Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Name changes

Midnight
Decius
Midnight
Decius
Why should something like a server wipe change any of the reasons to oppose name changes?

I'm talking about the first days of the new server, not a policy of ongoing name changes (in case that wasn't clear).

If people no longer get to enjoy the benefits derived from their choices (due to a server wipe), there's no reason to saddle them with any detrimental baggage related to those choices.

Just my opinion, but I feel it could make the game feel fresh again, to have to figure some people out, all over again.

"No longer able to enjoy the positive outcome of their decisions" seems like it doesn't cover any of the stated objections to a name change.

It covers *MY* stated objection where I referenced meaningful choices.

I'm just saying, if this world gets tossed on the scrapyard, all those choices will have lost their meaning, so at that point I don't need to be able to hold people responsible.

Now what some people may desire is to KNOW the other players, without having to get to know them all over again. I don't think any of us has that RIGHT, though, in a server reset.

I'll take "I don't know you" for $200, Darnell.
-SNL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX7rliyPF48
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Decius
Frankly, if your choice with regard to other players retroactively lose all meaning if the server rolls back 13 months, you didn't meaningfully interact with those players at all.
Maxen
A one time name change for all characters on an account that changes hands should be allowed. Beyond that, no.
Tigari
Maxen
A one time name change for all characters on an account that changes hands should be allowed. Beyond that, no.

How do you prove they changed hands, without too much extra work from the Devs?
Midnight
Decius
Frankly, if your choice with regard to other players retroactively lose all meaning if the server rolls back 13 months, you didn't meaningfully interact with those players at all.

If we had interactions in World of Warcraft, do you think I should have the right to know your Ark character's name?

I don't, because it's a new game.

I feel the same way about a server wipe. If you think a server wipe is different than changing games, even though it will be a brand new game and probably even marketed as such, then that's a technicality where we can just agree to disagree (like we do on nearly everything else). The only reason they'd wipe is if they think it will get them more players.. thus it stands to reason then that they'll MARKET the wipe.

Did you demand that EQ1 players not be able to use new character names in EQ2?
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Quijenoth
This, company hopping, and the recent settlement/company politics discussions is just a few of the FEATURES PFO needs to embrace with game mechanics IMHO.

The MVP has shown that the game we all expect this to be is not ready yet. and it may be some time coming before its all implemented to a standard most are happy with.

Yes, you should be able to change your name. No, you should not be able to dodge previous actions, and yes, you should be making a name for yourself within PFO.

but it should all be incorporated into PFO.

suggested mechanics.

1: Library buildings should offer history journals that players can search.
Finding out who was the first character to craft a wardens longbow +3, who built the first holding. Who killed "Phyllain", who became leader of the founding company of Pathfinder University, who changed their names, etc. The wealth of knowledge this game can produce would be interesting reading.

However its kinda dull, so how do you liven it up and introduce it into gameplay?

Well you could add in lootable journal pagess. These journal pages can be crafted at a settlement into journal books that can be exchanged at a library to update that libraries archive (on each server day the game checks for a journal book then records the information for the previous day in the archives). Achievements can be added too. Journal pages could be regional or even hex specific meaning you would need to travel pretty far to seek out knowledge of the entire river kingdoms (something PFU embrace!) Other settlements would likely have info local to their area only.

Library archives would be accessible to anyone and searchable for a small fee.

2: Name changes should be tied to in-game requests.

Applying for a name change would need the voting on by all settlement (or even company) leaders. To change a name you must apply to the Thornkeep registry a message is sent to all leaders to vote for, against or abstain. 1 week later all votes for your proposed name change are counted. voting is point based. 1 point for abstain, 2 points for a yes, 0 vote for a no. failing to vote = abstain. If you get enough votes the name is changed. and a server announcement is broadcast similar to a town crier (or better still introduce a town crier in all settlements!)

Now before you say it I know these are BIG changes and I don't expect to see them next update. But where there are people for and against aspects of the game it would be much better to actually incorporate it into the game instead of using old easy button mechanics or real money transactions that require dev time.
Quijenoth
Another addition to name changing. If we have a mechanic to allow you to change your name then there should also be a way within that mechanic to request the name change of another player… rather than a report system for copyright or offensive names, add the ability to apply for the voting of a name change in the registry mechanic. just think of the time it would save on GMs to police names of new characters.
Midnight
I don't want the cool kids from landrush (who also directed most/all of the latest settlement captures) voting on anything that affects a player.

Giving each of those individuals the ability to control a settlement is already an awesome amount of power in this game.

I prefer that their authority over a player remain localized and confined to that individual settlement's territory (and thus avoidable by a player).

Those settlement leaders don't need more power.

The ability for cliquishness among like-minded tyrants through diplomacy is also already incredibly high.

If you give settlement leaders (or even company leaders) votes on what an unrelated player can do, you are giving them authority over players that they simply don't deserve, and that players (especially new players) are going to chafe at.

Furthermore, once you set the precedent of giving leaders power over unrelated characters through votes, depending on what new power-through-votes they are later given, you could even be creating a force projection issue.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I like Quijenoth's suggestions, but Midnight raises good points. Perhaps instead of some sort of permanent set group, each name-change (requested, not developer-required) could be put as a poll on random log-in screens, or a specific group of active accounts that is picked by the server, and changes every month. It would actually make an interesting part of the crowd-forging mechanic if anyone could comment for a few days, then a small group of randoms vote on it.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Bringslite
Midnight
I don't want the cool kids from landrush (who also directed most/all of the latest settlement captures) voting on anything that affects a player.

Giving each of those individuals the ability to control a settlement is already an awesome amount of power in this game.

I prefer that their authority over a player remain localized and confined to that individual settlement's territory (and thus avoidable by a player).

Those settlement leaders don't need more power.

The ability for cliquishness among like-minded tyrants through diplomacy is also already incredibly high.

If you give settlement leaders (or even company leaders) votes on what an unrelated player can do, you are giving them authority over players that they simply don't deserve, and that players (especially new players) are going to chafe at.

Furthermore, once you set the precedent of giving leaders power over unrelated characters through votes, depending on what new power-through-votes they are later given, you could even be creating a force projection issue.

I actually agree with that and the principle behind that, Midnight.

I also don't think that leaders should have power over their members for things such as name changes. The extent of a leader's power over their citizens should go no further than allowing or disallowing membership, at the most and even that varying according to a settlement's set up.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post