Free the names!

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

I can't begin to say how nice it is to log in create a character and get the exact name you want. I never saw two people with the same game in two different games I played that had that system.
At this point I've lost hope of this ever happening here. But I hope CoH2 has this system. I've never really heard a good reason not to.

There isn't anyone out there that cares about your reputation. If somebody attempts to grief there is a /petition service.

And, again. I never saw a problem with this. Never saw two people with the same name. (With one exception where it was intentional that everyone have the same name, which is another nice feature of the system.)

A thousand times this. What I hear from their datamining is few people were affected by the name purge. So why not do it then?
Unused trial accounts should be the first. And then if no one has used a name in years then free that name up.

Exactly.

No one is assuming anything. I'm betting there will be a lot of random named gold farm characters that will be a part of the "purge". These wont actually lose their names because who would take a random string of letters?
But, none of us know what names will be included in a purge that gets all trial accounts over a year old. And I bet there are some iconic names in that.
I also don't see a problem with level 20 and under that hasn't been used in years. 2 years? 3? I agree with ModernMyth if they haven't used the name is years they have likely forgotten exactly what the name was anyway.

Oh well. You got me there. I would hate to upset a bunch of idiots. o.O

Do you really have hard data on the cost of CSR service last time they did this? Or are you just supposing that happened?

Again, exactly so.

Wont happen. Didn't happen. Not while I was playing. I never saw two people with the same name. This is such a weak arguement it amazes me it comes up constantly.
However, how many Flashes are there in DC comics? How many flashes have been in the same room at the same time? How do you tell them apart? How many Green Lanterns or Captain Americas are there?
How about something really Iconic like Batman or Superman? With Batman incorperated how many guys in Bat costumes named Batman are in the same place at once? I have an issue that has Bruce and Dick in bat costume on the same roof at the same time. So can't convince me that it isn't a part of the comic genre for it to happen. (Even though it in reality just plain doesn't, not in my experience anyway).

My postings to this forum are not to be used as data in any research study without my express written consent.

I was under the impression this was an active sweep that genericized people's names.

I will admit that is a little better, but I still think there's other ways this issue could be handled without having to resort to things like this.

In other words, you're saying "the player who is actively paying month after month is always worth more than the ones who don't, and therefore their opinions have more weight than everyone else's." Pretty much what Forbin was saying.

However, that's not always true and it's a little fallacious to assume that it is. What if there's a larger majority of players that pay to play with less frequency than the ones who pay every month? What if that majority, even though they play less often, brings in more money than the dedicated players?

In that case, it would be financially risky to do something to tick off that many players just to please the ones who pay every month to play.

That's a calculus only the devs would know the answer to, because we've no way of knowing the breakdown of how much of the playerbase pays to play with any given frequency. However, it is something to think about.

That's exactly the point I was making a page or two ago. Even in City of Heroes' lore, the signature heroes have a number of people who shared the same identity in the past (Luminary and Sirocco come to mind).

In the case of that "no unique names" system I've seen, I rarely encountered two people with the same name. I never found myself teaming up with a team of people with all the same name, and even when I did run into people with identical names they were very easy to tell apart, as I could display their player IDs with the press of a button. I never once confused one for the other.

And I agree with it. Bird in the hand, and all that.

And what if ninjas attack or an elephant charges the servers? Given that no one is advocating "Lose your names the second your account expires", I find it extremely unlikely that the number of people who take year+ long breaks from the game are out-financing the people who pay month after month.

I think your criterion for what is "in hand" and what is "in the bush" is a lot different than mine.

"In the hand" would be, to me, anyone who pays to play the game with any frequency, not just the ones who pay every month.

Frankly, the attitude that the players who pay every month deserve to have their opinions listened to over other players smacks of snobbery. I'm a paying customer too, you know.

Was there an actual point you were trying to make there? Because that had no bearing at all on anything I said.

You're wildly speculating outside the bounds of what's reasonable. I clarified that in the second half that you clipped out.

Not really.

There are people advocating having people's names up for grabs in idle periods as short as three months. That's quite a bit shorter amount of time than what you make it out to be.

Yes you are, there would have to be twelve times as many players who activate for one month a year, as there are who keep an active subscription, just to be even in numbers.

That is so far outside the bounds of reasonable that it makes elephant rampage or ninja attack look plausible.

If I had actually said somewhere that the vast majority of paying players in this game only paid for one month per year, then yes, it would be wild speculation. However, I never said such a thing.

Again, there are people advocating having people's names up for grabs in idle periods as short as three months. That is not the same as a person who pays to play one month out of an entire year.

I'm not sure why you guys thought that I said the vast majority of profits come from players who only pay once a month per year or more. What I actually said was "that's a calculus only the devs would know the answer to, because we've no way of knowing the breakdown of how much of the playerbase pays to play with any given frequency."

Which could be anywhere from month lapses, to several month lapses, half-year lapses, or more. Not merely once-in-a-year-or-more subscriptions. My own average "downtime" between subscriptions is 2.5 months, though my actual paid time is hardly that even.

Have you asked *Why* three months?

Simple answer: That's what the scripts were set to previously.

First script parameters for marking name as available (note, not genericing) :
- 90 days inactive
- Under level 35

Second script:
- 90 days inactive
- Under level 6

So 90 days is not a stretch *or* unreasonable... at least by NC's prior standards. (I'll note in my copypasta I only left it at 90 days for trials, increasing to 180 for inactive accounts.)

See my Guides and Tutorials

Actually, yes, I did ask Forbin this. My response to him was at the top of this page, but for reference:

Thank you for taking the time to answer the question I posed to him, though.

Even knowing that's how NCSoft did it in the past, however, I still think there's a better way of solving the problem. Put me in the camp with Draugadan and company, basically, the guys who want to see uniqueness tied to something other than character names, so these kind of things wouldn't have to be done in the first place.

i mean, if you're going to be fighting over "popular" or "taken" names in the first place, and people want those names up for grabs so they can take them for their own characters, that kind of makes the whole argument about uniqueness moot, doesn't it? There already were people with those names before they got renamed, so it's not like the name was excusive in the first place ... to say nothing of the people who make variations on a name.

Not really. The argument is that those names essentially don't exist any longer since they are locked in defunct accounts. There is still only one unique "Ice-Lad" at a time per server.

Not really, since when people complain about it they too often resort to hyperbole and blatant exaggeration instead of trying to come up with solid reasons. Even when the devs do things we clearly want, they have to have solid reasons for it.

Running the script because it's been a long time and people are complaining in highly dramatic (but inaccurate) language on the forums doesn't qualify.

The second, I agree.

The first, not so much.

The script was run to "free up" names at a point where there were, logically, fewer names tied up. That character I posted earlier is 3 1/2 years old. The game itself is seven. That means in the FIRST 3 1/2 years of gameplay, the script has run twice (with level variation between them.) In the second half, during that character's entire (inactive) life, it has NEVER run. How many characters/names are affected? At the five year anniversary, they mentioned how many million characters created? How many at the seven year? (42 million created at the seven year anniversary, by the way. Trying to find the five year - wasn't it something like 20 million?)

That isn't "dramatic language." Those are facts.

I am, obviously, in the camp saying it should be run again - and I don't feel I have any problem getting names now.

Modify the script so it's at level 14 and under (to catch all the expired trials) and run it again.

Edit:
In fact, just PM'd this to Zwillinger:

See my Guides and Tutorials

Are you suggesting that if the recurrent vocal minority demanding wholesale genericization of character names used by players who aren't forking over cash to NCSoft this very second would instead apply their energeries to brainstorming more creative names that all parties would be happier?

Why, everyone knows that complaining on the boards is a far more entertaining metagame and an easy way to increase post-count scores. (Speaking of which...)

Yet that old saw simply doesn't apply here (any more than the assorted analogies that have been thrown around about barstools, hamburgers, apartments, etc.).

The case of former and returning customers is very basic marketing that applies to anything with a subscription model, e.g. magazines or membership associations. Essentially, an old potential returning customer is far more valuable than any number of new cold leads. Since former customers have at one point demonstrably made the crucial leap to pay for the game, the psychological barrier to enticing them into doing so again is far lower than that of convincing a new potential candidate to try, and pay for, something that's unknown to them. The idea that former customers are worthless, implicit in many of the pro-wipe posts in these threads, is bad business. Why do you think you persistently receive renewal offers in the mail to Gamer Monthly despite not having subscribed for years?

To fit the avian-shrubbery saying to this case, the birds in the hand, i.e. the current CoH subscribers, aren't going anywhere because of Paragon's naming policy, not in numbers that would distinguish them from ordinary attrition. Unless the boards are immolated in flame wars on the topic, with multiple threads simultaneously up in arms, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, etc., the devs can safely put this on the backburner. Instead, they can attend to more reliable and conspicuous ways of keeping current subscribers, viz. the Incarnate endgame, additional zones, new story arcs and task/strike forces, and booster packs, which they're evidently dedicated to providing us. (And how small is the minority who'd prefer that Paragon instead dedicate any of their resources to fine-tuning the name-wiping script for the increasingly complicated formulas that are being offered here and that are nowhere near as simple as their advocates claim.) Incidentally, these new offerings are also likely to attract returning players, so why would the devs want to sabotage this by sending out e-mails threatening to generic names for inactivity?

Until Zwillinger or another red name pops by one of these threads, it's safe to take the devs' silence on this topic as their tacit acceptance of the status quo - that for all the names locked up in game, there are more possibilities out there that need only a little imagination and persistence to dream up. Besides, look at how creative they are with their cognomen. There isn't a Captain Generica (or Fail O'Suckyname) in the bunch.

Given your previously bizarre notions on "most valuable returning customers", I'm going to skip on your business acumen but thanks none the less.

I don't feel that the two are analogous. If you stop paying for a service, why should resources (any resources, including names!) be withheld from actual paying customers in case you decide to return? Not quite the same thing as breaking into someone's house and stealing their possessions. That said, I understand that people get possessive about their names; if that's the case, they shouldn't let their sub lapse.

Given your persistent misinterpretation of the scale of valuation for current, returning, and potential new customers, you weren't likely to be open in the first place, but one does try.

^ This

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

How little sympathy that shows for players who lapse because of circumstances beyond their control - and how little appreciation that implies for retaining good will. The server sub-forums are filled with players' announcements of departures*, for numerous reasons. Instead of generating responses like "dibs on your character names", they're greeted typically with hopes they'll come back soon. (CoH does, after all, have one of the best MMORPG communities in many respects.) Why would the devs wish to subvert that by enforced character name wipes?

As I said before, an ebil marketer would leverage this attitude by informing would-be departing players of potential name loss prior to their hitting the cancel button on their subscriptions, but I'm grateful that NCSoft, unlike some other MMO publishers, doesn't try to play these games with us.


* More, incidentally, than these irregular calls to "free the good names".

I'll believe the whole "Circumstances Out of Their Control" thing for up to six months, maybe a year, but when they've been gone for four, five, six, and seven years, I really can't see how that statement works. If you actually liked playing CoH, you would've found a way to play again in the first year.

It just requires a broader set of values for life experiences. You might not (yet) have encountered such circumstances personally, but they're out there...

Likewise (although I went longer out than 3 months). Sporadic outliers shouldn't be a reason not to do it. Give them time to return but ultimately paying customers should come before non-paying (thus) non-customers.