These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Alphas and F2P Have Failed

Author
marVLs
#201 - 2017-03-12 22:43:08 UTC
I think it's time for starting to develop EVE Second with completely new technology and todays standards but it needs to be very ambitious project (like Star Citizen)
Austin Blythe
Doomheim
#202 - 2017-03-13 00:43:56 UTC
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
EvE players, clearly, don't want safety. They've been leaving and new players aren't coming in to replace them.
It's not because the current generation coming into online games has too short of an attention span to get into it.
EvE is marketed as the cold, dark dystopian game where choices matter and you're never safe once you undock.
That has become more false over the last 10 years. Compared to 2007 EvE, this game is bland and safe.


You think accounts logged in are at low to middle five figures because new players log in for the first time and think, "Hmm, this doesn't feel as dangerous as I thought it would"?

Nope nope nope. It's because it's old and niche. It's because of the way you control your ship. It's because the UI is a hot mess of windows. It's because the EVE universe is basically a network of instanced desktop wallpapers that you can fly around in. It's because almost everything takes so damn long. It's because of everything that makes that infamous learning curve graph so true.

I still enjoy it, most of the time. But the number of people who'll enjoy this game in today's market is adequately reflected in the PCU.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#203 - 2017-03-13 02:58:51 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

It is called learning by doing or trial-and-error. You make a mistake and learn from that mistake. It is a self-correcting process. If you take away that process people cannot learn. They cannot learn that prudence trumps imprudence. It is a good thing when you think about it for awhile.

And for new players the analysis by CCP suggests that when they are killed they tend to stay longer and that it is quite rare, at least for suicide ganks.

Might want to have a chat with your friends if they are getting repeatedly ganked while still new. If it is true, then they are doing something very imprudent...repeatedly.


I'm not suggesting taking away that process but there is certainly some improvements to the way it unfolds in the early part of the game if the name is player retention - ultimately the figures tell a story no matter what romanticised version of it CCP comes up with or philosophical bs some players come out with.

I've offered a lot of advice and support but there is only so much you can do when someone is faced with both the steep learning curve of Eve and possibly negative interactions with other players - those that have persisted have tended to be the ones that haven't been ganked early on - in some cases that might be because they are smarter, quicker on the uptake or more persistent but in some cases its just luck and/or the path they happened to chose avoided it.

Teckos Pech wrote:

Exactly. If they are going to be idiots in HS and then get ganked for it and not learn from it, I fail to see how that is my problem and not their problem.


Well ultimately it comes down to whether Eve can afford to lose those players who take a bit longer to get upto speed than others - ultimately the game is in a much better places the more active and the more invested into it is. I'm not really a fan of the attitude of who should and shouldn't play the game, maybe their involvement in some parts of the game.


No you are wrong.

First off, new players should not be out there booming around in freighters. If they are they are being very imprudent and foolish and that should not be rewarded. Second, again looking at the CCP presentation new players who are suicide ganked or even killed legally tend to stay longer. There could be a type of selection bias here, but the evidence does not show that shooting new players is bad for retention. Third trial-and-error only works when you let players make errors. Remove the ability to make errors, or reduce the costs of making errors and they either are not a method for learning or they stop being errors.

And interactions with other players is what seems to keep people engaged with the game. Both negative and positive interactions. At least that is my view. Trying to limit negative interactions means you limit interactions and on an arbitrary basis and in a way that may end up rewarding players being imprudent and foolish. Once that kind of protection ends it will likely be bad. A player wondering why his foolishness was not costly and suddenly now is costly? Just make it costly from the beginning.

As for keeping players, if you decide that keeping players at any and all costs is the route to go I think you'll end up being ******. Eventually many of the current players will quite. I'd quite. My guess is Daichi, Jonah, Jenn, Torin, Nana, Cade, Scipio, Shae, Linus and many others would quit. You might keep some new players, but a large portion of the long time paying customers would walk. If HS became "locked at safeties green" I'd have to seriously reconsider my financial support for the game. That is some salty nonsense, it is simply a statement of fact. I like playing a game where no matter where I go or what I do there is an element of danger. Take that away and my interest is largely gone.

Or let me put it this way: the idea of making the game safer appears to be costing CCP many long term players. And it does not seem to be resulting in many new subs/players. In fact, the professional ganking groups that have arisen and the HS terrorists that are CODE. maybe be exacerbating the problem....but that is entirely the result of CCPs own blinkered policies.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#204 - 2017-03-13 02:59:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Austin Blythe wrote:

I still enjoy it, most of the time. But the number of people who'll enjoy this game in today's market is adequately reflected in the PCU.

Or you know, it's because MMO's in general are far less popular, and EVE probably has a larger percent of the MMO market than it did five or ten years ago.
MOBA's are massively taking over what used to be the MMO market area.

It's nothing to do with the tech level of EVE (which is great).

Also, everyone stop misquoting CCP. Ganking players does not make them stay longer. CCP noticed that players who stayed longer tended to be more likely to have had some kind of PvP yes, but correlation does not make for causation.
End of the day socially engaging players is what makes them stay above any other factor.
mkint
#205 - 2017-03-13 03:07:02 UTC
marVLs wrote:
I think it's time for starting to develop EVE Second with completely new technology and todays standards but it needs to be very ambitious project (like Star Citizen)

This has been a dumb idea since people have been saying it since the year EVE came out. What they need to do is what they have been doing. Gradually replacing, piece by piece, the parts of the game that are developmental dead ends. What's up with people who don't understand how online gaming works? They seem to think everything needs sequels. Sequels are never for the consumer, they are so studios can sell you the same thing all over again without having to do anything new for it. And then dumbasses go ahead and pre-order because they don't understand how digital distribution works.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#206 - 2017-03-13 03:15:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Teckos Pech wrote:
Rroff wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

HS is relatively safe. It is not safe if you want to be a complete idiot.


It is relatively safe for someone like myself with 1000s of hours and multiple characters into the game - I rarely get ganked unless I get complacent or someone takes their time to study and target me specifically. For many new players though that isn't the case - many are easy prey and fed on by the bottom feeders - 4 out of 5 people that I've tried to get into the game and have quit have cited being ganked, usually more than once, before they could understand the game being the primary reason and that is after I've tried to guide them around the main pitfalls.

Personally though I'm not a big fan of making highsec too safe I like the potential and challenges that it can bring.


It is called learning by doing or trial-and-error. You make a mistake and learn from that mistake. It is a self-correcting process. If you take away that process people cannot learn. They cannot learn that prudence trumps imprudence. It is a good thing when you think about it for awhile.

And for new players the analysis by CCP suggests that when they are killed they tend to stay longer and that it is quite rare, at least for suicide ganks.

Might want to have a chat with your friends if they are getting repeatedly ganked while still new. If it is true, then they are doing something very imprudent.
]
You don't understand because you lack a basic understanding of economics. I'm no economist myself but I do understand that a monetary unit is directly related to the work required to buy something costing that monetary unit at the bottom end.

The cost of battleships has doubled but the time required to earn an isk has dropped by double that increase so its still twice as easy to buy one now than it was back then.

Given battleships are no longer used anyway that point is moot however it still translates to other ships. You can earn 60 million an hour in an anom easily, so it takes an hour to pay back a fit SB and still have 20 mill change. In the past it would take a lot longer to earn that back as well as significant investment repairing sec, remember work is cost too.

I don't think you're entirely stupid I think you're one of those people who refuse to understand because you equate conceding a point as an E-weakness and you're heavily invested in being an E-pirate.

Good luck with that :)

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#207 - 2017-03-13 04:55:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Infinity Ziona wrote:

You don't understand because you lack a basic understanding of economics. I'm no economist myself....


What makes this totally ******* hilarious is...I am a ******* economist. I would have thought my signature gave it away, but with you I guess not.

Quote:
....but I do understand that a monetary unit is directly related to the work required to buy something costing that monetary unit at the bottom end.

If the cost of battleships has doubled which it has but the time required to earn an isk has quadrupled which it has then its still twice as easy to buy one now than it was back then.


No dope it is twice as hard. Here let me help your stupid ass...

Price of BS = 2x.

Time required to purchase a BS = 4x.

Then the time to buy has doubled: that is--4x/2x = (4/2)*x = 2*x.

In other words it is twice as hard. You have it exactly backwards.

Quote:
Given battleships are no longer used anyway that point is moot however it still translates to other ships. You can earn 60 million an hour in an anom easily, so it takes an hour to pay back a fit SB and still have 20 mill change. In the past it would take a lot longer to earn that back as well as significant investment repairing sec, remember work is cost too.


Sure, but you still have sunk 40 minutes of that hour into the SB. And while you are earning that SB you cannot be simultaneously ganking either.

Quote:
I don't think you're entirely stupid I think you're one of those people who refuse to understand because you equate conceding a point as an E-weakness and you're heavily invested in being an E-pirate.


Your problem is you just can't see what you cannot see--i.e. you lack imagination. My post a few pages back on this describes your problem. I am not going to go over it again because that is casting pearls before swine. My guess is some at CCP are looking at this thread and between my posts and your posts they are going to side with me. Because CCP employees are not dumb....after all every time they have nerfed ganking they appear to have stealthed buffed it indirectly. As CCP Fozzie put it, every time they nerf something they like to buff something else to keep the balance. Why is it that the amount you can move without fear of gank now is about the same as it was in 2008?

Here is a hint: CCP are not your friends. Every time you think they hand you a nerf, they are bending you over and ass ******* you in some other area of the game. Which is why you and dopes like you keep having to come back to the forums and whine and whine and whine.

Perhaps if you focused on shoring up your game play vs. trying to have CCP cut everyone else's game play you'd end up better off. Oh who am I kidding you are the champion of morons and ignoramii. You'll always be here whining and complaining because you have nothing else.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Hakawai
State War Academy
Caldari State
#208 - 2017-03-13 06:16:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakawai
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Also, everyone stop misquoting CCP. Ganking players does not make them stay longer. CCP noticed that players who stayed longer tended to be more likely to have had some kind of PvP yes, but correlation does not make for causation.

Thanks for pointing this out. I questioned this a while ago and starting thinking I was the only person on these forums who can tell the difference between correlation and causation :)

I never did get a link to any useful source material, but someone (but IIRC one of the forums "unreliable narrators" so even if I remember correctly the numbers and context may be wrong :) said that they'd looked at a lot (80K?) of trials, and those that had "been killed by another player" before the end of the two-week trial were more likely to stay.

It's clearly not evidence that losing a T1/T1 frigate to a "fun-vampire" in a much stronger ship makes people stay. IMO the first thing to check would be whether an early PVP loss is a proxy for "social PvP" (e.g. trying stuff out with friends or members of the same Corp).

Nevyn Auscent wrote:
End of the day socially engaging players is what makes them stay above any other factor.

Indeed.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#209 - 2017-03-13 06:30:24 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I thought we were talking about CCP and F2P...

Yeah, sorry.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Hakawai
State War Academy
Caldari State
#210 - 2017-03-13 06:39:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakawai
Infinity Ziona wrote:
You don't understand because you lack a basic understanding of economics. I'm no economist myself but I do understand that a monetary unit is directly related to the work required to buy something costing that monetary unit at the bottom end.

If the cost of battleships has doubled which it has but the time required to earn an isk has quadrupled which it has then its still twice as easy to buy one now than it was back then.

Given battleships are no longer used anyway that point is moot however it still translates to other ships. You can earn 60 million an hour in an anom easily, so it takes an hour to pay back a fit SB and still have 20 mill change. In the past it would take a lot longer to earn that back as well as significant investment repairing sec, remember work is cost too.

I don't think you're entirely stupid I think you're one of those people who refuse to understand because you equate conceding a point as an E-weakness and you're heavily invested in being an E-pirate.

Good luck with that :)

There's a typo in this that should probably be fixed: you clearly meant "earn ISK four times as fast", or "earn ISK in a quarter of the time" or something similar.

The intended meaning is obvious to anyone who actually reads the post, but that's not something you can safely assume here :)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#211 - 2017-03-13 07:45:53 UTC
Hakawai wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
You don't understand because you lack a basic understanding of economics. I'm no economist myself but I do understand that a monetary unit is directly related to the work required to buy something costing that monetary unit at the bottom end.

If the cost of battleships has doubled which it has but the time required to earn an isk has quadrupled which it has then its still twice as easy to buy one now than it was back then.

Given battleships are no longer used anyway that point is moot however it still translates to other ships. You can earn 60 million an hour in an anom easily, so it takes an hour to pay back a fit SB and still have 20 mill change. In the past it would take a lot longer to earn that back as well as significant investment repairing sec, remember work is cost too.

I don't think you're entirely stupid I think you're one of those people who refuse to understand because you equate conceding a point as an E-weakness and you're heavily invested in being an E-pirate.

Good luck with that :)

There's a typo in this that should probably be fixed: you clearly meant "earn ISK four times as fast", or "earn ISK in a quarter of the time" or something similar.

The intended meaning is obvious to anyone who actually reads the post, but that's something you can safely assume here :)


Yup lol. Fixed

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#212 - 2017-03-13 07:51:25 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

You don't understand because you lack a basic understanding of economics. I'm no economist myself....


What makes this totally ******* hilarious is...I am a ******* economist. I would have thought my signature gave it away, but with you I guess not.

Quote:
....but I do understand that a monetary unit is directly related to the work required to buy something costing that monetary unit at the bottom end.

If the cost of battleships has doubled which it has but the time required to earn an isk has quadrupled which it has then its still twice as easy to buy one now than it was back then.


No dope it is twice as hard. Here let me help your stupid ass...

Price of BS = 2x.

Time required to purchase a BS = 4x.

Then the time to buy has doubled: that is--4x/2x = (4/2)*x = 2*x.

In other words it is twice as hard. You have it exactly backwards.

Quote:
Given battleships are no longer used anyway that point is moot however it still translates to other ships. You can earn 60 million an hour in an anom easily, so it takes an hour to pay back a fit SB and still have 20 mill change. In the past it would take a lot longer to earn that back as well as significant investment repairing sec, remember work is cost too.


Sure, but you still have sunk 40 minutes of that hour into the SB. And while you are earning that SB you cannot be simultaneously ganking either.

Quote:
I don't think you're entirely stupid I think you're one of those people who refuse to understand because you equate conceding a point as an E-weakness and you're heavily invested in being an E-pirate.


Your problem is you just can't see what you cannot see--i.e. you lack imagination. My post a few pages back on this describes your problem. I am not going to go over it again because that is casting pearls before swine. My guess is some at CCP are looking at this thread and between my posts and your posts they are going to side with me. Because CCP employees are not dumb....after all every time they have nerfed ganking they appear to have stealthed buffed it indirectly. As CCP Fozzie put it, every time they nerf something they like to buff something else to keep the balance. Why is it that the amount you can move without fear of gank now is about the same as it was in 2008?

Here is a hint: CCP are not your friends. Every time you think they hand you a nerf, they are bending you over and ass ******* you in some other area of the game. Which is why you and dopes like you keep having to come back to the forums and whine and whine and whine.

Perhaps if you focused on shoring up your game play vs. trying to have CCP cut everyone else's game play you'd end up better off. Oh who am I kidding you are the champion of morons and ignoramii. You'll always be here whining and complaining because you have nothing else.

This explains the GFC....

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#213 - 2017-03-13 07:53:18 UTC
marVLs wrote:
I think it's time for starting to develop EVE Second with completely new technology and todays standards but it needs to be very ambitious project (like Star Citizen)


I better be able to import my character with skills, I don't care about the items but ill be damned on restarting from 50k sp after 12 years

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#214 - 2017-03-13 08:03:45 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

You don't understand because you lack a basic understanding of economics. I'm no economist myself....


What makes this totally ******* hilarious is...I am a ******* economist. I would have thought my signature gave it away, but with you I guess not.

Quote:
....but I do understand that a monetary unit is directly related to the work required to buy something costing that monetary unit at the bottom end.

If the cost of battleships has doubled which it has but the time required to earn an isk has quadrupled which it has then its still twice as easy to buy one now than it was back then.


No dope it is twice as hard. Here let me help your stupid ass...

Price of BS = 2x.

Time required to purchase a BS = 4x.

Then the time to buy has doubled: that is--4x/2x = (4/2)*x = 2*x.

In other words it is twice as hard. You have it exactly backwards.

Quote:
Given battleships are no longer used anyway that point is moot however it still translates to other ships. You can earn 60 million an hour in an anom easily, so it takes an hour to pay back a fit SB and still have 20 mill change. In the past it would take a lot longer to earn that back as well as significant investment repairing sec, remember work is cost too.


Sure, but you still have sunk 40 minutes of that hour into the SB. And while you are earning that SB you cannot be simultaneously ganking either.

Quote:
I don't think you're entirely stupid I think you're one of those people who refuse to understand because you equate conceding a point as an E-weakness and you're heavily invested in being an E-pirate.


Your problem is you just can't see what you cannot see--i.e. you lack imagination. My post a few pages back on this describes your problem. I am not going to go over it again because that is casting pearls before swine. My guess is some at CCP are looking at this thread and between my posts and your posts they are going to side with me. Because CCP employees are not dumb....after all every time they have nerfed ganking they appear to have stealthed buffed it indirectly. As CCP Fozzie put it, every time they nerf something they like to buff something else to keep the balance. Why is it that the amount you can move without fear of gank now is about the same as it was in 2008?

Here is a hint: CCP are not your friends. Every time you think they hand you a nerf, they are bending you over and ass ******* you in some other area of the game. Which is why you and dopes like you keep having to come back to the forums and whine and whine and whine.

Perhaps if you focused on shoring up your game play vs. trying to have CCP cut everyone else's game play you'd end up better off. Oh who am I kidding you are the champion of morons and ignoramii. You'll always be here whining and complaining because you have nothing else.

This explains the GFC....

You're also making the mistake of looking at one part of the post in isolation. As an economist you should understand one issue compounding others. As well as easier access to isk there is the added problem of more DPS and less time being spent away grinding security status.

In the old days a Megathron would be 120 mill. To fit it would cost about 30 mill. To insure it from memory around 60. That's 210 mill. From memory you would get around 120 mill. It'd require 30 to take out a freighter.

Today 12 SB at 40 mill will kill a freighter.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Mav Ahishatsu
Doomheim
#215 - 2017-03-13 08:10:33 UTC
OP is factually inaccurate:
http://northstack.is/index.php/2017/03/02/ccp-posts-record-revenues-announces-new-game/

TLDR: 20.7 million in profits in 2016, Alphas and F2P = successful.
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#216 - 2017-03-13 08:11:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Hakawai wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Also, everyone stop misquoting CCP. Ganking players does not make them stay longer. CCP noticed that players who stayed longer tended to be more likely to have had some kind of PvP yes, but correlation does not make for causation.

Thanks for pointing this out. I questioned this a while ago and starting thinking I was the only person on these forums who can tell the difference between correlation and causation :)

I never did get a link to any useful source material, but someone (but IIRC one of the forums "unreliable narrators" so even if I remember correctly the numbers and context may be wrong

Honest question here: why would anyone link anything helpful when they are constantly referred refer to as 'fun vampires', 'unreliable narrators', etc?

What would be the reason anyone would assist (after having taken the time/effort to look at the evidence themselves), when they are constantly reduced to an insult?

However, this may be what you are looking for:

https://youtu.be/A92Ge2S8M1Y?t=148

On the issue of correlation and causation, we all know this. It's one of the most cliche statements to make and allows easy dismissal of information without thinking any deeper. As an alternative, this is a very useful article:

https://medium.freecodecamp.com/if-correlation-doesnt-imply-causation-then-what-does-c74f20d26438#.shh1whbnx

From a business decision perspective, what should CCP do? Look at the evidence and make the best decision they can on the basis of it, or not try to validate anything they do and just guess?
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#217 - 2017-03-13 08:29:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Infinity Ziona wrote:


Wow...so you had too respond to me twice and yet you keep getting it wrong.



As an economist I will say this,

You do not understand the game. That what we see is only the tip of the iceberg. The rest of the iceberg is not seen it is below the water line. When you say suicide ganking is easy that is simply not true. It is not like some random group of players decide to do it. No, instead it is Miniluv, CODE. or some other group. A group that has an SRP, comms, FCs, a logistics operation to ensure there are ships in place, etc.

All of that you want to discount as meaningless and of zero cost.

This makes you a liar...a despicably lying douche bag.

And despite several rounds of nerfs to ganking here you are again saying that more nerfs are needed. And you are oblivious to the fact that CCP keeps on boning you in the butt. For every "nerf" they give you they also do you in the butt like the little bitches you are. Please CCP nerf ganking and do me in the butt again and again so I know my place as the dirty little tart I am. That is what you are Infinity Ziona. CCP's dirty little laughing stock of a butt **** that they throw out on the garbage heap after the fun of Fanfest. And you keep crawling back to them again and again, and they keep treating you like the cheap whore that you are.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#218 - 2017-03-13 08:57:43 UTC
Mav Ahishatsu wrote:
OP is factually inaccurate:
http://northstack.is/index.php/2017/03/02/ccp-posts-record-revenues-announces-new-game/

TLDR: 20.7 million in profits in 2016, Alphas and F2P = successful.

Just because CCP may have posted record profits in 2016 (SKINs, skill extractors, no more associated costs with Dust 514 and World of Darkness) does not mean F2P is actually a contributing factor. We'll see at FanFest (if they announce or release any data, that is).
TLDR: You're an idiot.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#219 - 2017-03-13 09:06:44 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
We'll see at FanFest (if they announce or release any data, that is).

This thread already declares it a failure. Why would evidence of anything actually make any difference?
Mav Ahishatsu
Doomheim
#220 - 2017-03-13 09:20:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mav Ahishatsu
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Just because CCP may have posted record profits in 2016 (SKINs, skill extractors, no more associated costs with Dust 514 and World of Darkness) does not mean F2P is actually a contributing factor.

It does, however, mean that it was not a failure, therefore "Alphas and F2P Have Failed" is a factually inaccurate statement. Also, go here (http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility) and look at the actual player count over the past five years. Notice how the player count increased to numbers that hadn't been seen since 2012 at the exact same time the game went F2P. Also, note the fact that the player count has remained above average in comparison to the 18 months prior.