It is too bad that so many inactives are being deleted. It is understandable that inactive players should be removed from the servers due to over crowding. To delete them for any other reason seems unfair to newbies just starting out on Zorg.

Inactive accounts is the primary source of resources for most newbies, well, at least the ones that know how to raid. Remove these inactives denys the new player the opportunity to grow to a point where they can learn and stand up for themself.

Let's face it, the majority of players on all Zorg servers have probably been playing since the begining. They also had the benefit of raiding large collections of Inactives. These legendary players have a huge lead in the raiding aspect since their techs have already been developed greatly. It just seems like any new players joining now a days are at a disadvantage because all the big dogs have dominiated the remaining Inactives on top of the actives.

Rumor has it that Zorg Admin would rather see Zorg Players play PvP style. It seems as though Active -vs- Active is what is being pushed. What would be the harm in keeping around some Inactives? Wouldn't it promote committed players as apposed to newbies joining and quiting due to droughts of res and constant bulling?

Just some thoughts that have been on my mind since all the rumors have been going around about what may be to come on the Standard Universe. I am interested in anyone elses feedback or thoughts on the subject. Thanks for hearing me out.

the removal of inactives is expected.

many farms -> lots of raiding
-> zorg starts pruning
-> enough of the playerbase is driven to pvp
-> people quit and go inactive
-> farms grow
-> many farms
...

its a cycle, and there are still a lot of resources around if you are willing to raid for less. (i wouldn't be surprised if its an annual cycle actually )
still, it woudl be nice to see more of a use go to the deleted inactives...

This doesn't work too well for standard server.

i agree. to add onto athight's point, the speed at which players grow should be taken into,account. on extreme, for instance, lots of small inactives would be worthwhile hitting, because 1. fleet movement is MUCH faster 2. resource production is a magnitude higher. this combines to provide tons of farms everywhere. [i started extreme a while back and i can already raid after a couple weeks more than in standard BEFORE the inactive deletion began. :/

compare this to standard. here, the most dedicated players take a number of months to grow into good farms. a player who plays for, say, 50 hours on extreme will become what would be a good farm here. in standard, it would take much longer.

now, lemme take athight's cycle and put in names. of the farms, i remember: deathpula, miajuliana, tuncay being deleted. meanwhile, butchart, shadeslayer, khan and harkon go inactive. but who has grown to replace the actives? now, we have gained temporarily in farms... but how long will it take to replace the four actives who become farms? i think most had played for a very long time... right now good farms are deleted and actives become farms faster, than actives who are potential farms are replaced.


i have been talking with an alliance leader. his alliance is happily raiding but as soon as drj moved over they began to worry, quite understandably. now, consider if very few farms were left. bigger players would be able to raid those few much more easily, alongside zero-score players. it would be incredibly hard to catch up, EVEN if all the bigger players didn't raid for a long time. in this sceenario, there would be no realistic hope for the newer players to catch up, or, frankly, any larger player who got crashed. if it is harder to raid to recover resources [they got crashed. how will they crash others?] how can anyone crashed hope to fight off a larger fleeter?


if the admin's goal is to prevent overcrowding [not a problem yet], i have a different proposal. every inactive gets deleted, BASED on their score. so basically, the higher your points, the longer it takes to be deleted. then score zero-es are deleted quickly, while farms have time to be replaced.


as for pvp, yes, it may be the admin's desire to run a game filled with pvp, but is it realistic? lets think now, what happens when someone gets crashed or hit a lot? butchart and khan i am sure quit because of repeated hammering. if there were no inactives or barely any you would have lots of fighting - the big fleets wiping out everyone else, who would then start quitting. even when raiding was easy lots of people quit when hit, but if there is little remaining way to recover why bother? yes, new blood would come in, but they would realize they are outgunned with no realistic way to catch up. a battle would be all it would take to make them quit. the eventual result: after a flurry of battles [what zorg likely wants] a humongous player dwarfing gozar in extreme, with almost no other axtive players [likely not something zorg wants]


my proposal is stuck up above [and i do this on a gaming device, not a computer :/ ] so i will quickly restate my proposal to save myself lots of work

delete actives with a sliding scale: the more points they have, the longer it takes to delete them.

consider account switching, it happens, its allowed, when accounts would be deleted, why not just store those with 10k+ points and run a weekly competition to the newbies to allow them to obtain these accounts.

allows fast growth for smaller players and wipes inactives. (obviously some kind of system would need to be devised, but i recall that there is an in-game account switching implemented in extreme? could be built it off that)
thus killing two stones with one bird.

Both ideas (Above) from athight and ach have considerable merit and would benefit the game in general. If admin is listening they should seriously think about these suggestions.

The sliding scale is a realistice and simple remedy. Nice suggestion ACH. Thanks Athight and Dr.J for chiming in.

Overcrowding is not a problem. Over-inactivity is.

I understand that it is quite handy to have plenty of food nearby. This however makes the game dull and boring as there are thousands of battles taking place against inactives while people ask why no one even spies them. You want to raid? Raid some active players or at least create new bases.

Keeping the farm due to their size is a no. If we ever wanted to implement this, we would implement it in reverse from what you are suggesting: Big farms leave first.

If you want nice big farms, farm an active player instead.

again zorg you are wrong
players decide will the raid active players or will the raid all day along inactive players
some players dont wanna attatc at all active players
the wanna just build lots buidings ,defense,research and fleets .
there decision is

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g343/Akatcuki/Peinxd2323555.jpg

They can still attack 6-month old inactive players (for now). So your argument has a counter already. I don't see where the problem lies.

The only realistic argument is that some people are used to attacking specific inactive players for a long time now. Planet-farms that yield a high enough income. And now they are afraid of losing it.

But this is not healthy for the game so what is not healthy for the game, is removed as eventually it will harm everyone involved.