SilverAgeFan

Actually, that was a deliberate marketing move. It happened about the time that bottlers switched from using some cane and beet sugar in Coca Cola to using high fructose corn syrup exclusively in the US. Coke Classic and the old school cane sugar sweetened Coca Cola actually taste different when compared side by side. But Coke II, or whatever it was called, was introduced as a buffer and a distraction to this shift.

In some kosher grocers and in Mexico (at least in parts) you can still get sugar sweetened Coke as opposed to the US highly subsidized (and thus much cheaper to produce and sell at higher profits) high fructose corn syrup version. I personally prefer the cane sugar. Not only does it taste better, but it is much less bad for you as scientific studies have shown that calories from high fructose corn syrup get turned into fat at a ratio three times higher than cane syrup glucose. The metabolic reasons for this remain a mystery currently.

But at the end of the day, I prefer me a good naturally caffeine free China Cola (a snooty spice cola sold in natural food stores) over either Coke product. Even more less bad for you!

Anyways, back on topic, quick update to my vote: I selected option 2 which I still go with BUT option 3 of prioritizing an update to the character creator over either 1 or 2 is sounding better and better based on multiple cases made above.

I know, rite?

Not to mention make your characters feel significantly more powerful but don't make existing level 50 content into free for all farmlands. Methinks there will be many necessary nerfs in the balancing process of CB leading to potentially lots of teeth gnashing. Considering how much teeth gnashing took place on the forums pre-GR release based on a couple leaked power changes, I suspect the devs simply want a mechanism to expel anyone from CB should they leak. Or if necessary even suspend accounts for leaks.

EDIT to clarify the prediction of nerfs: These nerfs will be only on aspects of the incarnate system that in the first roll out are significantly more powerful than predicted in specific combinations of builds, powersets and ATs. I know the devs prefer to roll things out underpowered for players and overpowered for mobs and then ratchet down mobs and players up towards a balancing point. But I don't see how they can hit the mark from that direction 100% with the little we've already been clued in about the Incarnate slots and the diversity of effects these things will have on 50++ characters.

Very true. And again though I would appreciate an open naming system myself, I see the most justifiable reason to develop and implement such a system would be if it helped alleviate any logistical challenges with a new larger game experience changing mechanic, such as the cross server teaming you mention.

Thanks for articulating those thoughts Chase. Gotta say I agree with all of them except I come down on the other side of the fence in favor of them putting some dev resources towards developing a system. Even if it doesn't make it into CoX, the ergonomics could be translated for the (inevitable?) successor to CoX.

As far as this stuff goes, all of you are correct that many people would likely still try to slash command ignore people.

The only way I could see them speeding the retraining of the player population would be to GMOTD the heck out of this issue along with disabling some existing slash commands. When executed, the disabled commands would bring up a popup reminding them of the new system and that for the time being one needs to click to report or ignore offending names.

There are drawbacks to either system.

Note that though I'm in the camp of "I'd like to see open naming explored," my desires for the game do have priorities. This falls far behind incarnates, new costumes, graphical updates to old zones, unique mission maps, revamps of older content, revamps of older zone events, a few new unique zones with highly unique climates and features from what we currently have (outer space, moon, arctic, tropic) and even removal of some or all of the war walls. It's pretty far down that list. So though I'd like to see it explored for this game, it may be something more fitting for any next generation successor to this game.

And if it is worked into a successor game, I'd personally like to see the system even more robust allowing for secret identities and temporary aliases for mission specific content, i.e. seeing your name change to Arbiter Pink or some such were you to go undercover to infiltrate an Arachnos base and then revert back to your hero alias once the disguise comes off. Again all the immediately above being fantasies for a robust sequel to CoX, not features retroactively introduced and woven into existing content.

Here's what I never get about this discussion and the knee jerk revulsion to a revised open local@global naming system:

IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE VISUALLY EXECUTED THE SAME WAY THAT OTHER HERO MMO DID IT!!!

Sorry for shouting, but people never seem to consider that obvious option.

First off, CO had a toggle that many folks never used that allowed you to turn off the @globalname extension in the chat windows. Many critics of their system never acknowledge this reality. I don't think many used it or knew it was there because the @globalname extension was on by default making it an "opt out" feature.

So first suggestion: any similar system in CoX should be "opt in" with the @globalname suffix being invisible unless you opt for it to be visible at all times. Have at least TWO different toggles, one for chat windows and one for over characters heads. Again, both defaulting to toggled OFF when introducing the system.

The $60k question of course with such a system if one could easily impersonate characters: what about griefing? Guessing here, but I'd be willing to put money on this that it would be relatively easy to have a system where any chat files that are saved for disciplinary purposes make all those invisible naming extensions visible. Additionally, add another name menu option, similar to the one we have now for "ignore as spammer" along the lines of "report for misconduct" Click on the name at the head of the offending chat line(s) and the report includes the full name extension as needed.

The OTHER $60k extension would be... IF we ever went to a serverless game world, what about players that currently like to make multiple copies of a single character with the same name again and again? A slightly more sophisticated system could permit having multiple characters OVER and OVER even on the same server! For example what if your name was structured something like this: <local_alias>.<character_name>@globalname

So if you want to make five incarnations as "Firedude" on Freedom, as a Tank, Blaster, Controller, etc. you conceivably could with such a system. Locally folks would only see you as Firedude over your character and in chat. But if they click on your name and "get full name" they'd see that you were Firedude.Firedude4@ObsessedWithFire

Even better, such a naming structure could even be used to help facilitate CROSS SERVER TEAMING and any naming and chat problems that may arise there. Simply include a server address in the name. Perhaps: <local_alias>.<character_name>.<server>@globalname ?

AND TO TOP THAT ALL OFF, introducing a feature like a local alias in our naming scheme would allow room for special missions or turning points where we get to rename our character IN GAME as part of our story should we choose. Yes, this means that NC and Paragon would no longer make much money (if ANY) from renaming tokens. BUT imagine how cool it would be if your character "Golden Angel" was able to be easily and fluidly renamed upon turning villain to "Dark Angel"? And then become "Angel Redeemed" upon turning hero? All by doing a special mission that ends with an optional text field that can be used to rename your character. I suggested this very feature in the GR CB in a similar thread to this one.

So in summary, just because CO's execution of the idea of an open naming scheme had the aesthetic grace of a drunken cow it doesn't mean that at its heart it isn't a good idea. Or that Paragon couldn't polish it and take it that much further as a game feature, yet again elevating the standard for what is expected from current and future generation MMOs.

I'm all for them putting some resources towards developing a more open naming system.

In another thread on a similar topic of revamps, I too zeroed in on the 30-39 content. I think both red and blueside, this content was wrapped up under the harshest of deadlines prior to game launch and expansh-alone launch. Personally I think the blueside 30-34 i0 content is the absolute worst in the game as it stands. That would be my vote for an arc or two of revamp, but I do understand the logic you're applying above.

And in any case, I agree. That level 30-39 content is not the best work done by Cryptic-***-Paragon.

...and is there a badge for that?

Hmmmmmm... maybe I did not see the new arc then?! Okay. Will need to keep my eyes peeled while climbing to 50/portal jockey with my next in queue.