[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

13

Comments

  • edited August 2018
    ElinLove wrote: »
    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.

    Well, the problem is that if you really push that front, there are lots of ways of solving this problem. For example, J-TERA is having a name-release at the end of August. But after the name-release, there's a period of about one month where none of the released names can be claimed except if you use a name change voucher. That way, basically, the main way to buy names is from them by paying a tax. Of course, someone *could* use a name change voucher, get the name, and then another person use a voucher to buy it from them... but this is basically a double-tax.

    In other words, if you use the analogy that it's like drugs, the reaction isn't necessarily to forbid it. You could do like Canada with marijuana and just legalize it (and tax the hell out of it). I'm not sure if that's really better in this particular case... but it would definitely curb name selling somewhat if it weren't free to the would-be seller...
  • DeadXDeadX ✭✭✭
    edited August 2018
    as i suggested earlier, change how accounts and names are handled. associating a name with an account and using the account name + character name means.
    no name sellers
    easier server transfers and merges since you don't have to worry about duplicate names and there won't be duplicate account names
    cut down on threads "name i want is on a level 1 GIMME"
    there are MUCH fewer accounts than characters and the accounts are already unique.
    no complicated vouchers or locked names schemes, time played, time in game, etc to determine whether you get to keep your characters names or not.

    and that last bit? time played? clever EME, very clever...a way to boost overall players logged in and fluff numbers without doing anything. "want to keep your name? LOG IN and idle about for hours, it pumps our numbers up"

    something i think every mmo should be doing, the gamer base continues to grow and will only continue to grow for all mmos and the same mistakes get made time and time again, the silliness or laziness of having each character name being unique regardless of account when there's such an obvious solution. copying another mmo's idea even if the implementation would be different IS a good idea, learn from mistakes and learn from success.

    the one unique name per server is obviously a mistake, having an account system and any name would be a success. the only people who really wouldn't like it name sellers. for them, name selling is easy money.
  • ElinUsagiElinUsagi ✭✭✭✭✭
    .
    DeadX wrote: »
    as i suggested earlier, change how accounts and names are handled. associating a name with an account and using the account name + character name means.
    no name sellers
    easier server transfers and merges since you don't have to worry about duplicate names and there won't be duplicate account names
    cut down on threads "name i want is on a level 1 GIMME"
    there are MUCH fewer accounts than characters and the accounts are already unique.
    no complicated vouchers or locked names schemes, time played, time in game, etc to determine whether you get to keep your characters names or not.

    and that last bit? time played? clever EME, very clever...a way to boost overall players logged in and fluff numbers without doing anything. "want to keep your name? LOG IN and idle about for hours, it pumps our numbers up"

    something i think every mmo should be doing, the gamer base continues to grow and will only continue to grow for all mmos and the same mistakes get made time and time again, the silliness or laziness of having each character name being unique regardless of account when there's such an obvious solution. copying another mmo's idea even if the implementation would be different IS a good idea, learn from mistakes and learn from success.

    the one unique name per server is obviously a mistake, having an account system and any name would be a success. the only people who really wouldn't like it name sellers. for them, name selling is easy money.

    Even if your idea is good, it is something that will not be done because on K-Tera and J-Tera means an extra income for their publishers because the way they manage that situation over there.
  • ElinLoveElinLove ✭✭✭✭✭
    DeadX wrote: »
    as i suggested earlier, change how accounts and names are handled. associating a name with an account and using the account name + character name means.
    no name sellers
    easier server transfers and merges since you don't have to worry about duplicate names and there won't be duplicate account names
    cut down on threads "name i want is on a level 1 GIMME"
    there are MUCH fewer accounts than characters and the accounts are already unique.
    no complicated vouchers or locked names schemes, time played, time in game, etc to determine whether you get to keep your characters names or not.

    and that last bit? time played? clever EME, very clever...a way to boost overall players logged in and fluff numbers without doing anything. "want to keep your name? LOG IN and idle about for hours, it pumps our numbers up"

    something i think every mmo should be doing, the gamer base continues to grow and will only continue to grow for all mmos and the same mistakes get made time and time again, the silliness or laziness of having each character name being unique regardless of account when there's such an obvious solution. copying another mmo's idea even if the implementation would be different IS a good idea, learn from mistakes and learn from success.

    the one unique name per server is obviously a mistake, having an account system and any name would be a success. the only people who really wouldn't like it name sellers. for them, name selling is easy money.

    Your idea brings another topic to the table too that I find highly beneficial: friends.

    With a handle/account name system you could add an account to the friends list, and every alt that friend has would show up to you, possibly dynamically (as in, create new one = your friend). Quite a few times I've had to re-add people to my list because I didn't have on an alt, or same for my friend that had no idea who I was until I message like: "< [character I've met you on]".
    To make stuff simple, the handle/account name could be the 1st thing to show when calling someone up, having to deal with multiple log-in on same account is something I definitely don't consider an issue (no idea about the ToS situation on that but I bet they don't care, just it's not something planned).
    On the toxic side of things, that also makes it possible to block the toxic player itself, not just one character. The only downside to that would be that if you left a bad impression by any means on one character there would be no easy way to clear it up later.

    Tho, I still stand by the point that the nagging on names would shift to handles. You could only have one per account yes, but people would STILL find a way to bother about it. Granted, the reduced count would mean reduced complaints.
  • ElinLove wrote: »
    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.

    Well, the problem is that if you really push that front, there are lots of ways of solving this problem. For example, J-TERA is having a name-release at the end of August. But after the name-release, there's a period of about one month where none of the released names can be claimed except if you use a name change voucher. That way, basically, the main way to buy names is from them by paying a tax. Of course, someone *could* use a name change voucher, get the name, and then another person use a voucher to buy it from them... but this is basically a double-tax.

    In other words, if you use the analogy that it's like drugs, the reaction isn't necessarily to forbid it. You could do like Canada with marijuana and just legalize it (and tax the hell out of it). I'm not sure if that's really better in this particular case... but it would definitely curb name selling somewhat if it weren't free to the would-be seller...

    You could use that argument, yes. However, if it hasn't been legalized, then it's still illegal. Now, illegal is a stretch for this conversation, but it is still not within the rules for our region. Since it's not within the rules for our region, saying "but it's ok over there" should be met with one answer: Go play over there. If they're doing RMTs for names, they should be permanently banned. They can come to the forums and try to rationalize it if they want to, but if you were buying currency through RMT, you'd get a vacation, and the seller accounts do get permanently banned, so the punishment for RMT should be consistent. It doesn't matter if it's a name, or currency, if you're selling for real money, you are violating the tos, and need to be removed.
  • edited August 2018
    You could use that argument, yes. However, if it hasn't been legalized, then it's still illegal. Now, illegal is a stretch for this conversation, but it is still not within the rules for our region. Since it's not within the rules for our region, saying "but it's ok over there" should be met with one answer: Go play over there. If they're doing RMTs for names, they should be permanently banned. They can come to the forums and try to rationalize it if they want to, but if you were buying currency through RMT, you'd get a vacation, and the seller accounts do get permanently banned, so the punishment for RMT should be consistent. It doesn't matter if it's a name, or currency, if you're selling for real money, you are violating the tos, and need to be removed.

    You're right that selling names (or any in-game items, services, accounts, whatever) for real-world currency is against the rules and a bannable offense. Where things get a lot more grey, though, is selling names for in-game gold. Technically that is not forbidden by any rule right now. Advertising said sales is not allowed on the forum (currently allowed on Discord), but the trade itself is allowed. Maybe it should be forbidden, but you're back at the earlier point: why is it wrong? And then I think you're back at the three arguments I made originally. Maybe you can add a fourth argument that, given that you're forbidding name-selling for cash, and given that there's no in-game mechanic for selling names for gold, there's no real way to allow name-selling but forbid only the RMT aspect (you can't stop how people do the trade once it's outside the game), so unless you add the option to the game itself it's better to ban it all. But then that's countered by the original opponent's argument that this would also block legitimate trades between friends or alt accounts that are not at all opportunistic, so isn't worth the loss.

    I guess one way would be if there were a fair survey/poll/study that demonstrated conclusively that a large majority of players just don't like name-trading. That's not actually a good argument (since public opinion is not objective), but it's at least a pretty good rationalization for policy. What I can at least conclude after seeing all the threads about this over the years is that: 1) a vocal part of the community really hates name-selling, but 2) some people are definitely still buying.
  • You could use that argument, yes. However, if it hasn't been legalized, then it's still illegal. Now, illegal is a stretch for this conversation, but it is still not within the rules for our region. Since it's not within the rules for our region, saying "but it's ok over there" should be met with one answer: Go play over there. If they're doing RMTs for names, they should be permanently banned. They can come to the forums and try to rationalize it if they want to, but if you were buying currency through RMT, you'd get a vacation, and the seller accounts do get permanently banned, so the punishment for RMT should be consistent. It doesn't matter if it's a name, or currency, if you're selling for real money, you are violating the tos, and need to be removed.

    You're right that selling names (or any in-game items, services, accounts, whatever) for real-world currency is against the rules and a bannable offense. Where things get a lot more grey, though, is selling names for in-game gold. Technically that is not forbidden by any rule right now. Advertising said sales is not allowed on the forum (currently allowed on Discord), but the trade itself is allowed. Maybe it should be forbidden, but you're back at the earlier point: why is it wrong? And then I think you're back at the three arguments I made originally. Maybe you can add a fourth argument that, given that you're forbidding name-selling for cash, and given that there's no in-game mechanic for selling names for gold, there's no real way to allow name-selling but forbid only the RMT aspect (you can't stop how people do the trade once it's outside the game), so unless you add the option to the game itself it's better to ban it all. But then that's countered by the original opponent's argument that this would also block legitimate trades between friends or alt accounts that are not at all opportunistic, so isn't worth the loss.

    I guess one way would be if there were a fair survey/poll/study that demonstrated conclusively that a large majority of players just don't like name-trading. That's not actually a good argument (since public opinion is not objective), but it's at least a pretty good rationalization for policy. What I can at least conclude after seeing all the threads about this over the years is that: 1) a vocal part of the community really hates name-selling, but 2) some people are definitely still buying.

    Friends are trading names? The first step is for the devs/publisher to come down on a side. Once that side is established, rules for that need to be enforced. If it's on third party sites, or discord, whatever, they would need to step up and enforce them. At that point "why is it bad" comes down to "because you don't own it, and you can't sell what you don't own", which is the same thing that's supposed to apply to account selling, for example. How many people are going to be, or have been scammed, by a practice that has no controls, and no way for the devs/publishers to stop it? The potential for abuse is, in essence, the only reason needed to forbid it. I think it's GW 2 that doesn't allow any in game trading for just this reason, it lets their support team work on real issues instead of "but he scammed me out of x".
  • Elinu1Elinu1 Canada ✭✭✭✭
    I think the name release with the merge of LoT, HW and VoT into FF was handled well and should be the case this time, I hope anyway.
  • How many people are going to be, or have been scammed, by a practice that has no controls, and no way for the devs/publishers to stop it? The potential for abuse is, in essence, the only reason needed to forbid it.

    Well, two points briefly:

    1) If there's "no way for the devs/publishers to stop it" anyway, is there any point in forbidding it? (It just pushes the whole thing deeper underground...)

    and

    2) Just to be clear, (not that they will, but for the sake of the argument) if the devs provided an in-game function that allowed the trades to occur safely with appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse, would people then be okay with it? I'm supposing not. So, although "the potential for abuse" maybe the only reason you think is needed to justify forbidding it, I don't think it's the real reason people want it forbidden.

    Officially speaking, the "side" that EME has come down on so far is that name trades for gold = okay. Name trades for cash = not okay. Advertising name selling on the forum = not okay.

    Anyway, main reason I'm keeping this going is that I'm legitimately interested in finding more convincing arguments. I'd like a rematch for my lost debate. :p
  • How many people are going to be, or have been scammed, by a practice that has no controls, and no way for the devs/publishers to stop it? The potential for abuse is, in essence, the only reason needed to forbid it.

    Well, two points briefly:

    1) If there's "no way for the devs/publishers to stop it" anyway, is there any point in forbidding it? (It just pushes the whole thing deeper underground...)

    and

    2) Just to be clear, (not that they will, but for the sake of the argument) if the devs provided an in-game function that allowed the trades to occur safely with appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse, would people then be okay with it? I'm supposing not. So, although "the potential for abuse" maybe the only reason you think is needed to justify forbidding it, I don't think it's the real reason people want it forbidden.

    Officially speaking, the "side" that EME has come down on so far is that name trades for gold = okay. Name trades for cash = not okay. Advertising name selling on the forum = not okay.

    Anyway, main reason I'm keeping this going is that I'm legitimately interested in finding more convincing arguments. I'd like a rematch for my lost debate. :p

    You had that in my first post in this exchange: Free market isn't a valid point. There's a market for people, and people are sold every day, so that means that we should just turn a blind eye to it? By ceding this point in your debate, you're saying "Yes" to that question. All the arguments you've used apply, across the board. "Well, if they try to enforce the law, they'll just go further underground" fits every bit as well with human trafficking as it does with name selling. "Well, people are going to buy them", seems like it fits pretty well, if people weren't buying them, there'd be no market, right?

    The actual argument is: Just because something can be sold, doesn't mean it should be, for all of the reasons I've listed both here and in other posts. Driving them further underground would still be a good thing, it would "keep the honest people honest". If they're not readily available, they'll lose their market, and they'll lose it pretty fast. The "but google it" argument falls flat, because EME could google it too. One can rationalize anything, if they so choose, and frankly, you lost a debate to a rationalization: Others are doing it, so it must be ok, or, more accurately "others will buy them, so it must be ok", and it's not ok, a rational look at what that can apply to demonstrates that. People buy in game currency through RMT all the time, so it must be ok, how long until you lose that argument, based on the same logic that lost you this debate?
  • edited August 2018
    You had that in my first post in this exchange: Free market isn't a valid point. There's a market for people, and people are sold every day, so that means that we should just turn a blind eye to it? By ceding this point in your debate, you're saying "Yes" to that question. All the arguments you've used apply, across the board. "Well, if they try to enforce the law, they'll just go further underground" fits every bit as well with human trafficking as it does with name selling. "Well, people are going to buy them", seems like it fits pretty well, if people weren't buying them, there'd be no market, right?

    Nah, that is indeed the same argument you made before, and it's a false equivalence, so an invalid argument. Just because there is a market for trading people that we agree is wrong and illegal, doesn't mean that this pattern provides a justification for banning the trade of whatever else. There's no way you can convince most people that human trafficking is equivalent to in-game name selling, and so deserves the same degree of restrictions. Even if someone might agree to ban both things for separate reasons, it's still an absurd comparison. If I turn a blind-eye to name-selling, it doesn't mean that I'd turn a blind eye to human trafficking as if having no rules in one area means you can't have rules in any area.

    The actual argument is: Just because something can be sold, doesn't mean it should be, for all of the reasons I've listed both here and in other posts. Driving them further underground would still be a good thing, it would "keep the honest people honest". If they're not readily available, they'll lose their market, and they'll lose it pretty fast. The "but google it" argument falls flat, because EME could google it too. One can rationalize anything, if they so choose, and frankly, you lost a debate to a rationalization: Others are doing it, so it must be ok, or, more accurately "others will buy them, so it must be ok", and it's not ok, a rational look at what that can apply to demonstrates that. People buy in game currency through RMT all the time, so it must be ok, how long until you lose that argument, based on the same logic that lost you this debate?

    Again, that's a bad argument because you're making a false equivalence. The justifications for banning RMT are not at issue here (maybe that's a separate debate, but I don't think there's really an argument). Name-selling for real money is already banned. But if you're talking about for gold (trading an in-game "claimed/earned possession" -- a character name -- for other people's in-game earned currency), you should compare to other like things sold in-game for gold. You have to be able to 1) establish what makes name-selling for gold so different than other things you can sell for gold, and 2) establish that the risks inherent to these differences are so bad that it deserves to be banned. Once you establish that, there's no problem justifying banning it. Certainly people have no right to sell names; again that's not at issue.

    And well... as far as "keeping the honest people honest," I've never either bought or sold names. But I have used name change vouchers or created new characters after a name purge to have names that I personally want and intend to use. You could argue that name-selling contributes to my desire to do this, because it creates even further demand on the limited supply of names (so I have to move quick to get the good names, like everyone else). But you could also argue that, even if name-selling were forbidden, it wouldn't stop people from "hoarding" the names they want, or ensure that people can get the name they want. It just presumably would mean that people would not take them hoping to get "value" from them.


    Despite all this discussion, I want to be clear that I'm generally not in favor of name-selling even for gold. But I do think the argument is more delicate than people think. It basically hinges on the same three points I said before: it creates artificial pressure on the names supply thanks to profit-seeking opportunists, it requires an out-of-game trade that can't be secured (so adds risks to the buyer), and it seems inconsistent with a policy of forbidding advertising of said name sales. I guess more generally you could say "players just don't like the idea" that someone else got the name they want with the intention of extorting gold for it. To me, personally, that's enough to justify a ban. To EME...
  • allofspaceandtimeallofspaceandtime ✭✭✭✭✭
    ElinLove wrote: »
    DeadX wrote: »
    as i suggested earlier, change how accounts and names are handled. associating a name with an account and using the account name + character name means.
    no name sellers
    easier server transfers and merges since you don't have to worry about duplicate names and there won't be duplicate account names
    cut down on threads "name i want is on a level 1 GIMME"
    there are MUCH fewer accounts than characters and the accounts are already unique.
    no complicated vouchers or locked names schemes, time played, time in game, etc to determine whether you get to keep your characters names or not.

    and that last bit? time played? clever EME, very clever...a way to boost overall players logged in and fluff numbers without doing anything. "want to keep your name? LOG IN and idle about for hours, it pumps our numbers up"

    something i think every mmo should be doing, the gamer base continues to grow and will only continue to grow for all mmos and the same mistakes get made time and time again, the silliness or laziness of having each character name being unique regardless of account when there's such an obvious solution. copying another mmo's idea even if the implementation would be different IS a good idea, learn from mistakes and learn from success.

    the one unique name per server is obviously a mistake, having an account system and any name would be a success. the only people who really wouldn't like it name sellers. for them, name selling is easy money.

    Your idea brings another topic to the table too that I find highly beneficial: friends.

    With a handle/account name system you could add an account to the friends list, and every alt that friend has would show up to you, possibly dynamically (as in, create new one = your friend). Quite a few times I've had to re-add people to my list because I didn't have on an alt, or same for my friend that had no idea who I was until I message like: "< [character I've met you on]".
    To make stuff simple, the handle/account name could be the 1st thing to show when calling someone up, having to deal with multiple log-in on same account is something I definitely don't consider an issue (no idea about the ToS situation on that but I bet they don't care, just it's not something planned).
    On the toxic side of things, that also makes it possible to block the toxic player itself, not just one character. The only downside to that would be that if you left a bad impression by any means on one character there would be no easy way to clear it up later.

    Tho, I still stand by the point that the nagging on names would shift to handles. You could only have one per account yes, but people would STILL find a way to bother about it. Granted, the reduced count would mean reduced complaints.

    i like that idea. it would be so much easier to do, and fair to everyone.
  • ElinLoveElinLove ✭✭✭✭✭
    How many people are going to be, or have been scammed, by a practice that has no controls, and no way for the devs/publishers to stop it? The potential for abuse is, in essence, the only reason needed to forbid it.

    Well, two points briefly:

    1) If there's "no way for the devs/publishers to stop it" anyway, is there any point in forbidding it? (It just pushes the whole thing deeper underground...)

    and

    2) Just to be clear, (not that they will, but for the sake of the argument) if the devs provided an in-game function that allowed the trades to occur safely with appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse, would people then be okay with it? I'm supposing not. So, although "the potential for abuse" maybe the only reason you think is needed to justify forbidding it, I don't think it's the real reason people want it forbidden.

    Officially speaking, the "side" that EME has come down on so far is that name trades for gold = okay. Name trades for cash = not okay. Advertising name selling on the forum = not okay.

    Anyway, main reason I'm keeping this going is that I'm legitimately interested in finding more convincing arguments. I'd like a rematch for my lost debate. :p

    You had that in my first post in this exchange: Free market isn't a valid point. There's a market for people, and people are sold every day, so that means that we should just turn a blind eye to it? By ceding this point in your debate, you're saying "Yes" to that question. All the arguments you've used apply, across the board. "Well, if they try to enforce the law, they'll just go further underground" fits every bit as well with human trafficking as it does with name selling. "Well, people are going to buy them", seems like it fits pretty well, if people weren't buying them, there'd be no market, right?

    The actual argument is: Just because something can be sold, doesn't mean it should be, for all of the reasons I've listed both here and in other posts. Driving them further underground would still be a good thing, it would "keep the honest people honest". If they're not readily available, they'll lose their market, and they'll lose it pretty fast. The "but google it" argument falls flat, because EME could google it too. One can rationalize anything, if they so choose, and frankly, you lost a debate to a rationalization: Others are doing it, so it must be ok, or, more accurately "others will buy them, so it must be ok", and it's not ok, a rational look at what that can apply to demonstrates that. People buy in game currency through RMT all the time, so it must be ok, how long until you lose that argument, based on the same logic that lost you this debate?

    That got turned into a very twisted argument that was never used, haven't seen in a single post here by either me, you or Counterpoint using the "but everyone is doing so it's OK" argument, and I for example will also agree that the human trafficking and such is way too off of an example, from the entire ethical side of things.
    There's no sensible argument for enslaving someone or hurting them for a market demand (regardless of how weak the arguments in favor of names being commodities), and it's just not comparable in harm level to a name in-game.
    Let's keep it sensible please, so it progresses.

    My view on EME's side of the things is that they've just given up on bothering with anything that doesn't hurts profit, and that's it. They've not taken a harder stance because they don't want/can't spend resources on anything that isn't a direct profit killer, hence the hacking issue was dealt with a halfassed terrible ant-cheat tool that was bypassed day 1, population issue is being dealt on the easiest form possible: just give in to that merge some people repeatedly asked on forums, and not to mention new race change policies. TL;DR they just don't have/don't want to spend resources on anything that they can get away without spending. Name selling hits home.

    I'm also on the same side of not really buying into the argument of it being a limited commodity. It's something you created out of thin air (or ripped off someone's idea, like naming a character Naruto), and created an artificial scarcity and just an annoyance to any new character. Would you never had created that Lv1 character to try to rip thousands in gold from another random out there, there would be no scarcity of that name at all, and if it does end up not being sold, the name seller leaves, or whatever, that's just literally burying the name underground for pure greed.
    In a sense it's just like hoarding limited availability items like Hello Kitty or Attack on Titan outfits, just on the later case, you actually DID have means of obtaining it without someone forcefully impeding you of having it.

    If names were possible to sell officially, say you can buy a "name swap voucher" on store, AND you could obtain the name regardless of someone having it before for a limited time and then it's locked out of that choice, only THEN it would equate to hoarding limited time items. Other than that really absurd scenario, it's just forcefully impeding people of obtaining it.
  • ElinUsagiElinUsagi ✭✭✭✭✭
    What I don't see good on this name selling activity is the way EME forbid on forums but allows on discord. That is a contradictory statement.

    If they will not enforce any punishment against them at least they should have the same stance in forums and other mass social media.
  • ToxicDemiseToxicDemise ✭✭
    edited August 2018
    My guess on the reason why you started this thread is because you're upset that your going to lose your name. The best way for Enmasse to go about doing this is to compare each player off overall played time, and account activity in the last 6 months. Someone who has created a new character and has been actively playing for a month straight should not get a name over someone who has put in a vast amount of played hours is a old player on a temporary break. People take breaks from MMO's and if someone were on a break that has been playing this game for 5+ years they should not lose their character name because someone new came around and has been active for a month.
Sign In or Register to comment.