Taking in mind game-play and probable personal reasons that may drive a player to inactivity, the next deletion cycle will be different than current one. Most probably, the full criteria will be as following:
-Any player with 100 points or less, who has been inactive for 45 days or more -> Deleted
-Any player with 100 000 points or less, who has been inactive for 180 days -> Deleted
-Any player with 100 000 points or more, who has been inactive for 45 days or more -> VMODE
-Any player with 100 000 points or more, who has been in inactive/VMODE for 180 days or more -> Deleted

Any player that has 50 rubies or more -> Put in vmode for inactivity of 30 days or more. Such players won't be deleted.

I find myself of a quite favorable disposition towards most of such criteria -

As it is certainly clearly stated in rules that inactive accounts may be deleted after 45 days unless ruby laden, I cannot take issue with such deletion. As it seems to be manual, rather than automatic, my concern has been with its sudden nature - since any sudden deletion allows surprise lanxing, and a surprise interruption of schedules and routines that some players have meticulously planned.

The new criteria seems to make allowances for this, and I'm grateful for the gesture.

For the ruby laden to be put into v-mode after some period of inactivity furthermore remedies another concern I have seen expressed, which is that of some shifting rubies into favored inactive farms to keep them alive and retain competitive advantage. I'm grateful this is being addressed.

Remaining concerns:

1)

-Any player with 100 000 points or more, who has been inactive for 45 days or more -> VMODE

This worries me. My concern is that this provides a competitive advantage to fleeters vice miners and turtles.

For, where Zorg has argued the following:

The game is not about FREE food though but it is about conquest. If you want lots of free food, you need to create it with your all mighty fleet.

-

It has previously been suggested that all styles of play within the game are encouraged. The note currently being sounded seems one that we should all be fleeters. Why not allow those dormant accounts not ruby laden to remain 'raidable' until point of deletion? I may be well off base in what I surmise could prove its impact on game-play - but, if so, then I do hope to learn why?

Many thanks.

Responding to Zorg's post in the other thread No open discussion of moderation action please.-DR:

Some myth busting and facts:
-It is a false interpretation that hitting new players drives them away. You cannot after all farm a new player for a reasonable time as he is in protection.
-It is a false interpretation that players will leave because they will have no food. Players will have food and there always be food. The truth is that there will be less FREE food. The game is not about FREE food though but it is about conquest. If you want lots of free food, you need to create it with your all mighty fleet.

-So what happens when that player comes out of protection and immediately starts getting farmed?
-I've seen a number of people quit when their fleets are blown up. If there's no way to get easy food to rebuild fleets, what incentive do they have to try again?

Zorg Empire has always been deleting inactive players. Deletion of inactive players is useful for the following reasons:
-It defeats any "planned" inactivity. Some people may "create" inactive accounts nearby them in order to have free food. While we investigate such cases, it is always the best way to delete them in bulk.
-It frees up space in galaxy for newcomers.
-If frees up server resources. While we have worked hard on it (Massacre had more than 7500 players in the game) and we have managed to create a back-end that can support thousands of users per universe, it is still always better to have less players in.

-That's like using a sledgehammer as a scalpel.
-Fair point.
-So get rid of the truly useless inactives and leave the food. There's not more than 500 truly useful inactives per universe.

Taking in mind game-play and probable personal reasons that may drive a player to inactivity, the next deletion cycle will be different than current one. Most probably, the full criteria will be as following:
-Any player with 100 points or less, who has been inactive for 45 days or more -> Deleted
-Any player with 100 000 points or less, who has been inactive for 180 days -> Deleted
-Any player with 100 000 points or more, who has been inactive for 45 days or more -> VMODE
-Any player with 100 000 points or more, who has been in inactive/VMODE for 180 days or more -> Deleted

Oh Lord this is even worse. Less than 100 I agree with, they have no use. 100k or less barely have use, I'm fine with that; gives a period to raid them for what little can be grabbed and then they're gone too.

But putting the useful inactives with built-up mines into permanent v-mode? This way there is absolutely NO food as opposed to slightly LESS food. Right now it's still possible to raid inactives and get back in the game after a fleet-crash. Under the proposed guidelines, it'll be impossible to get back in and rebuild.

I suggest the following criterion:

-Any player with 100 points or less, who has been inactive for 45 days or more -> Deleted
-Any player with 100 000 points or less, who has been inactive for 180 days -> Deleted
-Any player with 100 000 points or more -> Not deleted.
-Any player with 50 rubies or more -> Not deleted.

These criterion remove the useless inactives and free up the server, while keeping the useful inactives and thus providing a way for people who get fleet-crashed to claw their way back in.

well put all i can say is +1

First of all, there is no such thing as manual deletion. Please quit trolling or get your facts straight; there is no way to manually delete 1500 to 3000 accounts in a few seconds (per universe).

Secondly and frankly speaking, discussing so heavily the inactive cleansing policy is misleading. You give the impression that this is one of the game's most important aspects. I mean come on, its a standard procedure that always happened and always will. Not to mention that the universes still have a whole lot of players (Massacre has 3900 players right now and 2000 more are expected till end of August. I mean how many players you need to feel alright?)

If there is one reason we want to keep inactive accounts alive, is to give the opportunity to inactive players to come back sometime and not to maintain golden paradise farms for any players.

Asking us to keep these golden paraside farms with the big fat cows in it, is like asking us for a feature "Hey guys, why don't we put a big fat cow in each system ?" Surely such an idea will solve all the problems you call on in your arguments.

This is not the spirit of the game. This is a competitive game and it has NOTHING to do with PLAYING STYLES. -Unless if you want to tell me that your style is raiding inactives. Well, you can be this -this is how great game ZE is- but you cannot hope that your golden farms will be there forever; and when they are gone, you can always search for more; sorry, we won't send you a new list.

So bottom line, just like inactive players are part of the game, just like this inactive players removal is part of the game. Always been, always will.

Zorg wrote:First of all, there is no such thing as manual deletion. Please quit trolling or get your facts straight; there is no way to manually delete 1500 to 3000 accounts in a few seconds (per universe).

I regret offending you. My hope was not to troll. I by no means intended to suggest that one could or would one by one delete each of these thousands, but rather to suggest that a decision for such cleaning was made. I had assumed that a cleaning function, script or program was manually activated. It seems this assumption was erroneous - I did not realize, and I apologize.

My goal was not to question the cleaning of inactives, per se. That is a necessity, I agree. The suggestion was made to bring discussion here should there be additional concerns or questions we might have. My own pertained to v-mode for certain inactives. I failed to convey what I had hoped to convey. Please pardon me - the fault in my failure to communicate is certainly mine.

Zorg wrote:. -Unless if you want to tell me that your style is raiding inactives.

that is my style Zorg as a farmer of inactives.

Zorg wrote:First of all, there is no such thing as manual deletion. Please quit trolling or get your facts straight; there is no way to manually delete 1500 to 3000 accounts in a few seconds (per universe).

Secondly and frankly speaking, discussing so heavily the inactive cleansing policy is misleading. You give the impression that this is one of the game's most important aspects. I mean come on, its a standard procedure that always happened and always will. Not to mention that the universes still have a whole lot of players (Massacre has 3900 players right now and 2000 more are expected till end of August. I mean how many players you need to feel alright?)

If there is one reason we want to keep inactive accounts alive, is to give the opportunity to inactive players to come back sometime and not to maintain golden paradise farms for any players.

Asking us to keep these golden paraside farms with the big fat cows in it, is like asking us for a feature "Hey guys, why don't we put a big fat cow in each system ?" Surely such an idea will solve all the problems you call on in your arguments.

This is not the spirit of the game. This is a competitive game and it has NOTHING to do with PLAYING STYLES. -Unless if you want to tell me that your style is raiding inactives. Well, you can be this -this is how great game ZE is- but you cannot hope that your golden farms will be there forever; and when they are gone, you can always search for more; sorry, we won't send you a new list.

So bottom line, just like inactive players are part of the game, just like this inactive players removal is part of the game. Always been, always will.

First off, I'm not trying to troll. I apologize if that's the way it's coming across. I'm just trying to help reach a compromise that leaves the useful inactives while addressing other concerns, as the removal of those inactives would result in me not liking the game so much anymore.

What I meant by the scalpel/sledgehammer analogy is that it seems that the way this is being handled is very heavy-handed. Your solution would have all inactives gone or inaccessible eventually. I understand some of the reasons behind this, but not all inactives are useless as has been said.

Now then, on to the meat of this post. Whether or not you're willing to accept it, raiding inactives has become a playstyle. I think it's a sign of a well-made game when players are able to find new strategies that were not originally realized by the developers. You continually say there's 3 playstyles: Mining, Fleeting, and Turtling. I say this is no longer the case; Raiding has become a playstyle as well. There are many empires who have been built with this playstyle, my own included. Was it a style originally? No. Is it now? Yes.

Frankly saying something is against the spirit of the game is bull****. The spirit of the game is what the players make it. The players have made raiding inactives a part of the game. It was not the original spirit of the game. But the spirit of a game should be malleable, as it was here.

I am fine with removing certain sectors of inactives for the reasons of clearing space, both for new players and on the server. I am NOT fine with removing inactives because the spirit of the game has changed and you want it to be like the olden days.

Two final remarks: First, I'm a member of the Standard Universe. We don't have nearly so many players as that, and even fewer incoming. Second, if removing inactives was part of the game and always was, this wouldn't be a problem; the style would never have risen. Suspending the removal of inactives led to the rise of this playstyle, and the horses are out of the barn now. Trying to put them back in will only lead to dissension.

First of all, the trolling remark was directed to Nuada who explained himself so all is fine.

I personally discern 5 styles; miner, fleeter, turtle, raider, destructor. And I am always open to discern more while I personally play none of the above but a mix of them (when I try a universe, as I do not play anywhere right now).

Raiding was always highly anticipated by the dev team and if you check our implementations after the release of Speed universe, they were all targeted how to make raiding easier (like quick links on espionage message, galaxy menu, etc). Raiding style is also incorporated as a General in forthcoming generals universe. So in a way, we are promoting raiding and there has been some criticism for it.

Raiding inactives has always been a sport, its not a new trend. As a player, I have been through the same incident and I too found it a terrible thing to happen. But on second thought, it was too convenient. Excess convenience leads to imbalance.

Finally, regarding styles, as developers, we want to enrich them. We want to add more. We want to give more strategic options. In no way we want to keep to few options.

Regarding Standard, where you play; 2745 users right now and 73 users joined in the last 24hours. Standard is ranked 2nd in the Register page, which means it gets the 2nd biggest bulk of new signups so it is expected to exceed 1500 new signups till the end of August. Which makes us a total of 4000 players.

My reason of being so actively involved in this discussion is because I enjoy the arguments so far. I am always positive for constructive discussion; disagreements will happen. Pardon my aggressive and absolute stance; this does not mean that your concerns are not recorded or used. In contrary, we take in mind everything.

There is also another clue we need to take in mind; we have not planned to experience that large number of inactives. The soar of social networks and the appearance of all kind of (silly for me) social games (which keep you attached for a month, but a FULL month) has caused problems in the traditional independent games industry, such as ourselves.

In the end, we will survive; but you got to realize that we are already giving a tough fight with newcomers retention rates being very poor.

that being said about new comers ..you are taking the main source of food for new comers away.. they can not crash fleats or raid actives so they rely on on inactives to grow to the point where it becomes fun... now they have only waiting on their mines which will drive them to move on ... just my opinion... the way i see it is no matter how you look at iit the way things are becoming i see nothing to work towards i aim for the top and now without the inactive farms it will be impossable to catch the top players and i have always farmed active players and crashed fleets to grow but i see the ONLY ones who will benifit from this is the one already on top now they went from hard to catch to nearly imposable... just my thoughts

hey chuck. there is always a way to catch up with the top, it takes time to catch up though. and about the newbies. there are also plenty of inactives if they know where to look. there is also the pulling for newbies. there is also a ninja that can turn the tides to the defenders favor and collecting yummy DF. A strategy game, cooperation game. and a time base game.