Artist

Not a single MMO is centered around servers that can barely hold 70 players. Or: Name one!

And you really compare a game with clustered small servers with an mmorpg? But if you cant find a way for comparision between Atlas and CS you shouldnt talk about games in general! (hint: "content vs. mechanics")

To be honest one must be pretty naive to believe that the (usual) loud minority of forum dwellers is representative for the overall playerbase. But if you only have a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail.... Wildcard and totoally-not-Wildcard both never gave a damn about moderating and shaping their community - that pays of...not always in a positive way..

So youre saying that humans are the actual problem..??? Wow, genius at work... ?! ;)

If it would be about content I have an interesting question: What content had Counterstrike before the age of CS:GO that helped to retain its playerbase?

Yes.

Again, learn the facts about what youre talking about. You have no founded idea about ingame economy in an online game. At all. That makes pretty much everything you state futile. Sry for being frank, no offense intended.

Good news for you then: You can stop repeating yourself! Because nothing of this will turn around the tide in a significant way. Also, you need to rename your topic from "How the devs can save Atlas" to "What I WANT", because its really nothing beyond that. Theres no real undestanding of an MMO environment, gamedevelopment, marketing, etc, etc. And btw, Atlas isnt an MMO - its just a clustered server array - no matter how the devs try to brand their ..idea. I suggest some inside reads about gamedevelopment on e.g. Gamasutra before jumping to bold, but unfounded suggestions.

Anybody an idea what hes talking about? Somehow I dont get it..

4k.. lol...

Temporary small groups. Useful! Great idea! I like.

Sorry, but thats nonsense and I dont know where to start to explain. Maybe with the overall working of an "ingame economy" and the super important factor of "value influx vs. value outflow", inflation and deflation. Theres some good sources on the interwebz. If you have no understanding of those fundamentals there is no way you can make any substancial suggestion about the games economy. Problem is your suggestions would just ride the ingame economy into super inflation in no time. No offense intended.

Not needed. Mods already fill that gap.

"focused/channeled pvp" Applause! While watching countless "survival game devs" for years over years Im astonished that the core pvp mechanics are copypasted over and over again without a signifiant rethought. Base-raping mostly appeals only to a small, rather hard-core-ish, fraction of the playerbase. Might be ok, but if you want to grow your playerbase you have to cater for it to a certain degree. The whole base-raping pvp mechanic works well in a RTS-game environment - build up, fight enemy, kill base, next round. All done in 30-60mins usually. In a survival game where you have to slave days to build up to be prepared for PVP? Its not working. The result is e.g. (among lots of other examples) Arks alpha tribes that usually stall all meaningful pvp on most servers. It doesnt work and it never will. Solution: Leave player bases intact, install "pvp hotspots" over for example rare/strategical resources. Voila, you no longer throw players out of the pvp loop because their foundation for pvp (base and resources) got destroyed (often over night). Then: Install a "domination system". Declare a war, fight other groups, define winner/loser and the loser becomes the vasal of the winning group. (You can fiddle out the fine-detailed mechanics on your own. I coded it before and it works.) So there are so many possebilities, but not when you have narrow-minded developers who are hamstrung in the "survival game business." Because thats where the copypasta comes from. The survival genre needs fresh blood. Anybody up for the graps?

They even ignore any info given on the forums. Lots of people complaining about stuck servers? Zero REPLY. UNACCEPTABLE!