SSG, did you guys not enable the Year+ name "overtaking" feature of World Transfers?

[Cordovan]

I'm sorry Cordovan but this is unacceptable. Most people already transferred their characters, and I guarantee this is a concern for everyone, so it's not fair to just say hold off on transferring.

Once this bug is fixed it should be honored for everyone who already transferred.

I want to make sure to set the honest expectation that this is not a change that is likely to take place in the short term. Players can expect that the current way the system works will be with us for some time, and players should plan accordingly.

[Sovereign50]

I want to make sure to set the honest expectation that this is not a change that is likely to take place in the short term. Players can expect that the current way the system works will be with us for some time, and players should plan accordingly.

All that's going to happen is that the players who held off will be waiting for "some time", only to have the Bombadil transfer window expire on them on September 15th. Some may even lose their characters in the vain hope it'll be fixed beforehand.

[Narthalion]

All that's going to happen is that the players who held off will be waiting for "some time", only to have the Bombadil transfer window expire on them on September 15th. Some may even lose their characters in the vain hope it'll be fixed beforehand.

I have a nagging suspicion that "some time" is going to end up becoming the biggest Black Hole of all!

[maartena]

I want to make sure to set the honest expectation that this is not a change that is likely to take place in the short term. Players can expect that the current way the system works will be with us for some time, and players should plan accordingly.

How can we "plan accordingly" if there is a set date when Bombadil will be wiped?
Can you at least tell us whether the transfer naming feature will be re-implemented BEFORE Bombadil is wiped, or some time in a long distant future?

[Laurelinarien]

How can we "plan accordingly" if there is a set date when Bombadil will be wiped?
Can you at least tell us whether the transfer naming feature will be re-implemented BEFORE Bombadil is wiped, or some time in a long distant future?

I think he meant: don't wait till the very last day
xD

[Cordovan]

How can we "plan accordingly" if there is a set date when Bombadil will be wiped?
Can you at least tell us whether the transfer naming feature will be re-implemented BEFORE Bombadil is wiped, or some time in a long distant future?

It is unclear if this work can be done before Bombadil is wiped, so players transferring from Bombadil should be aware of the current naming procedure and expect to be renamed with a -1 if there is already a character with that name on the server of their choice, along with a free rename token.

[Stechmucke]

How can we "plan accordingly" if there is a set date when Bombadil will be wiped?
Can you at least tell us whether the transfer naming feature will be re-implemented BEFORE Bombadil is wiped, or some time in a long distant future?

Your answer is no.

[Thurallor]

I want to make sure to set the honest expectation that this is not a change that is likely to take place in the short term. Players can expect that the current way the system works will be with us for some time, and players should plan accordingly.

If you want to set such an expectation, then I'd say you need to update the transfer policy page:

How does naming work if someone already has the name on the world I am transferring to?

If there is a naming conflict, the transfer process will grant the name to to the incoming character only if the existing character on the world has not been active for more than one year. The less active character will have a -1 added to their name, and a rename token will be granted to the character. The character whose name has been changed can be renamed by the player by typing the following command into the game chat window: /changename <new name>.

[maartena]

If you want to set such an expectation, then I'd say you need to update the transfer policy page:

How does naming work if someone already has the name on the world I am transferring to?

If there is a naming conflict, the transfer process will grant the name to to the incoming character only if the existing character on the world has not been active for more than one year. The less active character will have a -1 added to their name, and a rename token will be granted to the character. The character whose name has been changed can be renamed by the player by typing the following command into the game chat window: /changename <new name>.

Yeah....

They have pretty much messed up the entire transfer system and given it a low priority. Transfers from OLD worlds have been down for nearly a year now, and many people have given up on it, some have left the game. They wanted to come back with the free quest packs, but not have to restart from scratch. They too want to be able to keep their name if possible.

This work should have the HIGHEST priority. If that means delaying new content for a few weeks, I'm fine with that.

[Sovereign50]

I have a nagging suspicion that "some time" is going to end up becoming the biggest Black Hole of all!

As far as i'm concerned not following their own policy is the end of my tether. I'll keep submitting tickets about this until one of two things happen:

A) The policy is honoured, just as my previous characters transferred from Ithil to Anor were given naming priority (only after submitting several tickets).

Or

B) I receive infractions and/or bans over any of my five accounts for these petitions.

If the later occurs, then i'll consider it a cost-saving exercise. I've drawn my line in the sand.

[Braer]

I see the original Turbine transfer tech testing used Palantir and BR but not full access(?). Was there the means to extend the last login date of a created character?

Without it I wonder if the testing process actually gave any players the means to test such name conflicts at all, nor Turbine. Disallowing any possibility of a /bug being filed. But then going Live with it would have Turbine coders convinced their code was behaving correctly and players were just overly unlucky. So any existing char on that server, however dormant, would have dibs on the name and players haunted by the new friend they add and watched, and watched over the interim years.

My SQL is rusty how about SSGs?

We should take the delay, don't want our mains suddenly getting a -1 as a future bombadil or dead server begins transfers if a fix isn't thoroughly tested this time.

There is the small matter of continuing transfer failures mentioned around the forums also.

[Strider5548]

I want to make sure to set the honest expectation that this is not a change that is likely to take place in the short term. Players can expect that the current way the system works will be with us for some time, and players should plan accordingly.

Well thanks for the honesty. I'd rather hear a direct 'you are SOL' than to cling onto hope that I'll get the name I planned on having.

I will echo what other players have said around the lack of info and incorrect info out there. The main link to the transfer FAQs from the link before you actually xfer your character leads to a 404 error. Others have posted working links, all of which reference information that is not correct re: name handling.

Anyway, I appreciate you posting here at least, I'm sure it's not easy to be the bearer of bad news.

[Frisco]

It is unclear if this work can be done before Bombadil is wiped, so players transferring from Bombadil should be aware of the current naming procedure and expect to be renamed with a -1 if there is already a character with that name on the server of their choice, along with a free rename token.

How is this not an issue in-game support can help with? Place a ticket, the GM responds and checks the status of the abandoned character to confirm its last log-in, assigns THAT character a -1 if applicable, then let the active player who placed the ticket know they're able to use their rename token. I know GMs can change character names when that character is offline.

[thinx]

How is this not an issue in-game support can help with?

A question of numbers maybe. It might be the case that this is not only used to get chars away from Bombadil, but that players generated chars on purpose to get their desired name from unplayed characters on their home server.

[Frisco]

A question of numbers maybe. It might be the case that this is not only used to get chars away from Bombadil, but that players generated chars on purpose to get their desired name from unplayed characters on their home server.

Well, the other option is to not wipe Bombadil until they get transfer functionality working as promised. If they can't get transfers working properly, I don't see a need to rush out another event on the server anytime prior to that being sorted out.

[NeebPlayer]

A question of numbers maybe. It might be the case that this is not only used to get chars away from Bombadil, but that players generated chars on purpose to get their desired name from unplayed characters on their home server.

Would this be such a terrible thing?

[sting-sethkan]

I have a toon made since beta and just before closing the servers down a jerk hurrried up and made a toon on all servers to take the name. He wasn't even smart enough to spell it different. He has since deleted this toon and was able to make another with the name. My toon still has the -1 behind her name and he was able to make a new toon with the name? I think it would be much more fair to have the toon with the oldest creation date get the name. Oh the jerk also just logs in just enough to keep the name.

[thinx]

Would this be such a terrible thing?

No it wouldn't, but it could explain why numbers are too big to do this with ingame support.

[Braer]

It's all about the numbers.

The early ticket raisers can get things resolved but when a flood follows they can't handle those numbers without a poorer service in the rest of the game. No one can think that is good given the last few weeks.

But neither our concerns not CS's concerns over switching transfers on were taken on board. Was it from ignorance or conceit? Must be a mix surely.

We can imagine that Turbine didn't think to check that line of code that SSG took a look at this week. How many of our forum raised issues does our CM pass on and have thrown back with no investigation? How many of our "solved" tickets the same treatment?

If pronounced as not an issue then our continued calls deemed trolling or an attack on a defender? And subject to Community Guidelines/Rules? Biting the hand that feeds you the intel. The few still suffering transfer failures what of them, too few to be concerned with only for dead server transfers to finally hit home?

Is this same old strategy to continue?

[thinx]

The whole thing brings up a more general question.

It seems they want to wipe Bombadil soon, which could mean that a new event is planned and they want to get rid of the storage space (and/or database host).
But if we get events 2-3 times a year and transfer chars off those servers as often, where should this end up? How many char slots do we need? How many L20-50 chars will we have?
Or, seen from the other side, if we have events 2-3 times a year, how often should we level to 20,30,40,50?

Probably we should have fixed level event servers and the only thing that is transferred back is inventory (some items, some currency, title scrolls).

[Braer]

The whole thing brings up a more general question.

It seems they want to wipe Bombadil soon, which could mean that a new event is planned and they want to get rid of the storage space (and/or database host).
But if we get events 2-3 times a year and transfer chars off those servers as often, where should this end up? How many char slots do we need? How many L20-50 chars will we have?
Or, seen from the other side, if we have events 2-3 times a year, how often should we level to 20,30,40,50?

Probably we should have fixed level event servers and the only thing that is transferred back is inventory (some items, some currency, title scrolls).

I'd done some prep to transfer one char over: empty the one to leave and pass stuff to the transferring char. Now I know the name belongs to a creep on the home server I'm not inclined to make room for it but don't remember what useful things might be on it now and no chance to put things in shared.

Just need 20 mins on Bombadil to sort it out...

[Curioser]

Pity this is an issue, hope they can resolve!

Is it clear how the year wait works?
- if the account has been active but the character not logged into the game, do we lose the name?
In othe rwords, is it enough to log into the game servers on your account or do we need to log in each alt to prevent a name being removed?

I ask because the openiong post seems to suggest they know that a character has been in the lobby but not in the game.

Is it possible these names are unavailable because they are unused on actively played accounts?

I would like to know this too.
I would like to know how to properly save my unplayed names. I have them on different servers and often only go back for festivals and player events. Normal for me is playing on US servers these days but I started on EU.
I don't know how long some of them have been idle!
Should I log them in once, to make sure the name stays?
Is it enough to log on the account once, no matter what server?
Does the level of the character matter?

EDIT I later found a thread where this was answered, probably it is correct
https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthr...91#post8027891
Then I take the safe route and log into the EU places too

[maartena]

The early ticket raisers can get things resolved but when a flood follows they can't handle those numbers without a poorer service in the rest of the game?

You are probably right about this..... people doing the transfer early may get their name with a ticket, and then they got flooded....

It probably went down like this:

Player: My toon transfer did not get the name right, I should have bumped a toon that has not logged in for years, please fix. It is in your FAQ that it is supposed to work this way.
SSG Support: You are right let me fix this.

(Later that day)
SSG Support to SSG Devs: Uh guys, we're getting an awful lot of tickets here about the renaming of characters with Bombadil. FAQ says it is supposed to work, but it doesn't.
SSG Devs to SSG Support: Yeah....about that. We didn't put that back in when we re-enabled transfers...
SSG Management: Hold off on doing renames manually, or you will get flooded with tickets, just close them, it takes too much time.
SSG Devs to Cordovan: I guess you should tell the crowd something..... It's on the to do list but who knows when we'll get to it.
Cordovan: Why do I always have to bring the bad news?

And that is where we are...

[Thurallor]

A question of numbers maybe. It might be the case that this is not only used to get chars away from Bombadil, but that players generated chars on purpose to get their desired name from unplayed characters on their home server.

Would this be such a terrible thing?

With the transfers being free, it opens up the possibility of griefing / trolling.

I think in the next "Bombadil" event, if they offer free transfers off the server again, they're going to have to make it a rule that you can't use it to usurp a name.

[Frisco]

I think in the next "Bombadil" event, if they offer free transfers off the server again, they're going to have to make it a rule that you can't use it to usurp a name.

Why should an active player not be able to "usurp" the name of an inactive player?

Hell, if we just change the threshold to 2 or 3 years instead of one, that would be preferable. Even make them accessible from the character creation screen without a transfer. So many good names taken up by people who haven't logged since 2007. I'm tired of seeing 1000 versions of lame randomly-generated names that are just combinations of prefixes and suffixes from the "suggested" list.