1. Star Wars: GoH Player Satisfaction Survey Summary
Survey Dates: 04/29/16 - 05/02/16
Author: SamuraiUX
Executive Summary
Method
Participants
Methodological Limitations
Results
General Satisfaction
Open-Ended Responses: Liking
Open-Ended Responses: Disliking
Compulsion to Play
Net Promoter Score (NPS)
Character Selection
Potential Conversion Points
Guild Feature
Satisfaction
Adds Value
Ease of Joining Guilds
Team Cohesion
Use of Chat Function
Raids
Open-Ended Responses: Liking
Open-Ended Responses: Disliking
Do Players Understand Guild Currency?
Predictive Power
Appendix: Methodology and Statistics
I. On Methodology:
II. Test Statistics:
III. Survey Links

2. Executive Summary
SAMPLE
● Survey takers were a nonrandom sample of highly engaged players, with an average Player Level of 73.
GENERAL SENTIMENT
● Players showed generally high Satisfaction and Compulsion to Play SW:GoH, but Net Promoter Score (NPS) was
shockingly poor with respect to overall Satisfaction (NPS = -3.5; 31% Detractors to 27.5% Promoters).
● Players do not perceive value for their dollar when purchasing. Even nonpaying players (who are either going on
perceived value or are referring to their Bronzium Data Cards/Character shards) barely reach “Somewhat Agree”
with the statement “I feel like I get my money’s worth for what I spend.”
Suggestion: use in-game data or another targeted survey to explore what items/shards would entice players to convert -
especially for players above level 70.
CHARACTERS
● The most sought-after character is Rey (26% of all responses). Players prefer her even over much more difficult-to-
obtain characters.
● In terms of characters not currently available, players look forward to seeing Jedi Luke Skywalker (38%) and Clone
Wars Kenobi (31%).
Suggestion: Characters such as Yoda, Han Solo, and Grievous are not generating as much excitement as a more easily farmable
character (Rey). A character rebalancing may be in order. Also, begin considering your marketing plan for Jedi Luke and Clone
Wars Kenobi so that, when released, they will generate conversion.
● Player Types were created. Across all analyses, the Collector Type (characterized by wanting to collect various
combinations of characters for team building) responded most positively towards the game.
Suggestion: A squad bonus based upon particular collections (all “New Hope” characters; all Troopers, etc.) might work well
to entice “Collectors”. Another targeted survey should investigate what the less engaged groups are looking for from the
game, so they can be drawn in and converted.
CONVERSION
● Squad Cantina Battles may prove the best point for trying to convert players, as it was identified as the most
frustrating feature during which to run out of energy (38% of responses).
Suggestion: pop-up ads for discounted crystals when players enter (or perhaps leave) the Squad Cantina area.
NEW GUILD FEATURE
● Players were largely satisfied with the new Guild feature, citing its social aspects and the opportunity to collect more
shards as strengths.
● Players complained about the feeling of intraguild competition for Raid rewards.
● Players generally seem to understand the use of Guild Currency and Guild Bank Coins. However, nearly a quarter of
respondents did not - and this is among a group of highly engaged players.
Suggestion: More time may simply be needed, but further information in the form of an organic tutorial might be helpful.
Reduce the feeling of competition by lessening the gap between top contributors and other guild members.

3. Method
In order to assess general satisfaction as well as certain player behaviors and attitudes (especially towards the recently
added “Guild” feature), separate survey links were prepared for three forums:
● the SW:GoH Subreddit (www.reddit.com/r/SWGalaxyOfHeroes/)
● the SW:GoH General Forum at EA (starwars.ea.com/starwars/galaxy-of-heroes)
● The SW:GoH General Forum at AppInvasion (www.appinvasion.com/forums/Star-Wars-Galaxy-of-Heroes/)
Moderator permission was requested from all forums, although only one moderator (at Reddit) responded. The surveys
opened at midnight on Friday, April 29th and were closed at noon on Monday, May 2nd.
Players across all links were asked the same questions, all Likert scaled from 1-7 (with the exception Net Promoter Score,
traditionally scored from 0 - 10, and open-ended responses included to provide a more granular understanding of the data.
Participants
Across all links, the sample size = 502 responses:
● SW: GoH Subreddit: 489; SW: GoH Forums at EA.com: 13; SW: GoH Forums at AppInvasion: 0
Three hundred ninety-four of all surveys were “complete,” but pairwise deletion was used to retain as much data as possible;
thus, sample size for each question will vary. Independent Samples t-Tests were conducted to verify that there were no
significant differences between the EA sample and the Reddit sample before treating them as one dataset.
Country
Sixty-three percent of the sample came from the United States; 8% came from the UK, and 6% from Canada. Forty other
unique countries were represented, each accounting for 1% or less of the total sample.
Gender
Ninety-four percent Male (2.3% Female; 3.3% Declined to State)
Age
M age = 27.2 years; Mode = 21 years. See Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Age distribution of respondents

4. Player Level
M level = 73.4; Mode = 76. See Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Player Level distribution of respondents
Methodological Limitations
1) The players who elected to take this survey differ in a number of ways from the general population of SW:GoH
players. These differences are largely attributable to their being, in various ways, more highly engaged players:
- They are members of a SW:GoH forum, seeking community and information outside of normal gameplay;
- They elected to take a survey about SW:GoH with no incentive other than curiosity regarding the results;
- An unusually large amount (64%) of the sample reported having made at least one in-game purchase;
- The average player level for this sample is very high (Mdn = 76 out of a current cap of 80).
This sample is therefore very much nonrandom and subject to the problems associated with a self-selection bias.
2) In-game metrics were unavailable. Direct measures of engagement such as D1/D7/D30 retention, average
time spent playing daily, and purchasing behaviors such as (objectively reported) payer status, lifetime purchase
total, and days since last purchase could not be captured.
- Payer status, guild membership, and character level were self-reported values.
It is always the case that objective behavioral measures are more valid than self-report data. Insights gathered from this
report should be interpreted cautiously in light of these limitations.

5. Results
General Satisfaction
Over half (54.7%) of players reported being satisfied or very satisfied with SW:GoH (M Satisfaction = 5.21; Mode = 6.0).
There was no significant difference between payers (M = 5.27) and nonpayers (M = 5.26) in terms of satisfaction. See
figures 3 and 4.
Figure 3. Figure 4.
Satisfaction with SW:GoH across all players Payer v. Nonpayer Satisfaction with SW:GoH
To better understand the reasons behind player sentiment, open-ended responses (“What do you like about SW:GoH?” and
“What do you dislike about SW:GoH?”) were collected and coded.
Open-Ended Responses: Liking
The most frequently cited reasons for liking the game were brand affiliation (“It’s Star Wars!”) and the appeal of collecting
as many characters as possible. Other mentions included leveling up, graphics, strategy, and the fact that the game has
generally been FTP-friendly. A few players acknowledged that they had invested both sufficient time and money at this
point to keep them playing (“I’m in too deep now to stop”), indicating the effects of cognitive dissonance. Differences in
comment types between payers and non-payers were negligible in frequency and content, so are not analyzed separately.
See Table 1 (next page).

6. Table 1.
Summary of open-ended responses (for “Liking”)
Open-Ended Responses: Disliking
The most cited reason for disliking the game was the perception of aggressive monetization, favoring players who can
afford to make frequent and high-level purchases. This response came almost entirely (86.3%) from paying players, a
number adding that they didn’t feel they got value for their dollars spent (this sentiment is supported by direct analyses,
later in this report) and that FTP friendliness degraded significantly after level 70.
Interesting because it is a more recent development, a number of players complained that the Galactic War feature has
become prohibitively difficult and time-consuming. This should be cross-examined with in-game behavior. See Table 2.
Table 2.
Summary of open-ended responses (for “Disliking”)

7. Compulsion to Play
Players were asked how frequently they found themselves playing “just one more battle” before quitting; almost half
(46.9%) of players reported doing this frequently or very frequently (M Compulsion = 5.07; Mode = 6.0). There was no
significant difference in satisfaction between payers (M = 5.17) and nonpayers (M = 4.97) in terms of Compulsion to Play.
See figures 5 and 6, below.
Figure 5. Figure 6.
How frequently do you play “just one more battle?” Payer v. Nonpayer Compulsion to Play
Net Promoter Score (NPS)
Despite user’s overall satisfaction with the game and their compulsion to play it, NPS was shockingly low. (NPS = -3.5;
%Promoters = 27.5; %Detractors = 31.0; see Figure 7). This is an instance where the nonrandom and self-selected nature of
this sample must be taken into consideration; it may well be that - given an opportunity to vent and complain - forum users
were likely to do exactly that. There were no notable differences in NPS between payers and nonpayers (see Figure 8).
Figure 7. Figure 8.
Percent Promoters, Passives, and Detractors Payer v. Nonpayer NPS Percentages
In an unscientific and informal follow-up, members of the message board responded to the question of why they thought
players reported high satisfaction and frequency of play, but would not recommend it to others. It was suggested that while
they had grown accustomed to the time and money required to progress, they would not wish it on their friends.

8. Relationships between variables
Satisfaction, Compulsion to Play, and NPS are all positively correlated with one another - NPS and Satisfaction so strongly (r
= 0.70; 50% shared variance) that they are nearly statistically interchangeable. Compulsion to Play may be useful to
examine in later analyses as it is correlated nicely with NPS (r = 0.43) but not as strongly with Satisfaction (r = 0.29).
Character Selection
Respondents were asked to indicate which character they were most interested in collecting. A vast majority (24% of all
responses out of N = 40 unique answers) chose Rey, citing her “broken power differential.” Yoda and Leia, the next closest
characters, were significantly less popular (only 5.8% and 5.3%, respectively). Players perceive Rey as being more
interesting and/or valuable - despite the fact that she is much easier to obtain - than other, more difficult-to-obtain
characters such as Yoda, Han Solo, and General Grievous. See Table 3.
Table 3.
Most Sought-After Characters
Whether purposely or because of a misunderstanding of the instructions, some respondents (N = 32) instead wrote in
characters they wished were collectible. The top requests were Jedi Luke Skywalker (38% of all write-ins) followed closely
by Clone Wars Obi-Wan Kenobi (31%). Players are seemingly as interested in Jedi Luke, for example, as they are in the only-
recently-made-available Original Han Solo. Jedi Luke and Clone Wars Kenobi therefore bear consideration as characters for
future release; see Table 4.
Table 4.
Most Requested (Currently Unavailable) Characters

9. To help segment the player population and increase understanding of what drives shard collection, responders were asked
to explain the rubric they use to actively seek out and level up characters. Players in this forum chose largely upon the
character’s competitiveness in PvP, likely reflective again of the sample (in terms of level and engagement). See Table 5.
Table 5.
Reasons for seeking and leveling characters
Player Types were created for respondents who scored higher on one of these motivations than all others (84 participants
were unable to be classified this way due either to missing data or a lack of a single dominant score). Segments were
named to roughly correspond to their motivations (listed above, respectively): Competitors (38% of responders),
Opportunists (20% of responders), Sentimentalists (19% of responders), Collectors (16% of responders), and Altruists (6%
of responders).
Player Types such as these can be useful in examining player behaviors. For example, while there were no significant
differences between Player Types on Satisfaction or Compulsion to Play, the differences approached significance, and - more
importantly - the mean scores reveal interesting trends. Collectors, for example, are both more satisfied with the game
than any other group, and are tempted to play more frequently. See Figures 10 and 11.
Figure 10. Figure 11.
Satisfaction by Group Membership Compulsion to Play by Group Membership
In fact, when a composite of all sentiment-related items in the survey (i.e., non-categorical or qualitative) was created,
Collectors scored significantly higher on it than all other Player Types; in other words, the game has drawn in and satisfied
the Collector-Type Player most effectively.
Relationships between variables
The Player Types are not constructed so as to be mutually exclusive. However, while Sentimentalists, for example, are in
some ways similar to Collectors and dissimilar to Competitors, there are few relationships among these variables, indicating
that they can be to some degree seen as unique. See Table 6, next page.

10. Table 6.
Correlation among Player Types
Potential Conversion Points
Another oddity of this sample is the preponderance of payers: 64% of the sample had made an in-app purchase over the
course of gameplay. In order to assess which aspects of the game were most likely to engender player conversion,
respondents were asked which gameplay feature left them most frustrated when their progress was halted and they were
forced to wait in order to continue.
Differences between payers and nonpayers, and across player types, were negligible. This unfortunately allows for little;
however, it highlights the ubiquitous impact of the clear winner: Squad Cantina Battles, which provides the main shard-
farming opportunity many characters and beat the next closest choice by nearly double. See figure 9.
Figure 9.
Potential conversion points
Players were then asked whether or not they felt they got their money’s worth when they did purchase, and the degree to
which they agreed that the game was built to be both fair and enjoyable regardless of payer status.
Money’s Worth
Players did not generally believe they got their money’s worth when purchasing (M = 3.4 [“Somewhat Disagree”], mode =
1 [“Strongly disagree”]). Payers (M = 3.24) were significantly more likely to feel this way than nonpayers (M = 3.72),
although nonpayers also responded negatively to this item (either referring to perceived value or interpreting the opening
Bronzium Data Cards and Character Activations as “purchasing” for the purposes of this question).
There were no significant differences among Player Types, although there was a trend towards Collectors (especially
nonpaying Collectors) being the most satisfied with the perceived value in their purchases (though even they barely
reached “somewhat satisfied”); see figures 10 and 11, below.

11. Figure 10. Figure 11.
Perception of purchase value, all players Group differences in purchase value
FTP Enjoyability
A semi-bimodal distribution skews the mean (M = 4.6) for FTP Enjoyability, although 63% of players at least somewhat
agreed with the statement that the game was “built to be enjoyable, whether I pay or not.” The bimodality was not driven,
however, by significant differences between payers/nonpayers. There were also no significant differences between player
types, although Collectors were again the most positive in response to this item. See figures 12 and 13.
Figure 12. Figure 13.
Perception of FTP Friendliness, all players Group differences in FTP Friendliness
FTP Balance
Players were asked the degree to which they felt the game was “built to be fair and balanced, regardless of payer status.”
Overwhelmingly, this sample felt this was not the case (M = 3.23, “Somewhat disagree”). There were no differences in this
sentiment based upon Player Type, but the difference between Payers (M = 3.0) and Nonpayers (M = 3.53) approached
significance. See Figures 14 and 15, next page.

12. Figure 14. Figure 15.
Perception of FTP Balance, all players Group differences in FTP Balance
Relationships between variables
All three of these variables - Perceived Value for the Dollar, FTP Friendliness, and FTP Fairness/Balance are strongly
correlated with one another, in the 0.40 - 0.50 range. Players who rated one highly tend to rate the others highly, and the
reverse is also true.
Guild Feature
Due to its recent release, player satisfaction and response to the new Guild Feature was tested. Ninety-seven percent of
respondents were members of guilds; the ones who were not (2.7%) were not included in the following analyses.
A number of questions asked quantitatively did not tally sensibly with responses to exploratory, open-ended questions.
In-game, behavioral data (frequency and longevity of Guild play, rewards allocated and used, etc.) would be helpful in
unpacking these differences.
Satisfaction
Few players felt neutrally about Guilds, despite the mean falling into the neutral range for this item (M = 4.22, Mdn = 5.0);
56% of players fell to the right (“satisfied”) of neutral while 37% fell to the left (“dissatisfied”). There were no significant
differences in satisfaction between payers (M = 4.17) and nonpayers (M = 4.32); however, Collectors were either
significantly more satisfied or marginally more satisfied than all groups beside Altruists. This makes sense, as the ability to
collect character shards from the Guild Store was mentioned frequently in the open-ended responses (see below), as was
the collaborative aspect that would appeal to Altruists, who most closely represent the social aspect. See Figures 16 and
17.
Figure 16. Figure 17.
Satisfaction with Guild Feature, all Players (members) Group differences in Satisfaction with Guild Feature

13. Adds Value
Eighty three percent of players somewhat to strongly agreed that the Guild Feature added value to the game. Payers and
nonpayers did not differ significantly in their view of this, but Competitors, Collectors, and Altruists agreed significantly
more than Sentimentalists and Opportunists. See Figures 18 and 19.
Figure 18. Figure 19.
“Guilds Add Value,” all players Group Differences for “Adds Value”
Ease of Joining Guilds
Sixty-seven percent of players agreed that finding a Guild to join was relatively easy (M = 5.14; Mode = 6). Nonpayers (M =
5.4) endorsed this statement as significantly higher than Payers (M = 5.0). See Figure 20.
Figure 20.
Ease of joining a Guild, all players
Team Cohesion
On average, players did not report that joining a Guild made them feel as though they were “part of a team” (M = 4.1,
Mode = 5); this is consistent with feedback below which indicates that players felt that Guilds caused too much internal
competition for resources. However, 51% of respondents somewhat to strongly agreed with this item. There were no
differences between payer status or player group in response to this item. See Figure 21, next page.

14. Figure 21.
Feeling of “being part of a team,” all players
Use of Chat Function
In service of the community-building aspect of Guild play, 68% of players somewhat to very strongly agreed that they made
use of the chat function to communicate with other Guild members (M = 4.82, Mode = 6). There were no differences
between payer status or player group in response to this item. See Figure 22.
Figure 22.
Use of Chat Function, all players
Raids
Players responded to the question of whether or not the rewards of Raids were worth the effort they took. On average,
they responded slightly above neutral towards this item (M = 4.5, Mode = 6), although over half of players (57%)
somewhat to strongly agreed with this statement. There were no differences between payers and nonpayers in this
sentiment, although “Altruists” approached a significantly lower score on this item than other Player Types, perhaps
reflecting the complaint that rewards are not fairly distributed. See Figures 23 and 24, next page.

15. Figure 23. Figure 24.
“Raids are worth the effort,” all players Group differences in “Raids are worth the effort”
To better understand the reasons behind player sentiment, open-ended responses (“What do you like about Guilds?” and
“What do you dislike about Guilds?”) were collected and coded.
Open-Ended Responses: Liking
Guilds seem to be doing their job building community: nearly half (49.7%) of all positive feedback about guilds referred to
its social aspect (“Teamwork,” “Collaboration,” “Community”) and a number praised the chat feature’s existence (32.4% of
those who mentioned the social aspect of Guilds). There was much less diversity in comments for the Guild feature than
there was for the general game; all other comments could be coded as either praising the Raid feature itself, the fact that it
was simply new content, or the additional opportunity to collect shards (of the people who mentioned shard collecting, a
full 68% of them mentioned collecting Rey’s shards directly). See Table 7.
Table 7.
Summary of open-ended responses for “Liking” the new Guild Feature
Open-Ended Responses: Disliking
Players expressed greater variety in their reasons for disliking the feature, but there were strong trends: over a third of
players mentioned the feeling that Guild play was unnecessarily competitive, pitting them against one another rather than
fostering co-operation (“I feel like I’m hurting my friends instead of helping them,” “How is this even a guild if we’re
motivated to beat each other instead help each other?”, “Why can’t we even lend characters to one another to help?”). A
related complaint was that the reward tiers were too punishing.
The second largest group of complaints centered around payoffs being poor (despite over half of players agreeing that
“Raids were worth the effort”). Finally, others said that the Daily Activities are confusing and force them to reprioritize
their play in strange ways (“Why don’t all activities contribute? It’s correct, value-wise, to save Cantina Squad Energy for
Sundays - so this now controls how I play”) See Table 8, below.

16. Table 8.
Summary of open-ended responses (for “Disliking”)
Do Players Understand Guild Currency?
Finally, two multiple-choice style questions tested whether or not players could correctly identify what Guild Currency and
Guild Bank Coins were used for. Seventy percent of players got both answers correct; 9% got one answer correct, and 21%
got neither answer correct; see Figures 25 and 26, below. From a normal, random sample, this would be outstanding, but
considering the average player level and engagement of this group, it might actually indicate lack of clarity (although the
survey did run barely a week after the Guild Feature went live). Payers and Competitors did slightly, but not significantly,
better in identifying the correct answer to these questions.
Figure 25. Figure 26.
What is Guild Currency used for? What are Guild Bank Coins used for?
Relationships between variables
All Guild Variables were positively related to one another - Value, Team Cohesion, and Positivity Toward Raids all in the
0.50 - 0.60 range with overall Satisfaction. Chat Function Use has the lowest correlations with all other variables,
consistently in the 0.10 range. See Table 9.
Table 9.
Correlations among Guild response variables

17. Predictive Power
Although the addition of in-game behavioral data would be helpful, both in terms of important outcomes to predict and
variables to predict them with, certain people in the industry resist the idea that understanding sentiment is useful in a
practical sense. Therefore, a hierarchical regression was performed, predicting Net Promoter Score - a typical KPI.
An optimal linear combination of variables including Compulsion to Play, Satisfaction with Guilds, Player Type, Payer
Status, and FTP Friendliness was able to explain nearly 50% of the variance in NPS, after having controlled for Player Level;
see Table 10, below. General Satisfaction was purposely left out of the predictive model, because it correlated so strongly
with NPS (r = 0.70) as to be nearly a proxy for it, and lacks meaningful explanatory power (“people who are satisfied with
the game will recommend it,” would be the unsurprising interpretation).
Table 10.
Significant predictors of NPS
*All predictors in table are significant at the 0.05 level or below, with tolerances of 0.85 or above.

18. Appendix: Methodology and Statistics
I. On Methodology:
For most analyses, 2 (Payer Status) x 5 (Player Type) Factorial Analysis of Variance was used. Items noted in text as
“significant” refer to p-values of 0.05 or lower; items noted as “marginally significant” or “approaching significance” refer to
p-values between 0.055 and 0.10. A Bonferroni Correction was applied to all tests in order to moderate the inflation of
familywise error rate due to multiple tests.
In the case of the final regression, a stepwise method was initially used to identify potential predictors, followed by a
hierarchical regression, holding player level constant at the first step. In the case of multicollinearity among variables, the
one with the strongest zero-order correlation with the predictor was retained.
II. Test Statistics:
t-tests (payers and nonpayers)
Satisfaction: t(402) = -0.03, p = 0.98
Compulsion to play: t(402) = -1.16, p = 0.25
One-Way ANOVAs (Player Type)
Satisfaction differences by Player Type: F(4,413) = 2.1, p = 0.09
Compulsion differences by Player Type: F(4,413) = 2.4, p = 0.09
Factorial ANOVAs (Payer and Player Type as Factors)
Money’s worth:
-Payers: F(1,393) = 7.4, p = 0.007
-Player type: F(4,393) = 1.7, p = 0.15
-Interaction: F(4,393) = 1.4, p = 0.24
FTP Friendliness:
-Payers: F(1,394) = 1.5, p = 0.23
-Player type: F(4,394) = 1.2, p = 0.30
-Interaction: F(4,394) = 0.29, p = 0.88
FTP Balance:

19. -Payers: F(1,394) = 2.6, p = 0.09
-Player type: F(4,394) = 1.0, p = 0.40
-Interaction: F(4,394) = 0.54, p = 0.70
Guild Satisfaction:
-Payers: F(1,378) = 4.61, p = 0.21
-Player Type: F(4,378) = 3.50, p = 0.008
-Interaction: F(4,378) = 0.87, p = 0.48
Easiness to join Guilds:
-Payers: F(1,378) = 5.26, p = 0.02
-Player Type: F(4,378) = 0.87, p = 0.48
-Interaction: F(4,378) = 0.13, p = 0.97
Feeling of teamwork:
-Payers: F(1,377) = 0.20, p = 0.66
-Player Type: F(4,377) = .83, p = 0.50
-Interaction: F(4,377) = 0.96, p = 0.43
Worth the effort:
-Payers: F(1,377) = 0.66, p = 0.42
- Player Type: F(4,377) = 2.3, p = 0.06
-Interaction: F(4,377) = 0.74, p = 0.57
III. Survey Links
Reddit: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/2748624/6d76d0c4d903
EA: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/2748624/87d7973e87cf