Time to enforce the name holding expiration rules

[Snowdaze]

7 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

 

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 😜).

 

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.

 

but... if your account is active you have nothing to worry about...
and if you decided to stop playing CoH forever you wouldnt be holding up the names 

and if you wanted to keep the names then requiring you come come visit the game once and a while is hardly an ask to imply at least a vested interest

[Rathulfr]

Just now, Snowdaze said:

but... if your account is active you have nothing to worry about...
and if you decided to stop playing CoH forever you wouldnt be holding up the names 

and if you wanted to keep the names then requiring you come come visit the game once and a while is hardly an ask to imply at least a vested interest

 

If they decide to implement the policy on idle accounts, rather than idle characters.

 

That's why I'm kind of undecided on it.  Why should I get to keep "Rathstar" forever, if I'm not playing the game any more?  It's a fair point.  I just figure we'd get a lot less negative feedback if we can re-assure folks that their 50 names are safe: a teaspoon of sugar, and all that.

 

[Snowdaze]

2 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

 

If they decide to implement the policy on idle accounts, rather than idle characters.

 

That's why I'm kind of undecided on it.  Why should I get to keep "Rathstar" forever, if I'm not playing the game any more?  It's a fair point.  I just figure we'd get a lot less negative feedback if we can re-assure folks that their 50 names are safe: a teaspoon of sugar, and all that.

 

Analogy: Passing your drivers test is great, but if you don't keep renewing your license you have to do it again. 

A vested interest must be maintained. It is good for the long term health of the game.

[Player2]

Man, take one day off from the forums to go to work and suddenly the thread grows by 3 pages.

 

  

8 hours ago, Tyrannical said:

A level 50 character would have to log in at least once a month.

 

Hard no.

 

6 hours ago, Excraft said:

No.

 

Hell yeah to no!

 

4 hours ago, Snowdaze said:

Sorry Tahquitz....
This isn't about taking names from active players.

 

Some of the discussion seems to have turned from freeing up names from inactive accounts to trying to define what constitutes "active" enough to hold on to names... so yeah, some people seem to think it is about taking names from active players because I think some people want it to be that.

 

 

 

Also, in response to my own last post in which I answered someone's question about having gotten any positive response from contacting players about obtaining a name...  I would like to add that I have not been contacted once about this for any of the names that I have.  However, I have taken it upon myself to give away a couple of names.  Most recently I saw a player running a tanker named GEM ST0NE (using a zero in place of the O), and that kind of name substitution just... irritates me.  I had the name Gem Stone on a brute sitting idle at level 23 and pretty much insisted he take the name (after he graciously told me I didn't have to give it up).  I renamed my brute Gemma Stone and he signed out briefly and returned with his numberless name.

 

Honestly, I think if we had a bit more opportunity to communicate with each other regarding names, it might be easier to work things out among ourselves.  Someone in an earlier post today suggested that this whole topic is a great argument for the City Tracker tool, so we could see who has a given name where and when was the last time they were active.  That way if the person logged in last week one could assume that no, they're not inactive and probably intent on keeping the name (but who knows for sure?), or at least we could have a better gauge about how to broach the topic with the individual ("Hey, I see you haven't logged [name] in for several months now.  Are you planning to resume play with this toon, and is there any way I could convince you to part with the name?"),

 

Some may feel a sense of invasive private messages to suddenly have people questioning how often they play.  But as it is, that can happen now anyhow with the /getglobalname command, so all it would do is at least give the asking party a chance to be a bit more informed before they make a request.

[Wavicle]

Hypothetical example:

 

Kid makes an account and plays a little and then Joins The Military.

 

A Year And A Half later kid signs back in to discover his characters names are all gone.

 

 Unless THE DEVS themselves say “name squatting” is a Real Problem this whole thread is nonsense.

[GM Tock]

Posts were removed.  Again, please argue the idea and not the person. 

[Snowdaze]

3 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

Hypothetical example:

 

Kid makes an account and plays a little and then Joins The Military.

 

A Year And A Half later kid signs back in to discover his characters names are all gone.

 

 Unless THE DEVS themselves say “name squatting” is a Real Problem this whole thread is nonsense.

Please stop bringing the Military into this, I happen to be currently serving on active duty, and I have no issue playing.

The military is not prison. They don't take your computer away when you join.

[Wavicle]

1 minute ago, Snowdaze said:

Please stop bringing the Military into this, I happen to be currently serving on active duty, and I have no issue playing.

The military is not prison. They don't take your computer away when you join.

I have personally known people who couldn’t login while on deployment, though I take your word for it that it’s not common.

[Snowdaze]

10 minutes ago, Player2 said:

Some of the discussion seems to have turned from freeing up names from inactive accounts to trying to define what constitutes "active" enough to hold on to names... so yeah, some people seem to think it is about taking names from active players because I think some people want it to be that.

I think HC has the right to define active and inactive for the service they are providing. I also think it would be hard to argue that someone who has not logged on at all in the last 365 days is still "active".

[Snowdaze]

Just now, Wavicle said:

I have personally known people who couldn’t login while on deployment, though I take your word for it that it’s not common.

When you go on deployment you don't go away forever. Normally 6-9 months. Still under a year!

[Player2]

Just now, Snowdaze said:

I think HC has the right to define active and inactive for the service they are providing. I also think it would be hard to argue that someone who has not logged on at all in the last 365 days is still "active".

Absolutely, and I agree.  However, we've seen a number of posts with people sharing their own ideas of what should constitute active and some even providing formulae to determine it.  My least favorite suggestion so far has been the one where level 50 characters would need to log in at least one a month to show they're active.

[Snowdaze]

Just now, Player2 said:

Absolutely, and I agree.  However, we've seen a number of posts with people sharing their own ideas of what should constitute active and some even providing formulae to determine it.  My least favorite suggestion so far has been the one where level 50 characters would need to log in at least one a month to show they're active.

I understand, but that was many many many posts ago and hours, and not where the current conversation was at. Posting a clear and concise opinion of what you think would work for a name expiration policy is what helps so the HC staff can take stock of it and try and come up with something that is in the playerbase's best interests. jrangering things can be comedic with done at the right time, and sometimes a simple "no" is really all one can say and then move on. But this is a more complex issue then "add a big red ball". 

Now I admit I remember reading a lot of post by you on earlier in the thread, but like you said you've been away for a while. Welcome back to the thread. Debate ideas, defend your own, give reasons why others ideas are not solid when you disagree (instead of monosyllabic answers).

[Alchemystic]

27 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

Hypothetical example:

 

Kid makes an account and plays a little and then Joins The Military.

 

A Year And A Half later kid signs back in to discover his characters names are all gone.

 

 Unless THE DEVS themselves say “name squatting” is a Real Problem this whole thread is nonsense.

 

They did... that's the whole point of this thread... to enforce the expiration rules (or some variation of them) that THE DEVS put forward.

 

And stop bringing up the military, beating a dead horse at this point...

 

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Tyrannical

[Alchemystic]

@Player2 to clear up some of the confusion, you would only have to log in once a month if your character keeps getting flagged for inactivity.

 

This isn't some hard rule I've said where "if you are level 50, you MUST log in once per month", its basically the condition to remove the flag on your character if the script happens to flag you. It shouldn't happen often enough for you to have to do it monthly... unless you were actively trying to be inactive.

 

And the only reason a level 50 would be flagged in the first place would be if it was either farmed up and abandoned, or if it's been sitting idle for well over a year or two.

 

A little context for you, since ignorant people are misquoting me.

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Tyrannical

[Snowdaze]

On 5/20/2019 at 8:18 PM, Jimmy said:

Name Release Policy

With 1000 character slots per shard, we expected you to make a lot of characters, but we’ve been blown away by quite how many… To date, you’ve made a total of 399,501 characters across 64,519 accounts. In fact, one of you has made a total of 277 characters!

 

Now, some of you have voiced concerns that many names are simply being sat on by level 1 characters that’ll never be played again. This is a fair concern, so we are implementing a system that will allow names of unused characters to be released back into circulation for use by new characters.

 

Characters will be flagged as ‘inactive’ when the following time thresholds are met:

 

• Level 1-5 characters will be flagged as inactive if they have not been played in the last 30 days
• Level 6-20 characters will be flagged as inactive if they have not been played in the last 90 days
• Level 21-49 characters will be flagged as inactive if they have not been played in the last 365 days
• Level 50 characters will never be flagged as inactive

 

 

When a character is flagged as inactive they are not immediately renamed. Instead, their name is simply no longer locked. This allows another player to create a character with that name, at which point the original character will be renamed.

 

You can remove the inactive flag on a character at any time simply by logging them in.

 

We will not be activating this policy for at least a two weeks (possibly longer), so if there are any names you don’t want to lose, please ensure you keep the above guidelines in mind!

 

This is a first pass on this policy, and we may modify it at a later date, however we will give at least 30 days notice for any changes related to releasing names.

This is what is the root of the discussion, this isn't something some of us want for no reason. This is the current stated Policy... it has never been enforced yet! Guess what, as it stands at this very moment the above could happen free up ALL your lvl 1 characters that you havent touched in 6 months, and there isnt a thing you could say about it because it was posted! (well you could complain and moan but it wouldnt change anything)

Now the Real issues here are:
Is this the best policy?
When should it be applied?
What would a better policy?

Should this be a account inactivity policy over a character inactivity policy?

What do you agree or disagree with?!
 

[Player2]

3 minutes ago, Snowdaze said:

When should it be applied?
 

When it's ready.  As has been stated on page 2 of this thread, there's a reason they haven't rushed into it yet, and that's to ensure that it's done right and does not affect the wrong people.  Quoting again below in case anyone jumped on board late and ignored the earlier pages of this thread.

  

On 12/10/2020 at 9:04 AM, GM Impervium said:

Just popping back in for a sec to remind everyone to keep things civil and to be excellent to each other 😃

And, as an aside, I do want to say that we are still looking into this. However, experience has shown that when we make a sweeping change, sometimes things get overlooked, or there's unintended consequences, or whatever. I'm sure everyone knows about the adjustment to /ebfp, and the introduction of LRTP and all that, and how through feedback we added more powers, and changed requirements, and kept going back and forth, and no matter what, some people were still... not very happy. Well, guess what? On top of all of that, if you transfer between shards, LRTP no longer works (Pro tip, don't transfer characters right now, it breaks LRTP). So THAT's broken, and we're still trying to fix it.

Note that this is NOT the thread to discuss these changes, but I bring them up to draw a hypothetical comparison:

If we're going to do this? We have ONE shot. We won't get weeks of fine tuning, and adjustments, and feedback. We'll code it in, flip the switch, and it's DONE. And if there's just one misplaced argument, or IF statement, or 1 or 0? Then it might make all CURRENT names unlocked, and suddenly you'll see someone with YOUR main's name in Atlas broadcast screaming out for DFB. Or maybe everything will seem fine until you transfer servers, and despite the name being available, it gets lost in the void and becomes unclaimable. Or someone else transfers onto your sever and takes your name WHILE you're playing that character!

All the same people who want names freed up, are the same people who are most likely to be negatively impacted if things go wrong. So we HAVE to get it right the first time. It's a huge undertaking, so we just ask for patience while we dot our i's and cross our t's. Thank you 😃

(Note that I'm not trying to be the final word on this, feel free to continue exchanging ideas, but again, please keep it civil!)

 

[Wavicle]

23 minutes ago, Tyrannical said:

 

They did... that's the whole point of this thread... to enforce the expiration rules (or some variation of them) that THE DEVS put forward.

They’ve explained, in this very thread, why it hasn’t been done.

[Alchemystic]

2 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

They’ve explained, in this very thread, why it hasn’t been done.

you asked if they thought it was a problem, I pointed to the fact that they do.

[Snowdaze]

4 minutes ago, Player2 said:

When it's ready.  As has been stated on page 2 of this thread, there's a reason they haven't rushed into it yet, and that's to ensure that it's done right and does not affect the wrong people.  Quoting again below in case anyone jumped on board late and ignored the earlier pages of this thread.

  

 

And thats fine, Ultimately the HC staff will do things on their own time table. However, re-addressing the issue and expressing how some of us would like "a name release policy" enacted sooner rather then later is valid. But being broadly against any name release policy is counter productive, and I have seen some people just be against it all together, because they want to be a dragon (eternal and greedy).

Most importantly right now is the most important time to make productive discussion about this topic... BEFORE one is implemented. Fighting one altogether is only going to hurt the life of the HC servers, yes the HC servers are the most healthy of all the CoH servers but we need to look at the future so we can keep playing for years to come. And if we run out of names then we are al going just be numbers...

So we need to actually try and agree on practical aspects of a name release policy for when the time comes and the proverbial "switch is flipped" because no backsies!

[Player2]

2 minutes ago, Snowdaze said:

Most importantly right now is the most important time to make productive discussion about this topic... BEFORE one is implemented. Fighting one altogether is only going to hurt the life of the HC servers, yes the HC servers are the most healthy of all the CoH servers but we need to look at the future so we can keep playing for years to come. And if we run out of names then we are al going just be numbers...

So we need to actually try and agree on practical aspects of a name release policy for when the time comes and the proverbial "switch is flipped" because no backsies!

I'm definitely for it, not fighting it.  I would rather they proceed with caution.  But I do disagree with some of the more draconian suggestions some people are making to determine what constitutes active accounts.  I would be perfectly happy with it being set as by whole account and give up to a year before anything gets flagged.  I am also okay with the policy that Jimmy has already laid out in the original post (which has not been acted on yet for reasons discussed by GM Impervium).  I definitely would like to see names freed up as there are a couple dozen characters I have on Excelsior that I'd like to move over to Torchbearer but don't want to lose the names I have...  but I'm not counting on anything.  My very first reply to this topic on page one was that people should not get their hopes up when the name release policy is acted upon because there's no guarantee that the names they want will be among the ones freed up.

[AerialAssault]

To be honest, the proposed name purge I think is fine .. though I have reservations about Level 50 Immunity.

 

It would be naïve to assume that nobody has farmed characters up to Level 50 to avoid the proposed name purge in advance. The issue is that any dedicated name squatter will circumvent any measures short of a complete reset of the character database. I think that those fringe cases should be dealt by and reasoned with the GM Team. 

[Wavicle]

20 minutes ago, Tyrannical said:

you asked if they thought it was a problem, I pointed to the fact that they do.

No. They’ve acknowledged that it’s a valid concern, that’s all.

[Player2]

1 minute ago, Wavicle said:

No. They’ve acknowledged that it’s a valid concern, that’s all.

Correct.  There is definitely a difference between something being a concern and being a problem.

[Alchemystic]

1 minute ago, Wavicle said:

No. They’ve acknowledged that it’s a valid concern, that’s all.

well now you're just arguing semantics, ugh...

[Wavicle]

5 minutes ago, Tyrannical said:

well now you're just arguing semantics, ugh...

It’s an important distinction in this case. If it was a problem it would need to be addressed promptly.