EVE General Discussion

The data are not inherently flawed - the data are just the data.

It is a fact that new players who leave the NPC corps have a higher rate of subscribing to the game. Looking at this, and the multitude of other data points CCP has in their databases, they have come to the reasonable conclusion that the social interactions afforded by being in a player corporation may have something to do with the higher retention rate of these players.

You are entitled to disagree with this conclusion and stamp your feet shouting "correlation does not equal causation" like a first-year philosophy major if you'd like, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And if you are going to ask me to choose whose hypothesis to believe: CCP Rise and his team who have direct access to the detailed histories of hundreds of thousands of players and whose jobs are to increase player retention, and thus the long-term success of the game, or someone who willing to dismiss data because they don't fit his per-conceived narrative, I know who I am going to stand with.

Certainly it cannot hurt to try to guide players out of the isolating environment of the NPC corp and into the more social one of a player corp can it?

I have not given my perceived narrative Nor does it disagree with player interaction being important.

Yes, newbros are more likely to stick around if they experience more player interaction.
This DOES NOT mean they will quit because they stayed in an NPC corp.

And while "correlation Is not causation" may be year one philosophy, the chicken and the egg question is famous because therehas not been correct or wrong answer (though I do know the true answer.)

So, which is correct; newbs in NPC corps quit, or NPC corps cause newbs to quit?

The question is irrelevant.

New Players are mostly isolated in npc corps, unless it's CAS. If that wasn't true, CCP wouldn't want people to leave them for player corps. What came first is irrelevant when looking at what currently is. It's just sidetracking from the fact that too many people play isolated and how the npc corps except CAS do their good part in that.

Your question does not bring progress.

I feel like you don't believe in what CCP says and you never went through npc corps to check out the situation for yourself. Your question has no rlevance and is actually answered already.

NPC corps do not provide the environment needed to keep players,
as shown by CCP wanting to get people out of them.

The only exceptions are CAS/Scope.

I believe what CCP says, but do not believe the NPC corps are the issue.

Fact is there's several issues that are not the fault of NPC corps.

1) barrier - this essentially combines all newb barriers. Efficiency in piloting, Isk, training, skills. Basically, many new players are used to games that make you feel powerful from the start and require little time and/or investment to reach higher levels of capability/content.
This one is as intended. Catering to these types of players would break the game quite significanltly.
Though, I would argue that training can be addressed and in doing so, it may address other issues.

2) Content - there's not a lot of content that can be done by newbros that isn't gendered by the barriers. More specifically the Isk and skills barriers. This is also a limitation to player interaction. A corp can take on new players all day long, but it doesn't provide the newbros with any activities.
To address this, CCP should add low level, group, content, and can expand on this for higher end group content.
What I mean by this is, perhaps provide fleet missions, or the NPC count increases, the more players you bring.
So, you can take a fleet into lvl 1 missions, with logo frigs, and it would be entertaining for vets and engaging for newbros.

All of barrier challenges can be broken down into sub categories and likely should, as they're all very different and very important.
I simply chose to combine them for the sake of keeping the post as short as possible.

However, I think the introduction of more group content could address many of the barrier issues.
Providing fleet content that doesn't require players to PVP, or travel the galaxy scanning and/or looking for incursions could be quite helpful.
Corps will be more likely to take on newbros and assist them if the content is engaging and supportive of fleet activity.
More so, newbros will be more likely to join player corps if they know and/or are influenced that they will be part of the group.

As it stands now, when a newbro joins a player corp, the only thing he will likely get out of it is contact who potentially have knowledge that can help him. As far as involvement with the corp, the best they can generally get is mining fleets.
Sure, the corp can fleet run missions, but with the current design of missions, this would likely be more of a hinderance than anything. Rewards are less, standing increase is less, and much more.

It is also a fact that over 99% of characters who subscribe to EVE have spent time in an NPC corporation. How much do you want to bet that CCP has data that says that players that have undocked are 99% more likely to subscribe and stick with the game than players who don't? So, should we eliminate stations from the game?




That is entirely possible, but we're not going to take YOUR word for it. Direct us to where they actually say that or people are just going to think you're making **** up to further your agenda. (Which you probably are.)

Also, I don't know why you are harping on players in NPC corporations being isolated. Obviously a corporation channel with hundreds of people in it isn't an "isolated" experience. There's a person behind each of those characters. If they choose not to communicate, that's their choice, not CCP's. They probably aren't talking in local, either. Should we nerf that, too?
You can't MAKE people interact.

I bet players that undock are more likely to subscribe to the game. If some new players are unable to find the undock button for some reason, shouldn't CCP change the game so that it is easier for them to actually undock and thus move themselves into "those that undock" cohort which has a higher percent chance of subscribing to the game?


I just linked a post to this effect earlier today. You can also watch CCP Rise's talk from Fanfest on using science to increase player retention. Why are people on these forums so untrusting?

Just because you don't feel isolated in a NPC corporation does not mean that it is not an isolating experience for every new player. Certainly, the data say that players who make it into a player corporation and engage in other social activities are more likely to stay with the game. Why is that notion so difficult for you to accept?

You keep leading back to the comment by CCP Rise, but fail to realize that his comment does not state that NPC corps are the issue.
All his comment does is state what the data shows, but doesn't take any other factors into account.

Of course players that get involved in group activities are more likely stick around.
Those people were more likely to stick around regardless, that's why they joined a player corp.

Sure, player interaction likely has some factor into whether a player sticks around or not, but you're putting is out as if CCP Rise is saying that interaction is the be all end all of retention.

This is not the case.
CCP Rise is solely stating what the data shows, and is taking no other factors into consideration, such as the player that quit just didn't like the game long before social interaction was even considered.

Actually... I think that's potentially an inaccurate conclusion. My take-away from the data is that starter corp membership is a result of no player engagement, not a cause of it. You must remember, the data as presented by CCP Rise only looked at players who have played for 30 days or fewer. If new players, upon character creation, were put into their own corp, the data would then show that single-player corps had the lowest newbie retention rates. If new players, upon character creation, were put into larger alliances like PL or GSF, the data would then show that PL and GSF had the lowest newbie retention rates.

The data which shows that ganked newbies are more likely to be retained as subscribers even supports this. It's impossible to be ganked while sitting in station, or while not even logged on. The ganked newbies are out doing things in New Eden. That's a level of engagement way beyond the new player who creates an account, downloads the client, then spends five minutes looking at Aurora before logging off and never returning.


I definitely agree with that. I just totally disagree with the notion that being in an NPC corp implies a lack of social contacts.


I know you weren't asking me that question, but I'll answer - I'm not against it. I'm totally for it. I've contributed many posts to the "social corps" thread in the interests of increased social contacts. I'm against, however, forcing players to move into a player corp (or incenting them to do so by placing restrictions on NPC corps.)


This is speculation of course, but I think that might do nothing at best, and possibly even backfire at worst. #1 Consider the player who signs up for a trial, but then never does anything in the game - doesn't use the market, doesn't undock, doesn't use contracts, doesn't PvP. Anything done to corps has zero effect on such players. Somehow, the NPE needs to draw them in. #2 Next, consider the player who signs up while already knowing people in game - possibly through reddit or SA or IRL friends. Adjustments to corps won't have any effect on them either because they already have established social ties and a group to play with/against. #3 Next, consider the lone new player who doesn't know anybody in the game but is very social naturally. They chat, they interact, they look for groups to connect with. They already are on the road to making social connections, and changes to NPC and player corps won't improve that. #4 Finally, consider the lone player who tries out EVE, doesn't know anybody else who plays it, and is relatively shy. (This is the category I was in.) This person flies around, mines, missions, maybe gets ganked or wonders into low and is blown up - but they don't know anybody, and for some of us, creating new social ties isn't a flippant matter, it's a grave decision that needs contemplation to ease in to. Force me, personally, to choose a player corp to join within 30 days of starting EVE, and I'd just quit instead. But what really happened is I slowly learned of the activities CAS members do, decided to get a jumpclone to move across the map quickly (I had some very naïve notions of what I wanted to do in EVE when I first joined) and as part of the JC session was invited into nullsec. I decided to give it a try as it didn't involve any commitmet, and once in the nullsec base, in fleet, on comms, I was totally hooked and jumped in to it wholeheartedly. Over next week I utilized my ISK from mining to move 30 frigates to the base, and never looked back. CAS is a unique collection of players however, so not everybody beginning EVE in a starter corp is exposed to such a social group - which is why I really like the idea of the social groups being discussed in a different thread, so that less socially inclined players can ease into it and eventually forge those ties that keep us coming back to EVE.

In my mind, forcing/incenting people into player corps will do nothing for three kinds of players, and will actually drive away a fourth kind. Therefore I consider it a bad idea for the health of the game.

You are naive...

The data presented by CCP Rise only states a very specific point.

Players who engage in communal actives are more likely to stick around.

You keep quoting me on the parts of my argument that you can best counter, yet that portion is taken out of context.

I'm pretty sure you're doing this intentionally as an attempt to devalue my point, yet anyone can simply scroll to the original comment and find the full context of my point.


You quote me as if I'm denying the data, when in fact I'm stating that the data does not, and cannot, factor all aspects into consideration.

Does it factor alt accounts?
Does it factor temporary obeservation accounts?
Does it factor alt characters?
Does it factor newbros that simply didn't like the game?
Does it factor newbors that had social ties with other players before joining Eve?
Does it factor those turned off by PVP?
Does it factor those who don't like to grind?
Does it factor those that like to grind for XP, but Eve doesn't support that?
Does it factor those that prefer solo activities?

This list of questions goes on and on.
If the answer to any of those question is no, then the data is flawed.
Not flawed in the sense that it's incorrect, but flawed in the sense that it is not a viable argument to the current conversation, as in, it does not confirm nor deny that NPC corps are the cause of low retention.

It only shows one VERY SPECIFIC point that may or may not mean anything.
CCP Rise is simply stating that if they can find a way to increase social activity with new players it MAY HELP with retention.

You can ask CCP Rise himself, and he will likely state (in some manner) that this assumption is purely based on speculation of a very narrow data point, but he will likely also go on to say that any and all increases to social involvement within Eve is always good regardless of whether it increases player retention or not.

If you listen to CCP Rise here...

You can see that he is talking about the same thing I have been...
I.E. - give new players better training and more content is what is likely to keep them in game.

As far as the mention of suicide ganking, he does mention that people who were suicide ganked were more likely to stick around.
People who were legally killed were not as likely. It would also help to note that he doesn't speak of how many of those legal kills were baits and/or an overall general lack of knowledge on game mechanics.

You might also notice that the opportunities system increased conversion WITHOUT the involvement of social activities.
This, again, goes to show that training and content are important to retention.
This is NOT to say that social interaction isn't important, but that it's not the only important factor in retention.