Knightingale

I had a similar experience last week. Took 3 days on Annual Leave (Weds Thurs and Fri) that coincided with me being horribly ill and also having my Internet connection go down on the Weds and the engineers couldn't fix it till Saturday morning!

My lovely 3 days of planned time off to play all gone up in smoke.

I can laugh about it now...........

I'm getting exactly the same thing.

Frustrating. I've been trying to find out if the servers were down for some reason.....

I did. I have. But honestly I just thought Toffy was asking a question based on the Eula.

He even started with "My Question is" and ended with "??"

Since then everyone has spent 5 or 6 pages debating racial and ethnic discrimination regardless of how many times people (including myself) have come on and said that it has nothing to do with that. And to be honest there's been ALOT of trolling in there simply to create an argument rather than anything meaningful.

We all KNOW that this is nothing to do with racial or ethnic origin, so lets stop banging on that drum already.

I've always said and maintained that this is to do with discrimination between the account groups. And the Veterancy is the non-discriminatory way forward.

Are people REALLY that petty as to try and lump the veterancy into discrimination on a technicality? Are we really going to start grouping people into which badge they've got? Creating 50 odd different badge groups just to make a point?

The veterancy principle takes away the geographical boundaries and the account boundaries and puts the deciding factor squarely on the individual and on a basis of comparison between individuals. Kinda like going to a job interview where you will be assessed on your individual merit.

That's always been the point I've been TRYING to put across.

Can we please drop all the ethnic and racial stuff. Please?

Still sounds fair to me.

EU player has been PAYING for longer than the NA player has been PAYING for that second account. Sure he should keep the first one with long veterancy, but does that mean that he should keep the naming rights to any other account he/she's created since?

I don't think so. It's a whol seperate account, paid for separately.

Take your same argument, and say what if NA player created 2 accounts (just like you said), the first one 7 years ago and another just 6 weeks ago.

Should the fact he's been an subscriber on ONE account for 7 years automatically override the fact that his SECOND account may be under threat from an EU player who has the same Global as his 2nd account but has had it from the EU launch 6 years ago?

Hence, and as people KEEP saying over and over and over again..... fairest way to do it is base it on veterancy of the account. They've PAID for that account name for longer, however you slice it.

I don't remember anyone bringing race into it?! I know we were talking about discrimination but I don't remember race being mentioned as a deciding factor in who gets the global name.

Plus all you've really done is reinforced the point that it's the EU accounts who are being shafted. So thanks for that.

Yes there will always be a handful of peeps who play in the US on EU accounts and vice versa, but they'll be a huge minority (if that makes sense). Personally I know a few people who once created US accounts to start playing the game but are now EU side since the game launched here. I don't know of any Americans who play over on the EU servers but I'm sure there are a few. But predominantly the reason still falls to geographical discrimination..... which was the point all along.

Nope, I saw it.

But to be honest with you I just felt it kinda smelt of them paying lip service.

Seemed like alot of marketing speak. The whole, lets build it up as something exciting and awesome, sneak in the bad news further down, then try and pre-emptively pacify their fears by telling them that this solution has been carefully considered.

That's kinda how it came across to me. Not saying it did to everyone, but it did to me.

Now the few posts we've seen from Zill since seem far more genuine and open. Less marketing BS, more communtiy liaison.

And to be honest I think a fair few of the EU community (me included) saw red when we absorbed the details of what was being said. After that I don't think it would matter what that first post said we were already all riled up. LOL

I think alot of us are much calmer now. Still miffed..... but calmer.

I'm just happy that they seem to be listening to the backlash and I'm hopeful they'll do something about it. Probably won't, but I'm hopeful.

I always thought it was Brass Tacks ?

I digress though. Lots of good stuff in there. Wouldn't object to the server list merge, think it's fundamentally a good thing. And you'd be right to want to do it with the least risk to the game and it's population. All sensible stuff.

This bit above is the bit I don't get at all. I'm struggling to see how the Veterancy option could be unfair to anyone?!? Admittedly if I was a victim of it I'd be miffed, but I'd have to admit it was fair.

I'd love to know what you consider unfair? *shrugs* Or at least more unfair or equally as unfair as what you're currently proposing.

The only thing that I'd say would be more unfair would be to flip it on it's head and have the US server peeps be the ones that suffer as admittedly they're a bigger population and alot of them have been around longer!

As a European I'd baulk at that and defend my US Counterparts to the hilt if that was ever considered.

This I like. This is the kind of message that should have been put out since day 1. That you understand and will do your best to preserve the identities we've built.

Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated!

Who says they aren't one and the same ?



Either way, apologies if anyone in this thread (or the other thread) thought I was being horrible. I've tried to be careful to be a bit light humoured about something that's miffing me.

But as I've stated even if I lose my global I wouldn't ragequit. Rage isn't really in my vocabulary. I'd just dust myself off and mumble to myself and be a little unhappier about the relationship we in the EU have with the Devs and then I'd carry on playing as usual.

This isn't enough to have me quit the game, but it is enough to make me come onto these forums and actually post multiple times, which is something I haven't done in a while.

After this is all over I'll probably go back to my lurker status again. LOL

Truly I'm looking forward to the list merge and the possibilities it presents. I don't see it as a huge benefit that some are touting it to be, but I have frequented the US alot over the years and actually lived in Toronto Canada for a while so I do love the North American peeps and culture, and playing on the US Servers from time to time I'm sure will be fun. And I hope you guys pop onto Defiant and look us up (come join the Echelon SG on Defiant, we rock!!! Check us out pre merger at http://theechelon.eu/forum/ ).

I just have a bitter taste in my mouth about the way it's being handled and the possibility I'm going to lose my name and have to become some new identity.


Anyhow's sorry if I have angered anyone over the past couple of days. Never intended.

We're not being silly. Honestly what's the difference?

I agree we're not being discriminated against because of our race, ethnic origin, religion, sex, colour of our skin, what car we drive, what we have for breakfast, how many badgers we own......

Maybe this isn't as serious as the racial discrimination that happened in the 60's. It is, after all, just a game.

But discrimination is discrimination. Doesn't matter what the differentiating factor is.

FACT - Nothing is going to happen to the US accounts.

FACT - It's the EU accounts that will get appended.

FACT - the differentiating factor between who gets mullered by this change and who doesn't boils down to geographic location (generally. I do understand that there are US players on the EU servers already and vice versa).
ERGO - The EU players are being discriminated against specifically because we play on the EU servers.

Maybe it does sound all too much comparing it with the whole racial aspect of discrimination, and that wasn't what I intended when I quoted MLK earlier. The intention was to show that whether we play in the EU or on the US servers shouldn't we all be treated equally?

Surely people in the US of all places should be upholding this principle??

TBH (and TBF!) there will be people both sides of the pond who aren't particularly attached to their globals.

Way I see it people are falling into 4 camps here.

a) The peeps on the EU side who are very unhappy that they're about to potentially lose what they see as an important part of their online identity. These people are likely to be the ones who've been around a while, weathered all the other slights against our community and are tired of it. The way the EU servers are, I'd wager this is probably the majority of EU players. We're not a huge population, most of us have been around for a while and we're incredibly close knit.

2) Peeps in the EU who really don't care too much, probably this implies they're more casual players, aren't really massively invested in the history of the game and may be the kind of players who flit between time in game and time playing other games. These guys aren't being vocal because they either don't frequent the forums or don't care much about whether they have a different name (cause they use different names in different games all the time so what the hell, what's one more!).

iii) Peeps on the US side who are being genuinely empathic because they know how they'd feel if the situation was reversed and are trying to help out by lending a voice or offering up support and solutions (I like these people and they're the ones I'm looking forward to meeting on the US servers! ) With what I know about guys and gals US side I'd hope this was the majority.

four) Peeps on the US Side who don't give a hoot cause it doesn't affect them so they're either not paying any attention to the thread or just want to make it known that they wouldn't care and have a pop at us for trying to discuss it (which is the name of the forum incidentally). I tend to think (hope) that the latter is a minority group.


I get where the Dev's are coming from. You CAN'T please ALL of the people ALL of the time, every solution will have people complaining about something. Can't avoid that. It's human nature to complain about things. LOL

But honestly they could take the approach that pleases the MOST people MOST of the time.

Just thinking about the statistics behind all this..... I'd love them to do some datamining and find out exactly who this affects. Not gonna happen I know, but it would be great if it could.

My gut feel (and admittedly this could be wayyyyyy off) is that this probably doesn't affect that many REAL users if the Veterancy way of doing things was pursued.

Think about how many subscribers CoX has had since launch and how many it has active now. I'll bet there's an awful lot of global names tied up with peeps who no longer play and probably have no intention of coming back. Just taking them out of the equation may put a huge dent in the number of clashing names out there. Then it just boils down to the smaller number who clash and still play.

Then think that there may be new players who are on trials or have only been playing a few months to try the game out. Cut out trials and the number of potential clashes again reduces.

Those that are still playing and trying the game? Who's more valuable to NCSoft, them or the people who have ploughed cash into the game for many months and years? who would understand the most? who would be pissed off the most?

I think when you start to slice down through the layers of user the problem gets smaller till I'd imagine that you'd only have a minimum of people that would TRULY clash and be inconvenienced by this.

And it that small number I'd hope that having the issue solved by Veterency would come across as fair to all parties.

Following this route, I'd probably still be miffed to lose out on my Global, but goddammit I'd understand that it's fair and equal. If US side Knightingale got the name then he deserves it in my eyes as he was using it longer. I'd move on and become Knightingale_EU or something as similar as I could get.

I think all but the most unreasonable people would feel the same.

And for NCsoft, nobody really gets upset too much, nobody leaves the game, subs continue to roll in from a loyal userbase who now are happy that they have superb Dev's who listen and care about them and express this far and wide.

Everyone wins.

As it currently stands US players win, NCSoft weathers a storm of unhappy EU players and risks a bunch of them quitting to go play something else (and it's not like CoX doesn't have it's DIRECT competitors now!) and the EU playerbase feels once again like it's a second class citizen.

This is exactly why most people on this thread have been advocating Veterancy rather than 'creation' date of the account.

It just seems fairer that the person who has been using the name for the longest period of time should be the one to keep it.

Gotta agree with Techbot, I find this a very narrow minded view of the situation.

I'm a 72 month Vet, I've been around a while and I'm proud of that but I don't go rubbing peoples noses in it. If people are doing that to you then I agree with Techbot, they're idiots and you should ignore them as such.

This isn't about us shouting about how long we've been subscribed, this is about fairness over 'ownership' (for want of a better term) of a global name.

All we're saying is that it's much FAIRER for the name to go to the person who has had it the longest, and not to simply be based on your geographical location.

I'd use the same argument for someone like me who's been around for 6 plus years and might lose my global to someone who signed up last week, as I would for someone who's only played for 6 months and would lose their name to someone who signed up US side last week.

If you're bitter about people rubbing veterancy in your face then I totally agree. You should be. Those people are just big headed cocky idiots. But this isn't about Veterancy in that respect. This is about what's fairer, getting a name due to having it the longest or getting a name simply because you happen to live on the right side of the Atlantic.

Honestly which is fairer?

It FEELS like we're being victimised simply because of our geography. When all we really want is to have everyone treated as if we're all the same. Regardless of where we are, what language we speak, and whatever other defining characteristic you want to throw in here.

To quote something a wise man once said..... "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

Think he was from the US wasn't he ?

I get that. Not in dispute. Go with the cheapest, or the one that loses the least money.

What I dispute is whether the numbers stack up to indeed make option 1 cheapest.

To me it all depends on the time the changes will take. And that's what I nor anyone else really understands. All I have is my experience merging databases to draw on.

In my work we are merging together staff lists from some of the biggest working organisations in the UK. These are public sector organisations to give you an idea of the numbers of people. We are talking CONSIDERABLY more than 125,000 users. We're talking in the millions. Now the merges themselves take some time due to the number of people, but when we want changes made to the scripts that change the way the merges happen (i.e. to put a preference on a different dataset, i.e. Start Date, grade level, seniority etc etc)

Maybe our Devs are superhuman, but usually for us that work takes about a half day. Day at a push. After that the actual work takes between 2 and 4 days to run the merge and data cleanse it.

(Again I don't know if there any any complexities from the game I don't understand so I could very well be stupidly way off here!)

But on CoX are we really talking weeks and weeks and months of expensive development time to sort this out. I'd be stunned if that was the case. So I can't imagine it having a huge impact on a cost basis. But say you piss off 100 users and they leave the game. All paying £8 per month. For 12 months. And you lose them. You've lost £9600 that year in subs. And you'll lose that every other year that the game is live. Plus they're not buying expansion packs etc.

These are just basic numbers and as I say they could be (and probably are) pie in the sky, but in developmental hours would it really offset that cost?

Say a Developers time costs £250 per day (and if that was the case I'd love their yearly salaries!) but in a loss over the year of £9600 you could afford 38 days of development to sort the issue.

Now as I say these are really just random numbers but I'm trying to put across the point that in order to make sense financially we'd need to be talking about an awful lot of development time, and I just don't see it with my (albeit limited) experience.

I would say though that I'm NOT a Developer and I could be talking nonsense. I just know that when we're doing a similar exercise at work here the process is relatively easy and the data is way more advanced.

And now I'll shut up before I dig a bighole with the Developer community! LOL

I'm not sure how much that really stacks up......

For a start we all pay subscription. Now fair enough we're not paying to be treated perfectly or fairly, but the risk if you don't is that people will vote with their wallet and go elsewhere, losing the game revenue.

Not that I would, I love the game and whilst I'd be annoyed it won't drive me away.

But some people may feel that strongly and leave.

Secondly after being around a fair few years now I'd wager that the population on CoX is fairly static. Maybe a surge here or there when a new issue or release tempts a few new people in or a few old timers to return, but basically a fairly static user base I'd have thought. (I'll accept I could be wrong here, this is just supposition).

I think I saw numbers somewhere thatCoX had about 125k subscribers? Not sure if that's accurate but it could be.

Surely on a userbase that is potentially pretty static you'd want to worry about keeping that userbase happy so they all stay and contirbute to your ongoing revenue stream? Everyone you piss off and lose is someone notpaying subs. Not buying expansions packs etc. It's all money you've lost.

Plus if theserver list merge goes ahead, how many people who were running multiple accounts (and thus paying more than one sub) are going to cancel some of those accounts now that they have a plethora of new places to create toons? More money lost?

And to be honest I work in a job where we are often rolling out new Databases and merging database staff lists together and I'm not sure that there's much difference in development time needed to make things fair. Sure it's not the quickest and easiest thing to do, but I'd be amazed if it took the Dev's too long to do. So I'd be shocked if the financial considerations from a working point of view. When we want this stuff doing it often takes the Devs a few hours to knock the appropriate scripts together to do what we need, and trust me the area I work in is WAY more complicated that what we're asking for here. (We're dealing with matchingup work assignments, payroll data etc etc. Not just a name list merge dealing with appending names by startdate).

Now I freely admit that I'm not a Dev and really have no idea what is entailed at their end and that I could be underselling it. *shrugs*

But still seems to me that doing it the way they're doing it for purely business reasons is flawed.

Just smells to me like this is the easiest and quickest way.

Thank you. Much appreciated Zwillinger.

My frustration with this is similar to how it is in my job sometimes. My work role is as a trainer/consultant with a software company. And very often we're taking software from our developers and deploying it in a real world situation.

(I apologise profusely if this next bit upsets any developers who may be reading! You do great work, keep it up. )

Sometimes the Developers will develop something into the software that has often been asked for repeatedly by our userbase. Which is great, but very often they develop the software they way THEY feel is best and not the way the userbase feels is best.

This has often led to situations where the software works as intended by the developer but is utterly unfit for purpose to the user.

For a while we as Consultants and Trainers will feedback the views of the userbase and tell he developers of the problems that their solution is giving both us and the users. At this point the cycle usually goes like this.

Dev's insist that their way of doing things is right.
We feedback more information of why we need to make changes.
Dev's still insist that although they aren't the ones at ground level actually using the software in a practical day to day way..... they're still right.
Customer gets aggravated and flags the issues to an account manager.
Account Manager gets in touch with Dev's to see if we can change things.
Dev's insist that the software is fit for purpose just the way it is.
More customers and account managers start complaining of the same thing.
Eventually things get escalated and senior managers get involved.
A workshop between the Dev's and the customers is arranged.
The DEv's FINALLY understand the situation after they see the software being used in the real world and understand the real world issues.
The Dev's finally make the changes that should have been in the software months before.

I see this time and time again. And this kinda smells like that.

It's like the Dev's here have decided on the best way to do something before they've actually considered the real world impact this is going to have on a loyal and paying userbase.

In my example above very often alot of remedial work and alot of bad feeling and customer unhappiness could have been avoided by just taking into consideration how things are in the real world.

I really hope that what we the EU players have fed back here changes some mind for you guys to do this the RIGHT WAY. And not just the way you think is easiest for you.

The very fact I'm posting here is indication of how strongly I feel. I rarely frequent the boards these days except to browse from time to time. And looking at the thread there's quite alot of other peeps on here who don't have big post counts who have felt the need to speak up too.

I hope we're listened to.

Ahhhh so that's why it smells funny on Union.........

It's the bit in the BOLD letters that really miffs me.

You could potentially be losing a name that you've spent years cultivating and establishing to someone who only played for 2 weeks, 3 years ago and is now off playing something else because they found they didn't even like CoX.

Is that fair ?

AND we'll probably NEVER even get to know that that was the case. Just that we lost our name to someone in the vast impenetrable cloud that is the internet.

Personally I don't think the Dev's etc ever really considered this properly, it just doesn't make any sense at all to me that they don't do it by veterancy. How on earth could they have thought that any of this was fair?

I'll tell you how the meeting went.....

"Next item on the agenda?"

"Ahhh yes, animated hair."

*guffaws around the table*

"Seriously, next item?"

"Ah yes, the server list merge. How are we going to do that because I have been thinking about it and....."

"No need! I've sorted it. Already written the scripts. Just say the word and I'll merge the lists in the database. Didn't have much time to dedicate careful thought to it so I had to cut a few corners though, so the preference on the account names and global names to the US server population."

"But don't you think that might rile a few feathers in the EU community?"

"So? You know what they're like over there, they'll complain a bit and stamp their feet and it'll all blow over. Just tell em we thought long and hard about it and hardline them with the old 'decisions made' mumbo jumbo. Worked for ED didn't it? Excellent, jobs a good'un. Right who's making the tea? Next item on agenda?"

The other servers smell funny.