Super Alliances: What to Do?


#42

Personally I am in favour of keeping the 5TA, super alliances are far too unwieldy and the lag in big fights is already bad enough. Should we ask or recommend measures to prevent multiple teams beating up smaller teams (or lots of smaller teams/alliances attempting to beat up bigger teams/alliances)? I like the formalised declaration of war idea, but I don’t think it will stop any perceived “griefing” and will really slow down the whole process of battling in Atlas.

In my opinion, the biggest issue with Atlas is not the alliances or how they are set up (how many teams etc.). It is the broad diversity of levels of the players/teams that are currently in Atlas. Coupled to the fact that Atlas benefits are so essential to player and team growth. It is not a competitive option to ignore atlas benefits, dragons AND bases suffer if you neglect these benefits or are unable to build on them (due to team etc.).

The original intention of Atlas was to be dynamic territory acquisition, but the problem is that territory is tied to bonuses which are too precious to the main game. So the map stays relatively static and most of the “growth” is by agreed trades and glory swaps. Yes the powerful teams dominate the ones from the lower leagues but this is to be expected of teams which have the highest level players and have worked on building the best infrastructure. That’s the point of the whole game - I don’t have any problem with higher teams being dominant on the map. The disparity isn’t really a problem until a team loses all the infrastructure they have invested in to a battle they have no chance of winning.

I think a lot of the issues could be reduced by:

  1. Disconnecting more of the infrastructure (shards/troop-building/xp bonus etc) from actual land held. i.e. the bonuses you paid gold and time/timers for is permanent/not conquerable. Fort defense values could be universal or distributed to the land currently held.
  2. This change could also go in concert making the land values dynamic or semi-dynamic (tier changes on a regular to semi-regular basis).
  3. Making castles much easier to take over. Not so much easier that a few P4 teams should take out a D1 team easily, but enough to make rapid loss/gain/regain possible.

One way to do this could be to have a working base bonus which can be built up by investigating gold and timers into it, and a smaller variable bonus which is based on the land held at the time. A few people have suggested an unconquerable capitals which often gets shot down (i.e. “what about the T5 that I want but can’t be conquered”/“I don’t want/have a T2”) but I think what is desired by this solution is actually unconquerable infrastructure.
Obviously this isn’t a fleshed out suggestion because with a dynamic environment lower teams might find their previously T2 territory changed into a T5 and the D1 teams will come in to steamroll them which isn’t desirable. However I’m sure there are mechanistic ways to avoid this (restrict how far the movement of T5s can go etc.) and still encourage more dynamic and enjoyable Atlas play.


#43

I (and many others) try to fly beneath the radar of the biggest teams.
Having a system that allows the strongest teams to destroy the weakest teams (yes, there are disincentives, but they still could if they really wanted to) is a big game design flaw.


#44

Super Alliances are just the result of all leagues on one map. What can people do when some Teams are so strong that they can literary bully some other teams to quit. That is a logic result. That Atlas is not really functioning is pretty clear. Just my point of view.

Riders have battle power to do missions. Teams could have that, too. So if all members are add up to some kind of battle power, they shouldn’t be able to attack someone way weaker in battle power. How about that. That would make Atlas userfriendy for sure and would act as sort of league :nerd_face: But sure that is not what u guys are looking for cause it would give away the easy GP snacking


#45

I may be going down a rabbit hole with this. We’ll see in a few minutes…

Whenever we discuss the team-level dynamics and conflicts in the game (e.g., wars, atlas castle holdings, etc.), the discussion is placed within the context of the league structure. We talk about certain teams simply being Diamond teams, or Sapphire teams, or Platinum teams; the league rank is viewed as a characteristic of the team. But teams earn those league ranks within the game - they declare and win wars and climb out of the primordial sludge of Bronze and Silver, into the land of Gold, and eventually Platinum and possibly beyond.

But what has allowed teams to climb the ranks isn’t some Manifest Destiny; it’s the team’s members. Teams at the top have members willing to do quite a bit in order to stay there (whether that be in spending or in activity, but probably a lot of both). Teams at the top also have team structures, guidelines, and expectations that are designed to keep them there.

Now take this over to Atlas. The league structure does not exist in Atlas, but understandably, Diamond teams outperform Platinum teams - not because they are Diamond teams, but because of the members, the leadership, and those structures, guidelines, and expectations.

All of this is to say that if the league structure was entirely removed - there are now no Bronze teams and no Diamond teams - the teams in T5 castles would still be in T5 castles. They would still be the teams that get the portraits at the end of the Atlas season. Not because they are Diamond teams, but because they are organized, and their membership plays the game at a different level than 95% of the playerbase.

So what is a super alliance? Well, I’m taking that term to mean not a small group of the top teams in Atlas, but a very large group of teams that may include one or two high-octane teams and many, many more teams that are simply out of that weight class.

And so when you take these two things together (e.g., removing the labels associated with leagues because that’s all about team membership and structure, and defining super alliances as a collection of a large number of simply outclassed teams), I think the answer is - there’s nothing that can be done.

Unless the rules of engagement change significantly, there is no reason for the members of the very top teams to change what they’re doing; and they will continue to “win” Atlas. They could, every single one of them, drop down to Bronze and still “win” Atlas. So if a large group of simply outclassed teams wants to band together for warmth or shelter or whatever, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be able to do so. It’s not going to change anything meaningful.

I don’t actually know if this makes sense to anyone but me. I don’t even know if it really makes sense to me. But there you have it.


#46

You either have open play or you don’t.

Artificially creating bands so that teams stay in their “zone” and don’t trespass where they don’t belong is essentially creating a tiered structure. Whether you do that by increasing the gap between castle values and thereby between teams or if you do it by implementing new guidelines for alliances it is drawing lines/erecting walls. The only part of open is how you cross those lines or climb those walls and your choice, if any, about which side of the wall you stand on.


#47

It’s more than that. It is impacted by the need for mutual protection. If one 5TA cannot hold its own against another, the solution is simple, find a third 5TA in the same situation - it’s the players attempt to seek parity. There are two choices to address this, either set up a system that mandates total domination by a 5TA (even more so than currently exists with the Lethal alliance) or set up a system that mandates parity among 5TAs. Otherwise, status quo.


#48

I don’t see a problem with the current alliance/Atlas setup. If you have a quality leadership group on your team and your 5TA, Atlas is a lot of fun! I don’t even want to play the main game anymore. Of course the best teams are going to form the strongest alliances and conquer the most lands. The way to combat that is to get better yourself, not to try and restrict the best from being the best. They earned it.


#49

How about grouping diamond teams into a single tier and allow only those diamond teams to allign together (only). Now I know the issue is also going to be league change but with the curent system its seems kinda broken.


#50

Can you explain more by Align Together? Like do you mean they could only attack each other’s castles, or do you literally mean Align together as a 5TA?


#51

TBH, I am not sure, the problem with this discussion is that your damned if you do and your damned if you don’t. For an example if you tier all the highest level team and only allow them to align with each other, then it becomes stale because essentially those teams shouldn’t be able to hit lower level league teams (because of obvious reasons). But that in turn doesnt allow assistence when called upon either.

passage is a bitch honestly the system half the time is broken when trying to remove or add teams.

However, teams shouldnt also sandbag based on size/castle numbers. Because like someone said above, you can have a diamond level team just go down in the standings and wipe everyone off the map in the lower tiers.

I just don’t see a reasonable method to change the functions that are already set. The game has already taken to these functions.

Plus the human element psychologically create alliances naturally, this is how the world runs as well. So alliances forming is actually natural. Changing that function (officially) won’t change the fact that alliances are going to be created.

I believe more so we have to embrace them, rather than remove them. Maybe increase the number and like a few stated here remove passage. But passage is also necessary for teams to donate resources etc…so again not sure you can get rid of that function.

I am just kinda spit balling tbh. Not sure if there is a reasonable or rational way to change the current mechanics that are currently in play.


#52

Well, an idea could be to randomize alliances each season. Or if that’s too long, then cut seasons in half. But if they set something up where it’s random, say you get 1 Diamond (or 2 sapphire) teams plus some other combination of teams in different leagues. Force people to work together. These new temporary alliances could help teams get their first castle. How many teams don’t even have a castle?

Maybe each season randomize the value of castles. Make it so alliances earn points based on how they do in some function. Be it castle takeovers, castle defenses or something. Idk, I don’t have a full idea for some event to have these random castle values and random teams to come together and help one another.

Maybe someone else can come up with a concrete idea.


#53

Well, I proposed awhile ago under my DragonMage account that if PG implemented code that compared the player level attacking versus player being attacked and institute a nerf on the attacking dragon to offset (I went into a bit more detail), but players shot it down indicating the code could be difficult to implement and implied PG lacked the skills to do so without seriously damaging the game.:joy: But, If thought out and designed properly it would solve all problems of being sandbagged or having a 600 lvl player wiping out a level 150, etc.


#54

Yeah i thought the same thing, but those type of changes would be actually difficult. However, as stated above I also through of the random order or say for an example a team captain type of function and each team captain can say choose a team they want in their alliance and so forth.

But I was also thinking of a way to do it where Diamond teams can only hit diamond teams and if a diamond team goes to help then they can only hit other diamond teams.

But again these ideas introduce other problems to the mix like the fact there is a ranking system in atlas which differs to the standard mix of standings within WD reg.

So 1 diamond team may have a ranking of 50 in atlas, but be a top 25 team in the game in terms of reg standings (just an example). Unifying the 2 halves will need to come at some point, and maybe having a buff multiplier similar to PVP where if the team is the top team in the PVP you get 1.1x the points for glory. Making it more valuable to hit them, but at the same time compensating them for the increased difficulty.

I dunno, thinking probably there is an option here in the middle, but without knowing some of the ideas PG has in mind (since we all know they have thought about this). Its hard to tell where their thinking is. But this game is a business for PG and is driven by money first and fun 2nd.so troop loss/castle take over is a method behind some of this madness.


#55

After reading all of this, I think that a 5TA with a potential of 250 players/castles held is more than enough. These “super alliances” were made without thinking of the long term consequence and without holding to any game functionality, are taking a toll on teams that aren’t involved or aren’t even aware of their existence. I think we can all agree that being outside of a super alliance at this point spells death and frustration, and the teams inside of these alliances have no reason NOT to be in them.

Like Doc said, the only way to do this is to add more limits on functionality. I also think Orca had one of the best suggestions that I read in this entire thread so far and it looks like no one batted an eyelash.

I also saw someone say something about initiating “wars” in terms of castle battles but agree that surprise is an important element so instead of manually being able to declare a war on a castle, I think there would need to be some kind of system that automatically initiated said war and teams on both sides were alerted in TC/AC/Notifications.

The sweet spot that needs to be found is how to circumvent the workaround, which my first thought jumps to an alliance having an alt or someone from another team outside of their 5TA sitting on a castle to keep it in a perpetual war, preventing access for other 5TA’s to initiate a war of their own. Here I would suggest a 48 cooldown for a 5TA to initiate a war on a specific castle, and then also a set of parameters that would need to be met to initiate the war in the first place or keep it going. Maybe a minimum primarch & troop count to start and then a slightly smaller (but still reasonable amount) needed to maintain the active war status. Once a war is started, any glory hunters or teams that were attempting to gather enough primarchs/troops but were slow on the draw (meaning another 5TA beat them to the punch on required levels) at that location would have their primarchs moved to their respective home locations and be given a message saying that an alliance war was initiated.

To the point above, there would still be a workaround from different 5TA’s working together as a super alliance involving teams bringing just less than the required amount necessary to initiate a specific alliance war. So maybe also initiate a war based on 2/5 teams from the same 5TA being at an enemy castle regardless of troop/primarch count. Also, I think a 1-6 hour cooldown in place after any war ends (based on the length the war was active) is also appropriate so that you don’t have teams hitting back to back in as super alliances would surely adopt that method as well. Technically they would still be able to organize big hits on castles with one team from each 5TA - and I don’t currently have a solution for that. Super alliances might always find a way around to be annoying lol but I’m sure some someone can come up with something :+1:

A team could still technically involve a super alliance in keeping a war active on a castle, but the drawback would be to the team that was helping the 5TA would now be more vulnerable to attack themselves, and if they pulled off because another 5TA or member’s of an opposing super alliance were attacking them at their own castle, it would leave the original castle in question vulnerable to war as well now. So you could still have these super alliances and they could help keep each other’s castles at war to prevent other teams from doing the same, but at great risk as a group, which I think would even the playing field and only be used in extreme situations as a result.

Additionally, the bubble now/conquer later mechanic still needs to be preserved for teams to be able to set up their defense/reaction, and even though I’ve always been a fan of fair play in war [meaning that if one team bubbles, then another team who noticed it could attempt to make a move on that castle after it dropped, creating a 3-way fight essentially] but this suggestion would kill off that possibility. So we need to be ok with that as a result, and the alternative being that if 2 teams were locked in an alliance war and a 3rd team noticed, they instead might wait for fighting to resume before hitting another castle location owned by one of the teams involved in the conflict.

The bubble now/conquer later mechanic also puts the attacking team at a disadvantage with any kind of minimums required to maintain a war, because with a team being able to drop their bubble at any time, they can technically just wait for whoever is on the castle to go offline and clear them below the minimums to end the war. I think with the minimums in place, you would kinda have to lose the element of surprise as the defending team when dropping a bubble and it would need to be announced 15-30m ahead of the actual drop. So say a 5TA initiates a war, bubbles the castle, and then leaves just the minimum troops required to keep the war active at that location. The defending team wants to drop the shields when they know they other team is least active, and so they hit the button to drop shields and it starts a secondary cooldown and sends both 5TA’s notifications of that action so both alliances can scramble together for action.

With minimums needed to keep wars castle wars active, you will also see less ground taken in one sitting. You won’t move into a region and bubble 3-4 zones at a time anymore, so castle battles will mean a whole hell of a lot more as an end result.

Anyone see any major flaws in this thinking? LMK.