Over larger alliances controlling you? Where do you stand?


#41

Maybe… but can you remember the time when you had to work together to bounce and hunt food until you had enough to feed a dragon? Sometimes it took 3-5 people to bounce with.

That kept everyone online. Now you just logon, empty farms, deposit in bank and repeat after a few minutes.


#42

I do remember that, and that was horrible!


#43

Horrible, yea. But you had to stay online and work together.


#44

If you want to go back to that feel free to stop using atlas, but don’t you dare get it taken away from me. :rofl:


#45

I like Atlas… actually a lot. But maybe it’s time to rethink where everything is heading…


#46

You have forgotten that they will have +240 buffs on their castles
So attackers hitting with a sieger against a trapper will still be at a disadvantage troop wise
Then you forget that they get 100% glory for hitting you since they have owned the castle for 24hr+
So they get 100% glory for their trappers when hitting you and wiping troops
And you lose more than 10:1 troops when you hit them

Doesn’t sound like something I’d want to do lol


#47

Oh no certainly not!

But I thought there was a cap on maximum troop loss ratio, so once you’re at the cap it doesn’t really matter anymore that there is a +240 buff etc too. You would lose an insane number of troops but at some point 30 gold teams could beat a sapphire team. And probably still make the sapphire team quite happy with all the free glory, they’ll just take the castle back a day later…


#48

There is a cap due to %, but primarch stats can go beyond this amount (at least that’s what i’ve seen).
And yes, even if the castle is taken, then the next day they can hit the team and bubble them every day for 100% glory lol.

Overall a terrible situation


#49

It would be nice if there was some mechanism for a gathering of littles to overwhelm a big, but there ain’t.


#50

Lol. Poor guy. I can sort of see some semblance of logic Shine through if you ignore 99% of what was said.

I wonder why he was suspended, it didn’t seem
This post merited that. Must be one gold nugget of a post hidden in the forums that I need to find.

Obviously the little guy isn’t going to be conquering castles even if they are legion. I mean theoretically with like horrific losses a Zerg rush is possible, but there is zero reason that would make sense. If you had that kind of organization it would make far more sense to use it on something more your size. And unless it wasn’t on a t4+, they will come back to take it indefinitely as the glory is good and kills are even better.

Defending is another thing. I personally think it is possible to do such, although not going to happen with gold teams. Too hard to herd those cats even if you had the worlds best laser pointer technology.

Personally one of the biggest issues I seee with atlas is the self-polarizing of the top alliances. Both major sides have internal mechanisms that essentially force a “if you aren’t us you are enemy” and from my perspective there is no reason this has to be the case.

I’ve personally thought that it could be possible to form a large neutral group that is unattractive enough to defend any major attack and be treated as an official non-threat rather than being listed as enemy. But I also know any large group would only be perceived as a threat by both sides, likely due to a lack of any actual competition.

Of corse it’s going to take someone who can organize his or her thoughts better than this guy’s original post. But I feel like there is a potential. Certainly not going to be with gold teams. I’d say platinum teams that have been house broken. (Can get their members to stop attacking random neighbors and friends)


#51

Pretty sure he was suspended for making 3+ forums saying the exact same thing. Posted it in all catagories… so maybe spam? Can’t say it with 100% certainty, but it seems logical. That’s what makes the most since to me atleast.


#52

Why shouldn’t this be the case? Your certainly not gonna hit someone who is aiding/helping you… so if someone dosent want to align with you, how does it not make sense to make them enemies? “If your not for me, your against me”. :woman_shrugging:t2: Pretty simple and it’s logical.


#53

Lol. I haven’t found the other posts yet. But his post was great for sipping coffee to.


#54

Because it’s not healthy for the larger game is why.

From a fairness perspective I’m not saying anyone is doing anything wrong. But from a game mechanics perspective, an even number of sides always is bad.


#55

Down with the bullies! :muscle:


#57

I read wrong.


#58

Can you explain how it’s not healthy?.. because when atlas was made clearly the intent was to have all teams across the leagues( that were inserted into atlas) interacting with each other as we were all put on the exact same map. I’m sure they knew that by doing this some teams would have more advantage over others, which is only natural that bigger teams get more advantages then smaller ones. And I think that’s right. You make alliances with people to work together, and whoever dosent join is fair game for everyone. They aren’t allied to you, therefore you can hit. So how is making someone an enemy for not supporting you a bad thing? :eyes: there are plenty of neutral teams in atlas btw.


#59

I’m hearing a whole lot of snears, I presume from those big teams. Get a grip people


#60

is it cause they are on a big team?.. or because the forum was funny since it’s not realistic? :eyes: it’s not everyday that someone declares an allience between plat and gold to overthrow big teams. It’s not really the best idea as the losses for the smaller teams would be tremendous and I can’t see them accomplishing much by following the suggestion of the OP’s thread… :grimacing:


#61

Two sides ineviatably leads to staleness and no competion. It can also be observed in almost all troop games. Many companies manually interfere periodically, or in the case of instance/server based, old instances are abandoned and everyone starts over. Merged happen etc.

I would like to think we all wanted something more than nothing to do. I mean it’s basically simulated entropy. Eventually it leads to stable and boring if you don’t have something in place to keep the engine running.

A game is supposed to be fun for the majority. (I won’t say all, because that’s impossible) and must have winners and losers.

Anyone who thinks the greater “dread” and “not-dread” groups are competing with each other currently isn’t paying close attentin. (If you take issue with that labeling call it group a and b)

Personally I think a mechanic to allow new alliances grow without merging to a point would be healthy for competition. Feel free to disagree, I’m not sure anyone could, but I think it’s more of the entitlement of being strong to do what you want with who you want.

I think allowing neutral teams to exist without being destroyed or bullied into one side or the other seems like it wouldn’t be negative for the game. I’m not proposing a solution. But I do think it might better for the game to have more than two groups and even be possible to do something that doesn’t cater to the status quo.

One of the biggest indicators to me of there being a problem is that unaligned teams, nobody even bothers to try to sell them on their side, just pushed around until they either join the side pushing them (at the time) or the opposite side in some false principal based move. Not even a care in the world that being oppressive might drive them to the competition. I think this is because no real competition exists.