If ever an XI-style server merge occurs, SHUNNNN the non-subscribers!

[Mychael]

I have no idea if anything like this will ever cross the XIV team's minds. But if a server merge ever comes about that mimics XI's Server A -> Server B style, please change how name conflicts are resolved. In many ways these A->B transfers are preferable, as players with multiple linkshells can go without worrying, and communities stay together. But please allow names to be first-come-first serve AFTER the merge. Why? Because (though I can't prove this fact) I'd say that a huge number of characters are probably deactivated now that the game is pay-to-play, and a lot of them are going to stay that way. I logged on ASAP at launch to get a name I liked, and I still like it. Deferring my name to a character that will never be played would suck. This won't be a problem for people with original names, but for anyone with a "popular" name (John Doe, Pac Man, White Mage, Oprah Winfrey, etc.) it will be a problem. It also annoyed many of my friends in XI that they had no control over whether or not they could keep their names, because SE picked for everyone.

To solve both of these problems relatively easily, I suggest that, in the case of a name conflict, the precedence would not go to the "receiving" server's player, but to the first player to log in after the update. It makes sense to me, if this is technologically possible.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure the thread's turned up better ideas than first come first serve. I've struck it through it so people will hopefully not just read the OP and comment. ^^

[RemVye]

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

[Gath]

I have no idea if anything like this will ever cross the XIV team's minds. But if a server merge ever comes about that mimics XI's Server A -> Server B style, please change how name conflicts are resolved. In many ways these A->B transfers are preferable, as players with multiple linkshells can go without worrying, and communities stay together. But please allow names to be first-come-first serve AFTER the merge. Why? Because (though I can't prove this fact) I'd say that a huge number of characters are probably deactivated now that the game is pay-to-play, and a lot of them are going to stay that way. I logged on ASAP at launch to get a name I liked, and I still like it. Deferring my name to a character that will never be played would suck. This won't be a problem for people with original names, but for anyone with a "popular" name (John Doe, Pac Man, White Mage, Oprah Winfrey, etc.) it will be a problem. It also annoyed many of my friends in XI that they had no control over whether or not they could keep their names, because SE picked for everyone.

To solve both of these problems relatively easily, I suggest that, in the case of a name conflict, the precedence would not go to the "receiving" server's player, but to the first player to log in after the update. It makes sense to me, if this is technologically possible.

Gath thinks you spelled "Michael" wrong.
Gath does not approve of the spelling.
Gath's 1 gil is worth more than your 1 gil.

[Lienn]

I don't like first in first serve policy for name priority. IMO the character age and current activity should be the priority...would sucks someone playing in a regular-basis one year and then losing the name to a mule during server merge because the mule is at the receiving server or because he was able to come back from the maint faster than i do.

[Onji_T]

I don't see the names really being an issue with server merges. Having a surname eliminates a lot of the overlap to begin with. People that run around with a name such as White Mage; I'm sure they can come up with something equally creative.

[Bowen]

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

My internets. . .take them.

[ChiefCurrahee]

The priority should go:

1) Active players
2) world priority (natives get to keep their name)
3) character creation date

Lets say Servers A B and C all got merged to server A.
These 3 server each had a player named "Joe Dirt" (Joe Dirt-a , Joe Dirt-b and Joe Dirt-c to keep them straight)

1)If Joe Dirt-a and Joe Dirt-b aren't currently subscribing then Joe Dirt-c gets to keep the name. (if a & b resub they have to change their name)

2)If Joe Dirt-a is still active, then Joe Dirt-b and Joe Dirt-c must change their names.

3) If Joe Dirt-a isn't subbing and Joe Dirt-b and Joe Dirt-c are, then it goes by "born on date." If Joe Dirt-b was created in December of 2010 and Jor Dirt-c was made June 2011; Joe Dirt-b gets to keep the name.

[DoctorMog]

The priority should go:



1) character creation date
2) character creation date
3) character creation date
4) character creation date

Fixed that for you.

I shouldn't have to change my name because my server was less populated.

As for "active" if you mean by "is currently paying to play" I agree.

[ChiefCurrahee]

Fixed that for you.

Put your pretentiousness aside for a minute.

Active players are players who are currently subscribing. They get first dibs.

If three "active" players have the same name. The player that is native to the server keeps the name, the other two have to change it.

If the target server has no native player named "Joe Dirt" but two incoming players do; the player who created the account first gets to keep it.

So you as Doctor Mog, shouldn't have to worry about changing your name. Unless of course if you happen to merge into a server with a person named Doctor Mog already there, and currently active.

I thought about putting Character Creation Date as #2 but it's not fair to a person who has been playing on their home server for 8 months to be renamed by a person who is merged over and happens to have the same name but was made 9 months ago.

Unless of course they say Servers A B and C will be merged and become server #1 then you can fairly put creation date as #2 in priority because now there is no target server therefore no one keeps their home, they all move.


So now, try and be constructive with your next post. How would you propose they handle server merge and why?

[Answa]