Time to enforce the name holding expiration rules

[ZacKing]

8 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

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.

This.  No reason for asinine formulas to try and determine who is more worthy to wield a name. 

[BadMinotaur]

10 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

[snip]

 

Thank you for this recap and refocusing the conversation. If Homecoming had something like Reddit Gold, I'd toss some your way for this.

[Alchemystic]

3 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

This.  No reason for asinine formulas to try and determine who is more worthy to wield a name. 

 

Nobody said the formula determined who was worthy of a name.

[Rathulfr]

7 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

This.  No reason for asinine formulas to try and determine who is more worthy to wield a name. 

 

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}.

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Rathulfr

[Alchemystic]

7 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

 

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}.

 

 

... The formula is more complex than that. Well, at least my one is.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Tyrannical

[Ukase]

Nice recap from @rathstar. 

I'm also in the account basis, as opposed to character basis. 

How long is the right time, though? 5 years? 5 months? somewhere in between? 

In the US, a standard military enlistment is 4 years. Other than military service, during which you get 30 paid leave days per year, I can't fathom why anyone would not log in at least once during those 4 years. But hey, you also only have 30 days. I suspect wife and family might take issue with you logging on for a session when they haven't seen you in quite some time. 

So, I suggest the very long time frame of 48 months. The way I see it, if you've gone without your CoH fix for 48 months, you're not really jonesin' for it anyway. 

[aethereal]

Here is a serious suggestion:  I think there should be some currency involved in taking a name that has been "freed."  Each account gets two tokens or something, where if you choose a name that duplicates an existing, but "freed" name, you get a prompt asking you if this is something you want to spend a token on.

 

Try to prevent a rush to find and seize "good" names after the script is run.

[Rathulfr]

3 minutes ago, Tyrannical said:

... The formula is more complex than that

 

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.

 

[Rathulfr]

4 minutes ago, aethereal said:

Here is a serious suggestion:  I think there should be some currency involved in taking a name that has been "freed."  Each account gets two tokens or something, where if you choose a name that duplicates an existing, but "freed" name, you get a prompt asking you if this is something you want to spend a token on.

 

Try to prevent a rush to find and seize "good" names after the script is run.

 

Again, I think that's just adding unnecessary complexity.  If you're an active player, you should be exempt.  If your account is idle (no logons in over a year), then your names are unreserved.  Logon once a year, and you should be good.

 

[Snowdaze]

16 minutes ago, Ukase said:

Nice recap from @rathstar. 

I'm also in the account basis, as opposed to character basis. 

How long is the right time, though? 5 years? 5 months? somewhere in between? 

In the US, a standard military enlistment is 4 years. Other than military service, during which you get 30 paid leave days per year, I can't fathom why anyone would not log in at least once during those 4 years. But hey, you also only have 30 days. I suspect wife and family might take issue with you logging on for a session when they haven't seen you in quite some time. 

So, I suggest the very long time frame of 48 months. The way I see it, if you've gone without your CoH fix for 48 months, you're not really jonesin' for it anyway. 

Deployments arent usually over 6-9 months. If you cant log in at least once in a year. You probably dont care that much about CoH. Even 2 years is super excessive.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Snowdaze

[Snowdaze]

7 minutes ago, aethereal said:

Here is a serious suggestion:  I think there should be some currency involved in taking a name that has been "freed."  Each account gets two tokens or something, where if you choose a name that duplicates an existing, but "freed" name, you get a prompt asking you if this is something you want to spend a token on.

 

Try to prevent a rush to find and seize "good" names after the script is run.

Devs are highly unlikely to add a whole new game system like this when people would rather have new powersets.

[aethereal]

Just now, Rathulfr said:

 

Again, I think that's just adding unnecessary complexity.  If you're an active player, you should be exempt.  If your account is idle (no logons in over a year), then your names are unreserved.  Logon once a year, and you should be good.

This isn't about "fairness" to the people who are losing names.  It's about "fairness" to the people who are getting them.  I'd like it if there was a bit less of a temptation for whoever follows the forums most obsessively to login and try a hundred names and grab all the ones which free up.

[aethereal]

Just now, Snowdaze said:

Devs are highly unlikely to add a whole new game system like this when people would rather have new powersets.

It's extremely unlikely that those two things meaningfully compete for resources.

[Alchemystic]

7 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

 

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.

 

My bad, I needed to go back and edit cos I spaced out a little!

 

But yeah the proposed policy is hot garbage, on that we agree.

But I'd also like it so that any account has a chance to be flagged, just so we can also address the following;

• people namesquatting, this one is obvious
• people who have migrated server, and have a buncha abandoned characters left behind
• people who have just opted not to play a character and may have forgotten about it

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Tyrannical

[Rathulfr]

17 minutes ago, Ukase said:

Nice recap from @rathstar. 

I'm also in the account basis, as opposed to character basis. 

How long is the right time, though? 5 years? 5 months? somewhere in between? 

In the US, a standard military enlistment is 4 years. Other than military service, during which you get 30 paid leave days per year, I can't fathom why anyone would not log in at least once during those 4 years. But hey, you also only have 30 days. I suspect wife and family might take issue with you logging on for a session when they haven't seen you in quite some time. 

So, I suggest the very long time frame of 48 months. The way I see it, if you've gone without your CoH fix for 48 months, you're not really jonesin' for it anyway. 

 

I think that 4 years idle is a bit much.  It has been suggested that there be an option to open a support ticket to request an exemption.  Do military people go completely incommunicado for the entirety of their enlistment?  I don't think so: I've got military friends who do manage to pop into Facebook every now and then, even when they're stationed overseas.  Surely even someone deployed for 4 years should be able to open a web ticket or send an e-mail once a year?

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Rathulfr

[Snowdaze]

6 minutes ago, aethereal said:

It's extremely unlikely that those two things meaningfully compete for resources.

I feel you are misinterpreting my statement, I was pointing out fact that the HC team is limited in personal and resources, they are likely to focus their efforts elsewhere.

[Grouchybeast]

33 minutes ago, Snowdaze said:

Unless you have filed for a copyright! It is an extension of the service being provided to you for free and is subject to any rules and stipulations set forth by Homecoming!

This comment just made me realize that, hypothetically, someone could write and publish a story about a character who has the name they want, and then alert HC to the copyright violation.

[Rathulfr]

9 minutes ago, Tyrannical said:

My bad, I needed to go back and edit cos I spaced out a little!

 

But yeah the proposed policy is hot garbage, on that we agree.

But I'd also like it so that any account has a chance to be flagged, just so we can also address the following;

• people namesquatting, this one is obvious
• people who have migrated server, and have a buncha abandoned characters left behind
• people who have just opted not to play a character and may have forgotten about it

 

 

So that puts you in the idle characters camp, then.  That's cool: I understand your arguments, and while I don't agree, I don't think they're invalid.  Thanks for following up.

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Rathulfr

[Snowdaze]

2 minutes ago, Grouchybeast said:

This comment just made me realize that, hypothetically, someone could write and publish a story about a character who has the name they want, and then alert HC to the copyright violation.

Yes but I have looked into Copyrighting my character, it is a little bit more complicated then that. It's not impossible but it is certainly not that simple. But that is off topic.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Snowdaze

[Alchemystic]

Just now, Rathulfr said:

 

So that puts you in the idle characters camp, then.  That's cool: I understand your arguments, and while I don't agree, I don't think they're invalid.  Thanks for following up.

 

Mostly for the idle characters way of things, but I don't object to the other methodology. so long as something is implemented (and hopefully better than the initial proposition).

[Grouchybeast]

Just now, Snowdaze said:

Yes but I have looked into Copyrighting a character, it is a little bit more complicated then that. It's not impossible but it is certainly not that simple. But that is off topic.

 

I mean, HC aren't idiots so if anyone actually tried it I'm pretty sure they'd get short shrift.  It just amused me.

[aethereal]

2 minutes ago, Snowdaze said:

I feel you are misinterpreting my statement, I was pointing out fact that the HC team is limited in personal and resources, they are likely to focus their efforts elsewhere.

Building new powersets is primarily about:

 

1. Conceptual work about what the powerset is even supposed to be, man.
2. Finding animations for the powers.
3. Inputting data into the binaries.
4. Balancing them.

With #2 being a huge blocker to any really new powersets, and #4 being extremely slow and costly of time.

 

None of those things are writing code.  The coders on the HC team are not needed for any of those tasks.  If a powerset involves an entirely new mechanic, it is possible that some coding will be involved in the creation of the powerset.  However, almost certainly, writing code is the smallest component of creating a new powerset (and similarly, it is not a large component to creating new story arcs).

 

The people who could write up a small check for name creation are not likely to be the long pole in the tent of content creation, and thus it is a mostly false dilemma to ask whether we would prioritize a slightly nicer renaming system vs adding new content.

[Snowdaze]

I'm ok with being Idle account control, But I also feel that a 50 shouldnt be immune, unless you want to make it more complicated with character playtime...

Edited December 14, 2020 by Snowdaze

[Snowdaze]

1 minute ago, aethereal said:

Building new powersets is primarily about:

 

1. Conceptual work about what the powerset is even supposed to be, man.
2. Finding animations for the powers.
3. Inputting data into the binaries.
4. Balancing them.

With #2 being a huge blocker to any really new powersets, and #4 being extremely slow and costly of time.

 

None of those things are writing code.  The coders on the HC team are not needed for any of those tasks.  If a powerset involves an entirely new mechanic, it is possible that some coding will be involved in the creation of the powerset.  However, almost certainly, writing code is the smallest component of creating a new powerset (and similarly, it is not a large component to creating new story arcs).

 

The people who could write up a small check for name creation are not likely to be the long pole in the tent of content creation, and thus it is a mostly false dilemma to ask whether we would prioritize a slightly nicer renaming system vs adding new content.

I'm not going to pretend to know what the HC team does development wise or what it entails. I can however speculate at priority of lines of effort.

[Rathulfr]

12 minutes ago, Snowdaze said:

I'm ok with being Idle account control, But I also feel that a 50 either shouldnt be immune, unless you want to make it more complicated with character playtime...

 

Variations on a theme.  I'm undecided about the level 50 thing.  I know for a fact that all of my 50s earned their levels and subsequently, their names and reputations.  So I'd be pretty upset if I lost one of my 50 names because I hadn't played one of them in a while (I'm looking at you, my Sentinels gathering dust on my character select screen 😜).

 

However, I do acknowledge the concerns about "instant-50s" that haven't really "earned it" by being power-levelled.  The thought of it kind of irks me on some fundamental level, but that's just something I need to get over: who am I to judge?  I think it's better to err on the side of caution and just apply a blanket exemption to all 50s, rather than trying to sort out which are "worthy".  That's probably the safest bet.

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Rathulfr