Time to enforce the name holding expiration rules

[Coyotedancer]

7 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

Hmm, I hear you, but what makes you think that if you sent someone an email and they didn't reply then it means that it's an out-of-use account?  If someone sent me a message, I might reply or I might ignore it depending on my mood at the time.  Most of the time I would view that inquiry like a bot calling me on my cell phone to ask me about my vehicle's extended warranty...

It's a generally kinder assumption than "They're ignoring my /tell because they can't be bothered to take half a minute of their precious time to answer".

[Dragon Crush]

Just now, Krimson said:

And if we had Homecoming staff who actually got paid, then routine announcements and enforcement would be more possible. But encouraging the slave labor to work faster is an option as well.

Why else do you think requests for whip powersets are so popular?

[WindDemon21]

They should be able to be taken if an ACCOUNT has been inactive for lets say 3 months? But not if the person using the account has been active. I have a couple saved that I plan to play after I finish my current alt, so they're obviously level one and don't think they should have to be at risk.

 

That said as long as the ACCOUNT is active there is no problem using /getglobalname to find the person and send their global a tell asking to free up the name.

 

But please, let's not start up again where you have to constantly log into alts to save them.

[Purrfekshawn]

Personally We would like to get those names freed from Everlasting server:

 

Inertia

Overheal

Dark Horse

Tachyonic

 

[Oubliette_Red]

1 hour ago, Rathulfr said:

 

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.

 

You're assuming that people read announcements or any other Dev post.

 

I've seen multiple occasions where people post here or on Discord only once they've been impacted and often do so without searching for anything regarding the issue. It happened with /ebfp, it will happen with names.

 

[Coyotedancer]

14 minutes ago, WindDemon21 said:

They should be able to be taken if an ACCOUNT has been inactive for lets say 3 months? But not if the person using the account has been active. I have a couple saved that I plan to play after I finish my current alt, so they're obviously level one and don't think they should have to be at risk.

 

That said as long as the ACCOUNT is active there is no problem using /getglobalname to find the person and send their global a tell asking to free up the name.

 

But please, let's not start up again where you have to constantly log into alts to save them.

 

Again, if keeping the name actually matters to you, I really don't think that taking all of a minute every x-number of months to actually log on to it to ping the "active" meter is too much to ask. It's a good incentive for everyone to keep their number of "I'm going to play this... someday" reserved names to a reasonable number.

 

(And for the record, I do have a few of those myself, so... Yeah. I get it. There's some inconvenience involved in having to bump them once in awhile. But it's not unreasonable.)   

[Rathulfr]

1 hour ago, Oubliette_Red said:

You're assuming that people read announcements or any other Dev post.

 

I've seen multiple occasions where people post here or on Discord only once they've been impacted and often do so without searching for anything regarding the issue. It happened with /ebfp, it will happen with names.

 

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.

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Rathulfr

[Rathulfr]

1 hour ago, Purrfekshawn said:

Personally We would like to get those names freed from Everlasting server:

 

Inertia

Overheal

Dark Horse

Tachyonic

 

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

[Rathulfr]

1 hour ago, Krimson said:

And if we had Homecoming staff who actually got paid, then routine announcements and enforcement would be more possible. But encouraging the slave labor to work faster is an option as well.

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?

[Alchemystic]

Following on from my earlier comment, I might have something of a raw ballpark formula that we could work from, taking the following into consideration;

 

• Account inactivity
• Character inactivity
• Character level
• Playtime (in hours)

 

Account Inactivity + Character Inactivity = Total Inactivity

(Character Level x Playtime) - Character Inactivity = Character Career

Total Inactivity - Character Career = Inactivity Value

When your Inactivity Value is a positive figure, you are flagged and your name may be taken.

---

 

So, lets try a few examples; we'll call them 'The Vet', 'The Casual', 'The Absentee' and 'The Squatter'

 

The Vet is a level 50 character, he is online right now on his character, so he is not inactive. His level is 50, and his playtime is 200 hours.

Total Inactivity = 0

Character Career = 10,000

Inactivity Value = -10,000

Needless to say The Vet is perfectly fine.

---

Now for The Casual, his level 40 character with 24 hours of playtime was last online 100 days ago, and he was last logged in 14 days ago.

Total Inactivity = 114

Character Career = 860

Inactivity Value = -746

The Casual is still active enough to not be flagged

---

Next, The Absentee. he has a level 40 character and 24 hours of playtime just like the Casual, but the character was last logged in 600 days ago, and his account has been inactive for 365 days.

Total Inactivity = 965

Character Career = 860

Inactivity Value = 105

Uh oh, the Absentee's Inactivity Value is a little in the positive, he has been flagged.

---

And lastly, the Squatter. He has a level 10 character with 1 hour of playtime. His character was logged in 365 days ago, but his account was active today.

Total Inactivity = 365

Character Career = -355

Inactivity Value = 720

Looks like sitting on that name pushed the Squatter into the positive with that double-negative, he's been flagged

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2020 by Tyrannical

[Moka]

It's not fair to make someone lose their names on a 50 if they're going to be gone for awhile. You never know what could have come up in their life. They could be deployed or something. 

[PeregrineFalcon]

20 hours ago, Dragon Crush said:

"The more evidence you show counter to my claim the more I'll be convinced I'm right" is the source of so many problems right now.

I'm not sure if this is a response to my post, but in case it is:

 

I agree with you! People ignoring evidence has been a huge source of annoyance for me all of my life.

 

However, what I was posting wasn't "the more evidence you show..." because the opinions being posted in this thread aren't evidence. A better translation of my words would be "The more anecdotes and personal attacks you make to counter my claim the more I'll be convinced I'm right."

[PeregrineFalcon]

6 minutes ago, Moka said:

It's not fair to make someone lose their names on a 50 if they're going to be gone for awhile. You never know what could have come up in their life. They could be deployed or something. 

Oh please. When I was in Iraq the last thing that I was concerned about was whether or not I'd lose a character name in some video game somewhere.

 

Please don't try to use people who actually risked their lives to keep people safe as an excuse to get what you want in a video game.

[Alchemystic]

16 minutes ago, Moka said:

It's not fair to make someone lose their names on a 50 if they're going to be gone for awhile. You never know what could have come up in their life. They could be deployed or something. 

Lemme run the math see if this'll work out for the best.

lets say you have a level 50 character with a solid 30 or so hours to match. maybe you're inactive for 365 days on both your character and your account.

Total Inactivity = 730

Character Career = 1500

Inactivity Value = -770

Looks like you'd still be in the clear!

 

Let's also add in another example to measure against, we'll call him 'The Crop'

 

The Crop has a character who was farmed to 50, and only 2 hours of play time. His character has been inactive for 365 days, but his account was online today

Total Inactivity = 365

Character Career = -265

Inactivity Value = 630

Looks like that farmed up 50 character is still flagged since they're barely played.

 

 

I... I may have honestly fixed the issue with math? Did I actually win at the internet?

 

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Tyrannical

[Moka]

6 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

 

 

Please don't try to use people who actually risked their lives to keep people safe as an excuse to get what you want in a video game.

Don't make assumptions of me. I don't care if you lose it or not. Just would be a shame lol.

[Purrfekshawn]

3 hours ago, Rathulfr said:

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

If the system is name@account then name CANNOT be camped

[Rathulfr]

4 hours ago, Purrfekshawn said:

If the system is name@account then name CANNOT be camped

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.

 

[Rathulfr]

7 hours ago, Moka said:

It's not fair to make someone lose their names on a 50 if they're going to be gone for awhile. You never know what could have come up in their life. They could be deployed or something. 

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).

 

Edited December 13, 2020 by Rathulfr

[Clave Dark 5]

Find it kind of odd that people say we're running out of names after a year+ when the original game ran for years and must surely have had an exponential number of people sign up and play compared to the relative few here.

[Six-Six]

Clave, I suppose it's very similar to the RL lament that "there are no jobs out there" or "it's so hard to find a job"... When in fact there are a tonne of jobs out there, and they are easy to find, it's just a matter of finding a job THEY like.

[Clave Dark 5]

Exactly, pulling this argument this early into the existence of this iteration just doesn't make sense, seems to smack of a kind of "no, YOU bend MY way!" expectation.

[Ghost]

Just for the record - not everyone supporting this, is waiting for a certain name to be released.

[BadMinotaur]

6 hours ago, Clave Dark 5 said:

Exactly, pulling this argument this early into the existence of this iteration just doesn't make sense, seems to smack of a kind of "no, YOU bend MY way!" expectation.

It's already been addressed several times in this thread why people are making this complaint. The answers range from "the situation is much different than Live" to "it isn't necessary but managing player expectations is important." No one is trying to make anyone "bend" a certain way, because real life people aren't cartoon villains who exert control for no reason. We only play as them in this video game instead =P

[Rathulfr]

12 hours ago, Clave Dark 5 said:

Find it kind of odd that people say we're running out of names after a year+ when the original game ran for years and must surely have had an exponential number of people sign up and play compared to the relative few here.

 

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.

 

Edited December 13, 2020 by Rathulfr

[Rathulfr]

43 minutes ago, Krimson said:

You should present your evidence to the Homecoming team directly, if that is the case. 

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:

1. Player accounts exist (Homecoming has published data that indicate this is the case).
2. The existence of player characters require player accounts.
3. Player characters require names.
4. Any character names associated with specific player accounts may not be used by any other player accounts.
5. 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?

 

Edited December 13, 2020 by Rathulfr