DeletedUser
won't get more people to spend but it might get the same people to spend more
Implemented Deletion of accounts
- Thread starter Diggo11
- Start date
- Status
won't get more people to spend but it might get the same people to spend more
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
@ Emperor Wes - eventually we will have people spread across all levels, but I reakon the people who give up at level 2-9 will not decrease. So in time, assuming that the current ratios stay true, they will reflect facts.
@ Luap - I think that the distribution of players is very much affected by chance, also the fact that the world was made earlier mighthave had an impact.
But Luap let me ask you a question: why do you care? If it turns out we do need the middle bracket it shall do its job and all will be fine. If it turns out we don't need it then it shouldn't affect the active players anyway. Just think about that for a while before you post.
Now while we are on the subject I think a reminder before your account is deleted is a good addition to the idea. But I have two questions (a) Does it already do so? (b) how long before deletion should the warning be given?
@ Luap - I think that the distribution of players is very much affected by chance, also the fact that the world was made earlier mighthave had an impact.
But Luap let me ask you a question: why do you care? If it turns out we do need the middle bracket it shall do its job and all will be fine. If it turns out we don't need it then it shouldn't affect the active players anyway. Just think about that for a while before you post.
Now while we are on the subject I think a reminder before your account is deleted is a good addition to the idea. But I have two questions (a) Does it already do so? (b) how long before deletion should the warning be given?
DeletedUser
Well, yeah. So? Not sure what you're getting at.
Already have, and have already answered your question (I prefer simplicity; less to remember).
Hmmmmmm... having never let a character lapse, I don't know from experience, and don't recall hearing anything about it. If it were stated, where would such statement be? IG help? On here someplace? My few searches turned up nothing but this thread.
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
Proposal
To unclog Innogames' servers by removing low level players who are inactive at a faster rate.
Currently
Currently accounts are deleted after 45 days (28 on the German Server). Unfortunately this means we have masses of low level players who gave up on the game and purely taking up space. This means there is less room for potentially paying customers, forcing Innogames to purchase more server space.
Details
We propose a second deletion time is added to remove these low inactives. (Note that the default time still applies for the remainder of the player base.) Level One accounts would be deleted after 5 days of inactivity. There has also been debate over adding a third period for Level 2-9 accounts of approximately 22 days, but we have failed to reach a conclusion here.
Visual Aids
Below are some stats showing the extent of the problem we are attempting to fix. Note the obvious level one problem, and that very high level 2-9 total!
Also this link will direct you to a table showing all deletion times. Note the middle one is purely OPTIONAL.
Summary
Ultimately the aim of this game is to generate maximum revenue for Innogames. So the less money they spend on new servers due to noob overload the more money they'll make which is in everybody's interests.
To unclog Innogames' servers by removing low level players who are inactive at a faster rate.
Currently
Currently accounts are deleted after 45 days (28 on the German Server). Unfortunately this means we have masses of low level players who gave up on the game and purely taking up space. This means there is less room for potentially paying customers, forcing Innogames to purchase more server space.
Details
We propose a second deletion time is added to remove these low inactives. (Note that the default time still applies for the remainder of the player base.) Level One accounts would be deleted after 5 days of inactivity. There has also been debate over adding a third period for Level 2-9 accounts of approximately 22 days, but we have failed to reach a conclusion here.
Visual Aids
Below are some stats showing the extent of the problem we are attempting to fix. Note the obvious level one problem, and that very high level 2-9 total!
Also this link will direct you to a table showing all deletion times. Note the middle one is purely OPTIONAL.
Summary
Ultimately the aim of this game is to generate maximum revenue for Innogames. So the less money they spend on new servers due to noob overload the more money they'll make which is in everybody's interests.
Last edited:
DeletedUser363
Nice summary Diggo.
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
Once we learn how to use them they look like they'll be much easier to handle@Diggo: Nice follow-up graph. I see you used the Excel 2007 default colors as well. I was much better with 2002/2003 graphs, and I haven't used them much in 2007.
P.S. Someone accidently negged me, at least I think it was accidental unless the comment was sarcastic
Thanks
DeletedUser
I agree with you I think accounts should be deleted by then.
DeletedUser
From now on, Diggo's in charge of all summaries, that's perfect. Shouldn't you edit the OP and put it there? [Oops, I see you did.]
I didn't accidentally neg you did I? I used the same comment I used last time, which makes sense in context of the post.
I didn't accidentally neg you did I? I used the same comment I used last time, which makes sense in context of the post.
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
Erm... ok then.
No it wasn't you who negged me, it was either (a) Luap being sarcastic (b) someones finger slipped.
DeletedUser363
I would give you some positive rep, but it says I have to spread it around before I can give it to you again.
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
No problems I get that all the time (especially with Elymr who then says "Its the thought that counts"). I'd rep you for trying to rep me but I can't rep you either, I think I need to rep more.
EDIT: Oh ok my bad, I thought greys were only negatives but apparently they can be positive too. My mistake.
ANYWAY BACK ON TOPIC.....
EDIT: Oh ok my bad, I thought greys were only negatives but apparently they can be positive too. My mistake.
ANYWAY BACK ON TOPIC.....
Last edited:
DeletedUser
Well you know I gotta weigh in. I'll be nice though. In fact you did a good job, I agree, except I must (still) take issue with your wording on the 2-9 bit. Not on anything else though.
Here's what I see, even when I leave aside the more detailed breakout which would be IMO more illuminative and go with your chart style here:
If we look only at W6, those 8 levels combined almost do start to compare to level 10+ (although they're still a lot smaller even then). But look at the older and more stabilized world 2 chart. Do you really see a "very high level" of 2-9s there? I don't.
Further, let's go back again to the dreaded detailed breakout:
The problem is clearly in level 1, and then in W6 there's a small bump also in level 2, but again, W6 is a newer world, so it seems possible to me that there are just more people starting up in it than in W2. So, I still don't see any need for a third reaper, here.
Still nobody has offered a reason to regard these 2-9 numbers as representing orphans and not active players. It's just taken as an assumption by some of you, and I'm curious if you have a reason.
I'm really not trying to be ornery... just amiably stubborn. ;-) If you have a good reason that I'm not perceiving, just tell me what it is and I'll agree.
Put another way: since you see these as being "very high" numbers, what do you think the "right" numbers should be for those levels, and why?
Anyway, good job Digmeister, even if I still haggle over the third reaper part.
I'll be nice though. In fact you did a good job, I agree, except I must (still) take issue with your wording on the 2-9 bit. Not on anything else though.Very objectively summarized.
Well, excuse me for being stubborn, but I don't see a "very high level 2-9 total" there.Visual Aids
Below are some stats showing the extent of the problem we are attempting to fix. Note the obvious level one problem, and that very high level 2-9 total!
Here's what I see, even when I leave aside the more detailed breakout which would be IMO more illuminative and go with your chart style here:
If we look only at W6, those 8 levels combined almost do start to compare to level 10+ (although they're still a lot smaller even then). But look at the older and more stabilized world 2 chart. Do you really see a "very high level" of 2-9s there? I don't.
Further, let's go back again to the dreaded detailed breakout:
The problem is clearly in level 1, and then in W6 there's a small bump also in level 2, but again, W6 is a newer world, so it seems possible to me that there are just more people starting up in it than in W2. So, I still don't see any need for a third reaper, here.
Still nobody has offered a reason to regard these 2-9 numbers as representing orphans and not active players. It's just taken as an assumption by some of you, and I'm curious if you have a reason.
I'm really not trying to be ornery... just amiably stubborn. ;-) If you have a good reason that I'm not perceiving, just tell me what it is and I'll agree.
Put another way: since you see these as being "very high" numbers, what do you think the "right" numbers should be for those levels, and why?
Heheh. Oh, but... you should probably add a comment that those numbers are in days. Yes, we all know that, but it wouldn't hurt.
I'm skeptical that they need us advising them on making money, but hey, I guess it couldn't hurt to play that card. At worst they'll get a chuckle out of it.
Anyway, good job Digmeister, even if I still haggle over the third reaper part.
DeletedUser
Don't know when someone should be negged, but I was negged because someone was of opinion that an idea I had was pointless (it was debated some, but eventually majority felt no, which is fine). Didn't know the purpose of negging was if you disagreed with someone's idea!
Like Diggo said, BACK on topic: I think Diggo's work-up is great, we can leave the choice of implementation of any further levels to the dev's (not the point of this post, my vote is still no for lvls 2-9, although I wouldn't mind including lvl 2 with lvl 1
) Vote?
DeletedUser
Yes, you did, thanks.
DeletedUser
I think this pic says it all:
DeletedUser
Just noticed it was responding to my thread...
anyway, I agree with it (yes, its been here a while and I just found it), but I definately agree with Level 1s being deleted in 5 days max.
We've received a lot more level 1s since my post.
Elmyr, I agree with your last post, as probably 50% of people under level 10 aren't coming back. If they are, chances are they seldom log in, forget their password, etc
You can get these levels back within 3-5 days, so I feel that should be the deletion time for these accs
Luap Nor, going on one of your charts, the chart is very misleading because of the scale for the x axis. The scale is by 10,000 for 1 and 5,000 for another.
Try counting to 5k, and you'll see how many people this actually is. World 2 has probably 7,000 level 2-9s; spread across the world at various places to pick tobacco. 7,000 is a lot; just find a cencus(sp?) done near you and check it out.
World 6 has probabaly 1,500 in the level 2-9 range, considerably smaller than World 2, but still a growing problem.
However, here is my proposal:
Make accounts deleted in 5 days the level 1s. 1 week for level 2 & 3. Keep levels 4-9 the same as previously proposed. Making the level 1s fastest will prevent people from logging back on every 2 weeks and setting tobacco for 10 minutes or something dumb like that. This'll decrease the level of 2-9 while we're at it; killing 2 birds with one stone.
I think it'd work pretty good.
anyway, I agree with it (yes, its been here a while and I just found it), but I definately agree with Level 1s being deleted in 5 days max.
We've received a lot more level 1s since my post.
Elmyr, I agree with your last post, as probably 50% of people under level 10 aren't coming back. If they are, chances are they seldom log in, forget their password, etc
You can get these levels back within 3-5 days, so I feel that should be the deletion time for these accs
Luap Nor, going on one of your charts, the chart is very misleading because of the scale for the x axis. The scale is by 10,000 for 1 and 5,000 for another.
Try counting to 5k, and you'll see how many people this actually is. World 2 has probably 7,000 level 2-9s; spread across the world at various places to pick tobacco. 7,000 is a lot; just find a cencus(sp?) done near you and check it out.
World 6 has probabaly 1,500 in the level 2-9 range, considerably smaller than World 2, but still a growing problem.
However, here is my proposal:
Make accounts deleted in 5 days the level 1s. 1 week for level 2 & 3. Keep levels 4-9 the same as previously proposed. Making the level 1s fastest will prevent people from logging back on every 2 weeks and setting tobacco for 10 minutes or something dumb like that. This'll decrease the level of 2-9 while we're at it; killing 2 birds with one stone.
I think it'd work pretty good.
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Falcon
Well-Known Member
Okay, we all seem to agree that level 1's pose the biggest problem, because obviously, there are more level 1's than any other low-level of players. And as far as levels 4 through 9, let's make it so that levels 4 to 5 get 9 days, levels 6 to 7 get 11 days, and levels 8 to 9 get 13 days. Levels 10 to 14 will get a month. And levels 15 and above get 45 days. A simple solution to a complex problem, don't you think so?
DeletedUser
Always a good idea.@ Luap: Yeah I tried to be objective so someone didn't whine
OK that's at least potentially meaningful, but at the risk of seeming obsessed, I must ask: what does "randomly chosen" mean? Is that a chart of averages or did someone actually pick just 1 level from each of those ranges? The averages would be far more useful than picking 1 data point from each set.@ Luap: if we are having a picture war then I'll reintroduce this one:
And if it's an average of 10-99, that's goofed, since that would include a bunch of empty levels, which would artificially pull the second chart column down. If it's an average of the levels which actually have at least 1 character there, it's still somewhat misleading; there really are more level 5s than level 55s, whether we're counting orphans or live chars.
The top part makes one statement we all agree on followed by a naked assertion on which we don't agree.I think this pic says it all:
The bottom part contains universally recognized common sense, but the point I'm making all along is that I don't (yet) see a second bird in the first place -- and I 100% agree we need to add one stone, I only object to adding >1 stone to kill 1 bird.
Irrelevant, because the amount of any level in a given world must be compared to the amounts of other levels in that world. It's the relative proportions, not the absolute quantities, that are indicative of a buildup problem at a given level or level range.
Depends on the overall population. 100 thugs is a whole lot in a town of 1000, but hardly noticeable in NYC or Paris.
The question is what proportion of those 2-9s are orphans? If it's a large % then there's a problem. If it isn't, then there's not. A large live population can and will carry a larger population of orphans than a small live population should. That's normal, not something to be alarmed about.
You got those backwards. Could be my fault on that; I put W6 first on the one chart because it's newer. I wanted to show the trend over time.
As time goes by the numbers flatten out, not build up (except at level 1, LOL).
It's needlessly complicated. Yes, I agree 100% that those are reasonable timetables at each level. But why give people more rules to remember than are needed? KISS.
Make your 1 stone kill all the birds, real or imagined, at low levels, and I'm totally with you. 1 new reaper can cover all of the actual problem with 1 new rule.
Hell no. That's exactly the opposite of simple. Who is going to remember all of that??
DeletedUser
I think we all agree that the hordes of inactives are a problem, but this suggestion really is kind of pointless (no offense Diggo). The devs know it's a problem too. Either they're planning on fixing it, or not. I highly doubt we've suggested anything they haven't thought of.
- Status