The mega alliance is dead. Long live the mega alliance!

Atlas
#1

Despite the hype of last year, and the claim to want to do away with mega alliances and fight more fiveTA to fiveTA, the old regime is still firmly entrenched. Yes the fight with semper is down to scraping over crumbs, and players are bored, but that’s what you get when you want to kill your enemy, not just fight for glory.

Behaviours such as blocking team trades and issuing edicts stating that anyone who trades with an enemy will be considered an enemy feed into reinforcing the out-of-game mega alliance rules that are imposed on hundreds of teams by those who hold the reins of the dominant alliance.

I find this statement about not trading particularly ironic as those same mega alliance leaders have been coercing and convincing teams outside their alliance (and in fact in a ‘enemy alliance’) to trade with them in order for them to get access to their flavour of the day team like flamingstream.

I’m not saying the move towards more TA based fights was wrong, Im calling out the hypocrisy that one alliance uses to control the game:

  • Dont trade with an enemy or you will be considered an enemy
  • But it’s ok for us to trade with an enemy when we like.

Can’t have your cake and eat it. Do away with the edict that blocks trades and let teams move around the map as suits them. Let teams be free to secure their destiny, make areas of like-minded, or TA specific friends.

It’s time teams on all sides stood up to this hypocrisy and made decisions for the benefit of their team and the game, not just to suit a power-hungry regime. They only have powers because teams accede to their demands, because people give them that power.

Teams should be free to change fiveTa and sometimes that means changing alliances which also necessitates trading to move away from old friends and in beside new friends.

PG can do nothing to change this behaviour, it has to come from the players and leaders who see the bigger picture of a game that needs a healthy pool of enemies to hit.

24 Likes
War Dragons Player Roles and the Conclusive Witch-Hunts 🧙‍♀️
#2

I feel you… but, this happens on both sides. So, it can’t be a call to action solely for one side. Needs to be equal.

That being said, everyone should just turn pirate, let the tops have all the castles and we all just hit them constantly if that’s what they want. Maybe then they’ll feel enough competition and they’ll get burnt out like the rest of us in Atlas.

Let that Jolly Roger fly!

9 Likes
#4

:joy: topical

#5

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. :ox:

We don’t actually assert the second statement, though, and we don’t view being considered an enemy as a bad thing. If anyone is unhappy with a trade we’ve made and wishes to address it through any means they deem appropriate, including by declaring us to be enemies and prosecuting their grievance in war, that’s their prerogative.

3 Likes
#6

Says the one that sent 40 teams when getting hit. I call it bullshit.

4 Likes
#7

Oh….I think :thinking: showed up for that one ……:rofl: uninvited or course!
You know being a surly pirate I tend to kill anything that resembles a land lubber! :pirate_flag:

And that makes nailing down wether a mega alliance has made a call for assistance or if just turned into a blood bath because the team being hit had a good response from allies and neighbors and that drew the attention of the local pirates. :man_shrugging:
And the next thing you know whole alliances are slaughtering each other because this map has no objective!
:rofl::+1:

#8

I meaaaaaaan lol I feel like at this point the top teams (of “all sides”) are so used to controlling what the smaller teams do that it could only ever have led to this, no? The entite dynamic of Atlas is at this point dependent on this. And yeah, it needs changing, but I’ve been commenting on the forums for years and seeing “this needs to change” conversations for around that same amount of time and yet I’ve yet to see someone take the first step. Everyone agrees that nukes are bad, but they only feel safe against the other nation’s nukes if they have their own

1 Like
#9

Are you declaring your alliance is dead or is this one of those posts calling out to pg ?

1 Like
#10

I thought I was quite clear. Calling on players and teams to not be intimidated by one TA mandates and edicts.
PG cannot do anything,
Be the change.

#11

Yes and no, the Dominant TA did take the first step last year, and many here applauded them. But it seems they never gave up ‘running’ the alliance / deciding for other teams… or if they did they have let themselves get sucked back into being the godfather and enforcers of the wishes of a few.

3 Likes
#12

I think the intent of the top TA was there but the execution was the issue.

When the top TA has 85%+ of the top assets all in one TA then there just isn’t another competitive TA to be a viable rival.

Now it feels like regardless of alliance everyone is just plain bored and here for their friends.

Fully agree it’s upto the players to fix this issue but I doubt we will :smiley:

It would be like the United States giving a quarter of its firepower and commercial assets to China and quarter to Russia to balance things up.

Unlikely to happen. When anyone is dominant they will fight to maintain that competitive advantage for as long as they can.

Thus the cycle of teams and players being eliminated will continue.

Not really anyones fault just the nature of the construct we all call atlas.

2 Likes
#13

I gotta disagree here.
Take a look at the last steps PG has taken and evaluate who did profit from that!!

Next thing we will see (because we as a community asked for it) is something like: „in order to incentivize more castle attacks and turnover those teams holding more then 5 lvl5 castles will get an attack bonus on all prims of +20% and +25% troop build bonus - enjoy“

1 Like
#14

That tends to happen when your maps designed to produce either stagnation mega alliances or piracy!

Until the objective is offensive this defense map will continue to eliminate players and teams until a winner is produced!

You will not stop mega alliances by adjusting our mechanics towards offense nor will moving our mechanics towards defense accomplish anything and balancing them only produces stagnation which is elimination by attrition!

Much like gold prime restrictions to prevent pirates from attaining gold primes unless they defend a castle.
And we see how effective trying to dictate play style to players is…

And that’s exactly what all adjustments to our mechanics are!
Yes basically by adjusting them they are attempting to dictate how we play….

Nothing they do to control tactics will circumvent the defensive core objective…… :man_shrugging:

4 Likes
#15

The players have the power indeed, here is a wild suggestion:
Instead of the strongest TA being petty and prey on smaller ones why don’t they brake their TA and form new ones with smaller teams? I know your bases are tougher but I think too that it would be a positive change :smirk: you can even invite a neutral team not at all under your mandate and add it to the soup! Tadda!

3 Likes
#16

I’ll get the nets to catch the flying pigs and we can start as soon as it’s done raining cats and dogs….
Your asking humans to set down fear :rofl::man_shrugging:
Bahahahahha ummmm that’s what makes them human!!!

Good luck with that!
And as a 30 year practicing hermetic secular witch if you figure out how to get humans to set down fear and pick up law you let me know……will you ……:rofl:

1 Like
#17

Oh I agree with you! I really don’t expect it to happen either :joy::joy: doesn’t hurt to throw the carrot

2 Likes
#18

I mean if we’re going on the premise of, “we need viable opponents,” this idea would make the most sense. :eyes:

1 Like
#19

Just join my team and you never have to worry about any of this :sunglasses:

2 Likes
#20

It’s not up to that TA to make that happen. They’re doing what they’re supposed to do! :man_shrugging:

It’s up to PG to come up with mechanics to help the balance.

2 Likes
#21

Sadly that will produce conflict but the result of increased conflict under a defensive objective is elimination ….
So yes while it will produce a burst of conflict or what I call escalation it will not support long term escalation which is also sometimes called sustainable conflict….

Regardless of terminology this will produce attacking and possible castle turnover and revenue for a very short time and in the end it will just produce elimination!
It will not supply sustainable conflict long term :man_facepalming::boom: