Inactive cities and map spread of active cities

When looking at the map the world looks quite alive, tons of cities all over.

Diablito wrote: When looking at the map the world looks quite alive, tons of cities all over. The problem is however, that the majority of these cities are abandoned two hut affairs that aren't part of the game, making the above statement not so much a fact, but an illusion. Active cities are spread by significant distances and only a few players have active players directly next door, this I think, is quite a shame. So I suggest, deleting cities after a certain point, leaving room for new cities to take root int heir place. I do have some active chaps not too far from me where I am, but I still think the game would greatly benefit if there was less "dead" map space.

Whilst we would prefer that players stay in the game (and are working hard on making the new player experience better, with an ingame Tutorial and support for 1024x768 screen resolution), we know that players will decide it's not their cup of tea and leave.

We are looking at automating a system whereby an inactive town gets cleared away after a set period of time. 

We're thinking that after 2 weeks of no growth and no login, we mail the player with a "Come back, 1 week notice" message, and after a further 7 days without a login, we delete the account (and mail the player again).  This would then open up the spot for a new player to settle a city at the same location.

Does this work?

Regards,

while, dammit, i agree in principle with daiboliticoalololol, one issue i understood was that as more people joined they joined further from the centre of the map, therefore protecting them form the developed people in the centre of the map.

wouldnt this go against this theory?

does this theory even exist?

Bow