Well, this has moved into a rather silly discussion...
I'll chime in...
Of course changes need to be evaluated and benefits outweigh negati8ves and all that.
The only things that I found to be a bit off are:
- For general business purposes... the insistence that the status quo is the "sanest" and right way to go.
- Status quo; not making changes; sticking to what is working.
Kinda funny really (since you all have turned the discussion this way). The very nature of this topic is about a pool of names that is constantly losing options. Period. Sure, I have no problems coming up with names I am completely happy with and neither do plenty of people. The fact still remains that the pool of names will constantly shrink. It's not staying the same. If you play out this scenario as it is, eventually there will be a larger issue (It just may take another 6 or more years [just a completely random guess there]).
More so, they haven't stuck to a no purge system. They've run a few. It's something they've done in the past. Then they changed it to a much lesser event, in that they lowered the maximum level of character that would become open to a name purge to level 6.
Thems is changes.
Lastly, if I were in charge of making decisions around here, I'd hire some dancing giraffes (they're rather surprisingly cheaper than you would imagine).
@Zethustra
"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
Quote:
The unspoken corollary is that, if they did it and it didn't work, why do it again?|
Originally Posted by Electric-Knight
Well, this has moved into a rather silly discussion...
I'll chime in... Of course changes need to be evaluated and benefits outweigh negati8ves and all that. The only things that I found to be a bit off are:
Kinda funny really (since you all have turned the discussion this way). The very nature of this topic is about a pool of names that is constantly losing options. Period. Sure, I have no problems coming up with names I am completely happy with and neither do plenty of people. The fact still remains that the pool of names will constantly shrink. It's not staying the same. If you play out this scenario as it is, eventually there will be a larger issue (It just may take another 6 or more years [just a completely random guess there]). More so, they haven't stuck to a no purge system. They've run a few. It's something they've done in the past. Then they changed it to a much lesser event, in that they lowered the maximum level of character that would become open to a name purge to level 6. Thems is changes. Lastly, if I were in charge of making decisions around here, I'd hire some dancing giraffes (they're rather surprisingly cheaper than you would imagine). |
Work, in this case, is defined as increasing profits sufficiently to outweigh opportunity costs.
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Quote:
Well, of course.|
Originally Posted by Smersh
The unspoken corollary is that, if they did it and it didn't work, why do it again?
Work, in this case, is defined as increasing profits sufficiently to outweigh opportunity costs. |
If we assume all considerations have been made on this subject and that the company has evaluated and acted correctly and as best as possible, there's no need for anyone to suggest anything, really.
That's why I'm really not talking about that. That post of mine you are quoting is not to prove any side of any silly argument or debate and there are elements for and against both sides.
EDIT: Oh, except that the fact is that the pool of names continues to shrink. So, it is an ever changing thing and not something that events of the past necessarily mean much for the present and/or future.
@Zethustra
"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
Quote:
Its fortunate City of Heroes wasn't more successful. If it had more active subscribers, we could potentially have an even bigger problem. I believe WoW has about 240 realms and 12 million active subscribers. That's 50k per realm. If that was analogous to us having 240 shards and 12 million CoH subscribers, that would amount to perhaps as much as five times as many subscribers per server fighting over local unique names. Its lucky for us that we don't have that problem, and have a large pool of former players that no longer pay subscriptions that we can consider for name purging.|
Originally Posted by Electric-Knight
Oh, except that the fact is that the pool of names continues to shrink. So, it is an ever changing thing and not something that events of the past necessarily mean much for the present and/or future.
|
Since "Myxlindibbly" is a valid WoW name, they have less of a problem either way.
(Then again, I momentarily forgot which server forum I was posting on. I should probably check to make sure "Myxlindibbly" hasn't been taken yet on Virtue before saying that.)
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Haha
I do find it somewhat interesting that the state of names is as good as it is.
And yeah, with numbers like that, we might be in trouble.
I seriously do wonder what things might be like if the naming situation were to stay the same (including any possible decline in population) for 3-6 years more.
Without switching away from the unique name system (I've never ever been in favor of the duplicate names system tied to globals, but, in the end, it probably wouldn't bother me as much as I used to think) and without purging names from dormant accounts, how long would it take to reach the point where most any reasonable player (And thus I see the flaw in this question, hehe) would agree that the names have dried up?
As for the state of things right now, I have several character names chosen for characters that I'd like to make one day, but haven't yet. And I have not reserved them with placeholders (I have lost a few names over the years, but, oh well).
So, I believe things are okay.
I just think there is a potential for problems, possibly in the near future, and I don't think the rather short-sighted and selfish gripes of a few potential/hypothetical former customers (possible return costumers) are a risk to the business, compared to doing some reasonable maintenance for my existing customers.
Again... 2+ years away is a long enough time for me to feel very comfortable with opening them to the potential of having to rename characters.
I understand, on that aspect, we all just have our various opinions.
@Zethustra
"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The burden of proof is with the proposal. Always.
|
I feel you are holding Squirrel to an impossible burden of proof while excusing your own argument from those standards. I usually respect your insight and I don't really want to slug it out over the issue because I'm neither pro or con, and certainly don't want to invest a lot board-cred into a slugfest over naming policies (I'm saving that for a discussion about knockback). However, I am skeptical of claims that one side has to provide incontrovertible proof of a statement while the other gets to use such persuasive arguments as "/thread" (which, admittedly, was not you).
Specifically, I feel you and others are side stepping a basic rule of argument: Maintaining the status quo is also a proposal. By claiming it is not, you are appealing to irrationality. I know how things get heated on the boards so I understand how the ebb and flow of... combat... can make us say things we don't mean. However, as someone standing on neither side of the issue, I have to admit I'm not impressed by the argument that only one side has to pony up details. In this case, neither side can ever or will ever have those details and the whole thing becomes a wash. A much more appropriate statement, IMO, is that Squirrel's opinions are based on what he wants, and so are yours.
Quote:
I highly doubt the game will be around in its current incarnation 6 years from now. I don't think that will be a quote that will bite me like Bill Gates' "No one will ever need more than 64kb RAM."
|
Originally Posted by Electric-Knight
I seriously do wonder what things might be like if the naming situation were to stay the same (including any possible decline in population) for 3-6 years more.
|
My New Rig
: Geforce 580 GTX, Core i7 950 @ 3.20 Ghz, 24GB RAM, 240GB SSD for OS, 60GB SSD for swap = Heaven.
Quote:
I don't think it's so much as to what Arc wants but more along the lines of refusing approval for something that's a shot in the dark.
|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
A much more appropriate statement, IMO, is that Squirrel's opinions are based on what he wants, and so are yours.
|
Quote:
Yes.|
Originally Posted by Stryph
I don't think it's so much as to what Arc wants but more along the lines of refusing approval for something that's a shot in the dark.
|
The status quo is the status quo for a reason; in the past, that was decided that's what works. If the status quo isn't working, then a proposal to change it should be able to present good evidence for the change without breaking a sweat. If you can't give me a compelling reason to change, why should I? Just 'cuz?
De minimis non curat Lex Luthor.
We've pretty effectively de-railed at this point, so rather than continue to argue off-topic about something that has been pretty well summed up by Oedipus_Tex, I'm going to instead try to get back on topic. Here's where we've gotten so far. Hopefully we can stay on topic.
This is a sort of combination from several people (I'd list names but I'm afraid I'd miss someone).
1) Players individually get contacted in conjunction with a free reactivation weekend shortly before (perhaps two weeks) the second year anniversary of quitting the game, or immediately if the player is already over two years.
2) Two weeks after that, if the player hasn't indicated an interest in preserving the characters, by logging into the game, the names become open.
This keeps the opportunity for previously held names to become available, but also stops the "Great Name Rush" that would normally be associated with scheduled purges, and make names naturally recycled into the game. The negative risk to this is as close to minimum as you can get, since all players, regardless of how long they've been gone, would be able to simply log in and reserve those names again, thereby safeguarding them longer. It also provides a positive for current players, since if the names aren't re-reserved, they would become available to current players.
The world is crazy. I offer this as proof; found on a butane lighter: Warning: Flame may cause fire.
You can sleep when you die.
Quote:
Although I stated this before, I'll reiterate: I concede I do not have a strong convincing argument that a purge is more detrimental than the lack of a purge. So if you're debating me, I don't think you can win, but I don't think I can win either.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
I feel you are holding Squirrel to an impossible burden of proof while excusing your own argument from those standards. I usually respect your insight and I don't really want to slug it out over the issue because I'm neither pro or con, and certainly don't want to invest a lot board-cred into a slugfest over naming policies (I'm saving that for a discussion about knockback). However, I am skeptical of claims that one side has to provide incontrovertible proof of a statement while the other gets to use such persuasive arguments as "/thread" (which, admittedly, was not you).
Specifically, I feel you and others are side stepping a basic rule of argument: Maintaining the status quo is also a proposal. By claiming it is not, you are appealing to irrationality. I know how things get heated on the boards so I understand how the ebb and flow of... combat... can make us say things we don't mean. However, as someone standing on neither side of the issue, I have to admit I'm not impressed by the argument that only one side has to pony up details. In this case, neither side can ever or will ever have those details and the whole thing becomes a wash. A much more appropriate statement, IMO, is that Squirrel's opinions are based on what he wants, and so are yours. |
But that's not the issue. The statement I made was if it were my decision to make the burden of proof would be on the proposal. The status quo is not an alternate proposal to the person making decisions. The status quo is simply what happens when no proposal is acted upon. You do not go to the person in charge with a proposal and when he or she asks "can you prove this is beneficial" you say "can you prove its not." I don't think there's a game development company that is *that* crazy, except maybe Bullfrog back in the day. More importantly, no company is run that way. The proper response to "can you prove its not" is "no, now get the hell out of my office."
Lets recontextualize with a different subject. Suppose I propose to the devs that they give Power Blast twice its current damage. Is it up to me to prove that's a good idea, or is it up to them to prove to me that its a bad idea? Who has the responsibility in this situation? My guess is that its not the devs.
If your goal is to kick the idea around the forums and see if other players will agree with you, that's one thing. If you actually have any thought of making that idea into a suggestion that could actually happen, the burden of proof is on you to convince the people in charge that it is a good idea. And in my experience its a very heavy burden normally. If you think its an impossibly high burden, well, its not. But its not me holding anyone to it, because I have no power to effect that decision. I'm just pointing the burden out, not creating it for anyone to surpass.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Your guess would be wrong. It is up to the person making each individual argument to prove the merit of the argument. If you don't like having to back up your side of the argument, then don't be surprised when it's pushed back on. However, you're also totally ignoring the other side of the argument. The proposal that Ascendant mentioned, and that's been added onto totally invalidates the entirety of what you've said. So, please, either stay on topic, or start another thread, but don't keep harping on the same point over and over again when its totally irrelevant anyway.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Lets recontextualize with a different subject. Suppose I propose to the devs that they give Power Blast twice its current damage. Is it up to me to prove that's a good idea, or is it up to them to prove to me that its a bad idea? Who has the responsibility in this situation? My guess is that its not the devs.
|
When someone who has an MBA and a red forum name comes and says 'this is a good business idea' or 'this isn't a good business idea' then that will be that, but until then, any claim to business sense is spurious at best.
In addition, if you're going to point to the status quo, then you need to come to terms with the status quo not being what you say it is. The Devs have done name releases in the past. They have never said they won't do it again. They have, however, stated they would only do one when they felt it was a good idea. So the status quo is this:
Name releases are done at irregular intervals.
If you feel inconsistency is better that a consistent system, then by all means, say so, but don't represent things as facts when they aren't.
And please, try to get back on topic.
The world is crazy. I offer this as proof; found on a butane lighter: Warning: Flame may cause fire.
You can sleep when you die.
Quote:
"Boss, I deserve a raise."|
Originally Posted by GreySquirrel
Your guess would be wrong. It is up to the person making each individual argument to prove the merit of the argument.
|
"No, I don't think you do."
"Prove it!"
Yeah, that'll go over well.
And "any claim to business sense" is that we need data to make a good decision. Until you have that, there is no decision to be made.
De minimis non curat Lex Luthor.
Quote:
Good luck with that version of reality. And I wasn't really guessing. I can't imagine anyone would actually think I was guessing in that context in the first place.
|
Originally Posted by GreySquirrel
Your guess would be wrong.
|
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
What about something like this?
Figures of fame and fortune come and go. One person could carry the name of 'Aeon Shadow' for a week, just to inevitably fade in the ether over time, and give opportunity for someone to carry the identity to more lasting memory.
Upon character creation:
That character's name is protected until one year after their subscription expires.
For every ten levels above 30 the character gains:
That character's name is protected for an additional six months.
Upon gaining two years of paid subscription time, and for every year paid afterwards:
Every character on the account is protected for an additional three months, but only if they are above level six. If they are above level 20, it becomes six months.
..and let this knowledge become available to the player, so they know exactly how long their name will be protected, should they leave the game and not come back.
A single reactivation is all that's needed to reset the protection duration.
After their name protection expires - they will still retain the character, and everything earned by that character, but the name will gain an alteration ("Captain Amazing1") - should a current, paying subscriber roll the name.
Inactive'd characters will receive a one-time rename token for use on that character only.
Under this system:
- A level 3 alt named Captain Amazing, belonging to a two month accountholder will become open after a year of account expiration.
- A level 50 character named Lone Shark, belonging to a six month account, will be protected for two years of inactivity.
- A level 50 character named Belle Barium, belonging to a six year account, will be protected for about four years.
- A level 3 alt named Captain Amazing, belonging to a five year accountholder, will become open after a year of account expiration.
Emails can be sent, and are an opportunity to remind players who have been away from the game a year or more to 'see what has changed', in the City of Heroes. Paying subscribers who are about to reach the end of their protection duration may receive a free 10 - 14 day "re-trial", which will extend the duration on all characters by 60 days should they accept, and log in.
Why?
- This system rewards paying customers over non-paying customers, and inactive name-hoarders.
- It may be gimmicky, but it can serve as hook to be a better retention system than the one in place now.
@Kyuu
Quote:
Then perhaps your language use should improve as well as your grip on reality.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Good luck with that version of reality. And I wasn't really guessing. I can't imagine anyone would actually think I was guessing in that context in the first place.
|
The world is crazy. I offer this as proof; found on a butane lighter: Warning: Flame may cause fire.
You can sleep when you die.
Quote:
Exactly what I've been saying. Thanks. |
Originally Posted by Bosstone
And "any claim to business sense" is that we need data to make a good decision. Until you have that, there is no decision to be made.
|
The world is crazy. I offer this as proof; found on a butane lighter: Warning: Flame may cause fire.
You can sleep when you die.
Quote:
If they're willing to use that, then sure, I see no problem with it. Anything is better than letting names languish for an indeterminate period of time for players who have no interest in coming back for them. This might be a little more complicated to implement, but then they've started up some other stuff recently that they said they'd never be able to do.
|
Originally Posted by Kyuuen
What about something like this?
Figures of fame and fortune come and go. One person could carry the name of 'Aeon Shadow' for a week, just to inevitably fade in the ether over time, and give opportunity for someone to carry the identity to more lasting memory. Upon character creation: That character's name is protected until one year after their subscription expires. For every ten levels above 30 the character gains: That character's name is protected for an additional six months. Upon gaining two years of paid subscription time, and for every year paid afterwards: Every character on the account is protected for an additional three months, but only if they are above level six. If they are above level 20, it becomes six months. ..and let this knowledge become available to the player, so they know exactly how long their name will be protected, should they leave the game and not come back. A single reactivation is all that's needed to reset the protection duration. After their name protection expires - they will still retain the character, and everything earned by that character, but the name will gain an alteration ("Captain Amazing1") - should a current, paying subscriber roll the name. Inactive'd characters will receive a one-time rename token for use on that character only. Under this system: - A level 3 alt named Captain Amazing, belonging to a two month accountholder will become open after a year of account expiration. - A level 50 character named Lone Shark, belonging to a six month account, will be protected for two years of inactivity. - A level 50 character named Belle Barium, belonging to a six year account, will be protected for about four years. - A level 3 alt named Captain Amazing, belonging to a five year accountholder, will become open after a year of account expiration. Emails can be sent, and are an opportunity to remind players who have been away from the game a year or more to 'see what has changed', in the City of Heroes. Paying subscribers who are about to reach the end of their protection duration may receive a free 10 - 14 day "re-trial", which will extend the duration on all characters by 60 days should they accept, and log in. Why? - This system rewards paying customers over non-paying customers, and inactive name-hoarders. - It may be gimmicky, but it can serve as hook to be a better retention system than the one in place now. |
The world is crazy. I offer this as proof; found on a butane lighter: Warning: Flame may cause fire.
You can sleep when you die.
Quote:
Where you're going off the rails is that since there is no decision to be made without good data, you're saying we should just do it your way. In fact, the least risky response is to do nothing different from what is currently being done.
|
Originally Posted by GreySquirrel
Exactly what I've been saying. Thanks.
|
De minimis non curat Lex Luthor.
Quote:
Again, the point of this thread is to come up with alternatives to the current system.|
Originally Posted by Bosstone
Where you're going off the rails is that since there is no decision to be made without good data, you're saying we should just do it your way. In fact, the least risky response is to do nothing different from what is currently being done.
|
That is generally the first step in any process. You examine your alternatives, and once you have an alternative that seems workable, then you compare it to the current process. This is generally a step that is -always- going at most companies in one area or another. If it doesn't happen, things get outdated and sooner or later fall apart. Do things always change? No. But to assume that things don't always change means that no change is ever considered is not accurate.
No one who's actually involved in the actual topic of the thread is trying to make a decision for NCSoft, but much in the same vein as actually naming a character, the more people thinking about an issue, the more ideas you get, and the more likely you are to find an idea that you like.
The world is crazy. I offer this as proof; found on a butane lighter: Warning: Flame may cause fire.
You can sleep when you die.
Quote:
It is rare that someone actually asks me to demonstrate improved language skills. That's the sort of set up you normally have to pay real money for.|
Originally Posted by GreySquirrel
Then perhaps your language use should improve as well as your grip on reality.
|
In any case, brainstorming options for a possible purge is not something I think has no value: it may happen that a specific option for a purge will suggest a line of argument that simultaneously justifies the existence of the purge in the first place. However, I do think that most suggestions take as an axiomatic assumption that some sort of purge is necessary, and only looks at minimizing the costs of such a purge. I don't think that will cut to the core issue of justifying the existence of a purge in the first place and represents a critical fundamental flaw of all suggestions that start with that premise. A suggestion that doesn't assume a purge is necessary but justifies one without that assumption would not only be more likely to be practical to implement, it would also be more likely to be acceptable to a wider audience.
Every suggestion I've ever made to the devs has always started not by answering the question "how?" but rather answering the question "why?" Almost always, knowing the answer to "why?" automatically points to the answer to "how?" You do it in the best possible way to address the why.
For example, if you're doing it to increase subscriptions, the suggestion should logically maximize the number of players you retain by offering names they would otherwise not have, while minimzing the number of players you lose by resubscriptions to purged accounts. If on the other hand you're doing it to make some sort of statement about being "fair" to the playerbase, even if it doesn't actually solve the problem of people not getting the names they want, then the suggestion should feature as a component a very visible way for the players to know that fact: offering, perhaps, to tell the player when a name is unavailable *why* its unavailable: its currently being used by an active subscriber. Rather than have player names quietly expire due to inactivity, it might be better to have a loud, visible purge process where every six months, say, there is "name freeing friday" where those names are purged and players know to try them again. It becomes a marketable and visible mechanic. And if you are doing it so that every one can have the name they want even if its already taken, perhaps a purge is not even the best way to do that, and an alternative like a direct system of supporting name prefixes would make more sense.
By not defining the purpose to a purge, except to release the names taken by older inactive accounts, you set the stage for the justification of the purge being nothing more than targeting those accounts and reclaiming their stuff, for no other reason except that they don't deserve it. And that then guides the brainstorming process accordingly, and in a direction I find unpalatable personally. It might eventually lead to a suggestion that I do find palatable, but only by coincidence.
I gave the business logic behind how I would make the decision if I was responsible for making it. Here's my personal opinion looking at it if I was, say, the executive producer or the chief designer. I would ask myself this question: would I want to be known as the designer that allowed people to come back to the game confident that their characters would still be intact and pay the price that I would also be known as the designer that was stupid enough to prioritize people who might never come back over actual paying customers, or would I like to be known as the game designer that tried to offer the best possible set of options to the existing customers and pay the price of also being known as the designer that made the game unwelcoming to returning customers trying to reconnect with the game. That's now a strictly subjective decision as to what sort of values I would be comfortable being known for having, knowing I will be seen as both a champion and an idiot by some subset of people. And I would personally choose the former over the latter.
Even as just a player commenting on suggestions, I don't mind being someone that is known for having those values, and I don't mind being someone that is known for asserting them strongly either.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
I'll say the same thing I said in RP Virtue. Use the system that CO has. I know thats an unpopular opinion because they're a rival game, but really, I don't see a good alternative. I'd prefer being able to always have the name I want available with my global attached (which you can turn off in CO) over needing to look up an obscure reference to the intended name and add weird punctuation in it.
Name wipes are a temporary solution and won't get rid of names held by level 50's who left 4 years ago (unless you think we should wipe level 50's names. Which is such a bad idea it's stunning).
At best a name wipe, to me, would be wiping characters level 20 and under who have not logged on in three years. That will clear a little bit but won't solve the problem at all. Just delay it for a week untill all the good names are again snatched up by people reserving them.
Quote:
I dunno, you keep saying that but his posts are reiterating his opinion on the subject. He's been on topic, he's merely asking for proof that it'll help as opposed to damage or do nothing. That which nobody has been able to prove beyond cosmetics: "I like that name but it's taken, I want it and they're not around."
|
Originally Posted by GreySquirrel
If you feel inconsistency is better that a consistent system, then by all means, say so, but don't represent things as facts when they aren't.
And please, try to get back on topic. |
Quote:
Both of these are actually good suggestions. I'd be up for both, actually. No reason to exclude more prefixes if it increases the available names. I'm not sure it would do a lot, but even if not, it would help. What type of prefixes are we actually talking about, just the normal Dr., Mrs., etc?
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
*snipped for length*
Rather than have player names quietly expire due to inactivity, it might be better to have a loud, visible purge process where every six months, say, there is "name freeing friday" where those names are purged and players know to try them again. It becomes a marketable and visible mechanic. And if you are doing it so that every one can have the name they want even if its already taken, perhaps a purge is not even the best way to do that, and an alternative like a direct system of supporting name prefixes would make more sense. |
The world is crazy. I offer this as proof; found on a butane lighter: Warning: Flame may cause fire.
You can sleep when you die.
No, the proof that the status quo works is that the company is solvent. That is evident from the moment negotiations begin.
If you want to change the status quo, you need to show how the change benefits.
De minimis non curat Lex Luthor.