Snow Globe

Oh, I would think it is a bug. However even the Test Server has "Master of Back Alley Brawler's Task Force" and I just finish patching my Test Server install less than 5 minutes ago.

Positron's Pal is not Positron's Ally/Betrayer.

Positron's Pal is the replacement for Statesman's Pal in the "A Hero’s Epic" arc. If you have previously done the "A Hero’s Epic" arc, you have to do it again to get Positron's Pal, and Statesman's Pal will not be removed from your character.

As far as I know, if you have the Sister Psyche's Comrade/Betrayer, you will NOT be awarded Penelope Yin's Friend/Betrayer. You have to run the Penny Yin TF to get that, even if you have Sister Psyche's Comrade/Betrayer.

Not in the current patch on beta ( Build 2300.201205220319.1 )

Edit:
Also not in the current patch on Test either unless the Test Server patch notes are incomplete.

Edit 2:
I just this minute logged into the beta server... Still "Master of the Back Alley Brawler Task Force."

Answer:
Badge issues with removing Statesman & Sister Psyche:
Statesman’s Pal - Fixed!
Positron’s Pal - New! Good!
Sister Psyche’s Comrade - Fixed!
Penelope Yin’s Friend - New! Good!
Task Force Commander badge - Fixed!
Master of the Statesman TF - Renamed to Master of the Back Alley Brawler Task Force.
Oppressor - Defeating Statesman in Recluse's Victory awards the Oppressor Badge for villains. Changed to Ms. Liberty.
Interrogator - Defeating Sister Psyche in Recluse's Victory awards the Interrogator Badge for villains. Changed to Penelope Yin.

It will be posted later today as I can't post it tomorrow as I have to take my mother to her first chemotherapy session.

For now though:
Consolidated Issue 23 Badge Info.

Yes, as part of the announcement:

A) The cheapest way to do it is to buy $100 worth of points at a time (gives bonus token)
B) You get 1 token/month (at the end of the month) for 12 months if you buy a year's VIP status. It is less expensive than buying $15 of Paragon Points per month though.
C) You retain anything you have unlocked. You can find out all Paragon Market and Paragon Reward items you have unlocked by using the /mypurchases command (for more info see this guide: A guide to finding out what you have unlocked from the market)

Edit:
You need to read the following, if you missed it:

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Yes, I've at least 2 characters on both Triumph and Virtue with the mission. I don't expect that to change soon.
Grats!

I would think that if the player with the name logged into the account at day 29 that the next time the player that wanted the name would get the "Sorry, this name is in use by another active account." message. If harassment follows, the GMs can, and will, deal with the harasser.

Would the "taken" messages be better phrased as "Sorry, this name is already in use by an account. Please see the naming policy as to when the name might be available."?

At that point, they could add a name watch list so that if the name is freed up, the player gets a notification that it is available.

After several years of account inactivity (edit: in other word they aren't supporting the game), they have forfeited all rights to the names. They are not supporting the game in any shape or form. If they were seriously valuing the time, effort, and love into their characters they would log into their account now that the game has gone Free to Play. If they can't be bothered to do so, then it is obvious that they don't care.

Also, if you were serious about recognizing level 50 characters, then there should be a spot where people could see a list of characters that have reached that goal.

However you are talking about less than 100 hours of playtime these days, and that isn't even trying very hard. Less than a month's play (or even a single Day Job badge) doesn't deserve to be treated as inviolate. Also, what happens when the player tries to rename their level 50? Does that get prevented? If not, then the name is just like any other.

Not at 50% off. They were only on sale for 25% off.

And you missed *my point* that your points are immaterial next to having a clearly stated policy showing that names will be freed up. After that, if a player can't get the name then they KNOW that another active player has the name. They wouldn't *have* to guess. At that point, they could have a reasonable expectation that they might be able to contact the other player in hopes to possibly negotiate. They might not get the name still, but at least the player isn't left guessing if the name is taken by an active player or not.

Maybe the name holder reserved the name on other servers that they aren't playing on, who knows. All I do know is that players would at least know that someone might be actively using the character as opposed to rotting in a digital limbo.

The suggestion would bypass the need to get in touch with CS.

With the suggestion, and open policy, current players would not have to guess. They would know if the name is blocked (with the appropriate message) or held by an active account.

• If the account is considered as long term inactive, then the name seamlessly finds a new home.
• If the account is considered to be short term inactive, the player should be told "Sorry, this name is in use by a currently inactive account. You may try this name again in XXX days."
• If the account is considered active, the player should be told "Sorry, this name is in use by another active account."
• If the name is on the censored list, the player should be told "Sorry, this name is a violation of the EULA. If you attempt to bypass this warning with a similar name, your account may be acted upon in accordance with the EULA." (with link).
• If the name is on the copyrighted list, the player should be told "Sorry, this name is a violation of the EULA. If you attempt to bypass this warning with a similar name, your account may be acted upon in accordance with the EULA." (with link).

No guesswork, just a polite error message telling you why the name isn't available.
Well that is something we agree on at least.

Except that I know the current blocked lists (censored and copyrighted names lists). I don't need to assume a name isn't being blocked by Paragon Studios.

Even going beyond that, I agree that the name check needs to have a clearer message. If the name is being blocked due to the game censor, the game should say so. If the name is being blocked due to copyright issues, the game should say so. Either of these cases should bring up a warning explaining that the name violates the EULA and that if the player tries to get around the censor list that their account could be permanently closed.

However if the name is being taken by a long-inactive account (again, 3+ years), then the game should free the name for use by the active player.

Step back a moment. The only things a player needs to know in relation to this:

• Is if the name is available or not?
• Does Paragon Studios have a policy in place to free up names from the following types of accounts:
  • Permanently banned accounts. There shouldn't be any issue for these accounts to be purged. Add the offensive names to either the censored list or the copyrighted list and purge the account after 60 days. That effectively should deal with all servers at the same time.
  • Long inactive trial accounts.
  • Long term inactive accounts.

You, and others, keep trying to say that players need to know where the name comes from. The players don't need that information. The players need to know if the name is available and the Paragon Studios wants to treat active accounts better than long absent accounts.

If a name is on one of the two blocked lists, the in-game error message needs to be clear about it.

Additionally, the name should be checked vs all servers at the time of being blocked and the following actions taken:

• If the same name is on other servers, those characters get the generic/ban hammer applied.
• The name gets put onto one of the two mentioned lists and included with the next available patch (they are simple text files).
• After 60 days (2 months), the names should be already patched and the characters already made generic or renamed by the GMs.
• If the account has been perma-banned, the characters on the account should be purged.

Seriously? It doesn't matter. After 7+ years of inactivity, every character on an account that long absent should be subject to the names being freed.

How many names freed is secondary to an open policy stating that names will be freed up on long-term inactive accounts on a regular basis.

It ticks off currently active players looking for a name they want.

Entirely subjective. You don't, others do. Nothing quantifiable.

This is about the only thing that I agree with you about on this subject. It is also completely irrelevant to the discussion. Besides which it is easy to find which global is attached to a character name.

Likewise, those returning will make new names if the name squatters come back. Which type of player would Paragon Studios be better to support? The player that will continue to play. Does the studio really want someone is that so fickle as to briefly return and then quit playing again? I don't think so.

And, exactly, how many of these customers are returning after 3+ years are we talking about? Compare that number with the number of active (ie. those logging in to play on a regular basis). If the amount of former customers are a significant percentage of currently active customers then you have a valid argument for the status quo. If, on the other hand, the amount of returning players is a fraction of a percentage point, then the benefits of changing the policy become clear.

If, using made up numbers, 10% of current accounts would like to have access to the names of the 40% long-inactive accounts, but only 0.5% (or even 1%) of those long inactive accounts would ever come back, then it is better to appeal to the current accounts. If, by some miracle, 10%-20% of the long active accounts were to return, then I would agree with you. That is something I doubt Paragon Studios could pull off.

Translation: An iffy benefit vs an iffy harm. You are quick to say that there isn't a benefit, despite people wanting names they can't get now. Yet, on the other hand you hold up a harm that might happen (unless you truly don't know what the meaning of "potential" is) and declare that as solid evidence of why this shouldn't happen.

You are in the same position you declare others are in: you are trying to prove an intangible.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that, based on the evidence I can see, I think that the potential costs aren't equally important as the potential benefits. Paragon Studios would get some good PR with their active players at a cost of a small portion of the players that have basically abandoned the game.

So do I. However we seem to have different definitions of the term "customer".

I use the dictionary version: "a person who buys". You use the term to mean "anyone who has ever bought and might never return".

After 3 years of not buying, they aren't a customer anymore. They aren't even on the radar for being a potential customer.

Very, very few going by the forum posts. We're likely talking about a few hundred accounts versus 60-70 thousand gone. At some point a line has to be drawn.

Who is pretending to be omniscient now? Oh, right, you probably know the answer to that. I guess I didn't need to say it.

Actually, it isn't that black and white. I'll agree that some players that haven't subscribed in many years will come back. However after almost a year of being free to play and a bunch of free activation weekends some former players have not come back and most of those former players likely never will. These people not coming back isn't the result of the naming policy.

Would some people be upset over having to change name or change servers to get the same name? Possibly. Would these same people think that Paragon Studios keeping names reserved for up to 3 years of inactivity is generous? More than likely.

You're right, I should have said "an infinitesimally small number of players will ever come back after 3+ years being absent. More than likely, less than 1% of those who have left."

I also did say is that after 3 years of being absent, they have ceased to be a customer and preference should be given to active players (especially subscribers) over former customers. I stand by that comment.

• We agree that active subscribers are, in fact, customers.
• We agree that inactive, but still paying, subscribers are, in fact, customers. Basically if their subscription hasn't run out, they are still customers.
• We agree that active F2P & Premium players are, in fact, potential customers.

What we don't agree on is what to do with the former customers. Former customers, if long absent, should not have the same rights as either customers or potential customers. By giving long absent former customers the same rights as customers & potential customers the developers are telling their customers and potential customers that their patronage isn't as valued as people that have left the game.

Some will. However I have faith that most people are far more reasonable than you are and would shrug off having to change the character name if they've been gone for 3+ years.

I would side with existing customers over long absent former customers in a heartbeat. Potential is no good if not used.

This point has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It literally doesn't matter if the game popped up saying "hey, you got a name that a former customer took long ago" or "hey, you got an available name". In either case, the current customer is happy because they got a name they wanted. That should be the goal, not keeping someone that couldn't be bothered to even log into the game to check it out after the company has given them ample opportunity to do so.

At its peak, this game was up to around 200k subscribers. Now it is likely sitting around 100k-130k. How many of the remaining do you expect to come back? How long do you expect them to stay?

I know I was. Then again, I'm pretty much always happy when I get a name that I want on the first try.

In my experience (and I'm talking about a thousand+ ITFs on Triumph), here is what Triumph seems to mostly think:

Speed = Try for less than 30 minutes. This is a normal run for some players.

XP/Shard/Steamroll Run version 1 = For the above players it matches your description "kill most stuff, but don't need to take out everything". This would be a "regular" run for the group below:

XP/Shard/Steamroll Run version 2 = For others it means "kill everything in sight".

Plow/Kill Everything In Sight = The regular speed runners will try to reach through the monitor to slap the people that weren't clear when they announced the ITF.

It is relative.

By keeping the current naming policy, the company is saying that they value long absent players more than current players.

You are repeating yourself. I doubt that anyone in this thread is unaware of the current naming policy. What people are saying is that the current naming policy needs to be revisited and updated for the new reality that more players aren't coming back to the game.

Actually Bill didn't say people are coming back after 3+ years. He only said some absent players are returning. He also didn't say how long these players come back for.

Complete non-sequitur.
=================
I completely agree with these two.


No, if they fail to log in for another 3 months after the first email, they should be given notice that they have 90 days to log in or have the names freed. If the email is dead, free the name immediately.

Almost all accounts are old enough to have a global name. The first script was run when people have global names. After 2 automated attempts to convince players to come back (one at 1-2 years, one 90 days after the first attempt), then the names should be freed up. If the email is dead, free the name immediately.

Accusing people of being selfish and unreasonable:
Accusing people of being lazy:
Accusing people of fraudlent activity:
Claiming this is a means of stealing something that never belonged to any player:
This one takes the cake though:
You can't avoid being hypocritical in the same post. Worse, just after you accuse people of demonizing others, you outright call people thieves. You have some nerve to claim that others are demonizing long gone former players after your posts in this thread.

Oh, and if I've painted an unflattering image of you, you only have yourself to blame. These posts are all your own words, not mine.

===========

I like how you dropped the part where I said that I benefitted from the first name purge.

Given that I got a name I desired after the first purge ("Strobe" was taken on Triumph before the purge), I can say that there was at least one name that was desired and was freed with the name purge. If there is one, then it stands to reason that there will be more, provided they put some proper controls over the purge. Not by level, but by extended inactivity.

You want long-term inactive players to be treated better than active players.

You want long-term inactive players to be treated better than active SUBSCRIBERS. That is a good way to lose customers, not gain them.

After being allowed to play FOR NOTHING, if any account is still inactive for 3+ years then they aren't coming back. They've had 4-6 free weekends and over 9 months to play for free. There comes a point where you write off someone as even a potential customer. If you fail to do so you aren't very good at business.

After some research, I don't think that they are fixing the name-space issue. More likely he was keeping silent because of Issue 21.
That post was from June 16, 2011 (closed beta for Issue 21 started 10 days earlier, 4 days before Issue 21 was openly announced). You do realize that most likely reason why Zwillinger wasn't talking about the reasons at that point was that Issue 21's features were to be announced, right? Including the Free to play aspect of the game and the fact that accounts will be playable even without subscriptions.

Actually, I do.

• Acquiring a new customer can cost 6 to 7 times more than retaining an existing customer
• Over a 5 year period customer attrition rates could reach as high as 50% if databases are left dormant
• Businesses which boosted customer retention rates by as little as 5% saw increases in their profits ranging from 5% to a whopping 95%.

All based on research of this guy, who likely has more applicable marketing know-how than everyone in this thread combined.

Actually, they aren't. By trying to treat former customers better than currently active players they are devaluing the importance of active players. Active players buy stuff on the market. Active players subscribe. Active players provide other players with human interaction. Inactive players provide nothing if they aren't up to date subscribers.

As Forbin has pointed out the development resources have already been spent for the script.

I notice that you like demonizing those that disagree with you, just like you are accusing others of doing. Hypocritical much?

You also can't provide any proof that some names that will be freed up will not be desired. Will there be some junk names from spammers? Yes. Will some good names be freed up? Possibly. I know for a fact that after the first round of names being freed up that I got the name "Strobe" for my Peacebringer. I think anyone actively playing the game should get the same chance.

Hopefully that reason why will make this issue meaningless.

• Care to back up any of the highlighted claims?
• Care to show the monetary value for your conjecture?
• How much money are they are going to lose if the non-paying players never return? Oh wait... They weren't getting money from them before.
• How many players do you think will leave if an account that is over 3 years loses names on the account?

There is a saying that you seem to not know: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. By providing incentive to play regularly ("hey, you'll have more names available!"), they would be focused more on their most potential gain.

As another poster mentioned, the line needs to be drawn at whether the customer is valuable or not. After 3+ years, they aren't valuable and the developers should focus on keeping active subscribers as they are more valuable.

The only time I've heard of that was someone that had a character in the initial beta. The player literally forgot they even had the character (wasn't on a server they normally play on after an absence).