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


Ok that’s good to hear - can we get an worked example of odds please so we can see for ourselves?

In this case, my follow up question will be - what’s to stop a world war between 2 Platinum teams bringing in a D1 team through escalation? Odds were decided at the beginning, so the ante doesn’t change. Say the attacking team brings in the D1 ally - instead of having to put in the max 3x tokens it only put in 1x tokens but now has 20x the hitting power.



If you want to do Atlas wars why not make it similar to wars we have now?

50 vs 50 officers can declare on other teams…
we don’t necessarily need to fly all over…

All the assets one team Vs the other get put in the pot?
Islands etc or not put in the pot but are used to balance the wars so weak teams aren’t Vs strong (Atlas wise)

Each team selects a prime per person and attacks the other team during the war… but unlike normal wars you can do multiple attacks causing damage etc troop losses too.

At the end of a war… 24-48hrs what’s left is what’s left… if the team who took most damage may lose and island or two to the winning team?

(Instead of us wasting hours beating one troop at a time to conquer an island)

Flying I love add it! No one likes waiting 1-2 hours to travel across the map!


@Grumpybigbird The same rules apply to invited teams. A war between two platinum teams would be unable to invite a diamond team because it would break the fairness rules. Though it is conceivable that if they invited increasingly stronger teams that perhaps they could invite diamond teams by the 10th team (e.g., plat invites weak sapphire which invites stronger sapphire and so on).

Feedback for First rough draft of World War

Yeah, it’s a ton. I like your idea about breaking out the preparatory proposals (e.g., flying primarchs) into their own threads. Will do.


I like Blockades. They allow teams (and alliances) to concentrate defense on the frontline, like a moat around their internal lands. And it makes sense. PG placed level 5 lands surround by 4, and then 3, and so on, forming a ring around the most valuable land. Why should an enemy team be able to bypass all defense, and parachute into the middle of a well fortified block, to seize prize land in a single attack?

I think Flights need to be limited to landing in Safe Zones and/or NML. This would maintain the ability to strategize and concentrate forces against specific fronts.

Also, keep blockades. We’re all in different time zones, so if your only means of stopping an invasion is Trapping, you’ll get American teams moving on Russian teams while they sleep, and vice versa.


Ok talk me through the mechanics of this. Is the 3:1 ratio recalculated every time a team is proposed to be added?

So aggressor declares on defender. Ratio at declare is 3:1 - will this mean no additional reinforcements can be added by the aggressor until the defender brings someone else in?

Say defender brings in ally - ratio (Aggressor:Defender) is now 1:1 - the aggressor can then invite an ally, but is limited to ally choice such that end ratio if ally joins is 3:1 or below?


I don’t think everything in here is a good idea. The idea of this “replacing”’the core game to some degree isn’t the worst. It’s like going to war and being upset because the machine gun replaced the revolver. Profession is generally good. Wars to me remind me of how people fought during the revolutionary war. You just lined up and shot each other. I think Atlas is attempting to introduce tactics but probably the pace of change is a bit too fast.

Atlas should enhance the game. Not create a second one or “replace” it. Personally I don’t think you need to declare on a team in a game where you are warring constantly. That’s part of the fun. The goal of dropping teams from always targeting smaller ones does need to occur but not like this. Cooperation between teams should be encouraged but perhaps not quite so strictly.

Anything with increased prizes I think the player base will always be supportive of. Perhaps we could take the good of the suggestions and just move forward with a few of them?


@Grumpybigbird Yep, “Odds are recomputed when a new team joins”.

The aggressor can never invite someone else in – check out the “Escalation” section. The defender gets first rights to invite other teams. If and only if they invite someone can the attack then escalate. It’s like a tit-for-tat system. Neither side can unilaterally invite 10 teams to join their cause all at once.


Forget the wars part then for now - and the shiny new rewards and everything that isn’t already in Atlas.

Make the formal in-game Alliance mechanic a top priority. Happy to brainstorm that with you in more detail if it helps. This will make a world of difference to the players and supports the parts of Atlas that you and Echo were most excited about a few months ago.

Work on divesting the behemoths from land they’re making no use of, so newer teams can take it over - and give those teams time or rss so their efforts to catch up aren’t futile (headed in the right direction in that part of the feature). Sad fact that allowing beta teams to spend real $$ for over year was a mistake (co-dev only works if the entire community is involved) - but some things can be done to mitigate that after the fact. Maybe the next cohorts get minimum of two weeks to fight only amongst themselves for newly opened land? Established teams can’t touch it and have to either (a) Court the new additions to join their alliance or (b) fight for it after the newbs have time to build troops and upgrade infrastructure so they stand some chance of keeping it.

There’s so much more but it’s getting late and unlike you I don’t get paid to improve the game lol in fact I have to pay to even be able to keep up with it… so gnight and I may add more over the next few days.


I don’t like the adding other teams one bit…
it overly complicates the system…

Warring between the teams has been a fundamental part of war dragons.

I’d rather it stay Team Vs Team.
How do you stop a lopsided deal?
Team A declares on Team B…
A gets C to help… B has no allies? Is team B screwed?


Heads up – I’m going to close this thread once those who are replying now finish. I’m going to start several new threads to present and discuss smaller, more specific parts of this proposal (e.g., upkeep). Once we’ve worked through those then maybe we’ll come back to world war and try to dissect it and adapt it to make it a fun addition (obviously we’re not there yet!).


Tokens need to be evenly distributed by PG.
If it’s up to the leader to distribute, the most vocal (or whiny) people will win out.
Many of the most active player are silent in TC, they wont complain that they’re not receiving the tokens from the leader, and they will silently regret the whole thing, until they quit.


I guess my main question in response to this proposal is, why?

Why is this something that should become reality? Why is this a reality that you want for the game? Why should I as a player want this?


Changed it already inline with your thoughts ;). Check the original post.


The primary goal is to incentivize strategic, large-scale warfare between “equals” over random glory hunting / trading / griefing. All the ☆ are the secondary goals.


Your concept is great. Fun, engaging, rewarding; it may not need to be completely scrapped, but in the following paragraphs I’ll attempt to illustrate where I (personally) feel it went horribly wrong.

This I am hesitant about. Having a mythic which requires $$ to acquire is one thing. Creating these difficult to obtain dragons left and right, making it impossible for anyone but the highest achieving teams to get will create an atmosphere where players feel there is no point because their team isn’t strong enough, doesn’t spend enough, doesn’t have enough players, etc etc. This can only benefit a small portion of your player base.

Here is where you had me screen shotting your proposal and blasting it all over Line calling in the reinforcements to join in my resounding NO.
Yes, the game spans years. However, most players play week to week, or month to month; saying that eventually all players in a team would receive a part of this “honor” is the kind of promise that doesn’t hold much weight in the gravity of the situation. Furthermore, I distinctly remember a discussion that was had in SanFran regarding something with an eerie similarity to this (that I signed an agreement not to share) and the entire room’s worth of Creators emphatically shouting no. Atlas is fun as a way to pass time, but the core game’s breeding/dragon progression needs to be preserved and left unhindered by the saturation of “Atlas” dragons.
Ps. I have issues with the overabundance of seasonal divines too, not just the implementation of “Atlas” dragons; that is just not relevant to dispute anymore.

This is a way of prioritizing Atlas over the core game, which is not something I - and many others - would want. I would argue the opposite would be helpful. Disable “world wars” so teams can focus on their core wars.

I enjoy multiple aspects of Atlas, but for many, it is only worth it for the added perks.
This includes: Atlas event rewards (clocks), dragon riders & armor, invader, daily token payout
Instead of focusing on the overarching theme of gambling team tokens for a potential % back, imagine the viewpoint of a player who sees their daily tokens removed for favor of a reward dependent on team success and how much your leader favors you. I’m not a newbie and that would still make me nervous.

These are nice prize additions. Many a newer player looks at the portraits from The Great Contest with envy; no one suffers as a result, but a select few feel empowered.

I agree with Red that this removes strategy. Also, as it is now, an intruder can poke around a team’s outskirts and fight their way in, but the defending team is able to strategize and formulate a defense due to blockades and the path of travel. How helpless would you feel if you were busy at work or school only to find that instead of receiving a proper warning on Line that an invasion was occurring, your primarch and valuable troops were all slaughtered by an intruder who danced their way in and out before anyone could react?


Well I might say it misses the mark, but i’ll see how this progresses before completely giving up on the game.


@PGDave this is the perfect time to bring up my favorite suggestion once more: a homeland for every team.

If every team in Atlas owned a homeland city, that no one could attack or block with enemy primarchs so the team could always actually log into atlas and play (summon troops, summon primarchs, do bank transfers, etc), AND now get some minimal daily token for declaring WorldWars… then no one would be homeless and we could all fight over the rest of the map as much as we wanted to.

Maybe a team owning only their homeland could declare WorldWars still, maybe they coukdn’t until they captured some contested land… but they would not worry about losing thier only city. And they would have a place to get ready to go capture contested land.

Everyone in Atlas deseves 1 place they can never lose and can do banking in. That is a core feature of WarDragons. Yes, Atlas is about risks… there are plenty, but a little tiny safety net in one corner of the map to make it enjoyable for everyone is worth it.

*** there are about 60 homeless teams right now, which means 3000 players in Atlas who can’t use a team bank and don’t get token payouts and don’t get more than 45 craft materials per poacher! :scream: They feel helpless to progress. That is not fun.


One more thing:

It’s been said a few times but I’d also like to emphasize the importance of improving ally mechanics in the existing version of atlas before changing the system as a whole.

Friendly fire, safe passage, things like that. It’s a lot of work for leadership right now because it’s too easy for the players to screw up.


<3 Thanks for the detailed feedback @ShadowsOfBirds!

  • Good thing I changed the proposal to get rid of any mention of player-specific prizes. Heard that feedback loud and clear!
  • Do you think it’s better off to not provide an option to disable core wars? Certainly easier to go that route. The burden might be a bit heavy for teams. Sometimes it’s hard to try new things without giving teams an option to transfer some of their attention to the cool new thing (if in fact, it is cool, ha). The intent was just to reduce the burden on teams and make the addition more fun. I’m not quite sure where to settle on this one. Worth further discussion.
  • Thanks re nice prize additions — the novel, non-power-affecting prizes for top teams are pretty cool in my opinion too!
  • Anywhere->anywhere is really targeted at increasing the pace of Atlas. People ask for that all the time, but maybe this is either the wrong way to achieve that, or just plain the wrong direction to move Atlas.
  • Re alliances – removing blockades and letting teams team up for important wars was a small attempt to relieve some of these headaches without ending up in a situation where D1 is one giant unbeatable alliance.