Idea for Atlas improvement -- alliance markers

(I can’t create a new post in the Atlas area for some reason, so posting in General)

I’ve only had Altas for a week or so, and I’ve just made my first major faux pas of attacking an alliance member. My bad, should have double checked – but since alliances seem to be a pretty important emergent property of Atlas, why not make a feature to support it:

Allow Team Officers to manage a list of other teams that are either Allies, Enemies, or Neutral. When looking at the details of another team’s primarch (and maybe even in the team roster and/or on player detail pages too), have a small icon to indicate which relationship exists between your team and that team.

This would save a whole bunch of grief, and a lot of team wiki editing and LINE note editing, etc.

Thoughts?

1 Like

Yep all pro alliance tools in Atlas.

I think @PGDave had stated that because some alliances were very powerful in Beta for a while, they wanted a bit more friction. Aka they wanted alliance-play to take a lot of effort, so that it doesn’t just end in 2 or 3 alliances for the whole world.

Would still like alliance tools though :slight_smile:

1 Like

Gox’s explanation is correct. I am kind of with Dave on this. Choices should be meaningful and interesting and an alliance duoploy or oligarchy isn’t very interesting imo. So until mega alliances have drawbacks, administrative hassle will have to do as a placeholder.

1 Like

Something simple, like only allowing a certain number or percentages of teams to be marked as Friend/Enemy might have enough of an effect to prevent a permanent 2-way split. Or perhaps a “nearness” constraint, or a time-based refresh.

I understand the desire to keep things a bit chaotic, but alliance tools would be really, really useful. @PGDave

they got to do something. real pain in the a… to look at alliance and no hit list all the time. already sick of it. enough to make me rarely play atlas

1 Like

Forging an alliance should incur a fee (rubies) and there should be a maintenance cost to it as well (consummables). The ROI here would be access to the alliance tool kit. More growth should equate to an exponential increase in expenses, so it organically limits itself. Unofficial alliances would be more like peace treaties then, opening things up for plenty of friction.

I am so disappointed in atlas. They open new areas and all the d1 teams took them over. How is a sapphire team supposed to do anything when the big teams have been there forever. What a waste for the new teams

1 Like

I seem to be playing a different version than you. I just looked at the map and saw multiples of 10’s of sapphire teams owning land.

Maybe open a ticket and ask PG to sync?

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.