Why Removing Houses from inactive is NOT a solution.

[BunnyChain]

This is extreme extrapolation/data bias. If you only took 1-30 from from ward 3, then yes, you are sampling the most likely to be inactive wards (ward 3 non subdivision is one of the oldest wards, which seems to be your sample)

By sure subscription decay, wards 1-6 non subdivision are most likely to have the largest number of 'inactive' players. Since wards 7-8 and all the subdivisions came out more recently, one would expect the number of inactive players to go down. Plus you did not state your criteria for judging 'inactive'. If you just started observing recently, within the past month, that is not even within the proper time range for housing relinquishment anyway.

Even if your number is correct-- Great! 181 plots open up.

If you want to know I've checked a couple more, in the new Ward as you proposed.

Judgement criteria:

• no class above 50
• not unlocked any of the 3 new jobs
• no HW minions

Sample size 90; Lavender Beds, Mist and Goblet; Ward 8 31-60

Likely to be inactive: 17 (Lavender Beds 7-8, Mist 4 and Goblet 6-10) [fulfilling all 3 criteria]
Less likely to be inactive: 5 (some seem to have quit shortly after HW, e.g. having any of the above criteria but not much progress after that)

Taking only the more likely inactive characters/FCs into account = 15.3%

Reason for the increased number is likely to be the higher amount of personal houses in the new wards.

Wards checked and date:
180 @ 06-03-2015
90 @ 24-08-2015 (30 in ward 3 were checked earlier @ 06-03-2015, number increased)
90 @ 25-08-2015 (30 in ward 8 were checked earlier @ 06-03-2015, number increased)
Total sample size 300.