[TERA Console] We will enter maintenance on 05/26 (Tue) at 7:00 p.m. PT, and have an expected downtime of 3 hours. For details, please visit the following thread: http://bit.ly/teraconsolemaintenance
[TERA PC] We confirmed that an issue with Civil Unrest persists, so Civil Unrest will remain disabled until further notice. Thank you for understanding.

Server Merger name rules Proposal

24

Comments

  • ElinLoveElinLove ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2018
    DeadX wrote: »
    they should switch to the sto style of identification. for those unfamiliar characters are named by an account ID internally and their external character name can be anything, even duplicating names already used by others. this can get a bit unwieldy since you have to whisper, recruit, etc, by an @handle. so the full chara name would be something like [email protected] though the @ part can be truncated with an option in chat controls so you just see the charas name in chat.

    yeah, that would require a rework of the chat system, recruiting, etc to move from their current system to an account based system...but in the long run, no more name sellers or people crying about names being taken. major downside...a billion narutos would pop up >.< or whatever the meme name of the month is.

    Internally, it already is some sort of ID based system, you can name change at any given moment and all your crafted gear (even sold one), friends list and all gets updated automatically. The shown name tho is what we use for everything else as mentioned.
    This could indeed solve the issue of shown names being taken but how to figure who is who would be an issue, also knowing how to call out someone to a party, whisper, inspect and so on would be hell, you should know that handle code, and I can bet my Elin's tail that then, THAT would be what the people would fight for, "reee reee handle wipes pl0x i want my husbando's name as handle and someone has it".

    EDIT: what could fix the issue, while at the same time screwing people up as well, would be making shown names global. You could not have the same name on another server, since it was already taken by... you. This makes it harder to get a unique name tho, so that's the issue, but if cross server LFG was a thing, it would actually be beneficial since you wouldn't require tagging a name AND server when calling up someone.
  • allofspaceandtimeallofspaceandtime ✭✭✭✭✭
    according to a few in forums, we don't need to have alts, we only need 1 or 2 characters, so if that was the case, then make everyone delete all but 2 of their characters, then people could have a chance to get their special name that someone else has but they want it more and feel like they deserve it. also limit the accounts to only 1 as well while they are at it....according to the few people..... then after that, you would see the true number of players in tera, instead of counting alts, and alt accounts. I myself wouldn't be too thrilled to see all that happen cause I have max characters on 2 different servers, and I wouldn't want to lose any of them. I can always come up with new names for everyone of them, but I wouldn't want to have to delete any of them.
    too bad we cant use symbols and numbers with the names, then say there could be a naruto , and then a naruto2, and so on. I know people would still want to fight over who gets the plain naruto without a number, but that could go to whatever way they are going to decide who gets rights to what names.
  • tisnotmetisnotme ✭✭✭✭
    > @allofspaceandtime said:
    > according to a few in forums, we don't need to have alts, we only need 1 or 2 characters, so if that was the case, then make everyone delete all but 2 of their characters, then people could have a chance to get their special name that someone else has but they want it more and feel like they deserve it. also limit the accounts to only 1 as well while they are at it....according to the few people..... then after that, you would see the true number of players in tera, instead of counting alts, and alt accounts. I myself wouldn't be too thrilled to see all that happen cause I have max characters on 2 different servers, and I wouldn't want to lose any of them. I can always come up with new names for everyone of them, but I wouldn't want to have to delete any of them.
    > too bad we cant use symbols and numbers with the names, then say there could be a naruto , and then a naruto2, and so on. I know people would still want to fight over who gets the plain naruto without a number, but that could go to whatever way they are going to decide who gets rights to what names.

    If that's the case cap character count perm at two and only one server per account

    And see how long they can handle the lac of income
  • allofspaceandtimeallofspaceandtime ✭✭✭✭✭
    I was being funny about the only 2 characters and only 1 account because in other posts, me and others were getting ripped on for having so many characters and how we don't matter due to our playstyle. kami was getting ripped on hard cause of his 80 characters, so yeah I was basically saying since people like us don't matter with our multiple alts and money we spent, and how we don't need so many characters that we couldn't possibly play with them all, why not make it 2 max characters according to those people that ripped on us. I bet they have more than 2 characters they play with and more than one account ( if they have been playing for years for farming purposes ).
    as far as the lack of income is concerned, those of us with multiple alts tend to spend a lot of money in this game for dressing up our characters and stuff. so if we have to delete most of them, or lose our names we had for 4 or 5 years or more, then eme will lose a lot of money.
  • DeadXDeadX ✭✭✭
    ElinLove wrote: »
    DeadX wrote: »
    they should switch to the sto style of identification. for those unfamiliar characters are named by an account ID internally and their external character name can be anything, even duplicating names already used by others. this can get a bit unwieldy since you have to whisper, recruit, etc, by an @handle. so the full chara name would be something like [email protected] though the @ part can be truncated with an option in chat controls so you just see the charas name in chat.

    yeah, that would require a rework of the chat system, recruiting, etc to move from their current system to an account based system...but in the long run, no more name sellers or people crying about names being taken. major downside...a billion narutos would pop up >.< or whatever the meme name of the month is.

    Internally, it already is some sort of ID based system, you can name change at any given moment and all your crafted gear (even sold one), friends list and all gets updated automatically. The shown name tho is what we use for everything else as mentioned.
    This could indeed solve the issue of shown names being taken but how to figure who is who would be an issue, also knowing how to call out someone to a party, whisper, inspect and so on would be hell, you should know that handle code, and I can bet my Elin's tail that then, THAT would be what the people would fight for, "reee reee handle wipes pl0x i want my husbando's name as handle and someone has it".

    EDIT: what could fix the issue, while at the same time screwing people up as well, would be making shown names global. You could not have the same name on another server, since it was already taken by... you. This makes it harder to get a unique name tho, so that's the issue, but if cross server LFG was a thing, it would actually be beneficial since you wouldn't require tagging a name AND server when calling up someone.

    that's covered by the @ handle, every name has that associated with it...so recruiting or whispering etc gets a bit more complicated since you have to use both the characters name and the handle. ex: /ginvite [email protected] mouse over would show both the name and the handle in chat or anyone where else a name is displayed.
  • tisnotmetisnotme ✭✭✭✭
    I was being funny about the only 2 characters and only 1 account

    yer I know and Im one that will also be affected and my spending will has cease
    so o agree and think they (tera) should "cap character count perm at two and only one server per account" and see how long they last with out the income flow
  • KXRC9JMW74KXRC9JMW74 ✭✭✭
    1st come 1st serve or gets the name others can go cry when you lose your name
  • KXRC9JMW74 wrote: »
    1st come 1st serve or gets the name others can go cry when you lose your name

    Can I use this as a sig, so that if it's you, and you come here to complain about losing a name, I can just point to the sig?
  • KXRC9JMW74KXRC9JMW74 ✭✭✭
    KXRC9JMW74 wrote: »
    1st come 1st serve or gets the name others can go cry when you lose your name

    Can I use this as a sig, so that if it's you, and you come here to complain about losing a name, I can just point to the sig?

    Go right ahead A name means nothing to me. EME should look into the many vulgar names
  • ElinLoveElinLove ✭✭✭✭✭
    KXRC9JMW74 wrote: »
    KXRC9JMW74 wrote: »
    1st come 1st serve or gets the name others can go cry when you lose your name

    Can I use this as a sig, so that if it's you, and you come here to complain about losing a name, I can just point to the sig?

    Go right ahead A name means nothing to me. EME should look into the many vulgar names

    Screw you, nobody is taking my Panties.Stealer out!
  • ZoknahalZoknahal ✭✭✭✭✭
    All i really want for the server merge, is for EME to be extremely strict on the name hoarding and selling. This shady business has to stop, and they have the power and authority to make it stop.

    Free the names of both characters and guilds. Do not let anymore the name selling and hoarding to be a thing.
  • edited August 2018
    Zoknahal wrote: »
    All i really want for the server merge, is for EME to be extremely strict on the name hoarding and selling. This shady business has to stop, and they have the power and authority to make it stop.

    I got into a debate with someone about this issue once. I was making your general argument (name selling is bad for customers and should be firmly forbidden), and the other party took the free market position.

    They argued basically this:

    1) Given that names are a limited commodity, "first-come, first-serve" is the most fair way to make names available. All other methods create their own added inconveniences for those who legitimately want the names.

    2) Like any limited commodity, it makes sense that people will ascribe a value to this commodity. Why shouldn't this limited commodity be traded based on fair market value like anything else?

    3) Any measures you put in place to prevent name selling will also prevent people from legitimately trying to give a name to their friend or re-use it on another account. Is the problem of name-selling worth this added inconvenience to legitimate customers who want to trade names?


    My arguments were basically:

    1) Name-selling creates an artificial pressure on name supply that encourages people to hoard them in order to sell them, and this prevents legitimate customers (particularly new players) from claiming them organically.

    2) Name-selling transactions are outside of the game so are open to various forms of fraud (unlike the trades that are facilitated in the game proper).

    3) Given that things like account-trading and advertising of RMT are forbidden in official channels (along with advertisements to sell names), isn't it logically inconsistent to have functionality that supports these sorts of outside transactions when you have the ability to prevent it?


    I still mostly believe in my arguments, but I had to concede that they won the debate in the end. It's basically "capitalism" (names are a rare valuable quantity, and those that have them should be able to capitalize on their free-market value) vs. "socialism" (or maybe Marxism?) (names are a rare resource that should be distributed fairly to those who need and will use them without an ulterior motive).

    (You could also add K-TERA's "commercialism" to the mix too, I guess. Allow name-selling, but only if they buy a name change voucher on the store, so we tax it! lol )
  • Zoknahal wrote: »
    All i really want for the server merge, is for EME to be extremely strict on the name hoarding and selling. This shady business has to stop, and they have the power and authority to make it stop.

    I got into a debate with someone about this issue once. I was making your general argument (name selling is bad for customers and should be firmly forbidden), and the other party took the free market position.

    They argued basically this:

    1) Given that names are a limited commodity, "first-come, first-serve" is the most fair way to make names available. All other methods create their own added inconveniences for those who legitimately want the names.

    2) Like any limited commodity, it makes sense that people will ascribe a value to this commodity. Why shouldn't this limited commodity be traded based on fair market value like anything else?

    3) Any measures you put in place to prevent name selling will also prevent people from legitimately trying to give a name to their friend or re-use it on another account. Is the problem of name-selling worth this added inconvenience to legitimate customers who want to trade names?


    My arguments were basically:

    1) Name-selling creates an artificial pressure on name supply that encourages people to hoard them in order to sell them, and this prevents legitimate customers (particularly new players) from claiming them organically.

    2) Name-selling transactions are outside of the game so are open to various forms of fraud (unlike the trades that are facilitated in the game proper).

    3) Given that things like account-trading and advertising of RMT are forbidden in official channels (along with advertisements to sell names), isn't it logically inconsistent to have functionality that supports these sorts of outside transactions when you have the ability to prevent it?


    I still mostly believe in my arguments, but I had to concede that they won the debate in the end. It's basically "capitalism" (names are a rare valuable quantity, and those that have them should be able to capitalize on their free-market value) vs. "socialism" (or maybe Marxism?) (names are a rare resource that should be distributed fairly to those who need and will use them without an ulterior motive).

    (You could also add K-TERA's "commercialism" to the mix too, I guess. Allow name-selling, but only if they buy a name change voucher on the store, so we tax it! lol )

    You took the wrong tack: Substitute "drugs" or "children" for names, and see if the argument still holds up. Drug and human trafficking are very real things, so there must be a market for them, and yet, they are both illegal. In short, just because one can sell a thing doesn't mean one should be selling that thing.
  • edited August 2018
    You took the wrong tack: Substitute "drugs" or "children" for names, and see if the argument still holds up. Drug and human trafficking are very real things, so there must be a market for them, and yet, they are both illegal. In short, just because one can sell a thing doesn't mean one should be selling that thing.

    Honestly, I don't think that would have worked. You'd have to then be able to make the case that the harm caused by this is equivalent to drugs or human trafficking, and therefore should be illegal in the same way, and... well, at least I know I couldn't defend that argument. They're names in an MMO, at the end of the day. It's an annoyance to players, and I still think it should be curbed to the extent possible... but I can't argue in good faith that it's the same as trafficking drugs or children. Reducing to an absurd example is normally bad form.
  • ElinLoveElinLove ✭✭✭✭✭
    Let's also not forget how even the most capitalist and free-market known countries still have many ways to deal against monopoly and eliminating any system that is either fraud-prone or literally made for this intent.

    In the end, no government is a textbook example of left or right, rather they act accordingly to the situation at hand, and thus a specific case that falls out of the lines, or is already ruled against in their laws, will be dealt with. Just as has been compared, games also have some sort of government placed on.

    In name selling, you've got both the fact that there are no mechanisms that allow it legitimately even if it wasn't ruled out on the ToS, AND you've got the explicit prohibition of it on the ToS, so basically any lack of action is just traced down to either turning a blind eye or lack of enough moderation.

    Taking the extreme example of drug dealing, having people selling and buying it on the streets without getting caught doesn't make it any legal.
Sign In or Register to comment.