Suggestion: Resolving Name Conflicts on Server Merge

I know Server Merges are still a ways off, but based on the wordings in the Producer's Letter it does sound like they'll happen sometime in 2022.

I would recommend that this time you improve how you handle name conflicts upon merge. Basing in on Level first is woefully inadequate

Here is my recommendation as to how to handle the collision:

- if only one character is on an active Gold account (Lifetime, Sub, or Krono), that character wins. Period.
- if both or neither are on active Gold accounts, but one hasn't logged in that character within 6 months, but the other has, then the more recent login wins.
- if both or neither characters are on active Gold accounts, and both or neither have logged in within the last 6 months, then the one with the oldest Birthdate wins

*PAYING* customers should NOT lose to somebody who hasn't sunk a penny into the game in months, years, or possibly even decades just because they are a lower level.

*PLAYING* customers should NOT lose to somebody who is not playing (ie haven't logged in within the last 6 months).

And in the scenario where those two are equal, then the older (first created) character wins.

Level doesn't come into play. At. All.

Edit: Yes, this does mean that when you "merge" servers that are "first generation" with those that are not, those characters with older birthdates have an "advantage". As they should, if they are active paying accounts, and actively played.

This probably won't be popular. Doing the right thing often is not. ;-P

While I may or may not agree with every point here, there is much to these ideas.

One thing definitely, if someone hasn't been playing for 10 years, they've given up their right to the name.

EDIT: I mean the person who hasn't logged in a character in 10 years should get the "x" at the end of their name.

I have never seen a characters level have anything to do with name conflicts.

If, as a result of this server merge two or more characters have the same name, the conflict will be resolved as follows:

• If two characters have the same name as a result of the server merge, the player that has logged in within the 60 days before the merge will retain the original character name. If there are still conflicts, the character with the higher number of minutes played will retain the original character name.

Minutes played do not equal level. I can park a level 1 in Gloomingdeep for years (just logging him back in after server downs) and have more "played" time than someone else but I can still be level 1.

The other reason this does not set well is the assumption that F2P or Silver accounts do not support the game. Yet many of us who box will buy the expansions for our free accounts or items from the marketplace like the Spell RK II potion.

Sounds like its trying to make "keep your name" something we have to pay for. Perhaps a new perk: $2.99 month guaranteed to keep your name thru any server merge. But wait, what if 2 players both bought it?

If only that were the case with trying to change your name to something that someone owns from 2003.

Monetized sudden death! He who first donates $10 gets to keep it

If anyone is wondering, I cannot be sure this policy from 2010 is still being used but:

EverQuest Server Merge Tips and FAQ
https://www.everquest.com/news/imported-eq-enus-51901

This is a different kettle of fish from server merge issues of just adding an "x" to the end of a name.

As a level 115 who has had my name since February 2000, I was highly disappointed when I could not keep my original name upon a server transfer. I made a /friend with that original name and I check it every time I play to see if that player is online. They have yet to be online.

So no, it does not go by the level. It goes by who got the name first on the server. And I brought this up a year ago when I transferred and was unable to keep my original name. I don't mind if it is a character on an active account. I do mind if it is on an account that has not been online in 10-15 years, then that player should not have the right to that name. And we can debate if it should be ten years, or 15 years, or level 30 or lower, all that stuff.

As it stands right now, Cicely could be a level 9 halfling warrior that last logged into the Cazic server in Norrath on September 14, 1999. The account that that Cicely is associated with may have last played Everquest on June 9, 2002 and has not given SOE/Verant/DPG/DBG a penny since they canceled their monthly subscription on June 10, 2002. And yet I am the one who has to change my name?

That has always rubbed me the wrong way. I did change my name and I dealt with it. It was just halfling because I have no way of knowing who Cicely is on the Cazic server.

Server TRANSFERS are different than Server MERGES.

All the rules stated above are when two or more servers are merging together. When you transfer, if someone else has that name, you need to pick a new name. It's a voluntary action that you are taking, versus the involuntary action of characters merging together en masse.


But, that said, it would be nice to have different rules other than the "you're the outsider wanting to keep your name against a guy who hasn't logged on in 20 years, go screw yourself" rule that it is now.

If my old characters had lost their name because I had moved on from the game, only to come back within the past year or so, I would've just quit for good. A toons name to some is a very real part of that person/character. It would be better if the characters over 10 years would just get plain deleted.

OP here.

Fanra, thanks for that, I was not aware that was the most recent policy. I lost a name back on April 14, 2005 (Tarew Marr <> Drinal merge) when the policy was different and am still salty about it.

I would be fine with that policy, personally, because all of the characters I care about have March 16, 1999 names that are 4-6 characters long and VERY common. The chances of collision are very high, but given that I created them on Day 1 on a Day 1 server (Tarew Marr), I'm not concerned if age is the only consideration. I like my chances. ;-)

But I *did* lose one of those names when Tarew Marr merged with Drinal, which was utter-crap, because Drinal was NOT a Day 1 server, and by definition my character (a March 16, 1999 toon) *was* older. When I petitioned, I was told it was because the other character was higher level. While it's possible that the conflicting character ALSO was Day 1 (due to the Maelin Starpyre legacy), I find it highly unlikely as my character was created minutes after the servers came up.

If those 2010 rules had been in effect in the 2005 merge, I'm quite confident that I'd still have that name.

Now that the rules have changed, I wonder if I can try to petition again? ;-) Screw it...I'm gonna.

I've thought about this a bit more, and I think a great way to address both sides of this argument, and address Server Transfer collisions, is to change how Name Change potions work. Or, better yet, introduce a new, more powerful potion.

For Server Merges, the 2010 policy is fine. It's simple, easily understood, and fair. KISS principle applies. Just go by age (which was the last factor in my original idea anyway), and don't take into account recent play, activity, gold vs. silver, etc. I like it.

HOWEVER, I still do not like the idea of an INACTIVE account that is clearly dormant, hasn't been played for 5 or 10 or even 20 years, and hasn't contributed a DIME to the game in that time in that timeframe, should be able to squat on a name forever, ESPECIALLY in cases where people LOSE their name due to merge or transfer to a clearly dormant account and character.

Instead of diluting this thread, I'll start a new one...

Ok what I quoted in my post is from Wednesday, July 21, 2021, and the most recent server merge. Although it references Selo and Povar it was widely discussed at that time and is now the standard.



It no longer references when the character was created as that was deemed unfair since as pointed out, it could have been years since they played. So don't worry about some old character who has not played in 10 years keeping your name.

https://www.everquest.com/news/eq-selo-to-povar-server-merge

Naming Conflicts

• If, as a result of the server merge, two or more characters have the same name, the conflict will be resolved as follows:
  • The player who has logged into game within 60 days before the merge will retain the original character name. If there is still a conflict, the character with the highest number of minutes played will retain the original character name.
  • The renamed character will have additional vowels (or 'x') added to the end of their name and be flagged for a free rename. Characters who have been renamed can open the rename window to pick a new name with /changename chat command.
• What happens if there are guild name conflicts?
• This very rarely occurs, and we currently do not see any guild name conflicts between Selo and Povar. If, however, there is a conflict, GM discretion takes over for a final decision. The guild with a forced name change will have “of Servername” appended to their name and the guild rename flag will be enabled. (In exceptional cases, an X will be added to the end of the guild’s name.)

It appears this was made standard back in 2020
Server Merge Standards:
Naming Conflicts
If, as a result of this server merge two or more characters have the same name, the conflict will be resolved as follows:

• If two characters have the same name as a result of the server merge, the player that has logged in within the 60 days before the merge will retain the original character name. If there are still conflicts, the character with the higher number of minutes played will retain the original character name.

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/update-on-server-merges-faq.265661/

I still have issues with this as it is inconsistent and in uncommon cases unfair. One is using Player (Account) level, the other is using Character data (minutes played). They should not mix, and in the world of Bazaar / GL, they really, really should not, because not all characters are created and played equal.

The most recent player (account) login is totally fine. I'm totally on board with this being the first decider. One could argue whether 60 days is sufficient, but you have to pick a line someplace.

Minutes played is not. There is Bazaar. There is Guild Lobby. Those players aren't "playing". There are "characters" on active 23 year old accounts that *predate* GL, and *predate* Bazaar. I know. I have quite a few. They have never sold in Bazaar before OR AFTER offline trading. They have never just hung out for Buffs for hours / days on end. Those minutes add up fast! But they are on an active account, and they even have a lot of (old) playtime, but, it's not artificially inflated but non-play play (GL and Bazaar).

In short, in a world where /played time racks up in Bazaar and GL, it should not be the final decider if BOTH accounts of a ton of /played time.

Two alternatives which I feel are better:

A) Sum up /played across all toons on the account (it's a SQL query folks lol). That normalizes the data, so that accounts with TOTAL more play time win. That keeps the decision as an ACCOUNT to ACCOUNT comparison, which I much fairer than a CHARACTER to CHARACTER comparison which, as I've clearly demonstrated above, is easily skewed.

B) Add a third optional decider: If BOTH characters have > 600 hours played, THEN decide by birthdate. So first by Activity (arbitrary 60 days), then if both active by /played, and if both have been played a ton (arbitrary 600 hours), then go by birthdate.

Both are fairer than doing a character to character comparison alone when SO MUCH of /played time on recent accounts is hanging in GL and/or Bazaar.

But, yeah, as I originally pointed out Birthdate *can* be unfair for recent servers, so, I'd definitely prefer simply comparing TOTAL MINUTES PLAYED across the account, to normalize the data, which thereby DIMINISHES the impact of ONE character spending TONS of time in GL or Bazaar.

If we're saying account-level activity is the most-important decider (and we are), then account-level time played should be used as the secondary decider. Kind of obvious, really...

If you consider account status it should also consider how long it has been paid/unpaid. If a long term account has lapsed for a billing issue during the merge should it lose the name to a new account?

Once again where is player level used for name conflicts? It never has been afaik. But if there is a written ref then I will concede.

I think in the past low level characters under level 10 could lose out in a conflict.

*Character* level was used in 2005 transfer according to the response to my petition at that time. At least, that is what I was told. It was believable as the character was only L45 or so, and had a Day 1 birthdate, and the account was active.

I do not believe there is any way to gain access to petitions from 16 years ago, but if there is, I'll gladly check. ;-)

It's also entirely possible that the CS rep was wrong, but, let's assume they were. If they were incorrect, then how did I lose the name? It clearly wasn't age, as the character is Day 1. It clearly wasn't activity, as the account was active, as it has 21+ years of activity. So what caused it? We're they doing *character* not *player* logins at that time? It's possible I hadn't logged into that *character* in a while, but I was absolutely playing...

If you can provide documentation demonstrating that the merge in 2005 did NOT use level, I will concede that the CS Rep at the time was wrong. ;-) Until then, I have ZERO evidence to contradict what I was told. The account AND toon are Day 1. It was active. It, however, was low level for 2005. The evidence on hand strongly suggests it *was* level.

And a lot has changed in the 16 years since that merger. I don't think level has been a factor since then outside of really low levels.

I have provided 2 recent documented examples of how character level is no longer factored into the issue. But your posts keep saying it is.

Things have changed and it does no good to keep referring to out of date info.