Warrior General Games

-1

If the dots are paid for by the users, then the users should be the ones to retire them. If a user logs back in after a long while, they should be able to find their dots and decide what to do with them.

Originally posted by mandyross
-1

If the dots are paid for by the users, then the users should be the ones to retire them. If a user logs back in after a long while, they should be able to find their dots and decide what to do with them.


If an account has one unboosted dot, then the user didn't pay for it. If the user hasn't logged in since 2008 to 2010 they aren't coming back.

Most inactive users only have one dot.

Originally posted by daryls61
Using the search function, there seems to be over 400,000 dots who are over 639 days old, are not even remotely usable and their agents are inactive. Some reasons to mass retire these:

- None are on teams. I selected show only free agents
- Not sure what already active exactly means when you create a player but I would think these dots are included in that calculation and throw off the neediness of a position.
- These dots are basically useless. Retiring them and returning flex to the agent does not seem to do any harm.
- From a business standpoint I doubt this is a positive. Companies purge inactive users all the time. I am only proposing purging useless dots. The agents can remain even if they seem to not be coming back.
- I do not believe Bort ever said this was NGTH. I know he said he was not going to delete inactive agent accounts but I do not believe he ever mentioned his thoughts on this topic.

I do not know if these are good enough reasons for you to get on board with this but using the same process, I estimate there are about 88,000 active dots. These are dots that are not in decline and presumably being managed by active agents. The issue seems to be worse that I first thought.


+100000000

That hit the nail on the head. 400 fucking thousand inactive dots??? That's 4x our active user base!!

They gone...

I want to call my dot "Weed Smoker"...

Originally posted by daryls61
Using the search function, there seems to be over 400,000 dots who are over 639 days old, are not even remotely usable and their agents are inactive. Some reasons to mass retire these:

- None are on teams. I selected show only free agents
- Not sure what already active exactly means when you create a player but I would think these dots are included in that calculation and throw off the neediness of a position.
- These dots are basically useless. Retiring them and returning flex to the agent does not seem to do any harm.
- From a business standpoint I doubt this is a positive. Companies purge inactive users all the time. I am only proposing purging useless dots. The agents can remain even if they seem to not be coming back.
- I do not believe Bort ever said this was NGTH. I know he said he was not going to delete inactive agent accounts but I do not believe he ever mentioned his thoughts on this topic.

I do not know if these are good enough reasons for you to get on board with this but using the same process, I estimate there are about 88,000 active dots. These are dots that are not in decline and presumably being managed by active agents. The issue seems to be worse that I first thought.


The reason they don't want to do this is because it will bring a harsh realization upon the few GLB fanboys left. Reminds me of some other browser games that tout hundreds of thousands or even millions of users when if fact there are a couple thousand people still playing.

Originally posted by Dub J
The reason they don't want to do this is because it will bring a harsh realization upon the few GLB fanboys left. Reminds me of some other browser games that tout hundreds of thousands or even millions of users when if fact there are a couple thousand people still playing.



This makes sense but my suggestion is to just retire the unusable dots, not to eliminate any users. If they ever return, they will have flex and can start building dots again.

Originally posted by We_Rule
Every time I see one of these thread titles, I'm like fuck yeah +1........ right up until I read the OPs reasoning. It isn't because it would free up server space, it isn't because it would better reflect how many real users there are here, it isn't to get a better gauge on how many active players there are on a team, etc.

It is because every one of these OPs are not creative enough to come up with a unique name.

If it is only because you want to be the 4001st Adrian Peterson, then big -1...... use some imagination, get a clue. If it is because of the reasons above, or maybe a better one I can't think of, then big +1........

THIS

+500. so many good reasons for it.

Originally posted by daryls61
This makes sense but my suggestion is to just retire the unusable dots, not to eliminate any users. If they ever return, they will have flex and can start building dots again.

Thats the thing, if they come back from being inactive from S28 back to S1 their dots are obselete and will have to be retired. You might get away with S28 player, but they will be behind the age bracket and no where near as good.

I don't no how I would feel logging back in after being inactive to all my players gone and the flex tbh. I would probably wonder if the flex was refunded properly, and wonder if someone hacked the account.

I would however be okay with retiring all the multi account players, since those accounts are closed anyway. Not all multis have dots but the ones who do haven't been retired lols.

Originally posted by mandyross
-1

If the dots are paid for by the users, then the users should be the ones to retire them. If a user logs back in after a long while, they should be able to find their dots and decide what to do with them.


They could always email support.

Users inactive for over 12 months should have their accounts suspended, if after another 12 months they dont come back, have them deleted.

If you are inactive for 2 years, you didnt care that much in the first place. GLB should have the right to their own servers and a policy where they can clear up the free room if they need it.

Originally posted by cymaddux31
Originally posted by mandyross

-1

If the dots are paid for by the users, then the users should be the ones to retire them. If a user logs back in after a long while, they should be able to find their dots and decide what to do with them.


They could always email support.

Users inactive for over 12 months should have their accounts suspended, if after another 12 months they dont come back, have them deleted.

If you are inactive for 2 years, you didnt care that much in the first place. GLB should have the right to their own servers and a policy where they can clear up the free room if they need it.

What you're talking about is def NGTH, admins said that much long ago.

Originally posted by JcWildcat
I don't no how I would feel logging back in after being inactive to all my players gone and the flex tbh. I would probably wonder if the flex was refunded properly, and wonder if someone hacked the account.

I would however be okay with retiring all the multi account players, since those accounts are closed anyway. Not all multis have dots but the ones who do haven't been retired lols.

I am sure a message can be sent to these agents accounts explaining what happened and how much flex was refunded. In theory, if the agent returns, they are going to do this anyway. In my suggestion, it is just being done for them.

Originally posted by JcWildcat
[What you're talking about is def NGTH, admins said that much long ago.


True, but back then there weren't 400,000 useless dots cluttering up the site's statistics about "available players". I wonder what the Admins would think of that, and whether a change of heart would be in order?

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

True, but back then there weren't 400,000 useless dots cluttering up the site's statistics about "available players". I wonder what the Admins would think of that, and whether a change of heart would be in order?



You just defeated your own argument when you said "True".