Why Removing Houses from inactive is NOT a solution.

[Titor]

Sample size 90; Goblet, Lavender Beds, Mist; Ward 3 1-30.

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.

They fill with new active players (probably within the first week!)

Now pretty much all the housing is active players, and everyone knows if they unsubscribe for a bit they lose their house, which means housing owners are going to continue remaining active to keep their house, and fewer will be lost due to inactive relinquishment.

What now!?