Rathulfr

Agreed: the formula is indeed more complex. But I think we can simplify it even further by applying it to only those accounts are that are idle/inactive. Personally, I'm not a fan of the announced policy as it currently stands, for the reasons I've already stated. If I'm an active account, I don't feel like I should have to logon or level infrequently played characters. I'll do so if that's the way the policy ultimately shakes out when all is said and done, of course. But all has not yet been said, and nothing has yet been done, so I'll keep campaigning for my preference, as everyone else here is entitled to do so, as well. Peace, friend. I appreciate your contributions to the conversation.

Agreed: no offense to those who have proposed formulae -- I laud their efforts to address the topic. But if we just clearly split the difference between accounts that are "active" versus "idle", then we need no formula more complex than: If (Last Logon Date > One Year Ago) Then {Account = Idle}.

Things have gone pretty far afield here. The facts are these: There is X number of character accounts, each with Y number of named characters. For the moment, those names are reserved to those accounts, forever. Last year, the HC team indicated that there will be a naming policy that releases character name reservations under certain conditions. However, that naming policy is not currently effective. They indicated that they will announce when they decide to start enforcing that policy. In this thread, the HC team indicated that they will not announce nor enforce the policy until they feel it's bullet-proof. In the meantime, all names are reserved to those who got them first, forever. The OP and others in this thread indicated that they'd like to see the policy activated and enforced. Some of us in this thread have suggested changes to the announced policy before it is implemented. There's one set of commenters who think the announced name policy should be applied to idle characters. In this case, "idle" is defined as characters of a certain level that have not entered the game within a certain period of time (as described in the announced name policy). This would allow other players to create new characters with those names, instead. This could be considered the "use it or lose it rule". There's another set of commenters who think the announced name policy should be applied to idle accounts. In this case, "idle" is defined as accounts that have not logged into the game at all, on any character, within a certain period of time (such as 1 year). This is the policy that was in effect during retail: the name policy applied to inactive accounts, i.e., those without an active subscription or any other account activity within the past 90 days [source]. This could be considered the "show up or lose it rule". Personally, I'm in the latter category (accounts). I think the criteria should be based on account activity, not character logon time. If I'm an active player (meaning I logon at least once a year), then it shouldn't matter if I've got some oddball characters I only play once a year (e.g.: holiday-themed characters). If I'm an active player, I shouldn't be forced to level all of my alts to 50 to keep their names forever. I've got low-level alts that I keep at low-levels for specific reasons, and don't play all that frequently. But I'm still an active account. But if I'm not an active player -- I haven't or won't log on in over a year -- why should I get to keep my character names forever? Why would it make any difference to me or anyone else? If I'm not playing the game, why should I take precedence over others who do? I provided an example where I brought a casual friend to the game last year, and he named a character "Florida Man", and played him up to about level 9. I asked him if he ever planned on playing again, and he said, "Nah." Now nobody else can ever play "Florida Man", even though this casual friend hasn't played (and won't) since May 2019. I also know that there are several retail veterans who found out about Homecoming way later than spring/summer of 2019, and they'd love to play their original characters again. But they can't, because others have taken their retail names. Now if those others are still playing the game today, more power to them: first come, first served. But if some of those others are not still playing -- and haven't played in more than a X period of time (1 year) -- why deny those returning players their original names, if they could be made available? Why punish active players for the sake of idle/departed players? Anyone reading or participating in this thread probably has nothing to fear. If you care enough to be reading the forums, you're probably active enough to be exempt from the announced name policy. The only players whose character names are at risk are those who: (a) don't bother to read the announcements/patch notes in the first place, (b) don't bother to logon to play low-level toons, or (c) aren't logging on at all anyway.

I'd be delighted to get a negative response. I've asked for negative responses in my e-mails. I don't care if the recipient cusses me out a blue streak a mile wide to say "Hell, NO!" At least that would be a response. I've tried /tell, /gfriend, and in-game e-mails. I've yet to receive a single response. Not ONE response. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. I've a short list of global names that I try every quarter or so. I've never gotten anything back, ever. This thread reminded me that it has been a few months since my last round, so I just sent another batch of /tells and mails. Let's see what happens.

To me, it doesn't matter if the characters are idle, as long as your account is active. If you're actively playing the game, logging on at least once per year, then you have nothing to fear. Nobody should swoop your names, even if you haven't played a particular character since April of 2019. My complaint -- which I don't think is unreasonable -- is accounts that haven't been played in over a year getting to keep character names they aren't using anyway. Hell, I'd even grant them the privilege of keeping their level 50 character names forever, if it would allow for the release of other names below 50.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm discussing a logical conclusion from the circumstances at hand. I think you're being absurd. Player accounts exist. Character names exist. Character names are reserved. If you wanted to name a character "Rathstar" right now on any of the 5 shards, you could not, because I have characters named "Rathstar" on all 5 shards. And they will continue to exist as long as this instance of the game exists. If I decided to stop playing this instance of the game right now, "Rathstar" would never be available to anyone else, ever, unless/until the HC team decides to start enforcing their published name policy. There's no conspiracy theory here. There's no accusations. There's just facts of what is. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Are you saying that there are not names reserved on accounts that are idle? You're asking me to produce evidence of something to which I do not have direct visibility, but can only infer from logical conclusions. Logically: Player accounts exist (Homecoming has published data that indicate this is the case). The existence of player characters require player accounts. Player characters require names. Any character names associated with specific player accounts may not be used by any other player accounts. Consequently, specific character names are reserved by specific player accounts. So the only question that remains, but is not immediately visible, is: which accounts are "active" versus "idle". Distinguishing between the two is just a matter of defining criteria for each category. I am suggesting that any player accounts with logon activity recorded within the past 365 days would be "active", and any player accounts with logon activity no more recent than 365 days should be considered "idle". Subsequently, any character names reserved by the latter accounts are therefore also "inactive". Or are you just being argumentative for the sake of being dismissive?

The problem isn't "running out of names". The problem is names that are locked behind idle accounts. Many of us here had character names we loved back in retail, and when we came to Homecoming, we were dismayed to discover that they had been taken by others. Now all's fair in love and war, and it's one thing if we were unlucky enough to have missed our opportunity by being late to the party. That's fair enough. But it's been almost two years now (April 2019 was over 18 months ago), and most of the initial surge of returning players have come and gone (as evidenced by the number of active players visible on the status page at any given moment). Is it fair that many of those long-gone players get to keep their unused names forever? The proposal here is to simply start enforcing the published name policy (or some variation thereof), to unreserve names that are locked behind idle accounts. The proposal is that active accounts should get priority over idle accounts, where the definition of "idle" is liberally defined as "no logon in over 1 year". Of course, there should be adequate notification to inform idle accounts of any pending actions, using patch notes, launcher text, Discord messages, and e-mail notifications (all accounts have corresponding e-mail addresses). Additionally, players with idle accounts who cannot logon by the chosen deadline date (TBD) should have the option to open a support ticket via forum or e-mail to request an exemption/bypass. In other words: set the policy, announce the policy, enforce the policy. Give all players the opportunity to act/respond by a specified deadline before action is taken. Active accounts would automatically be exempt from the policy, as well as any others who specifically request exemptions. That would leave only those accounts who choose not to act/respond by the deadline subject to effects of the policy. Is that fair enough? (edit) BTW: If it's a matter of manpower, I volunteer to assist. Point me towards where I can sign up to help, if only for this one specific task. I'm an IT guy by profession, having managed Active Directory for over 20 years. I'm intimately familiar with identity management systems, so this kind of thing is right up my alley.

Which is why there should be a mechanism for such players to open a support ticket and request a reservation. "Hey, I'm in the military and have been deployed to Latveria for the next 18 months. Can you please exempt @ProudToServe from the name reservation policy until I get back? Thanks!" Problem solved. This is why I think that 1 year/12 months/365 of account inactivity should be the minimum threshold. If you can't logon once a year, you can at least open a ticket or send an e-mail or something. I can't imagine that anyone deployed anywhere for any length of time couldn't manage a singe contact effort (but I could be wrong -- I've never been military).

Unfortunately, the current game engine doesn't support that, so we have to live with what we got. There was a lot of discussion of this back in retail, and the devs basically said they cannot do that with the current tech, period. Since today's tech is technically the same as yesterday's tech, that option is off the table. In fact, that was one of the very first things they made a priority when they built Champions Online (CO), which has completely different tech underneath that supports that naming convention.

/em shakes his grumpy old man fist ineffectually. Back in my day... TFs were multi session affairs you had to do with the same group... And we liked it! /em harrumphs and unwraps a butterscotch hard candy from the crystal bowl on the side table next to the ancient divan.

I agree with the first sentence. I don't understand the second sentence. Who's "encouraging the slave labor to work faster"? I never said that? I appreciate how well the HC team communicates and performs. If I could pay them, I would. I don't think anyone is cracking a whip here (so to speak): we're just discussing a suggestion and encouraging change. Nobody has set any deadlines?

I'm not publicly sharing the names I want, in case readers of this thread decide to camp them. 😣

Agreed, which is why I think there should also be e-mail notifications. You had to submit an e-mail to get an account in the first place, so it's not unreasonable to expect to get e-mail occasionally, even if it's only once a year. That said, while you can't expect 100% communication about everything, you also can't let that impede progress or change. We can make a best effort to communicate as broadly as possible, and then move on, regardless if a few missed the information. In fact, the new launcher makes it impossible to miss communication from the HC dev team. Which leads us back to the only folks who might miss the communication entirely are those who don't play the game or read their e-mails.

If you got one message about it, I'd expect you might blow it off. But if you got repeated messages from the same person on the same topic over an extended period of time, wouldn't you reply if you were even casually active? Wouldn't you at least reply: "stop bugging me"? Over the past year, I've repeatedly tried contacting several @globals for a handful of names, and have NEVER gotten ANY response. This tells me I'm either /gignored or the players are long gone.

You're not mistaken. Even if they turned on the name retention effective Jan. 1, 2021, there's no guarantee that the desired names will be available. However, this isn't just about the names. It's about managing expectations and addressing a perceived problem. The perceived problem is this: "I can't get the name I want because it's reserved. I've tried contacting/emailing the @global and never get any response. Therefore, the name is reserved by someone who doesn't even play any more. Why should they get to keep the name forever, if they're not even playing the game? I'm going to complain about this on the forums." By actively enforcing the policy, the perceived problem changes to: "I can't get the name I want now because it's reserved. At least I know I can try again in X days/months because it won't be reserved forever (unless it's a 50, which makes sense, because I wouldn't want my 50 name taken away, either)." The expectation shifts from "hopeless" to "hopeful". The focus shifts from "the HC devs don't deliver" to "the HC devs are addressing my concerns". Even though the actual outcome doesn't change (I might never get the name I want), there's a chance I might.

If we had a consistent policy that was routinely enforced and announced (via patch notes, Discord, and e-mail notifications), I think these kinds of posts would disappear, because everyone's expectations would be managed. No need to post about name release if everyone's knows it happens every year. Problem solved. The problem with /ebfp and the announced (but never activated) name retention policy was that the HC said something, but never followed through. As a parent of 5 (now adult) children, one of the most painful lessons I learned is this: Never promise or threaten that you can't or won't deliver. If you fail to deliver, kids learn you're unreliable and won't trust you, and they'll take advantage of that. Or they'll throw tantrums and harbor resentment. The recent changes to /ebfp blew up disastrously because the devs took too long to follow through on their posted threat, and everyone took that as tacit acceptance. It became the new normal. They could've avoided that entirely by turning off /ebfp immediately, deal with the short term fallout, and then come back later with the improved solution. Everyone would've taken it better that way. The same thing is true of the name retention policy announced last year, but never acted on. It comes across as tacit tolerance and acceptance of name camping. And it irks those of us who suspect/know that the majority of the initial surge from 2019 have gone away now that their curiosity has been addressed and their nostalgia sated. But all those names are still reserved by those who are long gone. And that chafes enough people to post regular complaints about it.

I think that's the winning argument. The game engine is ancient -- like 20th century ancient: it dates back 1999, I believe -- so there are limits on what it can do. Originally, the engine had a set of static defeat animations, but as others pointed out above, these were sometimes ridiculous, too. So Cryptic/Paragon tweaked the engine a bit to allow for "ragdoll physics", where the models will indeed just collapse at the joints. It is definitely more realistic than the original static animations; however, it also has some unintended -- and often hilarious or disturbing -- side effects. I think that doing anything with the base game engine is probably out of the question at this point, more than 20 years later. It's one thing to improve textures that lay on top of the models, but it's a completely different thing to alter the fundamentals of the models themselves. I don't think that's in the cards in the near future.

I'm going to get a lot of hate for this, but here goes anyway... Rarely, just when I'm in the mood, I like playing an Emp/Rad Defender just to /follow the tank and /autoexec Healing Aura, with an occasional Fortitude or Clear Mind thrown in every now and then. Yes, it's cheesy, but it's also pleasantly relaxing. I get to chat more, read bios, enjoy teammates' costumes, and see how strong the scrapperlock still afflicts some players. But I don't do it often, and I don't do it for TFs or iTrials or anything serious. If the team is relaxed and willing to allow it, it's actually quite pleasant. /em puts on asbestos spandex. Flame on.

Please don't use fandom.com links: they rip-off content from legitimate sites just to generate ad revenue. The correct URL reference (for the original retail game) is https://archive.paragonwiki.com/wiki/Character_Name_Policy Here's an excerpt that's germaine to this thread. This was the official policy from retail live. I've taken the liberty of highlighting keywords and [inserting my own comments]. Overview The character name policy is a tactic for recycling used player names from inactive accounts so that other players may use them. The policy only applies to accounts that are currently deactivated, not characters on active accounts that aren't logged in frequently. Additionally, accounts that are still being paid for, but simply have not been used for 90 days, are not affected.[*] Long before City of Heroes Freedom launched, the development team decided that running the scripts wasn't freeing up an appreciable number of character names, and has not run the script since the second wave. Policy Details The policy change affects all accounts that have been inactive for over 90 days.[*] This only applied to accounts that were deactivated in some way, such as payment expiration or account suspensions. Any character on such an account less than a certain level[**] has its name set to "unreserved" status, which allows any new character on the server to be created with that name. In the event this happens, the original character under the name will be prompted to choose a new name upon login. In order to return a character's name to "reserved" status, the user must log the character in question into the game. As such, it is possible that a player can be actively using an account with characters whose names are still set to "unreserved" status. When "unreserved" status is assigned to a name, the following changes are applied to the affected character: A new character name needs to be chosen (if existing name has been taken) The character's description and battle cry is cleared[***] All mail received is deleted[***] The character is removed from their Super Group, if any[***] The character's Friends list is cleared, and the character is removed from others' Friends lists[***] Mail other characters have received from an affected character reverts to having been sent from "Unknown"[***] [*: I don't think 90 days is enough time for account inactivity: I propose 1 year.] [**: I propose less than level 50. Any char at level 50 should keep its name permanently.] [***: I don't think these steps are necessary for Homecoming.] The net result is this: Logon to your account once a year and your names are always reserved, regardless of the last time you played any given character. If you can't logon at least once a year, open a support ticket. If you don't logon at least once a year, your character names are unreserved and fair game for other active players to use (if they ever try to create a char with those names). Level 50 characters are exempt from all of the above. Level 50 characters keep their names forever, regardless of whether or not your account is active/inactive. That sounds reasonable enough to me. Agree or not? Flame on.

I'm not suggesting that idle accounts be deleted. I'm suggesting that idle accounts be preserved, but the character names held by that account are no longer reserved for only that account indefinitely (as per the established character name retention policy). In other words, if you have an active account, you're not subject to the character name retention policy; however, if your account goes idle for at least X period of time (at least one year sounds fair -- maybe two years if we're really pushing it), then the character name retention policy applies as defined. If you can't logon to your account (not character) at least once a year -- even with extenuating circumstances, you should be able to at least open a support ticket to ask for an extension/bypass. But if someone can't be arsed to logon to their account at least once a year, nor to ask for an extension through official channels, then I suspect such accounts are truly idle, and their character names are fair game for other active players. The characters themselves would be preserved on the account, but their names might be changed to "Generic_0123456". That seems reasonable enough to me.

I'm definitely offended that you just said hello. GRRR!!! 😝😆

Agreed. It's one thing to threaten to take away the character names of an active account, than it is to do so for an idle account. If you're active, your character names should be preserved for as long as your remain active; but if you're idle, you shouldn't expect your character names to be preserved forever.

Honestly, I think it would just be easier for the HC team to announce an annual "character name release event" (for lack of a better name) on the game's anniversary date. Publish it in patch notes and send reminder e-mails to all account holders. Something like: "Effective April 24th (or whatever the official anniversary date is), all accounts idle for over XXX [days/months/years] will have their character names un-reserved according to our established name reservation policy. If you wish to retain your character names, please logon to your account at least once before that date. If you're unable to logon to your account by that date, please open a support ticket on the forums (or in Discord)." That way, active players will always know what's coming, idle players who may have been away for awhile will be encouraged to come back at least once a year, and idle players who don't care can ignore it (assuming e-mails from HC aren't already sent to their spam folder). Is that a perfect solution? No. But it's better than idle accounts camping on character names forever.

Spot on. If an account has been unused for a over a year, I think that the character names associated with that idle account should be made available for players with active accounts. It doesn't really matter how long/often a particular character logs on, if the associated account is inactive/unused. Case in point, I brought a friend to CoH in April 2019, and we played together for a few days. He created a character named "Florida Man", which is hilarious. He hasn't played since then, over a year and a half later. He says he's no longer interested, and won't play again. Now I'd love to play "Florida Man", but the name is locked up on his idle account. The issue isn't that "Florida Man" is taken, but rather that "Florida Man" is taken by someone who hasn't played in over a year, and probably won't ever play again. Back in April/May/June of 2019, hundreds of thousands of accounts were created. I suspect that many of those accounts were basically demos or nostalgia accounts, which means they've been unused in the past year. But every single character name of those idle accounts are currently held in perpetuity. I agree with the OP that this isn't right. At some point, we have to set (and enforce) a "statute of limitations" for inactive accounts and their associated character names. I understand that sometimes, real life gets in the way, and accounts can go idle for reasons beyond our control (such as military deployment, long-term disability, computer failures, etc.). So I'm all for some kind of really liberal limitations (at least one year, maybe two) for account activity. But at some point, you have to favor your active player base over your inactive player base.