Irrelevant Hot Take

[Astralporing.1957]

On 8/18/2021 at 1:49 PM, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

The game has had almost ten years of character creation. That's ten years of inactive character name bloat.

How is it unreasonable to ask for some kind of time stipulation on character name reserves at this point?

The more established a rule is, the less reasonable it becomes to change it (unless some new arguments have surfaced - but they haven't). And in this case, it is doubly true, because a lot of people, when they stopped playing, did expect that rule to hold.

 

Being able to return at any time, and take long breaks and yet still be able to find your account in the same state you left it is one of the core pillars of this game. It's one of those things that can be decided on in the very beginning, and perhaps adjusted very early, but once it sets in, should not be touched unless it is absolutely necessary (which it is not).

 

So, asking for it now is definitely less reasonable than it was 10 years ago. And in 5 years more it will become even less reasonable than it is now.

[Arnox.5128]

7 hours ago, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

Again, if you don't know which John it is in the Guild? 

How does that help? 

 

What, you can't have multiple Johns in your guild already? You could have John, John John, J O H N, Johnn, and John Smith, and all of them would be unique and already allowed right now.

 

With that said, being able to set nicknames for everyone and not just friends would majorly help that.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Arnox.5128

[Ashen.2907]

On 8/18/2021 at 8:32 AM, Arnox.5128 said:

I never had too much of a problem with this, but regardless, I did bring up an easy solution to this whole issue a long time ago where, like core usernames, a character's name would have a number appended to the end of it that would normally be hidden unless someone in the map you're in also has the same name. But, the GW2 community being what it is, I got shouted down because I guess people want to be completely selfish with their names.

I have played a game with a system such as this before and it worked well. I would support the idea. You might consider that asking to give up something uniquely theirs does not make them selfish.

[Biermeister.4678]

Have no problem getting names

[Arnox.5128]

42 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

I have played a game with a system such as this before and it worked well. I would support the idea. You might consider that asking to give up something uniquely theirs does not make them selfish.

 

Ah, but keep in mind, they aren't actually giving anything up. They still have the exact same name that they did before. Also, if it makes them feel better, the first person who picks the name gets the prestigious ".0001" appendage. You can also go even further as well by allowing players to pick their own number identifiers (assuming it isn't taken of course).

Edited August 19, 2021 by Arnox.5128

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

3 hours ago, Arnox.5128 said:

 

What, you can't have multiple Johns in your guild already? You could have John, John John, J O H N, Johnn, and John Smith, and all of them would be unique and already allowed right now.

 

With that said, being able to set nicknames for everyone and not just friends would majorly help that.

What the heck has that got to do with anything?  If the names are unique, there is less problem telling them apart.

When they are all John, not so much, if at all.

 

[Arnox.5128]

6 minutes ago, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

What the heck has that got to do with anything?  If the names are unique, there is less problem telling them apart.

When they are all John, not so much, if at all.

 

 

What exactly are you expecting? A massive member list of just "John"? Even so, most large guilds have at least 50% of their members completely inactive, so even if there were 5 "John"s, you would most likely only care about 2 of them and you can just nickname those. Also, the guild list sorts by latest activity by default anyway, not alphabetically (although yes, the option is there).

 

And finally, if you STILL need further proof this wouldn't be nearly as big a problem as you think, you can already have core names be whatever you want. It ALREADY works like that with one of the naming systems. And yet, I still see unique core names ALL the time.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Arnox.5128

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Fortunately, we won't have to deal with that issue, as the Devs/ArenaNet aren't likely to change the unique Character Name policy. 

Ever. 

[Arnox.5128]

4 minutes ago, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

Fortunately, we won't have to deal with that issue, as the Devs/ArenaNet aren't likely to change the unique Character Name policy. 

Ever. 

 

They're obviously not going to start putting in name decay. But who says they're not going to change it?

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Who?  Nine years of precedent? 

And is not the OP's topic about 'name decay'?

[Dante.1763]

9 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

 

What did your trash can do to deserve this?

Perhaps it was a naughty trashcan, and spanking werent working!

 

13 minutes ago, Arnox.5128 said:

 

What exactly are you expecting? A massive member list of just "John"? Even so, most large guilds have at least 50% of their members completely inactive, so even if there were 5 "John"s, you would most likely only care about 2 of them and you can just nickname those. Also, the guild list sorts by latest activity by default anyway, not alphabetically (although yes, the option is there).

 

And finally, if you STILL need further proof this wouldn't be nearly as big a problem as you think, you can already have core names be whatever you want. It ALREADY works like that with one of the naming systems. And yet, I still see unique core names ALL the time.

Ive already mentioned how i and another Dante get confused in my guild and its just the two of us. To make this worse, mines my account name, and his is a character name. We still get confused for each other. I dont think more would make this better.

[Epsilon Indi.2031]

3 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

The more established a rule is, the less reasonable it becomes to change it (unless some new arguments have surfaced - but they haven't). And in this case, it is doubly true, because a lot of people, when they stopped playing, did expect that rule to hold.

 

Being able to return at any time, and take long breaks and yet still be able to find your account in the same state you left it is one of the core pillars of this game. It's one of those things that can be decided on in the very beginning, and perhaps adjusted very early, but once it sets in, should not be touched unless it is absolutely necessary (which it is not).

 

So, asking for it now is definitely less reasonable than it was 10 years ago. And in 5 years more it will become even less reasonable than it is now.

Grandfather old accounts in.  They won't lose their names, but  when theye come back and log in, hit them with the new EULA/ToS with the new rule that they have to accept.  Do this for every player that day it's updated.  Make it something long like 4 years for previously active & paid accounts, 6 months to 1 year for F2P.  This would be the 'fair' way of updating it.

I'm still in favor of display names being used to allow for any name on an account.

For examples of what I'm in favor of:
John Doe@Name.2345
John Doe@Name.1234
John Doe@Name.9582
etc.

[Arnox.5128]

40 minutes ago, Dante.1763 said:

Perhaps it was a naughty trashcan, and spanking werent working!

 

Ive already mentioned how i and another Dante get confused in my guild and its just the two of us. To make this worse, mines my account name, and his is a character name. We still get confused for each other. I dont think more would make this better.

 

Why didn't you just nickname each other something else?

 

See, this is what I get so frustrated with when anyone suggests any idea on these forums. There's always someone who has to take the fringe cases and use them as justification for stagnation. If it doesn't spare absolutely everyone then it's a terrible idea in the eyes of many people here. And I get that some changes really would do more harm than they would help, such as OP's dumb name decay suggestion. I get it. But a lot of you are very unrealistic and aren't thinking logically about this.

 

GW2 was, after all, built on shaking up the standard MMO tropes. (And so was GW1 as well actually.) But in the process, we've made new traditions that now everyone feels so strongly that we need to dogmatically stick to even though there's no basis for some of them.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Arnox.5128

[Excursion.9752]

I think it would be nice to purchase a name from a player by making an in game offer for gold. When accepted then the buyer takes the name and the seller has to create a new name immediately. The buyer is responsible for the cost in gems for two name change deeds.

 

These offers would come in both in game mail and email letting the owner of the name that the offer was made. The email would have an accept or deny link so people would not need to reinstall the game if they were taking a break.

 

If the seller does not accept or deny the request after 3 months the buyer receives the name at offered cost plus two name change deeds.

 

Not trying to be insensitive here but people die. People lose interest and stop caring about the game.  Why not let names be used rather than lost forever.

[Dante.1763]

6 minutes ago, Excursion.9752 said:

 

Not trying to be insensitive here but people die. People lose interest and stop caring about the game.  Why not let names be used rather than lost forever.

Some players set up memorials for those who die. My guild has one in our guild hall, Two names on it. Would be really awkward seeing their names running around again for sure.

 

Further, three months is way to bloody short for an auto buy, and i think that whole suggestion is not a good one at all.

 

14 minutes ago, Arnox.5128 said:

 

Why didn't you just nickname each other something else?

 

See, this is what I get so frustrated with when anyone suggests any idea on these forums. There's always someone who has to take the fringe cases and use them as justification for stagnation. If it doesn't spare absolutely everyone then it's a terrible idea in the eyes of many people here. And I get that some changes really would do more harm than they would help, such as OP's dumb name decay suggestion. I get it. But a lot of you are very unrealistic and aren't thinking logically about this.

 

GW2 was, after all, built on shaking up the standard MMO tropes. (And so was GW1 as well actually.) But in the process, we've made new traditions that now everyone feels so strongly that we need to dogmatically stick to even though there's no basis for some of them.

There is no stagnation unless one is using absurdly common names, like Dante. Ive still yet to run into a "Character name is taken" UNLESS i was using characters from a show/book. Further there is a basis, and a history of anet not allowing duplicate names, GW1 also didnt allow duplicate names, and i was so very glad for that.

 

I am thinking very logically about this, and i have yet to see any good logical reasons as to why we need this here.

 

For starters there are hundreds of millions, if not billions of combos out there for just "human" names, add in plant names, Norn surname conventions and Charr surname conventions and that number just gets bigger.
 

IF, and its a big IF, We ever get to a point where there are no names available, id rather see anet expand the amount/type of characters usable, than strip names from players.

 

I doubt that will happen.

[Tekoneiric.6817]

33 minutes ago, Excursion.9752 said:

I think it would be nice to purchase a name from a player by making an in game offer for gold. When accepted then the buyer takes the name and the seller has to create a new name immediately. The buyer is responsible for the cost in gems for two name change deeds.

 

These offers would come in both in game mail and email letting the owner of the name that the offer was made. The email would have an accept or deny link so people would not need to reinstall the game if they were taking a break.

 

If the seller does not accept or deny the request after 3 months the buyer receives the name at offered cost plus two name change deeds.

 

Not trying to be insensitive here but people die. People lose interest and stop caring about the game.  Why not let names be used rather than lost forever.

 

 

Other than adding some more accepted characters types and possibly numbers in names; the system is fine as it is. It's easy to create names as it is. Coming up with names is a matter of how creative a player is. There are plenty of baby naming resources on line to look up names and related meanings to find names if someone needs a bit of inspiration.

 

Even if a player died IRL I don't think they should loose their name. Especially not their main characters. I think the opposite. I think we should have a memorial map for deceased players to memorialize their characters.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Tekoneiric.6817

[Excursion.9752]

34 minutes ago, Dante.1763 said:

Further, three months is way to bloody short for an auto buy, and i think that whole suggestion is not a good one at all.

 

I would have to respectfully disagree with you. Even if you take away the topic if someone does  not reply to you in 3 months on anything they are not interested.  I thought 3 months was being very generous. I guess its a special circumstance because it a video game?

 

30 minutes ago, Tekoneiric.6817 said:

Even if a player died IRL I don't think they should loose their name.

 

Seems like everyone is so sentimental I swear. Most times names being past down is a good thing. Its a form of respect and remembrance. But if it happens in a video game it all the sudden a bad thing? I personally would be honored if one of my friends took on my name after I was gone. 

[Arnox.5128]

1 hour ago, Dante.1763 said:

There is no stagnation unless one is using absurdly common names, like Dante. Ive still yet to run into a "Character name is taken" UNLESS i was using characters from a show/book.

 

Oh, I'm not talking about stagnation in that way so much as the stagnation of never implementing anything truly NEW into the game in general.

 

1 hour ago, Dante.1763 said:

Further there is a basis, and a history of anet not allowing...

 

I don't care what the tradition is. I care about what works, what works better, and what does not. Yeah, this naming system works fine. In fact, yeah, I'd even say it's pretty low on my list of things that need fixing or updating, but while we're talking about it now, a number affixed to the end of each duplicate name could definitely work AND be better than the current system, allowing players to have the exact name they want while still preserving total name uniqueness. If you came up with the name first, it will show, and no one can remove that. But hey, if you didn't come up with the name first, you can still use it provided you agree to have a number on the end of your name (that isn't .0001 that designates the original name creator of course).

 

And that is the reason why it's better than the current system. The only reason to be against it really is if you want your name to be totally and utterly yours and don't want to allow anyone to use it ever 'till the end of time, even if technically you may not be playing that character and haven't used it in months, even if under the new system, you would still be labelled as the true owner of the name. And if that's what you're saying, then fine, but know then that that's an emotional argument to keep the old system, not a logical one.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Arnox.5128

[Aphandra.9672]

59 minutes ago, Arnox.5128 said:

haven't used it in months

I recall it took 2-4 years of character inactivity in WoW for a name to become free. Even then, it just becomes open to be claimed. Upon returning, you just need to change a tiny thing and you're good to go.

 

This is typically a non-issue for games with a shorter lifespan. Several challenges are created by longevity.

So what if somebody created a character John in 2013, played 2 hours and never logged in since.

 

I never had an issue coming up with an alteration for new names, however it's clumsy when it's a name I used elsewhere.

If an active player has it, okay, but on principle it would be annoying if it would be a character dormant since 2012.

[Moira Shalaar.5620]

41 minutes ago, Excursion.9752 said:

 

I would have to respectfully disagree with you. Even if you take away the topic if someone does  not reply to you in 3 months on anything they are not interested.  I thought 3 months was being very generous. I guess its a special circumstance because it a video game?

You seem to have neglected or overlooked the fact that there have already been numerous legitimate reasons posted in this thread for why a player might have a break in playing that is far longer than 3 months. Let me restate a few: extended illness, military deployment, experiencing homelessness; to which I will also add: having a baby & adverse work schedule. I my guild alone we have examples of all of these except (to my own knowledge) the homelessness one. All of these are very legitimate reasons why someone would be simply unable to play, not because they don't want to play any more, not because they have abandoned the game, but because circumstances for the time being prevent them from being able to. 

Starting with a base line "opt in" unless the present holder of a name chooses to opt out is functionally no different than name decay, but with a far faster rate than anybody has heretofore advanced. 

[Zera.9435]

On 8/13/2021 at 6:40 AM, Teratus.2859 said:

They should just make it based on account name.

There's no good reason imo why people can't have characters with the same name, specially when we all have unique account names anyway.

It only encourages joke names, silly names and gibberish names that in all honesty are quite annoying to see.

Screw that. There can be only one Zera, and that's me.

[Panda.1967]

This thread just reminds me of launch day for GW2... when I got a very angry PM from some one claiming that "I stole their name"... despite the fact that I had been using that very name all throughout the entirety of every Closed Beta and the Open Beta... So even if I didn't make my Mesmer on day 1, the name was still reserved to my account for the first few weeks after launch anyways... I tried explaining this to them, but that just somehow made them even angrier... because of how belligerent they were being to me in PMs they earned the honor of becoming the very first person on my ignore list, where they still reside to this very day...

 

If we had had a naming system that was restricted only by account name, then that whole encounter could have been avoided... I could have taken the same name I had been using for a good while for my Mesmer, and that individual could have taken the very same name and not gotten belligerent with me over PMs because they couldn't use the name since I had it...

[Schimmi.6872]

9 hours ago, Arnox.5128 said:

I don't care what the tradition is. I care about what works, what works better, and what does not. Yeah, this naming system works fine. In fact, yeah, I'd even say it's pretty low on my list of things that need fixing or updating, but while we're talking about it now, a number affixed to the end of each duplicate name could definitely work AND be better than the current system, allowing players to have the exact name they want while still preserving total name uniqueness. If you came up with the name first, it will show, and no one can remove that. But hey, if you didn't come up with the name first, you can still use it provided you agree to have a number on the end of your name (that isn't .0001 that designates the original name creator of course).

 

And that is the reason why it's better than the current system. The only reason to be against it really is if you want your name to be totally and utterly yours and don't want to allow anyone to use it ever 'till the end of time, even if technically you may not be playing that character and haven't used it in months, even if under the new system, you would still be labelled as the true owner of the name. And if that's what you're saying, then fine, but know then that that's an emotional argument to keep the old system, not a logical one.

Edited 9 hours ago by Arnox.5128

I don't think it's the only reason to be against a change of the naming system. A system that allows duplicated names will also introduce new problems, because all systems that currently allow char-names or display-names (like the chat.system, PM, /(sq)join, guildinvites etc.) suddenly won't work that way anymore after 9 years.

So, if you only know the char-name, don't know the unique number, have a much longer display-name than char-names, have one of the display-name-bugs,... you would be out of luck now.

It would also make it much easier to impersonate someone, because how many people would realice the difference fast enough, if the imposter uses the same char- and display-name, but only e.g. with two switched digits?

 

In the end, there may be even the same complaints, because John.1234 wants to be John.0001, or (more unlikely) someone can't use John because there are already 10000 Johns.

 

Also we don't know, how many problems such a change would cause with anets account- / char-database.

 

It may have worked, if that system was there from the start, but in my opinion changing an established after all that time will only cause a lot of troubles.

[Danikat.8537]

I like the idea of letting people use the same name, if it can be done.

 

I've dealt with it both online and in real life because my real name is Katy and there's a lot of us about (I used to be in a class with 3 other Katys or Katies) and Danikat is hardly an original screen name, but my other one is Just_Me which is probably worse. It's not really any different to being confused for someone with a similar name (I'm currently working on a project with a woman called Kate...so that's happening a lot too) and I think you get used to it.

 

I did find it weird when I saw someone else in GW2 whose character had the same last name as my main character (Aurorel), but only because I'd made up that word so I wasn't sure how they knew it. It turned out he saw it in a topic on this forum and liked it. We used to talk every so often but I don't think he plays any more. But I only found it weird because I'd never seen anyone else use that name (and I've been using it for about 20 years now) and never expected to. Once I got over the surprise it was kind of cool.

 

I've also seen characters with similar names to 3 of my other characters, but they're called Alleria Wildrunner, Ilex Hedera and Uncia Snowfur (the last is a white & grey charr of course) so that's much less surprising.

 

Anet would need to do a lot of work to make it happen of course, which is why I'm not sure it's possible. If the game was built for names to be entirely unique it's likely a lot of systems rely on that assumption and it may not be easy to change them, then there's extra safeguards to make it easier for players to know which one they're contacting and to tell them apart at other times, so you can for example recognise that the Bob who is harrassing you in chat is not the same Bob in your guild or Bob the famous streamer.

 

But I think it's the only reasonable way to allow new players to use names which are already taken. Anything which takes those names away from the people who already have them is absolutely out of the question IMO.

[Arnox.5128]

6 hours ago, Schimmi.6872 said:

I don't think it's the only reason to be against a change of the naming system. A system that allows duplicated names will also introduce new problems, because all systems that currently allow char-names or display-names (like the chat.system, PM, /(sq)join, guildinvites etc.) suddenly won't work that way anymore after 9 years.

 

Of all the complaints people have brought up, this is definitely the most valid. Ultimately, I don't know. It really depends on how they built the system. If it's modular enough, they should just be able to switch out the naming system and the rest of the systems will just take whatever the new naming system gives instead, but admittedly, that's pretty unlikely. I guess what I can say is we weren't really discussing ease of implementation. Just what would be optimal or not.

 

As to the other issues, there are solutions for all of those.