What is a ‘login’?
Players is defined, characters is pretty clear too.
But what is the definition of ‘login’ used in that number?
A few days ago the rant was about how pcu is down even with the rewards, so someone had to explain that account logins purely for the daily rewards don’t affect pcu.
So now “login” is also a metric that can be used to spread illogical nonsense that suits one’s narrative.
1 Like
Yeah, got it. I’m saying your belief that you would change the game to add some sort of element to encourage small gangs to roam into null is pointless. They already do. All the time.
Seems like it must be a tough uphill struggle when you want to twist the facts to support your own narrative. You PvP-rah-rah types certainly seem to put a lot of effort into it.
Keep in mind that the numbers quoted are produced by CCP, not me, and come from 2015. When it was mostly paid subscribers, well before Alpha clones, and long before the “constant stream of login incentives” became their go-to for propping up the dismal player counts.
But hey, keep on twistin’! There’s a very small crowd of PvPers on the forum who will like anything you post so long as it’s negative BS, and facts be damned.
Why are numbers from 6 years ago relevant to eve today?
1 Like
Again, could you please give the definition of a ‘login’ so that we can continue discussing the value of the numbers you posted?
I could do an assumption, but I’d rather hear it from you too, so we both use the same definition.
- A ‘character’ is well defined: anything the character (identified by unique name) does
- A ‘player’ is a combination of all characters belonging to that player. It’s well defined, but hard for CCP to measure as they won’t know for certain which accounts belong to which person.
- A ‘login’ would then be an account, combining all characters on that account? That would be a logical unit CCP could provide numbers on.
Is this also what you are talking about when you say they have stats for every ‘login’?
Or another (wrong) assumption...
From the name ‘login’ itself my first assumption was ‘all the actions on one character between logging in and out’, but that would produce nonsense results as a PvP character that logs in, does PvP, then logs out, then logs back in, does no PvP, then logs back out, would add '50% of logins do PvP’ to the statistics in that case… so I’m pretty sure CCP did not pick that as their definition of ‘login’. 
2 Likes
For better or worse I would assume that is the actual definition of a login, as it’s pretty consistent across gaming measurement discussions. A login is everything a character does between logging in to the game on a character, and logging out of the game on a character. Recall that in those days there was no “logout” option to switch characters on the same account. To switch characters, you had to exit the client and log back in again.
I also don’t see why that would produce ‘nonsense’ results, as we are talking about the frequency of PvP here, not the number of characters or players. What you do during a login is a pretty good indicator of how attractive that activity is to you.
Conversely to your example, a character who logs in, does PvP, logs out, logs back in again, does another PvP, would count for at least 4 hits on the frequency. The point of statistics is that over hundreds of thousands of events all those border cases wash out and you get a pretty good picture of the overall situation.
The following are assumptions, because only CCP can answer your question, not me:
A login where a character logged in, checked his trades on the market, adjusted some, completed an industrial job, undocked, mined 1000m3 ore, docked, switched ships, undocked, fought a duel, docked again, would count as 1 Login for all those activities.
It isn’t character based or account based or player based, because it counts each individual login separately and ticks off all the activities engaged in during that login. Again, keeping in mind this is back in the day when Alphas didn’t exist and probably 90% or more of all logins were on paid accounts.
Thus it may be more accurate to read their statistic as “86.2% of all logins engaged in zero PvP activity”. And again, every person that seeks out PvP causes a minimum of 2 hits on the PvP counter, whereas most activities will cause only a single hit. So depending on whether you are counting “actively engaged in PvP” or “PvP occurrred”, the numbers there will be inflated.
One simple solution is to tie the null faucets to normalized destruction values per constellation/region. Too little fighting, and space stagnates with less ore, fewer NPCs, fewer anomalies, etc. But if players fight, and sovereignty changes hands, then the winners of those encounters would take (or retain) possession of space that is now refreshed with PvE opportunities.
I doubt the null lobby would favor this sort of change, though. The farming must not be interrupted, especially when there are people who literally pay their rent through it. That ISK on places like PA doesn’t just magically appear there.
Very few players would take advantage of this (just like very few take advantage of abyssal arenas today), and they certainly won’t be miners. That’s just wishful thinking. When I infiltrate carebear corps, most of those players won’t even help test a tank, even if I offer to provide them with a ship to do it with so they don’t risk “accidentally blowing up.” The response is like “go n ask a pvper m8 i dun reely wanna fite.” It’s a different breed of gamer. They’re not going to do your arenas, no matter how palatable you try to make them.
That’s because in the past, there was a limited number of DED complexes to go around, and groups constantly fought each other for access, or even brought gangs to secure areas temporarily so that they could farm them out.
Now that you can upgrade your systems and spawn as many of the things as you want, there’s no longer a need to fight anyone over territory.
No, it doesn’t. Maybe you’re thinking of building risk tolerance through continuous exposure to risk, but this isn’t the same thing. Many players who experience PvP as targets of other players do not become any less averse to experiencing it further in that same context, or seeking it out on their own as active participants.
But you already can call someone out? We have a dueling feature in the game, and it even protects participants from external interference. You can even agree to use alts or a neutral third party to scan the ships to ensure participants are abiding by the agreed rules (if any).
Your idea is effectively an extension of the abyssal arena feature. I personally don’t care about whether or not it’s in the game as it doesn’t affect me, but I think we’re both well aware that very few players will take advantage of it, and the ones that do are likely to be career PvPers anyway who are seeking fame on some official leader board.
In a perfect world it shouldn’t, but it has to be if the majority of the game’s population lives there, and the majority of the game’s economic activity happens there.
Think about how much stuff is destroyed when a freighter explodes, and how much the economy relies on that happening for stability.
1 Like
This is creative, and is the sort of thing I think they were aiming for with their new ‘dynamic’ systems. You are correct that the null lobbies control too many subs and would not allow this. They would simply tell their constituents to start cancelling subs until CCP “saw the light”.
It would also have the problem that many people would think “I’ll just keep farming, it’s someone else’s job to pump up the destruction numbers” and I suspect many would accept a reduced safe payout rather than engage in more destruction.
Now a potentially interesting twist on it might be, if the powers that control Sov didn’t do enough fighting and destruction to be considered “policing” an area, that the number and strength of NPCs in the region would keep increasing to the point where pitched battles needed to be fought to bring the area back under control. The destruction resulting from that in turn bringing the “control” level back down to acceptable for the time being.
I agree, even though I think the concept is at least worthy of running some numbers and trying to develop it a bit. I also agree that the issue with “gladiator battle” type setups is that unless there is a need to participate in them, or good rewards even for failing, that in general only the people who think they’re going to win will sign up for it. So something like less than 10% (or less than 5% in some cases) participate.
I specified freighters being impervious to piracy, not to ganking.
Piracy deserves a level of complexity in consonance with EVE Online.
Ship destruction should not be the typical end game. I think it’s a great idea.
Someone insisted that EVE is too focused in kills. Well, there is a plausible way. I think you’d like it too.
I don’t have any problems negotiating with someone to either pay a ransom or surrender the freighter for a percentage of its value being given back to them, and have done it many times in the past.
Being able to take control of a ship by force would eliminate these relationships entirely, and distill every encounter into a guaranteed total loss for the target. They’d just self-destruct every single time.
That would be my definition of a login too.
But I would argue the numbers are skewed the other way.
When I log in to PvP I usually login, PvP roam etc then log out.
When I was doing reactions I would log multiple characters in and out, multiple times.
So I think you can stop claiming that PvPers are over represented by this.
Thanks, that’s a workable definition.
It also means that those statistics, using ‘logins’ are worthless for your claim that very few people PvP for the fun of it.
Quote with claim and numbers
For example, I consider myself a PvP player who enjoys doing PvP for fun.
I log in at least 10 times not doing PvP for every time I do PvP. My personal login engagement of PVP would thus be less than 10%.
While there may be PvP players who do nothing but PvP, I think there is a large group of players who do various things in EVE, PvP and PvE. Each of those players will have a lowering effect on that login number.
Your claim was about people enjoying PvP. You used login numbers to build your point on.
It’s not hard to see that people are not logins. And it’s also not hard to see that login activity percentages can be vastly lower than what players enjoy doing.
While I won’t make a claim about how many people do PvP, your numbers don’t prove anything for your cause.
This is what I mean with that you need to understand the numbers you’re using with, if you’re trying to convince people with data. Because your data is irrelevant to your claim.
And also 6 years old, but that’s a minor detail.
1 Like
Well, thanks for demonstrating once again that there are people who can math, and people who can’t.
This is why lotteries make hundreds of billions of dollars all over the world. Because people think one made-up example invalidates literally millions of data points.
EVE would have in the neighborhood of 10 million logins per month. The examples of you and the other “reactions” guy are meaningless noise in the background of that. And again, every PvP event gives 2 or more hits on the counter, unlike all the economy ones.
You’re a nullblob F1 monkey. You PvP when the blob says to PvP. Because you do that 1 in 10 logins, do you assume that means 10% of players are also nullblob F1 monkeys?
The data says what it says. You and the other desperate “must argue against everything” forum PvPers can make up all the counterexamples you like. PvP is and always has been a minority activity in EVE. It’s pretty clear from just how little attention CCP pays to it. I mean FW has been badly broken for over a decade… they don’t care. PvP isn’t where the money comes from.
If you’ve got better stats based on millions of logins, feel free to provide them. And for the record, I didn’t make any claims as to how many players PvP or not. Only to say it’s a small percentage. The claim I made was this:
And the numbers show that, overwhelmingly, people are logging in to do economy, and a very small amount of PvP. Please try to get what you’re arguing against straight. It makes you look foolish when you can’t even manage something simple like that.
Eve doesn’t need MORE instanced PVP, it needs the chance of achieving something from engaging your enemy. As long as we have 30k member alliances that can easily hold up in a relatively small area of space (for a year) and be completely safe, meaningful destruction in Eve will remain a stalemate.
CCP aready have the code for what causes stagnency and if they were willing to tip the rocks over and shake things up they could.
I just don’t think they are willing to tip those rocks over because those living under them won’t like it.
Fetch me a left handed screw driver…
1 Like
Im fixinf the smovnotch that ignites the flangelactuator. It’s also potentially explosive so stand back a bit.
And here’s why things need to change.
When one group simply wins with N+1 it removes a lot of the drive to engage.
Encounters like this is just ganking without consequences.
So what is enough PvP for you? You keep moving the goal posts LOL.
How would you know? You don’t even play bruv.
So are you for PvP or nah? Cause you can’t have it both ways 
I mean you could always start a duel at the sun club.
N+1 has been a reality since one ape slapped another. You wanna win? Find more friends. Its a simple fact of warfare. Anything said otherwise is sophistry.
1 Like