The summer has passed, but Eve has not returned to 40,000 concurent users

Communications Center General Discussion
102

EVE = (OldPlayers + SettlingPlayers + NewPlayers) - (NewPlayersQuitting + SettingPlayersQuitting + OldPlayersQuitting)

  • They’re ordered from “least likely to quit” to “most likely to quit”.

  • “Settling Players” are players who went beyond being New Players, but aren’t yet Old Players.

In the last minutes, CCP mentioned that it was not New Players, but (what I call) Settling Players that caught their attention. Old Players are least likely to quit. New Players are most likely to quit. Settling Players are the “in betweeners”. They might shift into O, or might not and quit.

An Old Player is more likely to play again after staying logged off for a week, simply because otherwise they would have never reached the state of “Old Player” in the first place. For “Old Players” EVE’s usually a hobby more than a game, and as we’ve learned to wait (due to skills), waiting a week means nothing to us anyway.

  • I assume a retention rate of 5%, which means that NQ is around 95% of N, which is probalby in the lower regions of likeliness. That means these 5% of New Players switch to the group Settling Players. The 5% are some official number I’ve heard years ago, or maybe I’m far off. Not that important anyway.

  • N is always some high number. The value doesn’t matter. The important part of N is that, despite people quitting or switching to a different “rank”, it’s always the same number due to new new players re-filling N all the time.

E = (O + S + N) - (NQ + SQ + OQ)

SQ is made up of different functions (wars were one of them) decreasing it, sucking N dry.

Remember: People from N shift into S, then into O. Everything’s fine as long as there’s a healthy amount of people shifting from S into O and everything’s properly balanced. When the downward pressure in S (people quitting due to wars) gets too high it means there’s lots of N wasted into S, where they quit, never reaching the state of O. That’s bad.

CCP wants to change the equation in a way so more people shift from S to O.

We can safely assume that the number of S quitting must have been significant enough for CCP to consider the change. If it had not been, then it would not have been worth it. Assuming that the amount of people who stopped playing due to wars isn’t significant makes zero sense at all, because otherwise none of this would have needed to happen in the first place, and we’d not be having this one-sided forum conversation.

So, when there’s a downward pressure on S due to SQ, and we cut SQ down to half (or any amount, really, we don’t know) … what do we get? We get less downward pressure on S, which means less people quit during their S state, which opens up the possibility of more people shifting from S into O.

S is decreasing less, which results in more people staying around, potentially shifting into O.

Look. You are not wrong per se, in saying that a reduction of a decrease does not equal an increase. You’re right about that and I’m not denying it, nitpicker as I am as well.

You’re ignoring, though, that you’re being specific, which really is the magic keyword here. In general, activity in the system as a whole (EVE) increases due to less people quitting. Specifically, in terms of individual units’ activities, you’re correct in saying that less reduction of activity does not translate into an increase of activity. It only means that, for specific individuals, people just don’t do less than before.

In general, again, it still translates into an increase in activity for the system as a whole simply because less people are quitting, thus less people lowering their activity until they quit.

Phew … what a post! :slight_smile:

4 Likes
103

If the effect wardecs had on players was so massive (which is what many would have us believe), their removal for thousands of players in the most populated area of the game should have noticeable effects on over all game activity.

If however, players were merely swapping corps whenever they were decced but actually kept playing (and paying) then the wardec changes wont change player activity (nor their inclination to pay for the game). And the change could be ill considered given the effect it can have on long term pvp players.

So far, it appears to be the latter.

1 Like
104

No it’s not exactly this. If you lose 20/day and after the modification you only lose 10/day then you obviously are still losing. Yet the reduction in loss is important.

Hu… no, for the same reasons. Less people lowering their activity does not mean an increase in activity.

Hu, no. I mean, you don’t have the tools to notice anything. Setting arbitrary measure because that’s the only one you have access to does not mean you have that measure is relevant.

As I understood it, players were connecting less during a wardec, and the total activity (hours played per week) was not increasing after the wardec, meaning players were connecting less after a wardec, which in turn means players less likely to keep playing after some time
Maybe I misunderstood though…

105

Solstice
The point of my post is that relevant changes (retention rate) probably won’t be quickly visible in the proxy (raw activity data).

It would work ok if most beginners were in majority-beginner corps, and most times that such a corp was the target of a wardec the beginners stopped playing very quickly, and most/all never returned to EVE.

Those are quite strong assumptions though. It might be that simple, but I doubt it.

Things like seasonal effects (e.g. people playing more during the new year holiday period, less as they get more involved with work or school) and any changes in the underlying trend would also obscure the signal.

Neither of us can know for sure (though CCP might), but I doubt the available data is as easy to interpret as you suggest.

106

Why?

Because too little invest into eve. CCP don’t want to admit that investing = more profits, and now they’re doing mainly skins…

  • PVE is from stone age (give it at last some polishing like warping npc not poping from nowhere, some dialog boxs with avatars for rare, officer, faction rats etc little invest)
  • incursions are not touched and expanded from when they ware introduced, the same goes for resource wars and many more
  • nothing new in wormholes
  • no ring or comet mining, yeah moon mining is cool but it’s too little
  • militia is bad
  • null blue donut and brutal richness of corps is destruction for game
  • redesign and simplify archaic UI (the biggest problem for newcomers)
107

Yes, it does, because in the system as a whole more people are staying active compared to less people staying active. The amount of activity for the system as a whole increases.

Literally autism. :roll_eyes:

1 Like
108

CCP specifically mentioned that it was not New Players who are being affected. If they weren’t at all, or if it was insignificant, I don’t remember.

All seasonal effects are easily accounted for after over a decade of observing them.

I don’t know if you’re either underestimating their ability to look at the same thing they looked at already, or if you’re overestimating your understanding of what’s going on. I do know, though, that you’re trying too hard.

What I also know, is that you’re attempting to relativize all of this.
You’re kind of downplaying the changes and the impact, as if that made any sense.

You either need to learn more about what this is all about, (because you’ve shown that you don’t), or you need to learn that you understand far less than you think you do. Both would probably be for the best.

In any case, here it is simplified horribly:

In their database they looked at A, found out that A is being negatively influenced by B and thus decided to change B. All they need to look at is A to see if the change of B had an effect.

From their perspective they’re apparently looking at activity per person, or in groups, over time, which is pretty much what they kept talking about in the minutes. Activitiy of people inside player corporations.

I hope this helped making it clear that there really is no way they could not measure the effects of the change.

2 Likes
109

Don’t forget who you are arguing with. It is a rabid version of The Drac.

110

It’s true that we can run into problems attempting to make conclusions about the effects of certain changes, with only a single statistic like recent player activity levels with which to judge this effect. It’s impossible in this context for us to isolate the effect of something like the war dec. changes on player activity, because during this time there have been countless other factors at play that also impact player activity.

That said, CCP predicted that the war dec. changes would have a positive effect on the rate of player retention (which is directly linked to total player activity). If, in the time since that change we see constant or decreasing total player activity levels (after accounting for expected relative seasonal changes etc.), we must conclude that CCP’s claim that the war dec. changes would have a positive effect can ONLY be true if there are also new negative effects that have become factors during this time as well, and to a sufficient degree to cancel out the supposed gains from the war dec. changes.

Without more detailed statistics we are left speculating here, but I’d argue we can discern much in this speculation. We are not ignorant to the major changes during this time. Any claim that the war dec. changes have had a positive impact on player retention must be matched by an explanation for the actual player activity levels seen in the game since the change.

111

Litteraly BS. just because less people are staying less active does not mean the number of active people increases

Autism if you want, your post is just WRONG.
And autist if if you think so.

If your model implies that a reduction of loss is the same as an increase, then your model is wrong.

112

I think we can explain the negative trend quite easily.

Player who were logging in to pursue warfare in highsec have quit. It is logical they would quit. It should be expected they would quit.

The question is whether there is a tidal wave of noobs inbound to replace them.

I think warfare and risk were the drivers of pve… and that these changes will actually drive pve’ers out… but that’ll take a few months and manifest itself through the feeling of “empty space” and “dull lifeless local chat”.

I’m in a small Indy Corp right now. They talk about CODE nonstop. I mean, it gets more discussion than any aspect of the pve, Corp, manufacturing activity that we are actually doing.

They hate code, and so they talk about it. They read about it. They recruit people who get ganked. They dream about ways to beat code.

If not for CODE… I’m not sure what they would talk about.

Wars probably used to be part of that discussion…

As forced interaction is eliminated (as well as the voluntary interactions that cascade from forced interactions), Eve continues its way towards the single player model of little or no inter player interaction… and I’ve long argued that a single player Eve is almost laughably and obviously untenable.

7 Likes
113

Okay, guys, I gotta say …

… at this point it doesn’t matter if they’re trolling or retarded. Talking to them really not only leads nowhere, they also just literally disrupt any and all conversation, ever. I am not willing to deal with this any longer.

Every reply wasted on these people is literally a reply not spent on someone who has something actually smart, or insightful, to say. Every reply to them is literally making everyone around dumber, instead of smarter.

3 Likes
114

Please stop hurting yourself so much.
I know you are hurt but you need to accept that “less loss” is not an increase. I never thought this would be so hard for you to understand that, but I believe you are able to, one day.

115

Shai 'Hulud
Assuming CCP has reasonable direct statistics for new player retention, they will be proportions rather than absolute numbers. This probably makes them (a lot) more stable in a changing environment. Ratios/ percentages are usually much less affected by seasonal variation and changes in trends in “stock” values (like “hours played”).

They’ll probably have useful data within 8 to 12 weeks of the change, and perhaps be able to make decisions based on the 12-week data.

116

If a bucket is full of holes and one gets plugged, there’ll hardly be a difference. But if hole after hole is supposedly plugged, then eventually the rate of loss has to get lower than the rate of gain.

That’s the bit that is lost in the “you guys are just autistic” level of responding. What’s the bigger picture and when do we actually star to see it?

There is a lot of evidence from early on in EVE of the game growing when it was much harder and more ruthless.

Then around late 2012 the culture of development changed. Over the next few years there were changes that fundamentally altered EVE. Everything from the removal of can flipping, clone states (and promised but never delivered replacement to make gameplay around clones meaningful), default no friendly fire in Corps… …nerfs to pvp and buffs to the carebear lifecycle.

In the following 3 years, the game activity saw little but decline in peak activity:

chart%20(1)
chart%20(1)1200×900 87.9 KB

Since then, in the last 3 years we’ve seen attempts to plug hole after hole after hole. “Player retention” has been a significant focus of major presentations at almost every player gathering and a number of game design changes have derived from a desire of CCP to increase player retention (not just reduce the rate of decline).

While the decline has flattened out over the last 3 years, with a temporary spike in peak activity with Alpha clones, overall CCP’s approach hasn’t so far produced anything like what has been expected:

chart
chart1200×900 81.5 KB

Unfortunately, the claims that others are autists, or that their arguments are wrong without any actual counter argument backed by evidence at all, fail to understand that it’s not an argument about any individual change in the game.

The argument has been for a long time, that CCP’s general approach to game design is still wrong. They have progressively moved away from a challenging, harsh game, towards a more friendly environment, and that hasn’t produced the results the game had when it was dog-eat-dog.

Whether any one change is suddenly going to change the trend isn’t important (it likely won’t - alphas was the biggest changes we’ve seen and that just resulted in a blip).

What’s important is whether CCP’s development direction is likely to produce results. There are a number of people that think it won’t, and just dismissing them as autists is the outcome of a small mind.

4 Likes
117

And the issue is that “autistic” people believe that by just plugging ONE hole then the bucket should instantaneously become full.
I only answered to that specific nonsense that “autistic” people keep affirming . They don’t have the data, yet they affirm that THEY should be able to SEE an increase after a fix to a loss they did not see.

Again, I’m not saying wardec were a source of player loss (I don’t have CCP data). However those “autist” believe that just because there can’t see a direct visible increase in PCU, then this was not a source of player loss. This is just telling lies to make people believe their opinion, AKA propaganda. and a complete autistic one.

BTW I call them “autistic” only because they used this specific word.

118

Where is the evidence of that?

I think you’ll find that your interpretation of what they’ve written is not the same as the intent of the writer.

Particularly with the posters you are referring to, they have a pretty long history in the forum of calling CCP’s overall strategy to developing the game as flawed - it won’t ever produce the outcome CCP are hoping for, because every hole plugged is replaced by a different hole, so that the net effect is only to change where the water flows from.

3 Likes
119

That would probably be easier if they had one

120

Evidence of what ? That’s what they affirmed. If you want evidence, just check what they wrote.

example

That was the first thing I answered to. You could have searched for the evidence before saying there is none.

Then if they wrote something that they did not mean, then don’t call me autistic for having understood what they wrote.

121

It all started here. At least officially.

Pre-Inferno wars cost 2 million isk.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100312095337/https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/War_Declaration

Then they dropped the big one.

“Retribution”
punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.

CCP’s response to highsec’s emergent content becoming unstable, aka literally punishment inflicted on those who do criminal acts in the game.

seeks to expand the game’s fan base

“This winter, justice will be done. If not by their laws, then by ours,” reads Retribution 's tagline.

Their being ours and ours being CCP’s.

CRIMEWATCH “MADE EVE HARD FOR THE SAKE OF BEING HARD”

The game’s culture was based more or less on the old crimewatch rules and cheap wardecs combined with whatever the player’s made “a thing” and got shared with new players. It wasn’ the fact that EVE was hard that made it “less accessible”. What made it “less accessible” was the gigantic amount of freedom players had, which allowed for a certain degree of ruthlessness in the way people interacted with each other.

Wars were at two million isk. Everyone, including a new player, could start doing wars if he wanted. From day one. It was a good thing, because it made it clear that wars belonged, compared to nowadays, where wars only seem to be something for the “elite”.

Wikipedia mentions the introduction of the “protection button” here …

… as a minor feature, which is hilarious considering the huge cultural impact it had on the game. It’s also the only time the word “safety” comes up … in the whole article, which covers all expansions.

From then on it just got worse. I’ve written extensive posts in the past, talking about the impact of Suspect State and the Protection Button, and about how Wars were cheaper in the past and how it was part of the culture.

How can-flipping was part of “player retention” and how Suspect state changed that completely. How “player retention” in the past was done mostly by players and how CCP literally took the children out of our hands and put them into “daycare” (the new NPE) to propagandize them properly.

I don’t know how often i’ve tried and tried again explaining to people that when politicians CCP are being called stupid, what’s actually going on is that they’re being malicious, hiding behind the mask of stupidity.

Malicious in the sense that we weren’t supposed to realize that we’re being shifted out of the game in favour of “expanding the fan base”, aka an, comparatively speaking, immensly increased amount of what we have today: Casuals, freeloaders, consumers and short-attention-spanners.

5 Likes