These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

why do players stay in npc corps?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1461 - 2015-06-08 21:35:04 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
March rabbit wrote:

Truth be told lately i see a lot more whine and cry from Feyd, Kaarous and 'pro-pvp' company than from so called 'carebears'. Something happened....


For my part, I never used to get on the forums at all until a few years ago.

Then I got tired of there being only one voice presented to CCP on the forums. If you'll notice, I'm not the one making threads. I just answer them.

Yea, right. And even without making new threads you are winning by large margin.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Nevil Oscillator
#1462 - 2015-06-08 21:39:49 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:


CCP Rise said that less that a fraction of a percent of people who quit cite ship loss as the reason. How many multiples of that number were just bored out of the game?


Yeah but if you quit because of that then you invent some other reason rather than admit it.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#1463 - 2015-06-08 21:41:09 UTC
Orion Nex wrote:
I'm not calling for safety out of self-interest. At least not in the way I think you are talking about.

But I'd like for you to honest answer the question. If new players were joining corps in high sec and being introduced to the game wouldn't it be better than what you have now? If this happens currently they are guaranteed to get dec'd and they will disband 9/10.

It's one of those deals where you can want people to behave differently, but you have to do something to change it. I don't think there is anything you can do to make 100 miners band together to fight against Marmite in Hek. It sounds good, hey guys defend yourselves. But it's simply not happening.

People are saying the same things over and over back and forth. I'll join a corp right now if some experienced person wants to teach 100 guys how to beat Marmite with high sec mechanics. Would Marmite show up in numbers and we'd eventually have a 1000 ship battle in high sec? No, they wouldn't show up that's not the kind of fight they are looking for. Am I being hyperbolic, yes.

If those high sec groups were able to operate a bit without getting shut down with war decs they'd soon find as others have pointed out that the margins suck and they'd need to find something better to generate ISK.

Eve is a competitive PvP sandbox game. You cannot allow the inability or unwillingness to put up a defense be an actual defensive strategy or all that will happen is established players will abuse it to hide from aggressors and do thier industry under this free safety. You have to provide for your own defense - this is intended by the game mechanics - if you want the rewards the ability to influence the greater Eve economy provides, you also have to be exposed to the actions of other players, including those that want to stop you by force.

Sure, I'd love for more new players to join experienced, socially supportive and fun highsec corporations. But part of living in New Eden is defending yourself and if a corporation cannot handle operating under a wardec, then honestly it has little future in this dystopic universe. If you do not want the responsibility of belonging to or running a corporation and just want to shoot a few NPCs or mine with friends, then stay in the NPC corp and just make a chat channel until the new societies thing comes online. You can play the game free of wardecs.

What is not the answer is to nerf wardecs in some misguided move to "save the newbies". This will do nothing to help prepare them for experiences outside of highsec and will just give veterans even more safety to do their industry in and outcompete the new players. I am sure there is room to make wardecs more engaging, but nerfing them so even more new players end up in do-nothing highsec fail corps is not going to improve the new player experience. It just means more new players will end up in corps run by clueless or downright exploitative CEOs who keep them constantly mining and who will end up quitting the game out of boredom.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1464 - 2015-06-08 21:55:05 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Okay so people keep confusing wardec with "non consensual PVP". It is not non consensual PVP it is a change in the security status for a single corporation.


One that they did not agree to. Or, put a different way, they did not consent to.

Quote:

EVE is supposed to be harsh, why make it so easy on criminals?


Because wars are not criminal activity. They are lawful activity.

Also because everyone is supposed to die, and no one is supposed to be exempt. Ships getting blown up turns the wheels of the economy.

Further, because wars act as a much needed isk sink.

Still further, whether you like it or not, highsec PvP combat is pretty much the only thing in highsec left with such restrictions and punishments on their playstyle. Yours certainly has none, now that standings have been decoupled from station use. Thus, we are enabled to be the risk that is lacking from your otherwise easymode playstyle(s).

We are what makes EVE harsh.

Its not lawful activity. According to lore, you bribe CONCORD to look the other way. It makes no sense and is really one of those CCP shenanigans to make the game easier for the vocal minority

War decs are a mechanic structured around sec status manipulation essentially it is a buff to sec status enabling lawlessness. Wars are not a needed isk sink. The idea of isk sink is pointless because isk does very little outside market interactions(There are players who rarely interact with the market).Thats why people give away billions of it for game time.

In your opinion easymode = independence. Taking that away from players will break this game.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1465 - 2015-06-08 21:59:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Lucas Kell wrote:
]He said that they go into an isolated playstyle, yes, but specifically stating missionioning and mining, mostly missioning and he use words along the lines of "the classic thempark". The problem is that most PvE isn't a group activity. People are isolated because that's the way the PvE content is designed. Incursions are an exception but they are very elitist and generally dominated by multiboxers due to their ease of farming. IMHO, they need more earlier group PvE content to encourage people to play together (and prefereably ways for PvE corps to actually exist), it shouldn't constantly be about finding new ways to encourage them to get blown up since they just aren't interested in that. This new content all seems geared towards veteran players who already interact.

Ok, I give up trying to reason. Extrapolating the data to justify something it wasn't arguing doesn't make the point stronger.

Watching it from 16:06 on (to 18:30), the message in that was about rich experiences, not about the weakness of PvE and nothing there discussed how improving the PvE will turn that 40% into more of the 10%. It was about moving people to rich experiences as early as possible (including existing PvE).

Here is the whole relevant part of the presentation, which was on the slide What we can do better - Rich Experiences:

https://youtu.be/sbHqFgn4SOw?list=PLldrBIEnJ5hMIXwk_e8-VZb0EldJqXmg_&t=967
Orion Nex
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1466 - 2015-06-08 21:59:49 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Orion Nex wrote:
I'm not calling for safety out of self-interest. At least not in the way I think you are talking about.

But I'd like for you to honest answer the question. If new players were joining corps in high sec and being introduced to the game wouldn't it be better than what you have now? If this happens currently they are guaranteed to get dec'd and they will disband 9/10.

It's one of those deals where you can want people to behave differently, but you have to do something to change it. I don't think there is anything you can do to make 100 miners band together to fight against Marmite in Hek. It sounds good, hey guys defend yourselves. But it's simply not happening.

People are saying the same things over and over back and forth. I'll join a corp right now if some experienced person wants to teach 100 guys how to beat Marmite with high sec mechanics. Would Marmite show up in numbers and we'd eventually have a 1000 ship battle in high sec? No, they wouldn't show up that's not the kind of fight they are looking for. Am I being hyperbolic, yes.

If those high sec groups were able to operate a bit without getting shut down with war decs they'd soon find as others have pointed out that the margins suck and they'd need to find something better to generate ISK.

Eve is a competitive PvP sandbox game. You cannot allow the inability or unwillingness to put up a defense be an actual defensive strategy or all that will happen is established players will abuse it to hide from aggressors and do thier industry under this free safety. You have to provide for your own defense - this is intended by the game mechanics - if you want the rewards the ability to influence the greater Eve economy provides, you also have to be exposed to the actions of other players, including those that want to stop you by force.

Sure, I'd love for more new players to join experienced, socially supportive and fun highsec corporations. But part of living in New Eden is defending yourself and if a corporation cannot handle operating under a wardec, then honestly it has little future in this dystopic universe. If you do not want the responsibility of belonging to or running a corporation and just want to shoot a few NPCs or mine with friends, then stay in the NPC corp and just make a chat channel until the new societies thing comes online. You can play the game free of wardecs.

What is not the answer is to nerf wardecs in some misguided move to "save the newbies". This will do nothing to help prepare them for experiences outside of highsec and will just give veterans even more safety to do their industry in and outcompete the new players. I am sure there is room to make wardecs more engaging, but nerfing them so even more new players end up in do-nothing highsec fail corps is not going to improve the new player experience. It just means more new players will end up in corps run by clueless or downright exploitative CEOs who keep them constantly mining and who will end up quitting the game out of boredom.


Lol, it's funny because if you read my posts on the Dust forums I sound just like you. I get it man. I would freakin love to be a badass solo pvp dude with a twitch stream. I am not willing to dedicate the amount of time to Eve to get anywhere close to the level of skill and knowledge of the game it takes to get there. I'm not afraid to admit that.

I think you are 100% correct about the level of fail corps would pop up, how many exploitive CEOs there would be, and on and on and on. But you know what, those people are now involved in Eve meta. If they made a few friends in their first fail corp perhaps they'd start their own venture or join a better corp together. Crappy corps are better than no corps. War decs to me kill that aspect. It would be good for Eve for there to be a 1000 pilot derp corp that grabbed up every new pilot that undocks for the first time. This type of thing is just not doable in high sec. To me that's crazy. Every game has huge groups of scrubby newbs. And many of the good players in those games probably have one of those starter derp corps in their corp/clan history.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1467 - 2015-06-08 22:03:59 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

I have no idea what you are going on about. CCP Rise was talking about new players staying with the game. New players that experience combat, whether consensual or non-consensual like a gank are more likely to subscribe than players who spend the trial alone shooting rocks or levelling thier Raven.

Getting these new players out of the isolation of NPC corps and engaged with sandbox is the best path CCP sees to increase player retention. Whether that is into a PvP corp that preys on miners and industrialists with ganks and wardecs or into a highsec industrial corp that dodges these players while "exploring different avenues of Eve" is beside the point. The point is that it is player conflict which drives interactions is good for getting players, especially new players, engaged with the game. And in modern highsec, that conflict is an increasingly rare commodity.

What is demonstrably bad for the game is pandering to calls for increased safety by players out of self-interest who don't want to spend time or effort on thier defense. These "carebears" are not just confined to highsec however. They are in all spaces and deserved to be cleansed with fire (in-game of course) wherever they are found.


TBH most players who mine, mission, and leave, have figured out EVE Online. Those who were PVP'd did not get a chance to figure it out. I think the folks that joined player corps are alts or RL friends of the alliance.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1468 - 2015-06-08 22:07:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
]He said that they go into an isolated playstyle, yes, but specifically stating missionioning and mining, mostly missioning and he use words along the lines of "the classic thempark". The problem is that most PvE isn't a group activity. People are isolated because that's the way the PvE content is designed. Incursions are an exception but they are very elitist and generally dominated by multiboxers due to their ease of farming. IMHO, they need more earlier group PvE content to encourage people to play together (and prefereably ways for PvE corps to actually exist), it shouldn't constantly be about finding new ways to encourage them to get blown up since they just aren't interested in that. This new content all seems geared towards veteran players who already interact.

Ok, I give up trying to reason. Extrapolating the data to justify something it wasn't arguing doesn't make the point stronger.

Watching it from 16:06 on, the message in that was about rich experiences, not about the weakness of PvE and nothing there discussed how improving the PvE will turn that 40% into more of the 10%. It was about moving people to rich experiences as early as possible (including existing PvE).

Here is the whole relevant part of the presentation, which was on the slide What we can do better - Rich Experiences:

https://youtu.be/sbHqFgn4SOw?list=PLldrBIEnJ5hMIXwk_e8-VZb0EldJqXmg_&t=967
Yeah and I've seen it, both there and in person. The problem is that a lot of people try to use that as ammo against people who want more from PvE, the "carebears" if you will. they act like the 10% are people who love to run around ganking and murdering each other and the 40% are PvE carbears, and that the only way to get people to stay is to force them into murdering, which is why you get threads like this crying for the end of NPC corps. All I'm saying is that supporting those players in the playstyles they like is an alternative way of thinking. The weird thing is it sounds like you agree, so I'm really not sure what it is you're trying to reason.

As it stands, decently sized PvE corps in highsec are simply not viable. That I think is a real shame.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1469 - 2015-06-08 22:07:59 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The existence of ganking also creates subs.
Was just thinking this.

Yeah, a guy who dislikes PvP gets ganked...sure he might quit. But could that ganking also lead to 1 or more new subs? If so, then a larger view of things needs to be considered.
Ganking is the most boring form of PvP however. It's literally shooting fish in a barrel. It's as likely to make people quit if its the main focus of the game as making the main focus of the game pure PvE. What CCP aim for, and what is generally created, is a balance. Ganking is alright, PvE is alright. Players like Kaarous are as bad as a carebear demanding pure safety, just on the other end of the spectrum, that's all.


It is the most boring if you don't count roams or gate camping. P

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1470 - 2015-06-08 22:10:37 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The existence of ganking also creates subs.
Was just thinking this.

Yeah, a guy who dislikes PvP gets ganked...sure he might quit. But could that ganking also lead to 1 or more new subs? If so, then a larger view of things needs to be considered.
Ganking is the most boring form of PvP however. It's literally shooting fish in a barrel. It's as likely to make people quit if its the main focus of the game as making the main focus of the game pure PvE. What CCP aim for, and what is generally created, is a balance. Ganking is alright, PvE is alright. Players like Kaarous are as bad as a carebear demanding pure safety, just on the other end of the spectrum, that's all.


It is the most boring if you don't count roams or gate camping. P
Even those are a little better, since you at lest get a challenging fight from time to time. Ganks target people with no guns, preferably AFK too.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1471 - 2015-06-08 22:19:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Aza Ebanu
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Orion Nex wrote:

That's why I think ganking should be the danger in high sec. War decs would be to take over structures or something of high value.


I don't think any one thing should be "the" danger in highsec. (or just two things, either)

Only one thing is only one thing to watch out for. And I don't think it should be that simple, or that restricted.


Well thats good, but you have to dig in and say what you mean. CODE works because it is within the intentions of the game design. The stuff these others are suggesting is against the established game design. If not, why is there CONCORD, Empire, gate guns, sec status, criminal timers, bounties etc... You see, these are game mechanics. These are actions that declare the game designer's intentions. If they intend something else, they should develop it into the game.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1472 - 2015-06-08 22:19:23 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

Black Pedro wrote:
CCP Rise said that less that a fraction of a percent of people who quit cite ship loss as the reason. How many multiples of that number were just bored out of the game?
How many of those people that state nothing? Is there even an option for that in the normal set of tickboxes, or is that something you have to pick "other" and type in. Even CCP themselves seemed to avoid making any concrete conclusions from that data.


Why don't you quit then let us know. Lol

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1473 - 2015-06-08 22:21:07 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The existence of ganking also creates subs.
Was just thinking this.

Yeah, a guy who dislikes PvP gets ganked...sure he might quit. But could that ganking also lead to 1 or more new subs? If so, then a larger view of things needs to be considered.
Ganking is the most boring form of PvP however. It's literally shooting fish in a barrel. It's as likely to make people quit if its the main focus of the game as making the main focus of the game pure PvE. What CCP aim for, and what is generally created, is a balance. Ganking is alright, PvE is alright. Players like Kaarous are as bad as a carebear demanding pure safety, just on the other end of the spectrum, that's all.


It is the most boring if you don't count roams or gate camping. P
Even those are a little better, since you at lest get a challenging fight from time to time. Ganks target people with no guns, preferably AFK too.


No they aren't. With ganking you will get a target with a fairly high probability. Roams and gate camps can be quite boring once you watch the nth nullified T3 go by or the kth interceptor with warp core stabs and nanos zip off.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1474 - 2015-06-08 22:23:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Nevil Oscillator wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:


CCP Rise said that less that a fraction of a percent of people who quit cite ship loss as the reason. How many multiples of that number were just bored out of the game?


Yeah but if you quit because of that then you invent some other reason rather than admit it.


Oh great, so in other words we are arguing about something that is absolutely unknowable because the data can't even be trusted.

It is at this point that people like you should, literally, shut up as you have nothing of value to add to the discussion. You are the kind of person that when the data cuts against your position, you come up with a reason to discount the data you are presented with.

Edit: I'd also like to add that your "excuse" as to why we should ignore the data does not have anything to back it up. You completely pulled it out of your fourth point of contact, cleaned it off and held up like a shining jewel not realizing it is indeed just simply a piece of crap.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1475 - 2015-06-08 22:25:48 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
No they aren't. With ganking you will get a target with a fairly high probability. Roams and gate camps can be quite boring once you watch the nth nullified T3 go by or the kth interceptor with warp core stabs and nanos zip off.
I guess that really depends on if you are looking for challenging gameplay or an easy kill. Personally I'd rather have a challenge.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1476 - 2015-06-08 22:27:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
No they aren't. With ganking you will get a target with a fairly high probability. Roams and gate camps can be quite boring once you watch the nth nullified T3 go by or the kth interceptor with warp core stabs and nanos zip off.
I guess that really depends on if you are looking for challenging gameplay or an easy kill. Personally I'd rather have a challenge.


Flying through empty systems isn't a challenge, its boring.

Watching nullified ships fly by isn't fun its boring.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1477 - 2015-06-08 22:27:57 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

Black Pedro wrote:
CCP Rise said that less that a fraction of a percent of people who quit cite ship loss as the reason. How many multiples of that number were just bored out of the game?
How many of those people that state nothing? Is there even an option for that in the normal set of tickboxes, or is that something you have to pick "other" and type in. Even CCP themselves seemed to avoid making any concrete conclusions from that data.


Why don't you quit then let us know. Lol

lol you'll be hard pressed to find it. It is under in-game issues, and none of the options truly address the reasons why people leave the game. Sometimes it is multiple reasons, which you can not list unless you choose other and do it manually. Others quit for one of the listed items, but can not find them due to the multiple tiers in the questionnaire. Tiericide teams should look at that btw.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1478 - 2015-06-08 22:31:54 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
No they aren't. With ganking you will get a target with a fairly high probability. Roams and gate camps can be quite boring once you watch the nth nullified T3 go by or the kth interceptor with warp core stabs and nanos zip off.
I guess that really depends on if you are looking for challenging gameplay or an easy kill. Personally I'd rather have a challenge.
Flying through empty systems isn't a challenge, its boring.

Watching nullified ships fly by isn't fun its boring.
Catching and killing a PvP fit ship or fighting with one of the many other groups that shows up is challenging PvP. Shooting an industrial ship while flying around in highsec hiding behind concord's skirt isn't.

Look mate, you've made your position clear. You aren't interested in shooting ships that can shoot back. That's OK as is any playstyle someone chooses.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1479 - 2015-06-08 22:39:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Lucas Kell wrote:
Yeah and I've seen it, both there and in person. The problem is that a lot of people try to use that as ammo against people who want more from PvE, the "carebears" if you will. they act like the 10% are people who love to run around ganking and murdering each other and the 40% are PvE carbears.

Like I said, no point trying to discuss it with reason since extrapolation of data is difficult to justify (and not needed since there is a lot of direct data to support other arguments anyway).

Of the 4 things mentioned in that part of the presentation that are example activities of the 10% group, pvp was only 1 of them.

They were:

- trading with other players more often
- in corps more often
- talking in fleet chat
- on pvp kills

Only the last of those are exclusive to pvp. All of the others can be PvE just as easily.

In the forum, CCP Rise has also added other non-pvp activities that are indicative of people having rich experiences - using contracts, using chat channels, using voice comms (and I'll go look up the others he has said).

So using the data to move from:

50% stick with the game ( here )

to

10% stick with the game and the rest come for PvE, so improve PvE and more will stay ( here )

to

Other people use it as ammo in the forum ( here )

Makes it impossible to hold a reasoned conversation.

CCP Rise was discussing rich experiences, not the failings of PvE, nor the advantages of PvP. He used both as examples relevant to rich experiences in that presentation.

Providing improved PvE might well encourage more people to stay, but that data doesn't support that conclusion. Clearly CCP believe from the data that rich experiences are more important and the lessons they have learnt from the data (same presentation) are:

1. Text - improving the UI of the NPE to more contextual information and less linear text and clicking
2. Motivation - removing the reward based system of the NPE so that players become more self directed from the start
3. Expectation - removing the themepark aspect of the NPE so that new players find emergent, unpredictable, interactive experiences
4. Rich Experiences - encouraging meaningful experiences within the NPE as much as possible
5. Upkeep - making the entire NPE easier to modify and maintain from the developer perspective so it can be kept relevant

There was nothing in that presentation that justifies "PvE is bad", nor "Improve PvE and more people will stay".

Those are straight perversions of the information that was provided and discussed.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1480 - 2015-06-08 22:52:12 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

Like I said, no point trying to discuss it with reason since extrapolation of data is difficult to justify (and not needed since there is a lot of direct data to support other arguments anyway).

Of the 4 things mentioned in that part of the presentation that are example activities of the 10% group, pvp was only 1 of them.

They were:

- trading with other players more often
- in corps more often
- talking in fleet chat
- on pvp kills

Only the last of those are exclusive to pvp. All of the others can be PvE just as easily.

In the forum, CCP Rise has also added other non-pvp activities that are indicative of people having rich experiences - using contracts, using chat channels, using voice comms (and I'll go look up the others he has said).

So using the data to move from:

50% stick with the game ( here )

to

10% stick with the game and the rest come for PvE, so improve PvE and more will stay ( here )

to

Other people use it as ammo in the forum ( here )

Makes it impossible to hold a reasoned conversation.

CCP Rise was discussing rich experiences, not the failings of PvE, nor the advantages of PvP. He used both as examples relevant to rich experiences in that presentation.

Providing improved PvE might well encourage more people to stay, but that data doesn't support that conclusion. Clearly CCP believe from the data that rich experiences are more important and the lessons they have learnt from the data (same presentation) are:

1. Text - improving the UI of the NPE to more contextual information and less linear text and clicking
2. Motivation - removing the reward based system of the NPE so that players become more self directed from the start
3. Expectation - removing the themepark aspect of the NPE so that new players find emergent, unpredictable, interactive experiences
4. Rich Experiences - encouraging meaningful experiences within the NPE as much as possible
5. Upkeep - making the entire NPE easier to modify and maintain from the developer perspective so it can be kept relevant

There was nothing in that presentation that justifies "PvE is bad", nor "Improve PvE and more people will stay".

Those are straight perversions of the information that was provided and discussed.

It doesn't matter the data is flawed in the first place due to multiple accounts per player. And, how does he know who is on fleet chat?