Quote Originally Posted by maartena View Post
The name conflict determination has already been decided and won't change.

Any system where some form of "seniority formula" is used that allows one player to take over the name of another player WITHOUT that player's consent, could mean that name jumps from player to player to player for a while, and you will never know if the inactive player on an old server that played from beta to 2014 will come back one day and take over the name as he is "on top of the food chain" so to speak. That just isn't going to work.
First, thank you for your measured response and input. I appreciate it. I would respond by saying that as long as the player with the greatest investment is awarded the contested name, I think it would work just fine. I do, however, understand your comment and realize the name swapping could potentially carry on for some time. I considered this prior to making the suggestion and one thing I had considered was to distribute the Name Challenge Token via in-game mail at some point after the transfers for the last server to be closed had begun. This way the in-game mail and attached token would evaporate after 30 days (if I'm not mistaken about unopened mail lifespan). Indeed, the token itself could be designed with an expiration date. Unfortunately, this further complicates a system that was intended to be relatively easy to create. But it *could* be done.

The name challenge token is an interesting idea, if incorporated with the current rules. But again, I'm afraid that ship has sailed, and that code has been put in production. Any suggestions we are making here, may be considered for something like Update 17, but we will have to go through the current server closures with the current name conflict system, it isn't going to change. (And quite frankly, not sure that it ever will, although I could see a change in the rename system to take over a then-inactive character).
I agree with this completely. Had the proposal come at the first announcement of server closures then maybe it could have been incorporated...maybe. However, I'm reasonably certain it's far too late now. I do still think the suggestion could be utilized at a later date, perhaps with some modifications, after the transfers were (mostly) completed. It would require Turbine to commit to the notion and make the player-base aware that such a token was in the works and not to use the Rename Token if players were of a mind to fight for ownership of a particular name. This alone may doom the idea.

I was just trying to separate the current transfer process and name conflict resolution process and develop a means by which the current transfer / name conflict resolution system could be left as is but augmented by a further challenge process. My goal was to pick up where they left off, as it were.

Again, thank you for your response and input.