once there was a promise to develop more features for stationary interactions.
now just user numbers and some statistics count. one reason to change to alpha clone.
guess the cheaper way 
isn’t it?
1 Like
So in what phase of development is this 64 bit client? 4-6 weeks of saved maintenance work will bring it no time I presume. 
1 Like
Thank you!
4-6 weeks * (21 people * 40 hours/week) = 3.360-5.040 hours/year
Or roughly 3 people who work the whole year only on maintaining the CQ. That’s at least a number you can count with instead of just “a significant amount”.
Right, when can we expect to notice the positive effects of those three people on the development of EVE?
Btw. I don’t count a new ship skin as a positive effect!
2 Likes
You seriously think ALL of those 21 people worked on CQ in these sprints? I seriously doubt it.
No I seriously don’t. But I also didn’t wanted to make the equasion too much in CQ favour.
We don’t have an average number of hours those team members work per week. Some might work less, some more. Some of them are on vacation, some are sick. And yes, some are still involved in other projects. So the real number should be between two or three full time employees. - Very likely more to the bottom end.
Are you also so excited like me for all the new stuff and improvements that will come soon with all those freed ressources? Finally we will get the game true EVE players always wanted!
3 Likes
Haha! Yeah, Right, sure.
Those 2-3 FTEs are really going to make the difference in a 300+ FTE developing studio 
Hehe
1 Like
Argh, I’m so angry! If we only had those two additional devs six years ago. This game would be so free of bugs and finally balanced perfectly. The graphics would look like from 2018 and of course we still would have 55.000 players online on sunday like 6 years ago and a dozen more skins for only 350 PLEX in the store.
I’m so happy that CCP finally made the right decission!
But wait, there is more … how many devs are involved in maintaining the in-game calculator? Can we have a graph too of how many people are using that?
8 Likes
Well, Actually, if we set the cutaway at 3% then PI, Incursions and most of the PVP content would go too
4 Likes
Evidence they are 3%?
Incursions yes, but PI and PVP?
sigh…
…bye bye CQ, you were sh ite, but you were an option. A respiting shade of variety a bleak and grey palette.
All in all, It’s just one more brick in the wall of a diminishing sandbox.
CCP I think you should remove high sec next… …yep, all of it…
…too many happy and independent players there.
Word on the street is they are still having fun and everything. That they outright refuse to join these dwindling and cowardly herds, or show any concern for your contemptuous attitude towards them.
They are just to positive in a world designed to nourish anguish and misery.
They clearly need to be the next to meet the axeman.
*edit - brick in the wall reference is a excerpt from the well known piss artist Keith Floyd and his popular album titled The Wall.
"We don’t need no ambulation
We don’t need no sov control
No dark sarcasm in the forum
Seagull leave them dev’s alone
Hey Seagull leave them dev’s alone
All in all you’re just another brick in the wall
All in all you’re just another brick in the wall"
5 Likes
Actually 13% , but who cares about that ?
second graph.
People who care about facts rather than stories to suit an agenda.
Additionally, those 13.8% that pvp, are also part of the groups that warp in lowsec, warp in nullsec, warp in w-space, use acceleration gates, join fleets, use the market, dock and warp.
Just as the 14.9% that do industry are and the 19.2% that run missions (and of course there are people that do all of those things).
Remove that activity because of a bias against it and you also affect all the others as well.
4 Likes
On their own, those statistics aren’t that useful when it comes to a discussion about avatar gameplay in EVE.
Each activity, whether PvP, mission running or PI, is not exclusive from the others, and a player who enjoys one is going to be involved in another. The exception to this rule would be the dedicated station traders in Jita, but how many of these are alts of PvPers elsewhere?
The same goes for the 3% of us who used CQ.
In this thread it’s already been pointed that the 3% figure is misleading because of the impact citadels have on the numbers (for example, what was my contribution to the 3% figure, considering I consciously activated CQ in an NPC station, each and every time it was deactivated when docking at a citadel?)
And more importantly for the wider subject of whether avatar gameplay has a place in EVE, what is the % for demand? A lot of people have stated they would have used it more, had there been something meaningful to do in there.
Instead of looking at the 3% usage and making a bunch of assumptions over why the statistic was that low, CCP should canvass its player base for an actual opinion. If we want to look at small percentages, the number of players who use these forums (and those that came before it) is tiny, and so the WiS/anti-WiS debate that has raged since Incarna is unlikely to be an accurate reflection of what CCP’s paying (and non-paying) customers actually think and want.
12 Likes
Yesterday was a drop in logged in players. More than 3 percent. Just some statistics. 
3 Likes
It seems you have ignored the golden rule: Never play on patchday 
1 Like
Well, Tuesday was a holiday in some countries so the drop is probably more related to that.
It’s unlikely we will see any effect of the removal in the login numbers. Those who really quit and don’t just whine in the forum are hidden over time in the “background noise”. They don’t stop playing right at the patch day.
it’s outrageous… Im angry
2 Likes
I know, in my country we didn’t had a holiday on Tuesday too!
1 Like
So disappointing, easy to say “nobody or rather too few users use this feature”. For example, how many players are actively using the calculator function? The real reason is concealed. Well knowing the promise was not solved, to work on the possibilities to interact with other users in stations. In the absence of an equivalence, the counterproposal of new game content to the eliminated CQ will be very difficult, especially since the abolition has already caused financial losses in the subscriptions. Who can calculate is clearly in the advantage. Have you DEV’s ever heard of the term “saving to destruction”? If the numbers of paying users drop, this decision will have to be rethought.
2 Likes
I made a shortish video with my character meandering around the Captains Quarters one last time.
Description is a bit salty but I don’t care.
It had such high hopes of making EVE more than just about spaceships and F1. I hope we get to see its like again.
10 Likes