Player Count

They pulled it because it was an unplayble mess before with a grind as long as… Oooh I see what you are saying here



All the charts for the game look like this:
Everything going down like:

Weeeeeeeee!!! That’s me on Alpha clone, lol.


The numbers are unlikely to go up again, beyond the occasional spike or blip, until/unless the devs present a clear roadmap based on a critical analysis or a design philosophy and implement the first improvements on that road.

Trying to improve FW is nice and all, but it’s simply not enough.

The crap CCP and Netease are trying to test on the poor players in China is definitely not the right direction.


The player count will increase, when more of the ‘Eve is doomed’ players have actually left and stopped making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Right. Everyone who wants to play EVE now but doesn’t is only waiting for doomsayers to quit EVE so they can get started… the more I read it the more it made sense.

P.S: Wait up… on the other hand the results of this CCP team’s work make sense. EVE is about risk vs reward vs loss. I guess CCP took risks, got rewards and now have loss.
Everything seems to be going as planned :smiley:


But that is literally the game: Everyone vs Everyone = EvE …which includes the devs too. :wink:




Oh wait, you’re serious?


1 Like


Could you just stop?

It’s getting weird.


Then stop talking nonsense.

1 Like

How is that making nonsense? Care to explain?

1 Like

Because anyone else can see that thread you refer to and know that your take on it is, in fact, nonsense. You, obviously, can’t so no reason to explain it to you any further.

My take on that is exactly the first thought that came to mind after seeing that announcement (9 hours ago) which brought out an honest observation and reason for suggesting such improvements that allowed myself to contribute on this player count thread which showed a possitive attitude on my behalf to the eve community.

If you have an issue with that, it is best to just report it.


Dude what is wrong with you?

Do you get off on spreading false information?

Player count will not only recover but will go higher when Faction warfare update is released, imo. Unless it takes to long to be released then Eve might not make it.

1 Like

Maybe you should cut back on Shipwreck’s koolaid. But on the off-chance you’re speaking from ignorance and not from foolishness, here’s some facts for you:

  • The doomsayers have been doomsaying since 2003. They’re not very influential.
  • The doomsayers cry out on forums that less than 5% of EVE players read.
  • The doomsayers shift from the PvP crowd to the PvE crowd to the Indy crowd regularly.
  • The changes CCP implements, however, reach every single player in the game.

Now, a few random voices with no clear agenda that have been wailing for 2 decades? Or a decade of little to no content, extremely unpopular “fixes”, lies, broken promises, and active sabotaging of player efforts by CCP? Which has more influence on the player count?

Players stay when they are currently feeling engaged with the game, and also have confidence they will enjoy it in the future. When neither of those are present, players leave in large numbers.


A lot of players are being alienated by the price hike, by the code of conduct violations at events recently and during the summer the hardcore toxic players have less noobs to go after. So noob toxicity saturation levels are higher.


Oof didn’t even consider this, so the acid is evapourating xD

1 Like

You mean the sort of ‘facts’ that get presented with sawn off graphs or with zero regard to the fact that concurrency and ‘number of players’ are not actually the same thing ?

Heck, you could have a 25% fall in concurrency with exactly the same ‘number of players’…simply by people on average logging in for 25% less time. People present concurrency as if it were an exact measure of ‘number of players’ and hence you could use it to determine that people are ‘leaving’. But it isn’t ! Concurrency actually tells you nothing about the ‘number of players’…what it tells you is the average number logged in at any one time. It is far more a measure of how long people log in for. A graph of concurrency is NOT the same thing as ‘number of players’.

1 Like

You already stated this theoretical possibility in other thread, and I already factually proved the fallacy of it.

So guess you’re in the crowd that says “Hey I’m not going to let annoying facts get in the way of my opinions. My opinions are right no matter how wrong you prove them to be!”

Bit disappointed that so many people would rather live in a fantasy world than deal with reality. Still, that’s apparently not unusual around here, nor at CCP HQ either.

However, feel free to present any non-sawed off graphs or other factual details you have to back up your opinion. Perhaps you’ve seen a pattern nobody else knew existed.

(Previous reply:)


Er…no…a statistically factual description of the data is a hell of a lot less fallacious than your personal opinion.

Sawn off graphs are statistically fallacious…they are a classic ploy for mis-representing data. Failing to point out that concurrency in January 2022 was actually only 6% lower than in January 2020 is statistically fallacious. Failing to point out that ‘number of people playing’ is not the same thing as concurrency…that is statistically fallacious too.

Those are facts…and facts trump personal opinion. You are the one ignoring the facts.

I’m not arguing that there are not, or cannot be, fewer ‘people playing’. I’m arguing that the extent of it is being deliberately mis-represented.

1 Like

I’m pretty sure data showing that, minute by minute, hour by hour, EVE having the exact same login pattern in early July of 2018 as it does in 2022, except with every interval being 5-6k players lower, doesn’t constitute “my personal opinion”.

That’s fact. That’s sampled data. That’s reality. That’s also a roughly 20% drop.

Trying to hare off on “well concurrent users could be just logging on for much shorter times” is a theoretical possibility, debunked by actual measured data. Ignoring 5 years of data (in the other thread you refer to here) in order to focus on one month only two years apart is hypocritical in the extreme when you’re going on about “misrepresentation of data”.

When you’ve got data that supports your point, show it. Otherwise you’re seen as yet another “alternative facts” inventor with more bluster than brains.