In a country where we have troops deployed across the globe in several engagements, and a game where a significant number of our players are active or reserve military, I find the arbitrary 3 month deadline to be incredibly selfish and inconsiderate.
You're all operating under the presumption that the devs haven't run the script because they're lazy or forgetful, and that people who stop playing are doing it for simply personal reasons. There's people in America displaced by disaster or deployment or unemployment for years before they get back in a stable situation with enough free time to warrant a subscription. Just because we're lucky enough to be able to pay and play doesn't mean we love the game more than them and automatically deserve preference.
Yes paying customers do deserve more than nonpaying. But trying to make that case while casting the people who can't play in a less favorable light doesn't make your point. It just makes it seem selfish.
Figure out the average length of deployment. Add two months. That's a much more reasonable number for running the name script than 4 times a year.
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
Quote:
We've been circling around this issue for so long, I wouldn't blame you if you became dizzy, but it's not a binary issue.|
Originally Posted by Jophiel
ultimately paying customers should come before non-paying (thus) non-customers.
|
In the first place, "non-customers" comprise both former ones and potential new ones. The former are low-hanging fruit, and the latter are comparatively far more difficult to find and then attract. Unless there's a very good reason, alienating former customers is phenomenally bad business, firing-offense bad business.
In the second place, trying to do everything to make current players happy is similarly bad business, in the unproductive sense. It's not an efficient use of resources to try to accomodate every vocal player with an aggregieved sense of entitlement about their particular favorite issue. The devs have to look at the big picture, and only if a problem is not only sufficiently widespread but also effectively addressable will they attend to it. (As PVPers and Base-builders will confirm, the devs choose their projects ruthlessly.)
So until someone can show the devs convincing evidence that CoH is running out of player names and customers are leaving because of this, "freeing the good names" is going to be a low priority at best. For the present, it's so far on the back burner that even Mr. Fantastic couldn't reach it, even if that alias were available.
Quote:
Someone who states they aren't resubbing because they lost their characters names while their account was inactive for god knows how long is just making excuses and never planned on returning anyway.|
Originally Posted by LittleDavid
People might be less likely to become paying customers again if they find that their character names are wiped just for not being all that active. This "name wipe" system doesn't sound like it distinguishes between "popular" or "wanted" names, and names which are highly unlikely to be contested. Attempting to do so would be near impossible, I imagine.
|
Quote:
| Where's your evidence for those numbers? To me, it looks like you're just pulling them out of thin air. |
Quote:
| I doubt that vast majority exists, not when there are people who try to circumvent not getting the name they wanted by using periods or dashes or underscores. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, there could very well be people who've "taken" the name you wanted which are still playing or have recently played. |
Quote:
| So, show me where this vast majority of yours vehemently objects to this idea. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
You keep saying that but, short of some numbers backing up resubscription rates, it just doesn't hold up compared to real-paying-this-very-moment customers. Existing customers benefit from a name purge. Brand new customers benefit from a name purge. Heck, even resubbing customers can benefit from a name purge as they might actually want some of those purged names upon their return. The only ones who are negatively affected are this hypothetical pool of "low-hanging fruit" returning customers of unknown quantity who have names under the limit that someone else wants.|
Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
In the first place, "non-customers" comprise both former ones and potential new ones. The former are low-hanging fruit
|
Quote:
| In the second place, trying to do everything to make current players happy is similarly bad business |
Quote:
How is this different from the previous purges? There's always going to be hard-luck stories. How many hard-luck stories does it take to block a purge?
|
Originally Posted by Lemur Lad
There's people in America displaced by disaster or deployment or unemployment for years before they get back in a stable situation with enough free time to warrant a subscription.
|
Quote:
Actually, neither one of us has solid numbers, nor have I ever claimed this. Moreover, it's because there are no solid numbers - and I'd bet that NCSoft doesn't have any results from focus groups on the reasons CoH players have quit and/or returned - that the sensible course of action is the conservative one, which is how businesses run, especially if they want to stay in business in a poor economy like this one.|
Originally Posted by Jophiel
You keep saying that but, short of some numbers backing up resubscription rates, it just doesn't hold up compared to real-paying-this-very-moment customers.
|
Quote:
| Hey, speaking of "binary equations"... Who said "doing everything"? You can purge under a level limit. You can purge only trials. You can purge on a sliding scale of level vs time away (thus lowering the impact upon those precious "low-hanging fruit" returning customers coming back any day now). |
Were I a Paragon manager, I myself would be willing to wipe names on long-dormant trial accounts, probably over the marketing department's objections (if I couldn't assign a coder to develope a built-in name generator, which is now a standard feature of MMORPGs). The practical realities of this project wouldn't change an iota, though.
* Come to think of it, that's a fun name. I bet it's also occurred to someone else, but maybe I'll get lucky on one server or another.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jophiel
There's always going to be hard-luck stories. How many hard-luck stories does it take to block a purge?
|
Quote:
But they'll be gaining the good will of all the current players who are subscribing to City of Heroes. And that, is more valuable to them at this point then losing the good will of people who stopped caring about the game four years ago.
|
Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
How many "freed" "good names" are worth the potential loss of good will? When only intangibles are at stake, the conservative course of action is the better business practice.
|
Quote:
For "all" read "vocal, and inflexible, minority". Hence the second part about allocating resources - this project would be coming out of someone's budget. Unless you can demonstrate convincingly that running a name-purging script will retain enough subscriptions to both offset the attendant business costs and potential loss of returning players, then it's a non-starter.|
Originally Posted by Yogurt
But they'll be gaining the good will of all the current players who are subscribing to City of Heroes.
|
Once again, I recommend brainstorming with a superhero name generator as a more efficient use of one's time and energies than trying to argue for this nebulous position.
Quote:
They've already done all that and run it twice. We just want them to run it again. It doesn't cost them a dime to run it again.
|
Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
You're missing the point about the bigger picture for running a business. Running a script requires coders to come up with one that won't screw up the database (always a possibility, even if a previous version of the script has been used before), factor in your new requirements, test it to make sure it works, and then, with fingers tightly crossed run it, with their manager monitoring the project and reporting to their boss about it.
|
Quote:
How many paying customers should benefit before non-paying non-customers? I'll start with "one" and revise it upwards based on additional evidence. |
Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
How many "freed" "good names" are worth the potential loss of good will? When only intangibles are at stake, the conservative course of action is the better business practice.
|
The rest of your arguments are based in hypotheticals, as are mine, and so suffice it to say I disagree with how you weight things. You do likewise but without harder data there isn't much headway either of us will make.
Quote:
| Once again, I recommend brainstorming with a superhero name generator as a more efficient use of one's time and energies than trying to argue for this nebulous position |
Quote:
Not exactly - this thread is filled with suggestions of new time limits, level limits, account-type limits, etc. to factor into a new script. Even the most conservative position of re-running the old script has to be justified and then tested beforehand, all of which, I reiterate, comes out of someone's budget (words that no manager wants to hear).|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
We just want them to run it again. It doesn't cost them a dime to run it again.
|
Or, to put it colloquially, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Quote:
Everyone who makes a new character after the Name Purge happens will benefit, which is all current subscribers. When you go to roll a new Blaster on your home server, searching for names will take much less time than it would have with four years of inactive character names built up. Maybe someone whose subscription lapsed will come back after reading the email they are sent before the purge. No one will lose anything from this, it's a Win/Win for NCsoft and the current subscribers.
|
Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
For "all" read "vocal, and inflexible, minority". Hence the second part about allocating resources - this project would be coming out of someone's budget. Unless you can demonstrate convincingly that running a name-purging script will retain enough subscriptions to both offset the attendant business costs and potential loss of returning players, then it's a non-starter.
Once again, I recommend brainstorming with a superhero name generator as a more efficient use of one's time and energies than trying to argue for this nebulous position. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
Not exactly - this thread is filled with suggestions of new time limits, level limits, account-type limits, etc. to factor into a new script. Even the most conservative position of re-running the old script has to be justified and then tested beforehand, all of which, I reiterate, comes out of someone's budget (words that no manager wants to hear).
Or, to put it colloquially, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. |
When they wrote the script they designed it so those things could be changed as needed and they have in fact changed them the second time they ran the script.
The script works because the devs told us it did and they told us they were able to alter the scripts paramaters, so unless you are a redname you can't argue otherwise. Standard Code Rant applies.
Quote:
... And back to the binary argument again. A business has to run on a bigger picture.|
Originally Posted by Jophiel
How many paying customers should benefit before non-paying non-customers?
|
Quote:
| The rest of your arguments are based in hypotheticals, as are mine, and so suffice it to say I disagree with how you weight things. You do likewise but without harder data there isn't much headway either of us will make. |
Quote:
|
I'm not worried about my own account so much as I think it's a good idea in general so my time is actually better spent in this argument than playing with a name generator I have no need for
|
Quote:
It's good coding practice to have created a flexible script, but from my own experience with database lists, I know that standard operating proceedure requires a lot more care than simply plugging in new numbers into the variables and pressing "run". And handwaving away the costs of making changes to a crucial resource - particularly when we don't know how Paragon's database is structure or its budget is allocated - is just absurd.
|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
The script works because the devs told us it did and they told us they were able to alter the scripts paramaters, so unless you are a redname you can't argue otherwise. Standard Code Rant applies.
|
Quote:
Which can be short-handed rather easily, as far as "account type limits," to "Level 15 and up are not affected by this script." |
Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
Not exactly - this thread is filled with suggestions of new time limits, level limits, account-type limits, etc. to factor into a new script.
|
We know the script works. There hasn't been a major naming scheme change since the last time it was run - names are the same length, etc. Alignment doesn't factor into it, so nothing about being Alliance/Empi... er, Resistance/Loyalist/Rogue/Vig comes into play. Zone doesn't matter.
"Account inactive = X or greater.
Level: Y or lower."
They didn't sweat modifying it once before. And setting it so that inactive over 90 days and level 14 and under grabs *all* the trial accounts except the very newest.
All this talk about 3 months...
Every time this subject comes up, most of the people in favor of a name purge settle on 1-2 years of subscription inactivity.
Honestly, it generally seems to settle on 2 years, just to be as fair as possible.
If circumstances dictate an absence of 2 or more years... Anyone upset that the name Super Iron Eagle has found a new home did not gain much perspective during those two years.
The game's been around for over 7 years of names being grabbed with a unique naming system in place.
It makes sense to open up some of the names.
Trial accounts, subscriptions that have been inactive for 5+ years!
Let's not get dragged into further hyperbole about people away for 3-6 months and how unfair it would be for them to lose their name.
Is anyone here, that is in favor of opening up some names, against setting the minimum account inactivity to two years?
Two years... IF your account has been inactive for two years straight... and IF your name is actually chosen/attempted by someone else when they create a character... You'd have to rename that character... IF... you ever come back.
Is this really that big of a deal?
@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:
Speaking as someone who has taken a longer than two year break from this game: No, it's not a big deal.
|
Originally Posted by Electric-Knight
Two years... IF your account has been active for two years straight... and IF your name is actually chosen/attempted by someone else when they create a character... You'd have to rename that character... IF... you ever come back.
Is this really that big of a deal? |
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
Quote:
No, it isn't a big deal, that's why we've been asking for it to happen for so long. |
Originally Posted by Electric-Knight
All this talk about 3 months...
Every time this subject comes up, most of the people in favor of a name purge settle on 1-2 years of subscription inactivity. Honestly, it generally seems to settle on 2 years, just to be as fair as possible. If circumstances dictate an absence of 2 or more years... Anyone upset that the name Super Iron Eagle has found a new home did not gain much perspective during those two years. The game's been around for over 7 years of names being grabbed with a unique naming system in place. It makes sense to open up some of the names. Trial accounts, subscriptions that have been inactive for 5+ years! Let's not get dragged into further hyperbole about people away for 3-6 months and how unfair it would be for them to lose their name. Is anyone here, that is in favor of opening up some names, against setting the minimum account inactivity to two years? Two years... IF your account has been inactive for two years straight... and IF your name is actually chosen/attempted by someone else when they create a character... You'd have to rename that character... IF... you ever come back. Is this really that big of a deal? |
One thing that needs to be included is characters of ALL levels who have been inactive for five+ years. These characters are NEVER going to be played again. Someone is more likely to start a new account then dig up their old information for a game they played when it first came out seven years ago, played a character to max level, got bored, and quit, never to even come back for Issue 2, 3, 4, City of Villains, or Going Rogue. They aren't coming back. Let's be real.
Quote:
/disagree. |
Originally Posted by Yogurt
No, it isn't a big deal, that's why we've been asking for it to happen for so long.
One thing that needs to be included is characters of ALL levels who have been inactive for five+ years. These characters are NEVER going to be played again. Someone is more likely to start a new account then dig up their old information for a game they played when it first came out seven years ago, played a character to max level, got bored, and quit, never to even come back for Issue 2, 3, 4, City of Villains, or Going Rogue. They aren't coming back. Let's be real. |
If you're looking for names, go for where most of them are - the lower levels. One of the things the devs said some time ago was that making EATs a level 50 unlock was a mistake because so few people had 50s. And that statement is true in the timeframe you're looking at and earlier. And yes, those people *do* come back.
Highest we should ever go, IMHO, is where we had the original script - 35 - with an *option* for people to clear all their names (sent with reactivation emails - "click link to clear" type thing.) There comes a point where you just start sounding petty and/or punitive about it after that. (Now, if those emails start bouncing, I'd take it as an indicator to remove, as well, to be honest - the person has nothing whatsoever going on with NCSoft at that point and can't be contacted.)
Quote:
I have no problem with the devs prior decision to set the limit at 90 days, and I won't complain if they choose to leave it that way.
|
Originally Posted by Electric-Knight
Is anyone here, that is in favor of opening up some names, against setting the minimum account inactivity to two years?
|
Quote:
/disagree|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
/disagree.
If you're looking for names, go for where most of them are - the lower levels. One of the things the devs said some time ago was that making EATs a level 50 unlock was a mistake because so few people had 50s. And that statement is true in the timeframe you're looking at and earlier. And yes, those people *do* come back. Highest we should ever go, IMHO, is where we had the original script - 35 - with an *option* for people to clear all their names (sent with reactivation emails - "click link to clear" type thing.) |
The game has seen a lot of changes since the last time the script was run and it's a helluva lot easier to get a character up to level 50. So I have no doubt there are a lot of mid to high level characters on inactive accounts where the people only bought a month (for example the Mission Architect edition) and never came back.
I say run it once ijncluding everything on inactive accounts from 1-50 then in the future they can lower it back down to whatever they decide.
Quote:
Nothing binary about it as I said I would revise from there. But I certainly believe that starting at "benefits one customer" is more intelligent than starting at "one guy who may or may not ever return has a sad story".|
Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
... And back to the binary argument again. A business has to run on a bigger picture.
|
Quote:
| Offering a link is the only practical help in such situations that I can offer, I'm sorry to say, as opposed to advocating for a change to the database that the devs evidently don't see as a pressing need. |
Edit: That's a lot of commas.
Quote:
I am of the same opinion.|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
/disagree
The game has seen a lot of changes since the last time the script was run and it's a helluva lot easier to get a character up to level 50. So I have no doubt there are a lot of mid to high level characters on inactive accounts where the people only bought a month (for example the Mission Architect edition) and never came back. I say run it once ijncluding everything on inactive accounts from 1-50 then in the future they can lower it back down to whatever they decide. |
It seems worth noting that the level 50 or whatever character is not being deleted! If they've been away for such and such period of time, if someone else thinks to try that specific name and if they ever come back to the game... They'll still have the character and everything that they've earned with that character, but they'll be faced with a free name change, because the name that character was sitting on has been freed and taken.
It seems reasonable to 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
And The Glamburgler would still be there when you get back anyways, I mean the game has been around for seven years, and someone JUST RECENTLY snagged it on Virtue.