Issue: Characters with the exact same name

Hi, I will keep this short and sweet, not a big fan of complaints but this is something that bothers me. I often take time while playing to look through the battle log and try to figure out what a person may potentially have still in their deck, or just keep track of what has been played. Some of my opponents lately have been using a tactic which negates the battle log entirely, naming all of their characters the exact same name.

I do not believe this should be allowed, a player should only be able to recruit one character with any given name. Maybe this does not feel like a big issue to some but it has been frustrating enough for me to want to complain. I don't mind "cheap" tactics in game, but I do mind abusing an oversight within the game to negate the battle log. I know you guys are busy over there at BM but please take this issue into consideration.

Thanks,
G

 

Agreed.

 

But... But... Stexe needs to have his fun!

 

Couldn't agree more, same naming is underhanded obfuscation.

 

So is that good or bad?

 

It's a cheap tactic, not to be condoned or encouraged, least of all enabled. Please fix. Abusers, shame on you.

 

This is an interesting thing I never thought about. Bringing it up in the hopes that it's a "less than epic" fix.

 

I played against some guy recently who had named his characters like "Elf Priest: health 1/21" and that wasn't even elf nor a priest. Was disturbing.
I called him a cheater.

 

That's [SOME PERSON], I think. It's not something very important, as it can rarely create a confusion. It's pretty lame to fall so low though.

 

So hey, what do you think a better way to go about it would be? Appending a number to the end of a name such as "Mike," "Mike-1," and "Mike-2?" Or something sillier like "the Cowardly" and "the Unjust?"

This might not work for every one because they can often replace letters with numbers and vice-versa to confuse our system. Just trying to find the best way to go about it.

 

While it's true that you shouldn't be allowed to name all the charcters the same, it's not such a big deal. I mean, can't you just tell who is who by the figurine's color? That's what I always do. Besides, people who use these low tactics will find a way to go on even if you take some meassures.

 

How about adding a number and a clear separator to the beginning of the opponent character names? For example,
lamer
lamer
lamer
would become
1) lamer
2) lamer
3) lamer.

There needs to be a clear separation of the number from the name with ") ", for example, as probably someone will try to use names which make the first digit hard to read if it's not clearly separated.

It would be best if you could activate this opponent numbering on demand as there are many ways a lame player can try to avoid automatic detection and it's impossible to catch them all automatically. For example, I have seen one player name all his characters "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa". I didn't check to see if they all had the same number of characters, using different amounts would be an easy way of escaping plain string comparison detection.

 

Or just block two things:
1) identical names
2) names that have X+ identical characters in a row anywhere in the name (say four or more identical characters) - I can distinguish between "aa", "aaa" and "aaaa" easily enough.

 

As long as players can choose character names freely, I bet it can always be abused.
And yes, it's not a major problem obviously.

 

I've only seen two players who do this. Only two who are that lame.

 

Well, doesn't mean it can't be an issue. If it's an easy fix then I don't really see the harm in looking at it versus debating its merits.

 

I can't see a fix at all.
Removing the ability to name one's characters would not be a good idea.

 

I'm saying if we detect a name that's repeated, we add something to it such as "-2" or "-3."

 

If this ends up being the fix, definitely add the number to the beginning of the name and not the end, otherwise long names would be able to potentially hide the added indicator.

 

Good point.