Multiclienting Compromise?

For ideas on how to make Second Age a better shard. Can it get any better? Maybe.
Forum rules
Posts in this forum are expected to be constructive, realistic and civil. Inflamatory or off topic posts will be removed.

How many clients should be allowed at a time?

1
19
30%
2
9
14%
3
36
56%
 
Total votes: 64

Tron
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Tron »

Duke Jones wrote:
orionsune wrote: I sometimes wonder when players are going to realize it is not 1997 anymore, the game has evolved, the players have evolved, the technology has evolved.... and simply accept the fact that some compromises will need to be made.
Isn't that what the official production servers are for?

We WANT 1997 gameplay. We want to isolate the way the game was for that time. If you want the game and technology to evolve and develop, I hear kingdom reborn is looking nice.

We want 1997 mechanics. The gameplay is up to the end user to dictate. And in era the choice was there to have 15 accounts if you wanted.

Restricting account numbers, and forcing people to play UO the way you think they should is just one step towards trammel.

What else do you think is unfair that we need to change?
V SISTERS UNITE! SAVING OUR VAJAYJAYS FOR SOMEONE SPECIAL!

Image

Image

Sentinel
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:39 pm
Location: At Broadcast Depth.

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Sentinel »

Tron wrote:I enjoy the convenience of my 3 accounts ... I just play for fun, and the extra accounts let me have more fun.
Image

Orsi
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Orsi »

Restricting account numbers, and forcing people to play UO the way you think they should is just one step towards trammel.
Trammel is the opposite direction, where people could afford and did have multiple accounts, all macroing and gold farming simultaneously on their brand new computer that could run it.

Let's take a look at this for a second. You have three accounts which you say make the game more fun, but that is not logical. It is only possible to play on one account at a time, so the others must be used for something other than playing. If we take the stance that not playing something would not be fun, then we can assume you are not having fun on the two accounts you are not playing. Thus, the extra two accounts do not add to the fun you are having because you can only play one at any given time.

But yes, you can use your other account on your other client to aid the main character in his adventures. This increases your fun because you don't have to wait for anyone else. So you make on your second account a jack of all trades character able to provide your main character with any weapons, armour, poisoning, potion, gate or resurrection. Unfortunately, you realize that making a support character requires a lot of extra resources to create: ore to make arms, wood to make bows and arrows, regeants to make potions, and gold to buy those reagents.

Since it is illegal to gather resources unattended on Second Age, you can't actually have another character do the work while playing your main character. Now you are stuck in the situation of having to actually chop, mine, and grind the resources with one character, or just kill monsters for hours to collect gold with your main one. So you one of three options: farm monsters non-stop to provide for your 'support' character, run around chopping wood and digging for ore, or illegally gather resources with one account in the background while you play your main character. Which is the fun option?

Tron
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Tron »

Orscythicus wrote:
Restricting account numbers, and forcing people to play UO the way you think they should is just one step towards trammel.
Trammel is the opposite direction, where people could afford and did have multiple accounts, all macroing and gold farming simultaneously on their brand new computer that could run it.

Let's take a look at this for a second. You have three accounts which you say make the game more fun, but that is not logical. It is only possible to play on one account at a time, so the others must be used for something other than playing. If we take the stance that not playing something would not be fun, then we can assume you are not having fun on the two accounts you are not playing. Thus, the extra two accounts do not add to the fun you are having because you can only play one at any given time.
I do in fact play 2 accounts at once. You are wrong.
Orscythicus wrote:
But yes, you can use your other account on your other client to aid the main character in his adventures. This increases your fun because you don't have to wait for anyone else. So you make on your second account a jack of all trades character able to provide your main character with any weapons, armour, poisoning, potion, gate or resurrection. Unfortunately, you realize that making a support character requires a lot of extra resources to create: ore to make arms, wood to make bows and arrows, regeants to make potions, and gold to buy those reagents.
Again, you are wrong. I do not have a host of crafters on my accounts. I have one, an alchemist. And yes, she does all my alchemy for me. Of course we're talking about just me, but when you make assumptions and generalize peoples play style like you are here, this is what you get. Everyone is different.
Orscythicus wrote:
Since it is illegal to gather resources unattended on Second Age, you can't actually have another character do the work while playing your main character. Now you are stuck in the situation of having to actually chop, mine, and grind the resources with one character, or just kill monsters for hours to collect gold with your main one. So you one of three options: farm monsters non-stop to provide for your 'support' character, run around chopping wood and digging for ore, or illegally gather resources with one account in the background while you play your main character. Which is the fun option?

I do none of those things, again, you are wrong.
You seem to have missed my point entirely, and continued to push your perceived gameplay stylings on me.

Bottom line? You are trying to restrict peoples options, the same way trammel did. Why? Because you don't feel it should be allowed. Hmm, is this the stratics forum? Are we going to continue listening to every person who bitches about whatever this and that and than change it according to their wishes?

No, this is UOSA, and UOSA is about accuracy, for better or for worse. Because like Derrick said, everyone plays the game the way they want, and it's not your job, nor place, to change that. What's accurate to the t2a era in this case? Multi-clients. Live with it, because you're only causing drama by trying to change that. We don't need a new "I think it should be this way" topic up here every day.
And no, orscy, before you bring it up again, Derrick can't charge people for those accounts, it's illegal.
And stop bringing up afk resource gathering as a crutch in these arguments. Derrick has said that it's not nearly the issue that people make it out to be. It is not an out of hand epidemic. It happens rarely and those who are caught lose everything they have. That has been enough to deter most people.
V SISTERS UNITE! SAVING OUR VAJAYJAYS FOR SOMEONE SPECIAL!

Image

Image

Mikel123
UOSA Subscriber!
UOSA Subscriber!
Posts: 4607
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Mikel123 »

Tron wrote:Bottom line? You are trying to restrict peoples options, the same way trammel did.
Just a little clarification here... Trammel didn't restrict people's options. It added an option.

Orsi
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Orsi »

Mikel123 wrote:
Tron wrote:Bottom line? You are trying to restrict peoples options, the same way trammel did.
Just a little clarification here... Trammel didn't restrict people's options. It added an option.
Thank you for pointing that out .

Duke Jones
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:39 am
Location: MS Gulf Coast
Contact:

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Duke Jones »

That's where the double-edged sword come into play with community, here.

It was the community's choice to migrate to Trammel. The devs didn't just "erase" the area currently known as Felucca and force them into trammel. Players made an active choice to move. Keep that in mind.

I personally like the rule set and mechanics of t2a (in a vacuum). But there's a limit to what players are willing to put up with. That's where the community needs to contemplate the consequences of their actions for the good of the game.

It's when you have a player base that consistently gets worse and worse with exploiting mechanics and rule sets. When the percentage of reds, or grievers outnumber benevolent people, players don't want to bother logging in. So when you have players that have the specific goal of ruining you're gameplay experience, of course players are going to want to leave THAT area. And when presented with the Trammel option, alot of players chose the path of least resistance, and stayed there.

This is what you learn from day one in kindergarten. If you want to play a game with the other children, and you're a jerk, and persist in being a jerk, and want to make the other children cry, people "don't wanna play wit' yuu no mo'."

In an abstract way, the community isn't completely blameless for move to Trammel.
"When you remove human error, accuracy, and speed, you remove the human element."

Rabbi Dan
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Rabbi Dan »

Rabbi Dan wrote:According to the poll the majority of players want 3 accounts, having multiple accounts is era accurate, any problems caused by people multi-clienting should be addressed separately. Stop fighting it guys.
Quoting myself here....


And anyone that tries to use Trammel to support their side of this argument is pretty dumb.. it's not relevant at all to multi-clienting and is a fallacy.

FYI: In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.

Duke Jones
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:39 am
Location: MS Gulf Coast
Contact:

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Duke Jones »

Rabbi Dan wrote:According to the poll the majority of players want 3 accounts, having multiple accounts is era accurate, any problems caused by people multi-clienting should be addressed separately. Stop fighting it guys.
Hmm. Is UOSA's primary goal giving players want? What would happen if I started a poll wanting to know how many players want to automatically configure what skills they want and how many points they want in it?

And charging for each account was a natural curb to check the amount of accounts and characters a player had. Here, aside from the 3 account cap, that curb doesn't exist. Here, you can't charge to play, so there needs to some sort of other way to prevent everyone from abusing issues that are related to multiclienting as a result of multiple accounts.
"When you remove human error, accuracy, and speed, you remove the human element."

Mikel123
UOSA Subscriber!
UOSA Subscriber!
Posts: 4607
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Mikel123 »

Duke Jones wrote:
Rabbi Dan wrote:According to the poll the majority of players want 3 accounts, having multiple accounts is era accurate, any problems caused by people multi-clienting should be addressed separately. Stop fighting it guys.
Hmm. Is UOSA's primary goal giving players want? What would happen if I started a poll wanting to know how many players want to automatically configure what skills they want and how many points they want in it?
People would see that you're just obnoxious, refusing to consider other player's viewpoints, or even actual logic itself. (oh wait...)

Your response, in which you quote Rabbi Dan, completely ignores what he wrote. I think he summed it up quite nicely.
Duke Jones wrote:And charging for each account was a natural curb to check the amount of accounts and characters a player had. Here, aside from the 3 account cap, that curb doesn't exist. Here, you can't charge to play, so there needs to some sort of other way to prevent everyone from abusing issues that are related to multiclienting as a result of multiple accounts.
No it wasn't. It was a way to make money. The side effect was the more casual players had only one account. However, the people in 2009 who are seeking out a shard that replicates gameplay from ten years ago were probably not the casual players at the time.

User avatar
Hemperor
UOSA Subscriber!
UOSA Subscriber!
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Hemperor »

hey i heard of this guy back in 99 who had 3 accounts and 4 computers and he managed to macro without being caught once.

in conclusion we should all be allowed to do this to complete the goal of replicating that one guy we were all jealous of

next ten replies will be people claiming they did all this and more in the era, starting with tekai
Image

[22:26] <ian> why am i making 3750 empty kegs
[22:27] <ian> 1125000 for 3750 empty kegs
----------------------------------------
[10:44] <ian> a good cat is a dead cat

kaldori
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:23 am

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by kaldori »

jcalvert86 wrote:
And to the moron above mentioning joining an O/C guild if we want PvP -- you must not be a PvP'er here.
Of course, if everyone thinks like you do, there's won't be any more PVP and just more whining.


Hemperor, I had 6 accounts back in the day and was farming everywhere.

Orsi
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Orsi »

There's two perspectives here: One believes that multi-clienting was allowed back in 1999 if you could afford it, and the other which believes multi-clienting was heavily restricted by money and technology. It's almost a paradox. Sure, you could do it back in T2A but it was rare. Now, without money and technology as a restriction it is common. Era accuracy, which is the main goal of the shard, must choose which view is more correct.

Our side is stating the correct era accuracy is recreating those restrictions that money and technology had.
Your side is stating the correct era accuracy is how the game is now without those restrictions anymore.

This boils down to whether or not you think T2A accuracy is the actual numbers and code, or it was the actual environment and world the programmer's made. We believe it's the latter, you the former.
UO Second Age wrote:
  • We aim to replicate the T2A era as best we can and within technical limitations as a whole.
  • We do not intend to ever change any aspect of normal gameplay to particularly favor any playstyle or to protect or further expose any players to the in-game risk that was a large part of this era.
  • We will especially not pull aspects of other eras into this one, even with an overwhelming demand of players.
We believe that "proper" gameplay can only be achieved by taking the era as a whole and accept it for what it was. Tampering with the era in hope of achieving balance is not something that we will do, nor do we believe is achievable across all playstyles. Diversity of players and playstyles is a necessity of a healthy shard. Every type of play depends on another, and this is why UO is absolutely the greatest MMORPG ever crafted.
You can read into that any way you like and provide an argument for either side. Technical limitations may provide support for your side, "proper" gameplay as a whole can be our side. We've stated our case, it is up to Derrick whether or not he wants to continue with T2A accuracy as a technical end, or T2A accuracy as a technical starting point.

Duke Jones
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:39 am
Location: MS Gulf Coast
Contact:

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by Duke Jones »

Orscythicus wrote:There's two perspectives here: One believes that multi-clienting was allowed back in 1999 if you could afford it, and the other which believes multi-clienting was heavily restricted by money and technology. It's almost a paradox. Sure, you could do it back in T2A but it was rare. Now, without money and technology as a restriction it is common. Era accuracy, which is the main goal of the shard, must choose which view is more correct.
I agree 100%. All either side can do is campaign for what they believe is the better side.

That's also why Derrick is reluctant to make any decisions regarding issues outside base mechanics. It's all interpretive and abstract.

However I do feel, at some point, decisions WILL have to be made.

-Is the "players online" up in the corner accurate?
-Is it acceptable that people who aren't at the computer get the same skill gain(if not better) than those who sit and play?
-Are there economy/balancing issues in allowing every player 15 GM template characters and not have to depend on the community?
-Is it Ok to break game mechanics for all players, simply because a fraction of the player community during T2A had the disposable income and resources were able to?
"When you remove human error, accuracy, and speed, you remove the human element."

User avatar
archaicsubrosa77
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 3477
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:31 pm
Location: Taylor Michigan

Re: Multiclienting Compromise?

Post by archaicsubrosa77 »

Stop worrying about it...
Just sell your handcrafted goods and advertise...
it was better just as a gimmick
Derrick wrote:I wish it were possible that a mount could be whacked while you are riding it, but to the best of my knowedge it is not.

Post Reply