Implemented Deletion of accounts

[Diggo11]

My first question would be why are you trying to recruit people at level 2-9? Recruiting players at those levels is foolish because of the likelihood that they will become inactive, not because they are inactive.

This was early in the game Violette, when people were only level 1-15. Everyone who was higher was already in a town so I didn't get much choice.

Whether or not Gem is willing to send this to the developers doesn't alter my objections. That is her decision to make. And I did not say you were being too demanding, I said it was out of our domain. I don't care to advise upon business decisions when I do not have the requisite information to do so.

Gem thinks its in the domain and she has a better understanding than any of us do. Is that not enough?

As I said this is a commercial decision. Do you imagine that they did not assess all the business ramifications of their account deletion policy when they set it up? I know nothing of Innogames as a company, but to assume that they just settled on some random numbers (particularly when they already have a successful business model) seems very naive to me.

There is always a need for re-evaluation and changes in business. What worked in July last year isn't necessarily the best option now, and 39 people plus myself agree the current policy is outdated.

 

[DeletedUser]

... I know nothing of Innogames as a company, ... seems very naive to me. ... I'm pretty sure...

Why should your impression of something you admit you don't know be given weight? What is it based on?

Complaint as the yardstick by which decisions are made is extraordinarily bad business sense. In theory, it might sound all very well and good, and I'm certainly not suggesting that people shouldn't make noise if they want to see change, but good businesses don't make decisions based solely on noise. If Inno did that, duellers would be sent to a desert island.

False dichotomy. There are more choices available than either "ignore us" or "use us as their dictators". Choices like:

And yes, they can "listen and think about it", but in my opinion, this is an issue that would already have been thought about and it is one so trivial that you would just let the customer say their piece, then throw the paper in the bin and get back to work.

Again, what is your opinion based on? My opinion is different. Is there some reason to ascribe more weight to yours?

In my opinion, based on the presumable ease with which they could delete them if they chose to, it looks like they're letting these orphaned chars sit and rot in order to prop up the player numbers. I see no evidence yet that would indicate otherwise. (Got any?) Granted it doesn't stop any of our chars from doing anything, but as emperor wes pointed out, the glut of L1s does stop other people from joining when a world is closed due to being "full". Clearly, most of us active forum member players would prefer those dead chars be removed; no rationale has been presented to support keeping them there. You offer zilch to support your belief that leaving them there is a smart business move, other than a witch-doctor-like wave of your hand and chiding us for daring to question their actions. Good luck with that. :nowink:

My assumption is that they are basically like all of us, working hard on their "baby" but still human and possessing finite time and resources to perfect it. I'm confident that they attempt to make good business choices, and it appears that they make enough of them to stay in business, so I agree with you on the point that they probably don't need business advice, per se, from us. However, what they can use is player feedback. These proposals and polls are one way we provide that, and on this issue, our preference is clear. So let's report it and move on. As you've pointed out before, we don't give them orders, or even prioritize the work list. All we offer are our suggestions; they take it from there.

 

[Diggo11]

Luap you really need to be less imposing

 

[DeletedUser]

Why should your impression of something you admit you don't know be given weight? What is it based on?

As I said earlier, I consider this trivial. There have been no arguments made that alter that opinion.

False dichotomy. There are more choices available than either "ignore us" or "use us as their dictators". Choices like:

As your quotes split off the part where I talked about that choice, saying I have presented a false dichotomy is rather disingenuous, don't you think?

Again, what is your opinion based on? My opinion is different. Is there some reason to ascribe more weight to yours?

Are you suggesting that your judgment (and it is a only question of judgment, not fact) should be set above my own?

In my opinion, based on the presumable ease with which they could delete them if they chose to, it looks like they're letting these orphaned chars sit and rot in order to prop up the player numbers. I see no evidence yet that would indicate otherwise.

Note the purposefulness of those words? That is what I said.

Granted it doesn't stop any of our chars from doing anything, but as emperor wes pointed out, the glut of L1s does stop other people from joining when a world is closed due to being "full".

So it is not obstructive? That is what I said. And as they have been rolling out new worlds at a cracking pace, emperor wes' point is moot. No new players are prevented from playing the game. And, again, it would be a reasonable assumption, given that deletion is likely far easier than establishing new servers, that this too has purpose and is a considered commercial decision.

Clearly, most of us active forum member players would prefer those dead chars be removed; no rationale has been presented to support keeping them there.

I vote according to my own judgment, not the judgment of the masses. And, as arguments go, this one of yours is the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.

You offer zilch to support your belief that leaving them there is a smart business move, other than a witch-doctor-like wave of your hand and chiding us for daring to question their actions. Good luck with that.

You offer zilch to prove that it is just something they haven't bothered to think about. As I've said, this is a question of judgment, not fact. I have explained my reasoning and the logic is sound. There is no "truth" to be known here and I did not suggest that there was.

...what they can use is player feedback. These proposals and polls are one way we provide that, and on this issue, our preference is clear. So let's report it and move on. As you've pointed out before, we don't give them orders, or even prioritize the work list. All we offer are our suggestions; they take it from there.

No, "our" preference is not clear. The preferences of individual players is clear. And I have stated mine. And for someone who loves Ron Paul so much, I would think you would be a little more wary of appealing to the masses in order to support your positions. Or are the masses idiots only when they disagree with you?

As for the let's "move on" (which I find somewhat amusing coming from you), I explained my reasoning simply to avoid another three pages of people complaining about unknown individuals' votes. As I said, this is a judgment call, and my reasoning is no less sound than yours, so get over it.

Luap you really need to be less imposing

Imposing is not the word I would use. Churlish might be more like it. A little more graciousness, whether in defeat or victory, would be most welcome.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think these polls should include a don't care option. I don't see any benefit to me personally whether they're deleted sooner or not.

 

[DeletedUser3717]

Question: Would the deletion happen to anyone inactive in the actual game?

Because I don't play the actual game anymore just come on the forums

 

[DeletedUser]

Question: Would the deletion happen to anyone inactive in the actual game?

Because I don't play the actual game anymore just come on the forums

Your chars will already get deleted as it is now. This would only speed up the deletion of the level 1 (and possibly 2-9 as well) inactives; all chars are already subject to deletion eventually. At least I think so. At any rate, we're not proposing any change in whatever relationship there may currently be, if any, between forum activity and game activity.

 

[DeletedUser]

what ive noticed is level 1s stay off theyr accounts for 47 days and then would walk to a town or something non experience based which would stop them from being deleted,

 

[DeletedUser]

what ive noticed is level 1s stay off theyr accounts for 47 days and then would walk to a town or something non experience based which would stop them from being deleted,

Well as long as they log in they should be considered active players. It does not matter if they just check there gear, walk to town, or do a job. I believe that the main complaint is that the older worlds are closed to new people because non-active players are taking up the space. But you can't just kick a player because it takes them 2 weeks to get to level 2.

 

[DeletedUser]

They won't get kicked if they take 2 weeks to reach level 2, as long as they log in once every 5 days. If they get kicked at level 1 (because they have not logged in for 5 days), they can get to where they were again within two days - they have not lost much time in any case!

 

[DeletedUser]

level 1,2,3,4 are easy level to pass through I even got through 2-4 with completion of 2 quests at the same time a long long time ago. But his idea is a good uncloger for other who wants to play. who wants to paly a gome where its cloged with newbies? i don't

 

[DeletedUser5046]

i guess from what te title said ...all we need is a click ..and te character is gone..

i mean i hope from account deletion...we could also delete some characters created on worlds some players dun wanna be involved anymore...

( its been long so i dunno if te expiration of account is meant to delete inactive characters)

 

[DeletedUser]

35 days .... that's ok

 

[DeletedUser]

When this gets submitted we need to make sure that it's very clear that the reasoning behind this is so we can open more worlds to players - not that we are trying to for the sake of it. I don't feel completely comfortable with sending this to them, but I do think something has to be done if all the worlds are filled with level 1s.

If I must say anything about TW it's that their inactivity deletion policy is quite harsh but it works very well in my opinion.

 

[DeletedUser]

I was looking at Tribal Wars inactivity/deletion policy the other day. If I'm not mistaken its 14 days. I don't see why they don't do that with this game as well. At least for level 1s. If we are going to send them something then I don't see how they can't agree to a policy they have for another game.

 

[DeletedUser]

That's what this idea is about

 

[Diggo11]

When this gets submitted we need to make sure that it's very clear that the reasoning behind this is so we can open more worlds to players - not that we are trying to for the sake of it. I don't feel completely comfortable with sending this to them, but I do think something has to be done if all the worlds are filled with level 1s.

If I must say anything about TW it's that their inactivity deletion policy is quite harsh but it works very well in my opinion.

Is it not already? I could re-write the proposal it if you think I haven't stressed this enough.

 

[DeletedUser]

Is it not already? I could re-write the proposal it if you think I haven't stressed this enough.

It's up to you. If you think, as you're reading that, that it's fine then I shall get it submitted like that (It might just be me being paranoid!)

 

[Diggo11]

I think your being a little paranoid, but better to be on the safe side.

In response to this thread I would like to propose the following on deletion times for low level players.

Proposal
To unclog Innogames' servers by removing low level players who are inactive at a faster rate. This means there is more space for active and paying members, and also means Innogames requires less expensive game servers.

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.

In addition to this we would like a warning mail sent to an e-mail account 3 days prior to deletion (excluding level 1). This would help reduce instances of semi-active players losing their accounts, mainly if the middle bracket of deletion was introduced.

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. If Innogames removes the low level inactives, loads of server space will be freed. This means Innogames can spend less money on purchasing more server space and more time on creating a better game.

 

[DeletedUser]

That sounds good
Okay, will lock this in a bit and get it submitted