What to do with inactives

by Admin Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:05 pm

This isn't anything that will get implemented in the next month or even quarter of a year, but it will be done sometime.

Inactives are part of the game, they offer easy 0 def, no retaliation farms. They help smaller players a lot. I don't argue and actually even am all up for having a very good number of them ingame
However there's a limit to that.
If at some stage people won't hit even 0 def farms for lets say 100 mil kuwal and certain inactives don't even produce that amount in a week and their up is also tiny meaning they aren't even much use as raid farms it would be well worth to dump them onto the side (maybe like vacation mode, their owners still being able to login and start playing again).

Everyone who plays or played sgw knows this scenario. New turn and you can't do anything for 1-4 minutes depending on your location.
Even with sgw you could easily remove 10-20% of the registered players who have tiny armies and generate nothing but server load.

Now, anyone want to put forward criteria by which it would be useful to sort out the tiny accounts and automatically putting them onto vacation mode?
Things to consider
- Time since last login
- Relative income per turn compared to global average or average hit on 0 def accounts.
- Unit production (raid farms are also useful)
- Anything else

Accounts will NOT get deleted, they will be put onto vacation mode at best!

by Beanz Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:39 pm

Have a rolling average over the last 50 turns (25 hours).
Take average gold stolen per-attack.
Take average UU stolen per-raid.
Then, accounts that have not been logged into for over 10 days, whose income is such that in 3 days they would have produced less than the UU stolen per raid, and less than the gold stolen per-attack, then they should be marked as inactive.
If they remain inactive for 4 days, then they get put on vaca until their owner claims them.

by Halaryel Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:45 pm

an easy solution would be to de-rank players that come into some criteria.

a player that haven't log in for the last 2 weeks (for example) would be set as inactive, he would fall into the unranked zone.

This way :
- unranked people would not take load upon rank calculation (but still take load of UP/income calculation).
- they would still be in the ranking but at the end of the ranking, thus allowing people to scout and take the Kuwal or units if any
- i know a very fast and optimized way to calculate ranking i will tell you on msn as it can take time to explain

by Nomad Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:53 pm

If you will excuse me for doing so, and feel free to mod any of this as well, but I always felt like HE nailed it perfectly.

High Empty wrote:To the mods, YES this is a suggestion

but it's for GENERAL infomation. So keep the spam clean, but otherwise please let the people speak, and don't move it please. unless you want to upgrade the attention it gets.

Now everyone has been having this " turn lag"

and i'm sure other have suggested this.

However what i want is for people to explain why the following is a bad idea.

I would like Jason to shut down the game. I would than like him to sort thru the database on a wide range of topics. Frist being, anyone not ascended or an supporter status get's a flag.
Than within that group anyone that has under 100,000 total army size is flaged, than with in that group anyone who has not logged into the game within the past 6 months is flaged. Than i would like the removal of anyone with 3 flags! i e Delete their account.

Now after this is done, i would like to change the start up account mix, to say 2-5k turns, 100k uu and 10mil naq. So that if anyone comes back thay can just start again, but their account will be better than when they left.

This should reduce the number accounts accounts that the system needs to process each turn by 1/2 to 2/3s and thereby reduce the turn lag from 3 mins to 1 min. or less

In our case make the first flag be any non SS/donator
second flag (preset, rolling number) any account less then xxx,xxx in size, maybe 1 % of the top 10 accounts? 3rd flag being length of time since log in.

by Admin Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:48 pm

considering no account will actually get deleted but simply put on vacation I don't think if anyone has ss or not makes a difference.

So i'll probably mark that anyone who didn't login for over 2 months and has no considerable up or income (maybe less than 10% or 5% of global average) will get put on vacation

by Nomad Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:05 am

Admin wrote:considering no account will actually get deleted but simply put on vacation I don't think if anyone has ss or not makes a difference.

So i'll probably mark that anyone who didn't login for over 2 months and has no considerable up or income (maybe less than 10% or 5% of global average) will get put on vacation

sounds fine.

You will do this every XX amount of days? I mean we will always need some food out there for the brginners to nibble on.

by Admin Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:48 am

lol no actually this is meant to be only done to people who have neither a decent income nor up (to get farmed or raided regularly)

If people will be hitting 0 def people for lets say 20 mil at least then no point leaving accounts in the game who produce 5k per turn as they'd get hit less than once every 8 days.

I don't intend on taking away inactive farms from people especially beginners. But my point is that if something like that would be done in sgw the turn lag they have there wouldn't exist anymore

by Halaryel Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:23 pm

then a system put a player to holiday if he haven't log for 1 month and haven't been hit for the last 2 week would be easy.

Had a parameter "last hit date" to every player. When today - last hit > 2 week and today - last login > 4 week => HOLIDAY.

Regards.

by Sponsored content

What to do with inactives

What to do with inactives

Re: What to do with inactives

Re: What to do with inactives

Re: What to do with inactives

Re: What to do with inactives

Re: What to do with inactives

Re: What to do with inactives

Re: What to do with inactives

Re: What to do with inactives