player degredation over time

[Anthraxus]

It was suggested in the chat that players should lose one level from a randomly selected stat each month that the account is not played.  This would not be retroactive, but would apply going forward. 

So if a player played today (12/6), and then didn't do anything in the game until 1/7, during reset on the 7th, that player would lose 1 level from a random stat.  This would happen again each month, until that player comes back and plays or is zeroed out again.

A possible limit to this might be to only apply it to players with a stat total above, say, 15.  This will leave newbies alone, but wear down the higher end players that have stopped playing to make them potentially viable targets for lower/mid-range players.

There should also be an option for a player to turn on a vacation flag.  I would see this working as, if your vacation flag is on, the first month that you would normally lose a stat, your vacation flag gets turned off instead.  then the second month you would degrade again.

The potential downside on this is that the most likely people to pick up the degraded and thus more vulnerable settlements are those 30/30 players that are still active.  I don't know that it would be possible for enough time to pass for newbies to actually have a shot at them before they would get grabbed back up by an active player they don't have a chance against.

[nigey]

To give newbies a chance, would it be better to halve the defence stats of any player who has not been active for six months?

[Anthraxus]

I don't know about halving them.  Maybe, since they are automatically purged after 18 months, every 3 months they have a guaranteed loss of 5 defense.  This would mean that if they have max defense, that will be reduced to 5 for the last three months, if they haven't randomly lost an additional level or two off it from the month degradation.

It should also be made clear that these losses would only apply to inactive players.  as long as you log in and make at least one move each month, it doesn't touch you at all.

[e76]

Sounds like a good idea to me though isn't there already a process in which players who haven't been playing for a while have their accounts deleted? I don't remember the length of time for that.

[Anthraxus]

I don't remember the length of time for that.

As stated in the above post it is 18 months.

[e76]

Sorry, missed that somehow.

[davidbugs]

If they haven't log in once a month.

They will lose 2 attack Level  and Two  DEFENSE  EVERY MONTH  . and they lost of status as alliance too.

IF they do make 500  moves per month   It will be ok.

This site is dying everyday.

We need some seriously activity.  This site is getting boring.

Get rid of the alliance.  So everybody can attack each other.  It will be the same playing field.

[e76]

Get rid of the alliance.  So everybody can attack each other.  It will be the same playing field.

That works for me.

[QueenSheba]

I think this suggestion should be re-visited. It may make players who have not played for a time have to log in at least once a month to keep their stats. I also think the stat should be their defense stat only that reduces by 1 per month.

[davidbugs]

I think this suggestion should be re-visited. It may make players who have not played for a time have to log in at least once a month to keep their stats. I also think the stat should be their defense stat only that reduces by 1 per month.

They should both attack and Defense each 2.   They can't join another alliance too for 30 days.   So it gave all other newbie to move up the ranking.

So they have  move up once again.  It is going be hard.

[benh7777]

I like this idea, but I don't think now would be the time to make it happen. There is still interest from veteran players, they still come back to see what is going on in the game from time to time. Once they start losing their stats they will finally give up on the game for good.

If you were ever to decide to inject life into the game again and give players a reason to play, I wouldn't see a problem. I just don't see this being an incentive to bring more play.