DeletedUser
Then they are stupid, but that's not at issue here. They don't get deleted for failing to level. They get deleted for not logging on at all.
Implemented Deletion of accounts
- Thread starter Diggo11
- Start date
- Status
DeletedUser
I'm sort of with Diggo on this one. It isn't that difficult to get to level 10 especially when you jump from level 2 to level 4 with the beginning quests. For that reason alone I would at least want to see the Level 1 qualifier as 1-5 at minimum.
DeletedUser
The ease/difficulty of reaching a given level is irrelevant. The solution should match the problem. The problem is the inactives. What level are they? Target the solution there.
DeletedUser
Luap, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point is that in one sitting a player can easily reach level 4. Then maybe they log out and never come back to the game. To me a level 4 player is the same as a level 1 player. They logged in, tried it and decided it wasn't for them. Level 1 player logs in for 5 minutes. You can reach level 4 in what a couple of hours, especially when you can skip level 3 by doing the quests. But not important enough for me to argue about it.
DeletedUser
That's all very well, but I refer you to my previous post. ;-)
If we measure the inactives which objectively exist, we don't need to speculate and debate about these hypotheticals (and FWIW I agree with your analysis, so I'm not just being reflexively contrary here). Just design the solution to match the problem and skip the debate altogether.
If we measure the inactives which objectively exist, we don't need to speculate and debate about these hypotheticals (and FWIW I agree with your analysis, so I'm not just being reflexively contrary here). Just design the solution to match the problem and skip the debate altogether.
DeletedUser
The wandering greenhorns aren't causing anyone a problem. Once they've scattered to do a variety of jobs they're just greenhorns out working and you can't tell an active one from an inactive. Its the huge clump of newbies littered around the landscape that haven't even reached their first job that look fugly and are in such high numbers that they are preventing other keen people from playing on that world.
The only objective reason for keeping them is for the company PR to be able to trumpet that they have a million players instead of two hundred thousand (or whatever.) When that's getting in the way of potential paying customers being able to play on some worlds its time to change.
The only objective reason for keeping them is for the company PR to be able to trumpet that they have a million players instead of two hundred thousand (or whatever.) When that's getting in the way of potential paying customers being able to play on some worlds its time to change.
DeletedUser
Yep. If your internet goes down for more than 2 weeks then find other - go to a library or friends. It's not hard.
DeletedUser
I'm happy with this. The problem on the worlds is not with higher levels, it is with the first 1-3 levels - they are the ones taking up the majority of the population. And if you are still lvl 2 and your internet goes bonkers and comes back one week later, surely you don't lose much to start over again.
Edited: fixed level typo above
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I really like this idea. I agree that it needs a little refining as the numbers are a bit harsh at the moment
DeletedUser
45 days > 7 days.
DeletedUser
Hmmm... should have read lvl 2 - original post edited... sorry!
Level World2 World6
1 10003 39410
2 393 2193
3 115 536
4 171 639
5 151 584
6 200 704
7 204 812
8 274 1124
9 295 1106
10 250 1024
11+ 12854 14456
Total Players 24910 62588
I guess the point here is that the main problem is with the level 1 (and to a lesser degree level 2) inactives taking up population on the worlds. This is the reason I don't see the shorter boot time extending beyond the first three levels.
Cannot say how many of each lvl is inactive, but based on the stats below, I would safely guess the majority of lvl 1 players are inactive on world 2 and 6 (not sure if either of those two worlds are currently open?):
Level World2 World6
1 10003 39410
2 393 2193
3 115 536
4 171 639
5 151 584
6 200 704
7 204 812
8 274 1124
9 295 1106
10 250 1024
11+ 12854 14456
Total Players 24910 62588
I guess the point here is that the main problem is with the level 1 (and to a lesser degree level 2) inactives taking up population on the worlds. This is the reason I don't see the shorter boot time extending beyond the first three levels.
Last edited by a moderator:
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
I admit the original numbers may have been far to harsh, but I think these new numbers are fair enough.
Level 1: Well really you should be able to advance this in one day anyway. And even if you can't your account is deleted upon inactiveness, not failure to reach a level.
Level 2-5: If you don't log in every two weeks then chances are you never will. Besides if your Internet does go down for any reason you could regain your progress rather quickly.
Level 6-9: If you don't log in once a fortnight you probably aren't going to bother before 45 days anyway. And you must remember to get to this stage doesn't take very long, so you won't be hooked yet. Besides if your Internet goes down its not a problem in modern times as stated somewhere earlier. You can always borrow your neighbours, after work, at school, at a friends or families, perhaps even your new hightech phone!
Level 10: If you get this far you are probably hooked and get the standard 45 days.
Now if there is a fault in my reasoning then just post it, but the way I see it everything's fine here in terms of numbers. Besides the developers can always change the numbers if they disagree.
DeletedUser
Looking at those numbers makes it quite plain:
The level 1s are the problem.
There's simply no reason to adjust any other level's rules, because there is no large swampful of them. There is a ton of inactive level 1s - period. So this proposal should be simplified to match the actual problem. It's fine to analyze how hard it is to reach level X, and what it means about you if you do/don't log in every Y days/weeks at level Z, but guess what? None of that has anything to do with the actual problem.
K.I.S.S.!
DeletedUser
Sometimes a picture tells the whole story.
DeletedUser
Cynical head on time
It works in the dev's favour to have a very slow deletion rate
From the Wests home page 322452 Players, now that is a manipulation before we even start as most active players are going to be on at least 2 worlds if not all 7 ,so if you delete all the inactive level 1's call it roughly 50k of them you suddenly dont have a very popular game if you then do a division of players per world.
We can talk about all thats wrong in the game till we are blue in the face on here but it does not make any difference as we know that Inno games comes in here to see what we think.
It works in the dev's favour to have a very slow deletion rate
From the Wests home page 322452 Players, now that is a manipulation before we even start as most active players are going to be on at least 2 worlds if not all 7 ,so if you delete all the inactive level 1's call it roughly 50k of them you suddenly dont have a very popular game if you then do a division of players per world.
We can talk about all thats wrong in the game till we are blue in the face on here but it does not make any difference as we know that Inno games comes in here to see what we think.
DeletedUser
Personally, I am a big proponent of warnings. I think The West should send an email to you letting you know you have 72 hours left before account deletion, etc.
Some people just get busy with work or school and forget to check their game. BUT... they shouldn't be punished for having a life. A warning would help with active player retention, as well. Players who take the time to log in after receiving the warning are more likely to continue playing when their schedule settles down (I would suspect).
Addendum: I DO think completely, shamelessly inactive players should be deleted, and I DO think level should play a part in the timeline. A level 70 player should get a lot of time, a level 5 should get very little. I still think a warning should be issued via account email beforehand.
Some people just get busy with work or school and forget to check their game. BUT... they shouldn't be punished for having a life. A warning would help with active player retention, as well. Players who take the time to log in after receiving the warning are more likely to continue playing when their schedule settles down (I would suspect).
Addendum: I DO think completely, shamelessly inactive players should be deleted, and I DO think level should play a part in the timeline. A level 70 player should get a lot of time, a level 5 should get very little. I still think a warning should be issued via account email beforehand.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
It's "thinking" like that that gets us things like economic "bubbles". :dry: Not saying you're wrong, just saying THAT's wrong for them to do. It isn't in their advantage, long term.Cynical head on time
It works in the dev's favour to have a very slow deletion rate
From the Wests home page 322452 Players, now that is a manipulation before we even start as most active players are going to be on at least 2 worlds if not all 7 ,so if you delete all the inactive level 1's call it roughly 50k of them you suddenly dont have a very popular game if you then do a division of players per world.
I was going to say that's off topic in this thread, but you do have a point, and it would cut down on the orphan population somewhat. There'd still be a ton of level 1s abandoned by hyper kids though, which is where a lev 1 -- or 1 and 2, at the most -- deletion adjustment is needed.
I refer everyone again to "the story" I posted in my last post.
DeletedUser
Yes, and you completely ignored what Diggo said about 2-9 as a group. No, it's not as bad as level 1, but it's still a sizable percentage of level 10+. If they're relatively active, they have nothing to worry about, but half of them probably are not. Inactive level 1s are the real problem, but all lowbie inactives shouldn't be ignored while fixing a problem that may be hardcoded as Whistlingleaf suggested.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status