1 Client per computer [Era accuracy]

[malice-tg]

Even During OSI players "multi boxed" and this seams to be the argument against this chance as it seems every UOSA player has Multi boxed during the era, THIS IS NOT a good argument why we should be allowed 4 accounts on ONCE COMPUTER, for those who don’t know "multi box" was a term used for those who had multiple computers set up to run the Ultima Client, Proof in itself that running multiple clients on one computer didn't work.

I also heard there was a program that was not widely used that allowed you to run multiple instances of UO on one computer, this was surely illegal on OSI and again goes against what the designers had in mind.

Stating the opposing arguement and then saying it is not a good arguement without supporting statements.. is well the same as someone replying and saying "no".

the arguement stands. many ( including myself) used multiple computers during era. Anyone who was old enough to be building PC's back then had an extra one kicking around completely capable of running a macro.

also the program which you cant name i remember and it was not explicitly illegal because it was not allowing any exploitation.. in fact osi would not enforce the shutdown of said programs because unlike here.. osi received money from people using more than one account. they were a business.

during era at the begining you could macro afk in town because the rule was not enforced. right around when they started rolling out eval int and med they slowly changed the stance and cracked down on unattended macroing.

all in all you want this changed because you don't like when people do it. it was era accurate to have the ability to run multi-clients and also to have multiple connections to one IP.

UOSA is even more restrictive with IP limits than osi because on osi you could have a lan party with many more than 4 people logged in and go pking i know this from the glory days.

sorry but i disagree based on accuracy and my own personal experience on osi and in uosa.

plus i play uo with friends and family and limiting my ability to do so without notifiying derrick each time would be a personal hinderance. also why make the staff police this they have alot of other issues to be attending to like bugs/ lag/ developing mechanics.

[Derrick]

While I agree with the general premise of the post (excluding the accuracy part), there is no way at all to tell beyond a doubt whether a person is running on the same PC or multiple PC's. We do have access to client hardware specs, but not MAC addresses. I busted a pair of players once for multi clienting an event once based on their identical hardware specs, only to find out that it was two family members who had identical PC's, which (initially surprisingly to me) isn't all that unusual.

The only way to implement something like this is to set one connection per IP address, and then assign additional connections if we can demonstrate there are more than one real person playing at that address, but even then you get into the situation where those people can multi client if their roomie isn't on.

As far as UO2 being not commonly used, I disagree with that from personal experience, as everyone in my guild used it, and we were far from hardcore. Additionally, I don't ever remember seeing anything in the TOS that forbid running more than one client at a time. I'm not even sure that UO2 wasn't "UO-Pro" approved.

The reason you couldn't run more than one client at once is because it was software enforced because it was simply unstable. We've all had the experience of having the client mash our config files.

There was no per IP connection limit on OSI, however we will continue to have one here even though it is "inaccurate", just for the nature of freeshards, and the ability to have accounts at no cost, i.e., without a throttle.

OSI would happily sell any single person as many accounts as they were willing to buy. I do belive the inaccuracy argument in this case is myth.

[Biohazard]

Stating the opposing arguement and then saying it is not a good arguement without supporting statements.. is well the same as someone replying and saying "no".

the arguement stands. many ( including myself) used multiple computers during era. Anyone who was old enough to be building PC's back then had an extra one kicking around completely capable of running a macro.

also the program which you cant name i remember and it was not explicitly illegal because it was not allowing any exploitation.. in fact osi would not enforce the shutdown of said programs because unlike here.. osi received money from people using more than one account. they were a business.

during era at the begining you could macro afk in town because the rule was not enforced. right around when they started rolling out eval int and med they slowly changed the stance and cracked down on unattended macroing.

all in all you want this changed because you don't like when people do it. it was era accurate to have the ability to run multi-clients and also to have multiple connections to one IP.

UOSA is even more restrictive with IP limits than osi because on osi you could have a lan party with many more than 4 people logged in and go pking i know this from the glory days.

sorry but i disagree based on accuracy and my own personal experience on osi and in uosa.

plus i play uo with friends and family and limiting my ability to do so without notifiying derrick each time would be a personal hinderance. also why make the staff police this they have alot of other issues to be attending to like bugs/ lag/ developing mechanics.

That’s where the bullshit lies though; you should have to pay for a second and third connection. As it stands now, no one even has to pay for a single connection. I really doubt you paid for as many accounts as you said. It sounds like argument fluff. If you did then good for you, you deserved it. You should only be allowed to have one connection unless you make a donation to the shard, it’s really that simple. All the reasons listed are very valid as to why this hurts the shard in so many ways. In reality, at peak times, this shard probably has half of the people actually playing since everyone and their mom has 3 accounts logged in at a time. I'm not saying I don’t use this, but why wouldn't I when everyone else is.

[ArchaicSubrosa]

Those whom invested enough money for seperate accounts could have had several running. Also for those who have multiple computers up it could be easily sidestepped. You can get the same results using several live players as you could via dual accounts. Most one conform to existing guilds in order to prosper? Is it wrong to try a variety of playstyles and characters and have but a few as your mainstay?
This sounds like a suggestion fueled by the lust over power nothing less. If this option were not available to all many would target those who are rising to power to keep their own or gain noteriety.
Prove that people didn't have several accounts during the T2A era!

[ArchaicSubrosa]

-Ghosting: This has been an issue for along while now, minor tweaks have been made to "fix" this but indeed it is still an issue, allowing every pvp/pk guild or even just solo players the advantage of leaving 2 or 3 ghost accounts loged in at popular spawns to that they can kill any players who attempt to actually play the game at those locations. While this was still done during OSI, Only Large Guilds & those with the resources to Multi Box were able to do so, which is a very small % of the population.

There you have it multi clienting was done amongst some,primarily the larger Guilds, in the T2A era. Straight from the horse's mouth

[malice-tg]

I really doubt you paid for as many accounts as you said. It sounds like argument fluff. If you did then good for you, you deserved it.

First how many did i say? mmmm

you doubt it because i contributed to an arguement? Do you know me to be a dishonest person?

its true. I don't fluff.

I played uo with my brother we both had multiple accounts. So i could use his and he could use mine. 20 dollars a month isnt much when you have a job.

Sorry if you thought i was 20 years old maybe you should avoid making up things about how other people play. I simply posted my experience.

[Biohazard]

-Ghosting: This has been an issue for along while now, minor tweaks have been made to "fix" this but indeed it is still an issue, allowing every pvp/pk guild or even just solo players the advantage of leaving 2 or 3 ghost accounts loged in at popular spawns to that they can kill any players who attempt to actually play the game at those locations. While this was still done during OSI, Only Large Guilds & those with the resources to Multi Box were able to do so, which is a very small % of the population.

There you have it multi clienting was done amongst some,primarily the larger Guilds, in the T2A era. Straight from the horse's mouth

where did that info come from?

multi-clienting is not that big of a deal to do here because you aren't burdened by the extra 10 bucks a month per account.

3 accounts cost $30.00 a month. i think there should be something to curtail every single player having 3 accounts running simultaneously.

In the end if nothing happens i really dont care as i will still play regardless. it just sucks cause there are always power macroers and these people are hurting the playerbase and the economy in the numberous ways mentioned

[Biohazard]

I really doubt you paid for as many accounts as you said. It sounds like argument fluff. If you did then good for you, you deserved it.

First how many did i say? mmmm

you doubt it because i contributed to an arguement? Do you know me to be a dishonest person?

its true. I don't fluff.

I played uo with my brother we both had multiple accounts. So i could use his and he could use mine. 20 dollars a month isnt much when you have a job.

Sorry if you thought i was 20 years old maybe you should avoid making up things about how other people play. I simply posted my experience.

like i said i dont give a shit if you are lying or not please re-read, the point is that there should be something to keep every single person from using 3 accounts all day everyday. not every single person did this. some people did this yea. but not the whole entire shard.

P.S. i apologize for being accusatory, i get the feeling people say things just to argue or be on the other side of the fence or to say "what-if?" i should have made that statement as a more general comment aimed at every person. you just happened to be the last post i read. simply trying to prove a point that it sucks (broken record) that every single person can have 3 accounts going all the time, i mean, why wouldnt you do it?

[ArchaicSubrosa]

There are few reasons why SOME people do not want OTHER people to have more then one account. Some people do exploit the system in their resource gathering...say mining from a boat in the same little area all day. Some want to keep a ban on people breaking into their houses, having three accounts makes for a couple more tries and a hundred more schemes.
Some people do not want the competition after they worked so hard on all their accounts doing this same thing they needn't need multiple accounts anymore. Keeping on top allows them to control gameplay and whenever you seem to make progress they will do the best to hamper it being so in control of the politics of the Guilds.
Most people just use multiple accounts in a shard friendly way...and I would say that for the majority of the people who have them. If you can figure out the best ways to manage all three and still have powerplayers in your ranks well good for you. Maybe some need the least attractive types of characters to fill out their communities in order to promote a roleplaying style most of the PVPers PVMers are unacquainted with.
Can't we build another type of world that is within your world that is from a different perspective and still be able to share it and interact? It's not all about killing monsters, causing grief to other player's, and looting houses for no other reason then bragging rights for all of us. Some need reasons for why we do what we do...roleplay it out. Sometimes we need an array of alternate characters to do that wholeheartedly, many which will come and go as according to the story line of the game plays out. And to build up all those disposable characters well we need every help we can get.

[Hicha]

The only time I've ever used 3 accounts was when I was macroing healing on my dexxer and needed a ghost to rez while I played my bard. That's it. 2 accounts should be more than enough for anyone playing on this server.

Its honestly the best thing about a private shard. You can play your main account while building a secondary char template you've been wanting to try out, without the downtime of sitting there and babysitting your macroer. Making that tamer, thief or hybrid would mean missing out on pvp or field events or mule farming, as you'd be restricted to the single account.

[UnknownLord]

The only way to implement something like this is to set one connection per IP address, and then assign additional connections if we can demonstrate there are more than one real person playing at that address, but even then you get into the situation where those people can multi client if their roomie isn't on.

Ok, lets say we're paying to play here "like OSI". if my friends/brother/roomie was not home, and i could gain from his account, i would since it was paid for. Yes we're not paying for this server, it would of been era accurate since it would of been done on OSI anyway

[Hoots]

Some things not mentioned in this thread.

I believe the name of the multi client program that i used was "Multi UO"

I only paid for one account and had a close friend who had an account. We would multi each others account for one reason. Ressing Ghosts for healing gains. That was it.

The biggest reason for this was, most computers back in the day could barely keep one uo client chugging with the processor power... and then most were on dial up.. When i was running healing macro's with multi UO my machine was basically a paper weight... and i had a "new machine" at the time.

If i had to move both account's characters somewhere it was a real hassle and time consuming process.

So, while multi clienting was possible in T2A... what is here is not accurate in respect to what you could reasonably do then (even with a kick-ass machine on high speed which was the minority) compared to what you can do now.

The arguement here i believe has to do with the lack of community... Or the lack of a need for community.

You can completely solo this game with zero risk bc of multi'ing. That is what is not accurate. If you chose to solo in '99 then things like placing a house, taming a mare, hitting up a pk hot spot (either being blue or red), getting in and out of houses, getting back on your feet after death, etc. etc were a challenge everytime you did it. Non of these are the challange they should be here basically bc of multi'ing.