[Suggestion] Give access castles bonus multipliers

tl;dr - well, I hope you read the subject :smiley:

Some Intro Nonsense You Can Skip

Note: This isn’t going to get much into exact stats and such, as a large detailed proposals don’t often seem to make much headway with PG. It’s more just to get PG to commit to change and some brainstorming on top of what’s already previously been proposed to see if something sticks, as it’s been years.

With the series of changes lately, they’ve been focused on encouraging more combat and access to teams. One way to encourage that without being entirely punitive would be start offering bonus multipliers for access castles and likely even more for safezone castles. It’s been a topic that’s popped up every once in a while since 2017 but often gets dropped/forgotten about due to other issues.

(Took out some stuff on explaining access castles and split attention.)

This is intended to benefit all access castles. It’s also a benefit for lower league teams, as smaller teams not being carried and gifted embedded castles are often stuck taking the scraps (access castles), sometimes used as proving grounds.

Smattering of Ideas

  • These are largely previously raised ideas.
  • Base multiplier on bonuses with no criteria
  • Bonuses based upon conflict /pokes @Tinsir
  • Bonuses based upon distribution of access:safe (ideally grading on how many hops too, but maybe that’s too complex)
  • There are more, I’m sure, but stream of consciousness :tada:

Limitations/Risks

  • There’d need to be hard caps on bonuses to mitigate various manipulation.
  • Castle must be held for a minimum of x days outside of PvP bubbles.
  • Bonus payouts from T2 and T3 will either have caps or no payouts based upon a team’s bonuses to prevent higher bonus teams from ousting others.
  • There is some concern over what new teams would do for castles then, as the throwaway castles are the easy choice with inner being out of reach. Bonuses couldn’t be too high.

Misc

:thinking: Feel free to add more, of course, or make things less terrible :rofl:.

This suggestion isn’t to address other changes or conspiracy theories, sorry (Edit: could go in with other changes, though, which is one thing). There’s no magic wand to solve every Atlas problem out there.

:woman_shrugging:

74 Likes

Great idea!

4 Likes

I would like to see some sort of consequence or deterrent put in place to prevent large teams from bullying teams well below their weight class and just taking castles with little effort or resistance.
The goal seems to be to get the amount of conquers and fighting in atlas to increase, but how are smaller teams with atlas supposed to compete?

5 Likes

I really like this. Getting something like double glory as an access T4 owner would make owning those a lot less aggrevating.

5 Likes

:thinking: maybe better revives too, though either way, would need to account for small scale vs conquer attempts

2 Likes

Not sure how you would be able to differentiate large teams that bubble small teams that are trying to get to the bigger teams and the teams that actively are hitting down

1 Like

What if we make bubble deep castles pay access castles smth for successfully defending gate ? :thinking:

Totally agree that this is the solution to atlas stagnation. Teams need more motivation to hold castles and use their troops to protect them, as right now many teams would rather lose a castle than 100,000 troops.

4 Likes

Like this idea

1 Like

Makes sense… definitely worth the time to look into imo.

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.