Jophiel

I've no idea what that has to do with the "But running a script could destroy everything!" arguments balanced against the "Let's create a whole new naming system from the ground up for a seven year old game!" argument.

When we have people in a tizzy about how the heavens will shake and the game code will collapse* if the current script is run, I'm not sure why this even gets brought up.


*How's that for hyperbole?

I did.

While not statistically significant, it has been amusing to watch other assume to know what the reaction would be from ex-subscribers.

My personal feeling is that, just as today's MMOs are designed for people who play(ed) MMOs, that one was designed for people who grew up on pencil & paper RPGs. As clunky as it was, every time a QoL function was added, even something as simple as <Weapons> over a weapon merchant, a vocal group would complain that it was less realistic and too much hand-holding and easy-mode and yadda yadda.

But they are presumably reading the thread to make sure we behave. I'll accept some feedback splash-off as a result

I don't think it's especially useful to say one side isn't being creative or the other side is picking stupid names no one else would want anyway. If someone is set on "Thundercloud" for their character and it's taken by someone who unsubbed in 2008 at level 9, then it's a problem for that current player that could pretty easily be fixed. Granted, if it's being used by an active player then there isn't an easy fix but that's not what's being discussed and I don't see cause to dismiss an easy fix because of a different situation.

For every name someone thinks is awesome, someone else thinks it's trite or cliché or silly or too punny or just plain stupid. That doesn't change the fact that the first guy still thinks it's awesome.

Nothing binary about it as I said I would revise from there. But I certainly believe that starting at "benefits one customer" is more intelligent than starting at "one guy who may or may not ever return has a sad story".

The devs decide that based partially on active player feedback so, while it may or may not ever happen, I don't feel that giving my feedback is a waste. Really though, the "The devs don't think so" thing is often used as an "I win, now stop talking!" button (not saying you're doing that) so I don't worry much about it. Posting here doesn't cost me anything and if I didn't have the time or inclination to spend posting, I wouldn't. Posting, even in a debate, is a leisure activity for me so, provided I'm finding leisure in it, it's time well spent regardless of what the devs ultimately do

Edit: That's a lot of commas.

How many paying customers should benefit before non-paying non-customers? I'll start with "one" and revise it upwards based on additional evidence.

The rest of your arguments are based in hypotheticals, as are mine, and so suffice it to say I disagree with how you weight things. You do likewise but without harder data there isn't much headway either of us will make.

I'm not worried about my own account so much as I think it's a good idea in general so my time is actually better spent in this argument than playing with a name generator I have no need for

How is this different from the previous purges? There's always going to be hard-luck stories. How many hard-luck stories does it take to block a purge?

You keep saying that but, short of some numbers backing up resubscription rates, it just doesn't hold up compared to real-paying-this-very-moment customers. Existing customers benefit from a name purge. Brand new customers benefit from a name purge. Heck, even resubbing customers can benefit from a name purge as they might actually want some of those purged names upon their return. The only ones who are negatively affected are this hypothetical pool of "low-hanging fruit" returning customers of unknown quantity who have names under the limit that someone else wants.

Hey, speaking of "binary equations"... Who said "doing everything"? You can purge under a level limit. You can purge only trials. You can purge on a sliding scale of level vs time away (thus lowering the impact upon those precious "low-hanging fruit" returning customers coming back any day now).

Likewise (although I went longer out than 3 months). Sporadic outliers shouldn't be a reason not to do it. Give them time to return but ultimately paying customers should come before non-paying (thus) non-customers.

Given your previously bizarre notions on "most valuable returning customers", I'm going to skip on your business acumen but thanks none the less.

Not really. The argument is that those names essentially don't exist any longer since they are locked in defunct accounts. There is still only one unique "Ice-Lad" at a time per server.

You're wildly speculating outside the bounds of what's reasonable. I clarified that in the second half that you clipped out.

...anymore.

And I agree with it. Bird in the hand, and all that.

And what if ninjas attack or an elephant charges the servers? Given that no one is advocating "Lose your names the second your account expires", I find it extremely unlikely that the number of people who take year+ long breaks from the game are out-financing the people who pay month after month.

If no one else wants your name, you'll have it when you return. All it does is flag the name as available. If someone else asks for Ice-Lad after the purge, they'll get it and you'll return to find yourself named Ice-Lad1 with a free rename token. If no one asks for Ice-Lad, you'll return to find your name untouched (and now safe since you've logged in).

So it naturally distinguishes between "wanted/popular" names and "unlikely to be contested" names by virtue of the fact that no one else will ask to be "Chandra Dillmyster" or "Purple Tablelamp Bot" in your absence.

In this context, "more dedicated" means "actively paying month after month while you're not".

As opposed to being told "Sorry, there's already a Fire/Ice blaster on this server wearing red & blue..."?

I never said they don't want anyone to return. But your coveted "best customer everyone wants" returning customer in this case is the guy who "returns" month after month after month, not the guy who leaves (and doesn't pay) for years on end. The former is more valuable than the latter.

If you were running a bar, would you tell your nightly customers "Hey! No sitting on that bar stool! There's a guy who sat there once and left here three years ago and you never know when he'll be back, but man I want those returning customers"?

In the MMORPG market, "returning customers" are the ones who hand over a check month after month, year after year for game access. Not the ones who leave for two years but might, maybe, someday return.
That's kind of silly. People directly affected by something are often the worst judges of "what's fair" to them. I might sign an affidavit saying it's "not fair" that I have to pay taxes but that doesn't make it true or credible.

Yeah, but he finishes it up by saying his opinion is to run the script

I'm not even personally invested in it -- I'm out of slots on my server anyway unless I buy more (which I'm unlikely to do), delete characters (I'm more likely to keep their name and find a new concept) or switch servers (I'm happy where I am). I just don't see a good reason to not run the script with a wider net. A good reason to do so would be that this game is losing people faster than its gaining them if the quarterly DOOM! posts are to be believed and measures to help existing customers create and become invested in new characters or help new customers create characters are worth more than worrying about people who left the game five years ago... but might return any day now and ragequit when their name is gone.