These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Every year, there are less users playing, why??

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#661 - 2016-08-01 13:57:45 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
So the AG are by definition incompetent,...

I think that's one thing everyone can agree on.

/thread

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#662 - 2016-08-01 13:58:18 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
"choose". Except every choice other than tank is "stupid" -- why insist on choice if all you ever say is what people should choose anyway?

This I would like to know. I have three lowslots. I don't feel like I have any choice-- an Orca gets more EHP than my triple bulkhead freighter. So there's that.


Any choice other than tank is 'stupid' if you are choosing that so you can afk mine or mine without paying attention. I know plenty of people who fit for max yield in high sec and watch local and dscan for gankers.

If I get what he is saying, Baltec is just saying that miners shouldn't be coddled, they should have to deal with making fitting choices like everyone else. If I got that right, then I agree, CCP shouldn't be catering to the lazy and the ignorant, they should be telling people "this is a game, learn the game if you want to succeed".
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#663 - 2016-08-01 14:01:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Brokk Witgenstein
But we already do. You can fit a procurer (for example) for max yield, for max tank, for speed, for tackle, somewhat for DPS and even as bait. What more do you want?

Edit: ... and let's not forget about the instalock procurer for lowsec gatecamps.
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#664 - 2016-08-01 14:02:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
Just release a modular t3 industrial ship that can get the mining yield of 3 hulks, *or* have a cargohold the size of a freighter, *or* a fleet hangar the size of an orca's, *or* provide maxed mining boosts, *or* a ship hold the size of the bowhead's, *or* the tank of a rorqual, *or* any convoluted combination of any/all of these things in the amount desired by the pilot.
(I may have missed a few but you get the idea)

Let them have the same overly complicated choices as us combat pilots - with the same OP results in 1-2 specific configurations that everybody will end up going with P

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#665 - 2016-08-01 14:03:30 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
...which we would then call "Retriever" and call that our Choice, yes?


If you want less than the mach will provide both in tank and cargo then yes. Equally if you want less yield than the Covetor and hulk provides or less combat capability than the skiff and proc provide.

To be clear, if I was given to opportunity to rebalance mining barges I would not simply undo the hp buff, I would strip all of the ships bare and rework every in from their hit points to their bonus and their fitting slots. The would be radically different to what we have today are more resemble cruisers and heavy assault cruisers than the simplistic ships we have right now.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#666 - 2016-08-01 14:09:17 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
So the AG are by definition incompetent,...

I think that's one thing everyone can agree on.

/thread


Well they are not an organised setup in the main, unlike the gankers. I had the impression that most were doing it while mining or hauling and the majority were using low SP characters. That is like PL dunking some lowly renters....

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#667 - 2016-08-01 14:15:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
So the AG are by definition incompetent,...

I think that's one thing everyone can agree on.

/thread


I don't know if I would use the word 'incompetent'. I would use the words 'delusional' and 'reactionary'.

Delusional because they don't understand themselves (the 1st part of success in anything is understanding yourself 1st). Most anti-ganker types, like most high sec resident types, are loners and asocial people for whom cooperation is hard. Each of them thinks they are unique and smarter than everyone else and each has his/her own agenda and are trying to use the ag 'movement' to further those goals. I've visited some in game AG channels and those places are SICK and full of angst. AGs don't like each other almost as much as they hate gankers.

The whole thing is reactionary because they don't exist to have fun (like the ganekrs do), they exist for the purpose of stopping someone else (ie reacting).

The gankers on the other hand 'fit' together much better, they are having fun, they aren't bitter, and they are impressed as hell when someone outthinks them. That's how I became actual friends with gankers, by earning their respect while thwarting their attempts to kill my hauling ships and deadspace fit mission running ships.

Because anti-gankers (like all 'fighters of grave injustice' types lol) are focused on external forces ("CCP is for the gankers!") and simply can't understand that their biggest enemies are their own screwed up personalities and personal agendas.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#668 - 2016-08-01 14:17:27 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
...which we would then call "Retriever" and call that our Choice, yes?


If you want less than the mach will provide both in tank and cargo then yes. Equally if you want less yield than the Covetor and hulk provides or less combat capability than the skiff and proc provide.

To be clear, if I was given to opportunity to rebalance mining barges I would not simply undo the hp buff, I would strip all of the ships bare and rework every in from their hit points to their bonus and their fitting slots. The would be radically different to what we have today are more resemble cruisers and heavy assault cruisers than the simplistic ships we have right now.


Mach, what the hell is that ship, don't you mean the Mack?

Yes of course you would undo the ehp buff, because you want easy kills, we know that. In my opinion the Coveter / Hulk and Retriever / Mackinaw all need raw ehp buffs.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#669 - 2016-08-01 14:22:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Jenn aSide wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
So the AG are by definition incompetent,...

I think that's one thing everyone can agree on.

/thread


I don't know if I would use the word 'incompetent'. I would use the words 'delusional' and 'reactionary'.

Delusional because they don't understand themselves (the 1st part of success in anything is understanding yourself 1st). Most anti-ganker types, like most high sec resident types, are loners and asocial people for whom cooperation is hard. Each of them thinks they are unique and smarter than everyone else and each has his/her own agenda and are trying to use the ag 'movement' to further those goals. I've visited some in game AG channels and those places are SICK and full of angst. AGs don't like each other almost as much as they hate gankers.

The whole thing is reactionary because they don't exist to have fun (like the ganekrs do), they exist for the purpose of stopping someone else (ie reacting).

The gankers on the other hand 'fit' together much better, they are having fun, they aren't bitter, and they are impressed as hell when someone outthinks them. That's how I became actual friends with gankers, by earning their respect while thwarting their attempts to kill my hauling ships and deadspace fit mission running ships.

Because anti-gankers (like all 'fighters of grave injustice' types lol) are focused on external forces ("CCP is for the gankers!") and simply can't understand that their biggest enemies are their own screwed up personalities and personal agendas.


That is such a sweeping troll generalisation I have to laugh at it, I have a menatl impression of you sat in a high chair with a dummy in your mouth and a megaphone stuck to your rear end. It sure fits that little rant.

So when CCP removes the one thing where anti-gankers can act like gankers and have fun that is ignored by you, what a surprise. Yeah I am bitter over that, would be pretty hard not to be.

And what the hell does your deadspace mission ship have to do with anything, CODE and the Goons hardly ever gank mission ships, thats a loud bit of noise from that megaphone mate and I will hold my nose at that. Shocked

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#670 - 2016-08-01 14:35:05 UTC  |  Edited by: xxxTRUSTxxx
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Just release a modular t3 industrial ship that can get the mining yield of 3 hulks, *or* have a cargohold the size of a freighter, *or* a fleet hangar the size of an orca's, *or* provide maxed mining boosts, *or* a ship hold the size of the bowhead's, *or* the tank of a rorqual, *or* any convoluted combination of any/all of these things in the amount desired by the pilot.
(I may have missed a few but you get the idea)

Let them have the same overly complicated choices as us combat pilots - with the same OP results in 1-2 specific configurations that everybody will end up going with P


The greedy and the silly would still fit them terrible and still die to ganks, then jump on here demanding sweeping changes to suit their ignorance.

I'm playing long enough to know the difference between a player that will listen and a player that thinks he knows it all, get's ganked and still will not listen to advice. and to them guys i say ,,!,, every single time Roll their just not worth the time and effort.

Those that want this safety bubble to sit mining and never worry need to feck off. you guys need to understand how the game works. you can't create an endless supply of ore that cannot be attacked or controlled with game mechanics. that would just destory the market and you'd be on here whining about that then.

you will never get this bubble you want where you can sit all day long mining without a care in the world. EVE isn't the game for you guys. I'm sorry but that's just the way things are.

numbers go up and numbers go down, I really have no respect for the scrubs that jump on here making their salf centered demands based on their belief that they know EVE better than CCP and if these changes don't happen the game will die.
all based on look! the numbers are down, quick CCP,, make changes or the game will die.

another EVE is dying thread that turns into a wall of bollox. needs to be locked, these threads do more damage than good. why are they not being locked for being redundant?
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#671 - 2016-08-01 14:39:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
The greedy and the silly would still fit them terrible and still die to ganks
And the problem is....???

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#672 - 2016-08-01 14:39:45 UTC
So i went back to the 1st page of this thread. I am no convinced that Memphis Baas is the ghost of Ms Cleo!

(The following should be read in an exaggerated Jamaican accent)

Memphis Baas wrote:
The two reasons you've listed are not it / don't cover all the possible reasons why. This thread is going to devolve into lots of opinions, without any data or proof to back any of them.

And a lot of the opinions are just going to bash CCP, which is just going to **** them off and devolve into flaming anyway.

This thread is a flame bait thread. Posting "why does this game suck?" on a game's primary forum is a troll post.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#673 - 2016-08-01 14:41:01 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
...which we would then call "Retriever" and call that our Choice, yes?


If you want less than the mach will provide both in tank and cargo then yes. Equally if you want less yield than the Covetor and hulk provides or less combat capability than the skiff and proc provide.

To be clear, if I was given to opportunity to rebalance mining barges I would not simply undo the hp buff, I would strip all of the ships bare and rework every in from their hit points to their bonus and their fitting slots. The would be radically different to what we have today are more resemble cruisers and heavy assault cruisers than the simplistic ships we have right now.


Mach, what the hell is that ship, don't you mean the Mack?

Yes of course you would undo the ehp buff, because you want easy kills, we know that. In my opinion the Coveter / Hulk and Retriever / Mackinaw all need raw ehp buffs.


The only easy kills would be the ones where people chose to make themselves easy to kill. Risk vs reward in action.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#674 - 2016-08-01 14:41:38 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Just release a modular t3 industrial ship that can get the mining yield of 3 hulks, *or* have a cargohold the size of a freighter, *or* a fleet hangar the size of an orca's, *or* provide maxed mining boosts, *or* a ship hold the size of the bowhead's, *or* the tank of a rorqual, *or* any convoluted combination of any/all of these things in the amount desired by the pilot.
(I may have missed a few but you get the idea)

Let them have the same overly complicated choices as us combat pilots - with the same OP results in 1-2 specific configurations that everybody will end up going with P


The greedy and the silly would still fit them terrible and still die to ganks, then jump on here demanding sweeping changes to suit their ignorance.

I'm playing long enough to know the difference between a player that will listen and a player that thinks he knows it all, get's ganked and still will not listen to advice. and to them guys i say ,,!,, every single time Roll their just not worth the time and effort.

Those that want this safety bubble to sit mining and never worry need to feck off. you guys need to understand how the game works. you can't create an endless supply of ore that cannot be attacked or controlled with game mechanics. that would just destory the market adn you'd be on here whining about that then.

you will never get this bubble you want where you can sit all day long mining without a care in the world. EVE isn't the game for you guys. I'm sorry but that's just the way things are.

numbers go up and numbers go down, I really have no respect for the scrubs that jump on here making their salf centered demands based on their belief that they know EVE better than CCP and if these changes don't happen the game will die.
all based on look! the numbers are down, quick CCP,, make changes or the game will die.

another EVE is dying thread that turns into a wall of bollox. needs to be locked, these threads do more damage than good. why are they not being locked for being redundant?


Because mate CCP buffed the EHP of mining ships because of what exactly, a guess, a feeling or hard cold data that showed a loss of player who mined. Of course you and people like you want threads like this locked, wouldn't surprise me if you reported it for locking.

The perception is that CCP favours gankers, griefers, scammmers and player killers, this hurts them in terms of people wanting to play the game, it hurts them in losing people. It is fine to have a game where there is no safety, that is what makes Eve, but when we can detail mechanics that are so easy to take advantage off by the gankers and then when the AG have one they can do and it gets closed off as soon as they start using it it shows the issue, see above.

There is a rotten smell and it is not just coming from Jenn's megaphone...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#675 - 2016-08-01 14:43:35 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
...which we would then call "Retriever" and call that our Choice, yes?


If you want less than the mach will provide both in tank and cargo then yes. Equally if you want less yield than the Covetor and hulk provides or less combat capability than the skiff and proc provide.

To be clear, if I was given to opportunity to rebalance mining barges I would not simply undo the hp buff, I would strip all of the ships bare and rework every in from their hit points to their bonus and their fitting slots. The would be radically different to what we have today are more resemble cruisers and heavy assault cruisers than the simplistic ships we have right now.


Mach, what the hell is that ship, don't you mean the Mack?

Yes of course you would undo the ehp buff, because you want easy kills, we know that. In my opinion the Coveter / Hulk and Retriever / Mackinaw all need raw ehp buffs.


The only easy kills would be the ones where people chose to make themselves easy to kill. Risk vs reward in action.


They take a risk in fitting for yield with mining lasers in the low and use a mid for a survey scanner which is the reward, working as intended mate.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Giovanni erkelens2
Violent Trans Matching
Neon Nightmares
#676 - 2016-08-01 14:43:40 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Just release a modular t3 industrial ship that can get the mining yield of 3 hulks, *or* have a cargohold the size of a freighter, *or* a fleet hangar the size of an orca's, *or* provide maxed mining boosts, *or* a ship hold the size of the bowhead's, *or* the tank of a rorqual, *or* any convoluted combination of any/all of these things in the amount desired by the pilot.
(I may have missed a few but you get the idea)

Let them have the same overly complicated choices as us combat pilots - with the same OP results in 1-2 specific configurations that everybody will end up going with P


The greedy and the silly would still fit them terrible and still die to ganks, then jump on here demanding sweeping changes to suit their ignorance.

I'm playing long enough to know the difference between a player that will listen and a player that thinks he knows it all, get's ganked and still will not listen to advice. and to them guys i say ,,!,, every single time Roll their just not worth the time and effort.

Those that want this safety bubble to sit mining and never worry need to feck off. you guys need to understand how the game works. you can't create an endless supply of ore that cannot be attacked or controlled with game mechanics. that would just destory the market and you'd be on here whining about that then.

you will never get this bubble you want where you can sit all day long mining without a care in the world. EVE isn't the game for you guys. I'm sorry but that's just the way things are.

numbers go up and numbers go down, I really have no respect for the scrubs that jump on here making their salf centered demands based on their belief that they know EVE better than CCP and if these changes don't happen the game will die.
all based on look! the numbers are down, quick CCP,, make changes or the game will die.

another EVE is dying thread that turns into a wall of bollox. needs to be locked, these threads do more damage than good. why are they not being locked for being redundant?


why wont they lock threads for being written without capital characters.

seriously though, thats how stupid this sounds. it damages nothing but the people's egos and feelings which write in it anyway.
Lucy Lollipops
State War Academy
Caldari State
#677 - 2016-08-01 14:45:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
So the AG are by definition incompetent,...

I think that's one thing everyone can agree on.

/thread


I don't know if I would use the word 'incompetent'. I would use the words 'delusional' and 'reactionary'.

Delusional because they don't understand themselves (the 1st part of success in anything is understanding yourself 1st). Most anti-ganker types, like most high sec resident types, are loners and asocial people for whom cooperation is hard. Each of them thinks they are unique and smarter than everyone else and each has his/her own agenda and are trying to use the ag 'movement' to further those goals. I've visited some in game AG channels and those places are SICK and full of angst. AGs don't like each other almost as much as they hate gankers.

The whole thing is reactionary because they don't exist to have fun (like the ganekrs do), they exist for the purpose of stopping someone else (ie reacting).

The gankers on the other hand 'fit' together much better, they are having fun, they aren't bitter, and they are impressed as hell when someone outthinks them. That's how I became actual friends with gankers, by earning their respect while thwarting their attempts to kill my hauling ships and deadspace fit mission running ships.

Because anti-gankers (like all 'fighters of grave injustice' types lol) are focused on external forces ("CCP is for the gankers!") and simply can't understand that their biggest enemies are their own screwed up personalities and personal agendas.


I think to say that hisec players are asocial and so on is very unfair...

For what I saw so far many of the hisec players are persons that are not very young ( IRL I mean ) and cannot have the dedication to play together with others.

I don't know the age of the forum posters here but I can tell you that if you are 30/40/50 or more years old and have family and children, to find spare time hours to focus in front of your pc without leaving it even for a minute can be very very hard.

You can say: " If you haven't time for it, you should quit it"

Yes, it's an option too.

It's the reason I think some months with Concord on strike would give CCP developers a clear idea about how many "mature" players are actually on Eve.

I said mature, not asocial.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#678 - 2016-08-01 14:47:58 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
So i went back to the 1st page of this thread. I am no convinced that Memphis Baas is the ghost of Ms Cleo!

(The following should be read in an exaggerated Jamaican accent)

Memphis Baas wrote:
The two reasons you've listed are not it / don't cover all the possible reasons why. This thread is going to devolve into lots of opinions, without any data or proof to back any of them.

And a lot of the opinions are just going to bash CCP, which is just going to **** them off and devolve into flaming anyway.

This thread is a flame bait thread. Posting "why does this game suck?" on a game's primary forum is a troll post.



Any one posting against the forum trolls narrative is going to get flamed. So what that's the Malcanis law of the forums. RollShocked

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#679 - 2016-08-01 14:55:16 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
...which we would then call "Retriever" and call that our Choice, yes?


If you want less than the mach will provide both in tank and cargo then yes. Equally if you want less yield than the Covetor and hulk provides or less combat capability than the skiff and proc provide.

To be clear, if I was given to opportunity to rebalance mining barges I would not simply undo the hp buff, I would strip all of the ships bare and rework every in from their hit points to their bonus and their fitting slots. The would be radically different to what we have today are more resemble cruisers and heavy assault cruisers than the simplistic ships we have right now.


Mach, what the hell is that ship, don't you mean the Mack?

Yes of course you would undo the ehp buff, because you want easy kills, we know that. In my opinion the Coveter / Hulk and Retriever / Mackinaw all need raw ehp buffs.


The only easy kills would be the ones where people chose to make themselves easy to kill. Risk vs reward in action.


They take a risk in fitting for yield with mining lasers in the low and use a mid for a survey scanner which is the reward, working as intended mate.


What risk is there for a max yeild skiff? Nothing is going to bother it because it still tanks like a beast. The hulk and Mack have next to no customisation options as you can't alter the cargo on either and it's pointless getting them for their tank because you might as well get a skiff. The ships are forced into just one role simply because their bonuses and fitting give very little option to customise to your liking. The barge lineup is poorly balanced.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#680 - 2016-08-01 14:58:03 UTC
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
So the AG are by definition incompetent,...

I think that's one thing everyone can agree on.

/thread


I don't know if I would use the word 'incompetent'. I would use the words 'delusional' and 'reactionary'.

Delusional because they don't understand themselves (the 1st part of success in anything is understanding yourself 1st). Most anti-ganker types, like most high sec resident types, are loners and asocial people for whom cooperation is hard. Each of them thinks they are unique and smarter than everyone else and each has his/her own agenda and are trying to use the ag 'movement' to further those goals. I've visited some in game AG channels and those places are SICK and full of angst. AGs don't like each other almost as much as they hate gankers.

The whole thing is reactionary because they don't exist to have fun (like the ganekrs do), they exist for the purpose of stopping someone else (ie reacting).

The gankers on the other hand 'fit' together much better, they are having fun, they aren't bitter, and they are impressed as hell when someone outthinks them. That's how I became actual friends with gankers, by earning their respect while thwarting their attempts to kill my hauling ships and deadspace fit mission running ships.

Because anti-gankers (like all 'fighters of grave injustice' types lol) are focused on external forces ("CCP is for the gankers!") and simply can't understand that their biggest enemies are their own screwed up personalities and personal agendas.


I think to say that hisec players are asocial and so on is very unfair...

For what I saw so far many of the hisec players are persons that are not very young ( IRL I mean ) and cannot have the dedication to play together with others.

I don't know the age of the forum posters here but I can tell you that if you are 30/40/50 or more years old and have family and children, to find spare time hours to focus in front of your pc without leaving it even for a minute can be very very hard.

You can say: " If you haven't time for it, you should quit it"

Yes, it's an option too.

It's the reason I think some months with Concord on strike would give CCP developers a clear idea about how many "mature" players are actually on Eve.

I said mature, not asocial.


I think the average age is mid 30s for all of eve. Most people I know are working and have families so it's not a highsec only thing😉