Some said attacking with sieger is very dangerous since if somebody attacks you at the same time you lose a lot of glory. (edit: okay i know you loose troops but it eventually effects the glory you supposed to get from that attack )
More clear, while you are attacking in atlas if you get an attack, even if the person who attack you (at the same time) at around 30-40% while you have just finished with 100%, you lose some glory. So because the sieger has the lowest defense power, he said it suffers more than the other primarchs.
Is that true? I hope i explained in an understandable way.
Thanks for all help
You don’t lose glory from being attacked in atlas, the only thing you can lose is troops. So since a sieger has the lowest defense, being attacked would kill more of your troops than the attacker’s.
that is not correct ^
never heard it described quite like that, but I like it
Hahaha of course, but eventually it affects the glory you got.
So if i complete my attack before the one who’s attacking me, i get the full glory that i supposed before the action right?
And one more question: what if the person attacking, quits the fight at 30-40% before i finish my attack?
Glory and troop losses are firstly applied according to whichever flight finishes first, whatever the percentage.
If both still have troops left, the second battle will also count
I hope i am not being too much, so in higher leagues when people see a sieger attacking someone, do they use this strategy like “attacking him and quitting at the low percentages” to steal some troops before he finishes the run?
Forum is here to ask questions imho
Yes, countersnipers often quits early on siegers sniping castles. They also quit at 70% countersniping destroyers with maxed siegers
That’s why it’s important to extend the length of your base if you enjoy sniping
I was thinking of an idea related to this. Not sure of the repercussions of it. But here goes
How would atlas be if we restricted attacks against primarchs who are currently engaged in battle?
The idea would’ve like this: if you are attacking with a primarch, you can only be attacked outside of the battle phase unless it’s the individual you are attacking. Battle phase would strictly be you actually flying the dragon. You could be attacked in the “waiting screen” and as soon as you end the battle (whether by victory or quitting)
This idea is trying to fix the need necessarily to be fast in atlas and not having those crappy runs where you beat a base but get no glory because some big guy just wiped out your entire set of troops.
Reason behind the validity of the idea is, if your primarch is currently engaging an enemy, how is it that another enemy can attack you when you can’t defend yourself.
Or perhaps just balance out the troop loss, with whoever initiated the battle first.
So, you’re advocating for an end to counter-sniping? Half the fun of sniping is hoping you won’t be, and all of the fun is effectively countering.
In a war setting, it would be called flanking.
So basically castle owners would have no way of defending their castle aside from hoping they can stop their enemy’s attack with a successful defense? I’m sure many would seriously consider quitting the game if PG implemented this idea.
Maybe just an indication that this primarch has X users attacking. Though that would require the primarch list to have a real-time update or something so I don’t think atlas can handle it
Well if the game is trying to promote more actually wars and not sniping, then I don’t necessarily see that as a good counter argument.
Now while yes you can flank an enemy in war, but the flanked enemy can also defend itself or direct its attention toward the flanker. The whole premise of war is certainly flawed in atlas since the whole aspect of glory is based on a primarchs stats. So the way I think of it is, it is a primarch vs a primarch, not a primarch leading an army.
With that said, perhaps you could increase a primarchs attack (or defense if you are defending) dependent on how many troops are loaded on the primarch. That would relate more to a primarch leading an army.
Well to defend your castle you would need to have more participation from your team. As the defending player can attack who is attacking them.
Or like I mentioned at the end…you simply allocate troop loss to the person who initiated the battle first. Whatever troops the initiater had left over would be rewarded to the person attacking them.
revive rate ends up being junk anyways during a quit early
This is correct if your sieger is hit by another sieger at owner’s castle.
Not that you lose glory but they could quit at 30-40% and kill all your troops and lose minimal troops themself.
I know that, but I didn’t think that was what op asked? it may have been. I don’t know.
So you’re saying I see an enemy primarch come to my castle. They attack player B on my team. However, player B is currently offline and can’t attack back against the person who is attacking them. But because I am not the one being attacked I just have to sit there hoping I can defend my team mate’s base successfully?
Yeah, monumentally BAD idea. Snipers usually have most of the advantages and you want to give them even more advantages? That’s a hard pass for me.
Umm you could attack them, however my primary concern is prioritizing troop loss (ie glory gained) to the person who initiates the attack first.
I could careless if it’s by way of an idea like this or as I’ve said two other times, which you are just glossing over, simply prioritizing glory and troop loss to the initiator. So whoever attacks first (ya know element of surprise should count for something) if you attack that person after they already started their attack, you would kill the whatever remaining troops Your attack is able to kill.
Atlas is super annoying in the fact that you can surprise An enemy but still get nothing for it because some big guy just cleaned out your base before you finished your attack. It seriously makes it frustrating to where people don’t want to do anything but swaps or sniping.
Uh its life and bring more then 15k easy solved or deal with consequences allowing others to stop u to save teammates troops is great
Yea no, it just discourages people from even participating in atlas. Especially the way it’s intended to be played.
and bringing more than 15k troops doesn’t fix anything. Just makes you a bigger target. Therefore will just exacerbate the issue