These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#3901 - 2016-01-17 20:32:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
Samir Duran Xadi wrote:
Numbers already down since last Sunday I think its only downhill from now on, similar to last year.

Then look at the beginning of 2008 and ask yourself: "can history repeat itself"?

ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ᴘᴀʀᴛ ᴏғ ᴀ ɢᴀᴍᴇ ʜᴇʟᴘs ᴛᴏ ᴛᴇʟʟ ᴀ sᴛᴏʀʏ 📕

ᴡʜᴇʀᴇ ɪs ᴀɴɢʀʏ ᴄᴏɴᴄᴏʀᴅ ɢᴜʏ ᴡʜᴇɴ ʏᴏᴜ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ʜɪᴍ

ᴏsᴘʀᴇʏ 🚀

≡⋁≡ ♥
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3902 - 2016-01-17 21:43:04 UTC
sero Hita wrote:
If you counted every person who has paid at least once for a subscription in EVE at some point, you would most likely get impressive numbers. And like alot of people said, it does not mean that 1.4 mill people are playing it. It is not hard to understand!!!
But then that's kinda irrelevant since E:D isn't a subscription game. Once someone has paid for it, it doesn't really matter if they play or not, in fact it saves on hardware if they don't.

sero Hita wrote:
I am getting tired of your troll like posting. you don't backup your statements, you misinterpret the data provided (Like that 62% are PVE'ers, when CCP quant clearly stated it was just based on few timepoints and not representative)
So prove that 62% aren't PvE'ers. From all the stats I've ever seen, PvE is an absolutely massive part of the game which is why I've always seen it as a bit silly they don't put more attention on it (which it seems they are planning soon).

Malcanis wrote:
i think it's yourself who is being over-simplistic here. Allow me to clarify what I'm pretty sure is Jenn's meaning.

She's not talking about minor cosmetic features like your car's dashboard. She's talking about you buying a car and trying to use it for hangliding.
No, she's not. She does this constantly and has done the same thing to me. She cannot comprehend how someone can like a game and yet have problems with some of it. Apparently we either love EVE or we hate it and we're stupid for playing a game we hate. The is no middleground when talking to people like that, but in reality there is. It's got nothing to do with your weird analogy that seems to effectively boil down to "you're playing the game wrong, how dare you have an opinion".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#3903 - 2016-01-17 21:50:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


Malcanis wrote:
i think it's yourself who is being over-simplistic here. Allow me to clarify what I'm pretty sure is Jenn's meaning.

She's not talking about minor cosmetic features like your car's dashboard. She's talking about you buying a car and trying to use it for hangliding.
No, she's not. She does this constantly and has done the same thing to me. She cannot comprehend how someone can like a game and yet have problems with some of it. Apparently we either love EVE or we hate it and we're stupid for playing a game we hate. The is no middleground when talking to people like that, but in reality there is. It's got nothing to do with your weird analogy that seems to effectively boil down to "you're playing the game wrong, how dare you have an opinion".


Maybe, maybe not.

Jenn, can you let us know if I have the right of it here?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3904 - 2016-01-17 22:02:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lucas Kell wrote:
So prove that 62% aren't PvE'ers.
It doesn't work that way.
How about you (or he) offer support for your claim that 62% are, since that's what's in question?

Quote:
From all the stats I've ever seen, PvE is an absolutely massive part of the game
What stats are those, and how do they compare to the stats for all the kinds of PvP the game has on offer?
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3905 - 2016-01-17 22:04:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
So prove that 62% aren't PvE'ers.
It doesn't work that way.
How about you offer support for your claim that 62% are, since that's what's in question?

Quote:
From all the stats I've ever seen, PvE is an absolutely massive part of the game
What stats are those, and how do they compare to the stats for all the kinds of PvP the game has on offer?


well 62% pve - 100% pvp :)

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Poddington Bare
Black Mount Industrial
Breakpoint.
#3906 - 2016-01-17 22:36:42 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
well 62% pve - 100% pvp :)


Confirming: Nobody has done both. Ever.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3907 - 2016-01-17 22:53:28 UTC
Poddington Bare wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
well 62% pve - 100% pvp :)

Confirming: Nobody has done both. Ever.

Pretty much. That's only the beginning of why Indahmawar's number is cringeworthy in its level of wilful ignorance.
Leeluvv
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3908 - 2016-01-17 23:21:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Leeluvv
Tippia wrote:
Poddington Bare wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
well 62% pve - 100% pvp :)

Confirming: Nobody has done both. Ever.

Pretty much. That's only the beginning of why Indahmawar's number is cringeworthy in its level of wilful ignorance.


Which is why the amount of actual PvE is much higher than 62%. A few hours ago we roamed through Deklein, and the entire gang didn't have enough fingers or toes to count the Ishtars and Chimeras on DScan. Oh, and please don't tell me they were PvPing.

This game is mostly PvE, which is used to fund PvP by some players. So, yes, the game has a higher percentage of PvEing than PvPing. Oddly enough, this means that an improvement to PvE will indirectly affect PvP, hence, Eve needs good PvE in order to survive.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#3909 - 2016-01-17 23:22:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Tippia wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
So prove that 62% aren't PvE'ers.
It doesn't work that way.
How about you (or he) offer support for your claim that 62% are, since that's what's in question?

It can't be proven.

The same graph that Indah (and here Lucas) are claiming proves that 62% of players are PvEers doesn't actually say that at all:

http://crossingzebras.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/segmentation_vars.png

Indah bases her figure on counting only Professionals and Aggressors as PvPers; and everyone else as PvEers.

Professionals: Just as much PvE as PvP, so can't really be classified into the PvP group exclusively
Passive: Do very little PvE or PvP, so can't really be classified into the PvE group exclusively
Socials: The amount of PvE and PvP they do is pretty comparable, so don't really fit into either group
Entrepreneurs: Largest group of primarily PvE, but still the 3rd largest amount of PvP
Aggressors: Comparable to Professionals in terms of PvP, but also as much PvE as the socials

Not one of those classifications by CCP is meant to be an exclusive classification, in that CCP hasn't classified the players into a binary PvP or PvE system, they've just classified them by what their overall activity looks like; with Professionals doing everything equally and Passives doing nothing equally.

Indah has used the social and travel activity of Socials to classify them as PvE players, yet the quantity of travel and social activity by the Aggressors is just the same. Interestingly, the amount of PvE being done by the Aggressors is also the same as the Socials.

Poddington Bare had it perfectly above. The reality of the game is that the graph shows that all groups do a mixture of activity and the whole idea that we are simply PvP or PvE is kind of silly.

It certainly doesn't say that 62% aren't interested in PvP, nor that 38% aren't interested in PvE.
Poddington Bare
Black Mount Industrial
Breakpoint.
#3910 - 2016-01-17 23:23:18 UTC
Wait a minute...we've been invaded by Brain Slugs, right?
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#3911 - 2016-01-17 23:25:31 UTC
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3912 - 2016-01-17 23:27:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Leeluvv wrote:
This game is mostly PvE, which is used to fund PvP by some players. So, yes, the game has a higher percentage of PvEing than PvPing.
Percentage of what? And where are you getting those numbers?

Scipio Artelius wrote:
It can't be proven.

[…]

It certainly doesn't say that 62% aren't interested in PvP, nor that 38% aren't interested in PvE.

Shh! You're spoiling it! 🤐

But yes. Above all, it doesn't actually show interest — only logged on-line activity, and exactly how it is tied to individual players is hidden under the very opaque statement “aggregated on a player level.” I can only really remember one data set that actually tries to capture interest, back from 2012, which showed that what players like to do differs fairly significantly from what they get to do. Curiously enough, what came out on top in terms of interest? PvP, with 75% of the surveyed enjoying it…
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3913 - 2016-01-18 00:12:46 UTC  |  Edited by: sero Hita
sero Hita wrote:
I am getting tired of your troll like posting. you don't backup your statements, you misinterpret the data provided (Like that 62% are PVE'ers, when CCP quant clearly stated it was just based on few timepoints and not representative)
Lucas Kell wrote:
So prove that 62% aren't PvE'ers. From all the stats I've ever seen, PvE is an absolutely massive part of the game which is why I've always seen it as a bit silly they don't put more attention on it (which it seems they are planning soon).


Nice logical fallacy there. I did not make a claim but was questening one, hence I don't have to prove anyting. As usual you are not reading what i write!!!!!!!!!! Read the stuff, or don't comment on my answers. Where did I claim that PVE is not a massive part of the game? I know for a fact i did not. When you look for it, you can also find a qoute where I say that I don't want PVE to be improved? I can show you I have claimed the opposite, the last part of that answer.

I did say though that indah interpretes much more from the data, than what they support. That you can hold me up on, if you want. I am not saying her conclusion could not objectively be correct though. But if the data are not good enough to make that claim, she should not. But that we will never know, due to the data to determine the objective truth will never be available.

So again you go guns blazing into a discussion claiming I have a lot of opinions I clearly do not.

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#3914 - 2016-01-18 00:21:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Tippia wrote:
Above all, it doesn't actually show interest — only logged on-line activity, and exactly how it is tied to individual players is hidden under the very opaque statement “aggregated on a player level.”

There is an additional complicating issue.

Leeluvv described above how she was in a fleet that roamed through Deklein and didn't have enough fingers to count the PvE ships. Somehow this means that more than 62% of players are PvEers.

Yet pvp fleet activities are made up of multiple elements that are recorded in different locations in that graph - travel as part of the roam, chatting in fleet chat, the fleet activity itself are all recorded outside the PvP section of the graph there, yet as players we would consider the whole roam as PvP.

The same can be said for PvE activities. The graph actually records a lot of that activity as other things.

If all the Undocking and travel in a pvp roam was moved down into the PvP area, along with the Fleet Activity, relevant amounts of the Chat Activity and data in the Connected to Others field, how different would the PvP for each group look?

Same for the PvE. How different would it look if those other categories were removed and the data distributed into either the PvP or PvE categories?

We don't know and it's even really difficult to try to estimate how the PvE and PvP sections for each group would look.

That makes it even more difficult to make such a simple overall classification of players into one of 2 groups based on that graph.
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3915 - 2016-01-18 00:27:15 UTC  |  Edited by: sero Hita
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Above all, it doesn't actually show interest — only logged on-line activity, and exactly how it is tied to individual players is hidden under the very opaque statement “aggregated on a player level.”

There is an additional complicating issue.

Leeluvv described above how she was in a fleet that roamed through Deklein and didn't have enough fingers to count the PvE ships. Somehow this means that more than 62% of players are PvEers.

Yet pvp fleet activities are made up of multiple elements that are recorded in different locations in that graph - travel as part of the roam, chatting in fleet chat, the fleet activity itself are all recorded outside the PvP section of the graph there, yet as players we would consider the whole roam as PvP.

The same can be said for PvE activities. The graph actually records a lot of that activity as other things.

If all the Undocking and travel in a pvp roam was moved down into the PvP area, along with the Fleet Activity, relevant amounts of the Chat Activity and data in the Connected to Others field, how different would the PvP for each group look?

Same for the PvE. How different would it look if those other categories were removed and the data distributed into either the PvP or PvE categories?

We don't know and it's even really difficult to try to estimate how the PvE and PvP sections for each group would look.

That makes it even more difficult to make such a simple overall classification of players into one of 2 groups.


This. Plus a some of my fleet mates are running semi afk PVE on alts, when we fly around in fleet. Meaning they would count as both a PVE'er and PVP'er making the conclusions even harder to draw.

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Amber Starview
Doomheim
#3916 - 2016-01-18 00:33:30 UTC
Can't you guys just accept some like pvp and some like pve ....at the end we are all players and should stand together to improve both sides of the game as obviously both types of playstyle are used by many many players

Back on the topic of numbers I think it's been fairly high lately 35k ish
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#3917 - 2016-01-18 00:39:02 UTC
So is AFK cloaking as a red in renter space while you go down the pub PvE? or PvP? or both? or something else entirely ?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#3918 - 2016-01-18 00:39:35 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


Malcanis wrote:
i think it's yourself who is being over-simplistic here. Allow me to clarify what I'm pretty sure is Jenn's meaning.

She's not talking about minor cosmetic features like your car's dashboard. She's talking about you buying a car and trying to use it for hangliding.
No, she's not. She does this constantly and has done the same thing to me. She cannot comprehend how someone can like a game and yet have problems with some of it. Apparently we either love EVE or we hate it and we're stupid for playing a game we hate. The is no middleground when talking to people like that, but in reality there is. It's got nothing to do with your weird analogy that seems to effectively boil down to "you're playing the game wrong, how dare you have an opinion".


Maybe, maybe not.

Jenn, can you let us know if I have the right of it here?


Perfectly well said.

As for the rest of this discussion, it's simply the same old conflict between the people who actually like EVE, and those who NEED It to be dying so they can use it as a lever to get CCP to change the game more to their liking. To CCPs credit they have mostly ignored such people for the entire life of this game.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#3919 - 2016-01-18 00:48:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
So is AFK cloaking as a red in renter space while you go down the pub PvE? or PvP? or both? or something else entirely ?

:)

Actually, if they are in a fleet to give the impression that they are ready to light a cyno at anytime, then that fleet activity would be recorded under the social section and they'd potentially be classed as a Social player, if the only other activity they did regularly was undock and/or travel in order to cloak and go AFK.

Hard to imagine that you could be classed as one of the Social players while totally AFK, but a perfect example of how silly it is to try to classify players as PvE or PvP from that graph.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#3920 - 2016-01-18 00:53:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
King Aires wrote:


Problem is Jenn has expressed that people who would rather not PVP in this game should leave and find another.

Which is no less ridiculous a statement than "people who would rather not PVE in this game should leave and find another"

This game has PVP, this game has PVE. There is both here, each feeds and drives the other, a ying/yang kinda thing.

So Jenn to insinuate those here for the PVE don't like the game is no different than some crazy guy saying if you don't PVE you should leave too.

Jenn, and others like him should concern themselves less about what people like and don't and concern themselves more with playing the game and letting others do the same.


This is stupid, I have never said "if you would rather not pvp you should leave".

I have said that If you cannot accept the objective fact that EVE is centered around pvp and has universal non-consensual PVP, you're pretty much an unforgivable idiot for playing this game. If you choose to play a game you are not mentally compatible with, that is your right if the company accepts your payment. You having the right doesn't make the action any less dumb.

PVE is my main thing (unlike the people who claim to be PVErs, I actually do pve and post on PVE forums lol). But my preference efor PVE doesn't change the nature of the game. REAL EVE PVE jocks not only accept the pvp nature of the game, we adore it. Nothing, no amount of isk, no amount of loot, no amount of "new content" equals the satisfaction of being a PVE player in a PVP game and laughing at PVP jocks when they fail to kill us while we get away with the loot. That's the game when you are a real EVE PVE players.

The people who need to lie and say that the issue is somehow PVP vs PVE (when in fact it's "reasonable people with brains vs entitled fools") really need to learn how to think.