Yeah that number is pretty laughable. Where are you getting it from?
1 Like
When I log in at peak times the number is 30K. When I log in like say now, thereâs a grand total of 15K people on. And how many of those are alts. Most people run multiple accounts. The number of players physically at station is probably around 5-8K. I have mentioned the 30K thing and was âcorrectedâ by the null puritans that CCP has a total of 60K subscribers right now. 60K is not even enough to turn the lights on for most MMOâs. So the fact that they tout this as being super awesome is a JOKE. Once upon a time 60K active players was the norm. Then CCP in their stubbernness lost most of those people, because well, they were your standard MMO player who just didnât find the game exciting or enjoyable. Missions are a joke. Incursions are too hard to get into. the PVE content is crap. This game is dying because of their insane focus on a PVP only, player driven game. IE: Fallout 76. And we all know how well that business model worked out for Bethesda now, donât we.
P.S. - Thereâs 10 times as many people playing fallout 76 as there are total subscribers for EVE. Let that sink in.
And one more thing. People seem to think that CCP is raking in all this money. This game is literally HINGING on a handful of whales that pump nothing but money into this game. When they finally leave the game, EVE will be dead in the water. EVE has been dead in the water since 2010. This game should have died long ago. So people who say that this game has lasted longer than most MMOâs out there? Thatâs because of your whales. When subscription numbers plumetted, they had to introduce PLEX. And thatâs what happened. The whales injected cash into this game. The business model for CCP right now is: Rely on the whales.
The number logged in at any one time is not a measure of subscribers.
Back at the last time CCP presented numbers to compare logged in numbers with overall numbers:
During a period of average peak characters online of 41K, the number of unique users per day averaged 175K and the average number of unique users per month was 420K.
We also know that about that same time, the total number of subscribed accounts was about 480K (from the number of names on the EVE monument).
As an international game running 24/7, the numbers logged has never been the number of subscribers.
The most recent, verifiable numbers from 2 years ago, suggest there is around 300-350K subscribers now, although some put it a bit lower. This one for example. It also has estimates that are lower than data we can confirm, so is likely to error on the low side.
Also, we know that multiple accounts per player doesnât match the raw data.
We should expect that the more a player is into the game, the more likely they are to have alts on multiple accounts, but we canât necessarily confirm that assumption to be true, even if it intuitively seems right. What we do know, regardless of people using multiple accounts is that the common belief that running lots of accounts is the norm, doesnât appear to be the case (ie. In a period of the game where we had around 480K subscibers, we had 420K unique people logging in per month. That suggests are really large number of single account players active then. We donât really have any data to suggest a massive shift since).
Whether that is good or not is a bit subjective. Itâs a pity to me that the game is pretty stagnant, and despite all of the changes CCP have made to the game, nothing theyâve done has really changed that. I think some hard decisions need to be made if the game is going to move out of maintenance mode, but Iâm not sure CCP has the executive willing to make those calls.
2 Likes
This is utter nonsense. EVE grew and peaked when it had much less PvE than it has today and the PvP focus was even stronger. EVEâs current decline is because endgame PvP has flaws that are not getting fixed, not because carebear parasites canât mindlessly farm their missions effectively enough. In fact, if CCP stopped wasting time on pandering to farmers with PvE that is still boring and adds minimal real content to the game weâd probably be in a better place.
3 Likes
CCP are far from having insane focus on PVP only.
so get rid of PVE then. that includes industry, PI anything that has no player interaction with another toon.
1 Like
Balance is key, for those who say remove pvp or remove pve you are missing the point 
2 Likes
the topic of fixing the game is not about pvpers, vs pvers. Its about making the game enjoyable to everyone. I think at this point everyone can agree that the way the progression of eve should take place includes the standard risk vs reward method.
Im not disagreed with this, i am disagreed with the neanderthal mentality, Ie those that say they should massively over power some new player. Its a dying mindset that wont exist in games in 5-10 years.
1 Like
Industry has plenty of interaction with other players and is required for EVE to function. Industry players buy minerals from miners and provide the ships and equipment for combat. Itâs the core of the player-driven economy and one of the things that makes EVE unique.
Missions do not have any meaningful interaction other than an occasional loot sale. Missions donât tie into any other part of the game, mission gameplay has nothing to do with real combat, missions are utterly nonsensical from a story point of view, and many mission-focused players deliberately take an approach of âmissions only, foreverâ. More than any other activity missions encourage you to treat it as a separate game within EVE and sit there mindlessly pressing F1 and generating meaningless ISK out of nowhere.
1 Like
Look at that Naari-alt!
Fascinating!
Industry is PvP, mate.
When you only look at the surface of things, then all you get to see is the shiny âŚ
⌠covering a smelly, brown turd hidden underneath.
Please donât do that.
2 Likes
My replies inline above.
Industry, PI, trading, hauling, mining, etc. are all PVP activities. You may not be shooting other players with guns or missiles or drones, but you are competing against them directly using less violent means.
Was unaware it was the case now.
In the old days if we kited concord weâd get a gm in chat yelling and threatening to bad us. this was a way to circumvent the intended mechanics of eve. This position is a good position and should be kept.
Code and others circumvent the system by ignoring criminal flags by using alts to inject into destroyers to suicide gank, circumventing the criminal - concord system, at least for a short enough period to kill a freighter. Thus, removing this feature outright is a hard-stop to this abuse of intended mechanics.
these are valid points, but i would advocate for either them on a freighter, a rework to freighters, or an assault module being fittable to freighters.
many of the high sec activities are designed in a way that direct isk income is not an option for players. for new players, this is highly important. So we need to look at creating direct isk income rates to help people have more liquid isk. A good option for example for mining would be an npc buy back option where the empires buy ore for the regional value - 5% or something.
People make the claim that many high sec activities make these isk per hour rates, but they require extreme rates of skill, isk, and knowledge. I am more concerned with the new, to moderately old players (< 2-3 years).
Then we come to issues like the missions LP system. Its tacky, a mess, and while its intended to give options, all that really comes out of it is more isk-optimization. It would be significantly better if the isk per mission rewards were increased, while reducing the value of the mission rewards for per-hour bases. this can be done by removing a lot of the costs to LP rewards, and simply increasing the LP costs for the item.
The lp store is horrid, and really needs to be redone, most importantly, most of the value needs to be shifted to raw isk.
I am of the opinion that things like 3 man abyssal runs are highly important. I support more group-related activities in eve, and i go a step further and say we should get bonus isk, and rewards for being in a fleet (or squad or wing) while doing it.
More Combat sites (kill the rates) and more Exploration sites (hacking, gas mining, etc) should be a thing. Especially in high and low sec.
The level 5âs are ok to be capital based, if the level 4s gain isk buffs to say 25-35m per a mission.
% Health has the benefit of allowing some piracy from happening in smaller ships, which i am support of. If a ceptor goâs from 2 to 3 hits to die, im ok with it. But over all 4-5 hits to death would mean no more perma-battleship camps, and multi-fire would prevent long-term camping on gates in low. this would shift a lot of the low pvp to the belts, sites, etc.
AS i said, i am more interested in shifting piracy to non-lethal forms, with âpirate shipsâ (npc pirate factions) having special modules that âteleportâ or âtransportâ things out of the cargo. this is more efficient for both pirate, and pirated.
weâve tried this for 16 years. Its time to make changes. The âpointâ can be changed, and its about time we do it. Low sec has never been a serious thing for most players, just an annoyance. we can do so much better with it.
I do not believe that these sites should be security restricted. Instead, the values should be. These are significant ways to diversify one of the two most major forms of game play in eve(possibly the largest of the two). making them both more persistent in eve would be a huge drive in the direction of industrial diversity, which could spawn new corporations and focusâs into life.
That alone makes it worth it.
That is only the case if the coalitions can effectively use military power as a single entity, and that is not possible with the overview changes, at the least, not practical.
I am ok with going from +10 to 0 istantly with some sort of official âwe are breaking friendshipâ but this should come at the cost of not being able to ally again for a period of 90 days. I am not ok with going -10 to 0 with out mutual agreement and some limited time. I am ok and support renter alliances to a limited level and purpose that we should have âtreatiesâ that allow one alliance to pay 30% of its tax income to a master alliance under something like a subjugation treaty.
I personally believe in a uniformed system and i believe this change would validate both null and wormholeâs positions better. Plus it has the added benefit of making roams more potentially lethal (by allowing people to get past intel channels easier).
Or, instead of whining about suicide ganking, freighter pilots could stop being bad at EVE. If a freighter pilot is smart itâs virtually impossible to profitably suicide gank them. And we donât need to make significant gameplay changes to pander to the people who are too stupid and/or lazy to use the existing tools.
many of the high sec activities are designed in a way that direct isk income is not an option for players.
Exactly! EVE is a single unified economy and thatâs the whole point. We absolutely do not need a mechanic that allows players to bypass one of EVEâs most important features and only interact with NPCs. And we certainly donât need it for players who have been in the game 2-3 years.
The lp store is horrid, and really needs to be redone, most importantly, most of the value needs to be shifted to raw isk.
IOW, you donât understand EVEâs economy and the difference between ISK faucets and rewards that only move ISK from player to player.
But over all 4-5 hits to death would mean no more perma-battleship camps
It would also mean no PvP at all near sentry guns, but Iâm sure you consider this a good thing.
(Hint: it isnât actually a good thing.)
That is only the case if the coalitions can effectively use military power as a single entity, and that is not possible with the overview changes, at the least, not practical.
IOW, you are still making the argument that bad interface design is somehow a good design goal. Arenât you the person who claims to be a game designer? Shouldnât this be obvious 101-level stuff weâre talking about?
or you could stop being touchbags to eve. how about we invalidate your form of game play with some stone-age level batnerfs and kick you completely out of high sec? I think no criminal activities in high sec at all would be a great start. Hell, most of high sec loves that idea anyways. If ccp had anysense they would grow a set and make the change. I honestly think you plebs are to look to do any real pvp.
i think ccp should out right completely ignore your position. As i said if i had control over the game iâd nerf your mentality in to the stoneage so hard that itâd be an example to remember in the industry for the future of all games on how not to piss off devs with douchery.
By the way, get use to this while it lasts, because this mentality will likely no exist after 5 years in new game designs, and as far as iv seen, eve is the last game it exists in. Your mentality is a dying breed, and i would like to advise you to seek some pyschological help that you need to pick on people "too stupid to use a tool, in order to some how validate yourself.
With that im done talking to you. I dont have time for âlets abuse the noobâ mentality. As someone that has lead a multi-gaming clan that is pvp based and held rank 1 title in 6 consecutive games, i just dont think your up to par with real pvp or capable of any level of competitive gameplay. Your just a bully.
Wow your âachievementsâ Lies just keep adding up donât they?
https://forums.eveonline.com/uploads/short-url/xCOlg5QdHTbZEuGkRkVVFP99HuX.png
Oh look, another copy of the same tired old carebear bleating about how highsec needs to be 100% safe for 23/7 farming. Fortunately CCP disagrees with you and highsec crime is a fundamental part of EVEâs identity that will not be changing.
I dont have time for âlets abuse the noobâ mentality.
People with enough wealth to buy a freighter and billions of ISK worth of cargo are not ânoobsâ.
Im not a high-sec carebear btw. I am a highly experience null FC, and co-leader of several highly successful alliances in either military or alliance leadership.
i dont think saying an entire companyâs position is the same, we developers disagree, our job is very political with the conversation between ourselves, and with investors.
On another note, That is the exact reason why i wrote the corporate management of pearl abyss advising them to terminate the current ceo of ccp, because i believe he is less likely to concede his position, then to be fired.