Player Retention: What the DATA shows

[Gimfalisette]

I'd like to invite y'all to look for a moment, with me, at ARM as if it were a business. Businesses live and die on their ability to do a fairly short list of basic things, which includes:

-- Find and attract prospects (marketing)
-- Convert prospects into customers (sales)
-- Retain existing customers (customer service)

A business which cannot do all of the above tasks will not grow, due to simple math; making new customers + keeping existing customers = growth over time. If a business is not growing, then it is failing at one or more of the above tasks. The basic question here is, "What is our month-to-month growth rate?" If it is weak, stagnant, or negative...there is a problem.

In business, data analysis is the tool used to determine which of these tasks the organization is screwing up. There are a few key variables which need to be looked at, but it's pretty simple, overall. Questions include:

-- How many inquiries did we get during X time period from new prospects? (This could be a phone call, a walk-in, or an email / webform inquiry.)
-- During that time period, how many prospects converted to customers? (Usually this means purchased something.)
-- During that time period, how many existing customers stopped being customers? (Sometimes a little harder to measure, but it could be things like didn't renew a subscription, opted out of emails, didn't repeat-buy.)

My contention that ARM has a problem with player retention is based on the data; on the facts which are publicly published and to which you all have access. ARM's month-to-month growth rate is extremely weak; so weak that, from a business perspective, it could be called stagnant, and at times in the last 3 years it's actually been negative. Here is the relevant, accessible data on player retention:

-- Prior to The Announcement in November 2006, unique players per week ran in the 340 range.
-- Post-Announcement, unique players per week dipped down to as low as the 220 range around May 2007. That is a 35% reduction in the size of the playerbase.
-- Since May 2007, the unique player per week count has slowly crawled back up into the 270 range, current. This is still 20% below where we were, 2.5 years on. That's a recovery of only 15% in 20 months, an average of less than 1% growth per month. To be really concrete, we're only gaining a NET of 2 to 3 players per month. (New players coming in - veterans leaving = net new players.)
-- We get in the range of 100 to 150 new player accounts per month, based on data published last year. These folks are our prospective new players, and we are only converting them to actual players at a rate of about 2% minimum to probably 5% maximum. (Unfortunately I don't have access to data on veterans leaving which would allow me to calculate our actual maximum prospect conversion rate.) This, from a business perspective, is horrendous suck. Typically, businesses are looking for conversion rates in the 20 to 60% range, in my experience.
-- My conservative, educated guess at our rate of loss of veteran players, based on the above data, is that we are losing probably 1% of the existing playerbase per month; 2 to 3 veteran players. Now, if we are actually converting new players at a higher rate than I think we are, then we may be also losing veterans at a higher rate; it's impossible for me to know without the data. So take this guess as conservative.

Really?   Really.


Because I see a whole forum board full of pretty fucking dedicated players.


And I see a whole game full of pretty fucking dedicated players.


And I see a whole lot of people not fucking leaving.


Two drops of water does not a sinking ship make.


I can think of several recent additions to our game who are more than making a mark, including the legendary Amandagreathouse and the uncanny and awesome Musashi.  This isn't even counting the Staggerlees or the Alicedavignons of our little world.


And if there's this huge exodus of players, how is it that our numbers remain, hmm, pretty consistent?  Fifty to sixty people on average at peak times during school... yeah, gosh, sounds like it's pretty much the same as it's been for the last several years.

People come, and people go, and then people come back.

You can rant at me all you like about the topic, but it doesn't change the relevant data. I don't base my opinions on one or two players announcing that they've quit, either; I base it on the numbers which by trade and experience I'm qualified to interpret. Now, perhaps you don't see negative and stagnant growth as a problem; that's a different question entirely. Personally, I see our current growth rate as a big problem, and a focus on both converting prospective players AND retaining veteran players as the logical solution.

[mansa]

I'm trying, gimf momma.  I'm trying to help the problem.
See link in my signature.

[Adhira]

While player retention is important to us as staff and we do consider player base numbers as one of the signs that we're doing a decent job I would offer that growth of the playerbase is not the only way to mark Armageddon as successful.

I also argue that the business model you presented is not the only model that is used to measure success. I have been employed in businesses where we had to actively monitor subscription to our programs and services, and maintaining the numbers was our measurement of success, rather than increasing beyond what we had set as the capacity limit for the program based on a number of criteria. Growth is a common measurement but there are many organisations for which this is a lesser concern.

So while I can agree with your data, I do not agree with your overall analysis. I believe that as staff and players we need to work to create an environment that both attracts and retains players. However, I do not believe that every person who plays this game will find it to their liking, or that they will always play it. People move on for a variety of reasons, and peoples perceptions change over time as well.

The loss of veteran players is not new, in my opinion the loss of veteran players has been steady ever since I joined staff, and indeed since I started playing the game. Therefore I am not alarmed by recent losses as I see no noticeable changed in patterns. I believe that 2 -3 per month leaving would be an overestimation also, but I don't have the data on that to back up the statement, just my general observation.

In saying that, while I'm not alarmed by the losses I would like our playerbase to be larger on the whole.  There are definitely areas that could use improvement, specifically marketing and public relations, but also in how we manage the gameplay.

However, I feel that we do a decent job attracting and retaining a reasonable number of players for a considerable length of time, given what this game is - a niche market with a volunteer staff.

[Bluefae]

     Gimf, thank you for posting this well-reasoned and lucid break-down of the situation.  On a personal level, I'm always out "casting the net" to get more folks into our little madhouse.  Having enjoyed your GDB presence for some time now, I'd be surprised if you didn't have some possible answers rattling around.  Care to share?

[brytta.leofa]

Does Arm have a capacity limit?  If so, are we near it?

Strikes me that we could probably double most clans' enrollment without especially stretching leadership or staff...but I've never worked at either myself.

[Rahnevyn]

I'm going to come down in the middle on this. I definitely want to see us grow more faster, and I'd like to foster more of a community feeling in the game than we have now, which I think will help that. We could do a better job marketing ourselves, we could certainly update our help resources, and we could overhaul our website. All of that would probably help attraction and newbie retention, which may be our biggest problems. We need to set realistic goals for ourselves, and find out what metrics to judge ourselves by, too. Not everyone who makes an account makes a character; lots of people realise we have a long, involved application system and simply turn away. Knowing this, what goal should we set for new player account retention? 5%, 10%? We need to know how many new accounts get past their first approval, which is data we don't have handy at the moment.

Veteran retention is another animal entirely. I will quote one of my idols of game design, Dr. Richard Bartle, from his book Designing Virtual Worlds:

Contrary to what many players and some community managers believe, most established players do not leave after blazing, public rows. Most of them simply disconnect and drift away. Players who complain the loudest care the most; they're complaining because they see faults that they perceive as a threat to their world and their community, so of course they're not going to leave! They may threaten to leave, and may even act on that threat, but in most cases they're back within two weeks if they do. No, most player - the "silent majority" - simply drift away without a word. They appear less and less frequently, until eventually they don't appear at all.

So with all apologies to anyone who's left recently (I hope you come back!), I don't think anyone should be too worried or take anything recent as a trend to be afraid of. Veteran drift happens constantly and quietly, and needs to be accepted. Bartle goes on to say that the best way to prevent it is to form a solid player community to keep people around, which we have to some degree (we have plenty of former players who still stick around on the GDB an don't play, for example.) We can definitely do better, and we should. But as the numbers suggest, our playerbase is slowly gaining, not diminishing. If we start hitting sustained negative player growth, I'd be much more worried.

[Gimfalisette]

In saying that, while I'm not alarmed by the losses I would like our playerbase to be larger on the whole.  There are definitely areas that could use improvement, specifically marketing and public relations, but also in how we manage the gameplay.

However, I feel that we do a decent job attracting and retaining a reasonable number of players for a considerable length of time, given what this game is - a niche market with a volunteer staff.

If you (general you) want the playerbase to be larger on the whole, then attention needs to be paid both to conversion of prospective players, and retention of veteran players. Veteran players help maintain the quality of ARM; many players I've spoken to about growth are afraid of the specter of "too many newbies flooding in and diluting the awesome." If there are not active efforts to retain and engage veteran players, then growth may be a positive in the numbers sense but a negative in the quality sense.

We do a decent job of attracting players for really putting no attention to it at all, yes. But we have here a staff and playerbase FULL of talent and experience which could be applied to this problem. We are certainly a niche market, but I'm fairly sure that we aren't reaching anywhere near our market potential.

     Gimf, thank you for posting this well-reasoned and lucid break-down of the situation.  On a personal level, I'm always out "casting the net" to get more folks into our little madhouse.  Having enjoyed your GDB presence for some time now, I'd be surprised if you didn't have some possible answers rattling around.  Care to share?

I think there are lots of possibilities. Examples of things that could be done:

-- Targeted marketing campaigns to attract a higher number of looks at the website and new accounts.
-- Organized word-of-mouth campaigns wherein staff engages current/vet players to actively bring in new accounts. There could possibly even be out-of-game recognition or prizes, if that doesn't break our licensing and whatnot.
-- Promotion of the game's current overarching plots (the kind with staff oversight) as marketing fodder. Would have to be vague enough to not be totally spilling IC information, but it would help answer the "what am I supposed to do?" question for newbies if they know something is going on NOW.
-- More prominent promotion of the helper system to get newbies hooked up right away.
-- Website redesign which focuses on converting, educating, and involving new players.
-- A newbie school in the game--perhaps even just a room or two with scripted NPCs and other help.
-- A newbie help channel in the game. Yes, Morg says this will be in for 2.ARM, but that's in the distant and undefined future somewhere.
-- More emphasis on apped leaders being available to recruit and involve newbies. This could even be an agreement in taking on certain roles like Byn Sarge, or agent for Kadius / Salarr / Kurac. Easy to quantify, too. This also gives veteran players a way to feel they are contributing.
-- A new focus on how to challenge veteran players; how can staff listen to them more effectively, work with vets as partners for the good of the game, help vets improve their RP, help vets contribute to the game in tangible and intangible ways? What I'm suggesting is that there should be -something- between "newbie" and "staff member." Currently there is almost nothing.

Veteran drift happens constantly and quietly, and needs to be accepted. Bartle goes on to say that the best way to prevent it is to form a solid player community to keep people around, which we have to some degree (we have plenty of former players who still stick around on the GDB an don't play, for example.) We can definitely do better, and we should. But as the numbers suggest, our playerbase is slowly gaining, not diminishing. If we start hitting sustained negative player growth, I'd be much more worried.

I just don't agree that veteran drift "needs to be accepted." Analogy: If I choose to eat the Standard American Diet which is high in simple carbs and low in veggies, then I may "need to accept" that I'll get fat and probably develop diabetes and heart disease. But guess what, I don't have to eat the Standard American Diet, so I don't have to accept its consequences.

I see here a belief that the loss of veteran players is simply benign and inevitable; but unless you can show me the data that supports your claim, I have to say you don't know why you are losing veteran players. And if you don't know why you're losing vets, then you don't know whether anything can be done about it, and you don't know whether it "needs to be accepted."

[Tisiphone]

I don't have much to say on this topic except that Armageddon is one of those unique models, being based more around a community than a product, for which veteran retention is extremely important. I understand veteran drift is constant and not at any particular high point, but I still would like to see some thought go into how the trend can be changed.

[Gimfalisette]

     Gimf, thank you for posting this well-reasoned and lucid break-down of the situation.  On a personal level, I'm always out "casting the net" to get more folks into our little madhouse.  Having enjoyed your GDB presence for some time now, I'd be surprised if you didn't have some possible answers rattling around.  Care to share?

A note: I think what's most important, if player conversion/retention is seen to be a problem that needs to be solved, is not any particular solution but rather simply working through solutions, based on the data. Some solutions may not work, or may not work profitably enough compared to the quantity of effort they require. That is OK; those solutions can be dropped and new solutions can be tried. In marketing, if you spend $1000 on one solution and you only get two new customers, but you spend $500 on a different solution and get 10 new customers, then you're going to pick what's most effective.

That's what the staff and engaged playerbase should do here; use experimentation and the numbers to determine which strategies are most effective, and then do those things.

[Zoan]

Ohgod, Tizzle's joined in. This thread's doomed. Just watch words like 'concatenate' start getting hurled about between the two girls.

[Adhira]

By no means are we stating that the loss of all veteran players is 'benign and inevitable'. However, what we are stating is that the majority of veteran players we lose are those ones that Bartle has alluded to - the disconnect and drift away. Many of the players I've seen post on the GDB that they are leaving are ones such of these. In fact, often times someone will be leaving who has only being playing sporadically over a period of months or years, yet has remained active within the community and the GDB.

I am well aware that veteran players are those that add the flavor and value to the game, but I would say that sometimes those newbies are the ones doing a better job of it than the veterans. What you have managed to pinpoint is what I think is a true criteria for Armageddon, that of quality. I've seen many veterans leave, and I see other newer players coming up, like yourself, who have helped to keep the quality of roleplay.

[Gimfalisette]

By no means are we stating that the loss of all veteran players is 'benign and inevitable'. However, what we are stating is that the majority of veteran players we lose are those ones that Bartle has alluded to - the disconnect and drift away.

But you don't know that this is the cause of veteran players leaving unless you have actually culled and analyzed the data, which would necessarily include exit surveys with those leaving. Simply observing that veteran players do leave does not tell you why they are leaving. WHY do veteran players drift? And once that is known, does staff want to do anything about those causes?

[Reiloth]

Armageddon is a niche community. I would prefer that it stay that way.

Seeing all this marketing mumbo makes my head spin and hurt. Then again I -am- still drunk.

And I think we all know why Veteran players drift. They move on. They grow tired of the same staff telling them no to all of their ideas, or they grow some paranoid second head that tells them the staff are out to get them and know where they live. Seriously -- You would be surprised how true the latter statement is.

I have been frustrated more often than appreciative of what some veteran players have to say about the direction of Armageddon, as it turns out to be a cyclical commentary on personal vendettas made by the staff against the players, which I find both vain and groundless. The staff is -not- out to get you. It is not up to one staff member to answer your question, or allow you to build that building, or give you the sword of awesome when you complete your quest and get 140 experience points. They are a team, and they make decisions together. That is why decisions take a while to reach a verdict on. That is why your email has gone unanswered for a week. It isn't laziness, or the staff forgetting about it.

Veteran players are leaving because they think the game world should revolve around their characters, and their ideas, rather than working with the staff to involve the playerbase on a much less specific level. That is my opinion. Rip it to shreds if you like.

[Marauder Moe]

I know why we lose veteran players...

1) Armageddon is a very involved hobby for many.  As people mature over the years (get out of school, get a job, get a family) their lifestyle no longer supports what they feel is a sufficient amount of time to play the game.

2) For some people, game content can be consumed faster than it's created.  There are plenty of people who have simply done it all.  Played every guild, every city, every clan.

3) They are driven away by the few ways the game does change (or is perceived to have changed).  Those who left after the Arm Reborn announcement are part of this category.

4) They join staff (and the staff has their own retention issues I'm sure).

Sorry Gimf, I'm with Dr. Bartle on this one.  No game can expect to ever have a 100% veteran player retention rate, and as far as MUDs and MMOs go, I think Arm is doing pretty well in that regard.

I believe that we have more room for improvement on the newbie retention and even just getting characters created than we do on keeping the old veterans around.


To throw out a suggestion that hasn't been mentioned (on this thread yet), I support letting new accounts use a random character generator for their first character or two.  The one that's been talked about lately is pretty good (but we probably want to tone down the backgrounds and personalities a bit).

[staggerlee]

I see here a belief that the loss of veteran players is simply benign and inevitable; but unless you can show me the data that supports your claim, I have to say you don't know why you are losing veteran players. And if you don't know why you're losing vets, then you don't know whether anything can be done about it, and you don't know whether it "needs to be accepted."

I definitely feel with the kind of intensity and focus that most people approach Arm, it's inevitable, even desirable that they eventually stumble away and rediscover the world.

The kind of playtimes people put into the game are unsustainable, and if the game expects or encourages that kind of commitment then it is inevitable that relationships, hobbies and health will suffer until most feel they have to choose between the game and their life.

It's just a minor point, but probably important to recognize. I really don't see that it's reasonable to expect people to play four plus hours a night and never leave.  I suspect that a lot of older veterans leave and come back, or find ways to maintain a more casual relationship with the game.

[mattrious]

I believe what makes Armageddon great? The players. Sure, we are fortunate that we have a wonderful staff that volunteers countless hours to make the game enjoyable for all of us. Though, what would that staff be if there were no players to spin plots for, etc?

The staff? They all came from the player base. This is why it is crucially important that we continue to try and broaden our vision and horizon. I think we should increase the marketing and the different venues in which we advertise at/on. I'm not sure if this is still true but I believe the staff actually use to set up a booth at Dragoncon? MMORPG's are a HUGE hit and people love them? Sure, they're graphically charged, etc. But, where did they come from? Look down the family tree and you'll find the mudding community. That is why I think we should go after player niches that are into MMORPG's and the like. Sure we do not have the graphics, but we have the community and we're free.

I think it would be a good idea to start advertising on these sites that have attracted the individuals who play WoW, EQ, DAoC, AoC, Darkfall, etc. You say that this is not the type of player we want? Well, I'm sure we can help get them to the level the rest of us are at in regards to game play and role play, our staff are competent and trustworthy individuals.

[Lakota]

Armageddon is a niche community. I would prefer that it stay that way

Let word of mouth lead the charge. I only invite people I know would be interested or are capable of roleplay on a consistent basis.

Let's be frank:

1) Some veterans leave because the game gets boring to them.

2) Some veterans leave because they cannot devote the time to the game anymore.

3) Some players simply move on to other things in life. They get jobs, lives, significant others, and babies.

4) Some players (for whatever reason) become jaded with their time at ArmageddonMUD, either because they are not progressing as a player, or because they feel cheated or wronged by staff.

We can do nothing about #2 or #3 - people come and go, and no amount of marketing-blitz campaigns or data-crunches will change that. Eventually, #2 and #3 may even come back once time permits.

The only things we can really affect would be #1 and #4. How? By excelling as players and staff, naturally.

Push more plots, both mundane and magickal. Players have a big part in this, but can only do so much. Encourage staff members to step up and begin penning new plots that slowly push Zalanthas towards 2.0.

How? Bring back that badass muthafuckin' world ending plot. You know, the one that had Zalanthas rockin' for about four months straight without a breather? Create a new arc and take the plot sideways (a sidestory, of sorts) that allows for time for 2.0 to be ready before shifting back into drive once more. Have overarching plots, themes, characters, and stories. Allow old merchant houses to succeed or fail/live or die (yes, even the mighty, invincible Kurac).

Give us players the chance to change things - to REALLY change things, and affect the outcome of the world as the first iteration of this MUD slowly winds down.

Will elves survive in some form or fashion on into 2.0? Who knows, it's (should be) possible! They won't be playable most likely, but perhaps they can survive on as a small npc tribe?

Want Kurac, any of the GMH, or noble houses, or the Byn, mayhaps, to survive in history, if not the flesh? Begin penning texts that can be brought over to 2.0 and serve as ancient tomes.

The list goes on, and on, and on. We as players and staff can do so much to retain veterans in the ways mentioned above, but we have to start by giving a damn about keeping them. I guarantee you players will not stay if they are bored. In response, give them something to do. Not all players are magnets that draw plots and player-characters around them. Some need little pushes, or need to be led gently, or with a kick to the ass, in the right direction.

So let's do it. Let's have two staff members volunteer to create two plots. Both of you: author the plots apart from one another. Do not even -speak- to one another about your plot. Rather, let events unfold as they may in game, and let the plots naturally meld and arc over one another. In turn we will have amazing consequences, with outcomes deemed good or bad, depending on who lived and died.

I've offered but a fraction of ideas as to what we can do to retain veterans. There's plenty more we can do. We just need to focus on making the game fun, and focus on keeping it that way.

[mattrious]

Armageddon is a niche community. I would prefer that it stay that way

Let word of mouth lead the charge. I only invite people I know would be interested or are capable of roleplay on a consistent basis.

Let's be frank:

1) Some veterans leave because the game gets boring to them.

2) Some veterans leave because they cannot devote the time to the game anymore.

3) Some players simply move on to other things in life. They get jobs, lives, significant others, and babies.

4) Some players (for whatever reason) become jaded with their time at ArmageddonMUD, either because they are not progressing as a player, or because they feel cheated or wronged by staff.

We can do nothing about #2 or #3 - people come and go, and no amount of marketing-blitz campaigns or data-crunches will change that. Eventually, #2 and #3 may even come back once time permits.

The only things we can really affect would be #1 and #4. How? By excelling as players and staff, naturally.

Push more plots, both mundane and magickal. Players have a big part in this, but can only do so much. Encourage staff members to step up and begin penning new plots that slowly push Zalanthas towards 2.0.

How? Bring back that badass muthafuckin' world ending plot. You know, the one that had Zalanthas rockin' for about four months straight without a breather? Create a new arc and take the plot sideways (a sidestory, of sorts) that allows for time for 2.0 to be ready before shifting back into drive once more. Have overarching plots, themes, characters, and stories. Allow old merchant houses to succeed or fail/live or die (yes, even the mighty, invincible Kurac).

Give us players the chance to change things - to REALLY change things, and affect the outcome of the world as the first iteration of this MUD slowly winds down.

Will elves survive in some form or fashion on into 2.0? Who knows, it's (should be) possible! They won't be playable most likely, but perhaps they can survive on as a small npc tribe?

Want Kurac, any of the GMH, or noble houses, or the Byn, mayhaps, to survive in history, if not the flesh? Begin penning texts that can be brought over to 2.0 and serve as ancient tomes.

The list goes on, and on, and on. We as players and staff can do so much to retain veterans in the ways mentioned above, but we have to start by giving a damn about keeping them. I guarantee you players will not stay if they are bored. In response, give them something to do. Not all players are magnets that draw plots and player-characters around them. Some need little pushes, or need to be led gently, or with a kick to the ass, in the right direction.

So let's do it. Let's have two staff members volunteer to create two plots. Both of you: author the plots apart from one another. Do not even -speak- to one another about your plot. Rather, let events unfold as they may in game, and let the plots naturally meld and arc over one another. In turn we will have amazing consequences, with outcomes deemed good or bad, depending on who lived and died.

I've offered but a fraction of ideas as to what we can do to retain veterans. There's plenty more we can do. We just need to focus on making the game fun, and focus on keeping it that way.

This.

[Rahnevyn]

We do a decent job of attracting players for really putting no attention to it at all, yes. But we have here a staff and playerbase FULL of talent and experience which could be applied to this problem. We are certainly a niche market, but I'm fairly sure that we aren't reaching anywhere near our market potential.

Agreed, and that's where we should focus.

I just don't agree that veteran drift "needs to be accepted." ... I see here a belief that the loss of veteran players is simply benign and inevitable; but unless you can show me the data that supports your claim, I have to say you don't know why you are losing veteran players. And if you don't know why you're losing vets, then you don't know whether anything can be done about it, and you don't know whether it "needs to be accepted."

First, I'll definitely recommend anyone interested in the designer/administrator side of this grab a copy of the book I quoted and read Chapter 3, pages 212-245. That's the perspective I'm seeing this from and by and large I think it's spot on.

I can't give you specific reasons why players leave, because those  likely vary as widely as our players do. Some players may be losing interest in the game - either they've played everything they wanted to try and nothing feels new and exciting anymore, or they've found other games that attract them more, or after some time playing they've discovered Armageddon just isn't right for them. Other veteran players leave quietly because of real life issues; school, jobs, kids, etc.This has always been going on, and while we can address some of those factors, we can't completely mitigate them short of forcing everyone to keep playing even when unhappy.

I can, however, theorize that experienced players are not leaving in unusual numbers because of a single reason or even a small number of reasons -- if there was a mass exodus going on born by one thing, we'd have heard about it. (The drop after the Armageddon 2 announcement is an example of a large exodus based around one thing.) We haven't seen that since, which leads me to believe by and large, whatever drift is occuring is due to the "normal reasons" -- i.e., the same reasons people have been leaving our game and other games throughout the history of virtual worlds.

This side of the coin is a lot trickier to define than newbie attraction/retention. How do we define a "veteran"? Is it someone who's played for six months, a year, two years, five, or ten? Should we determine it by how visible a player has been or what roles they've played? How do you determine when someone has left? Unlike commercial games we have no subscriptions for people to cancel. If a player logs in once a week after formerly playing every day, have they "left?" What about once a month? What about players who haven't played seriously in a while but still read the GDB?

Ultimately yes, this is an issue we can better work to address. We can work to build a better community to retain players, and we can work to better involve players in the direction of the game. I recognize that and I'm sure other staff do as well. But yes, the fact that some people are going to leave the game does simply need to be accepted, as with any business. 0% drift is an admirable bar to reach for, but we'll never get there. In terms of effort versus payoff, I see far more problems with, and opportunities to improve on, our marketing, PR, and help resources. Unless we notice and identify a few single issues people are leaving that we can address - and again, right now, I haven't seen evidence of any - there isn't much we can effectively do short of chasing down every individual player who wants to leave and enticing them to stay on a case by case basis.

[LoD]

If we are going to discuss player retention, and I'll focus on veteran player retention here, then it's important to address the many reasons why people may stop playing Armageddon and discern whether or not there's even a path of correction, or whether it's out of our hands.

Real Life Changes

I would place this in the uncontrollable category, meaning that I don't feel that any of these reasons could be combated by marketing ploys, game features, or community hooks.

• Change to a person's availability (i.e work schedule, school schedule, incarceration)
• Change in family status (i.e. marriage, divorce, birth, death)
• Change in focus (i.e. focusing on career, family, or personal goals)

Competition

I would place this in the controllable category.

• Competition from more visual games (i.e. MMO's, PC Single Player)
• Competition from more friend-based games (i.e. Sports, Cooperative Console or PC Games)
• Competition from other MUDs that offer them an experience or range of features that they cannot, or will not, find in Armageddon.

Frustration

I would place this in the partially controllable category.

• Frustration from playing off peak and being unable to participate in enough events to warrant the time spent
• Frustration from conflicting personalities (i.e. Staff-Staff, Staff-Player, Player-Player relations)
• Frustration from unpopular game or policy decisions (i.e. Magicker changes, proposed cat race for Arm Reborn, code change that affect a favorite class or race, etc...)
• frustration from being unsuccessful in achieving some goal or experience that was the entire reason for which that person played (i.e. creating a specific desert elf clan that eventually gets closed, enjoying the code before changes to sneak/hide/watch, perceived objection to their goals or actions by clan Imms, etc...)
• Frustration from the handling of an event, decision, or request that adversely impacts or disallows a project into which a player had poured days, months, or years worth of work.

Complacency

I would place this in the controllable category.

• The world becomes less magickal and smaller because you have learned (ICly or otherwise) many of the mysteries the world has to offer.
• What you truly want most (i.e. classless system, dynamically changing game world, 100% PC-run plots) is not easily achievable despite any of your efforts.
• The character concepts you're having don't seem to feel as fresh or fit into the world in the way they once did, and you find yourself making replicas of the same type over and over.

The next step would be to refine this list and then analyze how each of the reasons we consider "controllable" could be lessened, combated, or completely negated.

-LoD

[Synthesis]

I see here a belief that the loss of veteran players is simply benign and inevitable; but unless you can show me the data that supports your claim, I have to say you don't know why you are losing veteran players. And if you don't know why you're losing vets, then you don't know whether anything can be done about it, and you don't know whether it "needs to be accepted."

I definitely feel with the kind of intensity and focus that most people approach Arm, it's inevitable, even desirable that they eventually stumble away and rediscover the world.

The kind of playtimes people put into the game are unsustainable, and if the game expects or encourages that kind of commitment then it is inevitable that relationships, hobbies and health will suffer until most feel they have to choose between the game and their life.

It's just a minor point, but probably important to recognize. I really don't see that it's reasonable to expect people to play four plus hours a night and never leave.  I suspect that a lot of older veterans leave and come back, or find ways to maintain a more casual relationship with the game.

This right here is why I hardly bother playing the game unless I've come up with an idea that I think is totally awesome/intriguing/etc.  When those characters die, it's starting to take longer and longer to dream up/get interested in something else.  I think my last hiatus was around 3 months or so.  But yeah, I can't justify spending 4+ hours a day on some random Amos the Ranger or Malik the 'rinther, unless it's to roll up a family/tribe member to hang out with someone I know.  Apologies for spamming up the special application queue (relatively), but at this point it's the only thing that keeps me interested in the game, because I've pretty much exhausted the possibilities of the regular application process. However, I'm an achiever/explorer (or whatever those archetypes are) on that Bartle thingamawhooie, so that probably accounts for my particular outlook.

[Gimfalisette]

But yes, the fact that some people are going to leave the game does simply need to be accepted, as with any business. 0% drift is an admirable bar to reach for, but we'll never get there. In terms of effort versus payoff, I see far more problems with, and opportunities to improve on, our marketing, PR, and help resources. Unless we notice and identify a few single issues people are leaving that we can address - and again, right now, I haven't seen evidence of any - there isn't much we can effectively do short of chasing down every individual player who wants to leave and enticing them to stay on a case by case basis.

I never said that we could achieve 0% player loss over time, so I'm not sure why you're kind of putting those words in my mouth. What I've said, mostly, is that:

-- We don't even actually know how many veteran players we're losing over time. I made a guess, but it's based on assumptions, not full data, as I said.
-- We don't know the causes of losing those veteran players. Everyone seems to have guesses, feelings, beliefs, suspicions, opinions, etc. about this; but that's not the same as knowing.

People's lists of reasons and so on are all well and good, but they're just lists of possible reasons without any weight to the reasons; beginning points for exploration of the data, they are not the data itself.

Businesses that want to improve employee retention do exit interviews to find out why employees are leaving. Or if they want to improve customer retention, they do surveys. None of these things are rocket science, even the definitions such as "what is a veteran player?"; things simply need to be defined somehow, then the definitions are used as a basis for further exploration of the questions.

[Synthesis]

Ha, I wonder if it would be to obnoxious to develop a survey that would be sent to the e-mail address linked to the player account after a period of 6 months of inactivity.

Just put some basic questions in it, and maybe the mystery will be solved.

[FantasyWriter]

Instead on doing "side plots," why not finish it the way staff intended?

Destroy the world, block off the cities OOCly like the areas that were destroyed ICly in the past were done.
Spare the d-elf outpost, and either Luir's or Red Storm.

Make it new and exciting while we wait on 2.Armageddon.
Make the kank plague spread to one of the playable races that wont be in 2.Arm and wipe them out.

All this would consolidate the player base, make things exciting, be something we could advertise to bring in new players amd bring back a few of the old ones.

[Gimfalisette]

Ha, I wonder if it would be to obnoxious to develop a survey that would be sent to the e-mail address linked to the player account after a period of 6 months of inactivity.

Just put some basic questions in it, and maybe the mystery will be solved.

I'd probably do it after one month of inactivity, and make it a general "Hey, why haven't we heard from you in a while? We'd love to know." kind of thing, with a list of possibilities and a promise that it will be kept confidential and not risk the wrath of the staff. Would depend on what our standing agreement with new accounts is about sending them emails; my assumption is that there's a basic permission of "the admins can send you emails" in there.