I can't imagine that True Names will be an issue amongst players. The abuse would be unreal.
It seems to me that it's far more likely to be a story implement in the game's campaign -- whether you tell NPC allies, whether NPC enemies discover your true name (or you discover theirs) may be a plot point.
I tend to agree with this approach, if it has a player impact that sounds like a terrible plan.
I've got some ideas here and I hope the devs see it and consider it at least.
While nobody can stop all trolling/botting, the idea is to take away tools that give them easier access, not give them more tools.
I'd imagine there needs to be a trade off.
I like the idea presented that it presents multiple quests in exchange for power (possibly a tarot card or magic weapon or something) in a PVE sense and there's maybe a lingering issue where that power can't be used against the quest giver as they can neuter it by invoking the true name. I think this could have very interesting ramifications in long term play...
On one hand players want to chase power and by changing who gives a power type quest in each age or bracket would change, so the idea is you would want to be doing all these quests but if you do so and earn a reputation as someone with no loyalty it ends up harming you in lots of situations, such as say, if you went against X lord in the last time bracket they might not give you a quest in the next one, or might require that you complete an extra quest chain to prove your worth to them (because if we're real we understand the undead have no true loyalties other than to themselves).
This creates a situation where sure you might get more powerful gear/tarot this way, but in certain situations it will be of NO use and that by chasing power you are essentially forcing yourself to take on more content... which if we're honest, is actually a good thing for the hardcore players that want more content and are most likely to be the players that chase all power.
In this way a faction devotion system might be derived as well so that perhaps these power ups work better or worse depending on the loyalty you have with a faction (as well as the relative support/power of the house), meaning that you still need to consider what you need/want to be most powerful for your build, and that there are limitations on how far you can go in any direction because advancing too much with one faction could lead you out of favor with an opposing faction, thereby limiting the gifts you can utilize effectively, or creating a situation where a player must do more maintenance to keep all the factions satisfied (which is kind of a reward in the sense that it's more content) but still limiting the power diversity vs power potency... if you want more potency you have to devote to a single faction, if you want good potency in a couple quest givers you'd need to keep them both happy, but would sacrifice some power potency in each... if you want more, you'd sacrifice more potency still, but have much more diversity...
This would also require multiple quest givers and factions, probably at least 9, because of the diversity of classes and playstyles.
And then here's the gimmick that makes this all worthwhile and helps keep the game fresh:
Just because two factions were allied last age, doesn't mean they will be next age, they likely will betray each other at some point and there's no knowing how the story will unfold in the next age, so player choice at the beginning of each new age causes them to have to rechoose their loyalties to which houses they support and while their old gear doesn't become useless, it changes in potency. Players that were allied with eachother last seasons might not be the next... it keeps the game fresh and diverging.
This also rewards longer term players as some houses will be of greater and less benefit depending on alliances that change age to age and the more gear/tarot they have built up from these allows them faster progression in the new ages and it also introduces meaningful choices to the players since we know that player participation has an impact on the story... so supporting so and so will lead to different consequences... and while if everyone (players) support one faction and make things too imbalanced where they gain a lot of influence, perhaps they dominate for the end of the age, but at the end of the age switch the other houses come together to defeat them... this then sets those houses up as likely allies (probably a few different groups of allies) in the next age while the one everyone supported is allied to nobody, causing everyone to rethink their strategies in the next age and the gear that was ultra powered in the last age to be less potent as the house has fallen in prominence (or possibly been destroyed and replaced with a new one).
Ultimately this leads to a creative way to have players consider who they are going to support and not... and further, should the quest giver/house leader die off, while that item is no longer useless against them and they no longer existing faction, it is no longer as potent as it once was while they held power and is still decent gear, but not as significantly potent.
Players now have to balance the economies of other players, other interactions between players (since guild fallouts can change this) and their play styles in accordance with who they support, as well as age changes, meaning that while their participation is small, it does matter and make a difference and even being in an ultra powerful group of elite players that can swing things, doesn't make for a permanent buff as the other houses will band together to defeat them...
To me this is the dream for player interactivity and a non persistant world. Player choice matters and has an effect on long term play, there is more content for those that want more power, and loyalty or lack thereof has consequences. For example, say you are always loyal to a given quest giver, not only do you help protect their continued legacy and increase in power, but you also gain a minor buff each age you're allied with them because you have proven to be a loyal house member over time.
All in all I think the potency still needs to be reigned in since you can't these bonuses getting too imbalanced, but as long as they are close enough so that there's not more than maybe a -5% to +5% scale that makes a difference with a 10% spread of power that is likely to work differently. All of this is possible with code tags for the item and also tags for the factions.
I think the key to all of this though is that there has to be an "event quest" available at the start of each age, like a parlay between houses where the heads of hosues all come together on neutral territory for a feast or something and each house vies for the player's loyalty in the coming age, allowing that all factions are represented. You could also have different dialogs here depending on if someone supported or opposed the house in the last age, making the experience somewhat unique to each player. They wouldn't need to change a lot, maybe 4 different ones: they were supported last time, they were opposed last age, they were neutral last age, or they were betrayed by the player last age. This allows them to approach the player differently based on those circumstances. If you want to get crazy with this you could even add in "complicated history" after several ages where the player has had shifting priorities changing constantly who they support and betray, this allows those houses to view them more as "mercenary types". The mercenary types of course, don't get the bonuses of loyalty, but are always able to chase the biggest power available.
A key component here is that this is specific to each character on the account (so if you want a fresh start you can always roll a new toon) and that bonuses are NOT account wide, but are specific to the character. However... to make this better supported for players who like having lots of alts, if they've already done the quests on another character, they can have that character speak on their current character's behalf to help speed along the questline progress and make them gain loyalty quicker with a specific faction (assuming they are playing with the same factions, which they may not be).
As a player guild thing I can also imagine a dillution of this system in that guild leaders could create "tasks" which are bulletin board style "donate X thing" and be given some kind of reward from the system (maybe a cosmetic token or something) and then players that fulfill that request get the token.
This is also viable for if someone wants a solo guild, because then they can set their own goals to get those things but of course, don't benefit from the advantages of massive group contributions, but it gives them the opportunity to play solo and still get the rewards.
