Proposal to make atlas more dynamic!

Here’s my proposal

Access :european_castle: 30s delay
One BD 25s delay
Two BD 20s delay
Three BD 15s delay
Four BD 10s delay
Five BD 5s delay
Six BD and infinity Freeway

Actually it will be better to reduce 10s with each depth but it can cause some major cardiac arrest so let’s implement this bit by bit



and since there’s a character limit of 5

no again.

I really don’t mind all areas becoming directly flyable. Turning every castle access. :man_shrugging:t2:


Atleast decrease it by anything should be good for the game.
Since there are bots that alerts them anyways.
There are also bots from other teams you have to pass thru.
There are also group chats.
Lots of ways to be informed for defending teams.

So less delay would not hurt imo.

But thats coming from a mid game plat player’s opinion.Don’t mind me hahaha

1 Like

Its an interesting proposal but if we look at current mechanics:-

T2 Gates on SZ are not desirable. No one is going to conquer one. Plat teams tend to own them. Plat teams dont really need to guard or watch them.

By the time you get to a T3 thats 3bd well now we are talking about something desirable. Teams that have these unless they are #1 TA need to watch them. They need to have a 24hr crew to watch them or at least a TA with regional people.

If you make them easier to access then teams will get burnt out defending them.

At some point they will flip to undesirable once people are burnt out.

If players burn out they often retire so then you start to churn through your playerbase.

I think the only viable fix is to move to positional dominance and get rid of the defence meta which is what causes stagnation in the first instance.

If you look at the northern part of the map there are not many SZ areas. I think an alternative simple fix would be to flip some NML to SZ so that accessibility is increased through less distance to travel.

Converting 15x NML to SZ would probably do the trick.

( make sure they are SZ → NML → occupied zone as people will be annoyed if adjacent zones flipped from NML to SZ.

Of course no :joy:

We put a minimum limit on the guards so as to avoid castles with 5k guards :eyes:


Just make everything more 1+ deep castle.
From now on just conquer what you can defend.
Prove your the best when all your castles are targets.
But its too late though.Some people have worked so hard regarding politics to get 3-4 deep castle while being ranked 400-600 in atlas having 70-80 team activity.If there is a change they would not be able to have any castles.


Don’t forget rank 800 and 3bd

I think the fact that the deepest castle you have is a 1BD may be what is making you suggest this change, lol.

I do like the idea of having deep castles (6+ hops for example) having no delays. It causes no change to the map, but it also helps reduce the amount of super deep castles in the game.

This sounds like another suggestion to completely benefit the poster. It also seems like something that doesn’t make sense (same as minimum troop loads on primarchs).

I don’t really think this is the case. A 12 hour bubble is more than enough time to cover any downtimes your team has had if you get hit at night.

Seems like Malik has been teaching you well :rofl:

To me it just sounds like a true open map means no one will conquer anything. What’s the point of taking castles that just make you more exposed?


It definitely makes more sense than the topic proposal :joy:

Now every entrance castle is manned by teams that keep it without troops and without guards so as not to get attacked and use them only for bonuses and to make CG swaps before pvp with each other.

It’s definitely seedy in my opinion and I don’t think they were meant for this sneaky purpose :man_shrugging:t2:

1 Like

Or you can hop like a certain amount per hour?can be accumulated up to 6.

Does it matter what the depth of our castle?im just suggesting.I do not plan on gaining anything with my suggestion.

I am doing fine with atlas.

Just got g2 destroyer.18 levels in few days.

1 Like

You got it right.Hahaha.

While I agree that atlas does need a change. The problem is with tasks is the drain on teams and especially the leadership it causes.

Continents resets, shifting of maps. New battle arenas. This would be my suggestions with downtimes and battle times establish.

And no I not talking that that ghastly mal change previous. Where all 5ta are spread around. I talking about the atlas map as a whole changes so things can’t be planned for and mayhem can ensure lol


I agree.

This game requires an excessive burden of play … and the number of teams (like BIG teams) that have disbanded in the last 2 years as well as the number of high level players “slumming” it in low plat is proof that this game is literally breaking players and teams with burn out.

This change will only increase burn out and burden of play at a greater rate. That’s NOT what this game needs. People, from Gold to Diamond, regardless of APR, want a game that is fun to play, relaxing, and mixes well with a real life schedule (family, work, friends, etc).

To quote Old Ben Kenobi, “This is not the atlas change you are looking for …”


Many 650+ players like me slumming it out in plat :stuck_out_tongue:

Ironically not really missing out on as much as I thought I would.

1 Like

Hiding in safe deep castles is the answer to play-life balance?
I’m waiting for the day when all gates and one bd be bubble 24/7

Seems like he did some reading outside this forum……

Haha. Strategy game used to be my main type of game. Old classics like Defender of the Crown, Lords of the Rising Sun, Master of Orion, Heroes of Might and Magic, Civilization, Battle Isle etc.

Anyway War Dragons Atlas map is really the odd one out.

On face value it looks like a strategy game but its just not designed like other very successful strategy games.

Positional Dominance is the key to a strategy game.

At the basic level we have checkers or chess. War Dragons should support long term play and ideally should be made like the old Chinese game Go

Go has been played for 4,000 years so it has some real longevity to it and its why people use positional dominance even in modern games.

This board looks simple right but in terms of positon permutations it has more than all the atoms in the universe.

This is why positional dominance would be a more satisfying objective - Gear as an objective is very short term and doesn’t support long term play.

With WD, teams competed and obtained position at the start of atlas and then due to the defensive nature of the map it moved into a combination of stagnation and elimination.

If you evaluate the primary positons on the map they are held by DO. If you look at the amount of times Libertas / AA / DoA / Pirates / others improved their position by taking DO castles its ultra rare.

Most the time DO drops position its to donate territory to the community or allies. Its very rare to see DO lose a position from conquest.

Essentially from a tactical perspective DO won atlas. Its really mid tier or undesirable land changing hands at this mid stage / end stage of the game.

Everyone that isnt DO is swapping scrap with each other creating the illusion of movement.

And DO cant improve their position from a tactical perspective either because they have maximised it already. Elimination of potential rivals is realistically all they have left to do in the game.

With positional dominance we would actually see frequent positional changes on the map. You wouldn’t see teams get eliminated because you just swap a position and then increase it.

We have all seen big DO enemy teams get wiped out its quite hard for a DO rival to reset with this defensive map and an opponent that can easily adjust to any new position on the map that their target relocates to.

This is why you hear Malik say the map is small. You can literally travel from one side to the other in 1 move or less than a minute.

If we think about checkers a piece cant move across the entire board with one move so a simple game like checkers is actually fundamentally bigger than atlas.

I probably dont do justice to explaining the concept but in a nut shell that is the key difference of a positional dominance objective vs obtaining gear elimination of rivals as the mid / long term objective.

I think @MALIK and myself have slightly different views on potential implementation but have a similar holistic view.