Inactives still not going grey

it need to be a certain amount of inactive players before its triggered. Still not triggered at EN 20 as i can notice.
 
The system is working. What you guys have to understand is that inactive does not mean 1 week. If a player continues to login that world say 1 time a week to check or by mistake it resets the counter for the system. The ONLY way to have the system delete EACH world account is if a player that chooses not to player a certain world NOT login. After 30 days the system will (and this is important) take a selected inactive player accounts and turn to barbarian villages. It will continue to repeat this each day. Now please don't assume if there are 100 players inactive that all at once 100 barbarians as many of these players may not have become inactive within the same day or may still log in.
 
So you mean to tell me all the 52 pt villas on EN20 that have been there about 4 months have had someone logging in and not even putting queues in? The cheek of it!
 
besides the point whether it actually works or not (reading whittys post makes me question that) i must question the variables at place here.
30days is fine on a running world but at the start you could lower that treshhold drasticly, maybe relate it to the points because 51 pointers did nothing they logged in and out and didnt even build a single thing its very unlikely they will ever come back and even if they should come back it would be to their benefit to not be in the core anymore,
The opening of a new world should immidietly trigger a world wide deletion of inactive accs, not 1by1.


just a general idea: <100 points 7days of inactivity
<250 14days
<500 21days
>500 the current 30days
 
besides the point whether it actually works or not (reading whittys post makes me question that) i must question the variables at place here.
30days is fine on a running world but at the start you could lower that treshhold drasticly, maybe relate it to the points because 51 pointers did nothing they logged in and out and didnt even build a single thing its very unlikely they will ever come back and even if they should come back it would be to their benefit to not be in the core anymore,
The opening of a new world should immidietly trigger a world wide deletion of inactive accs, not 1by1.


just a general idea: <100 points 7days of inactivity
<250 14days
<500 21days
>500 the current 30days
The only issue with this is that some players actually even though they are not playing a world actually login that world. So if for example I had a friend that played EN20 and I just logged into that world and chatted with them then this would reset the the clock each time. Also there are some players that actually go on vacation for 7+ days without a coop but they come back and continue to play.

In the past as many players have experienced we allowed players to contact support to have their accounts deleted so this as well affected the system as we were trying to compensate players request without relying on the system.

Does the system work? Yes as I have tested it and on another world it took a total of 36 days but my account was turned to barbarian village. Maybe in the future because of all your input we'll have available a feature for players to actually declare this in settings (delete account from world) that will trigger the system to delete that account on that world within 7 days after confirmation.

All the input and suggestions given I express this to our developers.
 
People logging in without doing anything over a longer priod are very rare, no need to make special rules for them.
If you go on vacation for 7+ days without a coop and less than 100 points would you really want to be in the core? very unlikely, i think my ruleset (numbers are up for debate) works for those people.


I think many players would appreciate the option to delete their own acc without the need to contact support.
 
EN22 has been the first world I have played on so apologies if this is common knowledge but I had a question about player spawns relating to the inactives problem.

Does TW2 spawn extra players to populate the world or is it a bot or spam problem that is creating the massive number of inactive accounts?

My example being that EN22 has 15600 players listed in the rankings.
9100 accounts haven't passed 51 points.
12350 accounts haven't passed 100 points.
13100 accounts haven't passed 200 points.
This is on a world that was only released 6 weeks ago.

This information is based solely on looking at the points system ingame, if you lose points from being attacked/noble'd then that will skew the results a little bit as i believe you respawn on the outer rim when you lose all villages.

It just seems that when the world is 80%+ inactive (or not participating in gameplay if the term 'inactive' is too general) this quickly after a launch that maybe some systems like flipping players to barbs or even the ease of starting on a new world could be improved or modified.
 
I've expressed my concerns about this before. Me personally I think the tribe domination should be took down to 50% of the world not 70% to stop tribes from merging to win which will mean wars/worlds will go on for longer meaning more players stay active and have interest, recently in a world my tribe merged into another (we had a vote I voted against but as a good leader I set the merge up as that was the majority). I lost up to 10 members instantly as they didn't want to merge to win which was a shame as I've played with most of them before and infact schroedinger had a good battle with Ma5terchief on a previous world (he was one of them).
I believe worlds are getting smaller and smaller each time one is opened and I believe this is due to the fact worlds are being won so quick so another is being opened just as quick meaning if players get rimmed or it's not going to good for them or as good as they would have liked, instead of staying and battling on they are hopping to the next world and it is much easier to do as a world is open every 4-6 weeks these days. People lose interest and it creates inactives, the actives get sick of farming to mint coins to noble inactives and then they eventually leave as it's boring as heck doing this.
Activity is always going to be a tough problem to fix, not a whole lot you can do.
 
I think the merging of main tribes is a big problem. Not only do people who disagree with merging to win leave, but also players from other tribes who think the world is pretty much over. Smaller tribes cannot match the new "super tribe" so why bother waiting your turn for annihilation when you can start on a new world or even in a different game.
 
I think the merging of main tribes is a big problem. Not only do people who disagree with merging to win leave, but also players from other tribes who think the world is pretty much over. Smaller tribes cannot match the new "super tribe" so why bother waiting your turn for annihilation when you can start on a new world or even in a different game.
Maybe just to correct this issue then as new worlds open then we'll decide if another world should close or just stay open as player will still be able to join newer worlds if that world is over, problem solved.
 
Maybe just to correct this issue then as new worlds open then we'll decide if another world should close or just stay open as player will still be able to join newer worlds if that world is over, problem solved.
The new world opening is not the problem. It is the main tribes merging that is the problem I was talking about and the effects it has on players in the smaller tribes. I would think merge to win would cause far more abandonment than a tribe fighting their way to a victory.
A solution would be to not allow mergers between say the top 5 or top 10 tribes, not sure you do this or f it is even possible.
 
The new world opening is not the problem. It is the main tribes merging that is the problem I was talking about and the effects it has on players in the smaller tribes. I would think merge to win would cause far more abandonment than a tribe fighting their way to a victory.
A solution would be to not allow mergers between say the top 5 or top 10 tribes, not sure you do this or f it is even possible.
I think you should better look at why they are merging. You're not having full view of what is happening. I think players are just tired of it. When you got hundred of villages, fighting a player of the same level just sound annoying and time consuming as possible.
 
I think you should better look at why they are merging. You're not having full view of what is happening. I think players are just tired of it. When you got hundred of villages, fighting a player of the same level just sound annoying and time consuming as possible.
why are you even playing this game? thats exactly what this is all about..

@steph cross they recently introduced a new rule forbidding mergers to win a world, how exactly that new rule will play out is yet to be seen. What do you think about a lower max tribe size? and i mean really lower like 50 tops
 
I think you should better look at why they are merging. You're not having full view of what is happening. I think players are just tired of it. When you got hundred of villages, fighting a player of the same level just sound annoying and time consuming as possible.
Isn't fighting the main point of this game? I understand why main tribes merge to win, I just don't agree with their reasons. To me this game is about having fun while trying to win. Not win by the easiest means possible