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.

[Titor]

stats

This is a sample set I can more adeptly understand using, so I appreciate you going back through newer wards as well.
I do agree there may be some inactive, but even if we completely remove the unoccupied houses, it will not solve the greater problem, they will fill in a week or two and we will be back to where we are now, without relying on the fragile crutch of removing from current inactives.

I still firmly stand by my prior idea of evicting inactive players to their own instanced plot (The house size/layout/items will remain the same) and freeing up the visible wards to active players. If the inactive player returns they can access their instanced house as much as they want (have friends over even) and have the option to place it down in a ward if a warded plot opens. If having the ward/community feel is very important to them, they can focus on getting their house back down. But a lot of players, myself included, would be perfectly fine with and happy with an instanced house.

I do not believe that the house should be completely removed and inaccessible to them due to RL situations. The houses are a huge Gil/Time investment to both obtain and decorate it, up to 90m for the raw plot, and likely 110m+ with furnishings and the like.

No matter the amount of time someone goes inactive, I do not think that this time and effort should be completely removed from them. A housing voucher for a plot is not a solution either as that just drives up demand for plots.