Proposal to make atlas more dynamic!

Sadly danger it’s about to get even smaller!

So can we say tic tac toe everyone……
Because that’s going to be about the size of the map ……after the “expansion”

So that brings me to a question……

Has anyone ever played a fun and long lasting game of tic tac toe?

Anyone?

No?…….

Exactly :man_shrugging:

1 Like

Destroy atlas and make new from scratch

5 Likes

What of people who spent on troop counts? :thinking:

I’d love a complete reset, but I also don’t want it if it will cost what whales have paid and are paying for. If they can be compensated for any direct amount they have paid for, then sure.

Whale hunting is bad. Whale lives matter. :see_no_evil:

Oh, I didn’t meant for hunting whales :rofl: Give them the due reward in the new world.

1 Like

I think that you need to limit which teams can attack each other. For instance Diamond teams should be limited to where they can’t attack Platinum teams. That’s a bit unfair and has been running a lot of newer and casual players out. Maybe even S3 as well now that a lot of players are leaving and weaker teams are able to move into S3. I also think that the mega alliances need to be done away with. It would be easy to do. Limit the number of teams that can attack and defend a castle to the 5Ta of each side. No more 40 teams on a castle. Added benefit is that it would get rid of a lot of the lag created with that many teams in one place.

Atlas fa schifo, è stato creato solo per mancanza di idee su come ottenere soldi, ha portato allo scioglimento di diversi team.
Consiglio…eliminatelo e reinventate un po gli eventi del gioco cosi da renderlo più interessante e rimanere solo ciò che deve essere…un gioco e non uno spilla soldi!!

I agree unbalanced engagement is ruining our player retention but addressing it isn’t as easy as it sounds under the current mechanic set.

And how exactly do you plan to do that while also providing balanced conflict?

Care to explain in detail how easy it will be…

Ummm how exactly do you plan to make that work care to explain as it has been suggested many times and anything put forth is quickly determined to be exploitable because if it was that simple we would have done it long ago! Lol

For example I’m not in either of those two 5ta nor will I ever be……by choice! Lol
So now how exactly are you going to restrict my team or my individual movement where I will be unable to attack while your attacking there!?
Sorry It’s not simple on this map and whatever we put forth will be easily exploited :man_shrugging::+1:

What your suggesting is called balanced engagement and how exactly do you decide which teams are allowed to fight at any given battle……:man_shrugging:
Sure limiting the number of teams allowed to join a conflict will reduce lag.
Ahhhh but how do you plan to limit teams and how do you decide right there in the moment when 4 battles are raging and ongoing around one area on the map how are you going to keep track of who’s allowed to move where!?

It’s easy to say do this or that but with these mechanics and this core objective it’s not that simple.

Changes have been offered up in the past …changes that will provide what you are describing but not on this map!
And not under these mechanics while using the core objective of defense we currently have!

By utilizing positional dominance and time based movement and a offensive objective you can create a new map that provides balanced conflict but not on the current atlas map.

1 Like

Then they have to change the core mechanics. I’m not just blowing smoke out my you know what. There has has to be a limit as to how many teams can be on a castle. A lot of smaller players, and bigger ones too, are either leaving the game or joining pirate teams because a small 5TA can’t hold up against 5 5TAs dog piling a castle. They have already been able to limit who can fly directly to you castle to the teams in your 5TA and a limited number of teams you give passage to. Why can’t they limit the number of teams that can be attacking a castle at one time? Seems to me the coding is capable of it.we’re losing players left and right because of the emphasis on atlas and the imbalance therein. Something drastic needs to be done or we won’t be having this conversation because there won’t be enough revenue to support the game. I hate to put it this way, but figure it out with what you got, or else there isn’t going to be a WD.

And if you limited attacks to only those teams that were in your 5TA, why would you need mega alliances? They couldn’t come to help if only your 5TA can defend, and their 5TA can attack…5 v 5 at that point.

I agree and have tried to explain that as well many times in many ways as it comes up in various ways as the meta moves along.
And how we can adjust this back and forth and add whatever we like but as long as defense is the core objective of the map we will have these issues.
Positional dominance and the correct mechanics will provide long term stability without mega alliances and it can provide balanced engagement between teams of relative strengths and so for and so on……
It’s all based upon what’s called the core objective which is currently a short term defense objective which will never support a large number of players long term and it never has in any game where it’s utilized……:man_shrugging:

Completely agree. They have the opportunity to make this a much longer lasting game than it is in its current form and they’re not even trying to do that.

They are attempting to utilize short term objectives and escalating content to replace and provide the illusion of a viable long term objective.

Meta progression requires content and escalating content allows for profit but adding content historically degrades tactical and strategic games until they can’t produce a profit anymore.

And much like the core game’s historical core defense objective of endless growth the defense objective of acquisition and defense of these castles eventually creates a set of problems and we see catch up mechanics to allow the meta of growth to continue on and escalate as I approach 700 on my legacy account……lol

We now see escalating content runes riders gear and primes allowing the map to produce revenue through unbalanced engagement that sadly results in player and team elimination.

Now I’d like to be wrong about this but having designed games to do exactly that
“degrade to produce a winner “ intentionally……
I can see it clearly for what it is :man_shrugging:
This mechanic structure is utilizing churn and burn to supply revenue and while only escalating content because if they produce to much content it will historically destroy the moment of engagement which we call a attack
And while escalating content doesn’t stop degradation completely it slows it down and we see degradation happening regardless.
That said it’s a very crafty and well designed mechanic structure that will allow content production to continue and thereby produce revenue until the player base collapses without complete dependency upon its whales!
So while it produces stable revenue it is also slowly failing to produce stable long term objectives that drive engagement participation and activity and growth of our player retention.

The moment of engagement fails because as you add content or even escalate it as we see here it becomes almost predictable and boring as most games do not require skill at the moment of engagement.
Ahhhh but we used too we used to before escalating this meta for revenue!
We had a skill based moment of engagement that could have and still can produce long term stable revenue and if done correctly it can produce stable revenue and growth!
And if done passionately with focus the mechanics can maintain that while producing large lump sums of revenue that PG Needs :man_shrugging:

Now why exactly they don’t fully utilize the unique and rare moment of engagement we have is the real question……
lol
You want atlas to be dynamic we will need a long term offensive objective :man_shrugging:
They’re is nothing dynamic long term about defending lol

1 Like

forcing teams to remain online 24/7 watching their castles, dealing with cooldowns, and massive battles isn’t the answer either. and a “delay free” atlas will be exactly that. there would be no life outside of this game like that.

2 Likes

That’s why I keep saying we need to use a map that utilizes positional attacking and a offensive objective of positional dominance.
A map where a team holds the most strategic and profitable positions they can manage and all teams and more importantly every single player is striving to achieve a singular point on that map!
A point at the direct center the only single defense position where they attempt to dominate the map from and when they get there and can hold it against all then that team can say they are truly number one!

This drives player engagement and conflict on the map.
It supports team progression and it allows for balanced engagement.
It supports ideal progression and growth of teams while maintaining player participation and retention :man_shrugging:
Because you won’t have 40 teams piled on one castle lol and attacking will be localized :+1::sunglasses:

1 Like

Exactly and that’s the result of unbalanced engagement and no positional mechanics whatsoever on a tiny map that you can move across in seconds :man_shrugging:
Positional maps don’t suffer that and they are large enough to support the player base and allow for growth :sunglasses::+1:
Pgs map is already 24/7 job if you play it actively and aggressively…… and the lack of positional mechanics and the constant escalation has made it feel even more like work.

1 Like

So you’re saying the only way to have a balance game life is to have deep untouchable castles?
What about teams holding multiple access? They don’t sleep at all?

2 Likes

Positional dominance is the key- this is the basis for most strategy games.

PG went rogue with atlas design and opted for short term mechanics unfortunately.

2 Likes

No, I’m saying that making everything available 24/7 will make more teams disband, more players quit and or slum it in low Plat, and this game fall apart.

Heck, look what people do now … they load 4k guards and 1 prim of 4k … sure you can steal the castle from them, but they’ll just get another and do the same in 5 minutes. Their bonuses are unchanged, and you earned an amazing 2k glory and the satisfaction of receiving a give away castle. Meanwhile, that teams troops are preserved.

That trend started with pirate teams and now is employed by D1 teams all over the map. Why? Because no one wants to live with the 24/7 stress that comes with protecting your castles. And that’s WITH the current 30 second delay.

2 Likes

The reason we hold castles like pirates is not really because of 24/7 defending, but because we’ve been forced out of all our castles. I’d rather have our 30 safe castles like we used to, but we don’t have that opportunity anymore. And honestly, we have some of the best bonuses we’ve ever had holding these unwanted castles lol

Our gates also get hit a lot more than I expected, people love hitting the 100 guard castles more than you’d think lol

4 Likes

I thought those were more about grudges than actual conquering. :see_no_evil: