The naming algorithm is terrible.

[Otansaanpas]

Confirming this.

My 150 trader (RK1) lost the name to a 220 soldier (RK2) even while the 220 dude doesn't seem to have been logged since early 2011.

how do you figure one has not logged in for years?

[Ilaliya]

Yeah and that would fail the reality check.

There's a couple of criteria by which this would have to be done.

Character creation date (older weighs higher)
Character last activity (more recent weighs higher)
Character total playtime (longer weighs higher)
Character is on Premium Account (ie. paid weighs higher)

Probably even more criteria could be applied. A simple first-come-first-served will not do the trick here.

These are more-or-less the criteria we used. I just think there is something wrong in the script. We're looking into it.

[Misat0]

Instead of character creation date, the last name change would make more sense to me. So name creation should outweigh char creation if this information is available to the naming algorithm.

Imagine someone created a char with an inappropriate name on one server, but didn't actually play that toon for a while so no one noticed. In the meantime one creates a char with Name XYZ on the other server. Some time later the first player begins playing his char, get its name petitioned and changes it to name XYZ. I think in that chase player 2 should get preference even as he created his char later.

On the other hand that scenario might be so rare and special it could be handled manually by CS if one feels it happened.

[Dragocze]

Only criterion should be time played.

[Slayerphazon]

Only criterion should be time played.

No. A brand new level 10 froob that stays logged in 24/7 for a week should not receive my name when I paid for full expanions for 7 years and am 220/30/70.


Also, perma-banned accounts should lose their names regardless of any criteria.

[Gatester]

Only criterion should be time played.

There are still issues with this too though. Say someone used to play a character for years and stops playing, then someone else made a character on the other server with the name but plays for half the time instead. The inactive account's names would end up with priority, and that player may never actually play again either.

The combination of all the algorithms is the best way to avoid issues.

[TheCatlady]

"First come, first serve" works totally for me.
If a toon was created, no matter for what usage, it should keep the name.
There's been several wipes of inactive pre lvl 5 toons to free up names.
Why I think so? Simple example: you make a toon years ago, then for some reason make another and level that up first. So the first made toon gets some dust, you want to level it up later. Now someone makes a char with the same name on another server, powerlevels it up and suddenly you find yourself losing that name you maybe even put some thought into. Sound fair? Not to me.

If toons are on accounts that are frozen for a certain time, I can see it might make sense to look into that. But when it comes to active accounts, I say first one to pick a name wins.
I don't see why a paid account should overrule a froob account. Maybe the froob is even more active than the paid one?

[Deaconfrost]

Well. If this was part of FC's nefarious plan to get players who have never tried test to log on to the test server in a panic to see if all their names are gone, then well played FC, well played.

Luckily all mine survived intact , with one notable exception I'd like to share with y'all <3

RIP Scottpilgrim of RK1!!! The BEST lvl 2 enf who never left the SL nub platform EVER. Alas we hardly knew ye...

Now sadly renamed to Scottpilgrim867-5309

[Vhab]

So yeah, time to calm down a bit and put down the pitchforks.

The algorithm currently on testlive doesn't work as it's intended to.
We're going to fix it. The next run should have better results.

That's why we have a test server, to test these things on a larger scale.

[Liwa]

So yeah, time to calm down a bit and put down the pitchforks.

The algorithm currently on testlive doesn't work as it's intended to.
We're going to fix it. The next run should have better results.

That's why we have a test server, to test these things on a larger scale.

Thanks, Will you start with a fresh copy of RK1 & RK2 with the next TL patch as a means to test the fix? Or, just run all the toons thru the new algorithym?

Kinnik

[Deaconfrost]

Wait.

You mean we have to go through this process ... AGAIN?

Nooooooooooooooooooo

[Ilaliya]

Thanks, Will you start with a fresh copy of RK1 & RK2 with the next TL patch as a means to test the fix? Or, just run all the toons thru the new algorithym?

Kinnik

Talking with the DB guy, probably best to just to reapply the migration to the copy of Live again because there is no way to test the scripts on characters that have already had the name chosen. So "start over" in the sense we'll reapply the Live copy, and run through the migration again.

[Deemure]

Thanks Ilaliya. It is quite nice to know that it is not working. Please understand, if we don't know what or how something is supposed to work it is quite difficult for us to definitively say whether or not it is working.

Nonetheless, I know I appreciate your looking into this and acknowledging there is a problem.

Thanks

[Liwa]

Thanks for the information Ilaliya ... it sounds like you can re-use the copy you already made vs. taking a new copy of Live.



Kinnik

[Ilaliya]

Thanks for the information Ilaliya ... it sounds like you can re-use the copy you already made vs. taking a new copy of Live.



Kinnik

Yeah, we're going to re-use the copy we made. There were a couple of issues with the naming scripts where they weren't working as intended. So we'll fix those, and run them again

[cybertron]

So yeah, time to calm down a bit and put down the pitchforks.

The algorithm currently on testlive doesn't work as it's intended to.
We're going to fix it. The next run should have better results.

That's why we have a test server, to test these things on a larger scale.

My worry is that if we didn't bring out the pitchforks and kicked up an almighty fuss, then you would have just assumed everything was hunky-dory and whacked it into Live at least we now know you actually look at feedback from these threads!

Having said that, I'm glad that something was found to be not working with the "algorithm" and hopefully next run makes more people happy. The criteria that you mentioned sounds ok enough to me.

[Kinkstaah]

I have Gunnandahalf (a level 2 nt) instead of my Brother's created-on-release-day Gunnandahalf the first 200, first 220 NT ever

Really not sure what criteria could have possibly been applied to have that occur..

[Mastablasta]

I have Gunnandahalf (a level 2 nt) instead of my Brother's created-on-release-day Gunnandahalf the first 200, first 220 NT ever

Really not sure what criteria could have possibly been applied to have that occur..

Kinstaah awesomeness criteria?

[Vhab]

My worry is that if we didn't bring out the pitchforks and kicked up an almighty fuss, then you would have just assumed everything was hunky-dory and whacked it into Live at least we now know you actually look at feedback from these threads!

Having said that, I'm glad that something was found to be not working with the "algorithm" and hopefully next run makes more people happy. The criteria that you mentioned sounds ok enough to me.

Yeah... that's not how it works
We're perfectly able to read bug reports without a riot.

Personally, after a certain threshold of inflammatory-ness of a thread, I think twice before posting in it.

[Lazy]

but where's teh fun in that?