Make teams have to fight for thier castles

Ok atlas is getting more and more demoralising for me and a lot of players I know, it has come to the point where anything we do or castles we take we have to deal with a certain ta that outranks us massively, and this certain ta doesn’t hit from my last count 33 teams in the top 40 of teams who hold the best castles in the game.

So we need some sort of change, something big, or a lot more teams are going to go inactive and/or disband and players quit.

The way atlas is at the moment the top ta has earned thier castles plus some, but most of the rest of the best castle owners haven’t done much if anything to earn anything they own but maybe be nice to the right person or choose the right mega alliance that rules the game.

I’m not sure what can be done to fix this, but imo some things that could work are the following

  • if you own for example 20 castles above any tier of a castle tier you can’t hit those castles, so if I own 20 t3s, t4s and/or t5s I can’t hit any t2.
  • remove passage on t4s and t5s
  • remove marshal on t4s and t5s or make guards a lot lower on these castles like 100-500k so they are conquerable (if you fall asleep at the wheel you lose a castle)
  • the top castles should give better benefits like they do ie for bonuses and fort bonuses but they should also be the easiest to lose.

There’s probably a thousand other things that can be done, but something needs to be done, my team and my ta own the scraps and battle for the scraps of castles, and we can’t touch the great castles in game for several reasons, the main one is mega alliances, having 20-30 teams bombarding your 5 teams is insane and should never be able to be done.

12 Likes

Not trying to call anyone out it should not be up to players to make the game fair it should be PG, but the way the game is atm PG leaves it to teams and Tas

3 Likes

With the current atlas map this won’t work
There’s also a way to abuse it by having 19 T5s and a t4

I’d love to see passage be removed entirely tbh

Not a terrible idea, seen people like bru post similar stuff. Concern would be the increased need to defend your castle(s) and thus burden of play

5 Likes

Problem with removal of passage is when a TA that massively outranks yours trades to be next door to you, you have very little means to call I help. Think the removal of passage would need a 5TA change lockout to go hand in hand with it. e.g you switch 5tas to trade a castle, you are no longer able join a 5ta that contains any of the teams in your old 5ta for 48 hours, and they can’t join a TA with your team in it either.

6 Likes

Another thing that would help is to massively reduce the number of castles a team can own. 50 is absurd and the only reason teams want anywhere close to 50 is so they can disband their enemies/give inactive teams more land.

Change castle cap, get rid of passage, add a 5ta lock/cooldown. It’s impossible to fix such a bad map but that doesn’t mean that something can’t be done to at least make mega alliancing much more difficult to pull off

Edit: I’ve found the best way to stop feeling demoralized is to stop playing, personally

7 Likes

One way to prevent/deter that would be to apply a ranking structure that is true. That way you can only get glory or conquer a castle that is equal to your ranking.

Also limit the number of teams that can get glory on a castle to strictly that offensive teams 5ta. Any other teams either couldn’t attack or any troops they kill would be 100% revivable by the defender (attacker would get no glory but defender would) this could be a step to getting rid of mega alliances.

Not sure if restrictions should be set on how vastly different the rank among those within a 5ta should be or if you should limit how frequent you can swap 5tas’

However a big con to this would be high prize castles would be strictly limited to those top teams, who likely spend more than others. I guess you could allocate a certain number of castle tiers to each ranking group. With the number of more valuable castles a team can own increasing as you grow in rank

And when a team drops in rank to where their castle allotment is reduced, a natural disaster destroys the castle, along with any troops (with a 25% perma loss) and prims on it, with the least amount of resources spent upgrading it (or least number of troops), essentially resetting it to 0 respective to its tier. A timer (viewable to only the team) would be provided to allow prims to leave and the castle couldn’t be conquered until the disaster is over. Any other teams on the castle would simply get a notification that a natural disaster is occurring with no timer.

In addition to that, any team who disbands, the owned castles automatically experiences a natural disaster with again a timer.

So the 25 diamond teams pound each other until only one team remains :man_shrugging:
You see the issue with diamond only have x number of teams ……

Yeah that’s actually a great idea in a game where growth of the player base is possible but this game is not allowed to expand by design….

And that lack of growth and diamond having a set number of teams drives revenue without a objective and you must eliminate a team to take their place and since there’s no objective there’s no reason to fight beyond pushing a team down…… lol

Move rank to a positional map where rank is determined by position relative to a actual OBJECTIVE and allow teams to continue to grow and you might not see your top teams walk away from lack of competitive play….

Yeah this pathetic ranking system has long been broken and detrimental to the growth and longevity of our game!
Pg you might want to try integration of the map and core the games ranking systems and actually produce a map that supports long term play.

Ranking structure that I’m thinking of wouldn’t relate to main game tiers but strictly atlas based and could be a little bit more lenient. Like say instead of the top tier being 25 teams like in the main game it could be the top 30-40. Or something like that.

That’s the problem is the rank system being split :man_shrugging:
And unless we utilize some positional mechanics rank won’t matter much longer anyway👍
Currently rank is used to determine where to sandbag……
It drives no conflict and supports nothing :man_shrugging:

2 Likes

Sandbagging definitely happens in the main game for sure. Not so sure how it applies to atlas but either way if you allotted a certain number of tiered castles to a team based on rank and they lost those castles based on losing rank. (They would also lose lower level castles when gaining rank) then I think teams would be less likely to want to lose position.

The idea would also pretty much eliminate having to be held up at lower level team castles in order to access higher level castles. Essentially you could have almost free reign amongst those in your rank. So long as there aren’t multiple castles of a similar ranked team around the castle you want to attack.

Pirate teams sandbag leagues and remain at lower leagues to more easily snipe and manage events.
Whole teams sandbag just like players! :+1:
Hence the flag :pirate_flag:
Ranking is a joke in the core game and on the map because they do not really correlate effectively and they fail to drive conflict and engagement of any kind….

I see what you mean.

Perhaps increase glory payout to higher ranked teams that way there is incentive to stay in a competitive tier. Pirate teams would essentially get some of the lowest glory as their ranking would be on the low side In Comparison to other teams. Adjustments would probably have to be made to % of perma loss based on rank as well. Lower level teams would have less perma loss

1 Like

Problem is that piracy is not a choice :man_shrugging:

It’s mandatory and new teams would never establish themselves……
Yes because new teams entering the map are pirates by default :man_shrugging:
Yes and I as a player will just move to a team that is more established and that means I’m pushing someone out of diamond to acquire their spot on one of the 50 teams….

And that’s called elimination and I have to eliminate a team or a player to take a spot in diamond.
Ahhh so we see this results in player and team loss and we have player progression to consider but we also have team based progression to consider and when a team can never push up because the ordinal rank system you see player and team elimination as a result.

As for lowering number of castles well all I can say is that will produce more burden of play ….

Glory is not a objective and increasing it will not supply a objective :man_shrugging:

Rank is supposed to drive and support conflict but this ordinal ranking system failed to do than before we even added events LmAo
And events are not long term objectives either :+1: so yes they failed to support conflict and drive revenue!
Map failed for the same reason a short term defense objective same as core games historical objective of growth which is also defensive in nature…

That is true, but if we adjusted perma loss on the lower ranked teams it would give them a chance to build an army per say, which would improve their ranking and if they start gaining real estate they could then further improve their standing.

Perhaps as for stagnation amongst higher level teams, you could have a random natural disaster occur amongst them if they do not attack. Or perhaps just simply apply a random disaster once your castle allotment is full. Only one random disaster at a time but it would happen so long as you had a full allotment of whatever tiered castle you owned. (I.e. 6/7 5* castles and 8/8 4* etc… these are just random numbers not how many I think a team should own )

A disaster would be viewed much the same as a shuffle was…. It will not be viewed as acceptable players will end up losing troops and resources they paid money for :man_shrugging:

This is why I keep posting the same thing over and over about a long term objective and the lack of one!
And balanced engagement by using positional attacking mechanics

Rank based on a teams position on the map a singular long term objective and time equals distance traveled to attack solves all these issues!
Not one or two ALL of them yes every single last one !!!

There is no perfect system but something would need to be done to prevent stagnation. And you could limit actual earned and payed for resource losses. Again a timer would allow people to leave and save personal troops. Having it limited to the lowest upgraded castle or lowest guard count would Reduce that further. As well as returning most guards lost to a team barracks. As it being a disaster some would be lost as rarely ever does everyone escape.

1 Like

I agree we can keep adjusting this until it’s so complicated and contrived that it takes a 100 page rule book to make a attack…. Lmao
At some point you realize complexity will not create a fun game :man_shrugging:
It makes it boring.

There is in fact a perfect system :man_shrugging:
Yes I know because I have avoided creating it in the past lmao
Yes avoided it because it’s endless war and the games I was creating at that time were designed to end quickly…… this game is not!
lol yes it’s complicated but there is a system that provides exactly the game play we seek and I have been yelling about it since beta!

You can’t change anything without actually changing it or coming up with new ideas.

I have the mechanics and they can easily change it if they so choose….
These mechanics are not untested I know how they interact I tested them for 12 years and yes that game is still up and running and profitable….
But yes until the data shows complete loss in revenue they will not move to change this sadly….

I can see why Galileo gave you that nickname lol

I’d be curious to know what game if you care to pm me.