The very definition of interaction is a matter of perspective.
Inclusion or exclusion of other factors to retention is a matter of perspective, hence relative weight of interaction is a matter of perspective.
Accounting of factors facilitating/hindering interaction, choice of approaches to encourage interaction and consideration of their possible implications are all matter of perspective.
Choice of data processing methods is a matter of perspective, again; as a result, different pictures can be derived from same data…
No, it’s not. It’s pretty simple: did you do something they could see/react to/be impacted by without going through an intermediary step that obscures one player from another? That’s not a matter of perspective.
This is one possible definition of interaction (albeit somewhat obscure), and the choice of this very definition definitely is a matter of perspective, as is its interpretation.
First off: How the hell is that ‘obscure’?
But more importantly: that’s the consistent definition CCP’s used in their FanFest presentations. That makes it the single definition of interaction for the context of this discussion, because the discussion is about interaction as defined by CCP for their FanFest presentations, and its measurable effect on retention.
And those measurements show that when people aren’t interacting with other people, they’re more likely to leave the game. CCP’s FF presentations show that. The login numbers during the Blackout show that. The numbers during every major war show it.
Thinning the population out actively hurts player retention, and the numbers demonstrate that again and again. I’m sorry that you don’t like being wrong… but you’re wrong.
this needs its own definition (likely a matter of perspective, again)
I think it’s more likely that you mean it needs examples.
An example would be contracts, or the market, where obviously your actions have an impact on someone else—they’re buying your goods or selling you something—but you never directly interact, and you probably don’t even pay attention to the name on the transaction item in your wallet.
No again this is not what I mean. Example is not exhaustive however valid and interesting.
We need formal definition to identify where exactly sits the boundary which would disqualify interaction - like in the example you’ve kindly provided - from being counted as such (and how exactly they are quantified, by the way). Otherwise what we get is an arbitrary perspective-driven estimation rather than a solid quantitative parameter used to obtain the measurement of the effect on retention.
The word you don’t seem to be parsing here is ‘directly’. Is there direct interaction? Then it counts. Is the interaction indirect? Then it doesn’t. And all of your attempts to obfuscate and make things seem less than very, very straightforward just demonstrate how little you’re interested in an actual, good-faith discussion.
But then, you’ve already tried to end any discussion at least three times, so I suppose I should let you just scurry off.
1 Like
It would seem that ‘interaction’, that retains players, is interaction with meaning. That meaning being a shared goal or vision with others. It could be as simple as “best alpha carebear corp ever!” to null sec empire building. More often than not, that meaning requires some ownership, a stake in the outcome, to participate in the results.
In fact, according to CCP’s numbers, that meaning does not need to be a shared goal. One of the things they were surprised to see strong correlation on was that people who get ganked in their first 30 days show higher retention, often out of ‘I’m going to get those bastards’.
Interaction, even acrimonious, seems to be the key component, not just cooperation.
I was podded my third day in Eve, in low sec. I’ve yet to find that SOB, but I will one day.
2 Likes
- Because the empires maintain more or less open trade relations, and were for an extended period at relative peace before that.
- You are a capsuleer, you are an extranational and extralegal entity with extraterritorial rights to move as you see fit so long as you don’t piss off a particular empire too much.
- Weapons Systems are not universally belonging to a singular faction, each empire has developed its own versions of each weapon system at one time or another, but each chose to specialize in particular things. In regard to Gallente/Caldari, they had a shared root tech base, having initially risen from the same home system just different planets, and so some of that root specialization carried over to the Caldari later.
That was not a strong correlation, it was a weak one and it wasn’t Ganks, it was all PvP.
They never looked deeper into the data to determine if it was actually any kind of causation or caused by natural skewing of the data (such as people who are likely to stay put more hours in during their first 30 days so are more likely to encounter PvP activities).
Now, this is not saying PvP/Ganking is bad to be clear, but lets be clear on what CCP did and didn’t find.
3 Likes
Seriously wish you people would stop posting that 2015 oldass BS from CCP Rise. Also his statement was based on new players with 2 weeks or less time in the game.
Anyway, the latest reports from CCP Hellmar during the Eve World Tour of 2019 showed that 90% of new players quit within their first 7 days of playing, most probably due to what he called ‘The Magic Moment’ of when players suffer their first devastating ship loss. Players who don’t have support from an established Eve Online social group were more inclined to quit.
1 Like
Is this data public?
The ‘Magic Moment’ is exactly the same thing he was talking about, and the point wasn’t that there has to be a social group for them to fall back on, but rather that those who did not have this kind of moment had a much higher chance of dropping out early.
From this CCP started having GMs target players just after a loss, as well as introduce threats like the Triglavians that end up causing this event in a much more controlled way that helps the player hopefully use this as a spur to take the game seriously, rather than flunk out at the first sign of adversary.
No one gets ganked until they do something they probably shouldn’t have done, knowingly or not, and so having that moment stands out in an otherwise potentially boring and directionless early game.
Watch the video linked below:
EVE Down Under 2019 - Beyond The Friendship Machine
No he wasn’t.
Yes it is.
Wrong, that’s exactly opposite of what CCP Hellmar stated in the 2019 presentation - Beyond The Friendship Machine.
What a load of crap.
Seriously, don’t care to hear anymore of your BS about how ganking new players keeps them in the game.
4 Likes
Thought this was supposed to be soon?
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.