Second Age & Simultaneous Account Login

[hjparcins]

I used to play on this server a while back, I was pretty much a noob. I played for around a month I believe.

One of the main things that made me quit was the fact that you could run like 3-4 accounts at the same time. Which is a very bad policy.

I realize it makes it look like more people are playing, but at this point the server has a pretty good population as is. Plus it leads to such problems as the one outlined in a recent thread (archer turrets) and crap like PK ghosting. For all the benefit you get from simultaneous account policy (uhh, convenience for people running gatherers? it makes it look like 2x more people are playing?) you get a lot of really ghetto problems.

IMO if the simultaneous account shit was dropped, you'd see a lot of improvements in the game and more noobs. Less shady pvp tactics, better economy (since everyone and their brother won't be mining and cotton picking on 3 accounts while they play their main guy) and a much better community (since people will actually look at 1 client rather than just alt-tabbing to check them out every once in a while). I mean, in real Second Age UO, everyone wasn't running around with 4 accounts open, mining ore and crafting pots and fishing at the same time. Maybe like .05% of the population had 2 accounts.

But hey that's just my opinion. Although I can definitely say that I would be on this server in a heartbeat if such a policy as the one I suggested was in place. As it is, no populous UO freeshard exists for me; none can bring back the feeling of Second Age UO, although this one comes the closest if not for this one glaring problem.

[Caps Lock]

I agree, I would love it if everyone had only one UO client allowed. Not sure if anything will ever be changed, but would definitely feel more real and immersive for me.

[makiazo]

I agree.

[benny-]

Completely agree. This has been an ongoing debate on here for as long as I can remember. As such, you'll continue to see replies (generally from those who favor multiclienting) that it's a dead topic, give it up already, etc. However multiclienting is a major issue with the server when it comes to replicating the era and continues to create more and more problems. As such, I think it's important to again and again discuss the topic and highlight the inaccurate exploits that come with such a relaxed policy.

In the end there is no use for multiclienting on a server that aims to replicate the era.

Furthermore, those using inaccurate methods through multiclienting gain a strong advantage in gameplay.

Compare a single miner, laboring to get a supply of ingots (as it was done in the era) to someone who benefits from scripts and multiclienting, having 4 clients automatically performing the same tasks without any work required. It's clear to see that anyone who plays the game as it was played during the era is at a crippling disadvantage.

Pvp bots...granted we haven't seen a major issue with these yet. But what if we begin to see pks using healbots, or perhaps gating in archerbots? What will this do to field pvp? Will we then have to adapt to more inaccurate gameplay in order to compete?...Will Secondage's version of "era accurate pvp" consist of everyone running around with 2-3 bots, in these automated/scripted versions of group pvp?

When it comes down to it, multiclienting does not belong on a server that strives to replicate T2A. Those that scream and moan "adapt!" obviously care little about accuracy and only want to further excuse such lame tactics.

What we'll continue to see without some stance being taken is more and more exploits.....people playing as they did during the era put at a worse and worse disadvantage......and in the end, a game less and less resembling anything like the era.

[punk]

Adding in my agreement. If they can limit people to logging in with 3 accounts, they can limit them to logging in with 1. Hugely era inaccurate as it is.

[benny-]

The problem there is that they have a connection requirement per ip. Meaning in some situations where there are in fact mutliple players playing from one household, they wouldn't be able to play simultaneously with a 1 connection per ip rule. Derrick has said in the past they he wont put in such a limitation that would hurt multiple user households.

Regardless, there are other methods for eliminating multiclienting, it's just a matter of if the staff are willing to take a stance on it.

[hjparcins]

Right, I can see the multiple user household thing being an issue.

But really, how common IS that occurence? The amount of single-household multiple-user groups has to be very miniscule. In that event, individual exceptions can be made. It should be pretty easy to determine which people are legitimately a family in a single household or a couple of roommates vs. one dude running 3 crafters/gatherers for his PK or Provoker.

I'm actually surprised to see such a quick response in agreement on this issue; clearly, it is not a dead topic.

EDIT: And again, for every household that might be inconvenienced by the enforcement of this rule, there are people like me who want to play here but can't due to the questionable community aspects stemming from the ability to multi-client and be completely self-sufficient, removing any need to interact with fellow players.

[makiazo]

People who say they have multiple people that play in their household are always the ones that just want to use multiple accounts. It is so rare where multiple people play in a home it is rediculous. Derrick could easily grant that dual-account ability on said "rare occurrence" by monitoring whoever he gives this ability.

The advantage of only have one account per person is so huge. Just thinking how fun it would be.... wow.

Think of how much more demand there would be for actual resource gatherers? For tradeskills professions?

Crazy..

[hjparcins]

That's my opinion as well.

Actual demand for items and resources, more real estate, more player interaction, actual consequences for actions...

Old school UO all over again. If only it would happen I'd be in UO heaven.

[Hicha]

I would pay for two accounts.

[hjparcins]

Geez, there you go - if people want to run more than one account, limit it at 2 and require a fee for the second account.

[punk]

I do see how changing the rule would hurt those who play from the same house/dorm, but I take a utilitarian approach to this situation... its better for the group as a whole to impose an IP connection limit.

Special circumstances could easily be applied to those households that genuinely have multiple simultaneous players.

Note: I don't think that it should be switched to say you can only possess one single account now, because that would just never work as people have put in years worth of work into characters on separate accounts, but I think you should be limited to how many can be simultaneously connected to the server.

[Smelly Ira]

I agree totally in principle, but it seems like multiple clients, and the power gamers version of UO in general is very favored by freeshard populations. I imagine that a sizable minority here (I include myself in that minority, especially as a newb) would love this, but the majority are so used to UO on crack that they would have hard time leaving that behind.

I could be totally off base here, I just don't see them ever changing it, the community of people in MMO's in general who want an immersive experience like this is dwarfed by the community of people who want to be able to do everything, win everything, and do it NOW.

It's shame because I never played OSI, all I know really is UOsecondage, and macroing up multiple chars quickly.

I have tremendous respect for the people who still play on here oldschool style, because honestly once I saw the huge disadvantage of "manual play"...I have to admit I just caved and learned how to macro up characters quickly etc.

[ClowN]

if UOSA started charging ANY money for 2nd or 3rd account access, EA would shut this place down faster then you could say Kal Ort Por. UOSA cant legally do that.

there is no resonable solution to the multi-client problem (if its even really a problem).

i agree, ghosting spawns is lame. i wish people wouldnt do it. but the fact is, there isnt a way to stop it, so adapt to it. its really not that big of a deal.

[hjparcins]

@Smelly Ira:

Trust me, the real oldschool UO is 10x better than this.

I'd wager 90% of the people that run multiple accounts are people like you - those that do it just because to NOT do it is to play at a huge, crippling disadvantage.

Take away that requirement and everyone can be on an even playing field. I love UO, but I don't want to have to alt-tab and play excel spreadsheet macro-script game just to get 10% of the experience I had when the game was in it's heyday.

Yeah, there are the leet doods who love to do this kind of thing - but honestly, they play Hybrid and countless "log in with 125 in every stat and 10x GM" shards. The only ones that would play on a genuine Second Age throwback like this are the handful who want to have an advantage on those looking for an authentic experience, because they can't compete on crap shards like Hybrid where everyone is in neon green/pink riding t-rexes and shit while shooting true black lasers out of their eyes.

I say screw these scumbags, let them go to a crap server. Embrace authenticity and community.