Cross server naming to allow teaming

Actually, global namespace is a legitimate point of discussion. You're approaching this from the perspective of the amount of work involved. All of the technical challenges to making cross-server teaming are just that, technical challenges. The programming team could go away and come back with a solution, and for the most part neither you nor I would have any reason to need to know what they did, or have any real say in how they did what they did. There's no political dimension to the problem.

Global namespace is different, because while almost all solutions are technically straight forward, and probably less work than the actual act of creating cross-server instances, the question of how specifically to do it is subjective. Its not a technical challenge, and as a result its actually beyond the limits of the programmers to solve with just code. That makes it a potentially far more critical challenge. Its entirely possible the devs could kick around ideas for how to do this for a longer period of time than it would take the programming team to solve every other problem.

Code can sometimes be difficult and sometimes be easy to change, but its almost always straight forward. What to code often takes longer to decide, and creates more controversy. You need only look to the current EU/NA server space merge to see how the most straight-forward and practical implementation can cause lots of people to decide the devs failed to choose the "best" possibility, for at least six different definitions of "best" all mutually exclusive.

That quote is saying the plans were not going to happen in 2007. For all we know they've been kicking around the technical issues for cross server play but were stuck on how to deal with the character name-space issue all this time.

And some players will max out one or two servers, this suggestion will not allow cross server groups to exist. Thanks for raising the point though, I'll update my original post in a bit to reflect this concern.

Putting a request for 'cross-server content' without having "just plain cross-server LFT" is putting the cart in front of the horse. In order to have content made, the developers need to have the capability for players to team.

You have the choice to see this as "half-full" or "half-empty". You can't build a community without interaction. The dilution is already happening with players starting characters on new servers. The intermingling is also already happening with people starting characters on new servers. All cross server play will do is allow for players to do so at higher levels.

They used the exact same phrasing as they used with side switching. Positron has said that type of phrasing means that they couldn't do X feature "yet". Not just that they didn't have the resources, but "we don't know how to do that". That is the problem with vague answers to upcoming feature requests. On the other hand not providing specific answers tends to get developers into more troubles.

For the most part of actually doing the code, I'd normally agree with you. However this particular issue isn't something they can code without repercussions. People are incredibly attached to their character names. People

Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters

If you don't believe the lost revenue from buying server transfers is enough, I could imagine this affecting the number of character slots and secondary/tertiary accounts purchased as well.


You speak of it as if we should instantly implement this feature without actually thinking of the ramifications first. One should theorize what affects the change would have and look to solve issues *before* they become a problem. If later, it's proven the problem wouldn't occur/isn't occurring, expanding the initial capabilities is a logical course.

But then that's just me rationalizing the idea to begin with. Cross server teaming isn't really necessary except for maybe certain content. Normal teams aren't hard to come by if you picked the right server and if you didn't, you can reroll (and e-mail that character's junk to the new one) or just transfer that character to another server.

I seriously don't think secondary (or more) accounts even figures into the developer's calculations. Even so, there are plenty of player that would still do it though. They could use the fact players don't need to buy more character slots as a huge advantage, and people would STILL buy more character slots.

Except not one of the detractors of the suggestion, including you, are talking about the suggestion. People are talking about wanting cross server content, about revenue loss if cross server play is ever enabled, and how much work it would take to implement cross server teaming.

Until a SPECIFIC hurdle can be overcome, NONE OF THAT IS POSSIBLE.

That specific hurdle is the unique name issue. Without that all the rest is literally meaningless to the discussion. The developers have to handle the name situation in a way that doesn't drive players away. This is one way that tries to appeal to most players. The rest of the cross server play discussion is completely secondary to how the developers address the naming issue.

The name issue will have to come up no matter how the developers choose to do cross-server play. They might go serverless, they might use transfer points, they might do mission terminals, use the Team Up Teleporter, or use something else entirely. None of that matters if character names collide preventing players from teaming. Heck if they fix the name collisions that could allow cross server PVP for those that want it.

Except you aren't talking about the suggestion you are pretty much saying we don't need this because the developers shouldn't think about cross server play at all.

Congratulations, you've completely missed the point of this thread and have descended to a long-winded /jranger. If you don't have anything constructive to add, please go elsewhere. I'm certainly not forcing you to read this thread.

Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters

And you know this how? Even so, there's the possibility they'd buy *less* character slots. So just add that to the possibility of fewer purchases of server transfers as well...


Oh, you want me to comment on the actual suggestion? Do I want "Tiger-Squall@Protector" or "Tiger-Squall@Leogunner", etc.? Lol, I DON'T CARE! I could be given a random collection of numbers when I go cross-server and not give a flying flip >_>

The sum of the OP, in my book, is "let's give flags to names so they aren't the exact same collection of characters", to which everyone will say, in unison, "Duh".

That was all the discussion I really wanted when I posted the original suggestion. Some people DO care. I wanted to find out a way so that people that did care could accept.

Some people are adamant about not having @<anything> or about not seeing any other character with the same name as they have. I already know that the suggestion won't do anything for them. For those that object to @<global name> the suggestion protects their privacy a little.

Anything beyond naming conventions is something the developers are going to have to figure out from that point. I'm not privy to their business model or their actual code. Character names are a touchy subject for players, and I was hoping to be pre-emptive in coming up with a naming scheme to prevent most of what happened with the EU-NA server merge.

Like Arcanaville said, after you get around the touchy naming issues:
"for the most part neither you nor I would have any reason to need to know what they did, or have any real say in how they did what they did."

The players will not have any real say on if the developers wanted to change revenue models, allow temporary server transfers, or make cross server content. Though I'm fairly certain they would take all that into account and compare all that with the amount of player demand for cross server teaming.

Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters

I believe it is a safe assumption that the vast overwhelming majority of players will care somewhat more than that.

I didn't say they didn't. However, the crux of the suggestion makes little progress to its intended solution. Since the suggestion is that of a democratic nature, a poll asking what that overwhelming majority would rather see attached to their name (if anything) would be in order.

The suggestion, in and of itself, is just adding some tag that would make it unique to a name with the exact same configuration of characters but on another server. That's not really up for discussion as it's just common sense.

The precise way that happens - because it is potentially changing player characters' visible character names - is not common sense. It is, in fact, the singular aspect of universal naming that is likely to be the most difficult to achieve any sort of consensus on. You have a contingent of players that have said elsewhere and in the past that they would rather accept rejecting any game addition that required name changes rather than accept *any* name change. That is a priori proof of the difficulty surrounding this problem.

I should point out this thread is my fault: Snow Globe was responding to a post I made in another thread where I specifically stated my uncompromisable objection to Global@Local. I would accept it if I was forced, but I would go down swinging at everything that moved until then. In fact, and this is no exaggeration, Global@Local is a small but significant part of why I do not post on the Champions Online boards anymore, and why I never did on the ST:O boards. That is the degree of objection I have to that convention.

A few weeks ago i posted an idea i had a long time ago about a cross server PvP zone. The idea to include server name with toon name is the same as i had to avoid name conflicts. You however, came up with a more detailed suggestion, and it could work.

All these points validate the use of a cross server platform.
Added bonus:
PvP. I know the PvP players are scattered, and something like this could bring them together.

1) Those people love to bash others, and i don't really pay attention to them. Once in a blue moon they come with a valid point, and that means that we can think of that and see how to change something.
2) Yes and no. Toons from the same server, no matter if they are on the same server yes or no, could be linked by the home server. Meaning Nephila on Guardian just has to type Dark Energon to reach him, even if he's on a diff server and vice versa. If you want to reach someone from a diff server, that's when the Nehila@Freedom comes to play. And still, auto complete could be a suggestion for the server name, like we have in the Auction House.
3) Yes it does. It does need a serious investment of time, and a lot of testing. But it doesn't have to be out over night or in a few weeks.
4) Yes, but that's the same issue that we'd have now. So no issue in my opinion
5) Have an option to hide it under mouse over/selected only. And when on home server, just neglect it completely. It could be active only when on vacation on a diff server.
6) If they don't like it they don't have to go to a diff server and be named Nephila@Guardian to meet Nephila on Exalted and Nephila@Virtue. When those come to his own home server, he'll be still Nephila, while they'll have the @servername attached to their name.

Snow, glad that i saw this link in your signature.
Glad that there are a few others in favor of cross server teaming, and pulling the community closer instead of driven them further apart.
Esp now with the new VIP only server, some friends are there, i'd love to visit them as a VIP, or have them join us for a trail or two.

My thought regarding this..
/SIGN

So?

Thanks for the kind words.

Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters