Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
From what I've recently seen in the interviews you can have same first name but the first + surname will probably be locked. It was also mentioned the players may have control over what is displayed on screen (first name only vs full name toggle). Because of this, I am assuming that it will function like other MMO chats where the full name is displayed and not "Jane#7328".
Yeah and your name can be Boring Boomer.
That way you will always be able to pick your favourite name.
You know, if someone chose to name themselves "John", I would be like, "REALLY, you couldn't put forth a little effort?"
@mrwaffles how about Waffles San?
Yeah thats what @KnightPixie was saying. There are a bunch of other characters you could use. The on down side thought is in the western world people wouldn't easily be able to type it in. they'd have to click you in person or in chat. Unless you got them Alt codes memorized
For a game that's bending over backward for the sake of immersion in so many other areas, I'm honestly kind of baffled that they're going to be forcing unique names. Besides milking money from name reservations, I can't think of a single reason to go with that approach.
I think i would prefer that names where believable for aoc universe but don't really care too much.
Some people like to have a single moniker like Blood. I would like to see a minimum and maximum number of letters for a total count allowing and counting spaces. So a name like John is taken could exist with out the underscores.
Far as seeing unique names. Back in GW1 early days I came across Mona Littlemore and about spit my coffee out that morning laughing.
I think that should be good enough. I don’t know how many of y’all tried playing lord of the rings online, but it was a pita trying to find a name that both wasn’t taken and fit your chosen race’s language style guidelines. So, I vote no to any arbitrary “fantasy guidelines” Intrepid could possibly cook up. I expect to run into Frodo Teabaggins at some point. I’ll let out a soft chuckle, and go back to gathering herbs.
I guess I never considered second names being used to distinguish players with the same desired first name. It also encourages less use of lazy, non-immersive naming conventions. I’m a fan of this concept.
I don’t want required surnames at all, but I am a fan of requiring unique names on a sever.
One of the core design principles for some of the intended risk/reward tradeoffs relative to player behavior is that player reputation will matter. If there are six players with the same name, in Discord style, where you have to specifically poke them to see the difference? A good player is gonna get punished based on a bad rep they don't deserve, and a bad player is going to get away with things based on a good rep they don't deserve. While this solution works in environments where uniqueness of names isn't critical in the primary "at a glance" case, Ashes of Creation is not such an environment.
If everyone's talking in world chat about how "Chalk" is being a total asshole right now, a week later, people who were randomly half-listening aren't going to remember nor give you the benefit of the doubt that it was Chalk#4413, not Chalk#1290, even if someone bothered to type out the numbers at the time. But they might remember that it was ChaLLk instead of Chalk40.