How could Atlas not be "defense focused"?

The belief that Atlas is too defensive came up (among other places) a couple of times here: Expectations regarding War Dragons:

Please assume for this discussion that Atlas is indeed too defensive (I’m not sure I agree, but that isn’t what I’m interested in now). If this is the case, what would you want done to alleviate this problem?

I agree that attacking a base with your hard earned dragons is more interesting than defending one and that in almost all things attackers receive considerable tempo advantage by virtue of choosing the timing of the attack. I don’t see a way around that without turning Atlas into a “tug of war” like Temple Raid, Fight Pits, or Crystal Caves or into an effort grind like Team Gauntlet. None of this is bad, but we already have core game PvP events that have these attributes.

1 Like

I’m actually very curious to see what people have to say here :thinking:

2 Likes

seriously…

@MALIK

Care to share again?

2 Likes

I’m hoping to hear from him. But just taking away castles won’t do it, because then Atlas would just be a featureless plain with no interest at all. One reason to make this thread is that I always am wondering what he’d want to replace them with, but I don’t want to derail another thread to dig into it.

I’m sure he will chime in, but he has an entire post about the issue of defensive castles and stagnation.

1 Like

A single castle remains at the dead center of the map!
A singular objective that drives offense and who ever holds it is rewarded justly because they are going to need it .:smiling_imp::rofl::fire:
Yes and number one team will have to really be and stay number one they will have a objective to defend and hold it we have the objective to take it.:+1:

And as a team pushes inward they get better and better rewards and bigger and bigger opponents but they push inward at their own pace with balanced engagement between teams of equal strength.
And this allows all players to have atlas day one! :sunglasses:
It provides a environment that allows teams to form on the edge of the map and build up and grow and push inwards for a better position to attack from.

Versus defense of stagnation :man_shrugging:

3 Likes

Thank you! I did a quick search for “atlas defensive” but this is exactly the sort of thing I am looking for.

1 Like

So again, kingdom wars in atlas form. Not against your push on forums for change but I still don’t think this is the answer. Don’t get me wrong, I loved kingdom wars and pushing for a single goal. But this in atlas is relentlessly aggressive and will have worse burn out than having to defend for a bit on a castle.

The map just needs to be reworked as per their last attempt as a starting point.

I personally would put teams on fewer castles, increase infra levels and but objectives on map that come and go. Let teams fight over growth and mini wars always.

But keep on banging the same ducking drum

6 Likes

The second statement seem to imply some territorial control (nodes, if we don’t want to call them castles anymore). If these nodes provide bonuses, then they seem functionally similar to castles, and if they do not, then most teams will not have a reason to squabble over them (I don’t envision most teams being strong enough to take, let alone hold, the singular goal).

The idea of making a team’s reward contingent on their best castle, rather than an aggregate of castles, would focus things a lot, which sounds great. (Probably would want to reduce the number of primarchs a player can spawn at once.) I think as long as there is a “geographical” component to Atlas, diplomacy and alliance are going to be the dominant philosophy though. Even if each team can only hold one castle, if I am the topmost team I would rather help the third most powerful team hold spot two against the second than give the second most powerful team a shot at me.

1 Like

I love this idea! It reminds me of hunting for crystal hearts in The Way of Kings (a book by Brandon Sanderson). Differing factions have their home camps, but away from the camps a valuable McGuffin spawns randomly and they have to decide if they are well positioned to go out and contest for it. Of course, if you can take castles from other teams, it seems like there would still be an emphasis on defense…

So again…… not like KW at all ……
In kingdom wars a team was given a random start location each time.
And a team acquired and held hexes on the map creating a line and that’s called expanding acquisition and is completely different from what I’m proposing! :man_shrugging:
And so no not kingdom wars at all quite different with a singular goal on a long term map not a short term event with crappy random placement which was the number one issue with that event and one that couldn’t be solved because yep it’s short term! Lol

Defense isn’t always bad. You defend your bases during wars pvp etc. there’s a balance in this game. One that gives people you know, time to sleep and actually enjoy the game environment over spamming attacks over and over

1 Like

Your atlas placement would be very similar to KW placement in terms of team strength etc. I don’t see the difference KW could technically run forever and play the same. The only difference I see in your proposal is no lands to take just a dot on a map. I can’t see rallying 50 people for that.

Ummmm each players base was not the map in Kw and placement took place by league with a handful of teams! Lmao
I’m sorry in no way at all is placement on the map I’m proposing like KW ……
Nor could kw be ran indefinitely because small teams were always being swallowed and unable to expand once surrounded.
Your attempt to compare KW to the map I’m proposing doesn’t make any sense! :man_shrugging:

1 Like

And if I had 5 bucks for every time Ive seen a player post this games become a full time job!
I would not need to work …. Lol
Sorry this game is not balanced and has a ever increasing burden of play ……

And that’s the beauty of having a singular goal with positional Attacking it allows
for the game to move at the teams pace :man_shrugging:
And you will actually be able to set a pace thats comfortable and competitive.
Versus 24/7 defense :+1:

I didn’t not realize you were talking each player on the map. Way worse to kill team spirit :rofl: this coming from a pirate. Sure, if you want to play a solo game your idea is great I guess. Still would lack most motivations for the majority of the player base.

If your idea was based on teams not players it would be KW. Worse yet your taking individual players to a map for what one team to have one castle :rofl::rofl::rofl:

The fact you take over any and all conversations about atlas with this nonsense is relentlessly toxic.

Defense is not bad
Offensive play is not the only play
The atlas map is broken
Mega alliances are outdated
Pirates are useless
Castles without reason is useless

Please give us something to fight for. Not fight just to fight. Atlas can be great. It needs the same balance like the main game has. It’s just that simple.

There is the same burden of play for team A attacking team B. Neither offense or defense takes less time. If I attack you for 6 hours and you defend for 6 hours that’s balance IMO

Yep and what I’m proposing is exactly that lmao :rofl:
Your in a thread about atlas defense and offensive mechanics where the op asked to speak about this topic if you don’t have anything to add besides trolling me….
The door is over there :door:

Except team A is in diamond and 500 plus and team B is in platinum 1 with a few over 500 lmao
yeah the burdens equal….
Sorry that’s just nonsense :man_shrugging: