The vision of the new Atlas. For discussion

Dear community!

It’s no secret that now almost all the teams in Atlas are divided into two large unions: Alliance A and Alliance B. At the same time, the strongest teams and the overwhelming majority are in Alliance A at the same time. Such qualitative and quantitative superiority leads to the fact that the Alliance B is almost always “defending”, or captures those castles that are most easily accessible. Alliance A has so few opponents that it is forced to look for those among the teams that are significantly lower in the ranking, otherwise they simply do not have enough targets. All this leads to the fact that at the moment it is completely normal practice when teams of 30-100 power rank beat players with a rank of 200-300 and even 300+. The limit of 50% of glory in this scenario can not affect the situation in any way. I get the impression that because of this, many people are not so interested in playing, and perhaps even bored, and New Lands interested people for only a few days.

Therefore, I want to propose a different atlas model. Before offering it to the PG, I want to know the opinion of the players. Perhaps everyone is satisfied with the current state of affairs and there is no point in offering anything.

—I propose to change the number of teams that have access to the atlas to a multiple of 20 (for example, reduce it to 1000).

—Then, divide the atlas into independent sections. Four 5ta on each site, formed randomly so that the combat rating of the strongest teams in 5ta was approximately the same (this is necessary so that it was impossible to create 5ta with one strong and 4 weak teams and get weak opponents). Forcibly divide them into 2x2 teams (so that a 3-1 battle does not happen). 10x10 teams, not 5ta by 5ta, so that you have to cooperate with a new ally and reduce the meaning of compiling a small 5ta with several strong players, but a low combat rating. Because, the partner will still be random.

—At each location, place 300 castles (40xt5, 80xt4, 80xt3, 100xt2) At the beginning, neutral, available for capture, with a certain number of guards (as in New Lands).

—Prohibit attacking castles and moving in “alien” isolated areas.

—Each player, when changing teams, loses access to these areas

For such players, as well as for those who are unlucky with an opponent and have no desire to fight with him, make a common “NML” zone for “Aligane” and swap, accessible to everyone and always. Or make some red zone available to all players on each site.

—The plots are updated once a month, the reserves of the guard are reset, and 5ta is redistributed on the plots.

Then, in order to receive bonuses from castles once a month, they will have to be conquered again. At the same time, each team will have an approximately equal and fairly numerous opponent each time. Weak teams will have the opportunity to own locks t4 and t5.

What do you think?

2 Likes

interesting and sounds pretty good…also well thought out but idk enough about Atlas to know how beneficial this would be for everyone

Removing 1500 teams from atlas is probably a bad idea as I suspect that will kill those teanms as people who bought infra will lose it.

Many TAs spent years building them. They are RL friends they do stuff outside of WD while splitting them technically makes sense to distribute power I’m sure they will force status quo or retire.

Clustering teams on power is a good idea and that more closely resembles positional dominance as an objective instead of gear being the objective.

2 Likes

Probably gonna be closer to 500 teams removed not 1500

I think that the castles should decrease as you get lower and lower down tier wise. I think that this is also too many castles.

There’s the other issue of imbalanced TAs. It’s not something that you can easily have a blanket fix for. If you compared what our TA was when we were smaller, 2-3D1 teams, a Saph team, and a plat team there wouldn’t really be a balanced TA for something like that.
Even now you have TAs with a diamond team or 2, and then some way smaller teams. This isn’t even looking at activity differences in TAs.

Forcing TA v TA fights is something I approve of though

2 Likes

My 2cents
-remove 5ta completely ,make it 2ta or 3ta.
-game doesn’t have enough people for to be 5ta,not anymore. (250 players per 5ta, 10x 5ta = 2500 players)
-5ta causing mega alliance becouse some 5ta cant beat some 5ta
-deep castles forming alliance extra no hit/alliance/mini team outside 5ta/friends team to avoid delay
-troop gaps(subjective)
-no 5ta in new land, every team for themselves

I got a little bit of shuffle vibes from it lol, abit different, I think tbh the biggest problem with changing the map is the time needed for pg to do it, like the shuffle took what 6 plus months? New lands is basically the shuffle code just with different icing on top and it took a long time.

Like for any changes imo to be successful, as in the new lands they need to fix some fundamental flaws in the mechanics of the game like -

  • apr calculation (it’s a formula that’s made before level 500s existed and research was so intense)
  • glory scaling similar to apr ranking (why does like a base loaded with maxed towers get full glory on a player with 15, but a player with 15-25 doesn’t get maxed glory on ones with 0-15 (well maybe like 10-15 close to max towers)
  • need to make similar teams have to fight similar teams and ta
  • makes teams if they are high ranked teams in a ta have to fight only similar make ups of 5tas

Like if they can make these changes things like the new lands would be more successful

5 Likes

At the moment, ~2000 teams have access to the atlas. Of these, ~500 consist of 1-5 people (disbanded teams) and ~300 teams with almost zero activity. Yes, I think it’s reasonable to remove access to the atlas from them. At the same time, it is not necessary to remove infrastructure from them. If the team resurrects and returns to the top 1000, then there will be an atlas again

now almost every team has 20-40 castles in sapphire and diamond. I specifically selected the amount that requires activity from the teams. Yes, it is possible to reduce the total number of castles in plat. However, I prefer a format where everyone has approximately equal starting conditions.

I’m not suggesting fix it. This will be at the initiative of the players themselves. The choice is to stay in 5ta with friend teams and experience difficulties on the battlefield or regroup for greater efficiency

3 Likes

to fix calculate of glory is quite a big problem. Personally, I could not come up with another model that would be without logical holes. Which players will use
Therefore, I decided to look at the situation more globally

1 Like

My bad for some reason I thought there were more teams :slight_smile:

I’m sure if I sat down in a group atmosphere with a coder for the game I could definitely come up with a good formula for both apr and glory scaling, tbh though if you get a good calculation for apr glory scaling could just run from that and not need a massive change

1 Like

It’s not about coming up with a good system.
It’s coming up with a system that cannot be gamed.

For example the APR system came in after RR and others started dropping all their “good” land to reduce their influence leading to being “poor targets” to Dom. Then to counter this APR started to be used. This lead to :

No incentive to stop targetting a team no matter how much land they lost.

Manipulation of APR using low level alts to drop APR making lower APR teams better glory.

3 Likes

I play 2 alts on an P4 team with zero Atlas activity, in terms of attacking. However, I need Atlas access to be able to develop minimally effective gear so I can be competitive in the main game. If you remove Atlas from my team, you effectively remove me from main game. Now, if you provide a way for me to gear up in main game without Atlas, I wouldn’t care much if Atlas was removed. Gear was the whole reason we warred up to Platinum to acquire Atlas.

2 Likes

Yes, I still think that it will only be better for the situation as a whole and for each individual player if we do this. Now many platinum and sapphire teams have about 5-15 players active in the atlas. If everyone united in such a way that this number changed to 40-50, it would only get better.
However, for my atlas model, I can offer this solution: do not select the atlas as a whole. But to give such teams access only to the common area

Can i ask a question

How do i know or calculate how much xp i get per primarch per glory attack ?

If you meant gp instead of xp, then this

should answer that.

2 Likes

Hi. No not glory, in order to level up my primarch i need xp right ?
How do i know how much i get per attack …
Thnx

The issue is not the number of teams that have access to atlas. The benefits are so great from atlas all teams should have access to atlas.

PG came up with an idea I believe they called Crusades which would have been a good solution. It would have encouraged conflict between similar level opponents. It also would have more narrowly defined the times of conflict.

Too many players want PvE conflict in atlas since it is effectively a 0 sum game.

And as many players have noted APR is too easily gamed. APR would be better if it was a weighted combination between castles, player level, and atlas event scores.

That’s still glory as far as I know.

"The Glory amount earned in each battle is separate for Primarchs, Riders, and your team. In other words, if a battle earns 1,000 Glory:

The Primarch you used earns 1,000 Glory.
Each Rider involved earns 1,000 Glory / # of eligible Riders.
Your team earns Team Glory at a rate of 70% of whatever Glory you earned from the battle."

Quoted from

Hope this answers you.

1 Like

My main message was not to reduce the number of commands in the atlas. And then, the proposal of a fundamentally new game system in the atlas. According to my calculations, it is more balanced in terms of combat operations. But it will only work if the number of participating teams is a multiple of 20

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I don’t fundamentally disagree with you. Four 5TAs squaring off is more interesting than 2 5TAs. But 2 5TAs might be a better solution due to the population. I do like your idea that 5TAs should square off against 5TAs only.

Most of my comments were supposed to be adding to your general concept. Also here is the initial proposition for Crusades.