New teams vs Already establish teams

I’m not quite sure if this has been mentioned before since I haven’t been reading the atlas forums for long and I couldn’t find much in the search bar.

Here is my issue, is it fair to throw new teams to be placed into the same region where the more establish teams are?

My team is currently sapphire 3 with a small alliance of 3 teams (also in sapphire and we each have 1 castle lvl 2). Yesterday our small alliance got attacked by 3 diamond teams, they caught us by surprise but no big deal, our shields went up and we were safe for a bit. We notice they kept coming to the safe zone next to us so we knew shit was going down xd.

As soon as shields went down, a bunch of primarchs from about 6-7 diff diamond teams started coming in. We were heavily outnumber and out-level, our allies were also getting hit so no help was coming. Long story short we somehow manage to survive by keep re-spawning and sending our primarchs to their deaths while buying time for our shield to come up again. (Was it fun? F*** yea it was)

In my opinion this is way out of balance, and is the reason why some sapphire teams have no choice but to buy land from diamond teams and pay them w/e they ask. Every expansion should come with their own region, there is no reason why teams who got atlas a month ago should have to compete vs teams that had it from the start.

This was much longer than intended, but hopefully it brings some perspective of what newer/smaller alliances have to face.


So you’re saying split it by leagues or something?

I was gonna suggest splitting it by leagues, but id imagine that would be a problem for diamond since there are only 50 teams in it. Maybe by adding sapphire 1 to the diamond region it would solve that issue. At the same time that what would happen if a team is currently plat and moves to diamond?

I’m not sure splitting it by leagues would be the best idea but definitely shouldn’t stay the way it is now.

The whole idea for Atlas is for it to be a world map. We are all competing for the same prizes. That being said, anti-griefing mechanics are being worked on by the Fab Dave to encourage teams to hit at or above their level rather than down.

This is why Atlas hasn’t expanded even more yet.


There is work being done to help with this kind of thing, BUT sometimes strong teams will take from weaker teams because there is something they want and it is a war game. (I have been on both sides of that coin, so I am very familiar with it).


Here is a more open map approach from an old game I use to play called “tribal wars”. There was a stat called morale.

When attacking players up to 80% of your current size you will have 100% attack power, when attacking players lower than 80% your attack power would decrease a bit by each %. So attacking a much smaller player means you would lose a lot more troops than normal. This kept long time players somewhat away from the smaller players.

This concept can be applied to teams in atlas, specially now that alliances will be official. If an alliance, lets say dreadnought decides to attack a platinum team with only 1 castle lvl 2, while they have 15 castles lvl 5, the attack power and defense power will be drastically reduce while in enemy territory.

This will give incentive to attack as close to your size as possible while giving the smaller guys a fighting chance.

Now I’m not saying the plat team should be able to defeat dreadnought, but it should be more costly.


I disagree with this mechanic. There should be no “punishment” in power for a high level attacking a low level. There should be a lack of rewards (less Glory for instance) in my opinion. Teams like Dread aren’t just there because they spend money or for fun. They are a ridiculously good team, well organized, and they shouldn’t be punished for it.

Just trust that Dave is an amazing person and I know he’s working hard on helping out both sides of the coin.

1 Like

I agree doc, the problem here is that the stronger teams have too many advantages,

  1. More active and higher lvl players
  2. They got atlas much sooner so they have large alliances and far more progress.

So they should be punished and have a harder time getting rewards because they work harder and are more active? I think anti-griefing is actively being working on right now by Dave to find the right balance with mechanics and with land distribution, like I said. However, the fact that the top teams (activity, levels, strategy, teamwork) have the best land should never change.

Signed the non-Beta Diamond 2 team leader in a 3 team alliance that’s doing pretty dang okay.

I have trust but that’s why i’m raising this concerns, i don’t think atlas is bad, I’m merely sharing my perspective and giving new ideas. I’m sure Dave can use as much feedback as possible.

I don’t think u understand where i’m coming from. I have never said that dreadnought haven’t earn their lands, I was simply using them as an example. No there is no punishment overall, in fact this mechanic will likely not affect bigger teams at all or stop u from earning just as many rewards. It will just make it a bit more costly to attack newer/smaller/less active teams.

1 Like

I get that perspective. I do think lowering the attack potential in any way (power, troops) due to hitting a low level would just lead to meat shields however.

I actually thought of that as well, I’m not saying the idea is perfect since atlas works slightly different than the game i mentioned. However I did create this thread to bring up a discussion on this, maybe others will read this and have a better way of going about it.

@PGDave I am not sure if you would like to chime in with some of the ideas you’ve been working on for anti-griefing and “letting” everyone have land, or something.

Here are a few anti-griefing things that are pretty much confirmed. @PGDave can correct me if wrong:

  1. Everyone will be able to own land. A lot of new land is going to be released and the amount of level 2 land relative to active teams in atlas will be increased dramatically. This land release will also account for for new teams slated to enter atlas.
  2. There will be a hard limit to the number of level 2 land any team can own. So no one team or teams can land bank.
  3. Glory mechanics are being tweaked to dramatically reduce the glory available for teams attacking much weaker teams. This removes an incentive for a stronger team attacking a weaker one.

Various other incentives tied to owning higher value land is also being considered to further decrease the appeal of lower level land for bigger teams. It won’t be worth their while to waste soldiers trying to take lower level land.

I hope you‘re also talking about players here, not just teams.
I don‘t think lvl200s should be penalized for being in strong teams with lvl500s.
The lvl200s also need to find targets to hit.

Strong teams are already motivated to leave low level land and own high level land since now only the top 4 castles of every biome count towards team bonuses.

I’m actually not 100% sure how it will play out, only that the intent is to reduce incentive to hit down. I think it will be player based but I can’t confirm 100%. @PGDave pls comment :joy:

Yes its on player level


That‘s what I expected :+1:t2:
Hope it also works out for the lvl357-600 players as they can have the same dragons.

1 Like

My understanding is 300+ all equal


Yes, most likely 300+ will be bunched together, but it may end up a little more fluid than that.

Folks above 300 attacking those below 300 won’t be penalized in troops, they wil just be rewarded less and less the lower they attack.

This means that if their only goal is to capture a city, they can easily do it, as their team strength should indicate. However, the points they earn (which will soon matter a LOT) are going to be heavily affected by who they attack.

Can’t let all the specific cats out of the bag yet though, because they are still being refined and Dave hasn’t made official announcements on this content yet.

1 Like