not pitting two allies against each other – only teams decide who to declare on. So if you want to declare on an ally, go for it (though that’s probably then end of your friendship!). If you want to be friends with someone, then help them in their wars and ask them to do the same for you! You alone decide who your friends will be.


I read the 1st two lines and omg I think my whole team will quit if you bring this aspect to the game!!! :angry::rage::angry::angry: I may try to stomach the rest since I have to being my teams leader.


Which two lines, @RaidingCedar? What would you change?


I would also like to propose a second criteria for being declared on, and that’s relative number of troops to the aggressor. Now yes teams can just not build, but then someone can just come and take their land away if they don’t build. This is to hopefully prevent further griefing on a team once they’ve lost a war or few badly and lost a heap of troops. If they have good allies it will enable them to rebuild without fear of being declared on again the next day (they earn 100k tokens per day remember!)

Edit: oh yeah now that I just thought of it, what’s to stop an alliance from declaring world war on a team whilst another member of the alliance attacks them directly in atlas to take their land???


I wish in the main game we would have somebody like you to listen to us the way you do with Atlas, it’s a very reassuring feeling seeing @PGDave

Feedback for First rough draft of World War

Oh ok. I must have misread it. If thats the case, im all for it. It could be intense!


I am going to type my thoughts as I go, because there is a lot to read here. Thanks for the details and the request for feedback Dave. You’re a star.

The entire thing or a percentage? Will the gap of the win/loss make a difference?

How many more - is there a cap? What determines how many teams each team can invite?

With a good glory payout, or the normal amount?

So this is more like an event structure than a war, but everyone has to participate?

So if this is home territory -> neutral or neutral -> neutral I am all for this. However, if this means anywhere -> anywhere I am very very opposed to this. Picking land right now has so much strategy. Where can we bottleneck, what are the entry points. Who has the strongest position, etc. Allowing anywhere -> anywhere would entirely remove this.

How will this be controlled (who is debuffed)? What is the nature of the debuff?

I am assuming you are looking for a “what way will strength be determined”. I think this should be a combination between land held (some formula of total land and level of said land), number of troops total, and perhaps number of troops killed? Not including the number of troops held would cause a massacre.

What do you mean “type”? When I see this word, it means warrior, sorcerer, hunter to me.

NO NO NO NO NO NO!! This is beyond absurd. The value of unlocking any tier Sapphire+ is beyond what I think you can comprehend. Fix breeding progression as a whole. I just. I cannot even explain how absolutely flabbergasted I am that you would include this as a prize. I am just plain offended by this I cannot even think straight.

Bragging rights - awesome prize. Absolutely awesome.

Overall, I think instant travel between a team/alliance’s own territories is a fabulous idea. I especially like the “move & attack” option. However, as I said above, it removes a lot of strategy if this becomes a move anywhere -> move anywhere.

I am down with the fort bonus. So, if one person sends a level 5 fighter to your stronghold, will this debuff against attackers apply to the first one there, or will it target the primarch with the most troops to debuff?

I think blockades are a strategical point of Atlas and need to be kept. Holding land and forming a strategy around the land you hold is key. It’s like Risk - place your troops in the strategical position to attack/prepared to be attacked. If someone in Risk could just magically be in the middle of where I only have 1 troop, that’s just…no.

If this will happen, could leaders/officers get a system message saying “Upkeep due in 24 hours”? However, I don’t think this will help like you think it will. A lot of teams with large amounts of land just don’t build on the lower levels/center bits. Perhaps look at a “minimum” infrastructure on a stronghold claimed for X period of time.

Hmm. How would these scores be determined?

No, No, No, No!

Please don't take the main game away like this. Just, no. As a team that relies on strategy and activity over spending and brute force, this would kill us. We work hard in Atlas, don't get me wrong, but we war like a mofo and events we just can't spend enough to keep up with. And sorry, but Atlas is about troops, and troops are about who can spend the most.

So you’re trying to get rid of leagues? Is that what this is? You just want to kill the main game? Dave I am sorry, when I say “you” I mean this as a whole. I love you and everything you do for this game. A brilliant mind, love. As a long-ass time player, this looks like you want to kill the main game, even if you have good intensions. Wars, as they are now in the main game, can be won with more than just brute force. Atlas progression has a clear ceiling if you do not spend. We can do well enough, but on a global scale, where we can maintain with our team organization for wars we could not achieve in Atlas.

This is a LOT of risk, and like I said, organized clever teams that cannot spend for the troops (which are expensive and gone in a heartbeat) are fucked. Make this an event, and let me cry for a week every two months. Don’t make this the game. I just, I wouldn’t be able to take it.

I also strongly dislike this “pick one member” crap. Talk about forcing a leader to make hard decisions and causing bitter feelings.

I cannot even continue reading the "novel" prizes. I am so unbelievably disheartened by this Dave. As a Leader who spends hours doing things for my team, this just sounds unbearable for my D2 team. I get what you're trying to do, and I appreciate you trying to add some action into Atlas, but this grand, overarching World War is simply too much. I just. I can't.

Atlas Feedback from non Atlas players aka Don’t look here PG

Think Red’s analysis is spot on.

I like the idea of this possibly being an event that comes up once or twice a month. But for it to be a constant element would be exhausting. On both players and their wallets.


The benefits of holding land in a scenario where the World War was reality is not enough to warrant anyone but the biggest (or highest spending) teams holding land. So instead of teams rushing in to get the new land released, I can see most teams sitting it out and letting the big boys fight their world war. So Atlas can just be a visual representation of Diamond 1 (and 2)… :man_shrugging:


I personally think the standing issues need to be fixed before adding new ones … but that’s just me :woman_shrugging:t2:


Long time reader and first time poster here and I echo the comments of most. I really don’t like this at all.


Ditto on this point


I know you use the word proposal a lot. Is this truly a proposal? Or is it a direction the game is going and the community is allotted certain considerations before you proceed with this “proposal”?

I agree with Red in her assessment of the points considered, but really interested in understanding what happens to this proposal if the community feels that it’s generally a bad idea.


I will try and digest everything in that post for “specific feedback” but I do want to say one thing based on the gut reaction reading it caused…

There are quite literally HUNDREDS of phone app games based on war and troops and mechanics similar enough to what Atlas is at the moment.

There is only ONE War Dragons.

What makes Atlas bearable, is the links it has to the main game and the ability to use it as a supplement to WD vs. it being yet another GoW.

What is being proposed here will shift away from the UNIQUE, SOPHISTICATED and BRILLIANT game that is War Dragons and make it just another (utterly forgettable) war strategy app.

There are Atlas balance issues, absolutely, but surely those elements of this proposal that address those imbalances can be standalone and don’t have to be part of yet another troop killing, spenders-will-always-win, #notmyWD “feature”.

It breaks my heart to see the game atrophy with every ill-advised coding and business decision made. Please focus on saving the game we all love, and stop wasting time and money inventing stuff that has nothing to do with why we, for the past 3 years, have signed in every single day.

Feedback for First rough draft of World War


STANDING OVATION. :raised_hands:t2::raised_hands:t2::raised_hands:t2::raised_hands:t2::raised_hands:t2::raised_hands:t2::raised_hands:t2::raised_hands:t2::raised_hands:t2:




  • Declaration causes both teams to ante. Normally I expect this will be a fraction of the tokens in the treasury (partially because tokens accrue daily, and probably won’t be a perfect divisor of your ante cost).
  • There is a cap of 20 teams (10 per side). Check out the “Escalation” section for details on when teams can be invited (one side can’t just invite 9 friends right off the bat … the size of the war grows incrementally, in a tit-for-tat fashion).
  • Normal glory payout.
  • Re event structure vs war — I think the use of the term “VP” may be misleading. Maybe I should call them “Flames” rather than VP. It’s more warlike imo — participation and strategy are crucial. The team is fighting for a reward they will share. The aggressor decides (roughly) when the conflict occur. etc.
  • Anywhere -> anywhere is the proposal. I like the strategic opportunities of chokepoints and choosing your neighbors, but it seems like the consequence is that movement might be too tedious for many of our players. This suggestion is intended to make Atlas more “action-oriented” like the attacks in the rest of the game.
  • For the new fort debuff, check out Possible new primarch type?
  • Team Rating and Land Holding don’t include troops owned. If teams have so many troops that they can massacre enemies in their band, then their rating will quickly spike (and continue to spike) until they have opponents appropriate for their difficulty. It’s very similar to regular war — if someone on your team levels up their base and dragons a huge, huge amount then your team is going to massacre the others at your old rating for a while until your rating grows enough to reflect your newfound power.
  • New type as in something that isn’t a warrior, hunter or sorcerer. :smiley:
  • I think it’d be great for teams to be able to give (a few) players on their team an amazing new tier of dragons as a reward for the team’s hard work. It’s certainly a very meaningful prize. Generally people like meaningful prizes, so we’ll have to chat more so I can understand why you wouldn’t want your teams to be able to work towards amazing prizes like this. (Fixing breeding progression as a whole sounds far beyond the scope of this post, but hopefully it’s something you’re chatting about with Pulse or others perhaps?).
  • Originally I’d planned on a custom dragon helmet, but during an earlier round of feedback someone suggested that a monument would be more epic. I think they’re right. Glad you like the idea!
  • Re Upkeep - Not building a minimum infrastructure doesn’t prevent you from having to pay upkeep. The teams with prodigious amount of land will definitely relinquish some once upkeep is required. I’m not opposed to a reminder either.
  • Scores (for territory buffs like bonus XP or gold) are determined like now, but we’ll communicate them more transparently. Basically owning castles and leveling up their infrastructure, like now.
  • Re disabling wars — the intent is to allow teams to focus on world war instead of regular war if they so choose. You can definitely leave it on!
  • Re leagues — oh no, leagues are definitely here to stay! Even if you disable wars, you’ll still get the daily war chest. The tokens I’m talking about putting in the treasury are only the ones that you were collecting in Atlas each day! And we’re going to increase those token payouts significantly, in particular for teams which hold less land.

Feedback for First rough draft of World War

@Grumpybigbird Holding some land won’t make you vulnerable to world wars involving D1 and D2 (unless you hold as much and as high quality land as they do). Sitting it out is of course an option, but only a moderate amount of land should be well worth everyone’s while … or we haven’t set it up right!


Honestly Dave, if you do this, I am out. I just, I cannot even fathom wanting to play this.


@Nemesis Some of this is intended to fix existing issues – the whole Key Preparatory Steps section in fact. Anything in there that addresses the issues you’re seeing? If not, could you chime in about what those issues are? (Maybe in another thread; world war of course can’t solve all issues, but I’d love to hear what’s bugging you.)