Super Alliances: What to Do?


I abhor the idea of increasing alliance sizes. 50 person teams are already enormous and stupid. Multiply it by 20 and you have a 1000 person group to organize.

I had an idea about limiting the number of teams allowed at a castle to 12. 5 slots are guaranteed for the owner and their 5TA. The other 7 are wildcards meaning your enemy can bring 7 teams to fight you, theoretically increasing the likelihood of winning the fight and taking the castle, but also allowing the defenders to bring I outside help if they are quick enough which either makes it a 6v6 or shifts the odds in their favor as far as numbers go. It could probably be abused but I’m not sure on the severity. Open to analysis and counterarguments.

I would also like atlas to be slightly in favor of the aggressor but have the tangible losses reduced to account for this. I’m probably stepping out of my lane as I’m a noob who isn’t cogniscient of the goings on in T4 and T5 land, but if losing those castles wasn’t so punishing, teams may not send lambs to the slaughter so mercilessly. They may be more inclined to regroup and counterattack. Again, open to analysis and counterarguments.


Not a bad idea @ZestyNoob but what would stop people from just having friends with Alts on different teams park 6-7 Alts on different teams around castles and now no enimies can ever come attack you.
I know I would :joy:


How about make it into a “war” where the opposition have to declare war on the target castle. The war will start immediately after the declare. The 5TA can join the attack/defend plus 1-3 outside alliance can join via “free passage”. Once the 3 “outside alliance” is determined others will not be able to join the war either in attacking/defending. The list of free passage have to reset to none after the war so that if the defending team managed to defend their castle can change their outside alliance if another 5 TA alliance declare on them. However this might make bullying smaller team a factor as attacking/defending alliance can call in their biggest alliance to help out so glory scaling has to be implemented so that it will hopefully deter bigger alliance to hit level 2-3 castles. Level 4-5 castles should be 100% glory as your only allowed to have a maximum of 8 teams (5TA + 3) in either attacking/defending. This will make the attacking/defending team more picky to determine their 3 outside alliance to help them in the war. The war can be over if the attacking team decides to end it (a button to call off the war I guess) or if the attacking team managed to conquer the castle.


Don’t like this idea. You completely lose the element of surprise if everything is set and you have to declare.
You lose so many options in attacking/conquering. IMO I think this would turn into just who is stronger and has the most troops and a lot of strategy is just thrown out & no longer an option.


Yeah I think they probably should too but that doesn’t mean they will or even care enough to try.


This has crossed my mind. Previously, all castle activities were halted if enemy prims were there. Those were dark times and I’d really like to avoid devolving to that again. Maybe while enemy prims are on a castle, beasts and gold mines can’t be attacked? Idk. Something would have to discourage the behavior without encouraging griefing by parking a level 600, fully loaded level 15 bronze taunter on some P4 castle. Any ideas? I don’t like mine :joy:

Edit: maybe restrict the number of enemy teams based on troop count? Prims with 1 troop don’t contribute towards the active team count, for example. Or just use a teams total troop count as the metric. Still kind of troublesome tbh


My opinion on this.
If 5TA is enough

  • Let Alliance have cooldown. Each time a team leaves an alliance (include kick and disband), the cooldown is triggered. The team cannot join / create Alliance during cooldown.
  • Any primarch outside 5TA of castle owner can only attack primarchs in the 5TA. Trap and Taunt is included.
  • Once no defending primarch exists, castle cannot be claimed until only primarch from ONE 5TA remains.

If 10TA is included.
Let one 5TA has one allied 5TA (super alliance).
Replace all 5TA above with Super Alliance.

To prevent pesky low fake attacker, let it be 100% glory party if there is no defender prim exists.


This. I suspect it is partially to do with the point about people wanting to compete but being on totally different levels (I think this can be true for both individual and team). And to some extent, not even about wanting to, but being forced to, because the benefits are quite nice for owning castles, and one must do the work to attain said benefits…although it seems a large number of castles are gifted in some form or another rather than acquired through conquering.

This is something else the mega alliances make more space for: teams that could never have gotten castles with their 5ta, even if left to fight against teams of their own size without interference/help (however you want to define that), have castles anyway. I don’t know if I think this is bad for the state of Atlas or not.

But there’s a very real issue of reciprocity that drives some of this. That is, smaller teams often need more help to get/hold castles. They want their big friends/allies to help them in need, and as such, they go to calls at battles to help those teams in return (and also because if they don’t, the whole alliance might squash them and give their castles to someone else…it happens).

And sometimes…people may just genuinely want to help friends out. If this is also one of the reasons for alliance forming, there might not be a lot that will incentivize otherwise, although I could definitely be wrong.

As noted, teams are unlikely to act against their own self-interests. Which means that the rewards for teams to compete against one another rather than buddy up need to be too good to ignore. In general, this should be the case for everyone though, with proper scaling. But…what rewards are people playing for? More glory? More tokens? More timers? What do you offer if people are allying because they want to help friends, because it’s in their interests to do so, and/or they want to compete but simply can’t, even if very active and organized?


People like to keep bringing up economies and what not but are failing to point out 1 very key fact of preeettttyyy much every economy that has ever existed in recorded history.

Accumulation of wealth/power at the top leads to oppression of the masses which in the end leads to the masses becoming resentful of the oppression of those at the top. Which leads to revolution and beheading of many at the top. Power/Wealth is redistributed and peace rules again for a time… Then it repeats itself.

No matter how strong any 1 person, team, alliance is. If you throw enough numbers at a problem it will go away.

So considering its worked throughout recorded human history is anyone really surprised that it’s being applied to a game where the entire objective is a race to the top by oppressing those weaker than yourself with very little to no rules?


It occurs to me that super alliances are not a function of game mechanics (meaning there are no mechanics in the game that support this), but of human mechanics. Any solution that does not force a limit on castle battles (e.g., N teams of attackers, N teams of defenders) will not keep super alliances from happening.


Something like this?



Since the begining of the humanity, people allied together based on affinities and common goals. The alliances were formed to combat a common enemy or to defend against a common enemy. Why someone would think in a game like WD this same thing wouldn’t happen ? WD is a war game and in a war you have allies and you have enemies. In my opinion alliances also have a role in balancing the power, stoping the takeover of the world by one single group. I know, it’s frustrating to attack a castle for take over and being forced to battle not 1, not 5 but 50 teams to get it… but the same thing happens the other way around, you are defended not by 1, by 5 but by 50 friendly teams too. So, in the end, the problem IMHO are not the alliances, but how you plan, how you work and how you prepare. As other said, if you can’t keep a L5 castle, you shouldn’t have it… well, the opposite is true too: if you can’t take a L5 castle, you shouldn’t have it either.


Ooh that’s quite a bit farther along than my idea! Kinds forgot about that thread. Lots of good ideas in there. Me gusta


It is, and perhaps not so much just the game mechanics, but game dynamics(?) support it. It is the highest ROI and path of least resistance. I think people got swept up in the benefits and nobody looked at the consequences, and now some of those are beginning to show.


Exactly, I just don’t understand the complaining. People want to take a castle with 1M troops guarding it and they show up with 250k troops? How exactly did that planning session play out? Was the plan for the defenders to just fold?


To be honest now the the top alliance i.e dread and Ld and DC and japeneeze are all fighting together, atlas is all but finished, no collaboration can overcome them so the rest of us should all just get used to atlas being a source for timers and gear really


For the record…they have been fighting together for a while, they worked together and built up over time. In fact, I could be wrong but I think this is the only 5TA that is still intact from when alliances were introduced. So, its hardly a “now”.


True as that may be, still a fact that that “super alliance” is all but unbeatable, so if anyone wishs to stand up against them, like nmo or RR etc they stand little to no chance, i try to just enjoy atlas not to sure why some people get so upset about what dread are achieving in the game, just try and enjoy it


My post is not super constructive but I am trying to level the discussion for everyone. In all scenarios, this must be take into account.

For players ( you can pick the one is reprensenting you the best.)

  1. fly dragons and having fun doing so

  2. show that you can compete with others

  3. try to be the best and do what is needed to reach this.

For pg

  1. create a game for ppl who enjoy flying dragons

  2. make sure to create an environment where competitiveness is driving the show

  3. emphasis on giving players who want to dominate, a way for them to accomplish their wish.

I think atlas is very much made for number 3 on both players and PG sides if you are asking me. How the ROI is going to be impacted if we change this set up?


Super alliance…you just listed 3 teams? Not sure if you understand the context of what we were defining as super alliance.

But why is that? At one point these teams even declared wars together, along with MonstersDesert, all of which were notorious for having a large number of players cheating. The last so badly they were stripped of Atlas as a team. So, Im just saying, I dont see where their inherent mass disadvantage lie…other than they are simply not as good at things…or?

I see a lot of people saying this is unbeatable…but then trying to randomly tie it to somehow being game mechanics, not saying you are. But you are saying that 3 teams are unbeatable…why?