I have recently wanted to change my Warlight name, but the 10-level name policy is a bit annoying.


Please tell me your views on this situation, whether you agree or not (this is not an angry letter Fizzer)

I thought it was 5 levels.

It is 5 level

Still...

I think it's fine makes you more attached to your name.

I can change my name at level 60, it motivates me to level up to level 60

edit: level 60 is far away :(

Edited 7/28/2015 19:32:26

It would kinda be chaotic if you could change your username at will

i can change it from 56 just don't want to becouse if i change now it will take 5 years before i am able to change it again and by the way my name is awesome

I find personal name changes being tied to how often you play and win to be a bit ridiculous as well. You should be able to change your name whenever you want as long as it isn't being changed to something that WL would deem offensive.

I also don't understand why WL prioritizes making prior name changes public but not game history. I personally would much rather have access to information about how often a player has played with their partner. Is this their first game as partners, or are they "regulars"? I would like to see game history/partner history made available on each player's profile in the future.

Edited 7/28/2015 22:38:24

You used to be able to change your name every 20 days. Such a system should be brought back, instead you can change every 2 months or so and earning points could speed up the process. It'd be more sensible and hybridize what we like about both systems.

They should be culminative.

@Genghis I agree, I am usually for making everything into a good formula. Here is a suggestion for how often you can name change:

120 days - (points earned in the last 120 days/500,000)

Edited 7/29/2015 00:43:09

To advocate for a waiting period doesn't make any sense. I'm fairly new to WL, but from the forum posts that I have read one thing is clear... Many users on this site have "alts". Why restrict name changes in any way when there is nothing stopping anyone of us from just going and creating a new account if we want a new name badly enough? Allowing easy name changes may even decrease the number of alts being created.

Edited 7/29/2015 01:31:01

Oh yes, I would love the old 20-days system to be back. Not gonna happen now, when they earn money from allowing buying namechanges for points

Looking back, 20 days system sucked.

Took me years to find out x-apex, x, GUI, Chameleon, Ozymandias and Aranka's Boobs were all the same person.

20 day system was without doubt a 1000 times better than this one, it meant if you decided to change your name then you knew exactly how long you would have to wait before you could change back again.
Nowadays if I tried to change my name now I would have to wait years (at the rate I've been playing) to change it back. Whereas when the points system first came out I could change my name every couple of days (I had 3 names in the space of 9 days) and I wasn't changing name every 5 levels either.

Looking back, 20 days system sucked.

Genghis could you please explain how so? Are you saying it allows people to change their names too often?

I think the negative about frequent name changes is that people can get confused as to who people are, especially on the forum.

Totally agree with Beren. I don't necessarily think that players should be able to change their usernames at will, with no restrictions at all, but it would be nice to come up with a process that is more equitable. Keying to levels is fairly arbitrary, and obviously not uniform, since the amount of points one needs to level up is not uniform throughout all the levels. It would seem that a time based threshold would be more reasonable, though perhaps longer than 20 days (90 days maybe?). It would be interesting to see how much revenue is generated by name changes. I'm sure that would be a significant factor in getting Fizzer to change it.

If it means Fizzer will earn money, he will suddenly take interest.

I feel like on the forums these days Fizzer is being depicted as solely money-driven, and that if there isn't money in it then he isn't interested. Can I ask why? He's spent years trying to improve this game which is completely free to play and always has been and you can pay for a couple extra things - hardly anything now because of the points system which gives you everything as long as you are active. So why this common view?