Suggestion - to help balance land ownership and encourage building


#41

I didn’t say we are “owed” anything. In any game based on rankings, you expect the top teams to be at the top of the game. So when it isn’t, it dosent look well.
Anyways nothing we can do, pg decided to give advantage to original teams and newer teams are forced to catch up. And you can’t catch up if you’re playing with 1 troop on the first day competing against someone who has over a million troops. Should’ve Just reset and made it 1 vs 1 again.
That’s how fair completion and balance starts.


#42

Actually, it looks like a lot of D1 teams don’t seem to have the problem of catching up in terms of land and influence in the Atlas through spending. Look at the list of teams again in the top 10 of Atlas. In the short time that the new D1 teams have had the Atlas, they have essentially caught up to the teams you say should not even be in the conversation of the top 10.
If the intent of the Atlas was to just replicate the rankings of the main game, then surely it would make sense to not bother with retaining anything, however all the teams that you complain about being in the top 10 spent hours of time working through the glitches and other issues of beta for over a year before Atlas was released in the form we have today. The original teams have far more invested in beta and you seem to think it is okay to dismiss all that.
If that was what PG wanted, they should not have asked for any volunteers for beta testing but rather just have given it to the D1 teams. Thats not what happened so can’t complain after the fact.


#43

Many of the newly added D1/D2 teams have already surpassed many of the original teams. Only some of the original teams stayed strong… there was a lot of fighting, especially right before and right after new land and new teams were added. Many of the original teams owned NO land at all during Beta. There was a land shortage and there were huge alliances and teams were pushed into the safzone.

Also, “A million troops” was meaningless if you were fighting alliances of other established teams. My team lost over 1.5 million troops in 36 hours the day after the second land expansion. I forget how many we lost in the first expansion.

————

There has been a lot of reference to the KOTH design… the map in Beta was a KITH map, no question. The expansions have NOT been KOTH like though. The land levels are much more scattered.

Also, only old beta players who read the forums a lot will remember, but the original plan was an endless map. Limitless land. The goal was that you could sail (it was oceans and island then) away and find islands far away to conquer if you didn’t want fighting OR you could stay near friends or enemies if you liked action. Then only during events (portals?) would there be encouraged combat.
*of course with how laggy it was with just 50 teams we were all freaking out about how they could possibly expect to pull off the endless ocean with thousands of teams… BUT the idea that EVERY TEAM could get land, and could build it as much as they wanted (since they could sail until they found max level islands) was a PG idea before it was mine.

I am not trying to give unlimited land or remove all fighting… just give everyone better odds at owning SOMETHING worthwhile, and letting them build it up and defend it.

*as you saw in the chart above, teams will come along and gobble up 40+ level 2 cities, they are easy to capture because the defense ratings of the towers are so low.


#44

Maybe you should get those 100K troops you have hiding in the safezone and get some land. Many teams that were added late are doing just fine so maybe it’s time to question your teams decision making.


#45

anyone selling Atlas land since they no longer get bonuses from holding so much land?

This is a potential way to allow newer teams and the next influx of teams to pick up some land quickly.


#46

The only teams that can do that are those holding excess land and some have made such trades


#47

Lol, you are way behind the 8 ball. The big teams are running cartels of selling land for protection money (gold) since they can’t gain any benefit from holding more territory. There is no simple solution to the bully tactics employed in Atlas, many will argue this reflects real life (world politics) and is therefore okay :man_shrugging:


#48

So, Dread owns over half of all level 5 continents, and all 22 of their continents are level 4 or better.

The next closest stakeholder in the premium housing has fewer than half what dead does, and the rest have one continent each.

Unless additional mountains are going to be built that have an equivalent number of luxury apartments, or the extremely unlikely event of a HUGE unified battle of all atlas teams against Dread over the course of multiple days without letting up (yeah, like the servers would even let this happen), the KoTH in Atlas is and will remain Dread until the game ends or they quit.

Who ever said getting their early was a disadvantage?

Was rough, all the pain and suffering of ealy Atlas. :kissing_heart:

Fortunately, Dread found a way. And their hard work has paid off. Diminishing returns on additional land and thinning resources both suggest they won’t expand a great deal. But no one can or will be taking what htey have.

Ironic, since some Dread members talk about the want of a fight and the “mobility” in the game.

Maybe I’m missing something.

Oh…

Dread is like the Patriots, only they don’t lose the Superbowl. :fireworks:


#49

You left out early access… Key detail for D2 teams that, by the time they joined with zero troops, were looking at teams like dread with fully upgraded infrastructure and MILLIONS of troops (and the best land).

Time matters.

I don’t blame Dread or any other team that had very early access. It’s a flaw in how this “beta” was performed. It was not a beta. It was the real thing in nascent form.


#50

Is it really about the teams, or is it about how PG saw an opportunity to turn a beta, which is typically free troubleshooting by willing players, into an opportunity to make money?

And we can see the advantage to early access “working through” all these glitches for the benefit of all … in what tangible ways? Or to be more pointed, in what way(s) is everyone benefited that equate to the benefits of earlier access?


#51

Here’s a way to keep it fun: rotate the level of lands every week or two… make it randomly generate. This will keep things moving, since top teams will have to recapture high level land, and everyone else will scramble to find a new spot when they vacate the lower levels. Also, it will break up the map so one team can’t control one huge territory as easily, which makes things kinda stale. Would also give newer teams a shot against entrenched teams.

You could even make it a monthly event.

REBOOT!


#52

I would say yes it does to some degree. But it depends on how you used it. Some of the original teams made different choices and ended up in a strategically weak position while other new teams have also come up and quickly established themselves as well. Early introduction was an opportunity, not a guarantee.

I thinks using one team as an example doesn’t really paint the whole picture. We are just 1/50 teams. Looking at the other 49 I don’t think everyone ended up in the same place


#53

Out of curiosity, this would be like saying…if we randomly rotate the 5 best teams into separate teams, they would suddenly get worse? No they would just be good in THAT scenario. Good teams are good teams. I’m sure it comes off callous but people tend to focus on what other teams have. Perhaps if people put as much effort into worrying about other teams as their own they would see improvement?


#54

Obviously, a full reboot is not realistic or fair. Teams that have had atlas have spent real money in the game. Any reboot would have to take this into account, and credit the players accordingly. So, even if starting over, the land grab would not really do much.

Appealing for those still without atlas – yes, but not feasible or fair for those already in it.

Regardless of how you feel about Dread personally, they are where there are because they play well and they play intelligently. They would not have been in the position to have first access, along with other teams, if they had not done well in the “core” game, and they, AFAIK, did not have any advantage over other teams with super early access. They either understood what was important better, or we just very lucky. I tend to think outside of drops, luck has little to do with things in the WD world.

However, time is still an advantage. I won’t address specific ways to implement this, since I don’t know what is already being considered, and people much more knowledgeable than I are, I hope, already taking things like this into consideration.

  1. In my mind, it is not about bringing down Dread (or any team). It’s about creating real competition. I don’t think Dread would be opposed to having an opponent they considered worthy–it would probably make things more interesting for them. It’s lonely at the top, even if the view is nice.

  2. There should be enough top quality land that 2 to 3 teams could own all of it and get maximum benefit. If any one team attempted to control all the best land, the cost of doing so should, with each additional continent that is about the limit, significantly outpace the benefit–to the point that owning double the land that you can actually benefit from cost more than you can reasonably make.

  3. The land should be spread out so that distance is a factor.

  4. LONG distance travel, such as reaching High value section 1 from either of the other high value sections should not be possible in a short amount of time. Primarchs can fly only a certain distance without stopping to take off again. Think of it as a kind of travel fatigue. It does affect everyone, but there are ways to make it affect high level players more–more troops at once, greater fatigue. Higher level primarch, fatigue scales faster after the first flight. So, can carry more troops the same distance on the first “jump,” but it gradually gets to the point that “walking” is the only option. In other games, this is often referred to as preventing “power projection” and it’s a way to keep the 800-pound gorilla(s) from being everywhere/anywhere at once.

  5. Spread out individual plots of high value land for those who do not have the resources or troops necessary to maintain larger chunks.

Just some thoughts. I’m sure they are flawed, but the goal should not be to bring anyone down. The goal should be fun, and part of that is true competition.

I won’t @ Dave, since these are my ideas, but if you think they are worth reading, please get his attention.


#56

I forgot to mention remove incentives for attacking down (or substantially reduce them–enough that is it only barely worth it if you hit too low). Obviously, this should be in ranges, and it should be tiered to be worse and worse the further out of range you go.

Total loss of troops and land hurts weaker teams immensely and prevents (or greatly slows) growth.


#57

I think others, maybe those without atlas or unaware, don’t realize what you meant… Some stronger teams have a tendency to maul the weaker. The much weaker.

Some have a tendency to do this more often than others.

In this regard, at least in Atlas, Dread is not the big offender (offender as in attacker, since it’s not against the rules, and there’s no reason not to… Other than it’s lame and “unsportsmanlike”).


#58

Dread don’t need to when they already own the majority of the level 5 areas.


#59

Maybe someone should take it from them? There are other D1 teams on the map. Sure, it’s easier to get glory from the S1 teams that have one or two continents they’re trying to hold on to, but where’s the satisfaction in that? :man_shrugging:


#60

Atlas doesn’t really encourage top teams to fight one another…

Ok this may be a crazy suggestion as i dont know how infrastructure could work but what about making the value of land fluid. Meaning have level 5 islands slowly degrade over time while other islands upgrade over time. Making it so the best land is not constant. That would shake up atlas and encourage more teams to actively fight over land… which is what they trying to encourage right?


#61

I agree.

I see that as a flaw in Atlas though, not a flaw in Dread’s strategic position.

The top teams should all be HIGHLY motivated to be in Dread’s position. That they are not (provided an incentive to attack at or near their own level) leads to stagnation at the top and bullying on the bottom. And everyone in the middle doing “glory swaps” hoping not to attact too much attention.