So I recently had the chance to review a blog post. It’s kind of long, I wouldn’t inflict it on anyone who doesn’t already want to spend a long while picking apart the Atlas real estate economy, so I’ll provide a summary.
Essentially, it identifies the castle ownership-based seasonal ranking system as flawed and more suitable for an Atlas economy that sees more castles changing hands based on actual teams being highly active and beating other teams strategically and mechanically. We all know this isn’t…quite the case, in current Atlas. In light of this, it’s bad that PG hasn’t adapted to the current reality of Atlas.
A few other problems with the season include:
- Seasonal team prizes are so small for 95% or more of teams that they aren’t worth spending the effort to fight for.
- The season introduction actually suggests conquering enemy castles to lower enemy team ranks, which is so much effort for so little benefit it just ends up absurdly funny and ironically sad.
- Castle conquers are not fun and far too hard to attempt on a regular basis for most teams, especially considering the effect of mega alliances and defender-skewed advantages in castle conquer attempts.
- Atlas has in actuality only been one single season, and PG is arbitrarily rewarding it as multiple. This is kind of weird.
- One Certain Alliance has an advantage in keeping the better castles. We can probably take a look at the numbers when I get around to finding them, but I think this is generally assumed and known to be true. The post provides influence info if you scroll down (a lot), too.
- Castles are linked to teams, not players. While this is generally fine, or, if not fine, a separate issue, it’s bad to reward a team of players for castles they may not necessarily have had a part in earning. The post identifies this as an effect of a Ship Of Theseus paradox.
- Other assorted small observations that are probably better explained in the blog post than I can in my concise post here.
It then goes on to draw some comparisons that essentially demonstrate how the castle ownership based system is more indicative of a combination of a team’s all time atlas activity and alliance allegiance than actual seasonal activity.
At this point you can probably squint and see that I’m going to suggest using a metric that indicates a team’s seasonal activity better. It was technically already done in the first Springveil Atlas season, but was later changed for some unknown reason. So we do know that PG has the capability to implement such a seasonal ranking system.
A glory based atlas seasonal ranking would be a quick, easy fix to the issue of teams not being rewarded appropriately in each atlas season, without having to address the other problems endemic to Atlas. Perhaps a castle-based approach offers a more nuanced, interesting rank. But as Atlas is right now, it’s a stagnant, irrelevant leaderboard.
Compared to a troop-based atlas season ranking, a glory-based one takes into account concerns regarding griefing of weaker teams and is hence superior.
Guards, obviously, could throw this off entirely, so perhaps glory earnings could be limited to glory earned on actual players. Sure, glory swaps are a thing, but they’re so inefficient I do not believe that they are viable for the vast majority of players as a means of competing with competition that gets ideal ratios on enemy primes, as compared to how they are currently only a method of earning glory for primarchs and the individual Atlas season itself.
Fixing how seasonal team prizes scale is necessary as well, but recognise that this alone would not be enough, and to incentivise seasonal activity, seasonal progress would need to be noticeable. As such, grinding for extra glory beyond the 3.6M needed to finish an individual atlas season needs to be incentivised better than the shitty amount of atlas chests we get right now.
As such, I do believe that PG needs to reconsider how well their castle-based Atlas season ranking system reflects the current state of Atlas and shift it to a glory-based Atlas seasonal ranking system.