Summer LOTRO Executive Producer’s Letter

[danielbrown1969]

These problems exist with the current naming system, and with any naming system. In any event, dealing with some modest confusion is worth keeping those people in the game, isn't it?

Yes, of course. I would hate for anyone to stop playing lotro over a naming issue.

That being said, the system we have now makes it so there is only 1 Bob in-game. Easy to keep track of. Yes, someone could make a Bab or a Bub but overall the system avoids confusion. On the other hand,

Scirocoo the Grey
Scirocco the Grey
Scirocco the Gray
Scircoco the Grey
Scirocco the Grey
Scirocoo the Gray
Scircoco the Grey
Scirocco the Grey
Scirooco the Grey
Scirooco the Grey
Scirocoo the Grey

Having a friend's list that looks like ^ this would be extremely confusing, wouldn't you agree? And while that exact scenario almost certainly wouldn't happen, there are other more common names - names that are fought over - where this could indeed be the case.

[Scirocco]

Honestly this is worse with any system where other players start taking names from those established. How would they deal with the friends lists and mailing and autionhall and everything else that already has those names. They would have to completely rework a half dozen features to accommodate a system like this.

No they wouldn't. Or, at least, no more so than having to deal with "Scirocco", "Scirocco+1", "Scirocco+2", and so on all on the same server. Remember that's the name the incoming character currently defaults to.

Also, remember that we are dealing with the same name field. "Scirocco the Elder" is a completely unique name from the server's perspective from "Scirocco" or "Scirocco+1".

So, to your friend list, "Scirocco" would be a different name than "Scirocco the Elder", just as it currently is a different name than "Scirocco+1." Same for mailing.

Why would they have to rework any systems or features?

[Scirocco]

Yes, of course. I would hate for anyone to stop playing lotro over a naming issue.

That being said, the system we have now makes it so there is only 1 Bob in-game. Easy to keep track of. Yes, someone could make a Bab or a Bub but overall the system avoids confusion. On the other hand,

Scirocoo the Grey
Scirocco the Grey
Scirocco the Gray
Scircoco the Grey
Scirocco the Grey
Scirocoo the Gray
Scircoco the Grey
Scirocco the Grey
Scirooco the Grey
Scirooco the Grey
Scirocoo the Grey

Having a friend's list that looks like ^ this would be extremely confusing, wouldn't you agree? And while that exact scenario almost certainly wouldn't happen, there are other more common names - names that are fought over - where this could indeed be the case.

You couldn't have that list, because you've repeated some of the names.

In any event, would you prefer

Scirocco
Scicorco
Sciroco
Scirocoo
Scirocco+1
Sciroco+1
Scirocoo+1
Scirocoo+2

and so on, all of which we are likely to end up with using the existing system, if there is such as name fight as you suggest?

Plus, this problem already exists in the game. I have seen many variations of essentially the same name, and I'm sure you have, too. It's a problem we already deal with, so I don't see anything presenting an insurmountable hurdle here.

I'm surprised that no one has tried to point out that I could just continue on as "Scirocco+1" (or Scirocco+N, where N=1, 2, 3...). I could under the current system, and I'm sure that some people will. However, it does tend to destroy immersion, and while not a hardcore roleplayer, I do respect that style of play, and the use of sobriquets as I suggest would certainly result in more acceptable names running around.

As a side note, I'm likely to end up better off under most of the proposed head-to-head conflict resolution techniques: oldest account, seniority in the game, VIP/lifer status, days played, etc. My proposal was intended as a compromise that avoids driving players from the game.

After all, isn't keeping players in the game and increasing player density one of the points of this exercise?

[Trobon]

You make valid points, however I adamantly disagree. If I have been on my server 1 day or 1 year or 5 years and another person moves TO my server who is 1) active and 2) has more 'time served' and 3) is of equal or greater status and that person shares my name ... then 100% he should keep his name and I should change mine. There just is no logical conclusion other than that. There are lots of emotional ones, but not logical ones. Lotro is an emotional game. Players get attached to their own lore. I understand that. But in the "there can be only one" scenario, someone will survive and others will be made to rename. Again, I would like to point out my most recent above post referencing Turbine adapting a Battlenet way of naming/mailing/friending/ignoring. While it isn't perfect in and of itself, it would solve 99.8% of the problems listed here in this thread.

I completely disagree. All the arguments for changing the system from what it is now are emotional arguments and not logical ones. Logically speaking, keeping the system as it is now in every way is the the most sound solution. Logically speaking, the name of a character is far less important than the potential bugs that changing the system in any way could introduce.

We are really only talking about emotional arguments. Whether it is person A's emotional attachment to their individual name or person B's emotional attachment to their place in their community.

Personally I think a space would be the ideal solution for a lot of players, but I would have been fine with a name@account scenario. Others are vehemently against it though.

[Trobon]

No they wouldn't. Or, at least, no more so than having to deal with "Scirocco", "Scirocco+1", "Scirocco+2", and so on all on the same server. Remember that's the name the incoming character currently defaults to.

Also, remember that we are dealing with the same name field. "Scirocco the Elder" is a completely unique name from the server's perspective from "Scirocco" or "Scirocco+1".

So, to your friend list, "Scirocco" would be a different name than "Scirocco the Elder", just as it currently is a different name than "Scirocco+1." Same for mailing.

Why would they have to rework any systems or features?

I'm referring to a system where someone established is forced to lose their name not your "space allowance" system. I am STRONGLY in favor of your system.

[Trixie_Me]

Tera has the right idea. Thanks for posting that. Assuming they can't accommodate people by requiring surnames (or similar solution - which would be ideal), here is what sounds fair to me for resolving a naming conflict:

1) Has one player not logged in on that character for 6 months (or longer)? If so, that is the player that should be required to find a new name. If both are currently playing characters with that name...
2) Has one player been a subscriber (in any form) for all of the last 6 months? If one player has not, that player should be required to find a new name. If both are current subscribers...
3) Is one of the characters under level 20 and the other over? If so, the under 20 should be required to find a new name. If both are over...
4) The character with the most /played time should be allowed to keep the name. That would allow rpers and crafters who don't necessarily make leveling a priority (I know some who don't have a max level character even though they play daily) to be considered fairly.

After 8 years, there are just too many inactive players taking up good names - and too many reserved names that will never see the light of day. And that is just not fair to active players. My guess (and yes it is a guess) is that 1-3 will handle 90% of the naming conflicts that will arise. If it comes down to 4, well, we'll all just have to put our big girl panties on.

My own case is a perfect example. Of my 7 characters, 1 seems to have been added to the LOTRO reserved list, 3 are available and 3 are taken on what would be my server of choice. After adding them to my friends list, I can see all 3 of the taken names are under level 20. One is level 1, another is 3 and one is 15. None of the 3 have recent log ins - at a minimum 5 months, but possibly several years and 5 mos since they don't show the year.

Freeing up these inactive and unused names is the fairest solution for all active players. And if you do end up loosing your name to someone else, under rules like this you have have a much greater chance of getting your second or third choice.

Also, after giving it some thought, I sincerely hope they do not allow people to transfer to just any server. If they do, it will probably going to be a mad rush to the two most heavily populated servers and will not have any real benefit for the other servers that are left without healthy populations.

[Scirocco]

I'm referring to a system where someone established is forced to lose their name not your "space allowance" system. I am STRONGLY in favor of your system.

My apologies!

If any naming system forces someone actively on a server to lose their name for a main or significant alt, I would put the odds at that person leaving the game at 75% or more. I know I would, in that position.

Similarly, while perhaps not 75%, there are those, like me, who would leave the game if forced to lose their name. This is on top of the percentage that will leave the game when their server closes, just because they decline to move.

Given the population concerns, and the fact that there will be some loss just due to server closures alone, it behooves Turbine to come up with a naming solution that results in the lowest possible loss due to naming conflicts.

[Trobon]

My apologies!

If any naming system forces someone actively on a server to lose their name for a main or significant alt, I would put the odds at that person leaving the game at 75% or more. I know I would, in that position.

Similarly, while perhaps not 75%, there are those, like me, who would leave the game if forced to lose their name. This is on top of the percentage that will leave the game when their server closes, just because they decline to move.

Given the population concerns, and the fact that there will be some loss just due to server closures alone, it behooves Turbine to come up with a naming solution that results in the lowest possible loss due to naming conflicts.

I honestly don't think they will. I hope I'm wrong and they have some new naming model like your idea, but I think they are just going to leave it as is and let people lose their names.

I agree that people losing their names would be more than enough cause for people to leave the game.

[Scirocco]

Also, after giving it some thought, I sincerely hope they do not allow people to transfer to just any server. If they do, it will probably going to be a mad rush to the two most heavily populated servers and will not have any real benefit for the other servers that are left without healthy populations.

Do you really think so? I honestly believe that most people would be happier on a middle-pop server, not an overcrowded one.

The more crowded the server:

-the greater the lag (everywhere!)
-the more of a cesspit "World" or GLFF chat becomes
-the more competition for crafting resources
-the longer the queue to get into the server
-the less the immersion

I know "Grand Central Station" is required from some gamestyles (such as PvMP), but if you don't need to be part of the madding crowd, why subject yourself to it?

[Trixie_Me]

I do really think it will be a problem. Most people will want to be where they have the best chance of groups, raids, vibrant economies, etc. Especially after not having access to those things, they won't want to take a chance on another dead server. I know that I will be heading to a heavily populated server, if the choice is left to me. And if too many people feel that way, it really won't help the other servers.

From a game health standpoint, I really think directing the moves is a better choice.

[Deorwyn]

Tera has the right idea. Thanks for posting that. Assuming they can't accommodate people by requiring surnames (or similar solution - which would be ideal), here is what sounds fair to me for resolving a naming conflict:

1) Has one player not logged in on that character for 6 months (or longer)? If so, that is the player that should be required to find a new name. If both are currently playing characters with that name...
2) Has one player been a subscriber (in any form) for all of the last 6 months? If one player has not, that player should be required to find a new name. If both are current subscribers...
3) Is one of the characters under level 20 and the other over? If so, the under 20 should be required to find a new name. If both are over...
4) The character with the most /played time should be allowed to keep the name. That would allow rpers and crafters who don't necessarily make leveling a priority (I know some who don't have a max level character even though they play daily) to be considered fairly.

After 8 years, there are just too many inactive players taking up good names - and too many reserved names that will never see the light of day. And that is just not fair to active players. My guess (and yes it is a guess) is that 1-3 will handle 90% of the naming conflicts that will arise. If it comes down to 4, well, we'll all just have to put our big girl panties on.

My own case is a perfect example. Of my 7 characters, 1 seems to have been added to the LOTRO reserved list, 3 are available and 3 are taken on what would be my server of choice. After adding them to my friends list, I can see all 3 of the taken names are under level 20. One is level 1, another is 3 and one is 15. None of the 3 have recent log ins - at a minimum 5 months, but possibly several years and 5 mos since they don't show the year.

Freeing up these inactive and unused names is the fairest solution for all active players. And if you do end up loosing your name to someone else, under rules like this you have have a much greater chance of getting your second or third choice.

Also, after giving it some thought, I sincerely hope they do not allow people to transfer to just any server. If they do, it will probably going to be a mad rush to the two most heavily populated servers and will not have any real benefit for the other servers that are left without healthy populations.

This is a great suggestion, I hope this will be applied.

[Oelle]

This is a great suggestion, I hope this will be applied.

No, its a bad suggestion. Anything, that changes the name of any active player who is known on his server with his name, is a bad idea.
Freeing names of inactives is okay. Allowing new namerules for migrating characters is okay, too.
But active players have to keep their names. They have an existing community on theirs servers. The community of the migrating characters is broken anyway. So, they arent that known on their target servers and can have a new start. Their names have to have lower priority than those, who stay.

[Rufkin]

This is a great suggestion, I hope this will be applied.

I agree. Something like this is a more fair naming convention.

I do really think it will be a problem. Most people will want to be where they have the best chance of groups, raids, vibrant economies, etc. Especially after not having access to those things, they won't want to take a chance on another dead server. I know that I will be heading to a heavily populated server, if the choice is left to me. And if too many people feel that way, it really won't help the other servers.

From a game health standpoint, I really think directing the moves is a better choice.

I hope they hold to their promises of delivering a choice.

I, for one, cannot play on Brandywine. The lag in Bree is too much for me. Getting kicked out during every single load screen, freezing up if I try to open any of the uis (inventory for example). Since this is almost non-existent on the other servers, I can definitely tell you it is the overpopulation. I am not on a cheap PC either. The point is, if Turbine forces players into the overpopulated situation on every server, they are going to be forcing players out of the game.

The move to new hardware might solve this entirely, but who knows?

[hobold]

Because frankly the name hobold sucks, started hating it a few weeks after setting it and could never bring myself to pay the $10 to modify a game name.

Watching this thread makes me feel like Seth rogan's thoughts on football "I wish I cared as much as you do about who has the ball, because it looks like ALOT of fun."

I'd give a full bag of 1500 eorlingas hides for a nixed server list...just sayin

[Trobon]

No, its a bad suggestion. Anything, that changes the name of any active player who is known on his server with his name, is a bad idea.
Freeing names of inactives is okay. Allowing new namerules for migrating characters is okay, too.
But active players have to keep their names. They have an existing community on theirs servers. The community of the migrating characters is broken anyway. So, they arent that known on their target servers and can have a new start. Their names have to have lower priority than those, who stay.

I can't understand how people don't get this. Oelle is absolutely right. Change the naming policy, fine. Free inactives, okay. But in no way should someone's name be taken if they are already on that server. It dosn't matter if they are a level 100 main or a level 10 hobbit that they use for the occasional Shire RP. Almost every player is attached to their name, but these people are already established in their world and community.

[Scirocco]

I can't understand how people don't get this. Oelle is absolutely right. Change the naming policy, fine. Free inactives, okay. But in no way should someone's name be taken if they are already on that server. It dosn't matter if they are a level 100 main or a level 10 hobbit that they use for the occasional Shire RP. Almost every player is attached to their name, but these people are already established in their world and community.

While, as you know, I don't advocate for characters active on a server to lose their names, the more significant this "server consolidation" is, the less the "established in their world and community" argument works.

We're talking about potentially thousands of new people all being added to an existing server. And these are the most active players. That server's established community, as such, will be greatly changed, if not totally replaced.

[istvana]

I hope they leave enough servers that people that hate overpopulated servers can go to - or stay on - medium or even low population servers. How much will it cost to give us a choice, not an echo (campaign slogan from Barry Goldwater 1964).

In terms of names - if they merged servers many active players would lose names to other players - who might not even be active - that had the name earlier. While people that voluntarily transfer should always lose in the case of a name conflict it isn't clear to me why players that are *forced* to transfer should be treated worse than they would have been treated in case of a merger.

[Trobon]

I hope they leave enough servers that people that hate overpopulated servers can go to - or stay on - medium or even low population servers. How much will it cost to give us a choice, not an echo (campaign slogan from Barry Goldwater 1964).

In terms of names - if they merged servers many active players would lose names to other players - who might not even be active - that had the name earlier. While people that voluntarily transfer should always lose in the case of a name conflict it isn't clear to me why players that are *forced* to transfer should be treated worse than they would have been treated in case of a merger.

Unlike a server merge where no one has options on where to go people on the servers being closed do have options. They get to choose where they want to put their character and can decide how important a name is compared to other criteria. The people who are not having their servers closed get zero options on who comes into their servers and who may or may not take their name.

Its not a case where two servers are both being put together and no one can decide anything. In this case one group gets to decide and one group doesn't.

[cdq1958]

Unlike a server merge where no one has options on where to go people on the servers being closed do have options. They get to choose where they want to put their character and can decide how important a name is compared to other criteria. The people who are not having their servers closed get zero options on who comes into their servers and who may or may not take their name.

Its not a case where two servers are both being put together and no one can decide anything. In this case one group gets to decide and one group doesn't.

Um, it is closer to one group's previous decisions have not been voided, yet; and the other group's have been voided, so they must make another decision.

[Trixie_Me]

I can't understand how people don't get this.

There is a difference between not getting it and not agreeing with it.

[Cenifh]

You turned this amazing letter thread into another Renaming character argument. Boring as usual, the same ideas for the 100000th time, and the same people that can't stand a number next to their fake names.

If one server has your name already, PICK ANOTHER ONE. So easy. It's a free transfer anyway. If your friends want to go to that server and cant convince them to go with you, what makes you think u can convince a stranger to let his name go because of you? Get new friends, the ones u had werent that close if that's the case.

I like the new pvmp map idea, hopefully it's not as laggy and by the time it gets implemented, the creeps are not in such as bad state as they are right now. It's so boring to go there and 1v3 them, or outheal a 24 man while the rest of ur fellow arrives with only the help of some trees.

I really hope Minas Tirith is not a BB. That format already proved to be a mistake.

[Scirocco]

Unlike a server merge where no one has options on where to go people on the servers being closed do have options. They get to choose where they want to put their character and can decide how important a name is compared to other criteria. The people who are not having their servers closed get zero options on who comes into their servers and who may or may not take their name.

Its not a case where two servers are both being put together and no one can decide anything. In this case one group gets to decide and one group doesn't.

If "merger" makes a difference, then I propose the following.

1. 3 month voluntary move period for free from any server being identified as closed. Voluntary move name conflicts rules apply.
2. At end of the period, merge all of the servers being closed into a single new server. Resolve name conflicts by one of the sequences mentioned above.

[hobold]

Going out on a limb here, but perhaps the new server will be so advanced it will be able to parenthetically establish differentiation between names using type-ahead **gasp**

eg open mail and you type in gan...

search results reveal (whilst still typing): gandalf (level 100 hunter)
gandalf (level 15 champion)
gandalf (level 52 kermudgin)
gandalf (level 10 loaded banker alt)
gandalf (level 99 worrywort)

Not saying it'll happen...but it could

I mean unless they're buying their servers from Doc Brown from back to the future and their really just metal boxes full of used pinball parts

[Laire]

I can't understand how people don't get this. Oelle is absolutely right. Change the naming policy, fine. Free inactives, okay. But in no way should someone's name be taken if they are already on that server. It dosn't matter if they are a level 100 main or a level 10 hobbit that they use for the occasional Shire RP. Almost every player is attached to their name, but these people are already established in their world and community.

Not if they haven't logged on since 2010 or earlier... that's not really established, that's inactive. lol.

[Jurny]

No, its a bad suggestion. Anything, that changes the name of any active player who is known on his server with his name, is a bad idea.

I couldn't agree more with this statement!!

Freeing names of inactives is okay. Allowing new namerules for migrating characters is okay, too.

I'm not all that comfortable with taking other players names from them just because they were inactive (it could get real confusing). It would really depend on the time between thier last log in that I would agree with this. I think 2 maybe 3 years if not longer.

But active players have to keep their names. They have an existing community on theirs servers. The community of the migrating characters is broken anyway. So, they arent that known on their target servers and can have a new start. Their names have to have lower priority than those, who stay.

This is exactly why I agree with people on the server first, should keep their name.