Neutral zone is overloaded

Now in the neutral zone a lot of non-playing players or lazy players
neutral zone is overloaded
many of their primarchs
many of their soldiers

it slows down the drawing
more often are crashes
increases traffic
if you open the garrison of neutral cities the game is crashing
sometimes you need to clean this territory :slight_smile:

now the sequence of events is this:

  1. the event on G + hunters give glory
  2. training of riders and primarchs
  3. the creation of armor for the riders
  4. event on G
  5. training of riders and primarchs
  6. troop training

maybe it’s better this way?

  1. the event on G + hunters give glory
  2. training of riders and primarchs
  3. the creation of armor for the riders
  4. the event on the G + neutral zone is converted into a PVP zone
  5. training of riders and primarchs
  6. troop training

maybe i’m wrong
so that the event does not turn into a beating of weak teams
maybe converted the neutral regions into pvp through 1 - neutral, pvp, neutral, pvp

Neutral Zone being turned into PVP zone would just be a massacre. A lot of people are there because they are not strong enough to compete in PVP.

Plus a lot of people are there while they switch teams and dont have atlas for a time, myself included. So unless PG wants to create a separate safe zone or allow people to suspend their troops/primes while they are gone this also wouldn’t work.

1 Like

Are you 100% sure that this is the actual case here?

Current there are 200-250 teams in Atlas, they plan to expand to 500000000 teams, do you really think that they don’t currently have the infrastructure in place to support this? You do realize that the “map” we currently see in Atlas is like ~20% of the full scale map right (estimated from a pic i saw a long time ago)? I would think that they would have at least assessed the demands of a system like this and got the funding into place prior to the Atlas announcement and launch party.

In regards to neutral zones being not safe, that sounds like a terrible idea. I’m very sorry to be a debby downer here but a lot of teams are relying on the safe zone to build up troops, help their team strategize, use it as a teaching tool, and really they are using it as a home for now until they are strong enough to go venture to get land. If you take this away from them, it is going to have the opposite effect to the anti-grieving mechanisms that are being put in place. It will let weak teams be completely wiped out, their entire troop base wiped from existence and you will end up with very many folks who will completely give up. Having a safe area is an absolute requirement for this part of the game, taking it away (without giving a separate safe haven style area) is a very big mistake.

1 Like

I’m sorry buddy. Assuming PG has adequately assessed anything with game demand is a bit silly. We’ve seen almost zero evidence that they regularly operate in that manner. I’m not saying the OP is correct, but PG isn’t know for attention to detail or adequate planning. It’s not in the cards for them.

I think we can make ability of being in neutral zone limited
For example,you can stay in neutral zone for a 2 weeks
It’s enough to move to another lands and revive troops
It will prevent ability of exploiting neutral zone to build immortal army of troop
Ppl must have a chance to regroup after being killed,but at the same time there shouldn’t be untouchable teams who can hit others from neutral
If we will just open neutral zone for PVP attacks for all time If will make traveling difficult for others
So imo there is 2 types of solutions for this:
Make being in neutral zone limited
Opening neutral on PVP events(bug I don’t like this one,because team might be wiped out at the beginning of PvP event,so they might be stalked in neutral,which is bad)

just don’t touch neutral zone.

That’s pretty much the tutorial area for learning the basic function on Atlas.


The level2 density (read: lots more) is being increased. Should have a lot less homeless (not that there are actually many homeless atm)


Straight up NO yo.

The Neutral Zones being overcrowded is something we’ve very much been aware of over the lifetime of Atlas. We definitely didn’t want to throw new teams right into the fray before they got the hang of things in a safer space. I’m not entirely convinced that everyone that is hanging out in the Safe Zones are simply trying to avoid combat––owning castles with infrastructure is critical. Hopefully, the addition of more regions with more castles for teams to own will coax people out of those regions to build a home for themselves elsewhere.

Should there be limits on how many Troops you can have on a Neutral castle? Thought on this?

Yes there should be limits on the troops that can be stored in neutral zone castles. They don’t belong to anyone so if you want to rise large troop numbers and become a part of the main game, get land with your team- play the game fully. That leaves neutral still for newer players to learn, teams to move/build up/meet up when new, safe travelling around the map, but do not allow it to be used as owned land is in terms of troops. There should be a difference.
Suggest that primarchs are booted from atlas after 2-3 weeks of inactivity, no logging into Atlas- just like in main game you go inactive you get booted. Then you lose all troops etc when you are booted. You have to re enter as if new player at the start all over again when you re activate. Surely that is logical?


Definitely should be.
Now we can see some teams maliciously avoiding going back to PVP zone and building huge amounts of troops in neutral zone

1 Like

I’ve wondered this too. Though it is moot with the proposed advent of team troops.

I think this could use some clarification:

If the team troops proposal goes live, players building on Neutral castles will indeed “lose out” on defensive Troops (since they’re not generated on neutral castles), but there’s still nothing stopping them from building on the team castle, and then moving offensive Troops via Primarchs to wait at a nearby Neutral castle. So, in that sense, the number of troops you can have “safe” at a neutral castle would then be limited by Primarch capacity alone. Still an improvement from now where there’s no limit at neutral garrisons.

maybe i’m wrong
I do not offer a slaughter of weak teams
may be the addition of new land all corrected

But garrisons of neutral cities will remain overcrowded
players will not spend time on the long road for several soldiers
primarchs and soldiers of players who stopped playing accumulate on the neutral zone
the phone just collapses when I try to open it

should teams that own land be allowed troops in neutral at all?

(other than whats on the prime)

1 Like

Teams that own land might be stashing extra troops in neutral zones so they don’t get wiped out in 1 large attack. 50 players, each with 10k troops in a garrison is 500k troops. If a high-level team comes along and smashes them down to shield, having extra troops in a safe area that can be brought back to replenish the garrison is good practice, no?
Would having 1 million troops in that garrison stop a top team from hitting it. or just make the bloodbath that much more painful in the long run?

1 Like

the shield comes up after 80k dead, (or 120 or 150 etc depending on level), whether you have 100k or 1billion troops doesnt change that fact. Once the shield is up, they are invulnerable.

Why I was asking is because its essentially a copout mechanism where they have no skin in the game. Especially when it comes to “hiding” in neutral zones so there is no retaliation possible.

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