Making Atlas More Dynamic by Fluctuating Land Value


#41

I think that glory was an intended mechanic for rewarding attacking/conquering and avoiding turtling/stagnation.

It’s now turned into a way to keep the stagnation in Atlas while getting rewarded, so that’s why i think it should change.


#42

Can the Atlas Map be broken up into like. A Venn Diagram almost. I’m thinking of having certain areas of the map reserved for certain leagues. So we’d have a Platinum section, Sapphire, Diamond, maybe even Gold someday. Land ownership in these areas will have a cap of 5-10 castles (the idea is that this is a “safe zone” for players in this league). If you move up or down in leagues, there will be available land for you to move into and you can choose to only battle against teams in your league if you wish. Probably make this land all level 2 with level 3s sprinkled in.

However, there would be areas where the sections overlap and you can battle with bigger or smaller teams. Land in these zones will be more valuable and have an ownership cap of 15-20 castles (this is open for debate). There will still be an incentive to battle for land, Diamond and Sapphire teams will still have people to hit, and they’ll still retain the value of their land. This land should be primarily level 3, 4, and 5.

The idea behind all of this is that teams can have a spot where they aren’t going to be wiped by significantly stronger teams but they also can’t abuse the safe haven. 5 level 2 castles isn’t a whole lot. It’s enough for 1 in each element. Sandbagging teams also can’t bully smaller teams in their league as effectively because they can’t conquer beyond their cap in these areas. Excess land will also allow teams to relocate when they change leagues.

Thoughts?


#43

imaging if there were none nml, somehow they will pick a castle accessible from anywhere and make it “aligane”


#44

I don’t think it’s being suggested to get rid of NML… just make it less encentive. Possibly reduce the % of glory earned when attacks occur within there compared to attacking a primark on a teams castle.


#45

True which is why NML should exist. I dont think NML should be completely obliterated. But more mechanics should be introduced to encourage attacking other teams islands. I think my proposal to fluctuate land values would do that to some degree. obviously more than just my suggestion could and should be done.


#46

Miaowme still isn’t reading my original post in his/her arguing.
Maybe i should just keep pointing to the direct point we are trying to make.


#47

your post is vague to me so I asked again and your answer as I understand: glory should not majorly come from nml but catsle taking.
isnt this right?


#48

My post in intended to and must be vague.

The overarching theme is that glory (and resulting season prizes) should be scaled on effort and coordination rather than laziness and luck.


#49

ok, I dont like discuss anything in a vague conversation. a straight point would be easier to progress instead of running around in a circle


#50

Anyways I would like people to read and give feedback on my direct proposal more than bicker over other atlas mechanics. sure lets build and expand on Atlas ideas but lets not get too bogged down. :slight_smile:


#51

At least with your idea… it takes the control away from the team. If it was simply the Castle losing value over the time of ownership, then they would simply work with their Alliance friends and conquer each other’s castles to maintain their castles full value.


#52

Ya i would want the fluctuating values to be independent of who owns them. :slight_smile:


#53

im liking this idea, but why stop there? with further expansions each season(hopefully) there will soon be enough territory for plat teams to start getting tier 3 lands, so each land lvl can fluctuate up or down by one lvl and shows where and which lands are going up or down.

  • So, lets include all tier 3 lands and up. I wouldn’t expect this change until the winter atlas season so theres more than enough time.
  • For this to work though, the infrastructure degradation would need to either be removed or allow leaders, officers, and gov the ability to voluntarily take infrastructure into storage without any affects, a limit to this would be that infrastructure cant be stored while either being attacked or while the shield is up.

The decreased Glory for attacking castles may also need to be addressed, but a great idea like this would need to be taken in baby steps so the whole game doesn’t implode.


#54

Yup all islands would flux a bit. Level 2’s shouldn’t become level 5’s though. Nor should level 5’s go as low as level 2’s. :blush:


#55

LOL i’d be scared to be a platinum team that suddenly gets ownership of a T5 castle that used to be undesirable :grin::grin:


#56

Lol… hence why lvl 2 castles can’t transform into T5, although there are probably a good few plat teams with lvl 3 Castles. If that happened to our team… I’d probably be trying to trade it ASAP, I know we wouldn’t hold it long :joy:


#57

I’d be impressed if a plat team could
Hold it that long (assuming it takes 3 month per step up). I’d almost want to help them keep it!


#58

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