EVE Search - Decline in numbers... starting to turn into RAPID!!!

Mir Jana wrote:

today I logged in at 14793 online.....

Jita Jitara wrote:

I think the following might increase interest:

1) add more regions - more space needed, at least another 5000+ systems for the taking
2) limit corps to 75-100 members and alliances to 50 corporations, coalitions would be created, coalitions will dissolve, backstabs will occur. Everyone will have a fighting chance.
3) kill titans or make them stationary so that they serve a purpose of being a system defense structure rather then to move them about and use them in fleets.
4) eliminate jump bridges
5) 0.8-1.0 systems: no pirates/gankers allowed at all, 0.5-07 business as usual.
6) moon minerals should deplete on moons and respawn on different moons, which would encourage conquest. Each moon gives a random amount according moon size. Small moon = small amounts vs big moon = big amounts.
7) 30 day timecodes at 750m a pop would be nice to have :) equivalent to currency.
8) mining boats need a stronger tank so that they can withstand the pirate ganks in 0.5-0.7 systems.
9) old school sov wars where you popped towers was a nice thing, dunno if it can be brought back into life. but thats just me. Node wars did spread out the fights to several different systems, so I did not see any massive lags yet.
10) increase number of wormholes and add more WH bonus types
11) Drones should drop loot, same as other npc factions
12) risk vs reward, more challenging anomalies and signatures

also I heard about EVE from a mate who heard from a mate who heard from a priest etc... So maybe more marketing would not hurt the CCP wallets. ****'s sale, World of Tanks has a better ad on TV then WoW. And if WoT can fight for their fanbase, dont see why CCP cant do it themselves as well.

Avvy wrote:

Mir Jana wrote:

today I logged in at 14793 online.....

One day last month I logged on there was just 1 player online, so EVE was dead.

Am I playing this doom and gloom end of the world stuff right?

Edit:

Yeah, there really was just 1

Hipqo wrote:

Avvy wrote:

Mir Jana wrote:

today I logged in at 14793 online.....

One day last month I logged on there was just 1 player online, so EVE was dead.

Am I playing this doom and gloom end of the world stuff right?

Edit:

Yeah, there really was just 1

Provide proff or it didnt happen.
In all my time playing EVE, ive ever only seen this in the few mins after DT. Theres ALWAYS more then 1 player online, always.
Unless you are on SISI ofc, then its plausible.

Webvan wrote:

ummm... stop people from multi-training on accounts and force them to reopen closed accounts to train their alt characters?

Mir Jana wrote:

August 2015 - average is 16k online

and yeah maybe you are looking at the wrong server since it's actually 21k avg for this month.
Maybe the remaining multi-boxers didn't count in your opinion? Lol

btw I betcha Jita and Mir are the same person Pirate

(some same posting history etc.)
friggen miners hah

Jita Jitara wrote:

Bob Maths wrote:

Perhaps CCP needs to adapt to the modern market and stop trying to peddle a product that is quite niche.

Jita Jitara wrote:

I think the following might increase interest:

1) add more regions - more space needed, at least another 5000+ systems for the taking
5) 0.8-1.0 systems: no pirates/gankers allowed at all, 0.5-07 business as usual.
8) mining boats need a stronger tank so that they can withstand the pirate ganks in 0.5-0.7 systems.

Webvan wrote:

Bob Maths wrote:

Perhaps CCP needs to adapt to the modern market and stop trying to peddle a product that is quite niche.

We're not here to play a modern market game. Games that change to get a different type of player, fail.

Rain6637 wrote:

Webvan wrote:

Bob Maths wrote:

Perhaps CCP needs to adapt to the modern market and stop trying to peddle a product that is quite niche.

We're not here to play a modern market game. Games that change to get a different type of player, fail.

I was thinking there's some validity to that statement about wider appeal. I made a suggestion about offering a real money prize for the Alliance Tournament, funded by vanity or special edition item sales. I agree with the statement about mainstream appeal because current tournament prizes are in-game items which to an outsider are unappealing for being part of a closed system.

Offering real money is superior because real world currency is something everyone can relate to.

EVE could stand to be more relevant, and a great way to do that is offer tournament prizes that outside gamers and non-gamers can understand.

Rain6637 wrote:

Holy hell lookat those prices.

zzzra wrote:

So much free to play competition, and some aren't pay to win.

zzzra wrote:

Monthly fee is the problem IMO.

Jeremiah Saken wrote:

zzzra wrote:

So much free to play competition, and some aren't pay to win.

EvE is pay to win, or you meant that some free to play are pay to win?

zzzra wrote:

Monthly fee is the problem IMO.

I'm not playing any other MMO, WoW is 15 euro/month. Anybody know other MMO with monthly subscription?

Chribba wrote:

For someone that wishes to make monthly graphs and use the magic crystal ball even more

http://pastebin.com/0cYAdTLb

The daily max PCU avg grouped by month

/c

Avaelica Kuershin wrote:

Jita Jitara wrote:

1) And yet, when I made the trip to the Titan graveyard, there was no-one in most of the systems I passed through. I think we have enough regions.
5) How to stop pirates and gankers? Disable weapons or get GMs to smack our hands?
8) Some would say the Procurer/Skiff is already too tanky. Me, I've never had my barge ganked*.

Anyway, once I get a new computer (and wired connection) I'll resub my second account and log in more.

*must see about that permit before I mine again ;)

La Rynx wrote:

The lowest peak in a 30 day horizon is more interesting:
You can't pay for a shorter period than 30 days.

Rodj Blake wrote:

Aaah, the traditional late-August Eve is dying thread.

Gramps Pljugi wrote:

I love the proposal on better marketing

Daniela Doran wrote:

Rodj Blake wrote:

Aaah, the traditional late-August Eve is dying thread.

Traditional? Threads like these were popping up all over the place all summer long. In the summer time???

Gramps Pljugi wrote:

I love the proposal on better marketing, since i do online marketing for a living, i consider the ads Eve online puts out good, but they are not nearly enough of an effort. Im sure their marketing team does their best but its simply not enough.

Blog posts about eve,
Google Banner ads through Adwords (viewed via Adsense by user)
Tv campaign which is well.. out of reach for now :P
A viral marketing campaign involving an Eve player would bring so much spotlight onto the game..

Noone of these are expensive apart from the TV,

Blog posts can be obtained for free if you let a ccp dev be interviewed.
Google costs money, but it can be cheap if you know how to do it, and if their guy/girl who does it is experienced and know a few tricks
Tv is out
Viral campaign can be built for like a few thousand bucks and reach tens or hundreds of thousands of people in gaming community...

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

La Rynx wrote:

The lowest peak in a 30 day horizon is more interesting:
You can't pay for a shorter period than 30 days.

That is actually something to consider in terms of reaction time. People may well be playing to the end of their subscription (month, three, six, etc) but fully intend to quit over things like Fozzie SOV.

Daniela Doran wrote:

... Fozzie Sov is still in the early stages and CCP seems committed to it. They will probably continue to make tune up changes from here on out ...

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

Daniela Doran wrote:

... Fozzie Sov is still in the early stages and CCP seems committed to it. They will probably continue to make tune up changes from here on out ...

Tune ups won't help. The very core structure system is a dumbed down version of the previous one, with no sense of control over the tedium, you can't fit a ship to wave a wand faster for attack or repair. It makes fleets and gangs more shallow.

Basically, Fozzie SOV is shallow and very annoying.

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

Hey, is this the thread where we all wave our favorite theories to save EVE from Impending Doom?

Then, here's mine!

Improve vastly the quality of highsec solo gameplay. Since that's what 80% of noobs end doing, and even as the churn rate is crazy it also is what 50% of players do exclusively, it should be the single most important thing for CCP.

Tippia wrote:

Uh-huhGÇª

Abrazzar wrote:

Increasing production times by a factor of three to five would be a start, so that a single player can no longer saturate a market with every module by his lonely self.

I came for the industry aspect of the game. Because it was deep, involving, an endeavour. And now I am going, because it was rendered a footnote.

Markus Reese wrote:

Partly players fault because we believe killboard efficiencies are more important than winning the fight. Get the newbs to be your grunts in pvp.

fenrir mactire wrote:

ever since the big alliances decided to farm BRAVE to death the numbers have been dropping like a rock

Tippia wrote:

Uh-huhGÇª

Eli Apol wrote:

Tippia wrote:

Uh-huhGÇª

The trouble with any graphs based upon the publicly available data we have is that we're just studying actively logged in account numbers, not unique players nor even active accounts.

ISbotting nerf
Extended skill queues
Multicharacter training
1b plex prices meaning people shed some of their alts or hibernate them

4 reasons why the PCUs will be down without necessarily losing a single player.

AtramLolipop wrote:

Muliboxing - This also hurt people, from a PVP'er point of view, PVP itself has become dull, predictable and regimented. Preparing a fleet has itself become just as grinding as mining. Without logi no-one goes anywhere, so the little 3 man fleets usually piloted by the same person fixed many peoples need for chest beating PVP.

AtramLolipop wrote:

What it isn't is HS incursion payouts. Many use HS incursions to grind quickly to fund other types of game play. The actual amount of ISK generated in HS via a HS incursion is no where near the amount of isk generated via missioning and ratting in null sec. Get this one right now!

Tiberius Heth wrote:

Years and years of focussing on PVE, bearing and making everything easier/safer lead to this and it's highly ironic a bear would then state "we need more pve, that would surely help".

Jenn aSide wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

The above just isn't true. In fine and Glorious fashion, one of the people defending incursions once posted a link to a chart CCP published showing isk faucets.

The one for 'bounties' (missions, anoms, belt rats, things like that) was close to 30 trillion isk on that graph Incursion rewards (with the overwhelming bulk coming from high sec) was like 10 trillion.

"NOW WAIT, Doesn't that prove what I just said?!!" you are probably asking yourself. Well, you'd think so...

...Till you realize that that 30 trillion isk is generated by Tens of Thousands of characters killing thousands upon thousands of NPCs all over Known Space, where as that 10 trillion isk bundle made mostly from high sec incursions if falling into the hands of a few hundred players. It means incursion runners per capita isk generation is a good couple light years past every other form of liquid isk generation.

And the above does NOT take into account CONCORD LP...

Last time I looked there were something like 80,000 characters in alliances that hold null sov, and nullsec accounts for 75% of all isk bountes, so something like 22.5 trillion isk per month.

80,000 characters (not all ratting, but that's the population) and null regions only generate slightly more than twice (22.5 T isk) as much as a few hundred incursions runners (10 T isk) . And most of that incursion isk comes from high sec (space protected by CONCORD).

You can't tell me that's not broken as all hell. I know of what I speak, I was a refugee in high sec for a long time running incursions because null just wasn't worth it. Ran with TVP, ISN, WTM and others.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

But isn't a good part of the raw ISK from incursion sunk back when dealing with the LP store?

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Eli Apol wrote:

Tippia wrote:

Uh-huhGÇª

You can only meet a logged account in EVE, no matter if he's an alt or not. Less logged character is still less people in the game at that moment.

Jenn aSide wrote:

"NOW WAIT, Doesn't that prove what I just said?!!" you are probably asking yourself. Well, you'd think so...

...Till you realize that that 30 trillion isk is generated by Tens of Thousands of characters killing thousands upon thousands of NPCs all over Known Space, where as that 10 trillion isk bundle made mostly from high sec incursions is falling into the hands of a few hundred players. It means incursion runners per capita isk generation is a good couple light years past every other form of liquid isk generation.

Jenn aSide wrote:

You can't tell me that's not broken as all hell. I know of what I speak, I was a refugee in high sec for a long time running incursions because null just wasn't worth it. Ran with TVP, ISN, WTM and others.

Mir Jana wrote:

I was wondering about something...

January 2014 - average was 41k online
June 2014 - average was 32k online
December 2014 - average was 27k online
May 2015 - average was 21k online
August 2015 - average is 16k online

today I logged in at 14793 online.....

What can CCP do to re-build its populace cause obviously something is rotten in the state of Iceland...?

Jenn aSide wrote:

Yes it is. But sinking isk in that way is still generating Wealth

Being able to generate that kind of wealth shooting npcs in space while being protected by CONCORD is directly opposite of how risk/reward should work. You can generate wealth via null and low incursions, but doing so is damn near suicide if you use the kinds of blingy ships you can in high sec.

High Sec incursions create a disruption in the game that skews results in other ways. When CCP nerfed the anom system in null sec, rather than fight for better space, many players just went to high sec and fought for a place in an incursion fleet lol.

High Sec Incursions literally thwarted a CCP game design goal in null, because it (along with other broken income generating methods like FW missions) help create the conditions where null became a renters desert. In other words, Null sec overlords got RICH renting space they didn't personally want to nubs to nubby to understand that they could have been making better isk in wormhole space, high sec incursions and/or low sec/FW without having to pay rent. Rich people usually do become rich on the backs of dumb people lol.

Guttripper wrote:

Eve went from being fun to another form of work, except this time I am not getting paid.

Jenn aSide wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

The above just isn't true. In fine and Glorious fashion, one of the people defending incursions once posted a link to a chart CCP published showing isk faucets.

The one for 'bounties' (missions, anoms, belt rats, things like that) was close to 30 trillion isk on that graph Incursion rewards (with the overwhelming bulk coming from high sec) was like 10 trillion.

"NOW WAIT, Doesn't that prove what I just said?!!" you are probably asking yourself. Well, you'd think so...

...Till you realize that that 30 trillion isk is generated by Tens of Thousands of characters killing thousands upon thousands of NPCs all over Known Space, where as that 10 trillion isk bundle made mostly from high sec incursions is falling into the hands of a few hundred players. It means incursion runners per capita isk generation is a good couple light years past every other form of liquid isk generation.

And the above does NOT take into account CONCORD LP...

Last time I looked there were something like 80,000 characters in alliances that hold null sov, and nullsec accounts for 75% of all isk bountes, so something like 22.5 trillion isk per month.

80,000 characters (not all ratting, but that's the population) in the various null regions only generate slightly more than twice (22.5 T isk) as much as a few hundred incursions runners (10 T isk) . And most of that incursion isk comes from high sec (space protected by CONCORD).

You can't tell me that's not broken as all hell. I know of what I speak, I was a refugee in high sec for a long time running incursions because null just wasn't worth it. Ran with TVP, ISN, WTM and others.

Tippia wrote:

176,862 characters running missions over a month's time

AtramLolipop wrote:

AND CCP also produced a graph and are report documenting ISK in the economy and it roots... I wonder which graph i'd prefer to look at?

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

What form of work in EVE, specifically?

Are you talking about earning enough isk to PLEX?

Eli Apol wrote:

176,862 characters accepted missions over a month's time.

Yay mission pulling alts right, every L5 runner loves them.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

AND CCP also produced a graph and are report documenting ISK in the economy and it roots... I wonder which graph i'd prefer to look at?

Could you link that, if its not too much trouble?

AtramLolipop wrote:

Will try to find it, from memory, the last time everyone pointed fingers at HS incursions, this report came out from CCP and it pretty much killed the debate. Although, if i remember correctly, it did highlight some reasons why VG's needed to be changed. Even at it peak HS incursions represented only a minute amount isk that was generated. That might have changed fractionally, in my opinion it is all in proportion.

Guttripper wrote:

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

What form of work in EVE, specifically?

Are you talking about earning enough isk to PLEX?

For me personally, the yearly cost for multiple subscriptions is a non-factor.

The "work" aspect to me varied among the various tasks I was doing at the time. One example that spurred me away was ~playing the market~ aspect. I would create my own personal formulas for buying and selling stuff. So I used to have some off the wall prices going. Some market areas appear to have bots running with them because there were times whenever I would use the broker, almost an exact x amount of time later, there would be a higher or lower price of 0.01. And this was constant if I varied whenever I used the market (real life time differences). After a while, forget it - too much like work to me to go against a computer...

Primary This Rifter wrote:

It's astonishing to me how many idiots there are in complete denial that there's a problem.

Tippia wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

It was never really a minute amount. It has pretty consistency stood for GàÖ of the injected ISK, and been the second or third largest individual faucet.

Markus Reese wrote:

Are we less in players or less in alts? For all I know, maybe we have more individual players and a large reduction in multiboxing. At the moment, this is bad for CCP's bottom line but if it means we can make it more of a populated game without sacrificing core Eve. Is that not worth it? Hopefully the changes mean we can get something that we, the players, can proudly promote to draw people back.

Sonya Corvinus wrote:

Markus Reese wrote:

I would be curious about this statistic too.

I have a character that hasn't logged in for three months now just because I don't *have* to log in every 24 hours to play skill queue online.

AtramLolipop wrote:

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

AND CCP also produced a graph and are report documenting ISK in the economy and it roots... I wonder which graph i'd prefer to look at?

Could you link that, if its not too much trouble?

Will try to find it, from memory, the last time everyone pointed fingers at HS incursions, this report came out from CCP and it pretty much killed the debate. Although, if i remember correctly, it resulted in CCP making some changes to spawn rates as well as the reduction in the number of HS incursions. Even at it peak HS incursions represented only a minute amount isk that was generated. That might have changed fractionally, in my opinion it is all in proportion.

Markus Reese wrote:

I think there are just many people who weren't here a few years ago? It was probably 2012 (can we get chats for this?) When things I notice started going down. It was when I went less active not long after. Cause being nothing engaging for me in terms of gameplay. That tangents into other ongoing topics so will leave it at that.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Incursion is a smaller faucet than "advertised" by the graph since most player would burn the ISK on the LP store.

Primary This Rifter wrote:

It's astonishing to me how many idiots there are in complete denial that there's a problem.

DaReaper wrote:

Sonya Corvinus wrote:

Markus Reese wrote:

I would be curious about this statistic too.

I have a character that hasn't logged in for three months now just because I don't *have* to log in every 24 hours to play skill queue online.

i have 2 like that. one of which i currently has no idea what to do with it.

Tippia wrote:

That doesn't actually make it a smaller faucet. At best, it makes it one that has some counter-balancing, but then, they all doGÇª Since we have no way of disentangling missions and incursions (and ESS, hah!), the best we can do it treat them as a unity of GÇ£LP-based rattingGÇ¥, which makes it too broad a category to really be useful.

Tippia wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Incursion is a smaller faucet than "advertised" by the graph since most player would burn the ISK on the LP store.

Markus Reese wrote:

I would rather have 50k players creating 60k log ins instead of 35k players creating same number of log ins. That means the game is more enjoyable, meaning we all win (well, those of us who pride on player skill and not API data)

Edit:

Market talk above. What would happen in markets if we put in transasction threshholds?

So anything less 100 isk can have the 0.01 increments. Less 1,000 have 0.1 increments, 10,000 is at 1 isk increments and so forth. Simply put, type in new price, and it rounds it to the appropriate increment level automatically.

This will mean that the pricing game will force more dramatic pricing fluctuations. It would encourage players to develop and plan more lucrative market locations. That can lead to more hubs and what not potentially.

I am going to put this in the features and idea thread. Will link shortly.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Tippia wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Incursion is a smaller faucet than "advertised" by the graph since most player would burn the ISK on the LP store.

You get 1k isk for every LP you get which is the price you pay to use them in the LP store. Most ratting is done without ESS so there isn't nearly enough LP generated to burn all that ISK.

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Wrong again. Bounties have no counter.

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Tippia wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Incursion is a smaller faucet than "advertised" by the graph since most player would burn the ISK on the LP store.

You get 1k isk for every LP you get which is the price you pay to use them in the LP store. Most ratting is done without ESS so there isn't nearly enough LP generated to burn all that ISK.

All isk you "GET" from the LP store is a transaction between players and has no net effect on Isk in the game.

LP is 100% Sink as every isk spent to convert into products is eaten by CCP and every Isk gained from sale of products is a lateral isk transaction.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

And ohshit, Im drunk posting again...

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Tippia wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Incursion is a smaller faucet than "advertised" by the graph since most player would burn the ISK on the LP store.

You get 1k isk for every LP you get which is the price you pay to use them in the LP store. Most ratting is done without ESS so there isn't nearly enough LP generated to burn all that ISK.

No it's not 100% sink because you get the ISK to burn on the LP store attached to those LP. It's close to neutral but probably a tiny faucet because you more than likely have people with un-used LP in their wallet while the ISK paid-out after each site can be used anyway.

You get both the LP and the ISK to make the purchase on the LP store for sites completion. It should be even and then generate a small sink with transaction taxes but I'm pretty sure the taxes don't cover all the LP that never got used.

Tippia wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Wrong again. Bounties have no counter.

Again?! LMAO No. You really are desperate, aren't you? Lol

Top tip: GÇ£againGÇ¥ only counts if there are at least two errors. So far, there are zero.

Because yes they do, partly due to how a large portion of bounties are tied to LP, and partly because you can't actually get those bounties without sinking a lot of ISK. That's just how the game inherently works: you can't create ISK without destroying ISK (or vice versa). It's just that, in no case are they balanced 1:1 (because that would be bad for the economy).

Tippia wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Wrong again. Bounties have no counter.

Again?! LMAO No. You really are desperate, aren't you? Lol

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Quote:

Bounties are not tied to LP. Mission completion are, FW kills are, CONCORD incursion payout are but raw bounties are not unless you happen to rat under an ESS and those aren't exactly used all that much from what I see.

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

You just said everything has a counter. I said Rat Bounty does not.

Tippia wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Just because it is small does not mean you can just ignore it GÇö you had to sink ISK to get that ISK. Again, that's just how the game is set up.

Quote:

There is a portion of bounties that are only affected by the market fees (same as blue loot, which is another huge faucet), yes, but that still leaves a portion that comes from activities where the cash you earn is supposed to be fed into an LP store.

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

WRONG AGAIN!

Buying the ishtar, the ammo or the drones is not a SINK.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

My Ishtar + drones was a flat investement that paid itself over and again and it destroy 0 ISK to get more ISK paid in the form of bounties. Should CCP check my account for hacking or I'm missing something that destroy my ISK to generate ISK?

Bounties are not tied to LP. Mission completion are, FW kills are, CONCORD incursion payout are but raw bounties are not unless you happen to rat under an ESS and those aren't exactly used all that much from what I see.

Kill rat ----> collect bounties on the next 20 minutes marks.

Tippia wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

WRONG AGAIN!

Buying the ishtar, the ammo or the drones is not a SINK.

Incorrect.
It is the third largest sink in the game (maybe even the largest if you combine the different parts, but it's hard to tell from just the diagram and no accurate numbers).

Tippia wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Just because it is small does not mean you can just ignore it GÇö you had to sink ISK to get that ISK. Again, that's just how the game is set up.

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Again, Transaction taxes are

Markus Reese wrote:

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

And ohshit, Im drunk posting again...

Oh, that makes excellent sense actually (the stuff I took out). It does bring up an interesting concept. Somebody playing the hardcore 0.01 isk game. If changing that little bit each time somebody changes order, well suddenly you are losing isk on the deal because you ate up your profit margin on brokerage taxes. Hit on a pretty sweet area of focus actually. If changes to orders take time (potentially taken off market for short period of time) then will need to be a much more savvy trader. Forecasting where you think the price is heading, how much undercut, etc.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

But that wasnt a computer, machine or bot.
That was other players.

As far as I know there is no bot advanced enough available in public access (allowing for the real possibility that IRL markets may have programs that automate buying/selling at certain thresholds) that could work through EVE to achieve that result in an automated fashion.

Some traders just really are that crazy and (as is extremely relevant to trading) operating in the same hours as you.

I understand your frustration, and that you attempted strategies, but I dont see the reaction could be automated.
It was players 0.01ing you, manually.

Tippia wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Again, Transaction taxes are

GÇªtogether with broker fees the unavoidable sinks that happen to all the ISK that is not sunk any other way.

I'm sorry if you don't understand how the market and the economy works. With that name, you really need to read up on these things. You also need to learn not to put words in my mouth, because that will only end badly for you.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

The "investement" was much more of a sideway transaction to another player than a sink.

Doesn't matter. It's still a sink, and the various market fees rival the other big two ones (skills and LP), so it's not something you can just ignore for the sake of convenience. When they changed the base market tax rate, it had a pretty decent impact on the amount of ISK sunk in the game.

Quote:

But it's still nowhere near as flat of a rate as incursion. Even mission give ISK for completion to cancel some of the need to use the LP store over the frequent additional bounties paid for most non-empire rats.

Sure. That's because a 1:1 ratio would actively be bad for the economy GÇö you want the faucets to be larger than the sinks. In EVE as a whole, we roughly have a 2:1 ratio between faucets and sinks, which has worked reasonably well to create a healthy economy.

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

No you don't . You "get" no isk from LP that isn't given from other players. Bounties are not "tied" to LP, they are a faucet with many sources in a different category.

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

AND CCP also produced a graph and are report documenting ISK in the economy and it roots... I wonder which graph i'd prefer to look at?

Could you link that, if its not too much trouble?

Will try to find it, from memory, the last time everyone pointed fingers at HS incursions, this report came out from CCP and it pretty much killed the debate. Although, if i remember correctly, it resulted in CCP making some changes to spawn rates as well as the reduction in the number of HS incursions. Even at it peak HS incursions represented only a minute amount isk that was generated. That might have changed fractionally, in my opinion it is all in proportion.

Here

Also, Incursions are such a non-factor given that Blue loot from wormholes blows it away and NPC buy orders on goods make it look like a side hobby of snobs.

Jenn just likes to sensationalize that which he doesn't like

Arla Sarain wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

No you don't . You "get" no isk from LP that isn't given from other players. Bounties are not "tied" to LP, they are a faucet with many sources in a different category.

You literally do get ISK. Not from LP store transactions, but from activities that reward LP. That's what Frostys is talking about.
He is establishing a possibility that, by completing a mission or incursion site, the liquid ISK given to you by the game is there for you to purchase items from the store at a discounted price, partial of which is covered by LP. Hence you get isk+LP, sink isk+LP, and end up transferring ISK through transactions on the player market by trading commodities like modules and consumables.

That's an ideal scenario, but I personally saw no evidence supporting that the ISK injected by those activities is the exact right amount that all of it is burned to bring commodities into the economy through the LP store. Having ran L4 FWW missions, I typically get roughly 2-3mill ISK +10~20k LP. This doesn't demonstrate anything yet. The rewarded ISK/LP ratio is ~200-300. But it needs to pitted against the ISK+LP cost of items at the store. Datacores, at 250000 ISK 250LP per 5 ends up being 1000 ISK/LP. More ISK is gone per LP, I think? Cannot brain ATM.

Jenn aSide wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

AND CCP also produced a graph and are report documenting ISK in the economy and it roots... I wonder which graph i'd prefer to look at?

Could you link that, if its not too much trouble?

Will try to find it, from memory, the last time everyone pointed fingers at HS incursions, this report came out from CCP and it pretty much killed the debate. Although, if i remember correctly, it resulted in CCP making some changes to spawn rates as well as the reduction in the number of HS incursions. Even at it peak HS incursions represented only a minute amount isk that was generated. That might have changed fractionally, in my opinion it is all in proportion.

I haven't sensationalized anything. You can attempt to downplay your massive mistake in linking a chart to proved you wrong (funny wathcing you scquirm, it was you who 1st mentioned the fact that there were so few incursion runners as well), but you're still wrong.

Blue Loot comes from wormholes. Wormholes aren't protected by CONCORD, so that kind of wealth generation is fine. What isn't fine is a 'few hundred characters' generating so much wealth as to come in 3rd (in just raw isk generation, not even talking about wealth generation) behind what is hundreds of thousands of characters.

I will never understand the personality that is so anti-truth that it has to basically lie about some stats in a video game.

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Who said anything about Concord? We are talking about sinks and faucets.

You are really pathological in your hatred of CCP's game mechanics. Concord... what a Freudian slip

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

But an ishtar has utility beyond simply producing Isk from bounties.

Arla Sarain wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

No you don't . You "get" no isk from LP that isn't given from other players. Bounties are not "tied" to LP, they are a faucet with many sources in a different category.

You literally do get ISK. Not from LP store transactions, but from activities that reward LP. I believe that's what Frostys is talking about.
He is establishing a possibility that, by completing a mission or incursion site, the liquid ISK given to you by the game is there for you to purchase items from the store at a discounted price, partial of which is covered by LP. Hence you get isk+LP, sink isk+LP, and end up transferring ISK through transactions on the player market by trading commodities like modules and consumables.

That's an ideal scenario, but I personally saw no evidence supporting that the ISK injected by those activities is the exact right amount that all of it is burned to bring commodities into the economy through the LP store. Having ran L4 FWW missions, I typically get roughly 2-3mill ISK +10~20k LP. This doesn't demonstrate anything yet. The rewarded ISK/LP ratio is ~200-300. But it needs to pitted against the ISK+LP cost of items at the store. Datacores, at 250000 ISK 250LP per 5 ends up being 1000 ISK/LP. More ISK is gone per LP, I think? Cannot brain ATM.

Chainsaw Plankton wrote:

the last month has averaged ~21k, over all of 2015 it looks to be ~33k. A summer dip is usually pretty normal. Although yea it does seem a bit lower than normal. the 15k number seems pretty normal for the middle of the night (ustz) Early morning for the EU tz..

Devon Astrov wrote:

Logic check...

1. The assertion that high reward - low risk PVE starves low and null sec PVP opportunities.

Jenn aSide wrote:

Devon Astrov wrote:

Logic check...

1. The assertion that high reward - low risk PVE starves low and null sec PVP opportunities.

And PVE opportunities. The problem with your assertion is that it suggest that people who care about this specific imbalance care because of PVP. The real problem with the imbalance is how it skews tings in the game.

Lots of incursion runners (myself included) aren't high sec people, we use this broken thing to safely fund other activities (and to PLEX).

This shouldn't be the case. When I started playing, if you wanted to make big isk with a shikp shooting npcs, you took big risk. Now you train up a ship, x up in a high sec incursion community chat channel (or on their web app), and follow the orders of an FC while mindlessly shooting npcs, without even have to personally glance at local or d-scan or be aware at all.

That's just not good game design, my choice should be 'modest but reasonable income should I choose to stay in safe space (which is my choice to make) or MUCH better income if i accept risk. Right now it's 'take risk/make less-no risk/make more'.

And i've tested it personally, 2 ways.

I make more with my incursion mach in high sec than I do with a mach and a tengu doing anomalies in null

And

I make more with my incursion mach than I do with the cheaper to lose ships I've used in the past (when I lived in low sec) to run low sec incursions, mainly because low sec incursions come with people trying to kill you. No CONCORD to save the day there.

It's all utter nonsense imo. Do I expect it to change? No, CCP is a great company, but PVE isn't their forte.

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

You do know that Incursions in Null Sec pay out far more and to a larger fleet number than the same Incursions in High Sec right?

So people are choosing to do the High Sec Incursions at a lower payout because they are risk adverse... that doesn't change if you remove Incursions from High Sec, just the name of the thing you campaign against will change.

Remove Incursions and people will run lvl 4s
Remove lvl 4's and people will run lvl 3s
Remove lvl 3s....

Get it? No I don't think you do.
People are not going to become your "balance" aka killboard fodder just because you nerf their income. Those same nullsec guys who you hate running alts in High Sec will simply downsize their contributions to Null Sec PVP because they won't be able to afford as much of it.

What you are asking for actually hurts Null Sec more than it helps. Cutting off Alt income stream means less isk to use in Null... at least using your metrics it would.

Jenn aSide wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

AND CCP also produced a graph and are report documenting ISK in the economy and it roots... I wonder which graph i'd prefer to look at?

Could you link that, if its not too much trouble?

Will try to find it, from memory, the last time everyone pointed fingers at HS incursions, this report came out from CCP and it pretty much killed the debate. Although, if i remember correctly, it resulted in CCP making some changes to spawn rates as well as the reduction in the number of HS incursions. Even at it peak HS incursions represented only a minute amount isk that was generated. That might have changed fractionally, in my opinion it is all in proportion.

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

AND CCP also produced a graph and are report documenting ISK in the economy and it roots... I wonder which graph i'd prefer to look at?

Could you link that, if its not too much trouble?

Will try to find it, from memory, the last time everyone pointed fingers at HS incursions, this report came out from CCP and it pretty much killed the debate. Although, if i remember correctly, it resulted in CCP making some changes to spawn rates as well as the reduction in the number of HS incursions. Even at it peak HS incursions represented only a minute amount isk that was generated. That might have changed fractionally, in my opinion it is all in proportion.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

And again, the ISK generation is close to nothing in the case of incursion because they get burned out of the game about as fast as they came in. All the ISK could be generated by a single player and it would not matter because that ISK also get burned. The economy don't actually see most of those ISK. It only appear on the graph because CCP didn't think incursion should only pay out in LP but at the exact same time, built the LP store so every single one of those ISK would be flushed as soon as the LP gets used.

If high-sec had a completely unlimited number of sites available and everybody started running them, ONLY THEN would the ISK generated really start to matter because the LP value might crash so ahrd it would not be worth the hassle for a lot of player to turn those LP in items for the market but this is nowhere near the case right now. The value of the LPs are high enough that the ISK gained for each site DOES get burned out and thus stop existing in the economy.

As I said in another thread, the key to nerfing incursion in HS are simple. There are even a few options if CCP is willing to go that way. The easyest is of course to take them from 70% payout to 50 or even lower. This mean the LS and null ones keep their current payout level. If they want player to generate additionnal risk, then they have to be crafty. The key is to play on the bear mentality imo. High-sec bears will be high-sec bears. This mean a shitload of people will run max gank to optimise their income. If you nerf the damage output of the sites, it means people will go with lower tank fits which can become gankable.

The current fits were not though out with countering ganks in mind. All it ever involved was having enough tank to survive in a site. They all roll with "survive sites worst possible spawn" in mind. If the worst sites is lower, you can bet they will trade in that extra invuln for a tracking comp or whatever. The logi wing will also more than likely be reduced to get extra dps boat on board to clear faster.

But Frostys, that only increase their potential income!!!!!

Well yeah but I never said you could not nerf both. Only that to increase the risk you would ahvhe to do something they won't think of as a total block out of the content. If you make incursion system behave like low sec, the community will more than likely gets reduced which mean the content is borderline useless. If you nerf it and it's payout, you can keep the same income or lower as long as you do your math right while also making the bears used "stupider" fits. At that point, player can come back to generate risk in incursion runners' income stream. You will see shitfit incursion boat with minimal tank if it takes minimal tank to run a site for the exact same reasons you see minimal tank freighters, miners or mission runners. The only reason the incursion runnres never fitted as low a tank as those is because they could not. You just cannot survive a site if you are below a certain threshold. The PvE player think he is safe becuse he survive the content he is running. Most of the don't think about the other "content" they are currently "running", being someone else's "red chevron".

Don't remove them. It's just scrapping content for no reasons. Re-balance them instead and don't worry, EVE will provide shitfit ship in incursion just like it does in missions, mining and hauling. The supply of shitfit is limitless so risk generation is limited by the will of the generator unless the content force a tank build.

Everybody could do all missions in high tanked marauder which would be stupid to try to gank but they don't. They won't for incursion either as long as they actually can.

TLDR : Nerf the income and "nerf" the fits. Making special rules is not needed anyway.

Astral Azizora wrote:

Ignoring the off-topic incursion crap...

1) MMORPGs generally are losing players. The people who grew up with them are bored of them and have less free time, and the new generation are playing games that you can pick up and play and get almost instant fun, which ties in with my next point...

2) The ratio of time spent in EVE vs reward gained compared to other games is bad. It takes too long to do things. And don't come in with your day one hero tackler crap either. I'm talking about the actual mechanics of the game itself and the training times. Just moving around the gameworld takes significant amounts of time. Finding or creating content involves lots of waiting, searching, and travel. People are losing patience with such game mechanics, they want more bang for their buck.

So what can CCP do? Probably not much without radically altering their game and causing a tsunami of vet tears. They will continue to tweak but the game market has moved on.

Astral Azizora wrote:

GeorgePenken wrote:

Nothing needs nerfing and that's that.

Unezka Turigahl wrote:

There are most definitely market bots. Sometimes I'll need to buy several of a certain item, and the cheapest one on the market will have a quantity of 1. So I'll buy that one first. The market window lags for a second as the market updates and removes the one I bought... and wouldn't you know! There is a new sell order of 1 for the exact price I just paid for the first item. So I buy that one... Then a new sell order of 1 at the same price takes it's place. Over and over. I look at my market journal, I just bought 6 items at the same price from the same character... one at a time.

I don't see how it is possible for someone to know exactly when one of their items sold, and place a new sell order at the appropriate price, all within the second or so time frame that it takes for the market to update for me when I buy something. Obviously a bot, and an actual person trying to have the lowest sell order on this item would not be able to do so.

Whenever I notice this happening I report the player as a bot. Dunno if CCP actually does anything about it or not.

Hipqo wrote:

Avvy wrote:

Mir Jana wrote:

today I logged in at 14793 online.....

One day last month I logged on there was just 1 player online, so EVE was dead.

Am I playing this doom and gloom end of the world stuff right?

Edit:

Yeah, there really was just 1

Provide proff or it didnt happen.
In all my time playing EVE, ive ever only seen this in the few mins after DT. Theres ALWAYS more then 1 player online, always.
Unless you are on SISI ofc, then its plausible.

Unezka Turigahl wrote:

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

There are most definitely market bots. Whenever I notice this happening I report the player as a bot.

Astral Azizora wrote:

There are other MMOs and other competitive online games that provide more fun per play session. A lot of EVE time is spent traveling, waiting or searching. You basically get less fun in return for your time investment. The pool of people who are content with that is limited, and as the vets get older they can't be bothered with it any more and prefer something with, dare I say it, more immediate rewards.

voetius wrote:

This is a common refrain. I'm not denying that there could be market bots, but if you are so sure you should report them to CCP and state the reason why you are so sure.

Guttripper wrote:

Eve went from being fun to another form of work, except this time I am not getting paid. So while my accounts are active, they are idle as I pursue other forms of entertainment.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

I personally dont believe there are.

voetius wrote:

Unezka Turigahl wrote:

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

There are most definitely market bots. Whenever I notice this happening I report the player as a bot.

This is a common refrain. I'm not denying that there could be market bots, but if you are so sure you should report them to CCP and state the reason why you are so sure.

Astral Azizora wrote:

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

I personally dont believe there are.

Perhaps you should personally use Google.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

CCP, as with every other MMO developer, have been fighting a war against such automation for years and ban offenders regularly.

Tippia wrote:

Uh-huhGÇª

Gully Alex Foyle wrote:

Tippia wrote:

Uh-huhGÇª

Beautiful graphic! Though sad

Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:

'Eve is dying' threads are so numerous, its hard to think of a topic that has enough links I can use for it. After careful consideration, and input from my fellow... whatever were calling ourselves today, I have come up with the following decree:

From this day henceforth, the response to 'Eve is dying' threads shall be... Harry Potter Fan Fiction!!!!

Please enjoy this first selection of many.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

EVE aint dead, but the numbers look bad.

We will manage, but its shareholders in CCP corp that are most critical of this.

Alteast 1bil PLEX should spur both sub and PLEX purchase, to mediate the fiscal bottomline.

Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

You do know that Incursions in Null Sec pay out far more and to a larger fleet number than the same Incursions in High Sec right?

Vic Jefferson wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

You do know that Incursions in Null Sec pay out far more and to a larger fleet number than the same Incursions in High Sec right?

Ugh, here we go again.

A)They aren't safe. Having actual risk associated with running and moving to them factors into the expected outcome.

B)They are neither accessible nor available. Moving around HS is extremely safe except for a few systems, and there will always be at least one incursion you can participate in, and the distances are generally smaller. Moving around in null is neither safe nor fun, and the distances are much longer, and the incursion may be in enemy space or space on the other side of the map, either of which basically means you don't have free run of it like you do with all HS ones.

C)When they are run, they are over in 12 hours. No farming for a week before finishing it; it needs to be cleared due to the cyno-jamming effect.

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

B) Being in an alliance that has over 50% of null sec blue I had to chuckle a minute. But yes, they are not readily accessible, and neither is all of the high sec constellations Incursions are in. It happens, it sucks, but sometimes you just can't get to where the incursions are. Who's problem is that?

C) Grow a freaking pair... you have to clear them because they jam your precious cynos... Typical null sec statement. "I want my cake but I don't want to have to bake it"

Luckily for you, a mostly afk carrier or Ishtar team can make just as much as Incursion runners in High sec, you never have to move systems, and you never have to travel. You can also do it with 1/4th the investment.

But don't let facts stand in your way.

Vic Jefferson wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

B)How many HS constellations are inaccessible? A few in solitude and some token ones here and there? It is a statistical anomaly when there isn't at least one that is available and accessible without any sort of exertion.

C)Ishtars make, tops, 60/hr under optimal conditions. HS incursions make 100/hr, or more. Ishtars are creating content for hunters and defenders, incursions remove potential player content from the game. I'm sorry, the best PvE should be in WH, which I guess it is, but the second best should not be in HS.

helana Tsero wrote:

and they need to find a way to make the NPE experience better and more contemporary... cause the new player in 2007-2009 is very different to the new player in 2015.

Webvan wrote:

helana Tsero wrote:

and they need to find a way to make the NPE experience better and more contemporary... cause the new player in 2007-2009 is very different to the new player in 2015.

And the game population grew faster when it was that way. They made it easier and it didn't help a whole lot, actually leveled out growth. Why play EVE as an easy game when there are so many other easy games to choose from already? If these new players are first introduced to easy going gameplay, then that's the type of player CCP is going to attract while turning away the other, and they will either quit or cry for changes once things get into the normal gameplay of EVE. Those are people that should just never get past the trial and find another game.

helana Tsero wrote:

Didnt say easier.. I said better.

Dumbing down and spoon feeding is not better. Making the NPE more contemporary and fitting in with what 2015 gamers expect is how I would define better. Basicly I think spreadsheets in space is one of the key problems with NPE. Also first few months of eve is freakin boring til you get into the meta game or somehow stumble upon a decent player corp

helana Tsero wrote:

You guys who are arguing back and forth on ISK... incursions vs blue loot vs null ratting / risk vs reward / high vs low vs null vs wh are missing the point.

Bottom line.

People play the game cause its fun... whatever people are finding fun.. CCP needs to do more of.

What ever people are finding less fun... CCP needs to improve that aspect of the game or cut it.

and they need to find a way to make the NPE experience better and more contemporary... cause the new player in 2007-2009 is very different to the new player in 2015.

Vic Jefferson wrote:

helana Tsero wrote:

It's related, and not just tangentially so.

The game is most fun when it is not a chore. The game is not a chore when you can find income and content around where you live - this sort of makes a self feeding loop of content generation, and suddenly chores can become very interesting. Conversely, when local income is so bad or so sub-optimal, you spend more of your time away from places that could be interesting if there was a stable population and something to fight over, and more of your time acquiring the risk free isk of HS.

Syndicate is one of the most violent regions in the game; it has a great location in terms of accessibility and adjacent regions, and harbours lots of people who like to shoot at each other. However, Syndicate is also one of the poorest regions in the game - the LP store is a joke compared to any other pirate LP store (including HS SoE), DED sites don't pay well any more, etc etc...there's no way to support yourself out there. You have to chose between roaming/being in syndicate generating content, or making money where it is plentiful and accessible. For the amount of ISK, minerals and other resources Syndicate makes, it punches extremely above its weight in terms of lossmails and content it generates.

Which is the whole thing of why it is damn important to deal with HS income - both HS income being too good, and NPC Null/Low income not being high enough, creates content vacuums. So long as people are on their alts or mains, earning income places they don't live, content dries up and the game is more of a chore than it needs to be. Put the money where the danger is and the game would be more fun - you can get in trouble AND make some ISK at the same time rather than neatly partitioning it into chore and non-chore. When you compare EvE to another game, the ratio of chore to fun comes to mind, and there would be much less of said chore factor if risk/reward was given a hard look at.

The other half of the problem right now is the ship meta. There are no fun fights left, or very few, since everything is so fast and kitey. Getting a good fight when all the best comps now can easily disengage or chose not to fight makes the game even more of a chore, on top of having to buy the ships in the first place.

Vic Jefferson wrote:

helana Tsero wrote:

Mir Jana wrote:

Algarion Getz wrote:

Mir Jana wrote:

PLEX price ... 1 billion and its still rising
+
Changes to the game by CCP in the last months that make alts less useful
=
People are unsubbing their alts en masse.

helana Tsero wrote:

You make a good case. I live in wormhole space and the amount of high class wormholes that are occupied by null sec alts for the purposes of isk farming is huge.

Vic Jefferson wrote:

Syndicate is one of the most violent regions in the game; it has a great location in terms of accessibility and adjacent regions, and harbours lots of people who like to shoot at each other. However, Syndicate is also one of the poorest regions in the game - the LP store is a joke compared to any other pirate LP store (including HS SoE), DED sites don't pay well any more, etc etc...there's no way to support yourself out there. You have to chose between roaming/being in syndicate generating content, or making money where it is plentiful and accessible. For the amount of ISK, minerals and other resources Syndicate makes, it punches extremely above its weight in terms of lossmails and content it generates.

Vic Jefferson wrote:

Which is the whole thing of why it is damn important to deal with HS income - both HS income being too good, and NPC Null/Low income not being high enough, creates content vacuums.

Jenn aSide wrote:

helana Tsero wrote:

You make a good case. I live in wormhole space and the amount of high class wormholes that are occupied by null sec alts for the purposes of isk farming is huge.

I've run as many as 4 alts (a mach or rattlesnake +3 with either smart bombs, assigned drones or FoF missiles) and have never been able to break 240-260 mil per hour total. OR I can make that much with ONE BOMBER in FW, or a sizeable fraction of that with ONE MACH in high sec, or join up with a wormhole corp we are blue with and mae REAL isk.

Algarion Getz wrote:

Mir Jana wrote:

PLEX price ... 1 billion and its still rising
+
Changes to the game by CCP in the last months that make alts less useful
=
People are unsubbing their alts en masse.

Algarion Getz wrote:

PLEX price ... 1 billion and its still rising
+
Changes to the game by CCP in the last months that make alts less useful
=
People are unsubbing their alts en masse.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

This struck me as particularly interesting.

Imo, from personal experience and preference, EVE is in many ways best played with atleast 2 accounts simultaneously.
This has less to do with the pragmatic matching of two pilots and their ships and all the ways they can support united action together for greater results (which are almost unlimited throughout many activities in EVE) but also to do with EVE being inherently quite a bit of a grind/waiting game, as well as such a huge universe. Also, that you can completely trust your alt, whereas you can never fully trust another capsuleer.

Its not for everyone, but really 2 accounts offer such a huge opportunity for what you can do in EVE with your own recognisance.
It doubles your potential and complicates it immesurably with opportunities for synergy. The jump from 2 to 3 accounts however, starts to become cumbersome and is inherently less advantage than 1 to 2. 1-2 is x2. 2-3 is only 1.5x.

Having said that, things got out of hand with multibox fleets exploiting various game systems.
HS multibox mining (ice especially) in particular, became a laughing matter where the equation above actually started paying out far higher dividends the more accounts you ran, as mining is inherently so passive (compared to other activities) and HS safety. Attention or action was no threshold or limitation. Point and click, check back every so few minutes.

But I think there needs to be a threshold in EVE, between what you can do alone with all your accounts, and the incentive to join together with others for greater success/profit/opportunity.

Perhaps EVE population is now rationalizing back into that.
Higher PLEX cost- less multi-accounts= more incentive to interplay with others.
In that sense, it makes sense that activity figures are at 2007 figures, and perhaps is a good thing for community and commitment.
Also establishes a precedent for a period when active account figures were indeed as low as now, but led to growth (albeit, without a 1bil PLEX price over their head, but inflation and various isk fountains didnt exist back then either as they do today).

Rising PLEX prices can also be considered a positive element, leading to, yes, less active population, but also perhaps more interaction between them. More "real" players with a real commitment to their accounts.

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Content isn't created by doing PVE in the area in which you live. Doesn't matter if you are doing lvl 5's in low sec, Incursions in High Sec or Anoms in Null. People dock up (or POS up) when danger arrives.

Hasikan Miallok wrote:

Vic Jefferson wrote:

The other half of the problem right now is the ship meta. There are no fun fights left, or very few, since everything is so fast and kitey. Getting a good fight when all the best comps now can easily disengage or chose not to fight makes the game even more of a chore, on top of having to buy the ships in the first place.

The meta issue with EVE has always been the cycle of balance everything so its a boring clone of everything else with different flashy lights then bring out new stuff that's OP, wait till everyone starts using it then balance everything so its a boring clone of everything else with different flashy lights again. Rinse and repeat.

Vic Jefferson wrote:

Hasikan Miallok wrote:

Vic Jefferson wrote:

Yes, perhaps, but it is still more fun in a brawling meta. In the golden age of the battlecrusier, stagnant as that may have been, it at least created more opportunities for good fights than the current age of kiting and non-committing, where people just take easy kills and run. Obviously people should play smart, but it has to be absolutely miserable as a new player when everything cruiser sized has such rapid lights or super strong drones, and can go incredibly fast compared to their tackle frigs. Battlecruisers at least gave new players something easy to learn to tackle on, as opposed to what people field today.

Swaatybaatch Yesplease wrote:

- 1 member from me

reason :

poped back to eve all exited to play again since 2 real life friends wanted to try , so got myself active again about 1 - 2 weeks ago to check things out sold a toon and bought this one back since it was the one I started playing eve with , problem was the way I was greated back into the game , helped a random other player got myself blown up he shares kill right with everyone else and now after a few plex selling I am broke again that along with the awesome harassment to boot , this is just sad makes me remember why I stopped playing in the first place

Quote:

worked my but off for about 10 bil and lost it all to scammers

Quote:

my eve experience , would not recommend to my friends who are lucky since they have not subbed yet , the game is fun the players though they seem to want to keep there game to themselves then I say by all means keep your game to yourself , all my toon are marked for deletion and unsubbed if anyone wants this one you can take it for 1 isk or what ever the min amount of isk is these days .

Aivo Dresden wrote:

The crazy inflation of PLEX prices could be related to this. It would be interesting to see the amount of purchased PLEX (for isk ingame), as a percentage of total paid subs and see their evolution.

I reckon less people PLEX now because it's getting more and more expensive. I also reckon some people just stopped paying for their alt accounts, because a 1bill a pop, it's just not feasible anymore.

Djiana Lenar wrote:

Make it easier for new players to stay interested in the game.

Would it be to much to ask for more SP for new players so they can actually be useful?

Rain6637 wrote:

Patch hype. It's as if the normal bumps in price due to patch interest don't have quite enough time to reset in six weeks

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Content isn't created by doing PVE in the area in which you live.

Jenn aSide wrote:

Had it not been for the fact that I was terribly bored of incursions, I wouldn't have even been in null with that mach, I would have been on my alt in my other Mach making more isk in high sec, where cyno ceptors can't even get to me. By actually risking the ship with which I was making money with, I created a situation where other actual players could enjoy the game too.

Hasikan Miallok wrote:

Rain6637 wrote:

Patch hype. It's as if the normal bumps in price due to patch interest don't have quite enough time to reset in six weeks

I actually had wondered if the 6 week cycle has been part of it.

AtramLolipop wrote:

It's also a good time to point out how screwed up the mechanics of null sec are.

I completely detest how easy it is for blocks to cap a high end moon in part of a region where they live no where near.

This, flying for a small close knit corp/alliance makes me want to quit the game at times, if in null sec and your alliance, block, occupies moons they should be forced to pay a little something towards the system. This is how blocks have managed to get so big. Little guy spends all day reffing structures, block brings a huge fleet and defends it and we don't seem them again until the next time we ref it or when its time to refuel and empty.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Speedkermit Damo wrote:

I think CCP left it much too long before trying to fix nullsec. A lot of players patience finally ran out and they gave up on null 2012-14 and they ain't coming back.

Aegis sov has done nothing to address the glaring issues facing sov null, most of which are not due to mechanics but player behaviour, which CCP can do nothing about.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Harrison Tato wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Star Wars

Harrison Tato wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Star Wars

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Harrison Tato wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Star Wars

I'm sorry the game does not follow a pre-determined script in hollywood fashion where the "good" side wins against all odds.

Harrison Tato wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Star Wars

Harrison Tato wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Star Wars

Hasikan Miallok wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Harrison Tato wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Star Wars

I'm sorry the game does not follow a pre-determined script in hollywood fashion where the "good" side wins against all odds.

Well no if it is Hollywood teh good side is saved single handedly by a single hero who takes on the evil hordes and comes out victorious without a ~~scratch~~ hand.

Mir Jana wrote:

I was wondering about something...

January 2014 - average was 41k online
June 2014 - average was 32k online
December 2014 - average was 27k online
May 2015 - average was 21k online
August 2015 - average is 16k online

today I logged in at 14793 online.....

What can CCP do to re-build its populace cause obviously something is rotten in the state of Iceland...?

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Harrison Tato wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Star Wars

Pretty much every revolution in history against an oppressive group.

Just to name some more famous ones:

Lucretian Revolution of 504BC
Boudica and the Celtic Revolution
The 30 some Revolutions of Muslims against Arab Kingdoms of the 8th century
The Scottish War of Independence, first and second (you know the one Mel Gibson led)
Ming Dynasty
The Battle of the Golden Spurs (love my Flandersian Brothers)
The 80 Years War
The Portuguese War of Independence
The French Revolution
The American Revolution
The Iberian Guerilla War 1807-1812
Most of the Battles of the American Civil War where the Confederation States won
Pretty much any battle the Allies won against Germany or Japan in the early years of World War II

Keep going?

But you know what is awesome... none of that matters at all because that is RL and this is a game.

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Harrison Tato wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Star Wars

In all those historical references the small group had force multipliers or other advantages that allowed them to engage in asymmetrical warfare to overcome the numbers of the other side. Of course, in eve anything that allows a smaller group to take on a larger group, e.g. off grid boosters, ecm, etc..., is derided and nerfed.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Harrison Tato wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Star Wars

It's usually nerfed when the alrge group demonstrate how broken it is when used on a large scale. Which one of those multiplier really gives the small guy an advantage when the large group can field it and then some?

Links don't help against large organisation because the organisation also have them.

E-WAR is also fielded by large organisation.

Have anything else you think give the small guy an edge?

If anything, all those revolution had something a shitload of people in EVE don't really have, an actual cause they cared about and were ready to put the very best they could on the line to get it. They put their life on the line. When is the last time you saw the "Grrrrr "insert entity" movement actually get it's act together and do something instead of just talking about it?

Rodj Blake wrote:

Aaah, the traditional late-August Eve is dying thread.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Harrison Tato wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Star Wars

I'm sorry the game does not follow a pre-determined script in hollywood fashion where the "good" side wins against all odds.

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

IMO the most alarming thing about Eve's health is that historically after an expansion there is a spike in player numbers as folk come back to the game to see what's new. After FozzieSov there has been no spike. FozzieSov has proven not to be EveJesus. Instead, the best FozzieSov can claim is that it has not accelerated the decline.

Really, CCP needs to come to grips with the fact that the decline in numbers coincides directly with their efforts to make the game easier, more casual, and new player friendly. Most of their recent changes such as the safety, awok nerfs, and jump fat have not brought in new players while angering and driving away older folk. Much of the complexity of the game has been stripped away. And now instead of relying on the sandbox to create content, CCP as gone a full blizzard and is asking players to form up to battle npc (drifters) for their content. Well I dont want to shoot npc; I want to shoot players and I want the players to be making the content not ccp.

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

There has been a steady decline since before Fozziesov was introduced but nice attempt at making Fozziesov the scapegoat.

By the way you do know that the collective pout fest you nullsec types put out has led CCP to gut Fozziesov right?

And now that Fozziesov is dead i await your next excuse why you cannot find pvp when your nullsec neighbor is just a jump or two away.

AtramLolipop wrote:

-áAlliances, in my game design should not exist and corporations should have a limited amount of members. Alliances have too many blues, are too big and ruin the game through dictatorship. At least make it harder for entities to become fweinds.

AtramLolipop wrote:

If people want PVP it is everywhere in the game. Problem is the people screaming that null sec is stagnant is because they are a sheep in a huge alliance. Alliances, in my game design should not exist and corporations should have a limited amount of members. Alliances have too many blues, are too big and ruin the game through dictatorship. At least make it harder for entities to become fweinds.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

AtramLolipop wrote:

Alliance were added by CCP because out fo game tools were used to make them work when the game didn't officially support them.

Coalition are just another layer of player made alliance that goes beyond the internal feature of the game.

You are asking CCP to nerf diplomats. Good luck with that.

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

... FozzieSov has proven not to be EveJesus. Instead, the best FozzieSov can claim is that it has not accelerated the decline. ...

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Harrison Tato wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Star Wars

Mir Jana wrote:

What can CCP do to re-build its populace

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

Market McSelling Alt wrote:

Harrison Tato wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Who the hell made you believe a small group would be able to face a larger more organised one?

Star Wars

Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:

Let us not forget one of the best small group v large group victories, where Dumbledore's army defeated the death eater army!

I have to say, I cant believe just how many HP fan fictions are out there! This was a great choice for Eve is dying thread responses, and id like to thank everyone who was involved in the decision making process. Soon, The Troll Bridge will roll out a new automated system for this, as well as a snazzy new acronym. Once again, we have top men working on this. Of course, all of our people at TL-DR are top men, so as long as someone is working on it, it is, in fact, being worked on by top men.

Primary This Rifter wrote:

The system needs to be designed to accommodate how players are known to behave. Anything else is destined to fail.

Primary This Rifter wrote:

If you think the onus is on the players to alter their behavior so the sov system works, you're an idiot.

The system needs to be designed to accommodate how players are known to behave. Anything else is destined to fail.

Mr Epeen wrote:

Primary This Rifter wrote:

The system needs to be designed to accommodate how players are known to behave. Anything else is destined to fail.

Good quote. I think I'll link it every time you go on one of your 'force them out of high sec' rants.

Mr Epeen Cool

Primary This Rifter wrote:

Guttripper wrote:

Another aspect I remembered that has caused me to reduce my time within the game. Perhaps I am just a role player at heart, but back in the day *waves cane*, both CCP and outside sources used to have articles, books, chronicles, and print magazines that touched on aspects to the game not normally a part of a player's gaming experience. They added depth to a gaming world. But today, many of the videos CCP releases are not to promote a sense of lore, but to highlight what they have coming out soon.

And it did not help that the "cold, dark universe" has become warmer and brighter through the fear of not being real life politically correct...

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

Primary This Rifter wrote:

Then that explains why CCP is developing the game based on what they wish that players did rather than what players actually do.

Jill Xelitras wrote:

OMG, WOW is dying !!1!11

sauce: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/08/05/world-of-warcraft-has-lost-44-of-its-subscribers-in-six-months-but-thats-okay/

The good news for EvE is: Goons are stepping in and creating content by losing a Titan in Deklein.

Mr Epeen wrote:

Primary This Rifter wrote:

The system needs to be designed to accommodate how players are known to behave. Anything else is destined to fail.

Good quote. I think I'll link it every time you go on one of your 'force them out of high sec' rants.

Mr Epeen Cool

Seven Koskanaiken wrote:

Mr Epeen wrote:

Primary This Rifter wrote:

The system needs to be designed to accommodate how players are known to behave. Anything else is destined to fail.

Good quote. I think I'll link it every time you go on one of your 'force them out of high sec' rants.

Mr Epeen Cool

Everyone else must ~adapt~ to the game.

The game should ~adapt~ itself to me.

Astral Azizora wrote:

Thanks to PLEX price this is one more account that won't be renewed in less than two weeks when my time is up.

Astral Azizora wrote:

Thanks to PLEX price this is one more account that won't be renewed in less than two weeks when my time is up.

James Cannon Fodder wrote:

The elephant in the room that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that... probably.... when you saw lots of people online a few months ago all the time - those were bots.
CCP outlawed bot mining. ...

Tippia wrote:

Djiana Lenar wrote:

Make it easier for new players to stay interested in the game.

Would it be to much to ask for more SP for new players so they can actually be useful?

It's been tried; it doesn't work. It also doesn't address the problem you describe.

James Cannon Fodder wrote:

It's a difficult balance trying to get new players without losing the old ones, but it's important to remember that the old players are part of what attracts the new players. I totally miss that alliance.

Harry Forever wrote:

Tippia must be right

Webvan wrote:

I spend more on one bottle of bourbon compared to a month of EVE. Well Mr. fresh forum alt, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Dave Stark wrote:

Astral Azizora wrote:

Thanks to PLEX price this is one more account that won't be renewed in less than two weeks when my time is up.

You can't make 40 mil per day?

Really?

Dave Stark wrote:

Astral Azizora wrote:

Thanks to PLEX price this is one more account that won't be renewed in less than two weeks when my time is up.

You can't make 40 mil per day?

Really?

Webvan wrote:

I spend more on one bottle of bourbon compared to a month of EVE. Well Mr. fresh forum alt, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Astral Azizora wrote:

Dave Stark wrote:

Astral Azizora wrote:

Thanks to PLEX price this is one more account that won't be renewed in less than two weeks when my time is up.

You can't make 40 mil per day?

Really?

Previously my activities were enough to pay for a PLEX on one of my accounts. The rising cost has now made the purchase of PLEX with ISK untenable for me, as it has for many others. If you think this isn't a problem for the game, then you are part of the problem.

Webvan wrote:

I spend more on one bottle of bourbon compared to a month of EVE. Well Mr. fresh forum alt, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Two forum cliches in one short post, well done Roll

Jeremiah Saken wrote:

Webvan wrote:

I spend more on one bottle of bourbon compared to a month of EVE. Well Mr. fresh forum alt, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I'm just curious, I can buy 30 PLEX for my monthly salary, how many can you?

Delightful Delicacy wrote:

Jeremiah Saken wrote:

Webvan wrote:

I spend more on one bottle of bourbon compared to a month of EVE. Well Mr. fresh forum alt, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I'm just curious, I can buy 30 PLEX for my monthly salary, how many can you?

Christ, only 30 plex? That's hardly anything if you live in most western countries. That's like less than 300 GBP per month.

I could buy 200+ plex with my monthly salary

Astral Azizora wrote:

The rising cost has now made the purchase of PLEX with ISK untenable for me, as it has for many others. If you think this isn't a problem for the game, then you are part of the problem.

Primary This Rifter wrote:

Jeremiah Saken wrote:

Webvan wrote:

I spend more on one bottle of bourbon compared to a month of EVE. Well Mr. fresh forum alt, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I'm just curious, I can buy 30 PLEX for my monthly salary, how many can you?

Astral Azizora wrote: