Name Purge

[Major_Decoy]

I suggest re-naming all of the characters Bruce to prevent confusion.

[UltraAlt]

6 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

The names don't automatically become available.  Level 50s will always be protected

 

And I ask again, why?

It isn't like it was on live. There is no great effort to get to 50.

 

6 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

But if you have an unprotected name due to lack of use, it may become available IF someone else tries it when creating a new character.

 

If it is "all" characters, then it makes more sense.

 

Currently, it is:

• Level 1-5 characters will be flagged as inactive if they have not been played in the last 30 days.
• Level 6-49 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.

I'm against that.

 

Change it to:

• Level 1-5 characters will be flagged as inactive if they have not been played in the last 30 days.
• Level 6-50 characters will be flagged as inactive if they have not been played in the last 365 days.

... and I won't complain.

 

See someone wanting to free-up names except for 50's - the first question should always be "How many 50's do you have?" because most likely, they only have 50's and the current renaming plan (if it ever goes into effect) wouldn't affect them. Instead, it would only free up names that they want that they would then power-level to 50 in a short number of hours so that the could keep the name "forever"^tm

 

I don't intend to make any more 50's. The whole attitude that they reach ....

 

6 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

immortality at 50

 

... just doesn't sit well with me.

 

It appears that about 1/2 the players only play 50's. When they make a new character, they power level them to 50 to avoid the "boring" leveling-up part of the game (which is the actual game versus the end-game). So the naming policy would essentially be punishing-half of the player base for not power-leveling all their characters to 50.

 

If is 50's name is so important, then it should be worth enough to log-in as as someone that has played a character more time than it takes to power-level to 50.

Because some people have and, undoubtedly will, power level a character to 50 to be able to keep a character name "forever"^tm

 

That's the way I see it - obviously, since that is what I wrote.

Edited April 18 by UltraAlt

[kito]

13 minutes ago, UltraAlt said:

 

And I ask again, why?

It isn't like it was on live. There is no great effort to get to 50.

 

 

If it is "all" characters, then it makes more sense.

 

Currently, it is:

• Level 1-5 characters will be flagged as inactive if they have not been played in the last 30 days.
• Level 6-49 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.

I'm against that.

 

Change it to:

• Level 1-5 characters will be flagged as inactive if they have not been played in the last 30 days.
• Level 6-50 characters will be flagged as inactive if they have not been played in the last 365 days.

... and I won't complain.

 

See someone wanting to free-up names except for 50's - the first question should always be "How many 50's do you have?" because most likely, they only have 50's and the current renaming plan (if it ever goes into effect) wouldn't affect them. Instead, it would only free up names that they want that they would then power-level to 50 in a short number of hours so that the could keep the name "forever"^tm

 

I don't intend to make any more 50's. The whole attitude that they reach ....

 

 

... just doesn't sit well with me.

 

It appears that about 1/2 the players only play 50's. When they make a new character, they power level them to 50 to avoid the "boring" leveling-up part of the game (which is the actual game versus the end-game). So the naming policy would essentially be punishing-half of the player base for not power-leveling all their characters to 50.

 

If is 50's name is so important, then it should be worth enough to log-in as as someone that has played a character more time than it takes to power-level to 50.

Because some people have and, undoubtedly will, power level a character to 50 to be able to keep a character name "forever"^tm

 

That's the way I see it - obviously, since that is what I wrote.

 Ohh it's worse then that you can have a bunch of boring LVL 50s you never use all names hold name till later 1 as you did not like the power set or w/e and when the toon you don't LVL might run out of time you just name change the LVL 50 and deleate the low LVL you could not even bother to LVL now have a LVL 50 and name you have never played.  

 

Always recycle 🙂

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

53 minutes ago, UltraAlt said:

And I ask again, why?

 

Because.  

 

I don't make the rules, just abide by them and enforce them.  

 

And this naming policy is not even a rule that has been placed into effect;  Nothing to abide or enforce.  When the naming policy does come into effect, it will give players a greater chance than they have now to get the name they want.

 

54 minutes ago, UltraAlt said:

I'm against that.

 

Noted.

 

54 minutes ago, UltraAlt said:

... and I won't complain.

 

OK.

 

55 minutes ago, UltraAlt said:

... just doesn't sit well with me.

 

OK, noted.  But again, I don't make those decisions.

[Digirium]

Even though HC has given in and appeased the whining by semantically adding a system for releasing names the hard fact is that if it were fully implemented those that covet names are still completely unlikely to obtain those names if they became available - which makes that whining irrelevant. If HC implemented the name release system in to production then a new batch of whiners would enter existence - those that lost names due to the names they had being released.

 

No problem needed to be solved and new problems will be created. No winners. Just whiners.

 

I only have sympathy for players who lost names.

 

 

Edited April 18 by Digirium

[PeregrineFalcon]

1 hour ago, Digirium said:

No problem needed to be solved and new problems will be created. No winners. Just whiners.

I'm really starting to hate this thing that internet people do where they accuse people of whining whenever they discuss a subject that they don't want discussed.

 

A question was asked and the subject is being discussed. People are giving their opinions. The only person whining here is YOU.

[UltraAlt]

4 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

I don't make the rules, just abide by them and enforce them.  

 

I understand the policy isn't "on you".

Your post seemed to be the appropriate one to respond to with my position again due to your statement of the basics of the policy.

 

4 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

And this naming policy is not even a rule that has been placed into effect;  Nothing to abide or enforce.  When the naming policy does come into effect, it will give players a greater chance than they have now to get the name they want.

 

I'm making my position known again.

I expressed it during this as well -

There are plenty of new people playing at this point that weren't around for the discussion when it was in Beta.

 

4 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

OK, noted.  But again, I don't make those decisions.

 

I understand entirely. And again, I know it's not "on you".

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, Digirium said:

 

 

I only have sympathy for players who lost names.

 

 

If they lose names, they are not players

[tidge]

2 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I'm really starting to hate this thing that internet people do where they accuse people of whining whenever they discuss a subject that they don't want discussed.

 

Let's add some commensurate dislike for casual accusations of stubbornness and/or irrationality when folks don't change their opinions or attitudes after they've been presented with (self-assessed) completely rational arguments.

[Luminara]

40 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I'm really starting to hate this thing that internet people do where they accuse people of whining whenever they discuss a subject that they don't want discussed.

 

A question was asked and the subject is being discussed. People are giving their opinions. The only person whining here is YOU.

 

Whiner.

 

😁

[Player2]

21 hours ago, tidge said:

Luckily the MS Server event allowed so many of those camped names to become level 50!

Damn, why didn't I think of that?

[Ulysses Dare]

8 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I'm really starting to hate this thing that internet people do where they accuse people of whining whenever they discuss a subject that they don't want discussed.

You mean like how you asserted back at the start of this thread that anyone who objects to the name purge is one of those ebil name campers? Physician heal thyself.

[PeregrineFalcon]

10 minutes ago, Ulysses Dare said:

You mean like how you asserted back at the start of this thread that anyone who objects to the name purge is one of those ebil name campers? Physician heal thyself.

That's not what I said. What I did say (that there are accounts that are camping hundreds of names each) has been verified by one of those campers and by a GM.

 

There is a difference between accusing people of whining when we're simply discussing a subject and doing what I did, which was to make a verified factual statement. I'm sorry that you can't tell the difference but, as I no longer teach English, you'll have to have someone else explain it to you.

[Frostbiter]

I had the misfortune of only getting my namesake on two out of the five servers. So if you see a Frostbiter and it's not Torchbearer, that ain't me. And no that isn't a complaint. There's a middle ground here somewhere and as soon as I find it I'm laying mines and declaring it a DMZ.

[Yomo Kimyata]

On 4/17/2024 at 5:43 PM, UltraAlt said:

 

It was Yomo hoarding names on 50s all along!

Who knew!?

 

Well, other than Yomo....

 

I would like to point out that this was me making fun of my altitis and not actually camping names.

 

 

[Luminara]

46 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I no longer teach English

 

 "You weak, sniveling, pathetic little nothing!  You misspelled four words on your essay and used an adverb where a pronoun would be appropriate!  DO YOU THINK KINDERGARTEN IS A JOKE?!"

[Herotu]

22 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

But if you have an unprotected name due to lack of use, it may become available IF someone else tries it when creating a new character.

I wonder if the devs have analysed how many of these names are on inactive accounts (by that I mean ones that have been inactive for years). It makes me wonder whether they've decided that it's not worth bothering implementing the system because it wouldn't free many names.

[Ridiculous Girl]

On 4/17/2024 at 9:29 PM, Go0gleplex said:

which gives the appearance of yet more entitled whining by someone unable to be creative outside of the box

says the person that has to substitute an 0 for an o to get a name... 😛

[KC4800]

Oh baby you....got what I neeeeed.

[ZemX]

10 hours ago, Herotu said:

I wonder if the devs have analysed how many of these names are on inactive accounts (by that I mean ones that have been inactive for years). It makes me wonder whether they've decided that it's not worth bothering implementing the system because it wouldn't free many names.

 

The only info I think we've heard is from Number Six in a post when the warning phase was activated.  Across all servers in total, there were then about 700K characters in the level 1-5 range inactive for at least 30 days.  Of those, 600K were also inactive for more than a year.   A "significantly smaller" number are in the 6-49 bracket but a number wasn't given.  Another post by GM Impervium stated there were a total of 2 million characters at that time.  Of the 700K characters above, it's reasonable to assume some names are duplicates since these numbers span all servers.

 

I think it's reasonable to guess based on these reveals that anywhere from a half to three-quarters of a million character names could be freed up total across the servers with the bulk of them being of course probably on just two or three of the servers.

 

This got held up by technical issues last I heard, not because it wouldn't free up a lot of names.  They obviously do not want mistakes if they flip the "On" switch on this thing.  It's probably also not the highest priority to fix whatever needs fixing right now.  Might never be turned on because of it.

[Herotu]

27 minutes ago, ZemX said:

This got held up by technical issues last I heard, not because it wouldn't free up a lot of names.  They obviously do not want mistakes if they flip the "On" switch on this thing.  It's probably also not the highest priority to fix whatever needs fixing right now.  Might never be turned on because of it.

I suppose there's no harm giving people even more time to read the warning, even if there's no chance of it ever being turned on.

[UltraAlt]

14 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

I would like to point out that this was me making fun of my altitis and not actually camping names.

 

Mmm, sure... okay .... we know you can't resist yourself when a good punny name pops into your mind ...

[Go0gleplex]

2 hours ago, Ridiculous Girl said:

says the person that has to substitute an 0 for an o to get a name... 😛

ROFLMAO!   Actually that's deliberate and something I've used since the 1980's lass. It's for the eyes.  (o0)   Though it was also a misspelling I've never corrected and should've been Go0golplex as it was meant to be a subtle tongue-in-cheek joke... 1 (guy) followed by a whole lot of zeroes.  

[Greycat]

13 hours ago, Herotu said:

I wonder if the devs have analysed how many of these names are on inactive accounts (by that I mean ones that have been inactive for years). It makes me wonder whether they've decided that it's not worth bothering implementing the system because it wouldn't free many names.

 

... which (a) kind of tells me they should run this on inactive accounts first, if that's a big part of the issue and (b) just reminds me that they ran a similar script on live twice and found... not many names freed up / reused, even though they were preparing for what should be a big launch which would use up names. And there were far more people on live, after all.

[PeregrineFalcon]

37 minutes ago, Greycat said:

And there were far more people on live, after all.

People keep saying this in every thread on this subject. And my response is: "So what?!?"

 

Ok, so there were more people on the retail servers. Ok, and? We had 20 or 40 character slots back then, or whatever it was. And you had to purchase each account. Here on Homecoming we have 1,000 character slots. ONE THOUSAND. And accounts are free. That means that it only takes 1 person, ONE, to make multiple accounts and spend a couple of days making characters with all of the cool sounding names that he can think of to cause this problem.

 

And, as I've already said and I'm going to remind you again because for some reason people seem to have forgotten this, a GM already confirmed that this happened.

 

I'm going to say this again. A GM already confirmed that there are multiple accounts with hundreds of unplayed level 1 characters with cool names just sitting there camping the ****** outta those names like professional campers on a reality show about camping. Here's the link in case you missed it in my last post.

 

It doesn't matter what happened on the retail servers. It doesn't matter whether running the script on the retail servers freed up any names or not. The current situation on Homecoming is so different than on the retail servers that you cannot, in regards to this, use previous results to predict what will happen on Homecoming today.