These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2761 - 2015-12-09 20:44:03 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
La Rynx wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I am 99.99% sure that there is no correlation between people being mad (ergo sending mad messages) and self esteem issues.


i concur!

Again, what might get more players?


I believe it is a cost problem, not a content one.

Subscription models are becoming less and less feasible.

Lowering subscription fees would help, but only so much.

What they could do is keep the sub model but do not make it mandatory.

First make it so the freebies can only play one client at a time per IP address.

Next, give subers training on more that one account.

Next make science and manufacturing available to only subs as well as PI and POS.

Keep plex in game for these benefits, but not required.

That way there be more targets, but you won't be able to mess up the economy since freebies won't be able to manufacture anything.



Are you sure this is a "best thing CCP could do for EVE", or is it a "things I want for Christmas I don't understand the repercussions of"?

I award you a C.


I am simply pointing out that subscription models are rare these days and not the norm.

The business model does not work for most people.

Now EVE has f2p now but it's only free if you spent more time than is worth it for most people.

And there are so many f2p games out there competing for time, you cannot expect people to play this full time.

Personally I don't care if EVE goes true F2P but I might play it more often if it did.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server

Solecist Project
#2762 - 2015-12-09 20:55:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Free2Play as subscription model is all about manipulation and literally MILKING people.
It's not about providing a good game, it's about manipulating people into believing that
their virtual character equals their actual character.


It's basically proof that companies think their customers are idiots.

These games aim at the weakest point in their players, which is their self esteem. (we had that one already, right?)

What do you get to buy in many games? Gear that makes you better than the rest.
Want to skip time and be faster than others? Buy this SpeedUp item to finish this task faster.
Want to seperate yourself from the rest? Buy this vanity item for 75$.


If you look at it ... all these games make money from poor people who have no self esteem.

Victims of modern marketing that does nothing else but constantly telling you that ...

... YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS ...
... UNLESS YOU BUY THIS PRODUCT THAT MAKES YOU ...

... A PART OF IT/BETTER/FEEL LIFE/HAVE FUN/BE SOMEONE.


It's always the same thing.


Free2Play is for dumb and/or sad people I feel sorry for.

EVE ONLINE isn't (yet) made for idiots.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#2763 - 2015-12-09 21:13:19 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
La Rynx wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I am 99.99% sure that there is no correlation between people being mad (ergo sending mad messages) and self esteem issues.


i concur!

Again, what might get more players?


I believe it is a cost problem, not a content one.

Subscription models are becoming less and less feasible.

Lowering subscription fees would help, but only so much.

What they could do is keep the sub model but do not make it mandatory.

First make it so the freebies can only play one client at a time per IP address.

Next, give subers training on more that one account.

Next make science and manufacturing available to only subs as well as PI and POS.

Keep plex in game for these benefits, but not required.

That way there be more targets, but you won't be able to mess up the economy since freebies won't be able to manufacture anything.



Are you sure this is a "best thing CCP could do for EVE", or is it a "things I want for Christmas I don't understand the repercussions of"?

I award you a C.


I am simply pointing out that subscription models are rare these days and not the norm.

The business model does not work for most people.

Now EVE has f2p now but it's only free if you spent more time than is worth it for most people.

And there are so many f2p games out there competing for time, you cannot expect people to play this full time.

Personally I don't care if EVE goes true F2P but I might play it more often if it did.


You're stating a whole lot of things you have no idea on and are so obviously catering for your short sighted personal wish list for EVE it's not even funny. So please, you're not fooling anyone but perhaps yourself.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#2764 - 2015-12-09 21:55:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Before the thread wanders off, I will try to abridge my "agenda" in few words.

EVE population is going down because loses more players than earns. The main source of lost players is PvE, which is both the most popular specialization and the one with poorest retention. Poor retention is caused by the limited nature of PvE content and the lack of socialization. Socialization can't be adressed since players who play alone have reasons to do so. The PvE content is limited because it is created by CCP and consumed passively by players. To extend PvE content and keep PvE players interested, PvE content must be generated by players.Thus PvE needs the abbility to inlfuence other players. That will increase the retention of PvE players by giving them continuously fresh PvE content. That increase in retention will be boosted by how the new gameplay can also gain players uninterested in the existing gameplay.

Must be noted that this only plugs the PvE hole. PvP also haves its own issues (specially in nullsec), but then, PvP is not my trade in EVE.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#2765 - 2015-12-10 06:19:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Before the thread wanders off, I will try to abridge my "agenda" in few words.

EVE population is going down because loses more players than earns. The main source of lost players is PvE, which is boh the most popular specialization and the one with poorest retention. Poor retention is caused by the limited nature of PvE content and the lack of socialization. Socialization can't be adressed since players who play alone have reasons to do so. The PvE content is limited because it is created by CCP and consumed passively by players. To extend PvE content and keep PvE players interested, PvE content must be generated by players.Thus PvE needs the abbility to inlfuence other players. That will increase the retention of PvE players by giving them continuously fresh PvE content. That increase in retention will be boosted by how the new gameplay can also gain players uninterested in the existing gameplay.

Must be noted that this only plugs the PvE hole. PvP also haves its own issues (specially in nullsec), but then, PvP is not my trade in EVE.


No it won't, also you changed your stance quite a bit from earlier. There is of course nothing wrong with advocating for better PVE but to go "see, this is why EVE is dying" is hilarious. For most of its time EVE pop has grown, quite a bit, before EVE decided that they'd want to be a mainstream game and while there have been some setbacks those had nothing to do with the pve vs pvp debate.

Then EVE started to adapt to cater for the non-efforts, the dumbs, the people who really had no place in EVE. PVE got massively boosted, mining got boosted, recently manufacturing and related got massively boosted. Nothing wrong with improvements but that doesn't necessarily mean they should change stuff to cater for the non-efforts. Did that help? No, all that happened is the people who joined thinking that EVE is a viable full PVE game realised that it's not, got grumpy and left again. Even AFTER all those non-pvp buffs. So yes, PVE players leave more than PVP players.

Then there's PVE focussed players who simply moved on, as people do, to other games because they can and because there's alternatives. Nothing wrong with that, has to be expected. Thing is, for PVP players there ARE no alternatives so we're still here. So yes, PVE players leave more than PVP players.


You for instance, you're from 2009 so from when CCP decided they wanted to be WOW in space and 5 years later you STILL somehow lose mission ships to hostiles, a Machariel to a Kronos wtf, and you STILL haven't learned how to decently fit a ship. That has nothing to do with the game not being PVE enough, that has to do with "EVE is hard, it's harder if you're stupid" and there is no point in trying to change the game enough to keep people like that playing. They either stick around or they leave, so be it.

Then we get to your "see there's more pve players than pvp" which is of course a fallacy. A VAST majority of pvpers have high sec mission/mining alts, and lots of them, because it makes sense in many ways. Counting them as PVE players is hilarious because... they're alts, not independent PVE players.

And now your recent "PvE content must be generated by players" is of course just smoke and mirrors, at least you hope it is. It isn't, we see right through it. Again, nothing wrong with wanting better PVE as such but your logic, reasoning and agenda are all wrong, very obviously so.



The reasons EVE is in a dip right now are pretty obvious:

- people stop trusting CCP because they keep making the wrong decisions or take way too much time to decide anything at all. This has to do with them listening to idiots and trying to defend themselves against competitors like ED and SC. And no matter how much you try to explain to them that a) they're not competitors because they're not a PVP centric massive sandbox and b) the people who will like SC more than EVE will leave anyway because CCP can't change the game enough to retain them, they keep trying anyway. They keep making dumb decisions by instead of being proud of their niche, improving and nurturing it, they water down the game to be more generic. Never going to work, I explained above why that is.

- CCP made capital (alts) less viable, a good decision imo but the repercussion is of course that people are going to close down alt accounts. If you didn't see that coming or don't understand that logic then nothing can help you

- plex prices are silly high thus people will close alt accounts. As simple and logical as "1+1=2", you don't need all kinds of boogieman stories like "see, not enough PVE"

- terribles making 40k man coalitions making 0.0 stagnant and boring. Has nothing to do with game mechanics, it worked fine before, but with them being terribles.

- have you seen many bots lately? I haven't either


Those are just a few explanations as to why EVE is in a dip PCU wise, none of those have to do with "PVE SUCKS, WOE IS ME!". But IS EVE In a dip? I'd say that it's healthy and just shed deadweight, nothing wrong with that they just need to regain focus and plough on.



I can easily name 5-10 PVE-related buffs in the last 5 years and that is only counting the big ones. Can you name any PVP related buffs from that same time frame? Exactly, stop whining and stop thinking your amazing logic and construed reasoning makes sense or isn't hilariously obvious.
Solecist Project
#2766 - 2015-12-10 07:20:06 UTC
Gregor Parud, poster of my heart! <3

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#2767 - 2015-12-10 09:10:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Gregor Parud wrote:
*EVE was hard and then was growing, then was made easier and stopped growing*


The few we know about player retention denies that. EVE is by no means a easier game now that each patch adds new stuff for new players to concern themselves while they're still getting the grasp of the game's 12 years old essentials. Adding new content for veterans continuously moves the goal post for "minimal required knwoldge" for new players... so NO, EVE is NOT easier.

Quote:
You for instance, you're from 2009 so from when CCP decided they wanted to be WOW in space and 5 years later you STILL somehow lose mission ships to hostiles, a Machariel to a Kronos wtf, and you STILL haven't learned how to decently fit a ship. That has nothing to do with the game not being PVE enough, that has to do with "EVE is hard, it's harder if you're stupid" and there is no point in trying to change the game enough to keep people like that playing. They either stick around or they leave, so be it.


First I am from 2008. And second, that PvP loss was a criminal flag bait. For obvious reasons, baits and scams work the first time and never again. And for that specific baiter, that kill costed him the ability to kill any targets while I was online, and 168 million in loot since Ish happens to be a proficent ninja looter.

Quote:
Then we get to your "see there's more pve players than pvp" which is of course a fallacy. A VAST majority of pvpers have high sec mission/mining alts, and lots of them, because it makes sense in many ways. Counting them as PVE players is hilarious because... they're alts, not independent PVE players.


You're absolutely wrong.

This is the truth of what do indivdual subscribers do with their accounts and characters.

Professionals (do everything): 30%
Entrepreneurs (do PvE and industry, barely move from highsec): 25%
Traditionals (play EVE as a ordinary MMO): 25%
Social (mostly socialize and skillqueue online) 12%
Aggressors (mostly do PvP): 8%

Those are CCP data from Fanfest 2015. As you may notice, PvP is irrelevant to Traditionals and a very minor acivity to Entrepreneurs, and is almost non-existant to Socials (since they barely undock...). That's 62% of individuals who don't pay CCP for PvP since they don't engage in PvP, but may suffer it occasionally.

These Fanfest data just confirmed what every PvEr aware of her environment already knew. EVE is not a PvP game, not by the numbers. And that is in blatant contradiction to what PvPrs think of themselves and the game, and what CCP used to think about the game. "PvP" is branding, but the real product is PvE. Car makers advertise solitary roads and cool landscapes, not traffic jams in ugly suburbs. But the real product is John Doe watching car tails for an hour while he conmutes to his job...

No matter how you paint it, PvE is the most important thing in EVE and the one that performs the worst. It may not be what makes EVE to be EVE, but certainly is what pays the bills. And without PvE money there's no EVE nor CCP as we know them.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#2768 - 2015-12-10 09:30:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
- I didn't say it stopped growing, I said it attracted more non-efforts. You not understanding that part is yet another proof of the real issue

- bait/scams only work on dumb or lazy people who refuse to learn the very basics of the game they've been playing (since 2008). More proof that the game isn't the problem but you are

- the next bit, again, shows a lack of understanding things. Let me spell it out for you, again: Almost all PVP players have PVE alts, many of those PVE alts live in high sec. JUST because there's a character in high sec doing a form of pve does not mean he should be counted as a PVE player. There's a good chance he's just an alt, for a reason.


I don't know to break this to you without sounding like a **** (not that I care much) or possibly breaking some forum rules but you're not as intelligent as you think you are. Your logic, ideas, actions, losses, fits and assumptions are all wrong, not just coloured by an agenda but actually wrong.
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2769 - 2015-12-10 09:32:33 UTC  |  Edited by: sero Hita
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

The main source of lost players is PvE, which is both the most popular specialization and the one with poorest retention. Poor retention is caused by the limited nature of PvE content and the lack of socialization.


Do you have a quote on this? That PvE has the lowest retention population wide? Seems to me that you are coupling the data saying 62% of the PCU number do PvE, with the data from one of the fanfests on why new players leave, to make that conclusion. That would be pretty manipulative if this is the case. If I am right in the above you are coupling whole population demograhics with the reasons of why a small non-representative group leaves the game. If you were a politician in RL or a scientist, twisting data like that would get you fired or forced to resign, at least where I live.

You IMO (If I am right about the above) also manipulate with the conclusion from fanfest concerning the NPE. The conclusion of the new player experience was that retention is higher if they join a corp. Not that PvE made them leave. Being alone made them leave. There are PvE corps out there doing fine.

"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

sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2770 - 2015-12-10 09:33:40 UTC
double post

"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

Solecist Project
#2771 - 2015-12-10 09:42:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
sero Hita wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

The main source of lost players is PvE, which is both the most popular specialization and the one with poorest retention. Poor retention is caused by the limited nature of PvE content and the lack of socialization.


Do you have a quote on this? That PvE has the lowest retention population wide? Seems to me that you are coupling the data saying 62% of the PCU number do PvE, with the data from one of the fanfests on why new players leave, to make that conclusion. That would be pretty manipulative if this is the case. If I am right in the above you are coupling whole population demograhics with the reasons of why a small non-representative group leaves the game. If you were a politician in RL or a scientist, twisting data like that would get you fired or forced to resign, at least where I live.

You IMO (If I am right about the above) also manipulate with the conclusion from fanfest concerning the NPE. The conclusion of the new player experience was that retention is higher if they join a corp. Not that PvE made them leave. Being alone made them leave. There are PvE corps out there doing fine.

I assume she's talking about the uncreative and braindead people who join to level up their raven ...
... and then leave bored after reaching that point.

To be fair, I believe that many of them just don't get to know any better ...
... because people like her would make new players do exactly that, further killing the game.

It's CCPs fault as well for letting people start with PvE and mining ...
... and not providing better things to do, or starter areas in lowsec.

Players would kill each other to recruit all the new blood. Yet, as soon as I mention this,
mindless people come and declare that everyone would just kill the new players all day.

Which is batshit crazy talk.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#2772 - 2015-12-10 09:43:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
sero Hita wrote:
Do you have a quote on this? That PvE has the lowest retention population wide?



Even if it were true, "PVP centric game has trouble keeping its PVE players". I'm not seeing a problem there.

EVE is a PVP centric game in all its facets, you CAN PVE here to some extend but it's never going to be good at it and while you can hope/ask for improvements it makes zero sense to ask for a shift of focus. Would EVE change focus then it would have to compete with all the other MMOs/games out there and CCP would have to be brain dead to even attempt it (oh... wait).

So if someone joined EVE in 2008, does nothing but PVE but somehow still doesn't know the first thing about mission baiting or fitting a ship then that means said person has not read the forums, not read any guides, not interacted with people who have a clue and not engaged their brains. Those people are going to struggle and they pretty much have 3 options

- accept it and keep doing what you're doing
- adapt and stop being dumb
- leave

There is no fourth option. "Demanding changes through drama queening and dumb logic" doesn't work.
Solecist Project
#2773 - 2015-12-10 09:47:51 UTC
And let's not forget that drifters are an active attempt to bring PvE and PvP together ...
... by forcing players to actually plan, think and use PvP fittings to deal with them.


One more proof that CCP doesn't hate PvE, but also knows that it's not what the game is about.

The drifters unite us... or at least that seems to be the intention.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2774 - 2015-12-10 09:49:26 UTC
making pve act like pvp is dumb in a game rich with 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*

Solecist Project
#2775 - 2015-12-10 09:53:28 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
making pve act like pvp is dumb in a game rich with pvp

It's better than nothing though. PvErs can't complqin about the lack of challenge,
PvPers can find i terest in actually challenging PvE.

Don't forget that PvPers do PvE, but PvErs don't do PvP.

Tbh this is all that's needed to realize which type of player has more value ...

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#2776 - 2015-12-10 09:56:47 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Don't forget that PvPers do PvE, but PvErs don't do PvP.

Tbh this is all that's needed to realize which type of player has more value ...



Bingo.


Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#2777 - 2015-12-10 11:38:43 UTC
F2P is worth a serious look, because other players are content.
Grinding Gear Games figured this one out, and have done pretty well for themselves selling almost nothing but microtransaction shinies in Path of Exile. You can go to level 100 in that game without spending a single penny if you want, and there's no way that game would have gotten off the ground as subscription-only or even an SWTOR-style nagware game. In practice, trade with other players and vendor recipes tend to require buying stash tabs, but that's not where they make most of their money.

F2P would seriously break EVE unless a lot of stuff got hidden behind paywalls or rethought-particularly mining, industry, PI, and missions.

A signature :o

Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#2778 - 2015-12-10 13:10:19 UTC
New Eden is a dystopian universe filled with unscrupulous characters who will screw you over and take your things. This is not a nice place. Whether people screw you over with nonconsensual pvp or by taking advantage of your poor reading comprehension - it's all allowed and it all contributes to pgc.

Part of the problem I see is characterizing entrepreneur activity as PvE. There is no PvE in EVE. This is a PvP game. Unless you're docked in a station doing nothing, from the moment you undock you are engaged in PvP. If you are mining, you are competing with other players for limited resources. If you are trading, you are competing with other players for sales & isk. If you are an explorer, you are competing with other players for limited anomalies. You are competing. Competing is PvP. Player vs. Player. From the moment you undock, just by being in space, you are providing opportunities to other players and that is PvP. Oh, sure, the most obvious form of PvP is combat but that does not make all else a non-PvP activity.

And, PvP is healthy. You shouldn't even be opposed to it. Content in EVE is player-generated. PGC happens when players interact. What you don't want is a situation where players interact less and less. That's what would kill EVE. People need to know what they're getting into from day one. Imo, describing any PvP activities as PvE implies connotations that do not exist.

So, no, we don't need another 1000 systems. And I don't think EVE really needs f2p. (Though there is some upper limit to what folks will pay each month. Can you attract people back or increase retention with a lower price... 9.99/mo? Maybe.) But we also don't need to be describing what is wholly a PvP game in unrealistic terms. Or else it'll be a pointless debate.

YK
Avvy
Doomheim
#2779 - 2015-12-10 13:23:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Avvy
Solecist Project wrote:
Free2Play as subscription model is all about manipulation and literally MILKING people.
It's not about providing a good game, it's about manipulating people into believing that
their virtual character equals their actual character.

It's basically proof that companies think their customers are idiots.


It's about finding ways to give an incentive for customers to part with their money.

EvE is no different, PLEX and now skins (28 PLEX and free skins) . Main difference with EvE is it's still very much subscription based. It's just that EvE is an older game and as yet it doesn't have many things in the shop to entice people to part with their money. Except with PLEX, as it's the fastest way for a player to give themselves an isk boost. When you can buy sp for isk that should also boost PLEX sales.

So EvE isn't as different as you would like to believe.


Solecist Project wrote:

These games aim at the weakest point in their players, which is their self esteem. (we had that one already, right?)

What do you get to buy in many games? Gear that makes you better than the rest.
Want to skip time and be faster than others? Buy this SpeedUp item to finish this task faster.
Want to seperate yourself from the rest? Buy this vanity item for 75$.


If you look at it ... all these games make money from poor people who have no self esteem.

Victims of modern marketing that does nothing else but constantly telling you that ...

... YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS ...
... UNLESS YOU BUY THIS PRODUCT THAT MAKES YOU ...

... A PART OF IT/BETTER/FEEL LIFE/HAVE FUN/BE SOMEONE.


It's always the same thing.


They won't make much money from poor people, poorer people tend to play F2P because that's all they can afford. They make money from those that have it, the richer people where money (the amounts spent in-game isn't really an issue to them).

Collections is one thing companies have latched onto, as some people like to collect things, like vanity pets for instance.

Armor skins/clothing that you can only get from the shop, to give customers a way to dress differently so they might have a chance to stand out from the crowd. Ship skins in this game is the equivalent of armor skins and character clothing is just the same as character clothing in this game.

Sometimes people just like to show off their wealth, buying exclusive products is the way they do it, no different to real life.




Solecist Project wrote:

Free2Play is for dumb and/or sad people I feel sorry for.

EVE ONLINE isn't (yet) made for idiots.


More games have an F2P element these days as companies realise it's better than just having a limited trial period.

You could argue those that choose to spend large parts of their life in a virtual world rather than the real world are the sad ones, especially if they don't have a disability that restrict them in real life.

But people can choose what they want to do with their life so are they really sad in that case?
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#2780 - 2015-12-10 13:25:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Gregor Parud wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Don't forget that PvPers do PvE, but PvErs don't do PvP.

Tbh this is all that's needed to realize which type of player has more value ...



Bingo.




PvPr claims that his e-peenis is bigger than yours; the evidence is that he says so. More news at 11. Roll

Further reading

From the blog linked above: "(...) Can I go up to someone and, with a straight face, tell them that a game in which the average player in a 3-hour play session will most likely only kill NPCs and not kill another player or have another player kill him, is a PvP game?" -Nosy Gamer.

As I said, what companies advertise (Empty roads! Exotic locations!) is very different than the average user experience (Traffic jams! Ugly suburbs!).

Maybe CCP should start developing EVE based on what players pay for (PvE) and do (PvE) rather than hope that more PvP is going to sort those decaying user counts.