These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Decline in numbers... starting to turn into RAPID!!!

First post
Author
King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3801 - 2016-01-15 19:34:55 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
King Aires wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
King Aires wrote:



Or you can't freaking read

You see, I said its been stable. That other guy said alts have all left the game.

Thanks for helping prove me right, even when you didn't mean to.


lol

King Aires wrote:
Too bad CCP has already stated the number of accounts per unique email/ip/credit card or other identifier has increased.



And it has increased, since 2006. You wanna talk about a little dip from 1.65 to 1.5 over the last couple months of that graph good for you.

But you are still making my point. Last time I checked 1.5 is more than 1.35 right? Thought so big guy


You are making your own point now. We are talking about slightly different things.



The game had its greatest numbers when accounts per person was lower than it is today.

Therefore, you have no point.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3802 - 2016-01-15 20:16:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
King Aires wrote:
And it has increased, since 2006. You wanna talk about a little dip from 1.65 to 1.5 over the last couple months of that graph good for you.

But you are still making my point. Last time I checked 1.5 is more than 1.35 right? Thought so big guy

You really need to look up what the numbers actually are before trying to use them way you're doing.

There is no dip from 1.65 to 1.5; there is no increase from 1.35 to 1.5.

They are the upper and lower bound and the midpoint of a band estimate. Yes, 1.5 is higher than 1.35 but that is a pointless tautology since the midpoint must be higher than the lower bound. It tells you absolutely nothing about the historical development. What the numbers are saying is that it would be highly improbable that the number of accounts per player would be higher than 1.65 or lower than 1.35. A standard bell-curve distribution suggests that it would be highly probable that the average is close to 1.5. It is this average and its high probability that has remained stable.

Quote:
The game had its greatest numbers when accounts per person was lower than it is today.
What numbers at what dates are you basing this on?
King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3803 - 2016-01-15 20:28:12 UTC
Tippia wrote:
King Aires wrote:
And it has increased, since 2006. You wanna talk about a little dip from 1.65 to 1.5 over the last couple months of that graph good for you.

But you are still making my point. Last time I checked 1.5 is more than 1.35 right? Thought so big guy

You really need to look up what the numbers actually are before trying to use them way you're doing.

There is no dip from 1.65 to 1.5; there is no increase from 1.35 to 1.5.

They are the upper and lower bound and the midpoint of a band estimate. Yes, 1.5 is higher than 1.35 but that is a pointless tautology since the midpoint must be higher than the lower bound. It tells you absolutely nothing about the historical development. What the numbers are saying is that it would be highly improbable that the number of accounts per player would be higher than 1.65 or lower than 1.35. A standard bell-curve distribution suggests that it would be highly probable that the average is close to 1.5. It is this average and its high probability that has remained stable.

Quote:
The game had its greatest numbers when accounts per person was lower than it is today.
What numbers at what dates are you basing this on?


You are not even looking at the graph from CCP are you?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3804 - 2016-01-15 20:31:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
King Aires wrote:
You are not even looking at the graph from CCP are you?

You're not reading the text on the graph or the description of it (and the numbers you're quoting), are you?

It's a very simple question: what numbers at what dates are you basing your claim on?
King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3805 - 2016-01-15 20:36:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
King Aires wrote:
You are not even looking at the graph from CCP are you?

You're not reading the text on the graph or the description of it (and the numbers you're quoting), are you?

It's a very simple question: what numbers at what dates are you basing your claim on?



Hilariously thick of you. I read the text, did you?

1.35 is the lowest number they had from 2006 to 2015. 1.65 is the highest number. median was 1.5

The graph itself shows their tracking of the median, which today is 1.5

Having a moment aren't you?
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM Defensive Initiative
#3806 - 2016-01-15 20:41:03 UTC
If anyone knows how many active, paying accounts there were, and how much of those were alt accounts, its probably only CCP. The PCU count is indicative how active players can be. For me, Making ISK in game is easier than ever, and I dont need to stay as long in the game as earlier. With more players feeling the same, the PCU counts would drop, but It would not even be indicative of actual number of paying accounts.

We can only speculate, and that is a reason why this thread goes for so long.

CCP laughing their buttocks off while some of us panic.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3807 - 2016-01-15 21:05:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
King Aires wrote:
Hilariously thick of you.

Answer the question: what numbers at what dates are you basing your claim on?

Can you do that?

Quote:
1.35 is the lowest number they had from 2006 to 2015. 1.65 is the highest number. median was 1.5
No. You have fundamentally misunderstood every single number quoted and drawn hilariously ignorant conclusions form your ridiculous error. I'm hoping that this is because you didn't read the actual text and just heard the numbers second-hand, and not as a result of your not understanding what was said.

Here. I'll quote the original source for you:
CCP Quant wrote:
I have in front of me an interval of the number of accounts per player in EVE Online. "An interval? You mean you don't know?" you may ask... well email isn't a proper player identifier since back in the days we comically blocked attempts at making accounts on existing email addresses :) This is why we have to do some guesswork for estimating the upper limit, with the accounts per unique email being the lower one.

[…]

The lower bound is 1.35 and the upper bound is 1.65, putting the mid point at 1.50, which has been pretty stable for the past decade or so.


Lower bound. Upper bound. Mid point. He is talking about an interval with those being the upper and lower bound of what the numbers could possibly be — actual data points that have changed with time and where the upper bound was itself a bit of a guess — with an estimate that the actual number lies right in the middle of the two. If you had actually bothered to read the graph, you would have seen that the highest midpoint during the period was juuust slightly over 1.5; the lowest was a bit lower than 1.35.

For your further humili… education, look at this annotated version of the graph, where I have sketched in the 1.35–1.65 interval across the entire period (greyed out area), the current and past upper bound (green), the current and past lower bound (red), and the estimated mid point with a ±0.15 area on both sides (blue shading). Note how the highest historical number never even comes close to 1.65. Note how the lowest historical number is a fair bit lower than 1.35.

Now. You were saying something about being thick?
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#3808 - 2016-01-15 21:26:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Lucas Kell wrote:
Honestly, I think we're in a "shift to maintenance only" phase.


You don't risk overhauling the core engine and reskinning all the old assets when you're moving to maintenance phase. What we're seeing is a necessary, but painful, period of investment in EVE.

For contrast, look at World of Warcraft: despite the fact that they've introduced flying, they aren't updating the engine underneath so that mobs can react to flying players (except for the newly introduced ones) and they aren't updating old assets like the whatsit elfy city--Silverymoon?--despite the fact that it looks absolutely terrible from above because of shortcuts they had to take a decade ago.

That is what maintenance mode looks like.

As for Valkyrie, all you have to do is remember the wisdom against keeping all your eggs in one basket. CCP has gotten away with being a one-hit wonder for a very long time, but especially now that EVE is under construction they need to diversify. And they want a firm and early stake in the new shiny, which is VR.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#3809 - 2016-01-15 21:33:33 UTC
EVE is being more intensively updated than at any time since Apocrypha. In fact I'd point as far back to Revelations for a similar rate of change and updates. The players of most MMOs can only dream of such a "maintanence mode" a month after launch .

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#3810 - 2016-01-15 21:40:58 UTC
Back in the Summer of Rage we yelled at CCP for not fixing their **** and told them to "spend 5 damb years just making it work".

That is, largely, what they've done in the nearly 5 years since. Feature after feature has been rebalanced and reworked, and less visibly, but equally importantly the underlying code behind each has been refactored. In the last year, the balance has started to tilt more towards new ships, new space and new mechanics. Citadels are due out in the next few months. I rather suspect we'll see those player built stargates this year too. The Drifter storyline is quite evidently foreshadowing some really major events and changes in the geography of the game.

If this is "maintanence mode", God save me from real development. I'm an old man, and I have to go to work, and I can barely keep up with the pace of change in EVE as it is. For the first time in nearly 4 years I have a skillqueue with more than one skill I actually want. In my 10th year of EVE, I'm actually having to prioritise my training again.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3811 - 2016-01-15 21:41:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
King Aires wrote:
Hilariously thick of you.

Answer the question: what numbers at what dates are you basing your claim on?

Can you do that?

Quote:
1.35 is the lowest number they had from 2006 to 2015. 1.65 is the highest number. median was 1.5
No. You have fundamentally misunderstood every single number quoted and drawn hilariously ignorant conclusions form your ridiculous error. I'm hoping that this is because you didn't read the actual text and just heard the numbers second-hand, and not as a result of your not understanding what was said.

Here. I'll quote the original source for you:
CCP Quant wrote:
I have in front of me an interval of the number of accounts per player in EVE Online. "An interval? You mean you don't know?" you may ask... well email isn't a proper player identifier since back in the days we comically blocked attempts at making accounts on existing email addresses :) This is why we have to do some guesswork for estimating the upper limit, with the accounts per unique email being the lower one.

[…]

The lower bound is 1.35 and the upper bound is 1.65, putting the mid point at 1.50, which has been pretty stable for the past decade or so.


Lower bound. Upper bound. Mid point. He is talking about an interval with those being the upper and lower bound of what the numbers could possibly be — actual data points that have changed with time and where the upper bound was itself a bit of a guess — with an estimate that the actual number lies right in the middle of the two. If you had actually bothered to read the graph, you would have seen that the highest midpoint during the period was juuust slightly over 1.5; the lowest was a bit lower than 1.35.

For your further humili… education, look at this annotated version of the graph, where I have sketched in the 1.35–1.65 interval across the entire period (greyed out area), the current and past upper bound (green), the current and past lower bound (red), and the estimated mid point with a ±0.15 area on both sides (blue shading). Note how the highest historical number never even comes close to 1.65. Note how the lowest historical number is a fair bit lower than 1.35.

Now. You were saying something about being thick?


You went to a lot of work to look really silly.

Anyone, anywhere with any kind of education would clearly look at that graph and say that historically the number of accounts per player have remained stable to increased over time.

No one could look at that graph and say "Voila, theres the missing player numbers"

You make me sad at how much effort you put into trying to muddy this discussion up simply because you were wrong in the first place.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3812 - 2016-01-15 21:45:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
King Aires wrote:
You went to a lot of work to look really silly.

You still can't answer the question, can you? What numbers at what dates are you basing your claim on?

Quote:
Anyone, anywhere with any kind of education would clearly look at that graph and say that historically
…the midpoint has been lower than the supposed “lower bound” (that you believe to represent the lowest measurement) which is impossible, and which is a complete misinterpretation of what the number actually represents. Unlike you, they'd also understand that upper and lower bound is not the highest and lowest measurements, but rather what the names suggest: bounds. The limits of an interval, where the estimate cannot be higher and lower than that limit.

They'd look at the explanation and see how these bounds are found: using guesses for the upper bound and a wholly insufficient unique email count for the lower one. From this they'd understand that these are not numbers that will actually represent the number of accounts in any way.

You don't understand the graph. You don't understand the terminology. You don't understand the numbers. If you would like to apologise for your pathetic missteps and subsequent abuse, you can do so now. Preferably while answering the very simple question.

Quote:
No one could look at that graph and say "Voila, theres the missing player numbers"
Who's saying anything of the kind, other than you, just now?
King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3813 - 2016-01-15 21:53:48 UTC
Tippia wrote:
King Aires wrote:
You went to a lot of work to look really silly.

You still can't answer the question, can you? What numbers at what dates are you basing your claim on?

Quote:
Anyone, anywhere with any kind of education would clearly look at that graph and say that historically
…the midpoint has been lower than the supposed “lower bound” (that you believe to represent the lowest measurement) which is impossible, and which is a complete misinterpretation of what the number actually represents. Unlike you, they'd also understand that upper and lower bound is not the highest and lowest measurements, but rather what the names suggest: bounds. The limits of an interval, where the estimate cannot be higher and lower than that limit.

They'd look at the explanation and see how these bounds are found: using guesses for the upper bound and a wholly insufficient unique email count for the lower one.

You don't understand the graph. You don't understand the terminology. You don't understand the numbers. If you would like to apologise for your pathetic missteps and subsequent abuse, you can do so now. Preferably while answering the very simple question.

Quote:
No one could look at that graph and say "Voila, theres the missing player numbers"
Who's saying anything of the kind, other than you, just now?



Even if everything I said was wrong. You are basically saying there has been stability in the ratio of accounts per player right?

Ok, so if there is stability, then this https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6279322#post6279322 is complete hogwash. Which is exactly what I was talking about before you came here with some voodoo magic math where you still can't comprehend that in 2006 CCP "estimated" there was less accounts than today.

What else is that graph showing over time? Do you think you might be very wrong and that current upper and lower bounds are not the same as the ones from 10 years ago? Did you read the other 20 posts from Quant in his "guess how many accounts per player we have" thread?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3814 - 2016-01-15 21:59:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
King Aires wrote:
Even if everything I said was wrong. You are basically saying there has been stability in the ratio of accounts per player right?

No.

I'm basically asking you a very very very very simple question, which in spite of its staggering simplicity, you are utterly incapable of answering: what numbers at what dates are you basing your claim on?

Quote:
Do you think you might be very wrong and that current upper and lower bounds are not the same as the ones from 10 years ago?
The only one who thinks they're the same is you. That's why you have proven yourself incapable of taking part in this conversation: because the quoted lower bound is higher than midpoint was back in 2006. This inherently means that the lower bound can't be the same now as they were in the past. It certainly can be what you believe — a minimum measured over that period — as opposed to what it actually is: the lower bound for the last measurement.
King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3815 - 2016-01-15 23:51:19 UTC  |  Edited by: King Aires
Tippia wrote:
King Aires wrote:
Even if everything I said was wrong. You are basically saying there has been stability in the ratio of accounts per player right?

No.

I'm basically asking you a very very very very simple question, which in spite of its staggering simplicity, you are utterly incapable of answering: what numbers at what dates are you basing your claim on?

Quote:
Do you think you might be very wrong and that current upper and lower bounds are not the same as the ones from 10 years ago?
The only one who thinks they're the same is you. That's why you have proven yourself incapable of taking part in this conversation: because the quoted lower bound is higher than midpoint was back in 2006. This inherently means that the lower bound can't be the same now as they were in the past. It certainly can be what you believe — a minimum measured over that period — as opposed to what it actually is: the lower bound for the last measurement.



First to answer your question. The graph from CCP Quant is where I am getting my numbers from.

Second to retort your assertion that the graph is anything other than its very title. Average accounts per player over time. It clearly is labeled as such. Yes Quant talks about bounds, and estimation accuracy. But the graph and the number he gave 1.5, is a firm average. The graph itself clearly shows CCPs best estimate as to the number of accounts per unique player using any and all of the methods of measuring they have available.

http://i.imgur.com/hHxSS0B.png

All the other stuff you are talking about doesn't change what that graph is. Is it a simplification, probably. But It is the data they provided us, and as you yourself have said, only CCP would know.

Quant specifically says that the lower bound you speak of is the accounts per email. 1.35, the upper bound is a algorithm of various methods of calculating. They came up with 1.5 as the average. That is as of September 2015. Using that same method they calculated the average over time. The lower bound in 2006 wasn't 1.35, who knows what it was, Quant doesn't say. But the average in 2006 according to Quant and the graph was 1.35. Again, the graph tracks averages over time, nothing at all to do with bounds (the method for their calculation)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3816 - 2016-01-16 00:00:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
King Aires wrote:
First to answer your question. The graph from CCP Quant is where I am getting my numbers from.
That doesn't answer my question: what numbers at what dates are you basing your claim on?

What numbers?
At what dates?

Quote:
Second to retort your assertion that the graph is anything other than its very title.
That is not my assertion, so what you're doing here is creating a strawman.

Quote:
Yes Quant talks about bounds, and estimation accuracy.
…and then you go on to misquote the numbers he provide as something they're not, so even if your answer above actually applied to my questions, your proven inability to read and understand the graph, to understand the numbers it provides, and to even grasp the terminology put any such sweeping claim into question.

Hence my question: what numbers at what dates? Be specific.
King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3817 - 2016-01-16 00:05:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
King Aires wrote:
First to answer your question. The graph from CCP Quant is where I am getting my numbers from.
That doesn't answer my question: what numbers at what dates are you basing your claim on?

What numbers?
At what dates?


I don't know how much clearer I can make it and in what language you want to hear it in.

CCP Quant posted the image, of a graph with average accounts per player over the course of 2006 through 2015.

In that graph we have a gradual rise. Period. If you can't comprehend the idea of averages over time in a simple x y graph format, then you have no business arguing your senselessness here.

I know its what you do, you grind everything into minutia until someone gives up. So here is me giving up. Take the graph, and your argument and convince yourself it means something other than the point I was making.

Alt account elimination is not the cause of the player number drops, period.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3818 - 2016-01-16 00:09:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
King Aires wrote:
I don't know how much clearer I can make it and in what language you want to hear it in.

It's very clear already: you can't provide any numbers. You can't provide any dates. You can only provide a graph that you have proven you do not understand, quoting numbers you have proven you don't understand — both of which only tell half of the story you're trying to convey.

Your assertion is based on nothing.

Quote:
I know its what you do, you grind everything into minutia until someone gives up.
No. I keep pressing for answers until they give them or they admit — tacitly or explicitly — that they can't. It's not a matter of minutiae, because the questions I ask are very simple, as are the answers I'm asking for. Yes, I generally want a bit of precision because it's usually the complete absence of precision that makes me ask the question to begin with, but there's a difference between the two. Minutiae is pointless and silly; precision shows that you've actually thought about what you're saying.
Reiisha
#3819 - 2016-01-16 00:12:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Reiisha
Mithandra wrote:


Lucas Kell wrote:


Jenn aSide wrote:


Reiisha wrote:


Heck, i'll just post it again.

EVE needs more active game systems and less passive game systems.

Unless something is done about the way the current systems work (you don't need to actually be online to operate most of them), new players will see empty space, game mechanics which require little to no input and as a result, not a lot of actual activity for them to engage in.


*snip*



*snip*



*snip*



Seems this concept is somewhat misunderstood, so let me clarify.

Active systems are systems that need interaction of the player to continue. As boring as mining it, it is an active system. So is combat (PvE and PvP), obviously.

Passive systems are systems which need little to no interaction of the player, and continue while they are offline. Prime examples are industry, research, planetary interaction, the market, POS and (sadly) sovereignty for the most part (due to the activity window).

The passive systems enable the active ones to happen, and vice versa.

However, currently the balance is tipped toward passive systems as the dominant way to 'progress' and be productive while online. And, because they don't require you to be online all that much to begin with, you will see less people online at a time.

The online percentage of the game (PCU vs total active accounts) used to be pretty near 15%, but it has steadily dropped to around or below 10 over the years. Add to this the massive pushes of CCP for people to get alt accounts, and you can start to see the problem.

Currently, EVE has roughly as many subscribers as it had in 2009 (~330k). However, the PCU in 2009 was consistently ABOVE 45k, reaching peaks of 55k (roughly 50k average). However, over 2015, the PCU has consistently stayed BELOW 45k (roughly 35k average).

Now ask yourself, why are players online much less when the amount of subscriptions is similar? The blue donut is an obvious cause, but the passive systems which enable it to exist in the first place seem a much more likely culprit.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3820 - 2016-01-16 00:12:53 UTC  |  Edited by: King Aires
Tippia wrote:
King Aires wrote:
I don't know how much clearer I can make it and in what language you want to hear it in.

It's very clear already: you can't provide any numbers. You can't provide any dates. You can only provide a graph that you have proven you do not understand, quoting numbers you have proven you don't understand — both of which only tell half of the story you're trying to convey.

Your assertion is based on nothing.


2006, start of the year. Average accounts per player on that graph is between 1.25 and 1.5
2015, September. Average accounts per player on that graph is at or slightly above 1.5

The graph is titled "Accounts per Player Estimate"

And you keep asking for something I have given you 3 times now, all the while arguing over the meaning of upper and lower bounds which has nothing to do with a graph of raw averages. Typical Tippia.