Super Alliances: What to Do?


#1

Changes in Atlas both present and past have given rise to seemingly larger and larger alliances. This seems to be seen as an issue, especially when it is not working in people’s favor. But what can or should be done about it? Is it an actual issue or is it something that is situational?

So, first we should probably define what a reasonable number of an encounter is? 5?10? 15? per side? I think 10 would make the most sense but how to enable that, you would have to put a CD on both passage and alliance members. Is that going to be good in the long run?

The larger implications, teams seem to like working together at times. What happens to teams that incapable or left without a strong alliance? Are they going to be able to survive on their own? What happens when these larger alliances clash? From what I see, there is generally going to be a winner and a loser. The more teams that get drug into each side simple means the consequences of this are more and more pronounced when a result is finally achieved.

How to fix it? Ideally you would have people fighting in specific bands but how to get there? I have seen a lot of suggestions, not sure which ones would work and do teams want to be tied to that? Supposedly at times Platinum teams want to engage Diamond level teams, so does this actually need to be fixed? Is this what teams want?

As it stands, the current dynamic probably is not going to work but it is also the result of poor game mechanics but a lot of it is also player creation and decisions. I dont think that part should be so easily dismissed either. So where to go from here?


#2

Off Topic: Hey Panda, nice to see you. Its been a while

On Topic: I think that due to the Super Alliances, the smaller, weaker alliances/teams that aren’t in an alliance will be hunted to extinction or to the farthest reaches of Atlas. Either that or they’ll just crumble under the weight


#3

It’s a fair point. I totally agree that Atlas is poorly designed. However, lets face it, thene is no way to stop teams mutually agreeing to help each other.
So how do we minimize it? Maybe get rid of the 5TA. That won’t stop big alliances, but does remove formal team alliances from the meta. If that is done, then also not make Atlas all or nothing. That is, don’t make it so a team can find itself without. a castle if attacked. Maybe make the capital immune from being taken over? That mught also have the side effect of promoting more attacks.


#4

I agree…but making it the easiest and most effective way to get things done is probably a large part of why people keep doing it. You cant stop it but making it the path of least resistance is probably not a great choice either.

I still think you need to create further gaps between each tier and you need value/exclusivity to each. Such that, you cant have 20 teams all in the same general area and it readily sustains them all at places where they can be comfortable. If you have nothing that has a value higher than banding together and doing nothing…what will most teams do?

Then if a team ever gets a level 5, they just make it their capital and its theirs forever. In some ways, having certain areas be a “virtual space” would make the most sense. Take the team infrastructure out of physical islands. Have the value simply modified by what islands you own…you can further this by having each island have truly individual buffs. But having the ability to build and do things to a certain point might be better. Uncapped 60% of the infrastructure for all island levels was one of the dumbest things ever. Full Stop.


#5

What if they expand the size of the alliance to, just random number, 20. Each alliance can have a max of 3 D1 teams and 3 D2 teams. But must have a minimum of 5 platinum teams. That leaves a mix of 9 sapphire and other platinum teams. I know there are more teams than is physically possible for every alliance to fill this. But it will cut down on the “super power” alliances. At least in theory.

Now to add to this. If a castle is attacked, the only teams that can come to aid are that team’s actual alliance. At most you have 40 on 40. So if a player from a team not in either alliance tries to come in, they get a wonderful message pop up saying “this castle is in an alliance battle. Passage is not available”.

20 team alliances may be a bit much. But even with a smaller number, still have the maxes of diamond teams mixed with the minimums of platinum. This could help platinum teams grow a little more in atlas and may cut down on the view of superpowers in the game…


#6

The biggest problem would be league changes then…unless you are gonna have a team move artificially to meet said standard.

Additionally, what league you are in, in the core game is not exactly indicative of your teams strength and ability to perform in Atlas. Plus, wouldnt that just mean that when these two teams do battle, the goal is to hit the platinum teams as hard as possible?

So essentially it becomes, who can bleed the other sides Plat team the fastest?

I get the sentiment but this sounds a lot like trying to make participation trophies…not going to say this is about all teams, but Im going to guess Platinum teams function inherently very different than the top Diamond ones? Trying to force them to play at the same level/ability feels like it would make things worse, not better?

Plus what happens if a Platinum team grows and improves…should they now be kicked because they dont meet a quota?


#7

How about a new rule “Capital can only be set to a level 2 castle.” :joy::rofl::joy::rofl::joy::rofl::joy:

But IDK…

Maybe PG goes F U PLAYERS and remove atlas entirely and design a well-made new expansion this time?

Just saying cuz I just saw two drastic solutions; one, removing alliance; two, 20TA. :joy::rofl::joy::rofl::joy:


#8

It’s a fair analysis. Thing is, Atlas is played differently by weaker and stronger teams. This is why you’ll get wildly divergent suggestions. PG are so obviously in love with their generic conquest game mechanic (albeit with all the tedious complications they added) that I doubt there’s a perfect solution.


#9

Never said I disagreed with your noTA or the other’s 20TA. :smirk:

But to be fair, I admit that I did once suggest to remove alliance myself too. :joy::rofl::joy::rofl::joy::rofl::joy:


#10

Nothing wrong with an open world concept…but you need the proper incentives. Expecting people to want to work against their own self interest just for the sake of perceived competition or stability clearly makes no sense. I keep seeing bandaids to fix old issues rather than looking at some of the major problems as whole.

Extended Alliances seem to have come about about teams wanted to fight but they are realistically at two completely different levels. While this can be possible you need to have the default be for this not to be beneficial for either side. Because as it stands, teams want to only reap the benefits. They want to enter a conflict of the perceived gains, but then are happy with any negative consequence of it. Since people did bring up MMORPGS like WoW, you can go to any region, but if you enter one that you are highly outclassed you will likely die fast…very fast. There isnt even that big of a gap in War Dragons currently. So, why do the level 100 players in WoW not just spend all day attacking in the low level zones? The ROI on it is not worth it. Change that and you can start to see some of the separations that are likely needed.


#11

Once upon a time, there were no official alliances. But unofficial alliances formed. And nobody did anything. Just sat in the water lol


#12

In my opinion passage lists need to be done away with and alliances bumped to 10 or 15 teams. Five is just not enough. More teams will allow better protection on all castles and timezones covered.


#13

Hmm 10-15 sounds extreme which is part of the issue I would imagine, WHY isnt 1-5 enough? If you cant operate effectively with that then likely something is not being done correctly and the system is a bit broken.


#14

Why isn’t 0 enough? :joy::rofl::joy::rofl::joy:

Since GBill did suggest no alliance too. :smirk:

I mean… I can think of at least a few reasons to and a few reasons not to… for mostly all those numbers. :man_facepalming:t2:

It just doesn’t seem like there will be a solution to satisfy the majority. :disappointed:


#15

10 or 15 sounds fair with taking out the passage list. Maybe just 10. Fifteen teams does sound a bit much. This would help to stop the 70-80 team battles that lag the hell out of Atlas.


#16

Trust me, I would be fine with removing them completely but the architecture of things right now, teams would not really be able to survive for the most part I imagine. So, if the goal is to get back to zero you still need to address why teams did so in the first place and why they became formalized.

If too much benefit is still derived from it, formal or not teams will still do it.

If you think about it though too…if it takes 10 teams, thats 500 people to do it, that is probably a bit much too, just saying. Its not the teams fault atm, its the core structure that is more of the issue. The benefits far outweigh at the moment.


#17

In what world are all 500 ppl gonna show up to battle? If most 250 and even that isnt likely to happen. Either way with the way it is now more than 500 can show up. At least ending passage lists and upping the alliance teams would be a good start.


#18

What if we do the “passage” ala “portal”. Limitations would not be on the number of teams (not included in the 5ta) but with the amount of troops that can pass through in a given time, say depends on the castle cool down.


#19

There will always be benefits for big alliances. I don’t see how it can be stopped?
Changes 5TAs to 10-15 teams would do absolutely nothing but give more teams passage lol
There are ways around getting rid of free passage.
There would be ways around even if they put a 2 alliance cap on castles makijrn it to where no more then 2 alliances could be on any castle at any time.
There would still be ways around it.

If they even could makes changes to stop it honestly I don’t think they care enough about super alliances to try to even implement changes.


#20

If you dont address WHY teams have been doing it though, you arent really fixing the problem and people will just find new ways to work around it. Or teams that actually needed it to survive are going to get obliterated…because you didnt fix the core issue, you just fixed the mechanic attached to it.

Well tbh they probably should. Part of the problem with having say 50 vs 50 team battles. When one side loses that means 50 teams are about to die eventually, which probably is not what they want…