So you lost your Global....tell us your new one
By
Bull Throttle,
Posted on: 2011-05-11 12:47 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
Yes indeed, some with good reason
|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
No matter what gets done someone will always be unhappy.
|
Too many 50's to list here's a few you may know.
Slazenger, Area51, Area53, Area54, Erruption, Mind Plague, Thresher, Sheath, Broadside, Debt
Quote:
Unfortunately in situations where any decision they make is going to upset people they try to choose the smallest group of people possible to lessen the response.
|
Originally Posted by Slazenger
Yes indeed, some with good reason
|
Anyone know how to change my Forum Global, might as well give that to em as well (surprised they never got it when forums merged anyways)
Too many 50's to list here's a few you may know.
Slazenger, Area51, Area53, Area54, Erruption, Mind Plague, Thresher, Sheath, Broadside, Debt
I know we could do it on the old forums because I did it, but I don't know if we have that option here.
Have searched under User CP, but dosen't seem to have the option.
Too many 50's to list here's a few you may know.
Slazenger, Area51, Area53, Area54, Erruption, Mind Plague, Thresher, Sheath, Broadside, Debt
Reason is just the artificial corridor that we build between insanities.
@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:
Send a PM to one of the Community Reps (Zwill or Avatea or someone).|
Originally Posted by Slazenger
Anyone know how to change my Forum Global, might as well give that to em as well (surprised they never got it when forums merged anyways)
|
They were changing forum handles by request a while ago and I am not sure if that is an ongoing service or not.
I'd imagine many people would like to change their forum handle after the merge, so I'd expect they are willing and abiding, but don't quote me on that (Or Avatea might smite me).
@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
Sorry, but I'm going with the loyalty aspect. It's only common sense for any business to make sure they look after loyal customers first, rather than someone who subbed for 2 months 5 years ago and has never subbed against since.
Sadly, unless anyone knows the US @Virtue, we'll never know, will we.
Still don't understand this whole "least amount of people" argument. Surely if 500 people in the EU had to have their globals changed due to a clash, that means there were exactly 500 people in the US to change as well? How can there be more or less??
And why the EU players getting shafted despite massive amounts of protests? We've still not had any satisfactory responses to this yet.
We built this city on Rock and Roll!
Quote:
I'd say a year.|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Hey I'm not talking about people getting everything genericed as soon as their account goes inactive. That would be total BS. But somewhere between 90 days at the earliest and 6 months seems reasonable to me. After that the company has a business to run and should be concerned with people paying their subs.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Coin
Sorry, but I'm going with the loyalty aspect. It's only common sense for any business to make sure they look after loyal customers first, rather than someone who subbed for 2 months 5 years ago and has never subbed against since.
|
Quote:
| And why the EU players getting shafted despite massive amounts of protests? We've still not had any satisfactory responses to this yet. |
Quote:
Coin, that's a very good point and with the EU population being smaller you would think that maybe there would be more NA inactive accounts?
|
Originally Posted by Coin
Still don't understand this whole "least amount of people" argument. Surely if 500 people in the EU had to have their globals changed due to a clash, that means there were exactly 500 people in the US to change as well? How can there be more or less??
|
My deviantART page (warning some images nsfw)
GGRRR Comic Series GGRRR Comics on Facebook
Quote:
Okay I can agree to a year.
|
Originally Posted by Mr. DJ
I'd say a year.
|
Quote:
Yes, it is, and it's one that would help reduce the number of problems even further.|
Originally Posted by Mr. DJ
That's a very narrow view of things and extremely selective. Naturally, if they only subbed for 2 months and never came back, sure, give the name up so it's free. From all my time seeing people coming back, I don't think I've read anyone being gone longer than 2 years.
|
The devs/mods made a good start at reducing the amount of clashes by removing the trial accounts from the list completely, and then giving us the reactivation week so duplicated single people accounts could be fixed as well.
Taking out people who's account had been inactive for a certain amount of time would also have reduced the problem even more, and shown some reward to the people who have been loyal to the game and stayed playing for the 7 years it's been out.
If it was set at 1 year, if someone was to return and say "I used to play this game up to over a year ago and came back and now my global is gone why is this I'm annoyed", how many people on here would be tempted to say "well, tough, that's what happens when you leave, someone who has been loyal got it instead.
Hell, even basing on the amount of time subscribed in total would have been fair, that way the player who has paid the most would get it, again, rewarding the loyalty.
There were numerous ways to reduce the list of clashes that seemed to go completely ignored and we have had no reason given as to why. I, for one, would love to hear the reasoning.
We built this city on Rock and Roll!
Quote:
The reasoning was explained a few times in the offical feedback thread. You may (do) disagree with what were the reasons were, but they were explained.
| There were numerous ways to reduce the list of clashes that seemed to go completely ignored and we have had no reason given as to why. I, for one, would love to hear the reasoning. |
I don't suffer from altitis, I enjoy every minute of it.
Thank you Devs & Community people for a great game.
So sad to be ending ):
Quote:
Yes I recall. It amounted to "Too much hassle, can't be bothered to interrogate the NA database, some technobabble about integrity, this is the way it's going to be, we care, honestly, now bend over."
|
Originally Posted by tanstaafl
The reasoning was explained a few times in the offical feedback thread. You may (do) disagree with what were the reasons were, but they were explained.
|
@Dante EU - Union Roleplayer and Altisis Victim
The Militia: Union RP Supergroup - www.themilitia.org.uk
Quote:
Well I'm not sure those are the actual words they used, but you got the sense of it spot on.
|
Originally Posted by Dante
Yes I recall. It amounted to "Too much hassle, can't be bothered to interrogate the NA database, some technobabble about integrity, this is the way it's going to be, we care, honestly, now bend over."
|
Quote:
As I've explained elsewhere, it's not about the amount of people who would be affected by the change itself, it's the number of people who wouldn't know if they would be renamed or not beforehand.|
Originally Posted by Coin
Sorry, but I'm going with the loyalty aspect. It's only common sense for any business to make sure they look after loyal customers first, rather than someone who subbed for 2 months 5 years ago and has never subbed against since.
Sadly, unless anyone knows the US @Virtue, we'll never know, will we. Still don't understand this whole "least amount of people" argument. Surely if 500 people in the EU had to have their globals changed due to a clash, that means there were exactly 500 people in the US to change as well? How can there be more or less?? |
If it was down to how old the account is, ignoring trials and inactive accounts, (which is what I'd have done) then no-one would be safe and anyone may have been renamed
Quote:
.....o.O|
Originally Posted by Carnifax_NA
As I've explained elsewhere, it's not about the amount of people who would be affected by the change itself, it's the number of people who wouldn't know if they would be renamed or not beforehand.
|
So, you're saying it was the decision to definitely upset a lot of people in the EU, rather than possibly upset more people in the US and EU because the MIGHT possibly get their global changed?
That has to be the most ludicrous reasoning I've ever heard
We built this city on Rock and Roll!
Quote:
Basically, this is the reason I think Account Names should have been handled the way things were... but (ideally) Global names should have been handled based on loyalty/veteran status/active account type stuff.|
Originally Posted by Carnifax_NA
As I've explained elsewhere, it's not about the amount of people who would be affected by the change itself, it's the number of people who wouldn't know if they would be renamed or not beforehand.
If it was down to how old the account is, ignoring trials and inactive accounts, (which is what I'd have done) then no-one would be safe and anyone may have been renamed |
Anyone currently not-in-the-know would be pretty messed up trying to log into their account, should they come back and its name has been changed.
However, having the global name changed wouldn't cause any problems (other than the potential of hurt feelings, but they've already reactivated by then, and it's their own fault if they can't accept the fact that a payer customer got preferential treatment... as rotten as many people can be, the amount of people who would truly be incensed over that is very small).
So... limiting instances of confusion about out-of-game login/account information = good/smart thing.
However... basing in-game global information on catering to the inactive customers over currently paying and/or more loyal/longer-veteran-status customers = pointless gesture
All that being said, I think it was mostly for ease and straightforward functionality, which I do respect.
None of it is easy and they just wanted to pound it out.
I just think that, beyond this instance, inactive accounts should have names opened up after a certain amount of time. I've always felt that way... and now, with this instance of global name conflicts, I think it should have extended to that.
Just my opinions and it took no work from me, so take that for what it's worth, hehe!
@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
I didn't want the merge before yesterday, guess what I feel about it now?