Proposal: Haven v2.0

So this just a slight modification on the previous Haven discussions. There has been some progress in atlas roll-out, and it has generated a few very obvious shortcomings, this proposal is aimed at addressing a few of those. These aren’t “my” ideas , or at least not all of them, and the credit goes to the original proponents.

We need to get a proper constructive discussion going on the pro’s and con’s, so we can get somewhere.


Haven-zone: A specific zone that a team controls that cannot be conquered. Reason is to have a scenario where a team cannot be totally vanquished off their land, it has the added benefit of having more peace-loving teams also have a piece of the world, without feeling completely neglected.


  1. A separate “pocket” dimension continent.

Each team has a “pocket” dimension continent, that uses the same portal technology that is currently in game. This zone has a lvl 2 status, and the “shard reward” from poachers are

a) the multicolored reward you see during PVP-NML poachers. But at the “bonus” level of slightly above what shards yield when all multipliers are exhausted.

Eg. lets say you usually get 10 shards / poacher. But with a zone matched color you get 100. The idea would be that you would now get say 20 shards/poacher.

b) random? paid for? shard color.

  1. Set Haven

Teams have the ability to “Declare Haven” on a single zone they control - restricted to a level 2 zone - which would spawn a “zone shield” similar to the pvp shield, but basically covering the entire zone. The zone-shield should have one of a few functions - rejects entry by non team members, or gives massive debuff/weakness to enemy primes that enter. Otherwise you will still get a lvl 500 with a lvl15 taunter sitting on the mines.

Workaround for teams that have “no-land” currently, is that they can go claim a haven as soon as the world expands again.

  1. Haven-expansion

A new landmass, similar to the areas “rolled-out” where teams can go and claim a haven area.
This is very similar to option 1, except there is no “pocket” dimension, it simply has a more “travel to destination” feel than a portal.


Those are the basic haven concepts, however this comes with an important change that needs to be made in the main game as is currently

Safe-zones -----> change to NML zones.

Reason: The current safe-zones “functioned” as homes for teams that couldn’t control land, this was the intended function. Instead, it has now become part of an exploitable mechanic, where teams would go camp outside an enemies zone – essentially “staging” there, and then wait till the other team is offline and attack, as soon as the team logs in and defends, they retreat to the safe zone, with no risk of retalliation. There is even a fairly widely used exploit where they use this to reinforce with 1 troop primarchs so you cannot claim a base, or similar where they turn around and can attack you, but you cannot attack them.

This would make travel a lot more interesting, and would fix the mechanic-flaw where a team/multiple teams can use safe zones to essentially gang up on you, without the ability to effectively counter them (they can attack you, but not you them).


So those are the proposals for Haven , and the counter that if Haven-zones are declared, safe-zones should cease to exist, or become a lot less prevalent.

Thoughts, opinions, discussion?

Please stay on topic - we REALLY don’t care if you think team X is mean, or team Y cheats, or team Z are visa-warriors


This is loosely organized for pocket dimension and goal of having havens to learn/rebuild vs create megablob army to rule the world or loophole the hell out of it. Some of the suggestions below are probably also going into areas that’ll make things too complex/massively overcomplicating… but brainstorming :tada:

I lost steam part way through, so will just leave it as-is; sick & thinking do not mix :disappointed:

I’d definitely like to see some version of havens come out, especially for the future Platinum teams that are currently doing decently in the core game but would likely struggle with Atlas PvP and just Atlas in general. However, I also think that there should also be disincentives to prevent the teams that don’t really need it from finding some way to abuse it or making it too tempting for teams to disengage from Atlas altogether.

Pre-Haven Changes
There’s also a considerable amount of work to do before I think that havens would be viable, such as:

  • Penalizing repeated usage of safe zone as a staging area within a timeframe, whether hostile marker, speed debuff, and/or troop debuff
  • Capping/Reducing the number of troops that can be garrisoned per safe zone territory and possibly as a whole, if havens are implemented
  • Adding more demanding costs for territory ownership, brackets or sliding scale
  • Had more earlier on from other threads but have since forgotten :woman_shrugging:

Safe Zones
Atlas can already be a pain to move around, so I wouldn’t want to see safe zones entirely removed, as they can be useful for being used as a fast lane of sorts while moving to new territories.

[Edit: This is mostly just out of “fear” that misnavigation could result in a primarch unintentionally being left in NML somehow, as navigating blind is a pain. If consistent move next in an NML also means not being able to be attacked, then it’s also slightly less of a concern, though there is a break in between moves that people might be able to be caught at (hvaen’t tested it before).]

Haven Requirements, Pocket Dimension

  • one haven per team
  • home is forced to be on the haven
  • any PvP should disable entrance to a haven, until the aforementioned debuff (Pre-Haven Changes) wears off, including not being able to retrieve troops from the haven
  • cap fortifications, if allowed at all
  • capping the number of troops kept in havens
  • disincentive persistent team hopping/teams swapping members, though I haven’t settled on what to suggest there
  • no (or limit) buffs/taxes apply (though the item below would take care of that, if used)
  • only available if no continents are owned -> once a continent is claimed, people are ejected into the safe zone discussed in the More on Havens section below
  • L1 status to disincentive a permanent stay in havens (or perhaps the haven “falls into ruins” over time if it starts at L2)
  • There could be so many more things here, but I want to move on to other sections :rofl:

More on Havens
I’d like to see the pocket dimension version, as set havens could interfere with travel, and a haven zone would penalize those nearest to the havens. That leaves the question of how those in a pocket dimension re-enter the main Atlas map. I suppose that it could open a portal to safe zone at a set interval, such as once a week. Perhaps there’s an enforced “Peace” status, so that teams can’t just pop out of havens and immediately attack.

It’d also be interesting to see a section somewhere for teams in a haven (or recently left one, whether anywhere or just those nearby) and total troop count.


FS made many of the same points I was going to make, and in a nicely organized format to boot.

Any Haven must be materially worse than owning any land in Atlas proper–or else why bother to deal with the grief of land ownership, alliance maintenance, risk of troop loss, etc.

It’s basically a team safe zone under this proposal, so it should be no better than the neutral zone to start (no bank, level 0/1 infrastructure that can’t be upgraded). Same reforms that should have been made to NZ should be made here–PvP flags turned on to stop hit and hide with no reprisals, consider a cap on garrisoned troops, etc. It should ideally be a place to regroup and reload, not opt out entirely. Teams should always have significant incentives to leave any Haven when possible.


To keep the ideas flowing, here’s a simple / poor man’s approximation of your proposal:

  • Convert all current safe zones to NMLs
  • Establish a new region full of safe zones and some occasional NMLs mixed in.

This avoids issues with teams marking highly sought after territory as their Haven in order to protect it. It builds on existing game mechanics, so it could be something that could be built quickly and leave time for other initiatives & improvements.

I haven’t completely settled on how to think about the current safe zones though. I’m very sympathetic to the annoyance of one-troop Primarchs causing trouble with no real immediate risk to the owner. But there are also players who aren’t strong enough to own territory but want to participate in PvP and do launch more meaningful raids from safe zones … I wouldn’t want to make a change which hurts those players (as much as I’d like to close the fun-killing 1-troop strategies).

Maybe there other ways to deal with low troop count Primarchs … we’ve talked about AoE & splash damage Primarchs in the past (and the latter is coming in the near future for all Primarchs attacking very small enemies). Maybe we could create some sort of passive mechanism to deal with this such as:

  • Option to ‘raid’ (no dragon battle required) if you have 100x more troops than your target. So killing tiny aggressors is just a quick tap to kill.
  • Primarch with passive damage – maybe it does X damage to any enemy Primarch which arrives at the same location (also taking some damage itself … like a tiny battle). This would cause tiny Primarchs to instantly die when they arrive. If teams try to workaround this by sending slightly more troops, then the other team could counter by sending more of these passive damage Primarchs.

I think I favor the latter as it seems like it would resolve the issue with the least hassle, and maybe adds a little gameplay … where teams need to explicitly account for and counter this 1-troop guerrilla warfare tactic.

Pg Dave. This is just a thought. U continue to add all these things that help massive amounts of troops. These are all bonuses that I see to help established teams. The goal should be to establish all teams. Just my thoughts. Have u looked at the map. ?

1 Like

Just saying. We talk about havens. And the topic changes to helping wipeout small amount of troops … by large amounts without having to do anything. Just their presence. :(.

1 Like

These things aren’t either/or. They’re better implemented together. The idea is to move a loophole and replace it with an intentional mechanism to allow more people to have a home


Ok. As long as implemented together I already see many lower teams losing interest. What good is #1 with no other numbers. In the end it will be one team owning the map unless some extras or something is put in place to help little teams (ones with no land ) Limiting land ownership is a pretty important thing. That will make big teams fight big teams for better land. The wars will be more epic and notable.

1 Like

When I compare a 2 Star hotel to a 5 Star hotel. There are many differences. Shouldn’t it be the same in atlas.

1 Like

Yep, we’re all just bouncing ideas around here; feel free to join in with your own ideas and how you’d improve upon the suggested ideas. Let’s see where it goes :).

Set Haven can be exploited in quite a few strategies to attack or harass, if they don’t have proper counterbalances.

  1. If a team is region locked, you could slow roll them one zone at a time and Set Haven on the newly conquered territory. Preventing them the ability to reconquer without having agreements with neighbors to flank you.

  2. An alliance could use multiple Safe Haven’s to surround a team, owning a single zone, in their area. Set Haven on the regions they can travel to and extort them to drop their Safe Haven and leave.

  3. Kamikaze/Suprise attack on a vulnerable chokepoint split their territory in two like the Roman Empire.

Anyways, my point is that Haven’s shouldn’t affect conquerable territory unless you have a way to counter it. Maybe a mega-coin you can buy… /sarcasm.

Safe Zones should be scrapped and turned into protected highways that let you travel between pvp zones, a poor man’s portal. This could be balanced by increasing the number of pvp zones per region. Teams that hold more land would be at more risk of attack than a team that holds a single land, in theory. This would allow people to still setup surprise attacks and to reach new territory to conquer. Currently, there is a lot of geographical risk having territory next to a Safe Zone.

@PGDave When I played the browser game Realm of Empires we used 1 troop attacks all the time to harass and fake out other players. I feel like they can be a legitimate strategy in Atlas if primarchs are not gifted the free ability to blockade enemy bases no matter the type of primarch or the troop amount.

A couple of ideas:

  1. Force primarchs to travel past an enemy island or to attack it. Using Move To would force you to select a primarch to attack when you arrive, is similar to how teams wave at the beginning of war start time. This would force more strategy for players with slower primarchs to land at the same time as faster primarchs. If you survive the attack you could blockade at this point. This would prevent teams from starting blockades on teams with shields.

  2. Place a minimum troop amount required for a primarch to create a blockade, let’s say 1k to force a player to use speedups to revive those troops. This would incur a cost to the person trying to spam respawn primarchs. In Realm of Empires, we had attrition rates for how far the attack was. The farther away the more troops you had to send to allow one troop to survive the trip and attack or you had to send a minimum amount of troops to not lose any to attrition. This works a bit differently to your autocannon defense primarch idea, it places the burden on the attacker instead of the defending team.

  3. Make blockading an ability similar to the way Taunters have the taunt ability. Give it to Destroyers?? /sarcasm No idea how that would work or be balanced properly.

One thing that I have seen is the cooperation/interaction of teams from multiple leagues which I think if done correctly is a good thing. The 1 troop system is very annoying and should probably be removed in a comprehensive manner.

As far as one team owning the whole map this has always been thrown out as a possible worst case and in over a year this has never even come close to happening so using it as a basis for changes makes no sense.

The haven idea does seem like a good start but probably not a good place to end up. I still think that there needs to be more incentives to do things rather than simply trying to create mechanics to force. If you want higher level teams to fight each other, give them a reason to. Right now there just isn’t one that stands out.

One thing that is a positive I think about the current Atlas is your decisions have to be more thought out and acting carelessly has more residual consequences, both positive and negative.

Perhaps consider specific offensive/defensive buffs that can be used when needed strategically?

1 Like

Please dont make blockading done by a primarch again…we had that before when it was ships and it was torture.


Yes the biggest thing is make it more important to own 5 Star land and limit the amount of ownable land per team. There should be battles for the capitals …

1 Like

Owning islands does need to be more important but placing specific limitations, it wont change the amount of damage you take. You will still get attacked, they just wont hit “conquer”.

Ohhh, didn’t know they tried that already. I wasn’t really serious about that idea since I didn’t really understand how it would work or balance in my head. I’ll add a sarcasm tag. :smirk:

Hmmmm. Good point. I’m trying to think this through for platinum and lower sapphire teams. As they will have far more numbers than diamond teams. It may end up very discouraging That’s all I’m getting at. I was on the verge of insanity over this atlas thing. I love this game. Invested heavily (slowed spending due to atlas). Since every troop I bought was killed near instantly forcing us to spend rubies to “one troop” garrisons. To hold land. That’s how it happened btw… no gold. No troops. What do we do now ? Spend rubies. One at a time. “Lots of spent rubies”.


Yeah…back when they were ships. It cost gold to operate and you had to sit there watching the ship crawl across the screen to try and catch it. Passive is way better, trust me haha.

Well…this is probably the right thread for this discussion vs the other one. Havens are supposed to be a balancing mechanic. I had an idea originally of having a home area where you can attack someone else but it is considerably more work than the current system and possibly a more open/pvp zone intended for faster combat. Right now, islands change hands way too fast I think so the haven is a way to try and slow that down.

I’m not quite understanding what you are talking about. I meant that Blockade should be an island level Taunt. Even if defenders had shields up, it would allow the defending team to attack the enemy Blockade and break it, similar to a Taunt.