Version 4.90 Release Notes Official Discussion Thread


#1940

Orrrr people will just get sick of the BS politics and being forced to compete with diamond teams and they will quit. Seems to be the goal.


#1941

True…maybe make that a 0-10% greater loss for the attacker based upon tier differences between the team attacking. Say if a S1 is attacking a P1 the S1 suffers 5% more troop loss, if a G1 then 10%. (Notice I left out D1 in a comparison for a change.:grin:)


#1942

You can’t do it by league though, cause then people will just be sandbagging again.


#1943

Yup some teams will thrive, some will fail.


#1944

I Depends what you mean by “thrive”. I think my team is doing a great job for a platinum team. But atlas will never be very fun for most of my players. I have someone quit the game completely probably once a week. I don’t think it’s a question of whether individual teams will thrive Mike, I think it’s a question of whether or not the game will continue to grow or go just go downhill. When a lot of players quit the entire game is affected. You probably don’t feel it if you’re in diamond league but you will feel it soon unless things change


#1945

I think you’re missing the mark a little though. This is less like asking to do your war hits without anyone defending, and more like arguing that a team with one level 500 and 49 level 10s shouldn’t be able to use the 500 to win every war attack.


#1946

Sapphire is pretty solid… did you ever think that maybe your approach on atlas is what’s the issue? Maybe you’re not doing your part and investing in the politics and trying to find a good allience to handle your problems… or maybe you have dead weight on your team who isn’t contributing like they should therefore u don’t have the troops to take a castle? I wouldn’t blame it entirely on atlas. If you hate politics so much, I could assume you don’t have an allience and maybe that’s the first problem. Maybe that’s not the case, but there’s always something to do to grow in atlas.


#1947

Im in a plat team now actually…

But it is a questions on wheather or not the game will continue to grow. Personally I think its the core game issues that will decide that though, not Atlas.


#1948

Also teams don’t HAVE to contribute to atlas. Your whole team could disregard atlas. :woman_shrugging:t2: If you hate it that much. You can stick to warring, and the normal events. But then you will be missing out on the benifits that atlas DOES bring.


#1949

Well if that is the argument i would also be against it. nothing wrong with a 500 and 49 level 10’s. :). Just means 49 easy hits. :slight_smile: Only thing wrong with it is that PG hasn’t done more to motivate the 500 to want to be in a better team.


#1950

Ergo…you do have to participate in Atlas.

The idea that Atlas is a voluntary choice is obsolete.


#1951

I suppose that’s a point on which we have to disagree. I’m still one of those who considers that bad game design.


#1952

Well it is, but not because of the war implications. Its bad design that PG has done nothing to discourage sandbagging


#1953

Im willing to run the math for e2p

F2P wont make 50%


#1954

What forces you to do atlas? Has nothing to do with the pre-atlas game besides gear and shards. You can do wars, you can do the normal events.


#1955

Well i agree, PG has made Atlas mandatory to some degree. It doesn’t have to be as time consuming as most teams make it though. Yes those benefits for holding lots of land are nice, but not game changing. Even holding a single castle will unluck most atlas benefits (mainly the ability to farm shards and craft gear, and participate in atlas events).


#1956

I think it’s both. PG is pushing atlas but they aren’t doing anything to fix it. They’ve created so many problems for the main game and atlas and choose to exacerbate them over and over again before they make any attempts to fix it. I like to think that PG will make drastic changes very soon but, I don’t know.

Also I think atlas as it is now, is like allowing diamond 1 teams to declare war on any team in the game. The diamond team wouldn’t get much/any points from it but the platinum team suffers losses.


#1957

See again i dont see atlas as being the problem, compated to the main game Atlas has very few issues IMO. The core game issues are what is ultimately going to be the downfall of this game.


#1958

They can’t stop things from happening. Their goal is to remove incentive and unless you are holding a T4 or T5 you’re shit glory to them. That removes incentive but it dosent mean it won’t happen.


#1959

But that’s part of the argument Zikiru was making: That even if you eliminated sandbagging entirely (a pipe dream, I know), it wouldn’t resolve this issue for Atlas. Diamond teams would still be able to come in and kick over the sandcastles of the little kids, whenever they wanted to.

And this means that rather than a war game where teams fight opponents they’re somewhat matched against (say, within-league), or even where allied teams fight other, similarly-matched alliances, you get a scenario where nothing matters except who has the biggest “sponsor” teams willing to join in.