Mega Alliances in Atlas

Hopefully people can discuss some potential ways to reduce both the impact, reliance and benefit of mega alliances. I think almost every player, team, alliance, group can all at least agree for the most part they are one of the top things that needs to go. It keeps being brought up and the users were falsely told it would be addressed. So I guess maybe some people can come up with some solutions and go from there.

6 Likes

:thinking: Narrowing Atlas down

I meant as long as Atlas allows wide range of targeting, people will still regroup and forming alliances.

-edit-
Also can’t separate this issue with pirate issues as well, since those can’t stand with how alliance works may choose the other safe haven.

3 Likes

Solution: abandon Atlas and move on already…

7 Likes

I think crusades were meant to reduce the impact of mega alliances, but we really wont know until PG properly announces the specifics of them.

1 Like

So 19 more weeks of mega alliances at a minimum. Mega alliances are just a by product of the game state. Without real change in atlas there will be no change in mega alliances. Frankly when big teams hit little teams what else do you expect? And I’m not just talking gate castles, I see every week teams trying to knock off P3 and P4 T2 castles. There needs to be bigger bonuses for higher castles ASAP, as I think it’s a simple easy first step.

How?

How exactly though? Not that I dont have faith in PG but I have yet to see a single issue they have effectively actually addressed. So, the idea crusades would actually address it…

It would be a simple step, yet @PGNines and the PG group have refused to even discuss it for years, basically since the inception of Atlas…so not sure that is going to happen anytime soon.

I think that could help but one counter argument to that though, is teams will still form alliances and teams of lower strength will be given land they do not deserve.

Another thing that is a huge problem with the mass battles in Atlas, they have not built it to actually handle mass battles, there are so many issues that arise from it.

Since by human nature alliances seem like they might form anyways, would removing alliances to some degree and a focus on team prizing/enhancement help maybe? If you have to weigh off your own team’s benefit versus another, it gets hard to decide? Not sure if it is enough to reduce the mass team issue?

2 Likes

Unless you intend on replacing people with robots, you can’t get away from alliances - formal or informal. That’s just human nature.

Perhaps a better way to approach this is to think about what problems mega alliances cause and how these can be mitigated.

12 Likes

Well from my understanding they are (or maybe were? hard to say anymore) meant to be like war declarations for a period of time (24h originally) and during this time the only players that can participate have to be in the 5ta of each either team.

Now obviously this is just a small mega alliance deterrent and is not going to annihilate them but is more or less a starting point.

I wish…oh how I wish. But I get it. That is sort of what I was after, defining the causes and giving some actual solutions, versus the usual nebulous ones PG throws out.

I dont think PG is even willing to admit to the core issues driving it, so gotta start somewhere.

I mean land value is definitely part of it. Progression is determined by glory…which actually has nothing to do with land owned. Glory being the end all be all seems weird. This is war dragons…and if we go with war, if you just tallied up how many troops you could kill and how many of your own died…I feel like China would be the predominate military power?

Got it, not the worst start, seems like even the tiniest step in the right direction, havent heard much about those lately

For me, the game needs to reward ability and skill.

I’d be supportive of land being a determinant of “success” if all land is accessible. As it is currently land ownership in atlas says nothing about the ability of the team (although one could argue the ability to suck up to larger teams is a skill?)

2 Likes

I literally do not think they know what this sentence means though, or they just disagree, but how can it do that?

So why do you need land then? You just need a drop down menu, like events?

One thing that probably needs to be defined too. Because right now skill and team are probably the least important aspects/metrics in Atlas.

Assuming you want to counter this though, how would you do it? I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on what a team does, which right now it has almost zero actual bearing. But what would be a good way to reward a team for their ability?

yea that’s why I’m not too sure anymore and apparently they changed the name, is not longer gonna be called crusades for some reason, hard to keep up.

At the most simplistic level you could boil the original intent for Atlas down to: the more land you can hold and defend, the better you are at Atlas.

However, owning a 12 hop castle is very very different from holding an access castle.

If all land is accessible, then everyone is on a more equal footing. Conquer and hold what you are able to as a team. When this happens, a land base leaderboard makes sense. Until then it’s just a farce.

Structured lands and fully open world aren’t a good combination already.

  • Allowing good rewards for everything (offensive wise), and we promotes sandbagging.
  • Allowing scaled rewards, and we promotes reverse sandbagging (biggie hides in small teams) and hiding (let low rewards team be a shield for high rewards one
  • Allowing safe haven and we promotes pirates (where players can attack behind the shadow)

Narrowing down Atlas involves making attacking the same tiered teams easier and more encouraged (thus either all areas are accessible or, at the very least, all 5TA are accessible, is necessary).

But WHY would do you do that even? The highest rewards are season, which has nothing to do with any of that?

Would land be more equal value then still?

Makes sense, but when everyone gets basically the same rewards, then what? Or is that something they would have to change too?

That’s why I would suggest to reduce blockades to one minute. Land would still be valued by the gold/xp/shards bonuses.

But I don’t think that would be enough. I think passage is also a very important tool of mega alliances and that’s where we have to start if we want to decrease their impact.

Isn’t it what happened with core game as well?
Same personal progression yet scaled team rewards (in this case castle advantage)?
Perhaps the difference will be personal progression can go much further compared to core game.

-edit-
Perhaps add more scaled Atlas specific rewards to make owning higher castle more valuable, if the rewards isn’t appealing
-/edit-

Unfortunately atm, locations worth more than those. Thus, anything allowing castle to be more reachable should be better (though shorter blockade allows easier pirating life)

3 Likes

Would this solve Mega-Alliance?

Get rid of 5TA’s
Get rid of passage
Only allow one enemy team on a castle at a time
If a prim sits at an enemy castle for more than 3 minutes without attacking it self destructs

Or keep 5TA’s and only allow one enemy 5TA on a castle at a time.

Diamond and sapp a own atlas server, platinum a own atlas server and gold a own atlas server.
5ta can stay, big alliances would become more user friendly during raids if they keep those big crap alliances.