Time to enforce the name holding expiration rules

[gameboy1234]

On 12/10/2020 at 10:10 AM, Rathulfr said:

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.

Honestly this is a good idea, and sounds less risky than putting a system in place that has to do this automagically.  (As they said, they get one  shot at it.)  A more manual system that they can inspect before releasing it (run the script over the database, test it to make sure it did the right thing) sounds much  more likely to be bug free.

 

I'm not against the kind of thing the devs originally proposed, but if it's as risky as they say, they should take their time with it.  In order to get at least a few names freed up however the devs should take into consideration something like the above, if it represents something that can be implemented easier.

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by gameboy1234

[Myrmidon]

On 12/12/2020 at 10:49 AM, Yomo Kimyata said:

I think that the procedure announced in May 2019 sounds fair, and I'd support it if/when it is implemented.

You know, I had a month long European vacation planned back then which caused me to bring all three dozen character concepts that I had to at least 22 (just in case).

[Player2]

5 hours ago, Myrmidon said:

You know, I had a month long European vacation planned back then which caused me to bring all three dozen character concepts that I had to at least 22 (just in case).

Agreed.  A policy was set, an explanation given for why it hasn't been acted on yet.  And now people are arguing over what they think would be the fair way to handle choose who/what the policy affects should be.

[Alchemystic]

19 minutes ago, Player2 said:

Agreed.  A policy was set, an explanation given for why it hasn't been acted on yet.  And now people are arguing over what they think would be the fair way to handle choose who/what the policy affects should be.

I think most of the discussion here comes from the devs' reluctance to implement their own policy, claiming it needs to be revised.

 

Of course, people are more than happy to come up with their own revisions to put forward, to help tue process along, and that invites debate.

 

And in true HC forum fashion, debate quickly escalates into conflict.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Tyrannical

[Player2]

2 minutes ago, Tyrannical said:

I think most of the discussion here comes from the devs' reluctance to implement their own policy, claiming it needs to be revised.

 

Of course, people are more than happy to come up with their own revisions to put forward, to help tue process along, and that invites debate.

 

And in true HC forum fashion, debate quickly escalates into conflict.

 

 

All the more reason it should be left in the HC team's hands alone.  People will always push for the idea that benefits themselves the most (or the one they think will), and we don't need an excuse for conflict.

 

Also, when did they claim it needs to be revised?  The message from @GM Impervium makes it seem more like they are concerned with how it is implemented so that it doesn't have any unintended consequences, not that they feel that the policy needs to be revised.

[Alchemystic]

1 minute ago, Player2 said:

All the more reason it should be left in the HC team's hands alone.  People will always push for the idea that benefits themselves the most (or the one they think will), and we don't need an excuse for conflict.

 

Also, when did they claim it needs to be revised?  The message from @GM Impervium makes it seem more like they are concerned with how it is implemented so that it doesn't have any unintended consequences, not that they feel that the policy needs to be revised.

Exactly, if the policy were to be implemented in it's current state, it could potentially be problematic, hence requiring a revision so that problems are eliminated, or at least reduced.

 

As for leaving it the the HC team, they're volunteers, and often put their ideas out for discussion before implementation since they value feedback. If they were to operate with no regard to the players, it wouldn't be a popular server.

 

People are welcome to offer ideas that help the team, and the greater community, and that should never be discouraged.

 

 

[Player2]

57 minutes ago, Tyrannical said:

Exactly, if the policy were to be implemented in it's current state, it could potentially be problematic, hence requiring a revision so that problems are eliminated, or at least reduced.

 

As for leaving it the the HC team, they're volunteers, and often put their ideas out for discussion before implementation since they value feedback. If they were to operate with no regard to the players, it wouldn't be a popular server.

 

People are welcome to offer ideas that help the team, and the greater community, and that should never be discouraged.

 

 

As I understand it, though, it's not the policy that needs to be revised.  It's the script they intend to run to enact the policy.  They don't need people's ideas about what constitutes an active account or what level individual characters should be affected or whether or not 50s should be affected, or a specific formulae for how to make it "fair."  They established the policy last year.  It feels like you're confusing the term "policy" with the actual method for enforcing it.

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

I am going to say some things and hope they maybe make a shift in some folks point of view. So I think its safe to hazard the assumption most who post here are fairly active CoH players, dare I say many might even consider CoH their main or only game they really actively play.

 

However there are also other breeds of gamer. There is the wider MMO gamer, often called the content locusts who leaps from MMO to MMO with each new update toenjoy new content in a constant cycle of fresh new virtual adventure.

 

Then there is the Gamer, one who has a game library physical or digital that would rival the library of congress in size( J/K...maybe;)) And for them gaming is something they do based on whim and mood, They go from world to world in their games like a Planes Walker in MTG wanders the realms of reality. They keep many games on hand just to step into an old city or wander through an old mystical forest they know well once more. And for them it is not at all uncommon for years to go by between their stepping into a game.

 

And most MMO companies know this, and know that only a very small percentage of their population is even logging in on an annual basis. The longer an MMO goes the more recent returnee threads become a thing as players who have taken 2 3 or 4 year breaks become ever more common. And most usually return to fanfare if they were even modestly well known in the smaller communities most MMO have.

 

DDO aka Dungeons&Dragons online is a perfect example of this. It is an MMO with more turbulence in its history then most, and as such has seen large exodus's of players no few times, and thus in turn it often sees the long gone player become a returnee with no few years between them. And the subject of name purging does come up there on the forums from time to time, but the company has made it clear they will never purge names, even of purely FTP characters, because they understand how an in game reputation can become attached to a character. Let me put it this way while no great player on DDO just about every time I return to Ghallandia server there my elf characters who all have names starting with Leaf like Leafon and Leafel tend to have some players go yeah I am pretty sure I recall your name from way back, And my bard half elf Spruce Springstream never fails to get some level of recognition there. And it has now been at least 2+ years since my last log on to the game maybe 3 or more. And I am a nobody there basically, If someone like the famous barbarian player Axer who has been gone from that game more then a decade was to return, even those who had not played back then would be made aware of how big a deal it was, and sure as shit no one else ever deserves to have that name on a character just because he has been gone and likely never to return.

 

Or take the case of a friend of mine who died in 06. He was pretty top shit in his raiding guild in wow as a shadow priest, most said he was top shadow priest on his server from what I gather as I never was a wow player meself. Still every year his little brother logs onto his account on the day of his death and the guild gathers to spend an hour or two talking about the exploits of the silent phantom that visits them. Would you truly say such a thing should ever risk having the name lost because for whatever reason that annual log in does not happen?

 

 

While it is true we have globals, not all of us use them or recall them as much as specific characters, and a character name being handed around could lead to some real social confusion in game, the kind that could lead to some real negative feelings for someone if they feel taken advantage of by some stranger they mistook for an old friend.

 

Even in games that have subs and real money being spent like DDO they are not even considering taking names from pure FTP accounts more then a decade old. That is how much of a non issue a money making company sees this as. So I frankly cant even see why the HC team would consider catering to a vocal minority on the forum over a topic no professional company of even modest size considers worth time or thought on.

 

I am just trying to stress that perhaps the players here thinking even an annual log on is a lot of time are not considering the span of time MMO go, the nature of persistence that makes players return to them even with years between, and that unless we are going to adopt a champions style name system I think names need to remain unique and on the characters they were claimed by to avoid needless drama and confusion.

[Alchemystic]

3 minutes ago, Player2 said:

As I understand it, though, it's not the policy that needs to be revised.  It's the script they intend to run to enact the policy.  They don't need people's ideas about what constitutes an active account or what level individual characters should be affected or whether or not 50s should be affected, or a specific formulae for how to make it "fair."  They established the policy last year.  It feels like you're confusing the term "policy" with the actual method for enforcing it.

Then I suppose it's down to interpretation.

 

The way I perceive it is that the policy needs some fine tuning before implementation to minimize potential problems. But if that's not the case, then the only harm I've really done is create a counter proposal that could potentially be a viable substitute.

 

Though as you said, its ultimately up to the HC team what they go with.

[Ukase]

20 hours ago, Rathulfr said:

 

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?

 

A fair point. My military experience was 88-92. I assure you - while computers did exist, there were no internet cafes around - so I've literally no idea how easy/hard it would be for military to do something like that. 
I do like the notion of an email keeping things going for them, but I would wonder how many folks might just use that if they weren't in the service. I can't see HC folks asking for documentation to prove such a thing. 
For 98% of our player base, I think the honor system is sufficient. Just wonder how many names the 2% are sitting on, lol. 

[Player2]

14 minutes ago, Ukase said:

For 98% of our player base, I think the honor system is sufficient. Just wonder how many names the 2% are sitting on, lol. 

 

Honestly, out of the couple dozen I want, I doubt any will be freed up.

[Ukase]

18 minutes ago, Llewellyn Blackwell said:

I am just trying to stress that perhaps the players here thinking even an annual log on is a lot of time are not considering the span of time MMO go, the nature of persistence that makes players return to them even with years between, and that unless we are going to adopt a champions style name system I think names need to remain unique and on the characters they were claimed by to avoid needless drama and confusion.

Man, how do I put this...
For one, thanks for explaining this MMO mindset. I can't imagine it. It doesn't make sense to me. But - I'll trust that it's at least somewhat representing reality. I've known in-game friends that have gone and returned. 
The thing is - if they are so whimsical to only feel like jumping in every 2-3-4 years, then clearly, the game isn't that important to them. Seriously. We all have words. But actions speak louder. They show they don't care that much by not playing. So why should those that do care be cut off from what they think will be a great thematic concept? In truth, now that I think about it, it makes sense. Going from new content to new content, keeping things interesting, fun, etc...I suppose it is more understandable after I think about it. Still, 2-3-4 years? If the only thing that's keeping them from logging in is the lure of another game or two, or three or 20...

You bring up an interesting point about reputation around a character's name. I notice a large number of players use a "naming convention". A word used in each character name, like Shadow Reaper, Sun Reaper, Snow Reaper, that kind of thing. Most every character would have the name Reaper in it, making it mostly clear that Shadow Reaper is the same person behind the avatar as Sun Reaper. And if they are inclined to lead various trials and tfs, and are competent at it, if someone else comes along with a Reaper variation, it can be confusing to the other players. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to resolve that other than to suggest people use more obscure terms to identify themselves with for their global. 

I wish I had a solution. I don't. But I did appreciate your perspective. For me, though - and only me - I think if you log off HC CoH and don't return routinely, you should have no expectations. Routinely is vague, defined differently by many. I think once a month would be reasonable, but to be more inclusive, 4 years would be as wide as I could go, given I have no idea how deployments and other types of service would impact access to opportunities to play. If I were to discount military service, I'd say 3 months at the most. But that's just me thinking about me. I'm glad I'm not the one to make the decision. 

[Player2]

I don't think military service should be a consideration, not because I want to shut them out, but rather because I think there are other valid reasons for extended time away, and everyone should have some breathing room without having to worry that their beloved level 50 incarnate maxed out with T4s in everything will suddenly be generic... or even their beloved level 24 side character for lower level teaming or whatever.  For some people it's military service, for others it might be health considerations, and others still might need a break because of relationship issues, family problems, chronic depression, onlline fatigue, or whatever.

 

Also, as pointed out, I think collecting proof of military service could be tricky and probably not worth the hassle.  The policy as was laid out by Jimmy gives people time... more for higher level characters, obviously.  A draconian policy of "use it or lose it" only serves those who are active right now and will discourage people who need a break for whatever reason from coming back because their favorite characters might no longer be who they were.

 

Personally, I think that time and effort should be dedicated to working around the unique name system, making names tied to global chat handles so anyone can use whatever character names they want and reputation earned by players from players should be on the name behind the name.  Building a reputation on a bunch of characters named similarly, such as a bunch of Reapers, can be confusing if someone else comes along with a Reaper of their own.  Is it the same player?  Check the global chat handle.  Maybe that person has multiple accounts.  Ask.

 

But, since that's probably a pipe dream...  the naming thing has to be fair to everyone, whether they play daily, occasionally from month to month, or once in a while with an almost annual check in for events or whatever.

 

[Player2]

And with that, I think I am done on this topic.

 

"A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."

-Steven Wright

[Marine X]

I believe that an account that has not logged in for over a year, should qualify to be considered inactive, but I could see pushing that to 18 months. I have had some long sessions trying to find just the right name, only to have to settle for something...unsatisfying, but I have no way to know this would change that. I feel that the name release policy should never be Automatic, but rather Names no longer reserved, that seems fair to both sides and Should not apply to 50+ Characters. When I started here, in the spring of 2019, I lost one of my "Live" 50s right out of the gate as someone had already taken "Goldfever", so I just made him "Gold Fever" and moved on, but I believe that there will eventually need to be action taken. I have confidence in the Homecoming Team to be fair in how the handle these kinds of issues.

[Coyotedancer]

10 hours ago, Myrmidon said:

You know, I had a month long European vacation planned back then which caused me to bring all three dozen character concepts that I had to at least 22 (just in case).

Yep. And in anticipation of the stated policy eventually going into effect, I went ahead and "finished" my little flock of bird-things over on Excelsior, getting them to 50 and all that, so I wouldn't have to worry about how often or how infrequently I make it back over to that server.

 

That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Neither does getting something that you know you want to keep to 22. 

[Rathulfr]

3 hours ago, Ukase said:

A fair point. My military experience was 88-92. I assure you - while computers did exist, there were no internet cafes around - so I've literally no idea how easy/hard it would be for military to do something like that. 
I do like the notion of an email keeping things going for them, but I would wonder how many folks might just use that if they weren't in the service. I can't see HC folks asking for documentation to prove such a thing. 
For 98% of our player base, I think the honor system is sufficient. Just wonder how many names the 2% are sitting on, lol. 

 

We don't have to ask for justification or documentation.  We just need a response -- any response, whether it be a single logon, a web ticket, or an e-mail to a specific address -- once a year.  Basically a "ping" of some kind that indicates, "Yes, I'm still here, and I'd like to keep my names, please."  I can't imagine that's too much to ask.

 

Yes, this might mean that some idle players will ping once a year only to keep their names.  But it also might mean that some idle players won't ping once a year, which means that those name reservations are released.  Better some than none.

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Rathulfr

[Rathulfr]

11 hours ago, gameboy1234 said:

Honestly this is a good idea, and sounds less risky than putting a system in place that has to do this automagically.  (As they said, they get one  shot at it.)  A more manual system that they can inspect before releasing it (run the script over the database, test it to make sure it did the right thing) sounds much  more likely to be bug free.

 

I'm not against the kind of thing the devs originally proposed, but if it's as risky as they say, they should take their time with it.  In order to get at least a few names freed up however the devs should take into consideration something like the above, if it represents something that can be implemented easier.

 

 

And once it's established that April 24th (or whatever date is selected) is the "Annual Name Release Day" (or whatever the event ends up being called), then everyone knows what's expected, what will happen, and what's necessary.  It becomes a routine anniversay date, a "holiday" (of sorts) for which everyone can plan ahead.

 

[Snowdaze]

4 hours ago, Llewellyn Blackwell said:

I am going to say some things...{remainder of post cut out to save electrons}

Llewellyn, Thank you for this. I understand and respect this point of view. However I feel at this point there is a precedent at this point, that just stopping the process now does equal parts harm and good. Either way this goes, enact a policy or don't enact a policy, it's a lose lose. You will always have a vocal presence that feels the other should have happened. 

But I go back to the fact that CoH has not 1, not 2, but the often forgot 3rd name release. And its really that third name release that did the most damage and messed the whole thing up. That 3rd release being the fact the original character DB was not legally able to be incorporated into HC. Now I do understand that if it had not been a legal issue, it still would have been a monumental undertaking getting everyone's accounts back to the rightful owners. So I'm not upset that I (I wont speak for everyone) had to start from scratch... it's been fun.

But because there was a 7 year downtime of the game, when it did come back there was a huge influx of players, many people did not get previous names back. Honestly I couldn't even remember all my old characters. Now however the game population has re-stabilized, many of the first wave have gotten their nostalgia fix said their goodbyes and moved on finally. Others just realized it wasn't them anymore. Some first time players stayed some decided it just wasn't for them.

IF this had been the original Name Database, I would be squarely in the corner of your posts viewpoint. But I feel due to past events it doesn't quite apply, like a square peg in a rectangular peg hole, it may fit but there are gaps in it...

I under normal circumstances would even be for protecting 50s, but like I said the last year and a half was a honeymoon period for players and accounts. And the party left a lot of trash that could be picked up. I really like the originally posted policy, I think it's mostly fair and checks all the right boxes, but right at the top the very top that permanence purely for 50's seems like a giant loop hole that caters to powerleveling in AE, something that was specifically fought against back in the days of live. Fought against not eliminated, but definitely frowned upon. And I understand that the farming community has become an integral part of the HC community at large, they provide a large portion of AH goods. I still don't feel like doorsitting for a couple hours warrants the privilege to have your name be immune from a name release.

[Rathulfr]

Would it be too much to ask the HC team to publish a simple summary report of the numbers (no account details or character names)?  Something like this:

 

• Number of accounts where last logon date is over 1 year ago = 56,789
• Number of characters (all levels) on these accounts = 123,456
• Number of characters at level 50 on these accounts = 5,678

 

Just having this much would help us understand the scope of the problem, if any.  The numbers might indicate that the past 13 pages could have been avoided entirely.

 

Of course, the HC team might have legitimate reasons for not publishing even this kind of summary information, so I'd completely understand if they said, "No, we won't do that."  But it never hurts to ask.

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Rathulfr

[arcane]

While this policy is being debated, we should probably go ahead and have a sticky name help thread for those expressing that they have a gaping void where their creativity is supposed to be 😉

[Alchemystic]

1 hour ago, arcaneholocaust said:

While this policy is being debated, we should probably go ahead and have a sticky name help thread for those expressing that they have a gaping void where their creativity is supposed to be 😉

there is one dude

[arcane]

2 hours ago, Tyrannical said:

there is one dude

Well I looked at the pinned/sticky threads in each relevant subforum and have now concluded I must just be blind. Perhaps some of the folks here that express difficulty naming characters have yet to find it either.

[Alchemystic]

8 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

Well I looked at the pinned/sticky threads in each relevant subforum and have now concluded I must just be blind. Perhaps some of the folks here that express difficulty naming characters have yet to find it either.

no no, you called them out, it's on you to find it now

[arcane]

25 minutes ago, Tyrannical said:

no no, you called them out, it's on you to find it now

I'm good, thanks. Have zero difficulty finding names.