Forbin_Project

No it's not. The devs flat out told us when they ran both name purges that almost all the names freed were along the lines of SGFiller1234, qwertyjkl, and ***Wul*ver*ine***.

No one is attached to garbage names like that.


Nope. But you apparently don't understand the use of emoticons.

Pretty much my opinion of critics and how much store I put in what they say, and that's if I even bother to listen to their reviews.

/disagree

The game has seen a lot of changes since the last time the script was run and it's a helluva lot easier to get a character up to level 50. So I have no doubt there are a lot of mid to high level characters on inactive accounts where the people only bought a month (for example the Mission Architect edition) and never came back.

I say run it once ijncluding everything on inactive accounts from 1-50 then in the future they can lower it back down to whatever they decide.

I have no problem with the devs prior decision to set the limit at 90 days, and I won't complain if they choose to leave it that way.

When they wrote the script they designed it so those things could be changed as needed and they have in fact changed them the second time they ran the script.

The script works because the devs told us it did and they told us they were able to alter the scripts paramaters, so unless you are a redname you can't argue otherwise. Standard Code Rant applies.

They've already done all that and run it twice. We just want them to run it again. It doesn't cost them a dime to run it again.

Ya know I'll concede I'm being stubborn about my image of Magneto, but as an X-men fan I've let so much other stuff slide without comment in these movies. I'm just drawing a line at that 2-3 minute scene.

Someone who states they aren't resubbing because they lost their characters names while their account was inactive for god knows how long is just making excuses and never planned on returning anyway.



You are right. I admit to making up the numbers I posted. I was feeling generous and the number of players that want to get rid of unique names is probably much lower than I said it was.

And the devs told us flat out when they ran the script that most of those names you described having typos and strange punctuation were on inactive trial accounts.

The people who are happy with having unique names have no reason to come here and complain. The simple fact that they aren't here demanding change speaks volumes.

Thanks for responding to his question while I was away.

People who aren't paying to keep their accounts active have no right to complain. They aren't customers.

That would only create a new problem where the devs would then have to deal with the majority of players that would be upset that their names were no longer unique. So who should the devs cater to? The sixty to one hundred thousand customers that like having unique names or the couple dozen that don't like unique names. I have a hunch the devs will go with keeping unique names.

3 to 6 months is a hiatus and no one would object to limiting the script to anything over that time frame. Longer than that you take your chances the name won't be available if you ever come back.

That would be fine as long as it doesn't have to keep being reset every time a new character is made.

Thank you for taking the time to participate and share what you wanted to say with me. I have considered what you have said along with what others like Arcanaville has said and decided that it still doesn't change my opinion about how Erik acted. I still think that Erik is not like the average person and would have reacted differently. We will simply have to agree to disagree about how a make believe person should have reacted in a hypothetical situation.

According to Memphis Bill he has a character with an unusual name on an inactive account and he checks periodically to see if it's name has been freed up and it's still unavailable after 3 and a half years. So they haven't run the script since the last one they announced.

Bill's not known for lying. Being grouchy yes but not lying.

The next biggest after those two, in my opinion, is what global channels if any a person is a member of. Most of the teams I join are recruited thru Global Channels.

I see what you are saying about how it's possible another person may react differently in a similar situation. Someone else may collapse weeping, or cower in fear, or stand numbly in shock. But that doesn't change my opinion that I don't find it believable that Erik Lehnsherr, even as a child, wouldn't lash out at Shaw for killing his mother. This is the kid the guard had to buttstroke with his rifle because he was dragging 3 other guards across the ground and crushed the gate when they tried to seperate him from his parents.

I read it and still say we don't need it. And we already have options. You chose to exercise the option of turning off the prompt that asked you if you were sure you wanted to delete that purple recipe. Now you have to live with that decision.

And the /hide feature can be customized to specifically hide from different types of searches.

1. Hide and block all Invite Options
2. Hide from Tells (Private Messages)
3. Hide from Global Chat Channels
4. Hide from Global Friends
5. Hide from Server Friends
6. Hide from Supergroup
7. Hide from Searches

That's nice but you also said.

I left your post quoted in it's entirety so it wouldn't be said I took the last part of your post out of context.

1. It sounds like you are getting your terminology mixed up. Population usually means the number of players a game has while population cap refers to the maximum number of players that can be on a server or instance. Their server population cap is set higher, and their zone population cap is set lower.

That doesn't mean their population is larger than ours. If it were they wouldn't have been forced to go F2P, and the game in question wouldn't have been sold off to another company in order to cut financial losses.

2. Having a much lower population cap on zone instances makes it more likely people with the same name will be in different instances. The fact that that game has been hemorrhaging customers since the day it launched means it's far less likely players will encounter characters with the same name.

3. The fact that the majority of players here enjoy having unique names and don't want to give them up isn't a "problem".

Yes they were. I've been there since launch and it was happening all the time in the beginning. I personally witnessed on at least a dozen different occasions when characters with the same name were right next to each other. That occured less and less as the games population dropped lower and lower.

Yes they did. I received several mistells from people that thought they were arguing with someone else that had a character with the same name I had. That has also dropped off drastically as the games population decreased.

Chase is right. In fact it had so many players it had to go F2P because it was making too much money.

Oh and why does everyone that mentions that they have a several instances of common zones, of which they have less than half a dozen, always fail to mention that the population cap for those instances is around 75-100 people.

So sure we'd look like we had a lot more people online if we only allowed our players to use Praetoria and got rid of all the indoor missions.

Yes there are probably hundreds of thousands of inactive trial accounts with names no one wants like SGfiller123 or ***Wul*ver*ine***.

No one ever claimed that there weren't more inactive accounts than active accounts.

Oh and there are no "children" in Paragon City. There is only 1 child and she already has a name.

Yeah a buyback feature at vendors would be a nice addition to the game.

Still not buying it, and you're not going to get me to change my mind.

Shaw didn't seem untouchable because nothing was done to Shaw. I won't even buy the argument that Magneto was in the eye of the storm and his powers were out of control around him, because they didn't work that way. An eye of a storm is circular or spherical. The powers that were out of control 3 feet away from him behind the glass wall, and 3 feet away where the guards were standing weren't out of control 3 feet away from him behind the desk where Shaw was sitting. At the very least the pistol, filing cabinet, bell, helmets, etc should have also been violently tossed around.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

The question still isn't relevant because I'm not doubting/questioning the reactions of the hundreds of victims in the camp. Nowhere in any of my posts did I say that I didn't find the reactions of the other people at the concentration camp in X-Men unrealistic.

I'm doubting/questioning the reaction of one individual. And yes I believe that there were thousands of individuals that tried to oppose their tormentors even tho they knew their actions would be futile, or they simply reacted instinctively.

I believe one person can make a difference. That one person can inspire hundreds, thousands, even millions of people with his or her actions. I also believe that that inspiration can be used for good or evil.

Oh and there were only 5 people in the scene I'm doubting. Shaw, Magento, 2 guards, and Magneto's mother. I find it far more believable someone will lash out at their tormentor when the odds aren't so overwhelming in a passionate outburst.

Shaw made no attempt to demonstrate to Eric his own mutant abilities. As far as Eric knew he was as human as the guards holding his mother.

And yet Eric had enough control over his powers to hurl/crush metal items around the room behind the glass wall while only crushing the metal objects in the room he and Shaw were standing in.

If his power was actually that out of control the guns, filing cabinet, bell, coin, and helmets (still attached to the bodies of the guards unless the chin straps broke or were unfastened) would have been flung around the room.