Suggestion: Glory-based Atlas Season Leaderboard

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.

The Problem :european_castle:

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:

  1. Seasonal team prizes are so small for 95% or more of teams that they aren’t worth spending the effort to fight for.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Atlas has in actuality only been one single season, and PG is arbitrarily rewarding it as multiple. This is kind of weird.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

The Solution :dragon:

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.

6 Likes

You would think perhaps a

CONFLICT BASED SCORING SYSTEM

would be the right direction to take this @PGNines?

3 Likes

Well, if you’re winning the conflicts, sure, you should win the season. That’s more nuanced than a glory-based one, but would also require more work. I like making things easy and taking the easy wins first. :stuck_out_tongue:

Edit: can I tack on the conflict bonus thingy people have discussed before to this suggestion? It’s not technically related but I think it will be needed if we’re going to see more activity on gate castles as a result of people fighting to get to high-glory opponents.

^ this one.

1 Like

Glory based season is a horrible idea. How would you identify personal swaps or guard swaps to earn glory and subtract them from the teams season glory?

I‘m not saying, that the current rating system is good, I‘m just saying, that glory based season rating is worse.

2 Likes

Personal swaps are…honestly. If people want to spend their troops that way sure. It’s not efficient and better players get better ratios and glory by straight-up attacking enemies instead of swapping with red-primes. It’s a concern but I wouldn’t say that it’s worse than the current system.

(If you’re wondering why I’m not defending that point, it’s because that really long blog post explains all this well and you should read it.)

Maybe integrate a multiplier that takes into account how many five-flame attacks are completed or something.

…Negate all glory earned off guards/marshals? I’m pretty sure they’re not registered as attacks on actual players within the game.

1 Like

Can you elaborate on exactly why you think it’d be worse than a system that has very little to do with competition (unless, of course, one believes that competition should happen once and almost never again…which is what we have now).

1 Like

Glory based is too easy to exploit. As written above, you can earn glory really easy by arranging swaps, instead of fighting enemy teams. Using that to determine season team prices doesn’t appear to be a good choice.

As written above…well, you can read the points that address concerns about swaps above. And wouldn’t player swaps result in the other team also earning equivalent glory? Unless someone dictated that one team must simply sacrifice all their troops to support another…I don’t see that happening lol. Not saying it’s not exploitable. But prob more work than just going and killing people not in your alliance.

Note that the current system is terrible. And also exploitable if people so desire. Not worth it though.

Next argument please.

That attitude is horrible to be honest. You pledged for a system, that’s easily exploitable and nullify the argument by just saying, you don’t like the current system.

That’s not a way, a discussion is productive for the game.

I agree, that the current system is far from being ideal. I also agree, that there needs to be a change. I just don’t think, that glory - due to it being very easy to exploit - is the way to go. I understand your point and the need for change. I simply don’t agree with your solution.

The crusades idea presented by PG wasn’t as bad, as people on forums made it appear to be. If you really want to address issues within the game, tackling Mega alliances would have to be the first thing that comes into my mind. Those existed since the beta days of what is now Atlas and should have been addressed way earlier. You could also address the meat shield strategies, sandbagging on lower tier lands and things like that, if you want to revive Atlas.

Just to mention one possible loophole, which makes me dislike Glory as a season measurement:

Imagine a team with a couple of bigger spenders (just like any of the current top Diamond teams). Those spenders decide to make a bunch of alternative accounts and place them in friendly or even enemy teams just to build troops. Next thing is, they go and slaughter their own troops to get glory in an asymmetric way. They don’t have to go for „fair“ glory swaps, just 5 flame their own alts, use their CC to build new and start all over again. That doesn’t sound like fun to me.

1 Like

I think a better way to look at this is that nothing will be perfect and everything needs to start somewhere.

I agree this is a MUCH better base and the principle makes a lot more sense based on how Atlas actually works given the current environment so making a change like this that can then be built on and tweaked further to close loopholes is a huge net gain versus keeping the current flawed system in place because we don’t have a perfect solution.

3 Likes

I feel glory is a better season metric than using castle ownership for sure. The initial advantage given in the current seasons is so large that pretty much nobody even looks at the ranking since it’s almost impossible to move. Glory at least starts at zero for everyone.

Like Kate said not giving season points for guards already balances it out pretty well. If PG want to promote “real fights” more, they could choose to also exclude any NML fighting from the scores.

I don’t see any significant downside to this really. Especially if the rewards become somewhat worth fighting for too.

2 Likes

Why does it have to be off of just one factor? Why can’t it be based off of a combination of… say castle ownership and glory. But if it were based off of glory, even partially, I do like the idea of excluding NML. Goodbye Aligane!

Side note: why is there not a way that I can see my team mates seasonal glory? Like in the contributions page or something. It shows all time kills but someone could go all out one season and then be a stick in the mud.

1 Like

Well you see the monthly kills and overall kills of players. Those 2 are enough and tell everyone if a player isnt doing glory for the Team/ his progression. Dont think it is needed to show off inside own Team, it can cause frustration. Just my 5cent.

Well isn’t that the entire reason people are complaining about it?

I honestly want to hear about your views on the multiple ways glory, if guards are excluded, is a poor measure of some team’s activity. Especially compared to the current castle-based system.

Everything is exploitable in Atlas if you try hard enough!

This seems like reaching super duper hard to me, and personally? It’s just pretty unlikely all around. If people to go to such efforts just to cheat the system, why not let them? Just reward the actual highly active players too. Could someone theoretically do it? Yes. But as an aside. Money already replaces activity in other areas of the game so this is nothing new. Surely you must see how spending puts players ahead of others in your league…? Your argument is kind of like saying ‘well some teams have more spenders so they do more megas as compared to teams that spend more total time doing attacks and that’s why they don’t deserve 1st in PvP.’ Perhaps I misunderstand.

Just to mention a few possible loopholes, which makes me dislike castles as a seasonal yardstick even more:

Did you know?

Some teams get castles just because their friends like them and think they should have castles. Other teams get castles because they’re merging with another half dead team and both dead teams have preexisting castles that more active members earned, and then never took with them when they left. There are teams that took castles during the land grab and then never bubbled on those. A team can win a castle by taking it from a much weaker team, because castle ownership isn’t affected by glory scaling. Many teams keep castles because their enemies are scared of their alliance and not them.

Is this competence?

So between two evils, if you can really call glory-based ranking an ‘evil’, would you not say that a glory based ranking is the lesser, less exploitable, more measurable one?

7 Likes

Oh and just to respond to this, yeah, sure, but I like to take easy wins and those seem like separate (but equally valid!) issues for different threads tbqh.

I’m also competitive and like to beat every one lol

Thats why you also have a global top list, compete there if thats an important goal.
If you cant beat them, join them :sweat_smile:

I mean. Sure, you can have it be based on multiple things, but…castle ownership isn’t the best thing to throw into the fray? It’s just not very objective.

Agree a lot teams getting prizes they dont deserve end of srason. just because no one is able reach there castles. Should this be rewarded anymore? I say no.

2 Likes

I like how when a glory based system is proposed people start saying castle guard swapping is exploitative.

2 Likes