I have been advocating for WIS for years, check my post history. But People that keep going on about its a Space ship game only, Is part of the reason, the player count is falling, A Lot of people want immersion, not forced engagement. And without the choice, They just leave. I Mean look at Star Citizen, a alpha demo of a game with more players than eve has ever had. Google the player count.
3 Likes
Well…one could point out that concurrency is not the same thing as active players. I mean, one could have concurrency falling yet have exactly the same number of active players…simply as a result of each player logging in for less time.
See, this is precisely why graphs can be so misleading. But as I get jumped on for simply pointing out the truth about statistics…I’ll just leave it at that.
2 Likes
What i Do find a bit worrying, is that the forums are more fun than the game lol.
2 Likes
I can’t say NOBODY cares about it, but I can say that I, personally, don’t care about walking in stations. But when I say that, if they were to bring it back (assuming they do it right), I’d be happy for a new immersive feature being added to the game. Given the reasons why they took it out, though, I don’t see it happening and I don’t think it’s practical or necessary, which is why I can say I don’t care about it. It isn’t something I’d be upset by not seeing, and it isn’t something I’d be upset by seeing. I’ll use it if it happens, and if it’s done well, because it’s a cool idea. But I won’t actively try and push for it, because good reasons have been presented for why it’s not a practical idea.
And on the topic of the “declining” playerbase, a few people have noted that the rookie help channel seems to have been getting more active lately, and that’s mostly because of more new people, not experienced players joining to make it look more active. I’m not sure why that’s the case, but I’m hopeful in part because of those comments I’ve seen. The game definitely isn’t feeling to me like it’s dying, let alone dead. There’s been a lot of circumstantial reasons why the current playercounts are lower than they have been in the past, and there’s continuing reasons why the playercount is likely to remain lower this year than it has been in previous years, and might take a while to raise back into line with the past heights the game has seen. But there’s room for it to potentially grow in spite of the reasons why it might not, and room for bad choices by the devs to lead it into a downward spiral. I haven’t seen any indications that the latter is the direction to expect, but I also haven’t seen much to suggest it’ll pull off unexpected growth. It’ll most likely have similar fluctuations to what’s been shown year in and year out previously, but with (slightly) lower numbers than the community is used to seeing.
And on the topic of those lower numbers, the graph is misleading and anyone who had a half-decent teacher in a statistics class could tell you the reasons why. They’ve been presented very well already by someone who claims to have worked in a relevant position, and shows plenty of indications of that claim being true. The argument against that claim is as stupid as it was described - it’s trying NOT to look like it’s saying “this graph isn’t as obvious an example of manipulative and misleading manipulation of a graph, so we can pretend that means it isn’t misleading at all” while still saying that.
And on this note… are you sure the forums aren’t part of the game? xD
1 Like
Hey bro I said I was someone and I care.
You post is just trolling.
Why not give a positive suggestion on how to stop, and reverse decline.
2 Likes
Actually I care about in station content…
Walking in Stations provides Immersion, and would allow for a plethora of things to do.
SO I will ask you @Gix_Firebrand Please Kindly Shut the F*CK up, you do not speak for me you little cretin. 
6 Likes
Because playtime trending towards 0 is so good for the game.
No matter how you try to wiggle, you were wrong, you were wrong to jump on people, and the falling PCU/ACU is a sign of serious trouble no matter which way you try to … misrepresent … it.
There are numerous misleading aspects. Perhaps the main one is that you have to compare like for like, and be very careful what the data actually is and what it is being compared with. Thus, a graph of concurrency does not…as many seem to think…show you the number of active players. You could actually have the exact same number of active players log in for less time…and the concurrency would fall.
Yes, there is a relationship between concurrency and active players. There is bound to be. But they are not the exact same thing…and concurrency falling does not automatically mean ‘less actual people are playing the game’.
1 Like
Oh for God’s sake…welcome to my ‘ignored’ list.
As an aside, does anyone have any idea how short a play session would have to be reduced to in order for the PCU to drop from 50k to 20k without losing total number of daily logins?
I was just about to say; if it’s too hot for you, get out of the kitchen. 
Still talking about graphs. How about suggestions on how to address the serious issue of losing players?
Lets hear your suggestions.
1 Like
Sorry, they just can’t let it go.
anyway step 1: sub price of $9.99 cuz that’s the value being delivered by the game at the moment.
1 Like
How do you know you are losing players without a graph ?
Because we’re not; those graphs are mIsLeAdInG. Obviously we have even more players than before; it’s just that they only login long enough to do their dailies. 
1 Like
I guess I need someone to tell me what I can see with my own eyes. I play from EU prime time through East coast USA prime time and the numbers I see on login screen have decreased for 24k to 20k and evenings from 20k to 16k. I suppose I am not seeing this for myself and imagining this.
As Alphas cannot [legally] multi box on one computer [acknowledging there are ways around this] if the number of alphas is the same, logic would say the login numbers are either Omegas that left completely, or reduced their number of accounts. The unknown number of Omegas that are now Alpha complicates the meaning of the numbers.
CCP should be actively asking the player base:
- What will keep them in the game?
- What do they believe will recruit new players?
- For a change listen to the people that are spending their hard earned money on the game.
2 Likes
CCP has forgotten the time honored wisdom “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”, forsaking the former to pursue 1/2 the latter.
3 Likes
So, as I said before, even though the graphs are misleading, they’re misleading by suggesting a larger impact on player activity than is actually happening, not by making the player activity look like it’s dropping when it isn’t. There HAS BEEN a decline in player activity and that is continuing into a time where there’s normally a dip in player activity.
The problem here is that this ISN’T a case of “people are leaving EVE because of problems with EVE” anywhere near as much as a problem of “there are awful things going on in people’s lives that mean they can’t spend time playing EVE” and no amount of changes to the game will bring those people back in the short term while the problems they’re facing are still present. The only fix for these problems is to do things which are well beyond the scope of the devs for a significant portion of the cause of this problem.
Exaggerating the scale of the problem with misleading graphs, and stacking that with a demand that the devs fix a problem they have literally zero potential to influence, isn’t productive. There is room for suggestions to help mitigate the reduction in activity due to recent and current events. There’s room for the game to potentially pull itself out of the apparent slump its activity figures are showing. But there are reasons why those figures are low which can’t be fixed in-game because they’re not in-game problems. Unless a new source of players can be opened up to, or things outside the devs’ control happen to change for the better, there’s going to be a limit on how far reaching you can reasonably expect any impact from in-game changes to be at this stage.
And to answer this question:
The answer’s practically in the question. For every 50 minutes of playtime before the playercount dropped, players would have to drop to 20 minutes. It would require the average playtime across the playerbase to have dropped by 60% - BUT that’s still misleading because it’s butting up against one of the reasons that graph was called out for being misleading. The current low point should be compared to the similarly-timed low points of previous years around the same time as the low point shown in the various charts people have provided showing a pattern across the year of this time of year being a “slump” in player activity. This is still a scenario where the current low is lower than it was previously (and the high points are lower than previous high points have been), but the gap between last year’s peak player activity and this year’s bottom of the trough isn’t a valid comparison to be making.
The gap is closer to a comparison between 25 and 20 than a comparison between 50 and 20 as you’re suggesting. And at that point, for every 50 minutes someone played before the activity dropped, they’d still be playing 40 minutes now. That’s still a 20% reduction in average player activity to create the same apparent drop in activity without losing players, but it’s a lot less than the 60% you’re suggesting people should be looking at. Which is exactly why the graph is so misleading in how it’s presented (but, as has been covered, there are multiple things it does wrong which are bad for different reasons and create different ways for it to be misleading about the situation).
2 Likes
Down 1/3 in 16 months. That’s from the information present on the graph. The Y axis clearly labels the player counts in increments of 2k.
Ok. I’ll do this when I get home.
I disagree. Walking in stations (or some form of it) is actually mentioned as one of the main selling points missing from the game in Steam reviews. Even a rudimentary WiS feature would probably attract a moderate amount of additional players to the game.
And as a feature that would only add to the game without taking anything away, it would be win-win for everyone. Development resources would likely be recouped just from the increased cosmetic sales alone. CCP probably just doesn’t have any staff on hand that can implement something like this again, however, and they probably don’t want to hire temps for a specific feature.
4 Likes