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:
- 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.
- This change could also go in concert making the land values dynamic or semi-dynamic (tier changes on a regular to semi-regular basis).
- 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.